Why do people play moralfags in RPGs?

Why do people play moralfags in RPGs?

Does anyone else find this interesting? Does it make up some inadequacy or insecurity in their every day lives? Are they simply emotionally and intellectually undeveloped and immature? Are these people a way to make a quick buck from devs like Bioware who want to exploit their childish hero complex?

Other urls found in this thread:

dflund.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-if-theres-no-such-thing-as-chaotic.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Being a hero is fun.

The problem, especially with Infinity Engine games, is that the good path always offers better rewards and/or more exp.

Only if the game has good writing. Being a hero for characters that aren't interesting creates people like OP.

...

We can't all be edgelords like you OP.

In RPGs moralfags usually have much more content. Also most writers can't really write an evil player well

t.cuck

...

Because they are incentivized to do so.
Being a moralfag usually leads to good long term benefits with no real short term losses.
There are RPGs which avoid this but in them you usually play as a specific character instead of a create-a-character.

What do you even do as an evil character? rape and rob npcs for the thousandth time? Evil needs to exist for there to be good, so as the evil you need to actually create scenarios for the hero. You simply can't do that in games.

...

Boo hoo naughty OP stop making me think!

Objectively false. You need to have good writing to do it, hence why almost nobody does it.

The entire point of being a hero is to protect people you enjoy being around, because if you don't, then you won't be able to be around them anymore. If a game has poorly written characters, people ask what OP is asking.

Good one, OP.

That is being a good friend. A Hero does heroic deeds.
Think of something like Kamen Rider or some other sentai show with the whole "protecting the weak" shtick.

That's not what a hero is

Those triangular meshes don't care that you're trying to be an edgelord, you know.

Oh yeah george lucas, the sith can have heros too…

Because usually the good route is the hardest and the one with more stuff to do

Also

If you weren't an edgy 13 year old you'd realize there is as much fun to be had playing a lawful good character as there is for a chaotic evil character.

I don't think you could have tipped your fedora any harder.

But that just isn't true.

Nice buzzwords. Never gets old.

Are you implying skywalker is not a hero?

Wasn't there a hyper autist back on cuckchan who was super anal pained about Kenshiro?

Yes, but a hero still thinks that the people who are unable to defend themselves are worthwhile people to save. If he didn't think that, then he wouldn't be a hero for them.


Define it then lad.

I remember someone like that. I think he runs the shittywebcomics blog on tumblr.

Why not have RPGs in which the sides are not defined by "goodness" and "evilness" but by in-universe political affiliations and goals? Morality is just a rationalization for actions after the fact.

That isn't what you said though.
Do you think Superman or any other character who on average saves the world is good personal friends with everyone on it?

its like you want to be vermin.

If one side is the communists and they rape and pillage while the other side is fascists who don't rape and pillage, are fascists moralfags?

Because evil routes are easy routes. They are the routes for cowards and parasites.

Judge Dredd is a good example of that. In his universe, he's lawful good, but in real life he'd be lawful neutral at best because of how cruel and violent he is.
>implying objective morality doesn't exist

Superman isn't a hero because he saves the world. He's a hero because he's a fundamentally good person.

it actually is though

If Superman stopped liking humans in general, he would get up and leave. It's not about being friends with everyone, not sure where you got that from my post.

...

Oh boy one of these threads. You just have to love them.

You specifically defined a hero as someone who protects their friends. That's a JRPG protagonist not a hero in laymans definition.

It's the other way around. You almost always get more xp and better loot on the good path.

I want nihilists and atheists to get the fuck off my board. Fucking queers.

Lawful Evil master race reporting in.

user, where did I say this.

I miss that guy, you could slice bread on that edge.

...

Has potential to make interesting characters.

The only other acceptable option is if you play a Good character who purges evil races such as: Orcs, Goblins and Elves.

Isn't the second picture kind of true?

He is the fucking definition of a Lawful Neutral character. He isn't good in his or any universe. How the hell did you get to that conclusion?

First guy stabbing becomes king of everything.

In the earliest Dredd comics he was almost entirely a unambiguous good guy who was strict about his job. At some point he became a meme character with no humanity but he didn't start that way.

You mean the 90s happened.

...

I enjoy helping people out and getting positive reactions and seeing NPC's advance in their "life" through my actions. But honestly I tend to play more of a chaotic neutral alignment if we're going by DND archetypes.

I'll steal anything from anyone. If someone tries to extort me they'll get beat up. If I don't like an NPC's personality or motive I wont do anything that benefits them and I'll try screwing them over instead. But I don't really behave like a dick just for the sake of it, if I have a neutral or positive opinion of an NPC I tend to go for a friendly route.

If games (more or less) force you into an alignment like Fable and pretty much any Bioware game I tend to play through the game as a good guy first and then if it deserves a second playthrough, evil. But what alignment I like in these games depends a lot on the world and just how petty the evil actions are. Fable 1 and kotor both had decent evil paths but Mass Effect just feels like you're being a petty dick throwing around insults just to amass your evil points.

I don't play lawful good characters but I find it impossible to kill unprovoked in games. I've never played any assassination quests in an elder scrolls game for example.

This is some vintage shitposting.
I can't remember the last time I saw a "moralfags are retarded" thread.

You get a few coins and very cheap items by murdering random peasants. Not worth the effort.

