Alignment Archetype Chart

[Equilibrist]

Hey guys, I wanted to pick your brains and hopefully start a group discussion. I made a chart for all the archetypes of every alignment you can be, along with a pop-culture example of each archetype. My research is all from the TV Tropes pages on each alignment, so I wanted to post them to see what people thought, and hopefully help me make this chart even better.

I'll be posting them one at a time so it's not just a jumbled discussion of every alignment at once:

Lawful Good:
Type 1: Law Before Good (Batman)
Type 2: Good Before Law (Superman)
Type 3: Balanced (Captain America)

Breaking up Lawful Good is more about what you choose when Law and Good oppose each other.
Type 1 is you always side with the law.
Type 2 is you always side with good.
And Type 3 is you weigh the options of each, and decide which is more important.

[Bobbybobby99]

This is rather interesting (I'm always looking to have more clarity with alignments)
The concept can be roughly equated with the half step system, where you can, for example, be Lawful Neutral (good). But this seems intended to be a bit more subtle.

In the interests of that subtlety, you might want to say something like "Sides with good/law over law/good over 70% of the time" and then relegate the 99% siding for the half-step types.

Unless you don't like half-steps, I suppose, though I do. They help add some nuance to an otherwise bland system.
In any case, just stay away from absolutes, unless you want to become a Sith Lord :smalltongue:

[Millstone85]

Always the difficult discussion but let's try!

It seems to me that type 1 is a LG/LN intermediate and type 2 is a LG/NG intermediate, while type 3 is a true LG. The D&D Great Wheel has planes for such intermediates, doesn't it?

As for Bats, Supes and Cap, it really depends on the version.

[hamishspence]

Always the difficult discussion but let's try!

It seems to me that type 1 is a LG/LN intermediate and type 2 is a LG/NG intermediate, while type 3 is a true LG. The D&D Great Wheel has planes for such intermediates, doesn't it?.

Yup- Celestia is LG, Arcadia is LG/LN, Bytopia is LG/NG.

[Equilibrist]

Bobby, yeah, it basically is a half-step system, but not in the way you're describing, if I understand correctly. This is a way to break down each of the 9 alignments into smaller, more understandable chunks. And, Millstone, I think you're referring to tendencies, right? If that's the case, this is similar to tendencies, but a different principle. It's more like anyone you meet who identifies as a Lawful Good character will fall into one of these archetypes by default, since there is no other way to be lawful good. Imagine that each of these archetypes have a slider attached to them that can be moved by the player to really hone in on their exact character. Lawful Good is pretty straightforward compared to the others, but we are talking about making a visual representation of an abstract concept.

Oh, and Batman is more Lawful Than Good because of his "No killing" code. Even though it is just one rule, he holds it as his own personal law that he must follow. To me, a "code of ethics" isn't about quantity of rules, it's about dedication to them. So when it comes time to kill the baddie and save thousands of lives, or let him live and risk all of those people, then he wont kill the baddie. (This is my least favorite example character I have, so let me know if you have a better one)

Superman is more Good than Lawful because he follows the law until good needs to triumph.

Cap always debates his actions. His "law" is the USA's, and we see in the comic books, but more recently Winter Soldier how he sometimes follows their laws (believing them to be the right choice in the moment) or sometimes goes against them to do the right thing (also what he believes to be the right choice in those particular moments). He kind of flip-flops between being lawful and being good. He'll side with whichever he thinks is most correct under the circumstances.

[Anonymouswizard]

The thing about Lawful Good is that it's much more varied then people like to admit. From Discworld Captain Carrot is the idealistic LG paladin, while Commander Vimes is the cynical guy who leans closer to good than law.

OotS is a great resource for character alignment, because not only do you see the variance in Lawful Good (Roy/the various paladins/Durkon) you also have the same done for Chaotic Neutral (Belkar/Thog/Xykon), and possibly other alignments (I personally hold up Redcloak as an example of smart Lawful Evil, whereas Male is dumb Lawful Evil and Tarquin is in between). It then shows how similar different alignments can be (just look at Élan and Tarquin).

[Bobbybobby99]

I more meant that this is sort of a third step system.

You have
Lawful neutral (good)
Lawful good (more lawful than good)
Lawful good (equally lawful and good)
Lawful good (more good than lawful)
Neutral good (lawful)

Right? Am I misinterpreting this?

EDIT: Also, the person before me probably meant chaotic evil, not chaotic neutral. I assume that was a typo.

[Equilibrist]

I more meant that this is sort of a third step system.

You have
Lawful neutral (good)
Lawful good (more lawful than good)
Lawful good (equally lawful and good)
Lawful good (more good than lawful)
Neutral good (lawful)

Right? Am I misinterpreting this?

Oh, no that's right. I was the one who misinterpreted. Just minus the Neutral Good (lawful) bit. I have Neutral Good up next

[Equilibrist]

Moving on, Neutral Good

>Type 1: Passively Good (Average Human)
>Type 2: Actively Good (John McClane [Die Hard])

Choosing between these comes down to one word: reluctance. If you will go out of your way to do a good deed only because "it's the right thing to do", you're Type 1. If you are aware of the consequences and would rather not get involved, but you do it because good deeds, then you're Type 2.

[Millstone85]

Yup- Celestia is LG, Arcadia is LG/LN, Bytopia is LG/NG.That's what I thought. Thanks!


And, Millstone, I think you're referring to tendencies, right? If that's the case, this is similar to tendencies, but a different principle.I do not know any tendency system. It might happen to be the thing but I couldn't tell.


From Discworld Captain Carrot is the idealistic LG paladin, while Commander Vimes is the cynical guy who leans closer to good than law.Am I the only one who sees lawfulness as the cynical view of society? Something like: "Of course we need laws and law enforcers! You don't expect people to do good entirely on their own volition, do you?".


Moving on, Neutral Good

>Type 1: Passively Good (Average Human)
>Type 2: Actively Good (John McClane [Die Hard])Hmm... And being active or passive does not apply to lawful good characters?

[Equilibrist]

[QUOTE
Hmm... And being active or passive does not apply to lawful good characters?[/QUOTE]

It does, but this about what defines a Neutral Good character. It's like saying Chaotic good characters fear nothing. That's a personality type, not an alignment.

[Bobbybobby99]

Huh. So I suppose we aren't keeping with the component theme? Meh.

Well, I'm personally of the opinion that a 'good' person that isn't active is a True Neutral person, or maybe a True neutral person with good tendencies. Activity is what essentially defines alignments that aren't neutral. Of course, you can be an active true neutral, but I don't really think it's possible to be a passive neutral good. Goodness implies activity, as does Lawfulness, Chaoticness, and Evilness.

Though I'm also of the view that most people are true neutral, or at least a very large portion of people are true neutral. Oh well.

[Equilibrist]

Huh. So I suppose we aren't keeping with the component theme? Meh.

Well, I'm personally of the opinion that a 'good' person that isn't active is a True Neutral person, or maybe a True neutral person with good tendencies. Activity is what essentially defines alignments that aren't neutral. Of course, you can be an active true neutral, but I don't really think it's possible to be a passive neutral good. Goodness implies activity, as does Lawfulness, Chaoticness, and Evilness.

Though I'm also of the view that most people are true neutral, or at least a very large portion of people are true neutral. Oh well.

This is a good point, but "Passive"and "Active" are just stand in words. Passive is just the inherent need to do good, it isn't about not seeking out good deeds. Active is about your awareness. Do you really want to save that one nameless guy from a pack of hungry owlbears? Not really, as this could potentially cause you harm and isn't worth the hassle, but you're gonna do it anyway because you feel like it's the right thing to do. Actively good are people that really want to pass up on doing something good but dangerous, but then decide "screw it" and go help. These kind of people are probably gonna say something like "this is gonna suck", "I'm too old for this s***" or even just a long sigh before they go help. Like John McClane. He doesn't really want to go into the building with all the terrorists, but he does, even though he is out of town and there are already police on the scene. He doesn't want to be a hero, but he does it anyway.

[Bobbybobby99]

Oh, all right then. So it's more a difference between inherent goodness, and idealized goodness. One does good because they are innately good people, and one does good because they feel compelled to. Or am I misinterpeting you again? If not, you may want to change your wording from active and passive to inherent and idealized, or something similar.

EDIT: Oh, and you may want to change the whole Average guy thing to King Arthur or something.

