Poll of the Day > Why is Neutral Good usually the more popular/common choice?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I love when games offer a neutral path that is basically just a schizophrenic option. "Ooops, done too many good things to maintain my alignment, time to murder some puppies."

---

Zareth posted...

I love when games offer a neutral path that is basically just a schizophrenic option. "Ooops, done too many good things to maintain my alignment, time to murder some puppies."

Thats always fun.... um, as long as the puppies are just smelly guys in costumes. (Im Chaotic Good, but not chaotic enough to hurt puppies.)

---

Lawful good has too many restrictions.
like if someone surrenders to you, you cannot kill him. Even if you know hes a dirtbag wholl just break out of prison and go back to his criminal ways. Hes unarmed and surrendered, so you cant kill him.

Neutral Good could kill him if they thought it was for the best.

---

Mead posted...

he is definitely lawful

I guess Id say lawful neutral because he is setting out to do good usually, but some of the stuff he does is pretty evil and sadistic

If Frank Castle isn't the most prolific serial killer in the Marvel Multiverse, he's still definitely top 10, and he's one of the "good guys"...

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

If Frank Castle isn't the most prolific serial killer in the Marvel Multiverse, he's still definitely top 10, and he's one of the "good guys"...

he can't be lawful because he goes against the law and take it in his own hands...

he is loyal to his friends, he dont kill good people, only ones who deserved it.
i think i would go with the other guy and say chaotic good.
i'm talking punisher netflix serie.

My understanding is that lawful is more about adhering to a code, not necessarily the legal system so a villain that refuses to break his own code would be lawful evil even if he is constantly doing illegal things. A villain that has no code would be chaotic evil, and a villain that tries to follow a code but makes exceptions or fails to sometimes would be neutral evil.

I think very few people in real life are chaotic anything. Almost everyone has some internal code they at least attempt to follow. Chaotic neutral is probably the most psychotic of all of them. Not out for a purpose nor do you follow a code. You just kind of exist without reason behind your actions. I suppose you could interpret it as a mix of being selfish and selfless but with no code and thats a bit less psychotic.

I guess you could think about the scale as being good vs evil = selfless vs selfish, lawful vs chaotic = logic vs emotion. This putting most people IRL at true neutral. A highly emotional person seeking to help others would be chaotic good, a highly logical person seeking to help themselves would be lawful evil.

---

streamofthesky posted...

hitler is NE

He had no sort of moral compunctions or code, a lot of his ideology was deeply hypocritical/contradicting, and he was a massive ENEMY of the sort of strong hierarchy that LE is known for. If anything, he leans CE given how often he tore up the chain of command and rewrote things to be more all over the place.

Hitler may not have been LE but the Nazis, as an organization, definitely were.

---

People on the all and all are uninteresting.

---

dvdjedi posted...

Hitler may not have been LE but the Nazis, as an organization, definitely were.

nazis could be NE, too.

They used "I was just following orders" as an excuse to try and escape punishment after they lost. Doesn't mean they actually gave a shit about obeying their superiors vs. being totally for it.

I mean, NE is the "pure evil" alignment, not tainted by the rigidity of a lawful doctrine nor as random and unconstrained as CE. Seems like the right fit for literal nazis...

streamofthesky posted...

nazis could be NE, too.

They used "I was just following orders" as an excuse to try and escape punishment after they lost. Doesn't mean they actually gave a shit about obeying their superiors vs. being totally for it.

I mean, NE is the "pure evil" alignment, not tainted by the rigidity of a lawful doctrine nor as random and unconstrained as CE. Seems like the right fit for literal nazis...

National Socialism indoctrinated the German populace into following orders without regard to the moral implications. That's practically the definition of Lawful Evil. Do what you're told and don't question it.

---

InfestedAdam posted...

Really? Perhaps I am not familiar enough with him but I thought he is more or less a vigilante taking out criminals. I thought that would place him more as chaotic good.

He's brutally murdering people sometimes understandably but other times it's just crazy.



---

fantomas418 posted...

he can't be lawful because he goes against the law and take it in his own hands...

he is loyal to his friends, he dont kill good people, only ones who deserved it.
i think i would go with the other guy and say chaotic good.
i'm talking punisher netflix serie.