Why would either of those groups have good loot? Do you think a peasant can afford a scythe of +2 wheat harvesting?

good

evil

He does occasionally show humanity. I remember one comic in particular where he uses department funds to pay for the burial of the wife of a man who had gone into debt and broken into a cemetery trying to bury her himself (she was terrified of the thought of being turned into soylent green after death, which is apparently the fate that befalls most people in the Judge Dredd universe).

Dredd then promptly arrested and imprisoned the man for the rest of his life.

Seems pretty Lawful Good. He more likely exists somewhere in that continuum.

Nigga moralfags are the biggest leftists. Superheroes began as leftist propaganda and are complete SJW trash now.

A person isn't a hero until he does something heroic. Just thinking about saving people does not make someone a hero and a self proclaimed title has no value.
You don't have to be Lawful good to be a hero. Alignment has very little to do with being one.

...

Chaotic good faggots are heroes who do their shit and don't ever stop to consider what their actions may have wrought unto the earth.

Picture related, the greatest achievement of the elven peoples lack of attention to detail or so much as care.

Also, a brilliant metaphor for the dangers of race-mixing.

I play 'good' characters usually because the developers don't bother to flesh out the 'bad' decisions, and so if you want to play a character who is at all cohesive, going good pretty much the only option. The 'bad' decisions tend to be nothing more than being mindlessly destructive for no reason (think about the retarded renegade options in Mass Effect, or the actions which gain you bad karma in Fallout 3). In many cases there is almost no in-universe gain to the bad options, which is particularly stupid given that often the choice is framed as being between selfishness and selflessness, meaning that the selfish choice should actually be of greater material benefit to your character. This is almost never the case, however, because what actually happens if you take the 'selfless' choice is you end up getting an even greater reward further down the line by refusing a smaller one at the time of making the decision. Playing the 'good' path should almost always be more difficult, but in reality it never is.

It's also clear in many cases that the devs write the story based on a character who is good overall, and then just tack on some relatively inconsequential bad options to give the illusion of role-playing. Playing as an out-and-out bad character often meshes very poorly with the quests in the game.

Superheros have been around long enough to have propaganda about killing the nips, how can you say they were invented to support communism?

Being in the neutral range usually is the most interesting for me, especially if you get the chance to dig up dirt on both extremes.

It's annoying even when it's done ironically

*teleports behind you*
pshh… nothing personel, kiddo…

How long is it going to take you faggots to wise up and do away with morality in whole?

Speaking of, where the heck are our games that challenge morality itself?

...

Is OP just fucking around or is he really this edgy?

This, tbh. How many so called "heroes" ITT are ready to purge anyone who contradicts their way of thinking? Typical leftist behavior, remove anyone who disagrees. Because they do not share your completely objective view of right and wrong, they are your enemy, nothing they say or do matters and it is your duty to eradicate them as a danger.


Sadly, this user has it right. Often Evil is characterized as "stupid evil" rather than true evil.

It's like you autists enjoy eating the shitty bland good goy character arc for 10th million buttfucking time. A character can be malicious and interesting so long as it's not the "I'm evil for the sake of being evil" crap.

I've seen many 'moralfags' play as 'amoralfags' in these games too

...

...

KOTOR2

I'm talking about someone who does something heroic and the thought process on why they went through with their heroics. Where did you get that I was talking about just the thought?


I'm aware.

semih beni s

Spec Ops: The Line, even if it doesn't give you many choices.

First overlord you could essentially choose between being a goody two shoes or actually evil as well though.

...

YANIYOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Maybe you should staat to think, OP


Here's a buzzword for you: faggot (a.k.a, you)

...

KOTOR2 to be sure. fate/stay night tries to touch on it, but I hate how type-moon exaggerates every single fucking thing.

In KOTOR2, heroism gets deconstructed as a way to take power from those who depend on you to save them, and morality on one end or the other is just a way to facilitate that end.

Good people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
Evil people are willing to sacrifice others for the sake of themselves.

You can see that playing on real world politics: the worst people are the ones who are eager to sacrifice entire populations for the benefit of themselves (think Nocolas Maduro, Venezuelan president, currently causing an humanitarian disaster on the country just because he doesn't want to give up on power). Compare that to people like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was given power as Roman dictator to defeat a couple of rival tribes and, task done, immediately resigned from power and went back to his farm.

Morality isn't a real thing. It's an arbitrary set of rules, different to each person, and usually with religious roots. It doesn't really exist. You can't sense it in any way. Its just an idea and ideas change.

In the grand scheme of things, feeding the homeless is no 'better' than murdering them because 'better' suggests there's a definite, indisputable measure of morality, which there isn't because morality changes.

Actions therefore can only be judged on how they help the species as a whole. Killing is thought of as 'wrong' and yet nobody bats an eyelid over the amount of killing we're doing in the Middle East to defend truth, justice and freedom and all that jazz.

There are no absolutes. There's no such thing as pure good or pure evil. They're synthetic constructs. Raping a child has some good elements because it brings pleasure to the rapist. You may find that repulsive, but you can't deny it. Making people happy is always seen as an admirable quality to moralfags, right?

There are entire philosophical schools that disagree with you (and Nietzche) on that.

...

prove the nazis raped anyone
you can't, leftist faggot

Why do people play RPGs?

