Ok tg, lets discuss

>>53119748
B8 harder m8

File: bait_cancer.jpg (10KB, 228x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 228x225px

anon pls

>>53119748
No one should have any issue with any of that.

It's because most of /tg/ cannot stand the game not being "fun" for them. The problem is their definition of fun, which is "anything outside of my control is not fun, anything that causes autistic roaring laughter and pounding the table causing the microbrew bottles to quiver, is fun"

Also, most of /tg/ are minmaxing fucks as you can see by visiting /5eg/ and /pfg/, so rolling for stats means they can't completely control their character's stats. This triggers them because they think that playing someone who has a 5% less chance of hitting will ruin their game experience. They also use strawmans of "hazing new players" and "wah I rolled all 3s on my stats" ignoring that (1) most people don't "haze" new players unless they are jack-asses anyways and would do something rude to the new player whether they roll for stats or not, and (2) most DMs allow rerolls for abominable stat rolls... in fact, the book even has rules for when you are supposed to reroll your stats.

Then there are those who are butthurt that their friend rolled two 18s on their first D&D character. But you know what? That happens. Some people get lucky. Deal with it faggot. At least you didn't nat1 on a death saving throw.

>>53119831

>He thinks the primary reason for preferring pointbuy is minmaxing

Nah, fuck off mate.

>>53119848
No, the primary reason is the need for control and the inability to play an even slightly substandard character because that isn't "fun".

Well guess what you fucking faggots, your "fun" doesn't always matter. Don't like it? Get the hell out of the game. Some people enjoy rolling for stats, and if you are too much of a pussy to handle playing a character who doesn't start with two 18s, then fuck off.

>>53119831
>Also, most of /tg/ are minmaxing fucks
^this

File: bait_HD.jpg (98KB, 861x564px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 861x564px

>>53119831
>oh no they aren't biting
>I know! I'll respond to my own bait!
>that's a neat trick!

>>53119860

Simply proving a complete misunderstanding of why rolling stats is inappropriate for certain playstyles.

>>53119860
Playing a substandard character isnt the problem. Playing a substandard character when another partymember has two 18s.

>>53119831
>hen there are those who are butthurt that their friend rolled two 18s on their first D&D character

Did the friend get MORE dice to roll? or was the friend given bonus points?

If not, that sounds fair to me.

Are you saying that some of these little bitches demand equal outcome, as opposed to equal chance?
Also, when did d&d become a player vs player competition?

>>53119877
>why rolling stats is inappropriate for certain playstyles.

You mean the playstyle of "I can't handle being completely in control because I'm a huge pussy"? Why don't you play Dungeon World, you dont roll for stats in that. It'd right up your alley.

>lets discuss
>...how you're a faggot if you don't play exactly how I do, which is the CORRECT way

As usual, OP is the biggest faggot of all. Get over yourself, you elitist bitch baby. saged.

>>53119858
Before the butthurt commences, give me a fucking reason to even bother trying to play this thing.

You gave no edition, setting or anything to bother caring about your shit.

>>53119872
That wasn't OP, you fucking retard.

>>53119748
>since I'm feeling generous
This is the only real part that makes you a faggot. This kind of attitude is cancer.

>>53119891
>I'm not as good as some other people

That's life, faggot. Get used to it.

File: bait_taken.png (64KB, 624x628px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 624x628px

B R A V O

File: 1377089708983.jpg (82KB, 700x714px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x714px

>>53119748
>I hear some aren't happy with alignments.
>He says, after banning 2/3 of them.

>I hear there are some that DO NOT, roll for stats.
>He says, after letting people reroll shit rolls, negating the whole point of rolling in the first place.

>>53119860
>your "fun" doesn't always matter
even though I prefer rolling over point buy myself, you're still an insufferable bitch who obviously doesn't understand that "fun" is the entire point of playing games in the first place. I haven't seen a post so autistic since someone in /v/ tried to argue that "fun" is "just a buzzword". Please consider suicide, the world would be a lot more fun without you.

>>53119919
>That's life, faggot. Get used to it.

>That's not fair! H8 u!

>>53119748

Yep. If you cannot play any character in front of you you're just shit at roleplaying.

>tfw you miss playing a 4 man fighter crew because no one qualified for anything else

>it's a "there is only one way to play and different creation rules for different purposes isn't the answer" episode

Different campaigns call for different things. Evil campaigns are fun.

>>53119919
What board did you come from? This is superb bait.

>>53119937
>letting people reroll shit rolls, negating the whole point of rolling in the first place.

By that logic, FATE, Savage Worlds, and D&D 3.5 through 5e are shit.

>>53119951
>wah wah it's not fair even though everyone gets to roll the same dice

>>53119937
Rerolling 1's isn't that horrible.

And for 99% of games, people should play one of the good alignments.

>>53119962
By any reasonable logic, OP is shit, what's your point? We've clearly abandoned logic at this point.

File: 1492873560676-tg.jpg (31KB, 768x384px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 768x384px

>>53119962
Imma fuck a d12 and poop it outta my peehole. Should I use motor oil or canola oil for lube?

>>53119748
WEAKNESS!
IGOR ONLY ALLOW PREGENERATED CHARACTER SHEETS AT IGOR TABLE.
IGOR MANDATE THAT ALL PARTIES MUST INCLUDE HYGIENE OFFICER.
IGOR NOT TOLERATE COMMIE MUTANT SPIES.
EXCEPT WHEN IGOR DEMAND COMMIE MUTANT SPIES.

>>53119901
Rolling is for games where PC's are expected to die, a lot (Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu) while point buy is for games where PC's are expected to drive the plot forward (WoD, ShadowRun).

Of course, you're just going to ignore this and claim that anyone who doesn't do as you say is a bitch that hates fun or some shit.

>>53119972
Why so prescriptive, moralfag? Cant handle some morally grey characters in your fantasy capeshit adventure?

>>53119748
Wait, Druids ha r to be Neutral, and Monks must be Lawful... So, I can't play a LN Druid-Monk multiclass?

>>53119996
My Anus is full of Dingos and their Berries!

>>53119996
If we're running an evil game, then sure.

>>53119972
>Rerolling 1's isn't that horrible.
Either all rolls are random or you're just fishing for 6's, go big or go home faggot!
>And for 99% of games, people should play one of the good alignments.
Then what's the fucking point of the other six alignments?

>>53120006
You can. We'll make an exception for class restrictions.

But....you'll have to figure out how you'll fit in with the rest of the group. Why would the NG mage even want to travel with a Neutral guy who may stab him in the back?

>>53119978
>By any reasonable logic, OP is shit

Explain that logic, please.

>We've clearly abandoned logic at this point.

Clearly you have.

>>53120010
LE can easily exist in a good/neutral party, it's the chaotics that you have to worry about. Hell, even LG can be disruptive if you're anything less than a knight in shining armor.

>>53119962
You know what's fun? Let htem have those heropoints to reroll and avoid trouble.

Then take them away when the plot has advanced too far for them to back away from it. Instant and total tension. sudden every roll matters, and every roll is life and death..

>>53120026
Conversely, why would a LG paladin want to travel around with a NG/CG group who isn't under his restrictions?

>>53119993
>Rolling is for games where PC's are expected to die, a lot (Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu) while point buy is for games where PC's are expected to drive the plot forward (WoD, ShadowRun).

Not at all true. Rolling for hit points, maybe. But not for stats. Also, whether or not PCs are "expected" to die depends on so many more factors than that, that the stat-gen method is pretty low on the list. Also GURPS characters tend to die alot, especially in modern combat situations, and that is a point-buy system. So, your argument is invalid, given that your only "argument" was a couple of example systems.

>>53120034
>>53120032
>>53120026
>>53120019
>>53120035

SOMEBODY FIST MY WALRUS ALREADY!!!!!

>>53120034

LG doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid.

And why would a good character hang out with an LE one? The dude is evil. You going to let him watch your back?

File: 1454607119569.jpg (5KB, 234x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 234x230px

>>53120051
>There are exceptions, clearly the rule is wrong!

>>53120045

You can't see a difference between NG and CE?
Or understand why a Pally would travel with one, but not the other?

File: 1494146909922-tg.jpg (199KB, 600x840px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 600x840px

>>53120061
>>53120073
WaKkA wAkKa.

>>53119993
>>53120051
My two cents: Rolling is more appropriate for shorter or grittier games. Point boy is more appropriate for games where players want to be able to make a character that delivers on an idea they have for that character and want to see it develop over play.

>>53120061
If watching your back was in his interest? Yeah. I'd trust him more than someone CN.

>>53120061
If he's a friend of mine? Yes. I'd watch where his hands were, but yes, I'd trust a LE companion I've worked with before.

Because sometimes, you need someone who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty to get the job done, and sometimes it's just a matter of him being a friend of yours.

Lawful Evil doesn't mean totally antagonistic anym,y more than Lawful Good means stupid stick in the mud.

>>53120061
>LG doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid.
and chaotic/neutral/evil doesn't have to always be disruptive either, yet it doesn't stop morons from ruining it for the rest of us.
>And why would a good character hang out with an LE one?
Circumstance.

>>53120112
Do my pubic hairs make my ears look fat?

>>53120026
>Neutral
>Stabbing people in the back.
GM, I don't say this often but, "bitch please". Neutral is just good lite. If someone plays a Lawful-to-true neutral character as a backstabber, then they are Playing. it. Wrong. Most people in the world are neutral of some flavor. What kind of dipshits do you interact with on a daily basis that makes you think that Neutral = Backstabbing?

