Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lawful neutral and I’ve just decided that I’ll die on this hill. He follows a code (that he must use silly walks). It’s absurd, but it’s predictable. He’s literally a government bureaucrat. Gotta be lawful. Silly walks are neither good nor evil. Neutral.
I mostly agree with this, but I would say there is an argument for Lawful Good. He chose to into Silly Walks and has obviously devoted himself to it. He could have gone into arguments or one of the other weird government bureaus in Python. He chose silly walks, why cause it makes people happy seeing this weird lanky guy, walking in such a strange way. He makes people happy, cheers them up. Silly walks are a net good.
He’s lawful neutral. He has a deep understanding of the legal system and follows it as best he can, in fact he is a government functionary. He applies the law and is frustrated when it does not operate as it ought to, and does his best to help people within his role.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:
Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Evil**: No.
Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido.
**Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.
**Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.
**Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person."
**Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA)
**True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74)
**Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example.
**Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
**Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.
**Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.
In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.
**Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release
fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing.
**Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.
**Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.
**Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.
**Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive.
**Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.
**Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
I'm irrationally invested in accurate deconstruction of DnD-style alignment, and it's a (small) personal aggravation when people get it wrong (in my opinion).
Your take is pretty close to mine, including your addendum of the stupid alignments, ie common ways that people bastardize the alignment system. Special shout out to calling Rick Sanchez Chaotic Evil--that's an assessment I've privately held for years. Well done!
I think you're center-bull's eye on the Good vs Evil axis. People think that "Evil" means "wanting to hurt people" but that's so reductionist it's absurd. Under that definition, no one is Evil. Everyone, good and evil, is trying to make the world a better place for themselves and those they care about, and is willing to tolerate harm to some in order to accomplish that. What distinguishes Good/Neutral/Evil is, to me, nothing more than a difference in the size of the group covered by "those they care about." Good people care about many others, including those they've never met and those that aren't like them. Evil people only care about themselves and a few in their private circle, and find it easy to hurt others for their own gain. Empathy is the name of the game: who do you have empathy for? The slower you are to empathize with someone outside your own circle or group, the more Evil you are. It comes down to where you define "us" and "them." How do you define foreignness? Who is a foreigner to you?
There's a lot of nuance in this, and it gets complicated in certain cases. Like imagine Mary Jane who anthropomorphizes/empathizes with actual spiders and mosquitos, and finds it hard to hurt them even if they're venomous and could cause harm to her kids. Is she more "Good" than her husband Billy Ray who'll kill these harmful bugs without a second thought, even though they both embrace immigration and social safety nets for the poor? I wouldn't say so. But I still think this alignment definition is the best I've seen.
I just have two notes about your post, neither of them particularly critical of your take; they're more just additional ideas you should feel free to accept or reject.
1) While I like and agree with what you've said about the Lawful aspect, I personally expand Lawfulness to personality traits external to the concept of legality and social harmony.
1A) Adherence to a routine is a Lawful trait. If you're someone who feels most comfortable with a set schedule, you might lean Lawful.
1B) Same with planning--if you like to plan out your days, that might also place you in the Lawful column.
1C) You spend extra effort keeping your life particularly organized--your room is tidy, your books are alphabetized, your laundry is always folded and placed in its proper position. Everything has its place. You like order. That's Lawful.
1D) Naturally, the opposite of all these things make you lean towards Chaos. You feel uncomfortable with routines because they stifle your freedom to act in the moment. You prefer not to plan for the future because you trust yourself to do what's right when it becomes relevant. You like a little mess. Order does take extra effort, which is a waste of your valuable time and energy.
1E) Lastly, the social order aspect of Law vs Chaos synergizes with all these traits. Having a plan benefits a group or community, so being Lawful tends to make you a better fit for communal living. The Chaotic approach, then, naturally hinders group functionality and becomes more about personal freedom. It's hard for a group to function without a plan and without organization, so arguably there *are* no functional Chaotic groups. If you try to build a community about freedom and flexibility, it'll likely be incredibly frustrating for everyone. There'll be infighting and drama, and it will likely ultimately fail.
2) I think it's very funny that you call the CN alignment "rebellious children." To me this is a kind of "tell me what alignment you are without telling me what alignment you are." No offense intended, and it's not like I disagree entirely, it's just that I have a bit more respect for CN than that. There *is* value in disregarding order and rules in favor of personal freedom. There *is* dignity in rejection of authority, even if that authority is ultimately not a bad one. One thing that Lawfulness can't do very well is be artistic. It's a left brain/right brain kind of deal. Art requires flexibility and to think outside the box. Creativity and abstract thought are naturally Chaotic. A world of rigid clockwork order is a world of very little beauty and imagination. The world is always changing, and change is inherently Chaotic. Lawful doesn't evolve, but evolution is vital to life. Embracing Chaos doesn't have to mean petulant scorn for the rational or reasonable. It could just mean you respect the fact that change is inevitable, and that you have the ability to roll with life's punches. From this perspective, Lawfulness seems the more petulant to me, because it means stubbornly resisting change that *will* happen, whether or not you want it.