Because they're bad at action games. I don't know, that's a really good question. People who play jrpgs should actually kill themselves.

Morality is a thing, and you can sense it. Thats where the phrase "A sense of right and wrong" is all about.

Morality is subjective, and doesn't stand on its own merit, only what people attribute to it.

Morality can also come to be as a matter of consensus. Its why we even have laws or a general sense of right and wrong to begin with.


thread goes full circle. Bravo.

A hero is someone who does courageous and admirable deeds. A warlord can be the hero of his country and the villain of another. What is considered heroic depends on the morals and culture of a society. Killing a bunch of animals can be seen as evil from one country since the animals were mearly killed for sport and never even bothered the man. However it's heroic in another because they weren't easy to take down.

It's like how a protagonist doesn't have to be good. They can be a villain but that doesn't make him the antagonist (in some cases the protagonist can be the antagonist too).


This is the kind of shit he's talking about. You guys immediately assumed he was an edgelord because he doesn't see the point of only doing good things ever. That doesn't mean he's the opposite of a saint. Morality isn't black and white. Sometimes the best choice is the selfish one. Sometimes the choice that saves the most people in the long run will seem cruel in the now. Sometimes assholes just need to die so they stop shitting up the place, because throwing them into jail or beating them up constantly doesn't stop them from slaughtering people.

That's what people mean when they say it takes good writing. A hero can't always save everyone and the actions that are seen as heroic in the eyes of the majority may not be what's truly important.

...

A sense of right and wrong can't be measured empirically.
It is essentially worthless.

Why do people play action games

Why are moralfags even on this site

Go back to Cuckchan already

See now, that's where you're wrong. You're treating science like a religion that explains the world when that's not what it supposed to do at all.

Science is a means to measure and affirm truths, not invent them. Just because something does not exist according to scientific terms does not mean that it is nonexistent.

Knowledge is knowledge, no matter how it comes to be. To disagree with that is to deny reality.

...

...

you sound like a huge virgin loser?

There's plenty of people that are against that though, you mong.

wew lad

Because they like practicing and exercising difficult skills.

And by what scale do you measure the state of the human race? If the only important thing about an action is how much good it does the human race, then there must be a scale of measurement.

Can you measure love? Sadness?

Because unfortunately if you want exp and money, you have to pick up quests.
And most quests are "help me kill rats in my basement" because there's no such thing as good quest designers.

The chemical reaction responsible for those emotions can be measured though.

Children tend to enjoy moral centric protagonists. It appeals to the moral policeman freshly instilled in their young brain. Older audiences tend to enjoy characters who are reflective of real people, characters who are morally ambiguous or at the very least are logically fleshed out.

Adults who cling to black and white heroes are essentially overgrown children. It is likely they own every silly piece of plastic Nintendo has spawned and think the NX is an innovation.

Occupying armies have sex with the subjugated populations. It doesn't matter who they are or what they fight for.

yeah but spec ops the line was shit

>>>/swc/

This explains so much about this thread

Yah man, I only enjoy mature characters for mature people such as myself. That's why the 90s were so good they had badass and c0ol characters like the Punisher

I don't want contribute off-topic stuff, but i'm itching for a discussion after reading Nietzsche for months practically every day.

humanity is just another spook.

They're called values user.

Values, not morality. Morality implies proper behaviour, as if there was anything proper in the first place.

The rats in the basement are just the way to get the player to enter combat. Basically a game that just lets players play the fucking game without a bullshit story involving morality would skip all of these stupid problems.

Heh, an absolute truth, huh? You the type of person that would say "Power always corrupts?"

...

...

But after that it doesn't get any better.
Most quests in rpgs are good-character oriented.
Compare the amount of "kill raiders and save puppies" quests to "loot temple and desecrate the altar" quests in rpgs.

I still don't understand what those spooks memes are about.

dank Stirner meme's aside, it's seriously worth a read and destroyed any value I had of states.

The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner, a huge FUCK YOU to the young hegelians who couldn't shut up with their ideals. I highly reccommend it.

...

It's an easy read.

dflund.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf


I did and you fell for the /lit/ memers.

Ahh yes. I have a bunch of Stirner's work on my shelves, but never got around to reading it.

...

Better XP and better writing
Devs can't write evil characters to save their lives

Keep liking whatever you like, my property. :^)

we have a fucking winrar here, better than myself as i'm still working through it, in audiobook form and the librivox recording of it is half good until some FUCKING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE FUCKER RUINS HALF OF THE FUCKING BOOK

Epic meme, lad. I only know that somewhere on the shelves there is something that he wrote. And I could and probably should read, but too little time

So he only wrote one book? Ok, what's the big deal then.

If you unironically like Stirner, you may as well stop being a pussy and go full Buddhist.

I knew I wasnt alone
>evil races
not all of them are evil

Should've been fairly obvious from the start. OP pretty much nailed it in the first post anyway.

No, it's a fucking video game. You could claim that any video game character type is making up for insecurity or inadequacy, because it's somebody playing as a character who is not exactly like themselves.

In RPGs, you play a character that makes for an interesting plot progression.

But it doesn't matter anyway, because you're just taking the piss regardless.

...

I love how a Christian manbaby and mediocre talent who was terrified of sex and women put forth the rallying cry of manchildren everywhere to justify their stunted maturity.