That's not choatic good. CG is batman-style treatment of criminals.

---

Lordkill posted...

I'd like someone to explain to me wtf lawful evil is? Cause the two don't even sound right together...

This makes me want explain alignments with Comic characters, something I was thinking about the other day.
Lots of characters can fit in these categories but Im gonna do my best to just name a few while still fully explaining each alignment.

Lawful Evil:
Thanos (MCU version).
He has a code; he didnt simply want to destroy everything, even though he had the power to. He had a twisted idea that his actions were better for the universe as a whole.
Comic Thanos was more like Neutral Evil, his motivation was much more selfish.
A real world example of Lawful Evil could be Al Capone, or the Italian Mafia. They had their own code of laws, and didnt want disorder.

Neutral Evil:
Galactus.
Hes like a force of nature. He kills billions and literally eats entire worlds. He has no sense of law or morality but isnt chaotic; he has one goal, consume all.

Chaotic Evil:
The Joker.
He has no code, and isnt bound by any sense of morality. He isnt motivated by money, and will kill someone, sometimes even his own henchmen, just for kicks.
Simply put, he just wants to watch the world burn.

Lawful Good:
Batman. He operates with code and a strong sense of morality & justice. He will never kill anyone (in most adaptations), even if their deaths could prevent more crime. While vigilantism is technically illegal, Batmans code is rooted in a higher standard of morality than civil law.

Neutral Good:
Tony Stark (pre civil war).
He doesnt totally uphold the law, rather he does what he thinks is right in the moment. Hes been known to kill when he thinks its necessary, and also shows mercy where its due.
In Civil War Tony Stark and Steve Rogers kinda swapped alignments, Tony who was typically more neutral was ready to become lawful, and allow super-humans to be regulated.
Steve, who was typically Lawful, opposed the Super-Human Registration Act, as a violation of their identities and thus was more neutral.

Chaotic Good:
Wolverine.
Hes rough around the edges but still has good intentions. He doesnt kill innocents, and is seldom motivated by self-gain. However he will kill brutally and mercilessly even when the crime doesnt constitute a death sentence.
This is the alignment most Anti-Hero characters like Red Hood or The Punisher fit in. Their intentions are good but their morality is grey.

Lawful Neutral:
Living Tribunal.
This alignment is hard to isolate a comic character too because most characters seem to fit into a good/bad extreme, or are chaotic. The Living Tribunal however is truly morally neutral. The concept of good and evil as defined by mortals is irrelevant to him. That said the entity is lawful; Living Tribunal oversees the multiverse and prevents any character from achieving God like powers in the sense that they could change reality of the multiverse, whether for good intentions or bad.

Chaotic Neutral:
Deadpool or even Venom.
Deadpool is motivated by mostly selfish things, like money, revenge, love. He kills people to achieve his goals but doesnt kill innocents. And to be frank, he likes to fuck around.

True Neutral (neutral in regards to Law and ethical stance):
Catwoman.
This is a character who does not care to uphold the law, but isnt trying to create Anarchy either. She is usually motivated by selfishness but has also saved lives before. Shes been known to work with criminals for self gain and her role as a thief makes her bad but saving lives and helping Heros occasionally has made her good. In this sense she maintains a neutral stance.

---

A hard character to categorize that I wanted to is Spawn.
initially I was going to call him Chaotic Good.
As a Hellspawn he was quite literally created for Evil, however his human side gives him a sense of morality, so he refrains from killing innocents. That said he kills with extreme prejudice, and actually takes sadistic pleasure in killing the guilty. I would say hes borderline Neutral Evil, or perhaps True Neutral

---

Good synopsis, ZBug (not sure if Tony Stark is NG rather than CG, but otherwise yeah).

Another form of LE that can happen and is outside the usual depiction is a villain with no sort of moral code or compunctions he follows. Rather, he's ever mindful of the laws of his jurisdiction and strives to always stay within their bounds while exploiting those laws' shortcomings however he can. So he can then use the law as a shield to protect himself from CG heroes trying to stop him.
Examples: Most depictions of "evil lawyers"; your bog standard corporate CEO that bribes Congress to pass laws favorable to his company at the expense of rivals or the taxpayer; the manipulative types that trick others into committing the crimes while they keep their hands clean...at least in the eyes of the law.

streamofthesky posted...

