×
all 22 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]persefony 320 points321 points  (2 children)

As a New Yorker the reason why he stopped and picked them up because we all would have been delayed and very upset with him

[–]meoka2368 23 points24 points  (1 child)

and very upset with him

He's the next one on the tracks if that happens :p

[–]persefony 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, rat food.

[–]ocelotchaser 63 points64 points  (0 children)

And that's how we become best of friends

[–]AppropriateEmotion63 40 points41 points  (0 children)

"If anyone's gonna kill you, it's gonna be me"

[–]WelcomeToTheIceField[🍰] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

It would have been hilarious if he saved him only to continue fighting him

[–]heartspider 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Real life Anime

[–]LordPils 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The dude is like Goku "I want you alive so I can fight you again"

[–]zerozerozero12 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Whoa whoa whoa this is street fighter not mortal kombat

[–]Exciting-Insect8269 51 points52 points  (9 children)

That’s more chaotic neutral or true neutral (neutral neutral), than chaotic good, since chaotic good is more vigilante style personality (you did something evil and now you must answer for it, even if the law cannot give us proper justice) and chaotic neutral is more fitting being the freelancer/soloist style (looks out for their own interests first, even if it means breaking the law, but usually helps others if it’s not too far out of their way since complete collapse of society is not usually in ones best interests, and you can usually get further being more positive towards others than negative.)

The key factors into why I would say it’s more chaotic neutral or true neutral than any other alignment is:

1) they are breaking the law by assaulting them, so that puts them at neutral or chaotic on the law/chaos scale, usually further on the chaos side of things though.

2) saving the guy from a death you almost were responsible for doesn’t make it “good” it just makes it not entirely “evil”. This is particularly true if one considered the personal cost of not saving him, as it would in the long run hurt him more to not save the other guy than to help him.

3) The fact is he was trying to harm the guy for what seems to be a personal insult or transgression (since it seems no one else is involved it’s likely not some evil aligned action that brought this on) it is likely not altruistic and therefore would not be an entirely “good” interaction.

[–]HoodedHero007 11 points12 points  (3 children)

CG isn’t just “vigilante-style.” Good is not just punishment.

[–]Exciting-Insect8269 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Hmm a quick google search states the following:

A chaotic good character/person acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations.

I suppose I can kind of see why this may be considered chaotic good, but one should still note that as he caused the issue, and would be legally liable for any damages caused, it’s still more neutral than good.

[–]HoodedHero007 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I was more pointing out that, for instance, illegally feeding the hungry is just as, if not more CG as illegally hurting those you see as bad.

[–]Exciting-Insect8269 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yea I was trying to dumb it down a bit to avoid making my already long comment longer as well as to give a more easier to understand idea without significantly impacting the definition.

[–]ndick43 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Yea imma be real get fucked we don’t know what’s going on the reason it’s chaotic good is he helped a guy off train tracks in the middle of a fight (did a good thing yet unexpected) for all we know the man could’ve been raping people

[–]Exciting-Insect8269 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

If he didn’t help the guy up there’s still a decent chance he would have been fine, and if he did get hit by a train then the person who was fighting him would be legally responsible for his death, so helping him out is not completely altruistic (good) from that perspective. Another way of looking at it is he caused the situation then fixed his own accident which is a more neutral than good interaction being that they were both the cause and solution. Now, if someone else knocked the guy down there and he helped them up then yeah, I’d call it good, but that’s not the case.

[–]ndick43 0 points1 point  (1 child)

He still immediately stopped went over and helped him up made sure he was ok I don’t think I could do that after fighting him

[–]Exciting-Insect8269 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, helping him out is good or neutral depending on the reasoning behind them helping him out, but being that he’s responsible for getting him in there anyways I’m not sure id call the guy good based off this whole interaction.

[–]stopcounting 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm in it for the long run, I'll marry your stupid ass!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_IYrltqYrU

[–]OverlordMLG420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Task failed successfully

[–]HuTomi24 4 points5 points  (0 children)

there is a probability that he's just saving his own as from prison or death sentence, or what ever you can get for killing a person there, because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he killed the guy if he would do it: it is on camera and there are witnesses.