I really can't say much of how much I like Stirner. I do subscribe to his thoughts on power, propety and fixed ideals. But some other things I've read out of the ego such as his views on revolutions irk me. Egoism will not just begin through a silent transformation. Also I couldn't be a bhuddist due to how much I love my passions and desires, my Nietzsche showing what would art be without passions and desires? I remember reading that Stirner advocates something like stifling the passions for some reason but I can't remember what.

He wrote quite a few, did some translations. Did a rebuttal against the young hegelians criticism of his work. Even Karl Marx didn't publish his massive critique of The Ego and His Own due to not wanting to end up getting rekt like the others.
The Ego was important as it was a huge furthuring in individual anarchist and eogist thought.

You're cute.

I know shitty writing when I read it. Even Tolkien (a massive moralfag Christcuck) hated Lewis' work.

...

...

Can't argue with those trips.

The fact that video game manchildren use that quote as an excuse to justify catching Pokemon well into their 30's is exactly how I am so familiar with its usage.

...

...

I hope you know that pursuing and being obsessed with maturity is in itself immature.

Vide games are inherently for children though.

Well there goes that theory

Who's obsessed? I call it as I see it. Moralfags are immature.


Not all.

please tell us what videogames we should only play when we hit the big 30

Vid related on the Judge Dredd comment.

F/SN doesn't touch on morality, it focuses specifically on heroism, what it means to be a hero, and so forth. The closest it comes to morality is in presenting alternative viewpoints that lead to different conclusions; for example, Gilgamesh, listed as Chaotic Good, who is still willing to purge most of the planet because it will allow the strongest among them to survive and thrive.

KOTOR 2

...

what?

only one game, nah thanks

What said.

...

...

This is the best essay ever written on this topic

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-if-theres-no-such-thing-as-chaotic.html

People who enjoy moralfag characters / stories are fundamentally immature though. There's no room for debate about this. You are enjoying literal childrens fiction.
"Moralfags" are largely one-dimensional. They never stop to think about what they do, to ponder the meanings of right, wrong, good, and evil. They blindly maintain an arbitrary stance, and never display any hesitation in action. By this, they are unrealistic and unengaging, because they are not human.

The only ways to reconcile this tired archetype is to present situations where the moralfag is either proven to be a fanatic, and thusly becomes a villain or goes insane when their feeble perceptions collapse, or is forced to deeply reconsider his/her naive position for a more guarded, perhaps even hostile, stance.

If you don't agree entirely with Stirner, please stop selectively using his memes. Everytime someone ironically uses spook, an unironic mouthbreather will start using it.

My point was that if you seriously believe that everything but your ego is an illusion, you are one step away from being a Buddhist in that everything is an illusion.

His canon alignment is Chaotic Good. It says it right on his character sheet.

Christianity isn't jewish.

its a slow day


maybe the nips dont know shit about alignments

And herein lies the death of the male species.

...

You're so cool and mature with your wisdom, user.

Why don't you go out and rape a bunch of women to spread your progeny, if you've got it all figured out? Anyone who doesn't treat other people horribly is either a fanatic or a villain waiting to happen, after all.

...

Dude, you're acting really immature right now.

Is it 2006 again?

Nope, with the le edgy memers it's 2013.

woah-ho bruv, even I could not go there. I did say I haven't finished the book yet. but damn, does he really go there?

Also, I didn't use it ironically. Even Stirner himself calls humanity a spook. Is not a spook just a fixed idea?

That was before has was dipped in all the evils of the world.
But the guy had such a massive ego, that even that couldn't destroy it.

Also, how do you classify someone who does an "evil" act as a mercy? Seeing it as good?

Mask of the Betrayer
Age of Decadence

I play a moralfag because I like to make the people around me happy and I enjoy standing up for and protecting people, both in game, and in real life.

You can always change, edgelords. Being good's pretty fun.

And yet nobody does it for you.

...

Wow, user, I didn't know you knew that other user. Tell us how you know each other, it must be an interesting story.

Don't want or need them to. I am my justice.

I raped his boipvssy

...

He starts off the book with "All Things Are Nothing To Me", what did you expect?

And most people use the term spook incorrectly. It isn't a way to win any argument, but Stirner's own explanation of Plato's realm of forms.

Why do people play RPGs?


This genre needs to die

I guess I expected it to be more in terms of his value of them, not as in literally nothing.

It isn't a way to win an argument, I would agree. But it is at least the beginning of one.

i only got into philosophy a few months ago pls no bully

...

Because people wanna have good opinions of themselves.
Shitty persons irl but at least they can pat themselves on the back when they get home.

I actually feel awesome when I save the day.

Love me sum underage

I usually play virtuously until I nab the benefits from being good (usually better than being "evil") and then I kill everyone.

fuck you

Just yesterday replaying Deus Ex for the 21st time, got the sewer key from Chad and then I slaughtered everyone in ze bunker.

Maybe you should try getting a job

The way most use Stirner is to declare that everything is an illusion but themselves and then to say that whoever that they're arguing with is a spook or has spook ideas. The person saying this can then justify himself as right and the argument can't go anywhere. This is why Stirner is popular among leftists around here, it allows them to take any stance they want. Modern day sophists basically.