Also: another legit combo, Barbarians must be chaotic, Druids must be Neutral. Look at this background I rolled! "Born to primitive tribe", "warrior culture", "acolyte of the god". Fuck man, that's barbarian-druid.... Maybe barbarian-cleric. I have the stats for it, I mean, I did roll all those those 15+ stats. In front of you. On 3d6 rerollin' 1s.

>>53120081
Both are capable of performing actions that the Paladin would find abhorrent, especially if the pally in question is lawful-stupid.

>>53120073
Except you have yet to prove how the "rule" logically follows.

>>53120130
>>53120053
Can you please stop shitposting??

>>53120118
And how will you start at lv 1 and make it "In his interest" to not kill you and take your stuff?

You're over valuing the "lawful" part of LE.
As for CN, only a madman could even be CN.
So no argument there from me.

>>53119748
> Determining backstory before rolling stats.

Wat. Get out of my game.

>>53120119
>If he's a friend of mine?


>Thinking evil has "friends" that aren't disposable.

>>53120112
>My two cents: Rolling is more appropriate for shorter or grittier games.

And why is that?

>Point boy is more appropriate for games where players want to be able to make a character that delivers on an idea they have for that character and want to see it develop over play.

So your character concepts require stats to be *exactly* as you want them to be? Sounds pretty shitty to me. Rolling for stats in no way stops you from "delivering on an idea," it just makes minor alterations to how you do so.

Unless you mean rolling 3d6 in order, which is definitely not a good idea for that kind of game. But D&D hasn't worked like that for... a long time now. It's been 4d6 to get 6 scores which you then distribute as you please. So if you can't stand your Strength being 1 lower or higher than you wanted, or your Intelligence having to be lower so you can have the Con you want, well, sorry, you're a fucking control freak.

>>53120151
No. I can post whatever the hell I want and it can't be the worst thing in the thread because of OP. Wouldn't you use that liberating knowledge to do whatever the he'll you want?

Besides, I'm just greasing the wheels until someone comes up with the REAL topic of the thread.

>>53120160
You realize level 1 people have back stories. They don't pop out of the womb level 1. Two level 1 people could have known each other for more than a decade.

Also the paladin has no way of knowing a level 1 guy is evil unless he is a cleric. They don't give off an aura yet.

You're dumb, learn the rules.

>>53120178
Fair point.
Stats first.

>>53120195
>not in order
No anon you're the one who wants to play a speshul snowflake. You're cancer.

>>53120151
Listen man, I don't know what to tell you. Look across the board and you'll find this to be true.

Believe me or don't, I don't care, I'm not a teacher and this thread's shit from conception.

>>53120199
>Also the paladin has no way of knowing

When the evil guy starts fucking up (and he will, since he's evil) it will be clear. Even if the pally doesn't detect evil on him.

If the player doesn't act evil, then he's clearly not playing his evil alignment. Thus negating your entire argument.

>>53120235
I'm no different than people who want to pointbuy.

>>53120244
I've "looked across this board" plenty. I understand how game design works, moron. Rolling for stats has absolutely nothing to do with how "gritty" the game is. I highly doubt you even know what "gritty" means.

>>53120244
>Look across the board and you'll find this to be true

>/tg/ posters PROVE (x)

that's funny stuff

File: .jpg (412KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1920x1200px

>>53120179
>Implying evil doesn't have friends
Lawful Evil is another word for "I'll do what he can't, not because I want to, but because it's necessary."

>>53120287
>Lawful Evil is another word for "I'll do what he can't, not because I want to, but because it's necessary."

wtf? No anon. Just no.

>>53120287
he wasn't even close to lawful evil. Probably more the absolute self-serving Neutral Evil who just went along with the team because it was the best setup he had and he was smart enough to know that.

>>53120257
>When the evil guy starts fucking up (and he will, since he's evil) it will be clear. Even if the pally doesn't detect evil on him.
Evil isn't going to fuck anything up unless he's being played chaotic-stupid.
>If the player doesn't act evil, then he's clearly not playing his evil alignment.
Or he's smart enough to realize that only CE morons blatantly burn kittens and rape orphans just because they can and knows that it'd be in his best interest to be helpful while keeping anything reprehensible on the down-low.

>>53120195
>Shorter or grittier
Randomized stats have certain drawbacks, including the potential to have players have substantially better or worse stats overall when compared to each other. Shorter games (one-shots, like MAID, for example), or games where you're expected to die frequently and roll new characters (Call of Cthulhu) avoid this issue as no player is stuck with a given character for very long, and with enough iterations all players get to experience the highs and lows.

>Point buy for specific characters
I acknowledge that the 4d6b3 can do this job decently well. However, it still has some of the issues of randomized character gen- What if I really wanted to be a SAD caster because that's what I'd most enjoy playing, but I didn't get anything higher than a 14? Or the classic issues of players have much higher or lower scores. Point buy simply lets you avoid this issues and make the character you want to make. Yes, it does remove the interesting challenge of figuring out how to make a set of rolls work for you, but if that's something that you like, you'll get to do more of it if you play a shorter/grittier game.

>>53120271
>Rolling for stats has absolutely nothing to do with how "gritty" the game is.

Not a single fucking thing, does rolling have to do with "gritty".

tg how would you feel about classless system where everyone starts at 1 or zero everything and level skills independently

>>53120271
If that's how you feel then who am I to get in the way of that?

Shine on you crazy diamond.

>>53120326
>Or he's smart enough to realize that only CE morons blatantly burn kittens and rape orphans just because they can and knows that it'd be in his best interest to be helpful while keeping anything reprehensible on the down-low.

There's thousands of different ways that he'll out himself, without burning kittens.

Killing prisoners. Stealing. Lies. Etc.

>>53120271
>I'm no different than people who want to pointbuy.
No you're not, you're a special snowflake "muh agency" faggot.

>>53120195
If stats don't matter why roll 4d6 to begin with? You can have a fun character if with roll 3d6 in order, that just makes minor alterations to how you do.

>>53120324
Honestly, I thought I deleted the picture when I posted it. I'd delete and repost without it but, who cares, it's a troll thread.

>>53120337
>classless system

kys

>>53120257
You realize you can just not do evil things in front of the paladin, right?

>>53120329
Except having slightly better or worse stats is not an "issue." So the length of the game doesn't really matter.

>What if I really wanted to be a SAD caster because that's what I'd most enjoy playing, but I didn't get anything higher than a 14?

Then play a character with a 14? Oh no your saves are a bit lower than normal. A bloo bloo. Also, play a race that boosts that to a 16. If your highest stat is a 13 the book even says to reroll, so I don't see what you are whining about.

>>53120353
>Killing prisoners. Stealing. Lies. Etc.
Good people can lie.

>>53120371

>Dividing the party

That's always a great idea

>>53120357
>No you're not, you're a special snowflake "muh agency" faggot.

Sure. And pointbuy characters aren't? Explain how they aren't yet I am? If both of us are, fine by me. I prefer 3d6 straight down and you can switch two scores just so you aren't a rogue with 8 Dex, but you have no control over what your other stats are.

>>53120318
Evil people tend to have ways of brokering information that generally good characters wouldn't. Like you wouldn't find a Paladin torturing a dude to find out where the cultists are meeting at for their ritual, nor would you find a Paladin bribing some unsavory folk who are working below the cuff either.

Have you never watched a story where two bitter enemies are forced to work together?

>>53120392
>it's a "the party must be within eyesight of each other at all times in all circumstances" episode

You realize that's only a thing during dungeon crawls right, so that individuals aren't caught out. Only fucktards things the party needs to be attached at the hip ALL the time.

>>53120384
And kill prisoners if they're always Chaotic Evil, like orcs (it would actually be an Good act then).

>>53120396
No, they are too. You're both fucking cancer.

>>53120353
Killing evil prisoners is a good act fucktard.

>>53120353
Good people can lie and steal though. Also, why are you assuming that evil's going to go for some obviously evil bullshit the moment it presents itself to them?

Are good characters going to automatically save every damsel they encounter in the woods?

>>53120396
Why won't you play a Rogue with 8 dex, you're just a couple points less likely to succeed in sneaking and picking locks?

>>53120397
>Have you never watched a story where two bitter enemies are forced to work together?

Sure.
Now, explain why those lv1 guys are "Forced" to work together for the greater good.

And why they wouldn't go the opposite way from each other as quick as the immediate danger was over.

>>53120444
Because you cannot qualify for rogue with that Dex score, dumbass.

>>53120424
>Are good characters going to automatically save every damsel
>The woods are FULL of Damsels!

And yes. Good characters are going to try to help others.

>>53120452
>Now, explain why those lv1 guys are "Forced" to work together for the greater good.
Explain how this lvl 1 guy is forced to commit evil acts whenever they present themselves, lest he no longer be considered evil.
>And why they wouldn't go the opposite way from each other as quick as the immediate danger was over.
Because spending time with someone for an extended period of time may cause them to realize that they actually have a few things in common and that they enjoy each other's company to turn from enemies to rivals?

Again, you see that shit happen a lot too.

>>53120444
>Why won't you play a Rogue with 8 dex,

Because you need a 9?