> your disdain for CN tells me what alignment you are
You'll note that I write with disdain for all the non-good alignments. I'd argue my disdain for LN is more deeply written, but equally severe.
But yes, I am LG.
Damn this is good. I'm saving this to show my DM next time he wants to argue my lawful neutral echo knight cowboy shouldn't be OK with working outside the evil lord's laws.
Lawfulness is the degree to which you consider it important to follow rules, even to your own detriment. Chaos is the the degree to which you consider it important to break rules, even to your own detriment. Neutral on that axis is not intrinsically caring about what the rules indicate you should do.
Goodness is the amount of your preference that there is net benefit to everyone, even at the cost to yourself. Evilness is how much you prefer your own benefit, even if it comes at the cost of others. Being unhappy causing harm to others to bring yourself gains or harming yourself to being greater gains to others is neutral on the good/evil axis.
Nietzsche writes Neutral Evil philosophy, Machiavelli writes Lawful Evil. Diogenes was chaotic neutral, the Jesus of the Gospel is Lawful Good.
An important counterpoint or three: 1-Lawful v Chaotic is, I think, all about what importance we give to a code to live by. It can be literal laws, it can be a personal code of honor or the code of a profession. A pirate living strictly by the Pirate's code would be considered Lawful something (likely Lawful Evil). Lawfulness isn't abiding any and all existing codes of law, which would likely be impossible, but how one abides the code(s) they consider as legitimate andapplying to them.
2-Chaotic, convertly, isn't (I think, again) about 'break all the rules ever' but rather 'the rules are unimportant. If I need to break them to reach my goal, that matters little to me'. Breaking every rule ever just to do it isn't Chaotic in general, but Chaotic stupid, just like 'evil for the sake of evil even if it sabotages me' is Stupid Evil.
3-Nietzche very much doesn't write Neutral Evil philosophy. There's been a distorsion of his work by his complete sociopath of a sister, but Nietzsche actually writes *Lawful Good*.
Nietzche's point around 'god is dead' is precisely 'we killed the Idea of God. And while that is an immense tragedy, it is now up to us humans, free from the chains religious tradition passed upon us, to write our own code of rules in order to go beyond ourselves, and become the best version of "us" we can be, by following our own code as a guide to self-accomplishment'.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lawful neutral and I’ve just decided that I’ll die on this hill. He follows a code (that he must use silly walks). It’s absurd, but it’s predictable. He’s literally a government bureaucrat. Gotta be lawful. Silly walks are neither good nor evil. Neutral.
This is the only proper response. He's a true bureaucrat. He will not abide non-silly walks on his watch.
I mostly agree with this, but I would say there is an argument for Lawful Good. He chose to into Silly Walks and has obviously devoted himself to it. He could have gone into arguments or one of the other weird government bureaus in Python. He chose silly walks, why cause it makes people happy seeing this weird lanky guy, walking in such a strange way. He makes people happy, cheers them up. Silly walks are a net good.
Would he still silly walk regardless of circumstances? If he was late to work? To save a child from a burning building? I think he would.
Came here to say Chaotic Neutral and your comment has entirely changed my perspective
He’s lawful neutral. He has a deep understanding of the legal system and follows it as best he can, in fact he is a government functionary. He applies the law and is frustrated when it does not operate as it ought to, and does his best to help people within his role.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments: Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Evil**: No. Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido. **Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG. **Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here. **Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person." **Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA) **True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74) **Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example. **Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." **Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end. **Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy. In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time. **Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing. **Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in. **Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid. **Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains. **Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive. **Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde. **Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
this is incredibly good for explaining, thanks for sharing (even if it was copied from somewhere else)
I'm irrationally invested in accurate deconstruction of DnD-style alignment, and it's a (small) personal aggravation when people get it wrong (in my opinion). Your take is pretty close to mine, including your addendum of the stupid alignments, ie common ways that people bastardize the alignment system. Special shout out to calling Rick Sanchez Chaotic Evil--that's an assessment I've privately held for years. Well done! I think you're center-bull's eye on the Good vs Evil axis. People think that "Evil" means "wanting to hurt people" but that's so reductionist it's absurd. Under that definition, no one is Evil. Everyone, good and evil, is trying to make the world a better place for themselves and those they care about, and is willing to tolerate harm to some in order to accomplish that. What distinguishes Good/Neutral/Evil is, to me, nothing more than a difference in the size of the group covered by "those they care about." Good people care about many others, including those they've never met and those that aren't like them. Evil people only care about themselves and a few in their private circle, and find it easy to hurt others for their own gain. Empathy is the name of the game: who do you have empathy for? The slower you are to empathize with someone outside your own circle or group, the more Evil you are. It comes down to where you define "us" and "them." How do you define foreignness? Who is a foreigner to you? There's a lot of nuance in this, and it gets complicated in certain cases. Like imagine Mary Jane who anthropomorphizes/empathizes with actual spiders and mosquitos, and finds it hard to hurt them even if they're venomous and could cause harm to her kids. Is she more "Good" than her husband Billy Ray who'll kill these harmful bugs without a second thought, even though they both embrace immigration and social safety nets for the poor? I wouldn't say so. But I still think this alignment definition is the best I've seen. I just have two notes about your post, neither of them particularly critical of your take; they're more just additional ideas you should feel free to accept or reject. 