I can't bring myself to be a bad guy. Even in a videogame.
Plus they're often biased as fuck in terms of rewards :
Being evil often procures you a large amount of resource instantly but being Good gives you more rewards on the long term such as new equipement or companion or even more resources but later.

I'm less of an "ally of justice" and more of an "enemy of evil".
I don't care if I get hailed as a hero or cursed as the exact opposite — I just like seeing scumbags get what they deserve.

There's no greater pleasure than listening to the wails of evil tyrants, the squeals of "holier-than-thou" cultists who treat everyone else like pigs or the pleas for life of those who murder for sport.

Some would say I'm edgier than OP, but fuck if I care, this shit's too fucking good.

I just can't help myself. Every time I start RPG, I think "This time I will be EEEVIL". Ten minutes later I am getting old ladies off the trees and helping kittens cross the road.

There's not enough enemies to use the Dragon Tooth on, better to keep it sharp with some fresh blood every step of the way.

Pretty much this. I don't feel compelled to give the beggar NPC money or to go around helping kids rescue their cats from trees, but I do enjoy killing villains.

The problem is that nowdays 90% of the budget go into graphics, scripting and planning, 5% go into writing and story. Most games with systems that make you choose to be good or bad still have the same outcomes since it's really fucking expansive to make basically two different games, one for the good route and one for the bad, so devs cut the difference and make it just one path where you make small choices with no real consequence on the main story line.

The other problem is that most games want the "good path" to be standard, so they really can't buff the bad choices too much or the player will feel cheated out of getting the most exp and stuff by being good.

I really hate this system, but for the masses who just want a rollercoaster ride instead of an interactive experience, this system is the most effective.

I remember reading on /lit/ or /philosophy/ that it's used on Holla Forums in that context, yeah. But why such the attraction? Isn't Stirner antithetical to leftism? Or are they seriously just calling shit spooks and that's that.
c-could you tell me a bit about what ideas you subscribe to?

Christianity isn't jewish, but you sure are.

Kill yourself you faggot cuck.

Go watch Daimajin.

How wrong you are.

Nigger, you can randomly go around killing but the games will do everything to lock you out of stuff if you dont do the quests

to be fair, the last man stabbing would be the true king

"shall surely be put to death" is in regards to homosexuality if you actually look at the full quote

The Old Testament is ancient jewish religious law put in place by Pharisees, not Christian beliefs. It's literally just historical reference.
The New Testament is the Christian theological "rule book."

Please share with me the great rpgs you've played, they must be quite classic.

Vid related, it's
SO SATISFYING
to slaughter peeps in vidya.

Later

Cuckstianity is the biggest evil and mistake in history.
It's a bigger threat to whites today than jews are.

When you can't win an argument through logic and don't want to change your beliefs, you use logical fallacies. That's how you get people who have never read Stirner using his terms to justify what they believe.

Essentially you're either an Aristotelian or Platonist, and it's hard to not be Platonist around here.

I'm going to assume that you're just ignorant and completely innocent of any understanding of classical theism.

That explains a lot actually.


If you like misinterpreting people morals code by making stupid assumptions and conclusions.

Because "evil" characters are written as puppy-kicking, cartoon villains.

.t Moshie

Good choices offer more rewards in the game and usually more quests
It's not hard to comprehend

...

...

I'm still really interested in what you personally believe, please do tell.

Seriously, all of this stuff is so new to me, and after my first exeperience with Nietzsche (who seriously destroyed many of my ideals and morality itself for me) I've become infatuated with philosophy in general. I'm just glad to talk to someone about this stuff after months of silence.

literal autism

...

Your reply isn't.

...

The man was an edgy faggot. It baffles me how anyone can take his ideas seriously.

kira is not lawful evil. he is more true neutral since all he wants is a quiet life

I wish I could die in my sleep

OP is just looking for people to bait, you can move on.

no shit

Whoever made that screencapped post has either never read the Bible nor has any understanding of it, or trying their best to be willfully ignorant.

The Bible does not say "Thou shalt not kill." The words are "Thou shalt do no murder." Murder is not the same as execution as punishment for a crime, and the Bible contains no commandment against capital punishment.

Also, unlike the Koran, which is supposed to be the literal word of God, the Bible is a collection of stories and letters, written by different people at different times, and no one who knows the slightest thing about Christianity will claim otherwise.

Back on cuckchan when moralfaggotry was on the rise (yes it did go on the rise cuckchan did used to be edge heaven its just fact) moralfaggots just whined and cried and posted infantile stuff like "you're no ally of justice *kills you*" and so yeah Akagi did end up having actual rational points because moralfaggots portrayed themselves as so immature that any other stance was reasonable in comparison.

And by moralfaggotry I don't just mean "be a good guy" I mean liberal "my wife's son" pacifist levels of moralfaggotry. Whether or not you agree with the left you have to admit that the political left thrives on moralfaggotry and shaming people into being good.

So yeah, be good. But don't be a liberal about it. Be sane. And that's hard to define. Sometimes sane means curbstomping civilians.


When do you even think communism started?

Because video game RPGs taught their players that acting like a selfless hero will give them greater rewards than being a chaotic evil bandit, e.g. in BG1/2 you will always get higher XP and better item if you finish quests in the "good" way, whereas evil characters become "underfed" if they do what they are naturally supposed to do.