>>53119748
>If you write in CN, TN, LN, Or any evil.......you're a faggot and not welcome to play.
No issues there

>There are several books for backgrounds, we'll roll for a background. Based on the background, you can decide your backstory.
No, there will be no backstories, your back story is that you are from what eve podunk village I place you in. You develop character story while you RP.

>We'll roll 3d6, reroll 1's (since I'm feeling generous) and lets go
Pretty generous.

>>53120452
Because their objective goes beyond immediate danger to achieve? Like, your mission is to put a man on the moon before russkies, so you're willing to work with a captured Nazi rocket scientist.

>>53120476
Even when the forest has creatures in it that routinely lure men to their deaths by posing as beautiful women in distress?

>>53120489
>Explain how this lvl 1 guy is forced to commit evil acts whenever they present themselves, lest he no longer be considered evil.

He's not FORCED anon. It's just WHO and what he is. He's evil. That's his belief. That's his creed. That's his style. His method. It's who he is.

He's not a good guy. He'll never be a good guy until he changes his ways.

You can spend time with him all you want. He'll never be more trustworthy tomorrow than he was before. Because........He is evil.

If he's loyal, and friendly, and trustworthy, and caring about his friends.....then he's lost his evil status, and has changed.

>>53120460
>>53120496
So bascally you're hiding behind the game rules instead admitting that you wouldn't want to play a shitty character either? When you're talking about rolling stats you're just just seeing rolling high stats for yourself, and all that talk about fairness is bullshit and lies you cheating munchkin fuck.

>>53120498
>No, there will be no backstories, your back story is that you are from what eve podunk village I place you in. You develop character story while you RP.

I'm fine with that too. Or we can roll a random one. By rolling for one, It helps some of the less 'creative' types have a background, or at least a good start point.

>>53120502
>Even when the forest has creatures in it that routinely lure men to their deaths by posing as beautiful women in distress?

Oh, nope then. Good characters do not go into areas to help someone, if there is a chance of danger.

>>53120546
You roll first. Then pick your class dumbass.

Not pick your class, then fudge the dice to match the reqs.

>>53120535
You have some MAJOR misconceptions as far as what evil characters actually are. I bet you play them as chaotic-stupid and then get mad when the paladin smites your ass for being a disruptive twat.

>>53120546
Nigga, no one rolls six scores that all come out less than 13 and keeps them. The game LITERALLY says to reroll in that instance. A rogue player is going to put his highest rolled score in Dex, more than likely, so no rogue is going to have less than 13 in Dex. Rolling 3d6 straight down is completely retarded for D&D 3.5, 4e, or 5e because the game just isn't built to handle that. We are talking about rolling 4d6 keep 3 highest and getting six scores which you then assign to abilities. If you are whinging about THAT then you are fucking retarded. That has been the premise of the argument since the start of the thread, I am sorry if you didn't pick up on that and have been literally ignoring the rulebooks for editions 3.5, 4e, and 5e where the rolling option by default is 4d6 keep 3. I know they use some array shit for 5e but that's not my point here.

Not to mention, point buy in 5e doesn't let you go above 15 in any score, so rolling is objectively better.

>>53120576
>Good characters don't help people if there's a chance they might die.
Congrats, you're neutral now!

Rolled 6, 1, 5, 5, 3, 4, 3, 6, 1, 6, 2, 4, 6, 3, 2, 1, 2, 6 = 66 (18d6)

Fuck this shitty bait thread.

Rollin!

>>53120640
Correct.

>>53120657
12,12,10,12,11,9

Holy shit.......nice bro

>>53120657
STR: 12
DEX: 12
CON: 10
INT: 12
WIS: 11
CHA: 9

How absolutely mediocre but at least I can basically be any class.

OP is stupid.

Didn't read the rest of the thread.

Peace.

File: 1482381358380.jpg (337KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2048x1366px

>mfw reading OP's post

>>53120659
Cool, enjoy the fall ex-paladin.

>>53120610
>You have some MAJOR misconceptions as far as what evil characters actually are.

I'm seeing major misconceptions about evil here.
Apparently to some idiots here.......evil is :

>loyal to the party
>helps his friends
>doesn't steal from his friends
>isn't motivated by self-gain
>is trustworthy always

>>53120689
Yep.

Actions have consequences.

>>53120627
>3.5, 4e, and 5e
>not mentioning best edition 2e

For shame anon.

>>53120695
>is trustworthy always
Lawful Evil characters can just about always be counted on to keep their word. If you manage get them to promise to protect the farm from bandits then you can be assured he's going to protect those bandits.

>>53120771
Wow I managed to delete a line of my post PERFECTLY
*protect the farm from the bandits

>>53120779
I got what you meant.

It's also likely that the LE guy will make a deal with 1/2 the bandits, and slaughter the other half, then send them to attack the neighbors farm.

End of the day, he's still fucking evil.

File: phantom.jpg (97KB, 400x302px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 400x302px

>>53120695
Just because an evil person isn't willing to fuck over their companions doesn't mean that anyone else is free from their wrath.

Take this guy for example
>Initiates two campaigns of death and destruction.
>Doomed one of the main characters to a curse that would cause them to never die if it completely finished.
>Killed the previous leader of the good guys in the previous war games.
Yet
>Is on amiable terms with most members of the knight class
>Only really killed members of his army who showed cowardice or betrayed their comrades.
>Even rewards members of his army that prove themselves worthy of advancing in a class.

He's the main antagonist for most of Mar Heaven yet in the end, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have qualities that endear him to his comrades in arms.

>>53120803
That doesn't matter does it? The neighbor's farm is not your farm, he didn't break your trust because you're not protecting the other farm, and at the end of the day if there's a thousand fucking bandits and you can't keep them all back then his solution is better than yours. If you insist on being hard-and-fast, you'll get yourself killed, the bandits will raid your farm and then your neighbors anyway.
Evil in D&D is not 'eating kittens', it's 'selfish' and/or 'tyrannical' (as in imposing your will on others for good or ill).

>>53120771
>Evil characters can just about always be counted on

Reread what you wrote there m8..then think about it.

>>53120803
>It's also likely that the LE guy will make a deal with 1/2 the bandits, and slaughter the other half, then send them to attack the neighbors farm.
Maybe if he was NE and didn't give a shit about his friends taking issue with that but LE will generally keep their word and honor an agreement between themselves and others.

It's hard to broker deals if people know that you're a backstabbing bastard.

>>53120861
It's a mistype you dumbass, I corrected it the next post.

>>53120869
LE people sometimes rely on exact wording so he's not wrong. As long as it was never anything about protecting all the farms, there's nothing stopping him from using RAW instead of RAI.

>>53120853
>The neighbor's farm is not your farm, he didn't break your trust because you're not protecting the other farm

Oh, well, that should make good guys love him.
>you didn't fuck ME over, when you killed a bunch of innocents, so you seem trustworthy to me.

Ru4realz?

>>53120861
Not him but he did correct his post here >>53120779

>>53120871
Just the quoted part m8.

>>53120771
>Evil characters can just about always be counted on

Now think about that.

Evil can always be counted on to do what?

Part of the problem here, is so many are considering the "Lawful" part of the Evil, to somehow make the LE guy more of a neutral.

There's still an EVIL behind that Lawful. He's not neutral. He's evil.

If you think evil is trustworthy.....you're fucking up.

>>53120927
They seem to think LE, because of the 'lawful' part, acts like a Neutral person.

>>53120884
Again, it's hard to broker deals if people know that you're a backstabbing bastard anon.

Devils primarily screw over people who they have no reason to play nice with, they won't screw over people when they know that there are actual consequences for doing so, which is why you'll never see a Devil trying to use exact wording on creatures that outrank them or creatures that can easily exact revenge if they're dissatisfied.

>>53120885
>Oh, well, that should make good guys love him.
Who cares about whether or not good guys love him? He got done what he promised.

>Ru4realz?
Yes, he's trustworthy, in that if you actually entrust him with something and he agrees to do it he'll get it done. You want the dragon slain, the dragon will be slain. He might use a village as bait, but considering the damage the dragon would otherwise do, that's not even necessarily a net loss.

>>53120904
LAWFUL evil characters can always be counted on, because they are lawful. LE characters usually don't break the law, they usually don't engage in corruption, and they DEFINITELY don't go back on their word and deals they agreed to, that's just how they work. If you sign a contract with the Devil (who's basically LE) you'll get what you want and you know what you're paying for it, and he won't just decide to take your soul without giving you what you want.

>>53120927
Lawful Evil can't be broken up into Lawful and Evil, Lawful Evil is a complete alignment. It's like saying an LG paladin will follow tyrannical and unjust laws because he's Lawful or steal taxes to feed the poor because he's Good. A Lawful Evil character isn't Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil, he's Lawful Evil.

>>53120938
LE characters behave in their own self interest but following their word and often systemic laws. Go reread the entry for LE.

>>53120885
LE didn't kill anyone though, the bandits did. It was a choice between them killing some people vs. killing everyone and he managed to protect the village that you wanted to protect at the end of the day.

>>53120951
>LAWFUL evil characters can always be counted on, because they are lawful.

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Ya, that's a guy I'd wanna hang with.

>>53120951
>LAWFUL evil characters can always be counted on, because they are lawful.

That's retarded.

>A lawful evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit

See that word...EXPLOIT

>>53120938
LE is someone who is generally acting out in their own self-interest, not because it's the right thing to do. They're capable of saving orphans (to earn favor from the populace) or killing tyrants (because it gives them an opportunity to gain influence) just as much as the LG Paladin is, it's just that it's always done in a way that will benefit themselves more than for the greater good.