[Equilibrist]

Oh, all right then. So it's more a difference between inherent goodness, and idealized goodness. One does good because they are innately good people, and one does good because they feel compelled to. Or am I misinterpeting you again? If not, you may want to change your wording from active and passive to inherent and idealized, or something similar.

No, that's totally it! Much better wording too. I'm gonna use that instead of "passive" and "active"

[Millstone85]

Okay, that makes sense. I still think it is not specifically a NG problem, though.

Dexter's heart is chaotic evil, driven to torture and murder as ends in themselves, but his reason is lawful goodish.

[Equilibrist]

Okay, the last type of Good before we get into the neutrals:

Chaotic Good:
Type 1: More Chaotic Than Good (Robin Hood)
Type 2: More Good Than Chaotic (Vash the Stampede)
Type 3: Dedicated to a Cause (Bravehart)
Type 4: Balanced (Finn the Human)

This is more about your motives than the others were. Type 1 is a character who does good things, but beyond that are mostly viewed are a self-serving person (i.e. The trait about Robin Hood that everyone remembers most is that he is a thief. while he did give that money to the poor [which makes him good], his profession is still thief). Type 2 is generally what everyone considers the staple of this alignment, the outlaw who always strives towards his own personal definition of Good. Type 3 is a bit finicky: you must be part some kind of society or clan that has no rules or laws within it- only a good-oriented goal. Type 4 is more about sometimes doing what is right, and sometimes being self-serving. While Finn is after the greater good most of the time, he does things like trick Flame Princess into dating him.

[Equilibrist]

Okay, that makes sense. I still think it is not specifically a NG problem, though.

Dexter's heart is chaotic evil, driven to torture and murder as ends in themselves, but his reason is lawful goodish.

Dexter isn't Neutral though: he's profoundly chaotic. He's probably more Chaotic Good Type 1 because even though he is eliminating evil from the world, he is still a murderer and enjoys the murders rather than the good he is giving the world.

[Bobbybobby99]

I refuse to believe that anyone who actually enjoys murder can be anything but chaotic neutral at best, and very likely chaotic evil. Everyone is motivated by what seems to be a good reason; if anyone motivated by a good reason was good or neutral, then Redcloak would be True neutral, which he is quite distinctly not.

Also, Type 3 Chaotic good seems rather redundant. More of a personality trait than an alignment subtype. Oh well.

[Equilibrist]

I refuse to believe that anyone who actually enjoys murder can be anything but chaotic neutral at best, and very likely chaotic evil. Everyone is motivated by what seems to be a good reason; if anyone motivated by a good reason was good or neutral, then Redcloak would be True neutral, which he is quite distinctly not.

Actually, you're right. I have an alignment for that it's Chaotic Evil Type 5: Well-Intentioned Extremist. Someone who believes what they are doing is good, but are doing something terrible to achieve it.

[Millstone85]

I refuse to believe that anyone who actually enjoys murder can be anything but chaotic neutral at best, and very likely chaotic evil.Oh, thank you, this is very relevant to my character in a campaign!


Actually, you're right. I have an alignment for that it's Chaotic Evil Type 5: Well-Intentioned Extremist. Someone who believes what they are doing is good, but are doing something terrible to achieve it.Dexter is just the opposite, looking for good means to evil ends. And there are many other "Oh yes please, give me an excuse!" characters.

[Equilibrist]

Oh, thank you, this is very relevant to my character in a campaign!

Dexter is just the opposite, looking for good means to evil ends.

I was just thinking about this. I realize that we all agree that "Good" is a relative term, but I think the people on TV Tropes were speaking of Good as a collective idea rather than an individual one. In that case, couldn't a character believe themselves to be good while they aren't, or vice versa? How about a bumbling evil sorcerer who is trying to destroy the population, but ends up helping it by accident? What is his alignment?

[Bobbybobby99]

Evil. The bumbling sorcerer's alignment is Evil.

Good is what happens when your actions and your intent are good.
Evil is what happens when either your actions or your intent are evil.
Neutral is what happens when you're somewhere in between.
If your actions are evil, you're evil.
If your intent is evil, you're evil.

By nature, evil is more inclusive than good. That's why there are about an equal number of good and evil people (at least by my definitions) when most people want to be good.

[Equilibrist]

There's also a quote: "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others based on their actions."

An alignment is a quick way to state how your character interacts with the world around them, not what their intentions are. Their intentions are their personal quest, which can, but doesn't always reflect their alignment. Another thought from this quote is that anyone you interact with will believe your alignment is different because your actions may lead them to believe it. You steal an evil artifact from a good king, but he didn't know it was evil. Your intentions were that of Chaotic Good, but the king believes you to be Chaotic Neutral, at the very least.

[Millstone85]

I realize that we all agree that "Good" is a relative termThe concept of good isn't, IMHO. Mutual altruism is what it boils down to. It is the practical application that rapidly gets tricky.

My favourite quote from the SCP Foundation: You've consoled yourself by thinking that all the torture and murder is for the greater good. This implies that there is a greater good… and a lesser good. It implies that there are multiple distinct goods, and that these can be quantified and compared. This is what we on the Ethics Committee do. We are the ones who balance the moral costs of everything the Foundation does.


In that case, couldn't a character believe themselves to be good while they aren't, or vice versa? How about a bumbling evil sorcerer who is trying to destroy the population, but ends up helping it by accident? What is his alignment? Is the sorcerer's name Okim Ikazayim? :smallwink:


Good is what happens when your actions and your intent are good.
An alignment is a quick way to state how your character interacts with the world around them, not what their intentions are.As a mean for a player to define their character, I think alignment should focus on intention alone. Is your character kind, selfish or cruel? Do they side more with ideals of justice or freedom?

Making it a reality (or well, a fiction) is the challenge.

[Nifft]

Type 1: Law Before Good (Batman)

Hmm.

Batman has had a lot of different interpretations.

http://i.imgur.com/cIIf58T.jpg

[Geddy2112]

I really like this idea- I am implementing it in my group, in the form of capital and lowercase letters.A capital letter indicates a strong affinity for the alignment, a lowercase letter is a weak affinity for the alignment. Lg is strongly lawful and weakly good, lG is weakly lawful and strongly good, LG is strongly lawful and good, and lg is lawful good but does not hold strong affinity for either.

[woodlandkammao]

I really like this idea- I am implementing it in my group, in the form of capital and lowercase letters.A capital letter indicates a strong affinity for the alignment, a lowercase letter is a weak affinity for the alignment. Lg is strongly lawful and weakly good, lG is weakly lawful and strongly good, LG is strongly lawful and good, and lg is lawful good but does not hold strong affinity for either.

Wait, how does that work for lowercase n? how do you know which side they mildly swing to?

[Geddy2112]

Wait, how does that work for lowercase n? how do you know which side they mildly swing to?

For true neutral, a capital N means an active dedication to balance of ethics and morality, and considers all possibilities objectively. A lowercase n means the character has no dedication to balance, and acts on pragmatism and instinct.

A lowercase n in regards to ethics(law/chaos) or morality(good/evil) means that this has little importance in the choice of the character in question. A Cn character is strongly chaotic, and good/evil are largely irrelevant. A character might be more good than evil, or more evil than good. However, unless they shift to an E(e) or G(g) they are still neutral. Even if they shift, their views on morality are likely to still be of less importance than their views on ethics. For somebody to shift from Cn to Cg is one thing, but to shift from Cn to CG means that goodness has become not only important, but on equal footing with chaos.

Spock from Star Trek and Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen are N true neutral. The dude from The Big Lebowski and Old Benjamin from Animal Farm are n true neutral.

[goto124]

Type 1: Law Before Good (Batman)
Type 2: Good Before Law (Superman)
Type 3: Balanced (Captain America)

Don't comic book heros come in so many versions (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Batman-Alignment.jpg) written by different authors that it's hard to tell which one is which alignment?

Okay, I got ninja'd on Batman. I was wondering about the other comic book heros though.

[GungHo]

Don't comic book heros come in so many versions (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Batman-Alignment.jpg) written by different authors that it's hard to tell which one is which alignment?

Okay, I got ninja'd on Batman. I was wondering about the other comic book heros though.

