Why are some people against playing a moralfag in a post-apocalyptic setting?

Why are some people against playing a moralfag in a post-apocalyptic setting?

Someone needs to keep order in a lawless land.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UrFDfenmuS8&t=4m25s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I actually appreciate it.
Its best if you have one or two moralfags in a team of 5-6
"Immortals" campaign going on and one of the party members is a moralfag in an otherwise grimderp to nobledark setting. Its a nice contrast.

Its also nice when you have a ton of ridiculous shit going on and one character can look around and say "no, we're not doing that"

>why are some
because opinions are different

some people want to own everything
some people want to save the world

Edgelords too cowardly to do shit in real life want their sad escape to a power fantasy.

>Party asked by empire to kill a garrison stationed outside of a forest
>forest is inhabited by monsters
>garrison is keeping the monsters contained
>If the monsters get out the empire has a reason to invade and take over the land

Everyone is on board with doing the job but extorting the empire, one party member wants to cause a peasant uprising

Nu-Veeky Forums only wants "complex" grey "morality", not good human nature.

Because being a moralfag is the worst thing possible to actualy keep order

>Because being a moralfag is the worst thing possible to actualy keep order
Dubs is correct here. You have to mediate between the ideal of humanity and the failures of it.
That means making compromises and hard decisions that don't feed your own ego, something moralfags cannot do

>boo hoo why isnt everything black and white

Is there anything sadder than when cowardly pussies try to hide behind "making the hard decisions" to justify their weakness?

How is doing the best a weakness?
If you had to kill one innocent to save your entire species you wouldn't do it? That's the problem with moralfags, they can only exist in prosperous societies where hardship is rare

I'm sure you understand what hardship is like, user.

>hard decisions that don't feed your own ego,
Except humility is a virtue, thus is moralfaggotry

Third worlder

to be fair:
1. most people join a post-apocalypse with the assumption that morality will be more on the grey side
2. with these assumptions in mind, they typically make a character compatible with such things
3. moralfag character prevents non-moralfag characters from doing morally grey stuff
4. non-moralfag players cannot protest this without being seen as 'that guy'

Why?

Because my friends stop wanting to hang out with me when I tell them we should use addictive synthetic drugs to keep a bunch of teenage girls addicted and dependent, and then start our own post apocalyptic sex ranch.

Instead they want to run around and be morally superior murder hobos

/v/ had a thread about this ages ago and I thought this was a great post about the state of bandits in Hokuto no Ken's post-apocalyptic wasteland.

I once played in a during apocalypse game, mad max one style. And I was a one of two buddy cops from Miami. I was the green by the books rookie, and my friend was the grizzled cynical veteran.

Amoralfags will often resort to certain means that are considered reprehensible due to a misguided belief that they are somehow exempt from consequences and restitution, that they are above the onus of order and morality by becoming stuffed with pride and believe that everything they finish justified by the lure reason that it is themselves who perform the act.

A moralfag however would have cultivated within himself the virtue of humility and empathy, knowing full well that no man, not even himself is inherently exempt from the consequences of their actions, and as such they must choose to limit thier choices in life that avoid the hypocrisy of the vain and prideful. They must measure and weigh thier decisions, refusing to take the easy route of self-serving and egoistic denial of culpability, but instead must always accept the consequences and punishments for thier own free and willing choices. They do this for they know that they are not inherently better than other men, but rather all men are responsible for their own choices and actions. Empathy and humility become thier guides, for they know that the cost and debt they incur towards others is the same as if it were incurred towards them, and so they must develop a strong sense of self-sacrificing equity and and responsibility, so that they can never fall to the vain traps of hypocritical self-justification and denial that corrupts the souls of the amoral, who willingly blind themselves for thier hearts are too weak to endure the suffering such empathy and introspection would incure due to thier actions.

As such, the one who actually has to make hard choices is the moralfag, for only he understands the gravity of his situation and the consequences therein, whereas the amoralfag makes choices that are not hard for him, but rather serve to fuel his ego and sense of self-justification, which he tries manically to constantly feed like an addiction to dull the pain of his stunted empathy

>humility
>moralfaggotry
Pick one, and only one.