>>53120951
>Who cares about whether or not good guys love him?

Ya, the good guys will totally see it that way. And want to travel with him. Knowing that he'll fuck them over with word trickery when the mood strikes him, or if it's in his own interest.

>>53120979
>Some evil creatures
>some
>not Lawful Evil
>just evil
You're not even trying anymore so I'll do it. Here's EasyDamus' version, which is also 3.5e's and Pathfinder's afaik:
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve...He is loath to break laws or promises.

>>53121009
Except exploiting a system is not breaking it. You complain that he's beating his slaves...except the laws have nothing against beating slaves. You complain about him not saving the starving people, except charity is not mandated. You complain about him gaining a monopoly on iron, but he did so legally, not even through corruption.

>>53119901
You don't roll for stats in a lot of games. The vast majority even.

>>53121009
Except using a system for your own gain is exploiting a system.
You can be elected president by being a smooth talker in a well-ordered democracy but not in a chaotic anarchy.
You can earn loadesofmone from overpriced contract jobs you have a monopoly on if the contract enforcement of the government is actually working but not if it's ineffectual.

>>53121044
>You're not even trying anymore so I'll do it.
You're not trying m8.

That guy is still fucking evil. The "lawful" part doesn't make him good, or even neutral.

So again, why would a good group want him? You think they'd trust him? Knowing he'll exploit every rule to serve his own interests?

Do people usually trust Devils in your games? Do many good groups want to travel with a Devil?

>>53120979
>Some evil creatures
>Still counting LE as just Evil
Dude, we've been over this. Look up any description for LE and you'll find that they generally aren't the things that you think they are.

>>53121035
Mr. Paladin can sulk all he wants but at the end of the day, he saved one village as promised, even if it came at the cost of another.

It's not like Good is a stranger to acceptable losses, just look at the bible.

>>53121087
>Look up any description for LE and you'll find that they generally aren't the things that you think they are.

LE pc's, are the d&d equivalent of devils.

I'll make it easy for you.

Are devils good trustworthy allies?

>>53121085
Is every evil character in your group automatically assumed to be backstabby even when being backstabby causes them more harm than good?

Because the way you've been acting, you'll cause an evil character to "rise" if they don't fulfill their monthly quota of raped babies or some shit.

>>53121114
>It's not like Good is a stranger to acceptable losses, just look at the bible.

Yeah, I'm talking d&d here.

And the Pally won't see traveling with a devil, as "acceptable".

And if you're not playing a LE pc like a devil......then you're prolly playing a more neutral pc.

>>53120927
Lawful Evil isn't "haha I'll kill you to steal your coins" evil.
Lawful Evil is "This is my land so I'm entitled to kick you out. I don't care if you're guaranteed to starve to death/die it's my land and I have that right."
Lawful Evil will send you the eviction notice. If you don't comply he gets someone with political clout to legally ruin your life beyond the being kicked out ( such having you imprisoned) for wasting his time. The guards won't actively try to kill you, if they are neutral or lawful.
Neutral Evil in that situation will send you the eviction notice alongside some thugs to "persuade" you to leave and escalate the longer you try his patience. These thugs from the NE guy have no problem outright killing you, and are probably neutral or chaotic themselves.
Chaotic Evil would have killed you before even trying to officially evict you.

>>53121124
That's like saying LG PCs are angels, which is nigga level dumb.

>>53121146
You're missing my point. Intentionally I'm sure.

It's not that they'll HAVE to fuck anyone over. If that if they're not, then they probably not playing LE.

The best example to make it simple: Devils are LE.

Are you playing your LE pc like a devil?

>>53121124
>Are devils good trustworthy allies?
So long as you give them a reason not to screw you over and treat every interaction like you're talking to a lawyer, you should be fine.

>>53121165
They'll share qualities. Sure.

Dedication. Altruism. Kindness. Justice. Etc.

>>53121124
>Are devils good trustworthy allies?
Yes. Devils will adhere to the contract, they'll try to find loopholes, but they'll follow the contract. Just don't have a contract that can screw you over.

>>53121174
>It's not that they'll HAVE to fuck anyone over.
Then what's the issue here?
>The best example to make it simple: Devils are LE.
Devils have no choice but to be evil, it's as much a part of their being as being LG is to a deva. PC's are not held under the same restrictions as an outsider anon.

>>53121195
>they'll try to find loopholes
>Trustworthy
>they'll try to find loopholes
>Trustworthy

You know what trustworthy means, right anon?

>>53121149
>And the Pally won't see traveling with a devil, as "acceptable".
Again, huge difference between a Devil and a LE PC.

Devils have no choice while LE is still capable of performing non-evil actions.

>>53121227
Yeah I can trust them to follow the contract. What did you write a shit contract?

>>53121085
I just gave you the definition. That's the entire definition.

>A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve...He is loath to break laws or promises.

Want an example of someone who counts as Lawful Evil? If I have a enlightened tyrant who legit makes his society well-ordered, lawful, wealthy, healthy, well-maintained, clean, and happy, he's still Lawful Evil - because Lawful Evil is not just Evil, nor just Lawful, but Lawful Evil, and that includes tyrants of every sort.
Lawful Evil characters exploit rules, they never break them, and they act in their own self interest and in the interest of their personal code, which could be almost anything. Eradication of disease could be their endgoal, they're just willing to do insane experiments to achieve it. Stopping war could be their endgoal, they might simply decide the best way to do that is conquering the world. Or maybe their endgoal is simply becoming rich, and they think that the party can help them. LE characters rarely actually betray people either. Hell considering why they do things LE can be almost as trustworthy as LG and LN, far more than

>>53121124
Devils are actually a good trustworthy ally if they've entered contract with you to be your ally and have something to their benefit from not fucking your over. Moreso than angels, who are not beholden to you but to their god and at any moment might decide that deus actually vults.

>>53121227
Trustworthy (adj): able to be relied on as honest or truthful.
Do you?

>>53121218
>PC's are not held under the same restrictions as an outsider anon.

Fair point. PC's can change alignment as they grow, or conditions alter their worldview.

And at that point...their alignment has likely changed as well.

>>53121194
Yet an Angel has no choice but to be LG while paladins are capable of falling.

Seriously, you dumb nigga.

>>53121174
>mortals are as evil as literal personifications of evil
Nigga you're fucking stupid.

>>53121244
Possibly, but you can still be LE even if you save an orphanage if you did so for selfish reasons.

>>53121227
If you write a shitty contract with loopholes that any competent devil can exploit to fuck you over, it's more your fault than theirs at that point.

I mean what, do you get mad when you cast wish and the GM fucks you over too?

>>53121237
>Yeah I can trust them to follow the contract.

And do most PC groups draw up contracts?

>>53121244
No? Let me put it this way as simple as I can

>Lawful Good: They follow laws as long as they're just laws, and act according to their own code of conduct which could be basically anything.
>Lawful Neutral: They follow laws because laws are important and follow their own code of conduct which could be basically anything.
>Lawful Evil: They follow laws to benefit themselves and their ideals and act according to their own code of conduct.

LE is literally that simple.

>>53121294
They should if they're planning on asking devils for a fucking favor. Besides, most people from 3.PF on come from an era where RAW was similar to reading the rulings from a MtG card, there's a reason why the term "rules lawyer" exists.

>>53121242
>without mercy or compassion.
>but not about freedom, dignity, or life.

Those are things a good group would be a mirror opposite of.

Again then, why the fuck would a good group want that guy with them?

>>53121294
Yes? Who the fuck doesn't draw up working contracts with their coworkers? My parties have charters or writs.

>>53121244
LE characters can act as if they were Lawful Good as long as the intent is still Evil aka selfish. I can certainly murder a tyrant (because I want to take his place), I can be a just ruler (because I hate rebels), I can feed the starving kids (because then the hot sister of one of them will ride my dick).

>>53121326
>My parties have charters or writs.

>totally believable

>>53121350
>lawful characters act lawful
If you don't you're literally just being a rollplayer. Fuck off.

>>53121317
>They should if they're planning on asking devils for a fucking favor

That's exactly what they're doing, when they take a LE pc into their party to help.
They're taking someone with the same moral compass as a devil, into their group.

>>53121319
Because it's possible to be evil without being disruptive or obvious and sometimes it's nice having a partner who is willing to get his hands dirty for the sake of the greater scope of the adventure.

Of course, if we're playing in your shit setting where everyone whose evil can "rise" if they aren't as obviously and disruptively evil as possible at all times, I'd have an issue with evil characters as well.

Luckily, the only one whose retarded in this argument is you.

>>53121319
Because those things don't matter in most circumstances you're going to be encountering, as in, he won't just start doing insane shit for no reason unlike a CE character, and he can still act in accordance with Good principles as long as he has a reason to.

>why would a good group
>Metawise
Because sometimes it helps to have the guy who can and will slit the throats of the orc babies without the DM saying HAHA YOU FALL XDDDD, and also because it makes for fun interactions.

>storywise
Because they're useful allies, they're old friends (and yes LE often do try to keep their friends safe, old friends aren't easy to come by and can be relied upon when the LE character is in deep shit), because they have the same goal as you...
So many reasons?

>>53121368
>Because it's possible to be evil without being disruptive or obvious and sometimes it's nice having a partner who is willing to get his hands dirty for the sake of the greater scope of the adventure.
>Good PC's try to keep someone handy who will break their personal codes
>Because that's what good guys do.