Same with Superman, Cap, and a whole lot of other comic book heroes. Depends on version, universe, and author. It's not just something obvious like Ultimate Cap vs Cap or Red Son Superman vs Action Comics Superman. Even in the course of the same series, there are a lot of inconsistencies with a lot of comic book heroes. If you really want to concentrate on a reference base on alignment to a long-running hero (or villain), you need to be pretty specific, down to the character, writer, and series (e.g. Wolverine/Claremont/Dark Phoenix Saga). This isn't even unique to comic books. Dr. No James Bond is a different guy than Diamonds Are Forever James Bond, both written and cinema, even though Connery did both movies and Flemming wrote both books. Same with TV shows... the seasonal variation in folks like Ben Sisko and Kathryn Janeway were pretty severe, and they didn't take long filming breaks and were seasoned actors. It's not just character and series there. Character, series, season, episode.

[Equilibrist]

Don't comic book heros come in so many versions (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Batman-Alignment.jpg) written by different authors that it's hard to tell which one is which alignment?

Okay, I got ninja'd on Batman. I was wondering about the other comic book heros though.

You're right, but the idea of posting this was to get better examples as well as hear your opinions. It's okay to tell me that examples aren't good, but, not to be rude, why has no one given me a better one? (and not just the quoted user)

(and Batman, Superman and Cap are my least favorite examples, for this reason)

[Millstone85]

It's okay to tell me that examples aren't good, but, not to be rude, why has no one given me a better one?In my case, that's because I couldn't find any better example.
Not to be rude either, it still doesn't make the current ones good.
I believe it would be an improvement to not rely on examples.

[Equilibrist]

In my case, that's because I couldn't find any better example.
Not to be rude either, it still doesn't make the current ones good.
I believe it would be an improvement to not rely on examples.

The reason I have examples is so someone can go "Oh, my character might act similar to X." It's an established persona in that archetype, but I'm interested in hearing why you think it'd be better without :)

EDIT: Actually, let me follow that up with a question: had I not provided examples, would it have made the archetypes clearer?

[Nifft]

EDIT: Actually, let me follow that up with a question: had I not provided examples, would it have made the archetypes clearer?

Doubtful.

There's no consensus on what the more general alignments mean.

It's going to be even more difficult to get consensus on what the more-specific subdivisions of the general alignments would mean.

[Equilibrist]

Lawful Neutral

Type 1: Respects Authority (The Night's Watch [Game of Thrones])
Type 2: Respects the Rules (Hermoine Granger)
Type 3: Follows a Code (Gallahad [King Arthur mythos])
Type 4: Trendsetter (Dave [Fallout 3])

This is all about WHY you follow the rules, but to be this alignment, your morals must obviously fall into a gray area. Type 1 are usually people who may or may not understand why these rules are in place, but they respect the people who make them. Type 2 are people who may or may not understand the nature of the rules, but they follow them because they believe rules are meant to be followed. Type 3 are people who follow a definitive code or set of laws, but (again) who's (whose?) morals fall into a gray area. Type 4 are the people who make the rules, but for them to be Lawful Neutral, the rules they create cannot be inherently good or evil. Most government agencies are formed on a Lawful Neutral basis.

[Red Fel]

Lawful Neutral

Type 1: Respects Authority (The Night's Watch [Game of Thrones])
Type 2: Respects the Rules (Hermoine Granger)
Type 3: Follows a Code (Gallahad [King Arthur mythos])
Type 4: Trendsetter (Dave [Fallout 3])

This is all about WHY you follow the rules, but to be this alignment, your morals must obviously fall into a gray area. Type 1 are usually people who may or may not understand why these rules are in place, but they respect the people who make them. Type 2 are people who may or may not understand the nature of the rules, but they follow them because they believe rules are meant to be followed. Type 3 are people who follow a definitive code or set of laws, but (again) who's (whose?) morals fall into a gray area. Type 4 are the people who make the rules, but for them to be Lawful Neutral, the rules they create cannot be inherently good or evil. Most government agencies are formed on a Lawful Neutral basis.

Objection to Type 1. The men of the Night's Watch don't respect authority, they fear punishment, which is a key distinction. Most of them are criminals who were offered a choice between a life sentence on the Wall and execution. They chose life, not because they respected the local lord who imposed the sentence, not because they respected the Lord Commander of the Watch, not because they respected the Seven Kingdoms and the need to protect them, but because they really did not want to die.

If anything, what you see in the Night's Watch is not respect for authority, but a combination of loyalty and futility - loyalty to their own, all of whom are suffering just as much as they are, and the futility of having no choice but to do their job, or else they'll die anyway.

Even the leadership is hardly LN. Several of them strike me more as LE, and certain figures rapidly approach CG. Many of the men are reasonably CE, who have just been cowed into obedience by a show of force, and would readily revolt if the saw the chance.

As an aside: Why does it matter? I get that it's easy to say that a person who respects authority or rules or a code, absent a moral component, is LN. But why do we have to go the opposite direction, and break down LN into these individual component parts? What does it accomplish?

[Equilibrist]

Doubtful.

There's no consensus on what the more general alignments mean.

It's going to be even more difficult to get consensus on what the more-specific subdivisions of the general alignments would mean.

Right. Like I said earlier, I've basically constructed a visual representation of an abstract concept: there's not going to be a consensus vote on whether the chart is right or wrong, because it comes down to your opinion. I'm just posting this in case people want to use it themselves, or have something to contribute to it.

However I have been reading all the comments, and considering what people have to say.

[Equilibrist]

Objection to Type 1. The men of the Night's Watch don't respect authority, they fear punishment, which is a key distinction. Most of them are criminals who were offered a choice between a life sentence on the Wall and execution. They chose life, not because they respected the local lord who imposed the sentence, not because they respected the Lord Commander of the Watch, not because they respected the Seven Kingdoms and the need to protect them, but because they really did not want to die.

If anything, what you see in the Night's Watch is not respect for authority, but a combination of loyalty and futility - loyalty to their own, all of whom are suffering just as much as they are, and the futility of having no choice but to do their job, or else they'll die anyway.

Even the leadership is hardly LN. Several of them strike me more as LE, and certain figures rapidly approach CG. Many of the men are reasonably CE, who have just been cowed into obedience by a show of force, and would readily revolt if the saw the chance.

As an aside: Why does it matter? I get that it's easy to say that a person who respects authority or rules or a code, absent a moral component, is LN. But why do we have to go the opposite direction, and break down LN into these individual component parts? What does it accomplish?

Wow. You are incredibly correct. I'll change it. Do you have a good example? And to answer your aside, it's because I did it for all the others, so I figured "why not"? But yeah, Lawful Neutral is pretty straightforward.

[Red Fel]

Wow. You are incredibly correct. I'll change it. Do you have a good example? And to answer your aside, it's because I did it for all the others, so I figured "why not"? But yeah, Lawful Neutral is pretty straightforward.

Hmm... If I had to pick one for "respect for authority," or at least "for a particular authority figure," I'd say Project Mayhem in Fight Club. The people are blindly, cultishly obedient to their leader. To the point of opposing him because "he" told them to.

It's fairly difficult for me to find a non-robot who has an absolute "respect for authority," given that most characters follow authority as embodied by a particular person or organization. At a certain point, an absolute "respect for authority" becomes "respect for the rules," which is a different category.

But note the difference between the respect for the rules demonstrated by Hermione...

http://33.media.tumblr.com/cd2f442378387221308f5118648c902c/tumblr_inline_nqs7ppaC2s1qboyyx_500.gif

... and Judge Dredd...

http://38.media.tumblr.com/77673b16ae9ad204c038ed54b589f604/tumblr_mh012mf1ds1s3wb20o1_500.gif

One respects the rules, the other enforces them. That, I think, is a more valuable distinction - not why a character is LN, but how.

[Equilibrist]

Hmm... If I had to pick one for "respect for authority," or at least "for a particular authority figure," I'd say Project Mayhem in Fight Club. The people are blindly, cultishly obedient to their leader. To the point of opposing him because "he" told them to.

It's fairly difficult for me to find a non-robot who has an absolute "respect for authority," given that most characters follow authority as embodied by a particular person or organization. At a certain point, an absolute "respect for authority" becomes "respect for the rules," which is a different category.

But note the difference between the respect for the rules demonstrated by Hermione...

http://33.media.tumblr.com/cd2f442378387221308f5118648c902c/tumblr_inline_nqs7ppaC2s1qboyyx_500.gif

... and Judge Dredd...

http://38.media.tumblr.com/77673b16ae9ad204c038ed54b589f604/tumblr_mh012mf1ds1s3wb20o1_500.gif

One respects the rules, the other enforces them. That, I think, is a more valuable distinction - not why a character is LN, but how.