Good synopsis, ZBug (not sure if Tony Stark is NG rather than CG, but otherwise yeah).

Another form of LE that can happen and is outside the usual depiction is a villain with no sort of moral code or compunctions he follows. Rather, he's ever mindful of the laws of his jurisdiction and strives to always stay within their bounds while exploiting those laws' shortcomings however he can. So he can then use the law as a shield to protect himself from CG heroes trying to stop him.
Examples: Most depictions of "evil lawyers"; your bog standard corporate CEO that bribes Congress to pass laws favorable to his company at the expense of rivals or the taxpayer; the manipulative types that trick others into committing the crimes while they keep their hands clean...at least in the eyes of the law.

Thats a very good example of a more grounded/ down to earth lawful evil. Evil isnt always someone who murders.

---

ZBug_ posted...

Lawful Good:
Batman. He operates with code and a strong sense of morality & justice. He will never kill anyone (in most adaptations), even if their deaths could prevent more crime. While vigilantism is technically illegal, Batmans code is rooted in a higher standard of morality than civil law.

Batman is not lawful good. He's choatic good.

Lawful good would be commissioner Gordon.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Batman is not lawful good. He's choatic good.

Lawful good would be commissioner Gordon.

I disagree.

Lawful doesnt necessarily mean civil laws.
Commissioner Gordon is by all means lawful good, but he obeys the laws of the government.
As I said Batmans moral code is of a higher standard than government laws, but he is by all means lawful. His code is his law. This line of reasoning is why Lawful Evil can exist in the first place.

Besides that, Batman is seldom if ever chaotic. His actions are calculated (albeit to a humanly impossible degree) and he always weighs out the consequences.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

A villain that has no code would be chaotic evil, and a villain that tries to follow a code but makes exceptions or fails to sometimes would be neutral evil.

I think that "a villian that has no code" would be neutral evil. he's looking out for his own interests, regardless of the situation. a villian that despises rules and the people that think following them is worthwhile would be chaotic evil.

EvilMegas posted...

Batman is not lawful good. He's choatic good.

I'm not sure on this one. I could see it interpreted a variety of ways. I might say he's lawful good. he's only a vigilante to the degree that it's needed to make up for Gotham's failures. He's not personally opposed to the law; he's trying to personally make up for what is otherwise a corrupted legal system and help it function.

A chaotic good character is a little more like Robin Hood, or maybe rebels in general.

---

Yeah people tend to get stuck on the idea of lawful as societal laws but really its any strict ruleset one imposes whether upon themselves or others

---

TheSlinja posted...

Yeah people tend to get stuck on the idea of lawful as societal laws but really its any strict ruleset one imposes whether upon themselves or others

Doom. Victor Von Doom is Lawful Evil.

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

My understanding is that lawful is more about adhering to a code, not necessarily the legal system so a villain that refuses to break his own code would be lawful evil even if he is constantly doing illegal things.

TheSlinja posted...

Yeah people tend to get stuck on the idea of lawful as societal laws but really its any strict ruleset one imposes whether upon themselves or others

Interesting. I never thought to look at the "Lawful" part that way. Thanks for the thought.

---

Sahuagin posted...

I'm not sure on this one. I could see it interpreted a variety of ways. I might say he's lawful good. he's only a vigilante to the degree that it's needed to make up for Gotham's failures. He's not personally opposed to the law; he's trying to personally make up for what is otherwise a corrupted legal system and help it function.

Batman's whole deal is that he takes what he thinks to be the law and forces that on to people the point where he often butts heads with other heroes.

Superman is lawful good. Batman is more of a chaotic hero than lawful.


---

EvilMegas posted...

Batman's whole deal is that he takes what he thinks to be the law and forces that on to people the point where he often butts heads with other heroes.

Superman is lawful good. Batman is more of a chaotic hero than lawful.

I don't see what's chaotic about him. chaotic means he opposes order in some way. he's trying to maintain order in a chaotic city. he's anti-chaos, not pro-chaos. he even specifically goes after criminals. he's actually kind of especially obsessed with enforcing the law; he's written as a detective after all.

actually he even thinks that he should be held accountable for anything he's currently doing that's illegal; he just needs to operate outside the law temporarily until things get back under control.

feels like you could maybe even start twisting him towards lawful neutral. I would put him somewhere between lawful neutral and neutral good. maybe you could call it lawful-or-good as opposed to lawful-and-good, I dunno. but chaotic good would take a pretty strong argument for how he could possibly be interpreted as being predisposed to opposing order/promoting chaos...