Considering its the basis of both most historic codes of ethics as well as the basis of most of the world's religions, and is still considered to this day one of the Seven Virtues, I'll go ahead and choose both anyway and deny your ignorantly false dichotomy

>the vain traps of hypocritical self-justification and denial
Why do you use the description of "moralfaggotry" to attempt to justify moralfaggotry?

I think you just don't understand the difference between a person with morals and a moralfag.

>Edgelords too cowardly to do shit in real life want their sad escape to a power fantasy.

Is that why capeshit from Pedowood is so appealing to americans?

Considering that most edgelord and amoral fools, the ones who primarily use the phrase the most, will use the phrase "moralfag" to refer to any individual with morals who tries to get them to stop being a massive cock, I'd say it's a fair assumption to make.

If not, then what would you say is the difference between having strong morals and being a "moralfag"? Because in my experience, the people who use that phrasing then to use them for the same thing

I prefer morally grey characters in my post-apocalyptic settings

I cant play a single game of Fallout without maximum good karma and making the world a better place

Based D. Good taste.

I have the same problem with Mass Effect.

was he more morally grey in the books? didn't really come off that way to me

t. movies only pleb

I didn't read all the books, but it was like
>There's a Vampire situation
>D shows up
>The female character wants to fuck him
>D barely survives dealing with the situation
>D leaves

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is so much better than the book it was based on.

what's wrong with black and white?

Because exactly that. The land is lawless. Some guys just want to play characters who aren't beholden to the law and forge their own path, and a world without law is the perfect opportunity to do it. Doesn't mean they absolutely won't save the little girl from bandits or that they absolutely will shoot up a town and take whatever they want. They don't want to be the paragon, they want to be the person.

This. The world isn't black and white, but why not hold black and white morality as an ideal worth striving for?

Because moralfags are unbearable in any setting OP. They are more annoying than paladins who literally preach about their morals.

This. I want the freedom to act as I wish. This shit is a power fantasy and escapism so of course I'm going to resent Jonny Do-Good trying to tell me that I can't eat the heart of my long hunted enemy or play some flavor borderlands/raider mob.
Not everyone wants to be the Hero

>saying "I am the paragon of morality, I am empirically right, anybody who stands against me is an amoral faggot and must be destroyed"
>not the pinnacle of arrogance

Oh but user. Might Makes Right. Power is the virtue of the just and failure is the weakness of the enemy. A moralfag PC is always right by virtue of being able to kill things

>Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is so much better than the book it was based on.
Oh yes, defnitely. The rocket actually firing into space, the subplot with Leila, both giving off a poignant but hopeful ending to the movie.
As for the book, the stuff with the brothers raping Leila is pointless and the ending to Meier and Charlotte is just a huge letdown of a payoff.
All in all, the movie is way fucking better and beautifully animated.
The first book is pretty damn nice tho. Raiser of Gales too.

>This world is no place for a paladin.

That's exactly why it needs one.

This user speaks the truth. There is nothing worse than edgelords who use "good is not nice" as an excuse to indulge their worst impulses.

Escapism has no.bearing on reality user

this is some grade a self important horseshit user

It's simplistic and completely unworkable in practice.

It fails to account for situations where an "evil" act was the lesser evil (stealing food or medicine, killing an abuser because they could not be convicted)

So, do you actually have a rebuttal, or are you just going to be a bitch and keep crying "No U!"

Why do you think the post is worth a rebuttal?
Where is your humility, user? Why do you think you SHOULD have a detailed post arguing your post, that may not even be your own words?

>"I am the paragon of morality, I am empirically right, anybody who stands against me is an amoral faggot and must be destroyed"
And where in the hell was that ever said? You seem to be projecting awfully hard there. Plus, you also failed to answer the question as well

>Why do you think you SHOULD have a detailed post arguing your post, that may not even be your own words?
Because that's how conversation, intellectual discourse, and debate work user. Without the ability to have ones ideas be properly scrutinized, dissected, and critiqued, improvement and introspection is impossible. Without the ability to introspect and consider ones flaws, humility cannot exist, and as such morality becomes stagnant, pointless, and does to self inflation and vanity. As such, without proper discussion, discourse, and the ability to consider ones own flaws and weaknesses, one can never learn how to actually improve and better themselves and become greater than previous. As such they lose the feeling of humility to help keep them in check, they fall to self aggrandisement and become stuffed with pride and vanity, and lose hold of their morality.