I giggled at the juxtapositioning, but I see your point. So you're suggesting I change "Respects Authority" to "Enforces Rules"? I really like that, actually. It's like a Type 1 character respecting the rules so much that they advance into Type 2 by joining the local guard, police force, etc. It'd be the difference between a citizen or a guard.

[Millstone85]

Actually, let me follow that up with a question: had I not provided examples, would it have made the archetypes clearer?I think the archetypes are exactly as clear with or without examples. The examples have no effect other than having us debate whether or not they match the archetypes.

[Equilibrist]

I think the archetypes are exactly as clear with or without examples. The examples have no effect other than having us debate whether or not they match the archetypes.

I understand, but that's the reason I'm posting the examples as well. I'm hoping the debate leads to a better example (also a good, friendly debate is always fun- win, lose, or draw). I know some of these aren't good. I'm honestly sorry I'm intentionally poking the lion though. Feel free to ignore them if you want.

[Equilibrist]

True Neutral

Type 1: Survivalism (average animal)
Type 2: Mixed Agenda (Jason Bourne [the movie one, but he's portrayed as the good guy, so I know this is a bad example])
Type 3: Indifference (The Neutral Planet [Futurama])

As Red Fel pointed out, these are incredibly straightforward. Type 1 is only doing what you have to, to survive. Type 2 is a character that's actions are evenly spread between Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic. Type 3 is just complete apathy.

I can see the backlash coming from Type 2, so just for a basis: to classify someone, you are looking for an arching theme in their actions, not individual incidents. A character's alignment is influenced by the total of all in-game actions, and Type 2 is more of a waypoint. If you're playing a LG character who is slowing becoming CE through the story, you're going to end up in TN Type 2 at some point, even if briefly.

[Equilibrist]

Chaotic Neutral

Type 1: Hedonist
Type 2: Anarchist
Type 3: Rebel Without a Cause
Type 4: Cynically Self-Excluding
Type 5: Lunatic

Type 1's just enjoy life to its fullest, usually partaking wine, women, fine art, etc. Type 2's are against the government, but aren't necessarily doing evil things: they're just the flip side to LN Type 1 (Enforces Rules). Type 3's enjoy being the rebel, even though they're not really rebelling against anything except conventional ideas (Jack Sparrow, Tyler Durden, etc). Type 4's shun themselves from society, seeing it as a place that harbors no [good will/inclusion/whatever] for them. They're basically cynical of the world to the point where they make themselves outcasts. Type 5's are just plain crazy. Usually Type 5 is associated with Chaotic Stupid, but there are ways to play it straight.

[Wardog]

Oh, and Batman is more Lawful Than Good because of his "No killing" code. Even though it is just one rule, he holds it as his own personal law that he must follow. To me, a "code of ethics" isn't about quantity of rules, it's about dedication to them. So when it comes time to kill the baddie and save thousands of lives, or let him live and risk all of those people, then he wont kill the baddie. (This is my least favorite example character I have, so let me know if you have a better one)

This is an interpretation of LG I see a lot (along with teh converse, that willingness to kill a bad guy is CG).

Frankly, I find it it bit of a dubious argument. It basically comes down to saying that killing bad guys that you don't need to kill is perfectly [Good] behaviour, and its only a matter of [Law] (whether obedience to the law of the land, or to your own code) to spare them.

That seems to me to be backwards - surely "good", both in the D&D definition and most real-world definitions values compassion and mercy. Sparing people should be [Good], IMO. And if killing them is compatible with being [Good], [Law] is only an issue of whether you do it yourself or delegate to the appropriate authorities.

[goto124]

'killing bad guys that you don't need to kill '

How do you know you don't need to kill them? LG, LE, and CG all have different judgements on whether or not it's 'needed' to kill someone. The LG may think he should only be arrested, the LE may think killing him is the best option and that there's no point 'sparing' someone who's already done wrong.

[Red Fel]

Chaotic Neutral

Type 1: Hedonist
Type 2: Anarchist
Type 3: Rebel Without a Cause
Type 4: Cynically Self-Excluding
Type 5: Lunatic

Type 1's just enjoy life to its fullest, usually partaking wine, women, fine art, etc. Type 2's are against the government, but aren't necessarily doing evil things: they're just the flip side to LN Type 1 (Enforces Rules). Type 3's enjoy being the rebel, even though they're not really rebelling against anything except conventional ideas (Jack Sparrow, Tyler Durden, etc). Type 4's shun themselves from society, seeing it as a place that harbors no [good will/inclusion/whatever] for them. They're basically cynical of the world to the point where they make themselves outcasts. Type 5's are just plain crazy. Usually Type 5 is associated with Chaotic Stupid, but there are ways to play it straight.

To be fair, types 4 and 5 aren't exclusive to CN. Self-excluding could be an LG hermit who seeks a life of quiet contemplation and humble purity, a TN Druid who lives away from civilization among the beasts of the field, or a number of other options. Lunatic can apply to absolutely anyone; madness isn't an aligned trait.

Further, the line between Type 2 and Type 3 is so minor as to be insignificant; the only difference is that Type 3 wants to rebel against something, generally, while Type 2 wants to rebel against something specific (i.e. The Man). The one is practically a subspecies of the other.

[Equilibrist]

To be fair, types 4 and 5 aren't exclusive to CN. Self-excluding could be an LG hermit who seeks a life of quiet contemplation and humble purity, a TN Druid who lives away from civilization among the beasts of the field, or a number of other options. Lunatic can apply to absolutely anyone; madness isn't an aligned trait.

Further, the line between Type 2 and Type 3 is so minor as to be insignificant; the only difference is that Type 3 wants to rebel against something, generally, while Type 2 wants to rebel against something specific (i.e. The Man). The one is practically a subspecies of the other.

I understand where you're coming from on the Type 2/3 argument, and I'm thinking of changing it, I just want to debate it out with you for a moment. In my mind, they are going to act very differently, which is why I have them being 2 distinct Types. Type 2s are more prone to doing things deliberately to spite the government, while Type 3s are going to act more like a child screaming "You can't tell me what to do!" at everything.

As for Types 4 and 5, you're right, but those people who have a different alignment with these character traits are going to act differently. A LG person can be cynical, but they'll still step in and do the right thing when it's needed. A CN4 person will be thinking more of "the world's problems are none of my business." They keep to themselves, which actually almost makes them TN, if it wasn't for the fact that they believe the laws don't apply to them. And anyone can be a lunatic, you're right. but that means they have a sense of morality or at least a grasp of the concept "ethics." The reason Lunatic makes it CN5 is that it defies all the other CN types, but it's true insanity: you have no moral or ethical understanding (either good or evil), and your actions are solely decided by impulse.

Also to note, I really enjoy and appreciate everyone's input, even though I'm usually debating against you :)

[Equilibrist]

Since it's taken me 3 days to respond, I'm going to post the next one:

Lawful Evil:

Type 1: Corrupt Diplomat
Type 2: Self-Limited Evil
Type 3: Number One Minion

Before I break these down, I want to point out that evil is very different from all the other alignments. It is very difficult to say why or how someone is evil, and I don't accept the phrase "Because I'm evil" as a reason anyone did something, so I'm anticipating a bit more debates from these last 3. I have a quick reference that I wrote up to explain this: Good people seek betterment for others; Neutral people seek a personal experience or gain; and evil people seek empowerment.

Type 1 is abusing (and sometimes, creating) the loopholes in laws or government to acquire power. Type 2 is best defined as "I'm evil, but I'm not that evil." They just will not do specific evil things. A good example is Eggman from Sonic Adventure 2: Battle: when he realizes the Ark was created to destroy the earth, he utters the above phrase, implying that even he finds this disturbing. Type 3s are people who are evil because the person they idolize (and who gives them orders) is evil. Harley Quinn is the best example of this. (Yes, I am aware that she eventually left The Joker and was still evil, which changes her alignment. I'm referring to the time frame she spent with the Joker)

[Red Fel]

Since it's taken me 3 days to respond, I'm going to post the next one:

Lawful Evil:

Type 1: Corrupt Diplomat
Type 2: Self-Limited Evil
Type 3: Number One Minion

Before I break these down, I want to point out that evil is very different from all the other alignments. It is very difficult to say why or how someone is evil, and I don't accept the phrase "Because I'm evil" as a reason anyone did something, so I'm anticipating a bit more debates from these last 3. I have a quick reference that I wrote up to explain this: Good people seek betterment for others; Neutral people seek a personal experience or gain; and evil people seek empowerment.