"Age of Decadence" often (but not always) does the opposite, and I like how some people are unprepared for that; I read a Steam forum post some time ago about this guy raging how he did not receive a reward for helping an isolated village with their bandit problem, and that a good hero should be rewarded, to which one of the game developers replied that a good selfless hero should not ask for a reward in the first place and that he got what he asked for.

Deism is the closest word I can use to define what I believe. It's the only alternative to nihilism that I could find.

I just don't find doing evil things to be very fun.

...

You couldn't even close a door from the outside if it wasn't a VN sequence.

That isn't even close to what happened.
Akagi just complained about Kenshiro all day and the opposition were people who supported Kenshiro's brutal treatment of villains. The libcucks were on Holla Forums who hated Kenshiro because capeshit portrays murdering villains as te worst crime in the universe.

No it doesn't. It relies on shaming people into feeling good, which is different from doing good. Campaigning for abortion feels good, but abortion is in fact an evil. Supporting sex change surgery feels good, but ultimately does harm to the very people it is supposed to benefit. The typical leftist has a complete, almost neurotic obsession with feeling like a virtuous man, whilst completely ignoring the sacrifices and difficult decisions which are necessary to actually be a virtuous man.

You hijacked 4chan history to whine about liberals. That isn't what happened. Akagi's arguments were against good guys in fiction and none of it had to do with any political left on either side. SJWs weren't even a big thing at the time, we're going back about nine or ten year ago.

nah good is easier by far.

The Left always argues for relative standards for morals, beauty, and decency.

And indeed a good hero shouldn't ask for a reward. Just go get suplementary experience and gold by hunting or some shit.

I just want to make innocent regular people happy and torture the scum. Is that too much to ask for?

Keep pretending.

You can argue that all day, but in essence you're saying the same thing as I would. I should have added some quotes around "good". They think they do good, they think they shame into people being good, but they are just feeling good with no retards for facts. So you're not wrong, but not completely right either if you see it from their perspective.

Then why do images like and pic related exist? Please at least pretend there were 2 sides to the argument and both sides were retarded. No I didn't hijack shit and you only think I am "whining" about them because you refuse to realize their influence.

Yeah and their hivemind standards are absolute until they change. And they always change. See how they are trying to make pedophilia normal.

It's a clear indicator you have some degree of emotional and intellectual immaturity.

Go tip fedoras or play with katanas in your mature games like DmC or some shit.

could I ask you to explain a bit more? did nihilism hit you a bit too hard?

If I were to believe in any, Deism would definitely be the choicest choice.
Scratch that, why a single creator? Why even attribute anything to outside our universe? Doesn't a creator imply something as we know things to be? How can people even make such assumptions that there is something?

However, I've been looking for a word that describes a non interventionist creator, thanks.

I don't see what those images have to do with liberals at all. It was entirely based around fictional characters and had fuckall to do with liberals. You're aware the side that opposed Akagi were literally in favor of "bad guys" being brutally tortured and killed by an incorruptible and morally pure avenger right? Nobody mentioned pronouns or what bathrooms to use or anything of that nature.

I'm gonna watch Kaiji in a few minutes
What I'm in for ?

Silly question, but killing bandits, butchering them and then offering the meat to the hungry without telling them they are eating human flesh yet they need the food is evil?

It is possible to be a cannibal paragon?

Oh christ its one of those people who twist and turn everything in order to fit it into their perspective and change arguments. Ignoring reality and fixating on specifics that don't relate.

You summed yourself up perfectly.
Nothing you mentioned has any fucking basis in what was really going on you deranged fuck.

Please just stop.

...

How is abortion evil?

To paraphrase a movie I saw a few days ago, it's easy to be good as you describe it when you don't need a reward. If you're poor or needy then it becomes a much more interesting decision.

Once again speak for yourself.

This exactly. Playing the 'good' path should always be more difficult. Situations should be set up so that the 'evil' choice is always more tempting to the player, so that taking the good choice requires some sort of restraint or sacrifice. This is more of a reflection of reality, in which the wages of virtue are often spiritual, and the wages of sin material. A game can feature all manner of unrealistic things, like magic and dragons and all the rest of it, but if its representation of morality and its consequences is completely out of touch with real life then the words 'good' and 'evil' become meaningless within it.


What you're saying makes no sense, I think partially because you're mixing up two different vocabularies.

Please stop projecting.

You started talking to me, not the other way around.

From their perspective they think they are doing good. So from their perspective they are shaming people into being good.

But of course, if you look at it they're not doing good. Like you say. So you're right and wrong at the same time.

his name was Akagi

he shitpost with pics of that animu guy who plays mahjong for blood or something

a rather inferior Akagi compared to pic related

Stop trying to fit in so hard you fucking faggots. I'm amazed at the subtle attempts to do this so early on didn't stick.

Why are moralfags always cringey fagadin LARPers?

What you're saying still makes no sense and has literally no basis in what really happened with Akagi on 4chan. Akagi's grief was solely with fictional characters in video games and anime. The opposition to him was the same. You sperging out about liberals has literally no relevance beyond, as I mentioned, the cucks on Holla Forums who hated Kenshiro for killing bad guys.

See >>10716179

Thou shalt kill thyself, you stupid fedora-wearing faggot, at least quote the passage right.

No buddy that's still you and only you. Clearly you weren't there or your brain is so legit fucked up from the liberal boogeyman you're spewing revisionist history.