>>53121365
>That's exactly what they're doing, when they take a LE pc into their party to help.
No it's not, stop being stupid.

>>53121385
Hmm..ok
Explain the difference between a LE devil's alignment, and a pc's LE alignment. Because it seems they are two different alignments, using the same name.

>>53121382
Sometimes, it's what good guys have to do in order to prevent a greater evil from succeeding.

It's basically what Harry Dresden and Micheal Carpenter's relationship is whenever they're out on the prowl. Harry's the dude who will shatter kneecaps and ally himself with fallen angels while Micheal is the moral compass who keeps Harry straight and offers support when evil turns up.

>>53119748
Just curious why are TN LN banned? I have yet to hear a That Guy story involving those alignments causing problems. It is always Evils and CNs being retards.

Not that it really matters you are a such a faggot even that the Society for the Promotion of Faggotry says you are too much of a faggot for your idiotic set of rules. I'd rather have a family of Mexicans do their traditional hat dance on my testicles than play with you.

>>53121350
Depends on the setting. If they're people who originally stuck together as a small mercenary adventuring band, or even just a small organization, then it's not at all unbelievable to have contracts for stuff like code of conduct, splitting the loot, and so on.

>>53121408
It's not about the Devil's LE, it's about Devils being made of Evil. Remember that evil-only quote? Yeah that applies to devils, just like the good-only quote applies to angels but not necessarily a NG or CG rogue. Devils are literally forced to be as evil as possible because it's hardcoded into their very being. Nothing short of direct divine intervention jumping through a trillion hoops can make a Succubus, for example, anything other than Evil. She literally has to attempt to spread misery, tyranny, or death and despair because it is literally what she is made of.

>>53121427
>Just curious why are TN LN banned?

I've yet to see anyone play them well. They always tend to slip over into the evil side, and say "well, I'm neutral, I'll give a homeless guy a couple gold to balance me out".

>>53121408
see
>>53121162
>>53121218
>>53121234
>>53121242
>>53121269
>>53121301
>>53121327
>>53121374

In case you don't feel like reading; Devils MUST be LE while PC's CAN be LE sometimes.

>>53121427
TN can easily get into the "I don't give a shit" archetype because that's basically what they are unless they're straight up cosmic balance like TN druids or something.

File: Polish minister of defense.jpg (11KB, 174x321px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 174x321px

>53119748
>53119831
>Obvious bait appears
>People don't sage and instead just give all the (You)'s

Come on fa/tg/uys I thought you better than this.

>>53121457
>. She literally has to attempt to spread misery, tyranny, or death and despair because it is literally what she is made of.

Ok, lets call it the personification of LE? Agreed?

Therefore, if that's not what your pc is all about, then why the hell play LE?

Because NG is too restrictive? Because CN isn't evil enough? Because LG equals Lawful Stupid?

What's the point then? Why play that, if that's not your pc's belief? Pick a more fitting alignment.

It's not that hard really.
>I'm going to be a hero type good guy
>or
>I'm going to be an evil guy

Pick a side and play it.

>>53121489
That's been what I've seen as well.
>Neutral means I can do what I want

>>53121482
see >>53121513

>>53121482
>In case you don't feel like reading; Devils MUST be LE while PC's CAN be LE sometimes.

Ok, if the PC doesn't want to be LE, then maybe he should pick something like CN, where he can bounce around more.

>>53121556
CN is more for mercenaries who are willing to do whatever they can to achieve their goals, even if doing so would put them worse off than the people they're fighting.

LE can at least be kept in line by establishing clear lines and an offer they cannot refuse.

And this thread, proves OP's point.

Not allowing faggots to play LE or any evil, saves a ton of debate.

Well done.

>>53121596
>LE can at least be kept in line by establishing clear lines and an offer they cannot refuse.
You speak of threats or fear.

Using your definition there, swap LE for any alignment.

>>53121465
LN is the classic Mercenary/Bounty Hunter that once bought stays bought.

TN is just the every day person. They have no stake in cosmic law, chaos, good, or evil. They just take care of themselves and those close to them.

>>53121528
>Implying writing two words on a piece of paper ever constrains shitty players from acting like assholes.

I have had more idiots that write X Good on their character sheet and then go full murderhobo than That Guys that do so with CN and Evil alignments.

>>53121629
>You speak of threats or fear.
Not really.
>"Hey man, you can't X, Y, or Z while you're in this party but as a member, you'll receive A and B, plus anything we find along the way that interests you, deal?
>"Deal!"
You don't always beat them with the stick when the carrot is more effective.

>>53121605
In such a party, CG will be the guy who fucks up the campaign, because chaotics are the worse.

>>53121408
It's a matter of degree. Unless you're telling me all LG PCs are as LG as angels.

But no, you're going to ignore this point.

>>53121660
>I have had more idiots that write X Good on their character sheet and then go full murderhobo than That Guys that do so with CN and Evil alignments.

I'd like to argue that with you.......but I can't. I've seen it several times as well.
Mainly if the players get pissed.
>someone got away from them? Hunt him to the ends of the earth and kill everything that gets in our way!! Yeah, we're NG, so what? We're still fucking doing it.

>>53121704
Not ignoring anything.

I'd feel safe saying that most the good alignments for pc's are meant to emulate the qualities of good angels.

And likewise for devils and evil pc's.

>>53121513
>Neutral Good
Neutral Good is just raw benevolence. What if I don't want to play a saint?

>Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Neutral has nothing to do with evil no matter how many idiots play it as Neutral Evil. Chaotic Neutral is the free-willed archetype and sometimes the randumb archetype, not the Evil archetype.

>Lawful Good
Because Lawful Good doesn't work for certain characters. If I want to play a prince who is convinced his 20 INT can save his country, he just needs a little shakeup and more control over day-to-day affairs, that's not Lawful Good. If I want to play someone who is willing to do anything to protect his last remaining family member that's not Lawful Good (not Lawful Evil either mind you, more TN or NE). Have you considered some people just don't want to play the same characters you do? You still don't know what D&D Evil actually means, it isn't "eat babies", it's not even always "malevolence", it's just straight up "I'm selfish / tyrannical". Chaotic people are far more likely to do stupid bullshit because they are by definition more unpredictable and do things with less thought. Lawful Evil characters are even stricter with law than LG and on par with LN because the thing that keeps them LE and not NE is that they really fucking do keep their word and follow the rules.

>>53121660
>I have had more idiots that write X Good on their character sheet and then go full murderhobo than That Guys that do so with CN and Evil alignments.
This!

Had one dude who stabbed an ogre in the back, even as the ogre was helping us take care of a bunch of skeletons. What made it worse was that he was playing a PALADIN at the time, in 3.PF.

>>53121704
>It's a matter of degree
True, and most of this thread has been one extreme or the other.

>>53121753
Only the Goodfag has been on an extreme, because he's saying ALL LE CHARACTERS HAVE TO BE ASMODEUS xDDD. People defending LE characters aren't denying ridiculously evil LE characters exist, they're saying that not all of them are aladdin viziers.

>>53121772
However, they refuse to believe that they're evil.

And they think that devils are totally trustworthy allies.

As I said, one extreme, or the other.

>>53121738
>I'd feel safe saying that most the good alignments for pc's are meant to emulate the qualities of good angels.
And that's where you're being a retard. The vast majority of LG PCs are not trying to emulate every aspect of Archons. If you think that you need to get your skull checked.

You realize the NG plane has concentration brainwashing camps for non-good individuals, right? Do most NG PCs go around brainwashing everyone who isn't NG?

>>53121785
>And they think that devils are totally trustworthy allies.
Devils literally can be trustworthy allies when under contract.

>>53121785
Nobody is saying that Devils are trustworthy, just that they can be dependable provided you give them a contract that they cannot weasel out of.

Also, nobody is saying that LE isn't evil, just saying that a LE character isn't liable to just backstab you just because they have an "E" written on their character sheet somewhere.

Seriously, reading comprehension, do you have it?

>>53121772
>because he's saying ALL LE CHARACTERS HAVE TO BE ASMODEUS

That's not been said, except by the LEfags.

>LE, is still fucking evil
>"ZOMG, I"m NOT ASMODEUS!!!!"

That's the LEfags argument. We're evil sure, but we're not "that" evil. So that means you can trust us, and we will make excellent traveling companions.

>>53121826
>Nobody is saying that Devils are trustworthy,
>>53121806
>Devils literally can be trustworthy allies
wat?

>>53121835
>That's the LEfags argument. We're evil sure, but we're not "that" evil. So that means you can trust us, and we will make excellent traveling companions.
Here is what I've been saying. If you have a common interest with a LE indivudal you can work with them as coworkers. LE individuals are allies of circumstance. You don't have to be ask on edge around them because unlike devils they are not literal personifications of evil.

>>53121846
Read
>they can be dependable provided you give them a contract that they cannot weasel out of.

>>53121826
>just saying that a LE character isn't liable to just backstab you just because they have an "E" written on their character sheet

No, not because of that.

>Because you have something they want
>You're in their way
>Killing you benefits them somehow
Those are reason enough tho.