Type 1 is abusing (and sometimes, creating) the loopholes in laws or government to acquire power. Type 2 is best defined as "I'm evil, but I'm not that evil." They just will not do specific evil things. A good example is Eggman from Sonic Adventure 2: Battle: when he realizes the Ark was created to destroy the earth, he utters the above phrase, implying that even he finds this disturbing. Type 3s are people who are evil because the person they idolize (and who gives them orders) is evil. Harley Quinn is the best example of this. (Yes, I am aware that she eventually left The Joker and was still evil, which changes her alignment. I'm referring to the time frame she spent with the Joker)

Ahh, now the ball is in Red Fel's court. Time to play the game.

Naturally, I feel that you've grossly oversimplified some of the delicious nuances of this alignment. As such, I'm going to start by critiquing your ideas, and then follow it by offering a few of my own suggestions.

Type 1: Okay, so this is a person who abuses the rule of law to his benefit. There's a lot you can do with this character, but I think "bureaucrat" is a better term than "diplomat." The smug snake who deliberately and gleefully points out that you failed to check Box 13 on Form 27 and therefore it is with no small amount of pleasure that your request for a postponement of your execution is not only denied, it is accelerated, thank you for your time and attention. That's fine. The focus should be, basically, that this is a character who manipulates law, order, codes, and so forth - whether they be statutes or his enemies' personal morals - for his own benefit.

Type 2: A better term is "Evil with Standards." Again, the idea of Evil that won't cross certain lines. It's worth noting that this raises questions of how Evil the character is, but all in all, a good definition.

Type 3: I disagree here. The Number One Minion isn't LE, it's LN; this is a follower. This character isn't inherently Evil; rather, this is an obedient fan who follows an Evil person. I would scrap this illustration altogether, and replace it with the Wormtongue (see my suggestions below).

Now, my suggestions:

Type 3: The Wormtongue. This is a character who desires power and influence, but recognizes that having them tends to place one in somebody's crosshairs. The Wormtongue, therefore, seeks out someone who has power, and acts like a parasite. He becomes their trusted confidante and lieutenant, helps them to grow in power and influence (and in doing so improves his own station), and generally manipulates them like a puppet. He is the Power Behind the Throne, the Puppetmaster, and the Figure in the Shadows. Unlike the Corrupt Bureaucrat, who manipulates the rules in place for his benefit, the Wormtongue sets up the rule-maker to be his puppet, all while engaging in the role of sycophant.

Type 4: The Cynic. This character would be LN, in that he is ruthlessly self-promoting and yet trustworthy to do what is logically in his best interests, but for one detail: The world is a crapsack world and Evil succeeds more. He is Evil not because he necessarily believes in it, but because it is proven effective. David Xanatos is a perfect illustration of this; corrupt, cold, calculating, but not truly Evil for Evil's sake. He engages in Evil because it wins.

Type 5: The Tyrant. The embodiment of LE, I can't believe it didn't make your list. This is the simplest possible LE - a character who simply desires absolute, iron-fisted authority, at any cost. He is willing to crush, kill, and destroy in his pursuit of power.

Type 5.5: The Puppetmaster. This one is a sort of a blend. In some ways, he is the Tyrant, a figure seeking to secure power by any means necessary. In others, he is the Wormtongue, in that he secures power by influencing, blackmailing, or manipulating others. He rarely acts directly, generally operating via catspaw or proxy. Few people know his identity, let alone that he even exists, but those who do are unable to betray him.

Does that help?

[Equilibrist]

Ahh, now the ball is in Red Fel's court. Time to play the game.

Naturally, I feel that you've grossly oversimplified some of the delicious nuances of this alignment. As such, I'm going to start by critiquing your ideas, and then follow it by offering a few of my own suggestions.

Type 1: Okay, so this is a person who abuses the rule of law to his benefit. There's a lot you can do with this character, but I think "bureaucrat" is a better term than "diplomat." The smug snake who deliberately and gleefully points out that you failed to check Box 13 on Form 27 and therefore it is with no small amount of pleasure that your request for a postponement of your execution is not only denied, it is accelerated, thank you for your time and attention. That's fine. The focus should be, basically, that this is a character who manipulates law, order, codes, and so forth - whether they be statutes or his enemies' personal morals - for his own benefit.

Type 2: A better term is "Evil with Standards." Again, the idea of Evil that won't cross certain lines. It's worth noting that this raises questions of how Evil the character is, but all in all, a good definition.

Type 3: I disagree here. The Number One Minion isn't LE, it's LN; this is a follower. This character isn't inherently Evil; rather, this is an obedient fan who follows an Evil person. I would scrap this illustration altogether, and replace it with the Wormtongue (see my suggestions below).

Now, my suggestions:

Type 3: The Wormtongue. This is a character who desires power and influence, but recognizes that having them tends to place one in somebody's crosshairs. The Wormtongue, therefore, seeks out someone who has power, and acts like a parasite. He becomes their trusted confidante and lieutenant, helps them to grow in power and influence (and in doing so improves his own station), and generally manipulates them like a puppet. He is the Power Behind the Throne, the Puppetmaster, and the Figure in the Shadows. Unlike the Corrupt Bureaucrat, who manipulates the rules in place for his benefit, the Wormtongue sets up the rule-maker to be his puppet, all while engaging in the role of sycophant.

Type 4: The Cynic. This character would be LN, in that he is ruthlessly self-promoting and yet trustworthy to do what is logically in his best interests, but for one detail: The world is a crapsack world and Evil succeeds more. He is Evil not because he necessarily believes in it, but because it is proven effective. David Xanatos is a perfect illustration of this; corrupt, cold, calculating, but not truly Evil for Evil's sake. He engages in Evil because it wins.

Type 5: The Tyrant. The embodiment of LE, I can't believe it didn't make your list. This is the simplest possible LE - a character who simply desires absolute, iron-fisted authority, at any cost. He is willing to crush, kill, and destroy in his pursuit of power.

Type 5.5: The Puppetmaster. This one is a sort of a blend. In some ways, he is the Tyrant, a figure seeking to secure power by any means necessary. In others, he is the Wormtongue, in that he secures power by influencing, blackmailing, or manipulating others. He rarely acts directly, generally operating via catspaw or proxy. Few people know his identity, let alone that he even exists, but those who do are unable to betray him.

Does that help?

I absolutely love this list! It's like you saw what I was going for, then said "but your wording sucks" lol. I actually had another Type on the chart, but I didn't list it because I thought it sounded bad: "Power-Driven". Ironically, it's the exact description you listed for the Tyrant, but Tyrant is a much better word (The Puppetmaster idea also falls into it, depending on you character's definition of "power"). The Wormtongue idea is what I had in mind for the Number-One Minion, but the name is much better and the description is amazing. The Cynic reminds me of why people usually turn evil in Fable, and I love that. I don't necessarily like the name "The Cynic" though, because it's so close to the Overly Cynical CN archetype and doesn't really mention the distinction. What do you think of the name "The Strategist" or "Strategically Evil"?

[Red Fel]

I absolutely love this list! It's like you saw what I was going for, then said "but your wording sucks" lol. I actually had another Type on the chart, but I didn't list it because I thought it sounded bad: "Power-Driven". Ironically, it's the exact description you listed for the Tyrant, but Tyrant is a much better word (The Puppetmaster idea also falls into it, depending on you character's definition of "power"). The Wormtongue idea is what I had in mind for the Number-One Minion, but the name is much better and the description is amazing. The Cynic reminds me of why people usually turn evil in Fable, and I love that. I don't necessarily like the name "The Cynic" though, because it's so close to the Overly Cynical CN archetype and doesn't really mention the distinction. What do you think of the name "The Strategist" or "Strategically Evil"?

Trust me, if your wording sucks, I will tell you so, in no uncertain terms. I simply disagreed with some of your language choices.

Wormtongue was named for the LotR character; if you dislike the name Cynic, you could go with "The Xanatos." Alternatively, "The Pragmatist" is an option. Strategist really doesn't say why the character is Evil; in this case, he's Evil because it has a proven success record. Pragmatist is an option, as is Ruthless or Metagamer (although this latter one may have unfortunate connotations); the goal is to express that he's Evil because it works. Heck, even "The Executive" is an option. But yeah, I based that concept on David Xanatos, one of my all-time favorite villains, a guy who would probably become a great hero if it guaranteed him higher profit margins.