---

I saw this recently. It reminded me of this topic...

https://i.imgur.com/r6SuC4v.jpg
---

Batman creates chaos. It may not be his intent, but its ALWAYS the result.

Batman has never solved the crime problem in Gotham because what he is doing has no meaning. It's just his mental instability forcing him to think he's doing the right thing.

Batman isn't enforcing the law, hes enforcing what batman believes to be the law. Beating the shit out of people then throwing them to the cops isn't lawful its chaotic. When he does this all it does is make the city more unstable.

Sure, Batman has a code to not kill but he has done horroble shit to lots of people because he goes to almost any length to get what he wants. He literally has a plan to kill or disable all of his allies, "just in case"

He's literally The Punisher that doesn't kill people.


---

EvilMegas posted...

hes enforcing what batman believes to be the law.

exactly, he is lawful
lawful has never meant following literal city laws, and lawful actions resulting in chaos is just the nature of the world and vice versa

---

EvilMegas posted...

Batman creates chaos. It may not be his intent, but its ALWAYS the result.

I don't agree, but his intent would matter more anyway since we're talking about his inner personality.

EvilMegas posted...

Batman isn't enforcing the law, hes enforcing what batman believes to be the law.

either of those are lawful. chaotic would be desiring to actively disrupt law. just the word "enforcing" itself is basically lawful.

EvilMegas posted...

Beating the shit out of people then throwing them to the cops isn't lawful its chaotic.

depending what you mean by "people" (criminals) it's definitely lawful; it's anti-chaotic. unless you're saying he's targeting innocent people who haven't done anything wrong or something... removing people who are actively disrupting society from the system is working as a lawful force.

this actually seems to not be able to be any less ambiguous.

EvilMegas posted...

he has done horroble shit to lots of people because he goes to almost any length to get what he wants

I would need more specific examples

EvilMegas posted...

He literally has a plan to kill or disable all of his allies, "just in case"

well even that is more lawful than chaotic. having a contingency plan for an extreme event is an _orderly_ thing to do, not a chaotic thing to do. the chaotic thing to do would be _not_ to have a plan, and/or to smile to oneself internally about how much of a fun mess it would be if that ever happened.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Batman creates chaos. It may not be his intent, but its ALWAYS the result.

Batman has never solved the crime problem in Gotham because what he is doing has no meaning. It's just his mental instability forcing him to think he's doing the right thing.

Even worse, the overwhelming majority of his rogues gallery is of his own making one way or another either through his own doing, or as a result of something Wayne Corp did. The best thing that ever could have happened to Gotham would have been Thomas and Martha Wayne not going to the theatre that night.

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Even worse, the overwhelming majority of his rogues gallery is of his own making one way or another either through his own doing, or as a result of something Wayne Corp did.

I was just thinking about this. He creates his own villains most of the time...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I was just thinking about this. He creates his own villains most of the time...

That's a real problem for Gotham all around. None of the other members of the JLA have rogues galleries full of problems of their own creation, and that's not to say Batman and the Bat Family haven't been very helpful to the League. But for Gotham, Batman/Bruce turned a town full of common street thugs into a town full of super powered villains over the course of decades.

---

Lordkill posted...

I'd like someone to explain to me wtf lawful evil is? Cause the two don't even sound right together...

When you use loopholes in the law to do evil things so you aren't breaking the law but honestly it should be

---

Neutral Good is probably the most common choice in terms of what people would like to play.

However, Chaotic Good may be more common because most settings eventually pit you against a corrupted/evil government or similar power that has control over the law, and thus you just end up having to be rebels/resistance in order to oppose them, and when you play that way you generally don't really have any form of NON-moral code for what you will do to set things right.
.


---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

That's a real problem for Gotham all around. None of the other members of the JLA have rogues galleries full of problems of their own creation, and that's not to say Batman and the Bat Family haven't been very helpful to the League. But for Gotham, Batman/Bruce turned a town full of common street thugs into a town full of super powered villains over the course of decades.