No, you were a looting, slaving bastard in either case. Let's just call one lawful's I-wanna-preserve-something-to-rule versus the other chaotic I-wanna-see-the-world-burn option.


Edgefags are worse.

Talk about inadequacy

See

What a waste of dubs on your dumb ass.

You never get tired of being proven wrong, do you?

Are you HandJobs, perchance?

Stop posting you massive fucking retard. Just go. Get out. Leave this place.

See

Most of this thread agrees with OP though.

Can't beat chaotic selfish neutral

...

>Wouldn't roleplay as a good aligned necromancer
>Wouldn't like to roleplay as an Outlaw Star character.

It's like you guys hate fun.

There's no point in being nihilistic, so why would you ever be one.


I only make that assumption since it's going to eventually be possible to simulate reality so well that one wouldn't be able to tell whether they were in a simulation or not. It's only logical to then say that the real "reality" is a simulation as well, whether it's on a computer, some demon dreaming it, or whatever hypothesis you can come up with. Alan Watts had some good thoughts on this, saying that life is a game where the first rule is that it isn't a game, it's serious. Ted Kaczynski had some thoughts on this as well in his manifesto. This is a pretty good documentary on him.

Different cultures, different people, different ethics. Humanity as a whole has done everything you can imagine. And felt fine with it as well. Cannibalism, rape, murder, genocide. All these things and more, things you and your simplistic child like black and white view of the world decree as unethical and immoral, have been, and currently, and will continue to be viewed as perfectly fine by various cultures, groups, and individuals.

Humanity is a kaleidoscope of gray, and refuses to be classified by your binary rule set.

I think that is the point of playing some evil shitbag that's little-to-no-better than an animal: you get to role play someone that isn't completely shackled by consequence for a few hours. There's really nothing wrong with being an asshole in a playthrough of an RPG.

What pisses me off is when someone playing this role gets the shit kicked out of him by the game's response, his response is to get online and complain about it. I killed two hostages in a mission and the game's response was to send in a SWAT team with tear gas and assault rifles to mow me down. THIS GAME IS FOR MORALFAGS!

Holy shit, I can't believe someone is this retarded.

As I said, both sides of the argument were retarded. And some moralfags went so hard on retardation that even Akagi seemed reasonable by comparison.

Sounds like the reason 4/co/ turned into Redwood-land: "How dare you write a hero that murders bad guys?!?" can understandably transition to "How dare you write a hero that doesn't respect someone's proper pronouns?!?"

>role playing as a good lich
And we found the guy that makes the interesting characters.

You're aware the pro-Kenshiro people were the moralfags right? You are aware Akagi despised Kenshiro specifically because of his virtuous and righteous altruistic nature right?

The problem with playing an evil character for fun is that there is nothing to do as the creators are too lazy to actually make an evil version of the storyline.

Besides, playing as the evil guy is only fun to a certain point. It's fun to create chaos and destruction, or just to manipulate things most often in strategy games but if it's a game where the story has any relevance, you will realize, that you won't really interact with any likeable characters in any interesting ways. Expect for rape This in turn can make everything very dark. And that's okay, because dark themes in storytelling can be done well, but if you don't have anything to slightly break up the mood, then most of the time, the audience will begin to get tired because your atmosphere is too unbalanced.

There are a few ways to counteract that but the three I see the most used are:

For example, giving the villain protagonist any likeable traits, like a code of honor. If a villain isn't a complete psychopath/sociopath then it's still possible to make the audience sympathize with him and surround him with likeable characters.

If the villain protagonist has enough style to him, the audience might like him no matter what, just because he is cool.

What Overlord used, humor makes the audience take everything that's happening less seriously and lightens up the atmosphere a bit.

Do I need a reason?

What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?

self sacrifice is meme created by evil people to get gullible idiots to be their "heroes"

And what is flesh compared to the will that drives it?

There's literally no reason to pick anything other than true neutral.

...

I think that only really fits stories where you're out to save the world. In stories like that, the undertone is you're working to keep evil from prevailing, so you being written as evil is relatively difficult for storytelling. You have to either play it straight, where you're competing with the antagonist in winning some gambit, or play the character as some "ends justify the means" type, where slaughtering innocents is fine if it means saving the day. When you have to include these plots along with the "good" and "neutral" plots, a vidya can get logistically cumbersome and teams without enough talent as in, a lot of them can't write a story that diverse. And this is before you take into consideration the fact that the PC tends to have an extremely high degree of agency in the game. When that's the case, you can't railroad your players when making open world games.

And, really, I wasn't talking about the game's story, but how scripting and AI is designed to react to how you behave, such as sending more powerful enemies to outright kill you if you start doing morally indefensible things.

...

Typical pisstians.
pic related - it's you!

Kek, typical christcuckery.


It's a shame when developers (not in this case) actually listen to guys like that and change their whole game.
Or when the (((shareholders))) decide to do that.

Games are written incredibly badly. You get a choice of being a saint or high school bully taken to the extreme. I find high school bully to be the more annoying archetype. It's that simple.

I didn't realize RT commentators posted here.

Jesus Christ, even as someone with a huge lolicon fetish I have to think of that as a fucked up way of thinking.

Morality's a thing that's ingrained into human behavior, we can feel when things are wrong.

