I feel so left out (I'm on a different computer and I don't remember my password and only the other computer remembers sooooooooooooooooooo yeah) lol. Oh and Happy New Years everyone! :D
This is just the basic idea of doctor who. A man who has a time machine gathers companions throughout the past and future go on adventures throughout history and save the world a couple times. There are also aliens and a plot that I will not go into. You should at least look into it. Its very good.
Yup, started watching with Christopher Eccleston on the box, though I've always liked Tom Baker's eccentrics over the others ^_^
-Hears someone talking about Doctor Who-
Oh that sounds interesting.
-Before I even get home hear more and more about it-
Eh, fan base sure is..interesting.
-Friend bugs me to watch it, talks about tumblr posts on it, bugs me, bugs me, bugs me-
Well fuck watching this.
Long story short, fan base at my school ruined it for me. Basically turned into Fantards/Otakus over a British TV Show
Yeah, I have one of those Otaku/Dr. Who fans in my school who can't let the others have their peace. Kinda annoying, but I've gotten use to it :P
I have to.
Meaning, I try not to yell at them or debate punching them in the face.
It's hard though. It's so so hard.
No, he just suffers from ASPD, (AntiSocial Personality Disorder, common Psychopathy) the features of this, which he has, are, bouts of, or acts of insanity, joyfulness, lack of dedication to, or lack of morals in general, cool under pressure, calculated, overthinking, spontaneous, optimistic, potentially cruel, potentially unfeeling, never consumed entirely by passion or emotion, etc.
It's perfectly reasonable that he could be a psychopath. Being trapped in the world of the living while your friends get old and die for 900 years really does things to people.
I had no idea what it was about, so I looked up the episodes' synopsis, and I found myself greatly disappointed. Didn't know why it was so great to other people, so I said "I find the concept stupid."
People stopped talking about it, and we went on to other things.
Did I mention I hate anything close to Deadpool?
I think it's supposed to represent that those ones were more willing to resort to that type of violence.
Wait, you can read it? Tell me what they say! I was only able to read lawful good and chaotic neutral, true neutral, chaotic good, neutral good and lawful neutral, and maybe another if I sacraficed my posture...
Hmm, I suppose that would apply for the first season of Tenant, but not after that. (The first(?) episode was him drowning an entire race into death, which is what that image is referring to, I suppose...
Hmm, yeah, in the Trial of the Doctor (or an episode with a similair name), the 6th was tried since he committed genocide on a species to save another species.
Yeah, someone posted it and it hurled the thread into a derailed discussion about the principles D&D-style alignment, and Endmaster talking about how nobody on the site was actually evil.
-Time to derail the thread-
I think evil is a hard thing to do.
Mostly Chaotic Evil.
Chaotic evil is like, just sitting at home all day, throwing your shit at the wall and then killing anything that gets within ten meters of wherever you threw it.
-Begins to rerail-
So uh.Yeah
Naw, Chaotic evil just means that you aren't loyal to a distinct set of morals or laws. The Joker would be Chaotic evil, whereas Lex Luthor is more of a Lawful Evil kinda guy.
Besides, evil is easy to do, just kill a few kids and rape someone and suddenly you're the new Hitler! Start shooting people in a school, and you're a nightmare for a week, then everyone's gonna go back to watching The Voice and you hardly earn so much as a wikipedia article. Doing evil well is the hard part. For example, Doctor Who sucks at it, as is demonstrated by the chart above.
Either that or a lust demon like yourself (surprisingly) just can't muster up enough simple society-horrifying evil to match my psychopathy lack of morals.
I always viewed Chaotic evil as like, pure evil.
Meaning you can't have any friends, and you basically kill everything.
I wouldn't view the Joker as Chaotic, because I always viewed his chaos as more methodic instead of pure random.
Though he is a bit batshit insane.
I've always considered my self chaotic neutral/lawful evil.
Simply because I'm not a nice person 95% of the time, but I'm not a total shit bag.
But that still isn't evil in and of itself, evil is someone of bad morals who actively seeks to uproot a particular society, life, or series of lives, for his/her benefit, or for the benefit of their idea of the greater good, or the protagonist's idea of the greater good, but in an ideologically twisted fashion. Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful are simply methods of pursuing evil. If anything, Lawful is closer to pure evil, not in a Commissioner-Gordan-Style "[Batman] is the worst kind of criminal, because he thinks his actions are justified!" kind of thing, but if the lawful evil guy abandons the laws of good and follows his own morals, it's pure evil, as he's actually following the rules of evil itself, whereas chaotic and neutral are free to abandon their vicious tendencies when it suits them. Lawful is more likely to be the one who can't have friends, who's totally dedicated to evil, who basically kills everything, and abandons sadism to destroy any aspiring protagonist before he/she gets a second chance.
Hmm, "Neutral Neutral" is often called, "True Neutral", so following that logic would mean that Neutral Good and Neutral Evil are "True" as well.