Exactly. He tries to be lawful but all of his actions are chaotic.

I already gave the better example of lawful in the Batman universe: Commish Gordon.

---

Skyrim time;

If Whiterun is True Neutral, what would the alignments of the other 8 holds be?

---

EvilMegas posted...

Exactly. He tries to be lawful but all of his actions are chaotic

His actions are lawful, just because the results are chaos doesnt change that, plenty of lawful actions will result in chaos and vice versa

Character alignment is a depiction of ones character, not the results of his actions

---

IMO because NG's philosophy is one of doing good above all else and, to quote a particular tumbler post 'because in fantasy settings I can help everyone'. Since a NG philosophy tends to advocate for following the laws but not being confined by them, especially in the desire to do good, they tend to be the most 'heroic' types and are also frequently represented as the heroes in movies, games, and other media. Link, for example, typically does follow the laws of the land but doesn't have an issue with breaking them in order to defeat Ganon (in games where there are laws I mean). Using the Lens of Truth on a guessing game is okay if it means getting what's needed to defeat the greater evil. Compared to someone like Zelda who typically functions more in the confines of the law and tradition which is unsurprising giving her nature as a princess. IMO a simplistic way to put it is that the action itself matters less than the motive behind it in regards to determining alignment.

LG people tend to believe that laws, society, traditions, and the like will keep people safe and allow for an ease of life. A good example of this is Yuna from FFX before she finds out the truth about Yevon. She believes in the calling of summoners and is willing to sacrifice herself in order to provide Spira with a temporary respite and firmly believes that, maybe, Sin will be finished for good one day. Superman would be another example of this since he adhires to a moral code and abides by it even when he knows full-well it's being exploited. For example a villain only freeing him if he promises to help their family and Superman then doing so despite the promise being made to a villain.

NG people tend to believe in helping people inherently and that the ends tend to justify the means more often than not. We see both heroes and well-intentioned extremists here (at least attempting to be NG). There are ample examples in RL and Fiction of this but, generally, their focus isn't on laws so much as achieving the goal.

CG people tend to be the active rebels who outright reject authority in favor of personal and independent action. While the 'rebel fighting against an evil empire' is a classic this is also where you get things like priests who decide that bringing the word of God to a people and helping those in need matters more than church dogma.

LN people tend to care more about the law and rules than anything else, but this is often a poor representation. A better way to summarize this is that good or evil aren't part of their goals at all. Their goal is to build a functioning society. This is where you also get people who follow laws and orders with little to no question or thought to break them. So a police officer would, likely, be LN while acting as a police officer. It's not that the won't consider breaking a law or hold the rules to be utterly sacred but, rather, their belief that society requires said laws and that people need to uphold them is core to their identity.

TN people tend to be people who, well, are people. They go through life caring little for good and evil, law and order, or anything else and care more about how to survive the day. They will typically try to follow the rules but don't care if they break them. They'll try to be good but it's not actually part of their goal and they don't have an issue committing evil to accomplish it.

CN people tend to be self-focused. That is to say that the things they care about are mainly about themselves. This doesn't make them greedy or selfish by any means but they typically care little for the law and motivations tend to be personal as opposed to anything else. For example, a merchant who cares mainly about money may not be about to try and pass off red-colored water as healing potion but, at the same time, doesn't care if the person they sell to is good or evil.

LE people are typically the kind of person who abuses the law for personal power. Tyrants are an obvious example but on a smaller scale it would include things like people who gleefully exploit company policies to get them to honor expired coupons or give them free products. This can also manifest in the belief that the only way for society to function is when ruled by an iron fist and cracking down upon, or utterly removing, personal freedoms in favor of power and control.

NE people tend to be the perfect example of the hollywood scociopath. People who don't care one bit about the suffering of others and will gladly ruin or destroy their lives for their own, personal, goals. This is where the selfish jerkwads and the like also end up as well as people who commit horrific acts for alien reasons. It's not that they adhire to, or rebel against, the law. It's that the law doesn't really apply to them either way.