And if anyone would like to take this opportunity to question my knowledge of Lawful Evil, please... Make yourself known.

[woodlandkammao]

I've got a thread running elsewhere that touches on this. It seems that one kind of lawful evil is the type who see's his evil as justified because it's all for the greater good. This could be the tyrant, or it could be just a vigilante who racks up the body count in the name of the needs of the many. Watchmen is full of these, most obviously Ozimandius, who nukes entire cities because it willusher in a golden age of prosperity. There's some debate over whether or not this is truly evil, (seriously, the debate on my thread is getting heated) but the general consensus is that "well intentioned extremist", or as I nickname them 'Inquisitor', is LE

[woodlandkammao]

Red fel here is one of the most vocal actually. Hey, Red, Would you call this another category or is it a kind of Tyrant in your opinion?

[Equilibrist]

I've got a thread running elsewhere that touches on this. It seems that one kind of lawful evil is the type who see's his evil as justified because it's all for the greater good. This could be the tyrant, or it could be just a vigilante who racks up the body count in the name of the needs of the many. Watchmen is full of these, most obviously Ozimandius, who nukes entire cities because it willusher in a golden age of prosperity. There's some debate over whether or not this is truly evil, (seriously, the debate on my thread is getting heated) but the general consensus is that "well intentioned extremist", or as I nickname them 'Inquisitor', is LE

I have a different one for someone who believes they're working towards a greater good coming up in CE (called the "Well-Intentioned Extremist"), so we're on the same page, even if we disagree with the placement. PM me, we should trade notes :)

Also, Red Fel is da bomb at this. Not only does he share his opinion, he provides other, well thought out ideas on the subject, which is exactly what I was looking for.

[woodlandkammao]

The Well Intentioned extremist follows a strict code. It's just not the code the rest of us do. Seems a bit on the lawful side to me.

[Equilibrist]

Neutral Evil

Type 1: Personal Vendetta
Type 2: Deliberately Evil
Type 3: Egomaniac

In my mind, being Neutral-anything means that you follow the rules usually, but you won't think twice about it when you need to break them.

Type 1 are people who hold a grudge against a particular person or organization. They would be TN, if it wasn't for this vendetta: they want to reign all the evil they can muster down on this person/organization, and by proximity, anyone who stands in their way of this vengeance. Their anger usually rears its head in their questing lives as well: if they get a bounty that says "dead or alive", you can be sure they'll bring back a body. Type 2 is kind of what Red was saying about the Cynic, but they don't do it because it works, they do it because it's fun. They are aware of morals, and even more aware that they are evil. This is the kick-a-puppy kind of evil. Type 3 is someone who is so self-obsessed that they'll do anything for their own gain. Sometimes, they'll abuse the law; other times, they'll go against it. Eric Cartman is the purest form of this. (and as I'm writing this, I realize that this fits your "Puppetmaster" idea, Red.)

[Equilibrist]

The Well Intentioned extremist follows a strict code. It's just not the code the rest of us do. Seems a bit on the lawful side to me.

If they follow a code, then they're LE, regardless of whether they think they're right or not. Evil is about the way in which they show their evil, not their motives. But I think the WIE is more CE: they have a motive, but no rules on how they achieve it, so they take the worst ways to get there.

[Red Fel]

Red fel here is one of the most vocal actually. Hey, Red, Would you call this another category or is it a kind of Tyrant in your opinion?

The Well Intentioned extremist follows a strict code. It's just not the code the rest of us do. Seems a bit on the lawful side to me.

If they follow a code, then they're LE, regardless of whether they think they're right or not. Evil is about the way in which they show their evil, not their motives. But I think the WIE is more CE: they have a motive, but no rules on how they achieve it, so they take the worst ways to get there.

"Well Intentioned Extremist" is certainly an LE archetype, albeit a more complicated one; in a system with an alignment grid, there are generally ways to tell explicitly if you're Evil. It's kind of hard to cling to this notion of the "greater Good" while knowing for a fact that you're anything but.

I do think the WIE is more LE than CE, because he has guiding principles. The Well-Intentioned Extremist isn't just shooting in the dark and hoping for a better world; he has a plan, a goal, and a ruthless attitude to go about it. A CE character would be more flexible in his approach and his aims; an LE character has the dedication to a cause and the limitation on his own actions.

The WIE is not a Tyrant, although the two may overlap. Nor is the WIE Evil with Standards, although again the two may overlap. The WIE is more of a hybrid. The other alignments I've described show a methodology - how a character executes his Evil. The Tyrant does it by direct show of authority, the Wormtongue by praise and being a sycophant, the Pragmatist by ruthless rationality. The Well-Intentioned Extremist doesn't describe a methodology, but rather a goal - he's Evil for the greater Good. You can do that with armies, with lies, with rules, or with diplomacy. As such, it's kind of hard to nail him down as a particular type of LE.

And certainly, the WIE is more big-L little-e than big-E little-l. He's more about his principles than his (im)morality.

As long as I'm here...


Neutral Evil

Type 1: Personal Vendetta
Type 2: Deliberately Evil
Type 3: Egomaniac

In my mind, being Neutral-anything means that you follow the rules usually, but you won't think twice about it when you need to break them.

Type 1 are people who hold a grudge against a particular person or organization. They would be TN, if it wasn't for this vendetta: they want to reign all the evil they can muster down on this person/organization, and by proximity, anyone who stands in their way of this vengeance. Their anger usually rears its head in their questing lives as well: if they get a bounty that says "dead or alive", you can be sure they'll bring back a body. Type 2 is kind of what Red was saying about the Cynic, but they don't do it because it works, they do it because it's fun. They are aware of morals, and even more aware that they are evil. This is the kick-a-puppy kind of evil. Type 3 is someone who is so self-obsessed that they'll do anything for their own gain. Sometimes, they'll abuse the law; other times, they'll go against it. Eric Cartman is the purest form of this. (and as I'm writing this, I realize that this fits your "Puppetmaster" idea, Red.)

NE is one of those alignments that's hard for me to visualize, in part because it most embodies "for the evulz." NE is Evil without an ethical compass; it is neither Evil in pursuit of personal whim or passion, nor Evil through rule and order. It's simply Evil.

Some of your descriptions overlap substantially with other alignments. For example, a Type 1 character is completely disregarding tradition, order, and morality in pursuit of his personal passion and bloody vengeance - that could easily be CE as NE. A Type 2 could similarly be more CE than NE; it almost sounds like you're describing the Joker. I do agree, though, that Card-Carrying Evil is generally NE. Type 3 has a lot of overlaps with LE, as you've noticed; the distinction between a ruthless self-promoter and a ruthless self-promoter with principles is paper-thin.

It's worth noting that you mention "the law" when describing or distinguishing Lawful alignments; it's important to get away from that. Lawful doesn't mean "follows the law," it means "adheres to a code or guiding set of principles." It's the ethical equivalent of Good; just as Good is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Evil being a more-than-willingness to cross them, Lawful is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Chaotic being a more-than-willingness to cross them. Neutral tends to fall somewhere in the middle; either striking a balance between the two, or else completely disregarding them both.

In D&D, for example, the archetypical NE Outsiders are a race of infernal beings who stoke the fires of the eternal war between LE and CE, all while profiting from them. So there's an archetype for you: The Arms Dealer, the character who creates disaster in order to profit off of it.

But yes, short version, NE is hard to grasp in a vacuum. It's too easy to turn it into a Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirling cartoon villain.

[Equilibrist]

"Well Intentioned Extremist" is certainly an LE archetype, albeit a more complicated one; in a system with an alignment grid, there are generally ways to tell explicitly if you're Evil. It's kind of hard to cling to this notion of the "greater Good" while knowing for a fact that you're anything but.

I do think the WIE is more LE than CE, because he has guiding principles. The Well-Intentioned Extremist isn't just shooting in the dark and hoping for a better world; he has a plan, a goal, and a ruthless attitude to go about it. A CE character would be more flexible in his approach and his aims; an LE character has the dedication to a cause and the limitation on his own actions.

The WIE is not a Tyrant, although the two may overlap. Nor is the WIE Evil with Standards, although again the two may overlap. The WIE is more of a hybrid. The other alignments I've described show a methodology - how a character executes his Evil. The Tyrant does it by direct show of authority, the Wormtongue by praise and being a sycophant, the Pragmatist by ruthless rationality. The Well-Intentioned Extremist doesn't describe a methodology, but rather a goal - he's Evil for the greater Good. You can do that with armies, with lies, with rules, or with diplomacy. As such, it's kind of hard to nail him down as a particular type of LE.