>>53121846
>cut off both sections where they say 'under contract'
bruh

>>53121785
No, you just don't fucking understand that LE is not NE nor plain Evil. Lawful Evil characters run the gamut from actually enlightened despots to merchants who make fucking loads of money legally but overcharging because they outcompeted everyone else long ago to people trying to cure cancer by doing ethically questionable experiments to yes aladdin moustache twirlers. They're invariably selfish, merciless, or both, but that doesn't mean you can't work with them or aren't trustworthy - the opposite is true, they're incredibly reliable as long as you actually get them to agree to do what you want them to do - and even if you don't, he could well decide to do the 'right thing' - because the Paladin and Wizard have more to offer him in terms of split loot and continued friendship than these bandits bribing him to let them pass.

>>53121835
>That's the LEfags argument
The LEfags argument is that "we act in self-interest and/or are completely merciless, but that self-interest could easily coincide with your own." You make it sound like LE characters are incapable of doing anything good and are untrustworthy, in direct contradiction of what the actual character says.

>>53121866
>Those are reason enough tho.
No, that's Neutral Evil.

>>53121826
>Nobody is saying that Devils are trustworthy,
>>53121806
>Devils literally can be trustworthy allies
>>53121826
>just that they can be dependable
>>53121242
>Devils are actually a good trustworthy all
>>53121242
>Trustworthy (adj): able to be relied on as honest or truthful
>>53121195
>Devils will adhere to the contract, they'll try to find loopholes

That's funny shit

>>53121866
Here's the thing though, would a tyrant really waste resources and risk their lives just to have something that you have?

Not exactly, because LE is neither lawful-stupid or stupid-evil; they'll find that it's much simpler to ally themselves with the person that has the thing they want, since they'll not only have the thing once they gain the person's trust but they'll also gain an ally who can help them out down the line.

What you're describing is NE or CE.

File: 1485006581641.jpg (79KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 777x656px

>>53121908
Not an argument

>>53121908
>still cuts off the parts that mention contracts
Really?

>>53119748
I have no problem with the rest, mind you, but I'm actually pretty new to this scene and actually didn't experience a standard RP just experienced customs that got nowhere, so i'm not the best for this.

But, why is any Neutral (while i do understand the TN, as they can be extremely boring, as i've heard), such as Chaos Neutral, bad? And why any evil, even if it's planned (of course those that backstab without warning and were good from the start but then turned evil without any warning are fucking annoying), is considered bad and unplayable?

>>53121968
It has more to do with how they tend to be played than anything else.
Chaotic Neutral is incredibly liable to do literally anything at the drop of a hat from fucking the explicitly off-limits virgin princess to slapping the elder wyrm when angered to taking a shit in the wizard's alchemy set because the wizard called him an "undisciplined manchild", justifying it under "because I felt like it lmao".
True Neutral isn't boring, True Neutral is just "I have no strong feelings either way" which can easily translate to (not entirely wrong) "I do what suits me best at the time".

>>53121883
>No, you just don't fucking understand that LE is not NE nor plain Evil.
>nor plain Evil

OIC........it's some type of good, or neutrality?

Odd they wouldn't call it that then, eh?

>>53120565
>letting uncreative people play
How do you even roleplay when you have no imagination?

>>53121998
>True Neutral is just "I have no strong feelings either way" which can easily translate to (not entirely wrong) "I do what suits me best at the time".
>>53121883
>LEfags argument is that "we act in self-interest and/or are completely merciless,

Odd how similar those two look, eh?

>>53121513
Because people who like to roleplay. Really roleplay, instead of say engaging in alignment faggotry like you, first create a character concept and his personality and only after that assign alignment.

Sometimes the result maybe LG, sometimes LE, and sometimes, all the gods forbid, even CN.

First comes the personality and alignment is just a label on top of it.

>>53122047
>I do what best suits me at the time
>We act in self interest

Hmm.......am I the only one that see's how LEfags are confusing what they're trying to play, as more neutral, than Evil?

>>53121528
I know you're probably aware of this, but that is literally the mentality that qualifies you evil axis of the alignment for anyone that doesn't worship an evil deity.

It's not your fault your players play "neutral" as "evil"

>>53122062
>Really roleplay,
>That means I can play any alignment, anyway I want

Mkay

>>53119748

>If you write in CN, TN, LN, Or any evil.......you're a faggot and not welcome to play.

>Using the pleb-tier alignment system

It's just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in D&D, friendo.

Remember: 1st edition AD&D is nothing more than Gygax's retro-clone.

>guy can't comprehend that it's possible for a LE person to be an ally of circumstance because you have similar goals

Shit, even a CE person can be an ally of circumstance.

>>53121596
Well CN also can be played as someone who has moral principles that are perpendicular to most established systems in the world and don't have much to do with Good or Evil as D&D sees them.

Though that's rare and hard.

>>53122007
So I guess Paladins need to follow the law even when they're unjust because they're Lawful Good, not Neutral Good, and they need to do good even when it breaks their code of conduct huh...weird, why aren't they Lawful Neutral????
D&D alignments can't be taken apart unless the character in question is a personification of that alignment, like devils, fiends, archons, or aeons.

>>53122047
Can you tell me what's wrong with my description of LE? Because nothing is wrong with it. Evil in D&D is selfishness and / or the lack of compassion and mercy, and the acting in self-interest. Lawful Evil means you act in self-interest or without compassion or mercy while adhering strictly to laws and personal codes of conduct.

>>53122066
Have you considered that people who play TN as "I do literally whatever I want" while playing as beings that aren't entirely beyond morality like Great Old Ones or some shit are actually playing Neutral Evil characters, and not True Neutral ones?

>>53122073
No, it means that alignments are actually only descriptors, which is why there is more than one archetype for every alignment. Humans don't act like archetypes, they have depth.

>>53122079
>It's just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in D&D, friendo.

Only faggots play anything past 2e.

It's 9 alignments desu

>>53122047
>>53122066
From experience, LE is more in line with what NE is supposed to be while CE, NE, and CN are more in line with what evil is supposed to be.

I guess Lawful tends to make people more inclined to stay inside the lines so they're not as disruptive, while Chaotic/Neutral tends to just be the "I can do whatever the fuck I want with no restrictions" alignments that lack the self-preservation to not fuck things up for the party.

>>53122068
*for the evil axis.

Also, pretty much any career politician is going to be LE if re-election is their primary concern. If they became a politician for power rather than explicitly "helping people", that's all that's needed to qualify, and those people aren't going around killing babies. It's in a LE character's best interests to have powerful allies, just like it's in a politician's best interests.

>>53122103
>Can you tell me what's wrong with my description of LE
Nothing. And yet it matched what others here call Neutral.

There's a disconnect. Too many are confusing Neutral and Evil , just because of the lawful part.

>>53122125
Are you saying how people play as or something
>LE is more in line with what NE is supposed to be while CE, NE, and CN are more in line with what evil is supposed to be
NE is the "I do whatever I want, because I want it" alignment.

>>53122095
>Though that's rare and hard.
Yeah, because they're fucking chaotic dipshit! Chaotic alignments means that they have no code and no reasonings for what they do.

>>53122142
>what others here call neutral
No that's not what I said, I was pointing out how CN and TN characters are often played poorly. TN characters being "I do what suits me best" isn't wrong per-se but TN characters also never move to the extremes of any of L, E, C, or G, that's why they're "Neutral". TN characters don't follow laws that hurt them too much, they don't rebel for the sake of it, they have basic but not very high moral lines they won't cross, and they don't do things sheerly because it's the right thing to do.

>>53121846
>Devils literally can be trustworthy allies
I always trust in devils. They can be depended upon with 100% certainty. They ALWAYS keep to the word of the contract and they ALWAYS will try to screw me over.

That's more than I can say about 99% of the people with any certainty. So yes they are more trustworthy than people most of the time.

>>53122147
>Are you saying how people play as or something
Generally yes.

Evil tends to be low-key because they know the consequences for fucking up. Neutral/Chaotic tends to be more evil than the evil characters because they can say "but I'm not actually evil, it says so on muh sheet" and "it's what muh character would do" whenever it comes time for them to get spanked.

>>53122175
I don't disagree with that.

>>53121998
>Chaotic Neutral is incredibly liable to do literally anything at the drop of a hat from fucking the explicitly off-limits virgin princess to slapping the elder wyrm when angered to taking a shit in the wizard's alchemy set because the wizard called him an "undisciplined manchild", justifying it under "because I felt like it lmao".
That's problem not with the alignment but with players who treat alignment as the only part of their character personality.

>>53122175
To be honest in the groups I run, alignments are only tied to gameplay for Smite Evil and shit, and almost everyone who doesn't directly worship a god is just True Neutral. Undead and certain monsters are Evil, etc. Smite Evil works on stuff the Paladin's code hates (so "those who have personally attacked others for their own gain" for example) and Evil characters. I spank them for not sticking to the personality section of their sheet.

>>53122196
>it has more to do with how they tend to be played than anything else

>>53122073
No, it means you can play any Character any way you want as long as GM and other players agree to that.

GM just slaps the alignment label on top of your character concept and personality to make it interact with the alignment based abilities.

>>53122168
People seem to forget that "Neutral" is supposed to be baseline. A normal person will mostly follow the law, because that's what they've been taught and they don't want to go to jail. A normal person will mostly do good things because they have a conscious. A normal person will not murder someone and or steal their shit just because it's what was "convenient" at the time.

90% of commoners are TN. If you want to know if an action is neutral, think, "would your average farmer do this?"

Likewise, *most* adventurers should be around that alignment if they live the murderhobo alignment, maybe with a *slight* good bias because Good people tend to be better team players. The only exception is when you're going around literally hunting criminals, murderers, and fiends.