CE is where you get the violent brutish types. These are the people who basically only care about the id, pleasuring themselves in the here and now with little to no regard to what it does to other people. Kill a bunch of innocent travelers for their gold? Booze tonight! A common misconception is that these people are all violent and destructive monsters and basically demon worshipers. The reality is that these people are the people who only care about themselves and see little to no reason to not screw over others for their own personal gain.

My personal take on it.

---

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

The almost describes batman to a T.

---

You also forget batman operates with fear, intimidation, lies, and brutal violence.

---

EvilMegas posted...

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

The almost describes batman to a T.

It depends on the writer. Batman can fluxuate between CG, NG, and CN depending on the writer easily enough; but he tends to fall somewhere between NG and CG. The way I've always seen it is that Batman believes in the law and that it's needed, a good thing, and so-forth but he also believes that there needs to be people who function outside of the law for various reasons in order so that the law can do it's job. In a world of supervillains that may, very well, be true.

---

I always liked this topic, here's how I see it:

lawful good: a person who follows and upholds the law while inputting their own aligned moral code with it, like Nick Angel from Hot Fuzz

neutral good: a person who doesn't do everything by the book but doesn't make trouble either. I'd say private detectives from noir movies

chaotic good: your vigilante, "take justice into my own hands", I'd say the dude from Death Wish

lawful neutral: the law must be obeyed regardless of my own preferences, court judges

true neutral: all of us. Most people don't exactly fit any of these stereotypes, we're just all doing our own bit

chaotic neutral: a bit of a stretch but I'd put Hitman Agent 47 here, what he does is VERY against the rules but it's a job and he doesn't get a say who's good and who's not

lawful evil: obvious pick here would be Darth Vader, consistent in his actions and doing his master's bidding.

neutral evil: my pick here would be any corrupt politician who made bank and doesn't exactly want anyone to know how

chaotic evil: the easiest pick here is Hitler and no explanation needed

---

> chaotic evil: the easiest pick here is Hitler and no explanation needed

actually you do need to explain. how was he chaotic when he organized the entire country into superior economic and military force? how was he evil for lifting up his entire nation from economic and military depression?
---

Lol get that outta here dude. There's already a Hitler topic.

---

Probably because most people don't have extreme opinions on most things but lean towards good.
---

Well, he isn't chaotic at any rate. Jack the Ripper would be better for that, presumably.

---

That might help you and might find it interesting. This is from Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition. Kinda the base of the alignement system fleshed out.

Lawful Good: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another,society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.

Lawful Neutral: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior.

Lawful Evil: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.

Neutral Good: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.

True Neutral: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of
either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the
world.

Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscmpulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil
characters.

Chaotic Good: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.

Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

Chaotic Evil: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can beheld together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.

While I am aware that that is the 'official' definition (though I believe it's considered outdated even by D&D standards) I disagree heavily with it since it tends to define things only through the context of an adventuring narrative and tends to artificially encourage both limited character-types and characters/players conforming to extremes with no acknowledgement for nuance. Like, for example, a chaotic neutral person by that system would basically have to be a crazed madman and couldn't, say, be an anarchist who just wants to be left alone to live their own life or a bard who only cares about their career as a bard instead of the cosmic battles between good and evil. Hence my own definitions.

Here's some more 'joke' alignments that are pretty important to note.

Lawful Stupid/A**hole: This person believes in upholding laws and codes to a level that, frankly, is absurd. These aren't the people who refuse to turn right on red and wait for the light but, rather, the sort of idiot who would stop a doctor from saving an orphans life after a car accident because the park bench 'isn't a properly designated medical facility'. Or, more accurately, the boss who complains that an employee clocked in 5 minutes late and ignores that the reason said employee was five minutes late was because the boss stopped them to talk in the hallway. Did the king manage to obtain the MacGuffin through a crime boss that he's now handing over to the party to save the world? He's obviously a criminal and must be arrested! Did the rogue pick-pocket the key from a guard so they can escape jail from unjust imprisonment? He's a criminal and should have served out his 2,000 year sentence! Very often the paladin.

Stupid Good: The bad guy is beaten but the party is downed except for the healer girl. Thankfully she gets a nat 20 and blasts him away. Except instead of finishing him off the villain PROMISES to be good and open a puppy orphanage and TOTALLY won't destroy the world if she spares him. And she believes him. Stupid good characters tend to believe in good to a level that is, frankly, absurd and annoying. Not only must evil be banished but even neutrals are suspect while, at the same time, being willing to believe any sob story, feigned 'redemption', or the like. An odd mix of a crazy white mage and templar these are the people who have no problem exterminating entire goblin camps with fire but if said flame even slightly singes a puppy you're an evil heartless monster who deserves punishment!