And certainly, the WIE is more big-L little-e than big-E little-l. He's more about his principles than his (im)morality.

As long as I'm here...



NE is one of those alignments that's hard for me to visualize, in part because it most embodies "for the evulz." NE is Evil without an ethical compass; it is neither Evil in pursuit of personal whim or passion, nor Evil through rule and order. It's simply Evil.

Some of your descriptions overlap substantially with other alignments. For example, a Type 1 character is completely disregarding tradition, order, and morality in pursuit of his personal passion and bloody vengeance - that could easily be CE as NE. A Type 2 could similarly be more CE than NE; it almost sounds like you're describing the Joker. I do agree, though, that Card-Carrying Evil is generally NE. Type 3 has a lot of overlaps with LE, as you've noticed; the distinction between a ruthless self-promoter and a ruthless self-promoter with principles is paper-thin.

It's worth noting that you mention "the law" when describing or distinguishing Lawful alignments; it's important to get away from that. Lawful doesn't mean "follows the law," it means "adheres to a code or guiding set of principles." It's the ethical equivalent of Good; just as Good is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Evil being a more-than-willingness to cross them, Lawful is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Chaotic being a more-than-willingness to cross them. Neutral tends to fall somewhere in the middle; either striking a balance between the two, or else completely disregarding them both.

In D&D, for example, the archetypical NE Outsiders are a race of infernal beings who stoke the fires of the eternal war between LE and CE, all while profiting from them. So there's an archetype for you: The Arms Dealer, the character who creates disaster in order to profit off of it.

But yes, short version, NE is hard to grasp in a vacuum. It's too easy to turn it into a Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirling cartoon villain.

I'm aware that Lawful isn't just societal or cultural law, I'm more using it as a broad term meaning "A code of ethics". Also, Type 1 are neutral because they will usually follow a code (usually societal law, but not always) until it gets in the way of "muh vengeance." Also coincidentally, my Type 2 example is Snidely Whiplash.

[Nifft]

"Well Intentioned Extremist" is certainly an LE archetype, albeit a more complicated one; in a system with an alignment grid, there are generally ways to tell explicitly if you're Evil. It's kind of hard to cling to this notion of the "greater Good" while knowing for a fact that you're anything but. Humans can rationalize anything.

"I will become a monster from Hell, that others may one day live in Heaven."

"I am sacrificing everything, even my own afterlife, for the greater good."



It's worth noting that you mention "the law" when describing or distinguishing Lawful alignments; it's important to get away from that. Lawful doesn't mean "follows the law," it means "adheres to a code or guiding set of principles." It's the ethical equivalent of Good; just as Good is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Evil being a more-than-willingness to cross them, Lawful is defined by having lines it won't cross, and Chaotic being a more-than-willingness to cross them.

I feel like you're on-point about not over-valuing "the law", but not quite correct about personal codes being automatically Lawful.

I think there are enough tropes about "noble savages", or "barbarian codes", to justify a Chaotic person with a personal code.

IMHO, the divide between Law vs. Chaos is more the divide between the Organization vs. Individual.

A Monk or Paladin would adhere to an institutional code. A Barbarian or Bard could adhere to a personal code.

[goto124]

A Monk or Paladin would adhere to an institutional code. A Barbarian or Bard could adhere to a personal code.

My take on it as well. I see Lawfuls as collectivists, those who emphasize on serving the community as a whole. Chaotics are individualists and emphasize freedom on doing what you want to do (okay, there are restrictions).

Helps that there aren't mortals who're 100% Lawful, or 100% Chaotic.

[Equilibrist]

Humans can rationalize anything.

"I will become a monster from Hell, that others may one day live in Heaven."

"I am sacrificing everything, even my own afterlife, for the greater good."




I feel like you're on-point about not over-valuing "the law", but not quite correct about personal codes being automatically Lawful.

I think there are enough tropes about "noble savages", or "barbarian codes", to justify a Chaotic person with a personal code.

IMHO, the divide between Law vs. Chaos is more the divide between the Organization vs. Individual.

A Monk or Paladin would adhere to an institutional code. A Barbarian or Bard could adhere to a personal code.

For me, it's even more of a gray area: for me to rule a player as lawful based on their own code of ethics, I look at the amount and quality of rules they set for themselves, as well as how strongly they believe in them/adhere to them. All of these criteria must be met to be called Lawful.

Here are a couple examples: A Lawful Good pugilist who has 3 rules: 1) Never hit a lady, 2) always face your opponent: no backstabs, and 3) always respect your elders. Quality: these are pretty much the code of chivalry simplified, so these rules have a very high quality to them. People would greatly respect this person simply because of his rules. Amount: 3 to me is the perfect amount (all else even) to be called Lawful. Adherence: the only time I ever broke these rules (this is one of my PCs) was when we met an evil witch who stabbed one of our party members in the back, cursed often, and toyed with us (turning a sword into a snake, then turning it back after its owner freaked out). I punched her square in the face, knocking her to the ground. She looked at me mortified and asked, "I thought you would never hit a lady?" I replied, "You madam, are not a lady." I would still consider this person Lawful, even though I used the loophole of personal perspective to break a rule.

Example number 2: a Chaotic Good bard who has repeatedly in character said, "There are 3 things Shawn [himself] don't mess with: powders, demons, and spiders." While this is still a code of ethics, this person isn't Lawful because his code is more of a personality trait. His code merely changes his reaction to certain stimuli rather than being a driving force in his life. Quality: these rules are fun, but they only say "I won't take part in x", where x is of minor consequence in the first place. Amount: he has 3, so the amount is still good. Adherence: he definitely adheres to this rule, including holding a party member at "gun"-point and declaring he won't travel in a party with someone carrying Angel Dust (a hallucinogenic powder-based drug), immediately running from any spiders of any size, and, at one point, he was running from a sentinel in the middle of the desert, found a bar to duck into, found it full of demons, then ran back out into the desert to take his chances with the sentinel.

[Equilibrist]

Last one, Chaotic Evil:

Type 1: Loves Absolute Freedom
Type 2: Loves Absolute Evil
Type 3: Predatory
Type 4: Balance of Freedom and Evil
Type 5: Well-Intentioned Extremist

Okay, here we go. Type 1s enjoy doing whatever they feel like doing and are almost CN, but they will always kill anyone who stands in their way. Type 2 is similar to card-carrying evil mentioned before, but they enjoy causing mayhem, confusion, and destruction at every turn. The best example of this is Majora/Skull Kid from LoZ:MM (duh!). Type 3s are people who seek people weaker than themselves and defeat them, because they can. Type 4 are almost Type 2, but if someone tries to stop them, they won't giggle and run away: they will fight, and kill that person. We've been over Type 5 so much I don't have to explain it, and I still firmly believe it is CE, even though people disagree with me. It does belong on the chart somewhere, and I'm not gonna be offended if you decide to copy this chart and put it somewhere else: that's your prerogative.

Now that I'm at the end of this list, I'm going to rewrite the chart with all of the suggestions made by everyone and post a "complete" version. Also, I'd love for people to PM me examples of characters (yours or established ones) and discuss with me what alignment they'd be! :)

[Red Fel]

And this highlights one of the big, glaring flaws in any alignment system (other than "it is stupid," generally) - the idea of having principles.

Think about it this way. You have a character whose highest ideal is Freedom. He swears by it. He has sworn to never exercise dominion over another, to raise up the oppressed and to break the chains of the enslaved. He never abides slavery, never gives orders, and never, ever "owns" a living thing, not even a horse.

Is he LG or CG?

On the one hand, it's an extremely rigid code, on which he will never budge. Ever. There is no situation in which he would even pretend to exercise dominion over another. On the other hand, freedom is the hallmark of Chaos, not Law.

Now, touching on the Bard and Barbarian issues, I point out two things. One: Bards and Barbarians don't have to be Chaotic, they simply have to be non-Lawful. Two: That's a stupid restriction and an absurd idea. A guy is illiterate and has anger management issues, so he can't be principled? A guy plays music and gishes, so he can't have tradition? It's actually counterintuitive, and I prefer to ignore it at my table.