>>53122279
Well said.

>>53122225
>No, it means you can play any Character any way you want as long as GM and other players agree to that.

Oic

>Let's make a LG Pally, A CE thief, A TN mage, that way we can cover all the gameplay descriptors for spells and saves
>This is really good roleplay, because it's totally reasonable that all 3 of those alignments would travel together and hang out and stuff.

>>53122279
>A normal person will mostly do good things because they have a conscious
I think it's important to note that just because they mostly do good things doesn't mean they'll go out of their way to do good things. If a starving kid passing by asks for food, he'll probably throw him some cornmeal and give him a haystack in the barn, but if the kid is on the run from the coppers or the harvest has been terrible then the answer is going to be no.

>>53122357
What the fuck does OIC mean?

>>53122369
That looks accurate to me.

So, do you want a normal neighbor (TN), or an LE one? According to this thread, most of /tg/ thinks either is fine.

>>53122388
Oh, I see.

>>53122401
Just write it out instead of looking like a faggot from Facebook, you can even just use Ah, yes or something if you're too lazy.

>>53122389
>So, do you want a normal neighbor (TN), or an LE one? According to this thread, most of /tg/ thinks either is fine.
Most people who are LE aren't LE enough for it to matter. Though the LE guy is more likely to be in the home owners association, fuck the TN guy.

>>53122389
I don't want a TN dirt farmer in my party either. Neutral and Evil parties exist, and even Good parties can see their goals coincide with Lawful Evil teammates. People have been trying to drill this into your thick skull for the entire thread and the only possibilities at this point are 1. you're not listening or 2. you're too stupid to understand. Both of these make it pointless to keep talking to you.

>>53122369
>hey mostly do good things doesn't mean they'll go out of their way to do good things

Personal risk also factors in there.

A normal person (just a farmer in d&d), tries to do good, but may not grab a sword and brave the ogre's lair to save a stranger.

>>53122357
And again you start with alignment instead of character personality missing the whole point.

You are the problem man.

>>53122434
Then shut the fuck up and go fap to anime. No one will miss you faggot.

>>53122446
>alignment instead of character personality
>Alignment has nothing to do with personality

Mkay dumbass

>it's another 'allies of circumstance can't exist' and 'evil people can't have friends/family they don't fuck off constantly' episode

>>53122435
Yeah basically. The biggest thing about TN when it isn't the cosmic balance archetype or the "I am literally above morality" archetype is they just try to go about their lives "normally". They might do good things if they can without losing much (Good Guy Greg TN), or they might swipe a few coins if they think you're not looking (Asshole TN), but they're not going to murder someone with little to no relation to them or risk their lives to save someone with little to no relation to them (unless in both cases driven into a corner).

>>53122428
>Most people who are LE aren't LE enough for it to matter.

What you're describing then, is LN. Not LE.

So play LN.
53122413
>Just write it out instead
Just figure it out, retard. It wasn't difficult.

>>53122479
>Just figure it out, retard. It wasn't difficult.
baka desu senpai

>>53122479
You still don't know what LE is and think it's fundamentally the same as NE.

>>53122450
No one cares what you'll miss when you're obviously a shitposting retard
Not even him, just fuck off
Fuck you you caught me

>>53122492
I think you don't understand.

You confuse LN with LE. Why? I dunno, because you're stupid?

>>53122479
>What you're describing then, is LN. Not LE.
No you moron. Did you not read what I'm saying? Most people who are LE are toeing the shallows of LE, just a hop out of TN.

Devils are in the far lower left corner.

LE is a big box, most mortals are barely in the upper right portion of LE because mortals don't have nearly as much of a capacity for evil or law as outsider.

>>53122518
FUCK, you are stupid.

>>53122466
>it's another "you are WRONG if you don't play shitty make believe dice games the way I do and i'm MAD about it" episode

There's nothing more pathetic than caring about how people you will never meet outside of the internet play a game, to be honest.

>>53122510
>Fuck you you caught me
Cheers m8.

>>53122524
Then explain the difference between LN, and LE.

I'll wait.

Go ahead, and explain how that LE pc is just as trustworthy as the LN one.

>>53122526
>There's nothing more pathetic than caring about how people you will never meet outside of the internet play a game, to be honest.
You realize you're on a portion of a website dedicated to talking about how people play games. If you don't want to talk about it or don't care then why are you here? Or why did you open this thread?

You're basically going to a concert and complaining about the loud music.

>>53122553
>Or why did you open this thread?

Good bait?

I opened it because this is a fun topic.

>>53122518
>>53122550
LE means you use the laws to benefit yourself and your ideals, and your actions, while perhaps against moral concepts, are neither against the law nor against a personal code.
LN means you view the laws and / or your personal code as paramount, subject to nothing else.
Not the same thing at all.

>>53122526
Except you're the one doing that by saying NO YOU CAN'T PLAY NEUTRAL OR EVIL :(((((((((((.

>>53122550
>Go ahead, and explain how that LE pc is just as trustworthy as the LN one.
And moving the goal post. Nice.

>>53122550
Most people who are LN are also toeing the line, as are most people who are LG and so on. One of the ways outsiders are 'outside' is that they're 'outside' the usual mortal nine-box. Angels aren't in the normal LG range, they're three more spaces in that direction.

>>53122550
>Then explain the difference between LN, and LE.
LE tries to exploit the law for their own selfish desires.

>Go ahead, and explain how that LE pc is just as trustworthy as the LN one.
They aren't. Never said they were. I'm still saying that you can have a LE individual as an ally of circumstance however because your goals align. LE doesn't mean they fuck everyone over all the time. They can have a goal and realize that fucking you (or the party in the case) over means that goal won't be reached.

If fucking over the party would fuck over the PC, which most of the time it does, they won't do it. Stabbing your coworker or neighbor for no reason doesn't get him anywhere.

Why would fucking over the PCs get him what he want? It all comes down to the game.

ALSO, a LE person can have friends and family. He could like the PCs and not want to fuck them over. LE people don't fuck over everyone all the time, get that through your head.

>>53122553
You know that's a good point and I completely phrased it incorrectly.

What I meant was more getting upset or angry about how others plays games. To be so concerned you have to make an argument that they are wrong, and they should feel bad. It is perfectly reasonably to care and discuss what happens in other's games for fun and entertainment, of course.

>>53122567
>Except you're the one doing that by saying NO YOU CAN'T PLAY NEUTRAL OR EVIL :(((((((((((.
That was my first post in the thread, friend. I totally think people can play neutral or evil characters, if it doesn't get in the way of the actual game. And if it does, that's most likely on the players of said characters.

>>53122567
So both follow a code.

That's not so similar is it?

The difference is the EVIL part. One is evil, one is not. Now, which "code" do you want in your party?

>>53122465
>Alignment has nothing to do with personality
They really don't.

At best, you can find stereotypes but not anything that's actually nuanced and believable.

>>53120034
I have a rule. If you're playing LG, you are Michael Carpenter. No exceptions

>>53122600
The thing is, if we have similar goals then I'll take either. Basically I'll take anyone who I know has goals that align with my own because we're allies of circumstance.

Really we're talking in a vacuum narrative which doesn't exist in a game. There are so many circumstances why the LE person wouldn't or would fuck the party over. I can show you reasons a LG person would betray the party. You can make any alignment be ready to kill the rest of the party with the right narrative, and make any set of alignments work together with the right narrative.

The idea of 'X can't work with Y under any circumstances' is asinine.

>>53122596
>That was my first post in the thread, friend
Well sorry. It isn't a new IP though, weird.

>>53122600
What is the rest of my party and what are our goals? That is an actual relevant question, because an LE person can be just as relevant to the party's goals. In fact, even NE works - if the NE person is NE in the sense of "I want to protect me and my cursed, bedridden sister and I don't fucking care what I have to do to make it happen" and our quest is "destroy the lich who's been cursing people left and right for the past three decades", that NE person fits right fucking in.

>>53122596
>That was my first post in the thread, friend.
It wasn't a new IP, so that's a lie. Or did you steal anon's IP?

>>53122586
>LE tries to exploit the law for their own selfish desires.
>>53122567
>LE means you use the laws to benefit yourself and your ideals, and your actions, while perhaps against moral concepts,
>>53122103
>Lawful Evil means you act in self-interest or without compassion or mercy
>>53121044
>A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants
>>53121018
>LE is someone who is generally acting out in their own self-interest
>>53120951
>LE characters behave in their own self interest
>>53120951
>LAWFUL evil characters can always be counted on, because they are lawful.

lulz......this is fucking hilarious

>Be LE
>I'm totally trustworthy guize, really!
>I'll make a valuable companion because I can do anything that's in my own interest
>I'm really really loyal, and would never fuck anyone over

>>53122637
>What is the rest of my party
The assumption starting the thread out, was that someone would fit right in, in a good party, because LE is lawful, and that makes them trustworthy.

That's when everything got fucking weird itt

>>53122637
>>53122646
Huh, I am not lying to y'all, so I don't know what the fuck. Unless there's some Jekyll and Hyde bullshit going on.

>>53122656
How can you not understand that if working with the party is in the guy's self interest then he's a perfectly fine companion? Or do you expect him to get the sudden evil sweats because he hasn't back stabbed an ally within the last 15 minutes?

