Why is it uncool to be law aligned?
Why is it uncool to be law aligned?
because mug edgy maymay
Also, because most play games for the escapism, and most of them try to experience what it's like to be not like themselves (to a degree)
Which basically goes to show that most people are decent folks.
>implying any of the alignments aren't uncool
>lawful
Tryhard
>neutral
Pretentious
>chaotic
Edgy
No matter what you are someone is going to dislike it
>>neutral
>Pretentious
I wouldn't call it pretentious, I'd just call it boring. The one thing worse than having an opinion is having none
It isn't. That is the lie that they want you to believe. Because they don't have the balls to be lawful they ridicule anyone who tries to be in order to make themselves feel better about how pathetic they are.
Because its boring and restrictive. Pic unrelated.
>neutral is always complete apathy or lack of opinion
DELET THIS
I think user means neutrals pride themselves in not being this or that. The agnostics of any debate.
people are afraid of being seen as lawful stupid, as its too easy to fall into. They can't do a good lawful character and thus ridicule anyone who attempts
A good lawful character can be done, it can just be hard to execute perfectly
Because retarded children view doing the right thing as a chore and doing the wrong thing as a reward due to being raised by marxists who constantly promote moral relativism.
Because the law is an ass
Lawful good is hot. A strong virtuous man who stands up for what is right is the biggest turn on imaginable
>not going above and beyond the law in the name of what's right
I pity you
Because it's not ok to be an authoritarian.
It isn't the right of one person to decide what is right for everyone. If the law is wrong you can work within it to make the world a better place, anything else is a shortcut for those who lack a true understanding of Justice.
>If the law is wrong you can work within it to make the world a better place
There are many points in history where this approach has been proven to just get you killed
It's better to die doing the right thing than live doing the wrong thing.
It's too restrictive on behavior. Neutral or Chaotic Good, and you can achieve good through the means YOU think are right, and adapt to the situation. Meanwhile, Lawful Good has to obey the laws and work within them at all times, compromising their ability to act within people's best interests or do what's right.
>It isn't the right of one person to decide what is right for everyone.
Moral relativism is incompatible with concepts like Good in the first place.
Tell that to the White Rose movement.
>imply that beeing legal means 'lel, i have to respect the laws' meme
Being legal means following a code of honor that as an unlimited value. If that code clashes with 'country laws' only one in the end could stand
Because for every Superman or Vimes, there's also some retard who tries to jam 40k-tier fanaticism into settings where it doesn't fit, essentially playing villain characters with the paper thin excuse of "but I'm on the side of the law". If DEUS VULT is your only motivation then your character is bad and you should feel bad.
>Neutral or Chaotic Good, and you can achieve good through the means YOU think are right
Depends on the means. Neither does evil things.
Also chaotic characters don't follow rules at all. How is that any less restrictive than being lawful?
Yes, True Neutral IS complete lack of opinion. Gray areas don't exist in a world with tangible morality
Also wrong. Lawful is putting the community's decision above your own. Chaotic is the opposite. Muh Code of Conduct is just as much a meme as muh Law of the Land
Chaotic doesn't mean you have to break rules, being required to disobey every order or rule is in itself a rule. True chaotic is do whatever the fuck you feel like.
How does lawful evil work then?
You use the communities decisions (e.g. laws) for your own selfish needs.
I think allignment rely on personal interpretation. To me chaotic is 'the end justify the mean' kind of morale, the lawful is the opposite of that
>Why is it uncool to be law aligned?
Because the people who make laws usually are above them.
Problems arise when A) alignments are cosmic powers, that decide the outcome of spells etc. and B) alignments are important for certain classes, most notably paladins (both in their need to be LG and their ability to Smite Evil). Personal interpretation leads to conflict at the table because yours and the GMs might differ
Then that's not putting the community above yourself, that's abusing the situation by finding mutual ground between your needs and the needs of others, which is a more neutral thing.
Alignment isn't just how other people will perceive your character, it is the basis of your character's decisions. Your actions should start, not end, at your character's alignment.
>Your actions should start, not end, at your character's alignment.
Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptive.
>Then that's not putting the community above yourself
I never said you put the community above yourself, so try again user
Of course what i mean is that allignment rely on interpretation but said interpretation as to be shared by the gm and the players for setting a game, thus setting a standard for game mechanics to work with
Mainly because the difference between chaotic and neutral gets almost completely glossed over, leading to Lawful and Not Lawful alignments. And Not Lawful doesn't offer any meaningful restrictions on player behavior, because you can do anything - even be selectively lawful - if you're Not Lawful.
having no opinion on something is still an opinion, user.
Harry Dresden, is that you?
But that's false. Right from the Pathfinder Ruleobok:
>Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light, I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end. Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.
How can you read that and not think Lawful Evil isn't the best alignment?
Because
>fuck the police
Cant be, the threads not on fire yet
I disagree. For one, obviously you can't do good (or anything) while you're dead. As for "legacy" or "martyrdom", it depends on how you die. Sure, being publicly put through a horrific death straight from a guro manga would make you a martyr for the cause, but if nobody knows you're dead, then congratulations, you've accomplished nothing.
>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
this but unironically and irl
Isn't moral relatvism conenient for capitalists though?
Being a murderhobo is unlawful.
I'm playing a Lawful neutral character now. I like to surprise the rest of the party by objecting to their graverobbing or agonising over whether it is alright to break my oath to the obvious bad guy. Things they don't stop to think about.
Deferring to somebody else isn't cool. It's the very opposite of cool. Hell, Superman's even often not law-aligned because he'll break the law in a second to help somebody out and bucks authority often.
But not being cool isn't the same as being bad. You can be good and not cool.
Because bad writing and poorly conceived characterizations, the same reasons it's uncool to be chaotic.
That's not what Lawful means, man. This is alignments 101 shit.