Chaotic ***hole: Your party has been captured and thrown in jail. Thankfully the rogue pickpocketed the key and freed everyone... And as you walk out into the hallway the bard not only yells out to the guards but conjures a giant arrow to point at the party while they take off in the opposite direction. Justifying it as 'escaping while you distract the guards' or some other crud. These are the jerks who gladly lock party members in rooms until they fork over gold, steal loot from the party even when it makes no logical sense, and everything else that would normally get them thrown out of the party in an instant if it was 'real'. Basically every jerk you're thinking of.

Stupid Evil: You are just getting started on the game. You have the Lawful good Paladin, the Chaotic Good Cleric of Thor, the Neutral Good Elfy bard of puppy loving, and then... This guy. Did the GM literally not even finish the intro describing the setting? He's already rolling to attack the bard. Is the Paladin fighting a heroic last stand and just BARELY winning against the dragon? He'll backstab the paladin and side with the dragon (note: The Dragon won't side with him for obvious reasons). Did the cleric just free a bunch of orphaned slaves? He'll shoot them in the back and throw the bodies into a pot for cooking right in front of her. This person doesn't just do evil, he actively does evil literally for no sane or INsane reason. Is the cleric healing him from near-death? Stab her in the throat and it counts as a sneak attack! It might be mistaken for trolling... except that this guy is 'serious' in what he's doing. Basically doing evil not even for the sake of doing evil but because he can't comprehend that not only both the characters but the players at the table as well don't approve.

Good Gay: We will not get into the question of homosexuality and if it's right, wrong, or otherwise. That's not the point here. The point is that someone made a character who is, effectively, always right because of their homosexuality and if you side against them or anything for any reason you're, inevitably, on the side of evil. Did they just kill a bunch of seemingly random villagers? They'll turn out to be spies from the evil nation that hates the good nation and did we mention that the good nation practices free love and openly embraces homosexuality with a queen in a loving and tender lesbian relationship while the evil nation sees even an idle glance between two men as a ticket to hell? The issue here isn't the question of if LGBT is right, wrong, or otherwise. Rather, it's the fact that they ARE right unconditionally and if you don't love and adore them for it you're a horrible monster. You'll find that you could literally eat a baby in front of their weeping parents but still end up going to heaven if you 'support' them.

This is, of course, ignoring things like the Mary Sue, the Murder Hobo, and the Rules Lawyer which aren't actual alignments (even if they to have a tendency to affect them).

---

fantomas418 posted...

Chaotic Good: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.

this to me is more like neutral good than chaotic good. "little use for laws" sounds like a neutral stance not an opposed stance. "laws are good only until they're not" is a neutral stance.

it should be, I would think, that chaotic good is as opposed to lawful good as it is to chaotic evil. (and similarly, is as aligned with chaotic evil as it is with lawful good.)

---

Sahuagin posted...

it should be, I would think, that chaotic good is as opposed to lawful good as it is to chaotic evil. (and similarly, is as aligned with chaotic evil as it is with lawful good.)

LOL, absolutely not

If you think a CG character should be just as likely to work alongside a demon as an archon, you really have no idea about the D&D alignment system.

In particular, it is not a "linear" scale going from good to evil with neutral in between. ESPECIALLY on the chaotic side. CE is often mass slaughter/destruction/death.

streamofthesky posted...

If you think a CG character should be just as likely to work alongside a demon as an archon, you really have no idea about the D&D alignment system.

it does often seem that a good/evil conflict is more severe than a lawful/chaotic conflict, but I've never read anything that explicitly says that the lawful/chaotic spectrum is of less significance than the good/evil one. it's fine I guess, but it would mean that the "chaotic" in "chaotic good" means very little.

also I think you're missing degree/magnitude. a mass murderer and a demon might both be chaotic evil, but so can a shoplifter. if a person's general attitude is "f*** the rules, I want this and I'm taking it", that's chaotic evil, even if it's to a much less degree.

---