But back on point, game-alignment is arbitrary because it must necessarily be. If we remove the concept of having a code from the realm of Law versus Chaos, there's very little distinguishing the two. Same with tradition. All that's really left is "order for its own sake," which is pretty strictly inferior to Chaos' emphasis on freedom, passion, self-expression, and so forth.

In order for the distinction to work, in order for it to have any merit, Law must have something inherent to it. The ability to adhere unflinchingly to a personal code, therefore, becomes a Lawful trait. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying it makes sense, but there it is. If you go by the classic definition of Chaotic, having a personal code becomes counterintuitive, given that a Chaotic character would bend his principles as needed, if he had any at all. Yet it seems that any character would have some principles, barring lunatics and hedonists. It's not a question of "have" and "have not," but of degree.

Bottom line, we have to give it to Lawful, in order for Lawful/Chaotic to mean something. I don't like it, but that's where it is.

[Equilibrist]

Now, touching on the Bard and Barbarian issues, I point out two things. One: Bards and Barbarians don't have to be Chaotic, they simply have to be non-Lawful. Two: That's a stupid restriction and an absurd idea. A guy is illiterate and has anger management issues, so he can't be principled? A guy plays music and gishes, so he can't have tradition? It's actually counterintuitive, and I prefer to ignore it at my table.

This. All of this. I ignore it at my table too because of the most glaring flaw: a paladin must be LG... but what if the god you follow is an evil god? You are still a paladin by definition: you adhere to the codes set by your god. It's ludicrous to set mechanical restrictions on a roleplaying concept, and I thing WotC have had this wrong for decades.


But back on point, game-alignment is arbitrary because it must necessarily be. If we remove the concept of having a code from the realm of Law versus Chaos, there's very little distinguishing the two. Same with tradition. All that's really left is "order for its own sake," which is pretty strictly inferior to Chaos' emphasis on freedom, passion, self-expression, and so forth.

In order for the distinction to work, in order for it to have any merit, Law must have something inherent to it. The ability to adhere unflinchingly to a personal code, therefore, becomes a Lawful trait. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying it makes sense, but there it is. If you go by the classic definition of Chaotic, having a personal code becomes counterintuitive, given that a Chaotic character would bend his principles as needed, if he had any at all. Yet it seems that any character would have some principles, barring lunatics and hedonists. It's not a question of "have" and "have not," but of degree.

To me, Law is one of 3 ideas: Societal Laws, those set by established governments (Squatter's Rights); Celestial Laws, those set by gods (the Ten Commandments); and Cultural Laws, which is a code created by the everyman that you may choose to follow, but is not enforced by anyone other than its practitioners (Chivalry). All of these can be Good, Neutral, or Evil, depending on the alignment of their writers.

[Nifft]

For me, it's even more of a gray area: for me to rule a player as lawful based on their own code of ethics, I look at the amount and quality of rules they set for themselves, as well as how strongly they believe in them/adhere to them. All of these criteria must be met to be called Lawful. (snip examples)

That's exactly why I always consider the source of the code.

Was it from an institution? Great, you're Lawful.

Or is it a purely individual code? Cool, you're Chaotic.

Even if it's the exact same code. Why does this matter? Because the source determines who is allowed to change your code.


And this highlights one of the big, glaring flaws in any alignment system (other than "it is stupid," generally) - the idea of having principles.
(...)
Bottom line, we have to give it to Lawful, in order for Lawful/Chaotic to mean something. I don't like it, but that's where it is.

Come to the Nifft side! We have cookies!

Seriously, instead of looking at code-vs-not-code, look at collectivist vs. individualist. That's what I do in my games, and it's a coherent system which allows me to separate law/chaos in a way that is consistent and makes sense.


Consider two people acting against their own better judgement:

Miko the Paladin: "I'm here to fight because the Order declared war on the Hoard."

Thog the Barbarian: "thog here because ulf tell thog come here and fight and later get icecream."


Do you want to be here?

Miko the Paladin: "It's an honor to do my duty, though I'd prefer to be smiting a greater evil."

Thog the Barbarian: "thog could take or leave. except ulf has big axe so not leave."


If you were in charge, what would you do?

Miko the Paladin: "Though my wishes lie elsewhere, I would pursue the Order's policy to the best of my ability, even unto the death."

Thog the Barbarian: "thog hear the beach nice this time of year."

- - -

Basically, it's collectivism vs. individualism. Thog obeys Ulf loyally, but Ulf's policies would not outlive Ulf herself. Miko obeys her Order loyally, and the Order's policies do not die with any particular individual.

The Chaotic person says: Thog's code of conduct is more reliable, because it depends only on Thog, and nobody can sabotage that without his consent.

The Lawful person says: Miko's code of conduct is more reliable, because it depends on something greater than herself, and is not subject to the momentary lapses of judgement that can haunt an individual.

Both of them have a point, but neither of them are objectively correct.

[Jenerix525]

Think about it this way. You have a character whose highest ideal is Freedom. He swears by it. He has sworn to never exercise dominion over another, to raise up the oppressed and to break the chains of the enslaved. He never abides slavery, never gives orders, and never, ever "owns" a living thing, not even a horse.

Is he LG or CG?

On the one hand, it's an extremely rigid code, on which he will never budge. Ever. There is no situation in which he would even pretend to exercise dominion over another. On the other hand, freedom is the hallmark of Chaos, not Law.

He is both (or perhaps neither, but that's not how I'd describe it). There is nothing particularly weird about having a lawful methodology with chaotic motives, is there? For the simplicity of giving him a single alignment, I would mark this trait down as neutral good (leaning chaotic perhaps) and look for other traits to push him into law or chaos.

Comparing with the well-intentioned extremist, I would be interested in considering whether methods carry more weight on the G/E axis, while motives carry more weight on the L/C axis. Or perhaps Evil/Chaos tend to override regardless.

[Equilibrist]

He is both (or perhaps neither, but that's not how I'd describe it). There is nothing particularly weird about having a lawful methodology with chaotic motives, is there? For the simplicity of giving him a single alignment, I would mark this trait down as neutral good (leaning chaotic perhaps) and look for other traits to push him into law or chaos.

Comparing with the well-intentioned extremist, I would be interested in considering whether methods carry more weight on the G/E axis, while motives carry more weight on the L/C axis. Or perhaps Evil/Chaos tend to override regardless.

It should be more of what the everyday person would think of you, rather than what you think of yourself. "We judge ourselves on our intentions and others based on their actions" is the quote that keeps coming to my mind. Everyone's arguing both cases simultaneously and we need to pick one. Emotion is an abstract concept, but actions are definitive.

[Jenerix525]

It should be more of what the everyday person would think of you, rather than what you think of yourself. "We judge ourselves on our intentions and others based on their actions" is the quote that keeps coming to my mind. Everyone's arguing both cases simultaneously and we need to pick one. Emotion is an abstract concept, but actions are definitive.

In that case there's another pair of things that need to be evaluated for any personal code: Severity and Evidence. By which I mean how unusual it is, and how obvious it is. Let's take Red Fel's freedom lover as the example.


He never abides slavery, never gives orders, and never, ever "owns" a living thing, not even a horse.

1: He never abides slavery. This isn't very severe, in that slavery is widely frowned upon in most settings, but is pretty darn obvious in relevant situations.
2: He never gives orders. This is moderately severe, but not very; most people don't actively try to give orders for their own sake, they just don't avoid it when there is reason. But it's not very obvious; people might notice that he hasn't given orders, but they are unlikely to realise he actively refrains from it.
3: He never claims possession of a living being. This is really severe, most people will see this as putting animals and humans at equal status. How obvious it is could vary wildly. Will he borrow a horse? Use one without considering it something he 'owns'? How does he act if someone offers him a pet as a gift? Does he view all pets and work animals as slaves, and thus actively work to free them from others?

Most people won't care about the slavery, or notice the orders. Very faint hints of chaotic good there. But for #3, if he expects it of others, he is valuing the freedom of animals over the status-quo and the benefit of society: this'll be seen as incredibly chaotic, with tinges of good. If he only follows it himself and brings it up when confronted, it'll come across equal parts chaos and good.

So he's either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good, from an external point of view.

[goto124]

I take Nifft's stance on collectivism vs individualism. May I sig you please?

P.S. I'm :thog:. I spend all me time IRL pretty much forced to act Lawful, why do I want to do it in a fantasy game?

[Nifft]

I take Nifft's stance on collectivism vs individualism. May I sig you please?

Certainly.