As far as why people play as heroes in videogames? Probably because being a hero is just fun, it's a power fantasy just like anything else in vidya. Riding in on your white horse to right wrongs and save the world is exciting and feels good.

Being evil is something that's allowed and even encouraged in many games. But going out of your way to pretend like there's something wrong with a person for wanting to help people is you just being a pathetic fucking edgelord.

People who play as edgy murderers who are le so mature and intelligent are just as infantile as the sort of people who want to play straight heroes, but at least the straight heroes don't fucking whine and complain about that shit.

ITS GOOD TO BE GOOD
MAUAAHAGHAGAGHAGH

see

the game you're looking for is soul nomad and the world eaters

You ever played a chaotic neutral bard?
I had to get a little creative, but all my songs were me talking shit.

I did once. I rolled a bard named Sue and all of my songs were Johnny Cash's entire catalog rewritten to better fit D&D. Got two other guys to take points in perform for the hell of it.

He's just a hard communist. They love moral subjectivity. Marx peddled it like candy.

as lawful good you can beat up criminals because they're breaking the law and you're lawful, and if they aren't breaking the law and you know they're evil, you can still kill them because you're also good

its the best alignment

Tyrantfag getting triggered.

Either you've never done traditional, or your favorite words are "alignment check".

Nigger you're the most retarded person in the thread. It's safe to say you're one of the salty tumors saying everything you disagree with is liberals/marxists/communists in every thread and getting butthurt when people tell you to fuck off.

Just kill yourself, you pseudo-intellectual, aspergic, neckbearded virgin. It's fucking boring and you haven't taken the hint several times now. I'm actually starting to think the majority of this type of shitposting across the board is actually solely you, given your intense desire to continue being autistic.

...

This is the response you give every time someone tells you to fuck off in more than two words.

Fuck off goon. I hope people start taking note and calling out your shit regularly.

That's a nice falical argument

wew lads, I have my work cut out for me

Nice reaction image, here's one for you

What you're talking about is the stigma that comes from thinking about what other people with think about you if you do something; We don't actively just have sex on the streets because it's considered indecent by most, which causes anxiety in our brains and makes us nervous, which can some times be grown to be a highly erotic thing; people get off on having sex in public because they either like to be looked at or love the thrill of doing something that could be considered uncouth
You literally just proved his point, and mine too
You just said the same thing twice, that morality comes from what a majority think is right or wrong. This idea is inherently fallacious because it comes from what a bunch of people think is right, not what is actually objectively correct in the world; killing is objectively wrong because we are objectively here to survive and pass on genes; killing animals is not objectively wrong because a) they could endanger our species if they are allowed to and b) because they wouldn't think twice about doing the same thing to us.
Also go back to reddit, your post reeks

I don't even agree with some of this, it's just that all of you faggots don't know how to actually argue your points well enough and rather than play devil's advocate I'd like to share my own views
I do agree with this though, the times change and what is considered good by one or many may not be to another one or many, hence why wars start. On top of that, we war over land, money, power which leads to the first two; where is the line drawn between morality and nature?
Now this is objectively wrong. Feeding someone who needs food is not inherently wrong, because objectively survival is key. However, it is wrong on the level of bringing down others; if you could kill 1 to improve the lives of thousands, the objectively better option is to kill the 1. No one wants to be the 1, but no one will ever have to be because everyone is a moralfag who thinks even one death isn't worth the life of 8 billion
Stop right there. You are clearly blue pilled and just an edgy kid.
Synthetic is not the word you want to use there, dumbass
This is also wrong. Rape is bad because it's usually not done to create a healthy child, it's usually just to get your rocks off. Hedonism is not objectively good for the planet because doing whatever you want IS what will kill everyone; doing what is objectively right is not always what makes you feel good or what makes anyone else feel good, it's what makes our species and survival greater in girth

Your own survival, not the bums and not anyone else. You're wrong.


In a post scarcity society / post apocalyptic scenario rape might be absolutely necessary for the survival of the species. But I guess you wouldn't do it because muh fee fees.

The only thing that could stump this is quads
Kek, or as some pronounce it, Kuk, give me quads for this one post, I'd be content with just this.
lolk
top wew
raping a child would not prove effective since her eggs are not developed enough to produce, again, a healthy child; the lolicon mindset is actively dangerous to our species because it promotes the idea of having sex with a body type we like rather than the body of a woman who can harbor a child. Landwhales and skeleton women are equally as bad as mates, which is why they're so commonly found disgusted and only picked up by the filth that likes to endanger their species.

It's a role playing game. The player is playing whatever role they want to. Playing a hero doesn't mean that you're insecure the same way that that playing a villain doesn't mean that you're an edgelord blasting avenged sevenfold while kicking down ant hills.

Playing a moralfag is fun if you do it realistically and give your character some kind of fault. A PTSD-RAGE trigger, some sort of sexual deviance, a substance-reliance, etc. Sounds edgy I know, but moralfaggotry is more enjoyable when punctuated by moments of human flaws. My personal favorite is the drunk. Extreme moral/heroic alignment until his booze supply runs empty, whereupon the character falls into a depressive, cynical state.

Oh, and an example of the sexual deviance would be crusaderbros' old favorite Pelinal Whitestrake, given that his buggering of the hoplites in their tents.

FTFO

FTFY just