Alignment Archetype Chart

[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 . 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.