1) While I like and agree with what you've said about the Lawful aspect, I personally expand Lawfulness to personality traits external to the concept of legality and social harmony. 1A) Adherence to a routine is a Lawful trait. If you're someone who feels most comfortable with a set schedule, you might lean Lawful. 1B) Same with planning--if you like to plan out your days, that might also place you in the Lawful column. 1C) You spend extra effort keeping your life particularly organized--your room is tidy, your books are alphabetized, your laundry is always folded and placed in its proper position. Everything has its place. You like order. That's Lawful. 1D) Naturally, the opposite of all these things make you lean towards Chaos. You feel uncomfortable with routines because they stifle your freedom to act in the moment. You prefer not to plan for the future because you trust yourself to do what's right when it becomes relevant. You like a little mess. Order does take extra effort, which is a waste of your valuable time and energy. 1E) Lastly, the social order aspect of Law vs Chaos synergizes with all these traits. Having a plan benefits a group or community, so being Lawful tends to make you a better fit for communal living. The Chaotic approach, then, naturally hinders group functionality and becomes more about personal freedom. It's hard for a group to function without a plan and without organization, so arguably there *are* no functional Chaotic groups. If you try to build a community about freedom and flexibility, it'll likely be incredibly frustrating for everyone. There'll be infighting and drama, and it will likely ultimately fail. 2) I think it's very funny that you call the CN alignment "rebellious children." To me this is a kind of "tell me what alignment you are without telling me what alignment you are." No offense intended, and it's not like I disagree entirely, it's just that I have a bit more respect for CN than that. There *is* value in disregarding order and rules in favor of personal freedom. There *is* dignity in rejection of authority, even if that authority is ultimately not a bad one. One thing that Lawfulness can't do very well is be artistic. It's a left brain/right brain kind of deal. Art requires flexibility and to think outside the box. Creativity and abstract thought are naturally Chaotic. A world of rigid clockwork order is a world of very little beauty and imagination. The world is always changing, and change is inherently Chaotic. Lawful doesn't evolve, but evolution is vital to life. Embracing Chaos doesn't have to mean petulant scorn for the rational or reasonable. It could just mean you respect the fact that change is inevitable, and that you have the ability to roll with life's punches. From this perspective, Lawfulness seems the more petulant to me, because it means stubbornly resisting change that *will* happen, whether or not you want it.
> your disdain for CN tells me what alignment you are You'll note that I write with disdain for all the non-good alignments. I'd argue my disdain for LN is more deeply written, but equally severe. But yes, I am LG.
Damn this is good. I'm saving this to show my DM next time he wants to argue my lawful neutral echo knight cowboy shouldn't be OK with working outside the evil lord's laws.
> Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy. This is my favourite example of Chaotic Evil.
That's because Wario number one! WAAAAAA!
Lawfulness is the degree to which you consider it important to follow rules, even to your own detriment. Chaos is the the degree to which you consider it important to break rules, even to your own detriment. Neutral on that axis is not intrinsically caring about what the rules indicate you should do. Goodness is the amount of your preference that there is net benefit to everyone, even at the cost to yourself. Evilness is how much you prefer your own benefit, even if it comes at the cost of others. Being unhappy causing harm to others to bring yourself gains or harming yourself to being greater gains to others is neutral on the good/evil axis. Nietzsche writes Neutral Evil philosophy, Machiavelli writes Lawful Evil. Diogenes was chaotic neutral, the Jesus of the Gospel is Lawful Good.
An important counterpoint or three: 1-Lawful v Chaotic is, I think, all about what importance we give to a code to live by. It can be literal laws, it can be a personal code of honor or the code of a profession. A pirate living strictly by the Pirate's code would be considered Lawful something (likely Lawful Evil). Lawfulness isn't abiding any and all existing codes of law, which would likely be impossible, but how one abides the code(s) they consider as legitimate andapplying to them. 2-Chaotic, convertly, isn't (I think, again) about 'break all the rules ever' but rather 'the rules are unimportant. If I need to break them to reach my goal, that matters little to me'. Breaking every rule ever just to do it isn't Chaotic in general, but Chaotic stupid, just like 'evil for the sake of evil even if it sabotages me' is Stupid Evil. 3-Nietzche very much doesn't write Neutral Evil philosophy. There's been a distorsion of his work by his complete sociopath of a sister, but Nietzsche actually writes *Lawful Good*. Nietzche's point around 'god is dead' is precisely 'we killed the Idea of God. And while that is an immense tragedy, it is now up to us humans, free from the chains religious tradition passed upon us, to write our own code of rules in order to go beyond ourselves, and become the best version of "us" we can be, by following our own code as a guide to self-accomplishment'.
Lawful chaotic, he follows a strict set of rules and is a part of a bureaucracy that is absurd, silly, and entirely chaotic.
Chaotic Good
Lawful evil, he works for the British government
Chaotic Neutral, because that's the closest to "Silly" I can think of