And then you have Cthulhu and shit which are beyond alignments and are true neutral.
Yet they just kill everything.
"Cthulhu and shit" seeks to destroy something without consent, simply for their benefit, which is typically evil, but justified, since we are their predominant food source. Killing one of us to them pretty much effects their morality as much as swatting a fly that bothers you, so while we regard them as evil, they are actually all sorts of different alignments, but on a scale that we can't comprehend, the way flies probably regard us as the purest form of evil and dogs consider us their holy, righteous lords.
Which brings us to the thought that all morality is a matter of perception and point of view, which is why I technically do not believe that real evil exists.
... Not really, things that mindlessly destroy can't be good, and by causing harm to others because it feels like it is more evil than anything else :P.
If anything, this brings us to a separate issue of Sentient Life forms, and whether a 'fly' actually has any more emotions other than mindlessly wanting to mate, fear, and eat. Which I wouldn't really consider Sentient, and rather just Neutral.
Their minds, suposedly, are on a very different level of complexity to us, our minds are like that of a fly to them. Whereas flies are very simple, unintelligent, (I daresay edible...) and acceptable targets, which only hold one alignment, that is true neutral, due to their doing anything and everything they can to survive and reproduce. Now try to imagine a mind that is more complex than that, with eyes that can see in more than three dimensions. Obviously, they'd be able to comprehend more than two moral ideals and 3 methods of pursuing them, but it's easier for us to call them evil because they kill things, or neutral because from what we see of them, they are eating for survival. I'm sure any fly feels that any race that steps on them or "mindlessly" destroys them is something they'd find horrendous and monstrous, yet they can't fully comprehend that they're bothering this large being that holds a flyswattter, nor can they believe the fact that they are considered a protein-rich delicacy in some parts, and so they just try to survive and live in mortal fear of the infinitely more complex, "Evil" creature with the flyswatter. So it is with the Elder Gods, I would assume.
Not necessarily, lawful good is often regarded as "True" due to the laws set in place were predominantly for the benefit of everyone, being primary ideal of "good". So, therefore, someone who follows strict sets of values, laws, or rules as is typical of lawful usually equates to Lawful being the truest form of good. Neutral being True means your conscience revolves entirely around your plans to protect yourself and things you care about, and that good and evil are considered dangerous extremes. So you could do something really great, or really awful, and not be the least bit proud of or disturbed by your actions. In other words, True Neutral morals are borderline Sociopathic, and neutral morals are simply people who don't mind breaking the rules of their ideals once in a while, not the purest form.
Eh, I've seen in multiple places that Neutral good is described as the 'best' in the good category, simply because you will do what is right, not bound by rules, but not openly breaking them. In that way, it is True Good.
Not really, it just depends on your definition, while neutral good will do greater things and chaotic evil will commit more sins in the long run, lawful in either of those alignments are the truest by ideal.
Why though? I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but 'neutral' (IMO) means that you aren't bound by a code, but you won't get out of your way to break 'it'. It's purer by the fact that a Neutral Good/evil person will 'do' their respective alignment, and have nothing stopping them. A code, or a 'lust' for evil/good restrains someone. However, being neither, but simply being 'Good', not Lawful or Chaotic, would mean that you are simple [Pure] Good.
Cthulhu Neutral is best neutral.
Not really a thing, but the elder god type deals usually have no alignment and I love them to death.
Cthulhu has no neutral! Haven't you seen tvtropes' orange and blue morals? Cthulhu is chaotic necktie. He cannot be judged with good, neutral, and evil!
Some people, mostly me, consider Cthulhu a /TRUE/ Neutral.
Simply because he is not really from this world and is like, super space spooky squid man.
Like I said, Chaotic fucking NECKTIE. Cthulhu's twin brother written about in non-lovecraftian mythos, whom most consider to be one of the good guys is, in all reality, Lawful Bacon.
Neutral does mean that you aren't bound by a code, but in most cases it means you pretty much only break it when you're in danger, rather than just your ideals, although it is possible to do so. Many neutral good characters follow their own laws to a degree, which tend not to match up very well, or exactly to the ones held by the public, unless they're true neutral, in which case their only law is that good and evil are for extremists. Chaotic evil is the evil that really gets things done, as they are REALLY bound by no code, and do whatever suits or pleases them.
I wouldn't consider him Chaotic, was it simply because he was a svelk and they are all naturally dicks?
You can never trust a fucking synopsis for anything! The wikipedia for TKAM sounded like shit, and yet, look at the book! The synopses for The Following, it sounds awesome, a cult around a Poe-loving psychopathic author? Amazing! And yet the following, in my eyes, was a fan-anger-provoking shitpile. You'd have to actually watch the show to make your judgements about it, no matter how stupid it sounds. While DW isn't really my cup of fish fingers and custard, it's not bad at all.
Reply