Morality cannot exist in a society where criticism and proper discourse and rebuttals are verboten or never given. Instead it just becomes nothing more than ego and one-upmanship.

>"I am the paragon of morality, I am empirically right, anybody who stands against me is an amoral faggot and must be destroyed"
Anyone who believes that is not someone with morality, but chances are is someone who is vainly amoral and lacks the ability to admit his faults and actually seek to improve, accept responsibility, or repent of thier wrong doings

If that "freedom" leads to consequences that you don't like will you complain? Because if you are a rapist cannibal raider someone is likely to see you as a threat that needs to be permanently removed to make the world safer. I often see your type of player get mad when anyone GM or player ties to point out your actions have consequences.

>i just want to fuck babies and cut their throats
>stop trying to stop me
>moralfags are so unbearable

Just because you're a cunt doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

So the US?

Because something like Buddhism could never exist in a 3rd world country

But are those not acts drawn from their own black and white moralities (the importance of life over the value of economy, the importance of Justice over the importance of laws)? Your definition of black and white is not the same as everyone's.

Aside from it being founded in one, and an appreciable number of practitioners live in the developing world.

Maybe they are both good approaches and the issue itself isnt, dare I say, black and white?

Not that user, but I am also wondering why you think this.

t. European caliphate

Whatissarcasm.jpg

T. the uninsured and dying

>It's simplistic
complex =/= good
>completely unworkable in practice
False, it is easily workable in a fantasy setting, for example:
>Orcs are evil
>why?
>they were made by an evil god to do evil things

Same.

D might help people being threatened by bandits or monsters if they happen to be on the way, but he's not one to stick around and babysit unless they pay him to.

100% true and correct.

Over simplified and boring. I'm fine with having black and white, but not just black and white. Without a moral spectrum then it's pulp trash, fine for a one-shot or short campaign but unrewarding in the long run. ymmv

Why is Kenshiro the go-to "moralfag" character when he's not even particularly "good"?
Roughly 90% of the people he killed wasn't out of some kind of crusade, but because they just happened to be hostile evil mooks physically located between him and his goal.
It's like calling Guts a moralfag because he kills a bunch of demons.

I dig this user.

May not be post-apoca but in a 5e game right now where the BBEG is certainly on the verge of it. Have my crazed drunkard taking a -4 for everything so that no living being has to die (traumatizing stuff happened in first couple of sessions). Feels good desu since it brings out a lot more challenges than just “drop X’s HP to 0 and call it a day”.
Kinda want to run pacifism in more games just to see how far it’ll go.

There is always another choice, give yourself fully and your life if you have to in finding that choice. Do not hide behinds the words that you had no choice or that you have to compromise your ideals. If you wanna moralfag then be ready to die for it.

...

What about communities of families of bandits?

Because being a moralfag makes you a Social Justice Warrior and nothing is worse than a Social Justice Warrior.

Simple=/=good as well.
>False, it is easily workable in a fantasy setting, for example:
And the example you gave is boring as shit.

Kenshiro isn't a moralfag any more than Raoh is a moralfag. The Hokuto brothers are the strongest people in the world, they all have very different ideas of what kind of place the wasteland should be, and except for Toki they all enforce those ideas by gruesomely murdering anyone who disagrees up to and including their own brothers

Can some post that screencap from /m/ when immoralfags tried shitting up the board, you know, the one with Kamen Rider, I am for all intents and purposes phoneposting and don't have it saved.

While I can't find it, this picture sums it up pretty well

playing a moral absolutist in a morally grey setting is like playing a chaotic evil assassin in a party of good guys

In the case of the Hokuto no Ken bandits, they didn't create families or proper settlements throughout the wasteland. The Fang Clan had a hideout, but they never seemed to produce their own resources or they were never seen raising their own families within its confines.

If the bandits had their own community, then it would be a different ball game. One community raiding another would be more like tribal warfare than simply scavenging to survive. A community that would subsist purely on scavenging would eventually collapse by itself.

>morally grey setting
what did the pleb mean by this

Can you post the tentai senshi sunred one?

I just wish we got to see a little more of Grove.

youtube.com/watch?v=UrFDfenmuS8&t=4m25s

Well said.

Because when some user originally started whining about moralfags Kenshiro is the example he used. That you view it as a mismatch is telling of how stupid the whining actually is.