He works in his self interest. If the party's goal is in his self interest then yeah, he makes a fine companion.

>>53122676
No, you don't understand. I'm not asking for their alignments, I'm asking for their backstories and personal motivations. Only a Paladin, who absolutely has to be the epitome of mortal Lawful Good at all times and has working with evil as an actual stated Risky Business type thing to actually retain his class features, would need to flip out at the NE guy doing something Evil. Everyone else would just say "dude you're going overboard, he doesn't know any more beating him won't help let's have a drink" because the endgoal actually does align with everyone else's.

>>53122607
>They really don't.
>At best, you can find stereotypes but not anything that's actually nuanced and believable.

They actually really do.

Good characters will generally be more trustworthy and willing to help you.
Evil characters will generally be more willing to screw you over.

If you don't want to play someone willing to fuck the group over for your own self-interests, then why are you playing evil? You're doing it wrong.

>>53122676
>The assumption starting the thread out, was that someone would fit right in, in a good party, because LE is lawful, and that makes them trustworthy.

This was never my premise. My premise was that essentially any set of alignments can work together as allies of circumstances if their goals align, up to and including LG and CE. The circumstances and party, as well as the campaign's narrative and goals are what matter. LE and LG can't always work together, but depending on the game two LG characters can't work together, or LG and CG, or TN and CN.

A campaign can be made so that essentially any party composition can work, but not every alignment or every party composition fit every campaign.

The question is so broad and vague that there can't be a single answer. Looking for one is retarded.

The only solace I can take is that the thread will be 404'd by the the time the sun comes up.

>>53122707
>Good characters will generally be more trustworthy and willing to help you.
>Evil characters will generally be more willing to screw you over.
Yeah, stereotypes.
>If you don't want to play someone willing to fuck the group over for your own self-interests, then why are you playing evil? You're doing it wrong.
No, you are. Even Maleficent has more layers than people give her credit for (well, before Disney made her sympathetic at least.

>playing d&d
Stopped there
I play only lite narrative games

>>53122688
>if
That's the word that ruins the entire argument.

Look at it this way.

There are two guys to choose from, to take with you on this adventure. Both have equal skills.

>One, is Lawful evil, he'll be fine as long as his goals and your goals are the same

>One is Lawful good, he'll do everything he can to save you if he can, even at the cost of his own life.

Pick one. No one's saying the first guy WILL kill you....But which do you want holding on to the rope you're climbing?

>>53122707
>Good characters will generally be more trustworthy and willing to help you.
>Evil characters will generally be more willing to screw you over.
Incorrect. Lawful are more trustworthy than chaotic. I'm more willing to trust someone LE than CG.

>>53119748
Okay so I saw this wood screen on etsy has anyone tried using it? Seems cool...maybe better than a generic screen.

>>53122722
>The only solace I can take is that the thread will be 404'd by the the time the sun comes up.

So you say......

>>53122739
>Yeah, stereotypes.

Yeah. I mean if you want to break that sterotype, why play it? Just to see how far the DM will let it be pushed?

OP's point stands. Ban people from playing those alignments.

>>53122755
The choice A or B has never been the argument. It's that if you'll let Adam bring his LE cleric to the table. There is no Billy with his LG that you can kick Adam out to replace with.

It's not a choice between two, it's if one can fit at all.

Stop being a retard.

>>53122755
That has not been the argument. Holy shit, did you not read the original post? It's saying people can't play non-good character's at all. It's not a fucking multiple choice test for choosing characters.

Holy fuck.

>>53122773
So first you say "they actually really do" but then you go "yeah, if you want to break that stereotype" so until you stop being confused, I'm not going to reply to you.
>OP's point stands. Ban people from playing those alignments.
Okay, then you'll have to worry about the LG Paladin who doesn't like his party members looting bodies or killing bandits before a formal challenge.

>>53122798
>Holy shit, did you not read the original post?
Of course he didn't, you'd need something higher than sub-70 IQ to comprehend logic.

>>53122773
>OP's point stands. Ban people from playing those alignments.
And chaotic alignments. Single alignment parties are the only way to go. A LG character is obligated to arrest a CG character when they break laws or city ordinance.

>>53122707
>If you don't want to play someone willing to fuck the group over for your own self-interests, then why are you playing evil? You're doing it wrong.
but I don't want to screw the party. I want to screw everyone else! Party is my safehouse. You don't shit where you eat.

>>53122707
>Good characters will generally be more trustworthy and willing to help you.
>CG
>trustworthy
HA

>>53122707
>If you don't want to play someone willing to fuck the group over for your own self-interests, then why are you playing evil?
Because your self interests are...served by keeping the party around? Why the fuck should I kill my party when they're the one helping me defeat the demilich (so I can steal his old spellbook)?

Why is everyone acting like evil characters always have to fuck over the party?

You can have a LN and LE character who are brothers. The LE would never screw over the LN character because they are brothers and grew up together, but he'd fuck over other people. The LN character won't fuck over the LE character for similar reasons.

It's like people are acting like evil characters get panic attacks if they don't fuck over literally everyone at every opportunity no matter the circumstances.

>>53122832
>but I don't want to screw the party. I want to screw everyone else! Party is my safehouse. You don't shit where you eat

Literally the first example itt that makes any sense.

>>53122798
>That has not been the argument.

Of course it was.

Go back to where it started.
>>53120026
>>53120026
>But....you'll have to figure out how you'll fit in with the rest of the group. Why would the NG mage even want to travel with a Neutral guy who may stab him in the back?

Right there.

Learn to follow the thread, you fucking moron.

>>53122877
>Literally the first example itt that makes any sense.
People have stated this example like 15 times before that post, have you not been reading?

>>53122859
Because they know it's the only way their argument works.

>>53122773
A Paladin often absolutely has to allow the chance for redemption from things not just hardcoded to be evil. This means that he absolutely has to ruin everyone's day by challenging the CR 6 bandit lord and offering him redemption, ruining the surprise attack, when the party is only level 4.

>>53122883
>People have stated this example like 15 times before that post, have you not been reading?

No, people have been saying that LE is totally trustworthy, and devils are totally trustworthy. No one's given a single reason beyond "durr my evil guy haz a code", that a LE could be trusted.

>>53122902
>A Paladin often absolutely has to
>Blah blah

Ok, so we're applying sterotypes, or not? Make up your mind.

>>53122906
People have continually stated "LE characters can have friends/family" and won't fuck them over, i.e. the party and "LE characters can have goals aligned with the party".

No seriously. Have you not been reading?

>>53122901
The only defense the LEfags offer is :

>NO NO NO, why are you saying I HAVE to fuck the party over?

Even though, no one's said that LE HAS to.

>>53122921
>Ok, so we're applying sterotypes, or not? Make up your mind.
Unlike most characters paladins have a code of conduct that they have to follow and stop being a paladin if they don't.

>>53122906
They're trustworthy BECAUSE their goals fit with your own and BECAUSE they don't go back on their word. If you say "don't attack people who surrender" and he says "okay" then he won't attack people who surrender.

>>53122921
No it's not a stereotype this time, because paladins alone actually lose their class features if they don't follow the stereotypical conduct. Like, it's not that a Paladin can't act like a non-paladin, it's that he can only do it once.

>>53122926
Have you?
If you're not scheming to get ahead, why are you playing evil faggot? If you're being mister friendly trustworthy guy.......play that alignment. It sure as fuck ain't evil.

>>53122936
Ok ok. Let's get down to it then.

What IS the argument? Here is mine:
>Characters from essentially any set of alignments can work together as a party under the right circumstances.

That's literally it.

>>53122936
But that defense is more than sufficient. LG characters can also fuck the party over. So can NG or and Chaotic at all, or even TN or LN.

>>53122936
I'm going to play a lawful evil character in my next game and there is literally nothing you can do about it.

>>53122953
Because scheming to get ahead doesn't mean you need to be fucking babies and skinning old friends alive while doing it.

>>53122953
>If you're not scheming to get ahead, why are you playing evil faggot? If you're being mister friendly trustworthy guy.......play that alignment. It sure as fuck ain't evil.

I am scheming to get ahead, but I'm not scheming again Jimmy the NG wizard in the party. I've known Jimmy for 15 years, he's practically a brother to me.

That's the thing. You don't have to fuck over everyone all the time. Diverse alignments CAN work together under the right circumstances. Allies of circumstance exist.

>>53122950
>They're trustworthy BECAUSE their goals fit with your ow

>you have no idea if their goals fit yours, beyond what they say
>you have no idea WHEN their goals will change, and you won't fit into their plans
>you have no idea IF they're telling the truth or trying to wordfuck around
>You do know, that if your goals aren't the same, then the only motivation they have, is self interest.

That's not trustworthy.

>>53122953
Ambitious schemer can literally be any alignment in the right circumstance depending on the intent.

>>53122953
I can be evil and not be evil to literally everyone all the time. I don't want to be evil to the party because I like the party enough that I want to get US ahead. I fuck over other people for the sake of my friends, the party.

>>53122980
Sounds like you have trust issues, anon. Would you like to talk about it? We're friends here.

>>53122969
>Because scheming to get ahead doesn't mean you need to be fucking babies and skinning old friends alive while doing it.

Again dumbass.......no's one making that claim except lefags saying they "wont".

>>53122980
You also don't know that he's Evil so there's that.

Thank goodness we hit the bump limit.

>>53122997
Then why does it matter if they're not going to do it?
>.............
You have to go back.