Alignment Examples 

Emily Dickenson is Chaotic Evil. Go...

Sounds like a good way to clean up your facebook friend list. lol

NA HE WAS EEEEVIL

Except Trump who is Neutral Evil.

Lol, true enough. He-Trump falls closer to evil than good. Yes. I DO despise the man and believe the world would be better off without him in it.

Ah... my head /(>o

A DM should always favor the side on which the players lie. And they should never remain neutral. They are the God shifting fortune every so slightly in the character's favor.

you then have a really bad master

I usually see the true neutral character being held in a bad light. It is true the character if played wrong can be horribly boring, but in the right situation can be quite interesting. like for example, say there is a situation where the character is attacked by slavers and is forced into a coliseum and must fight to survive. in this situation he/she might make bond with other characters in the name of survival, but if it were a situation where he/she sees one of those characters in a deadly situation he might turn tail if it meant surviving. he wouldn't do this maliciously to harm the other player, just simply out of survival.

I dm just to lay traps and kill my players.

I'd say lawyers are more lawful neutral. Whether what you did was right or wrong is irrelevant, the only thing that matters are the laws surrounding the circumstances.

@@riftis2210 I always figured he told me that because a lawyer can work within the whole "rules of the courtroom and trials" but could use those codes to benefit himself into winning cases. Either ethically or not

It depends on the lawyer’s motivation, although more often then not they end up on the lawful evil end of the spectrum

@@LunarTales I strongly disagree.

Lawyers are all of the lawful-XXX variants. Prosecutors seeking to see real criminals brought to justice. Lawful Good. Defense attorneys... personal profit regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant vary from lawful neutral to lawful evil. Perry Mason, and similar defense attorneys seeking the REAL criminal to be brought to justice while defending an innocent person... Lawful Good. Personal injury lawyers (ambulance chasers) seeking to profit from other people's pain are generally evil.

Judge Dredd is another great example of LN

I'd argue Javert borders on L/E he enforces the law to a tyrannical extreme and does not care about the harm he causes.

@@scottbrowne9024 I don’t think Javert can be considered morally evil… his morals are placed on the back burner based on the rules presented, so he’d be neutral.

argella1300 I'd almost call that lawful good. Because they're acting in accordance with their own morality... '\/(:/)\/`

I expect I would end up being on the evil side. However I am not sure if that is fair. I would murder, rape and do whatever benfits me. My caracter would be totally about focusing on themselves. However, they may just aswell want to help the poor for that would make them feel good about themselves. At the same time I do not think my caracter would go around saying he is such a great and nice person. But all the same he could point to things he has done that is nice and say it would be unfair to call him evil as he do nice things when he wants to. He would also be able to point to the "good" and show plenty of examples of what he would say is horrible acts of theirs, while looking at good things that comes of more evil caracters. I guess my caracter would feel a bit out of place with the whole good and bad thing of the world. Neutral evil? Chaotic evil maybe? But that to me seems like he would be pure evil. :/ Chaotic neutral? I guess that may be it. But for sure I would expect any other caracter both good and bad guys to call him evil. Man I really wish we would have an adult serie of a Freeza ish caracter who would be like that. Just totally fine murdering starving children or whatever to state his anger. But also willing to help other times. A caracter who would look at the "good" side and say bad, and the bad side and say meh. People are people and people are shit. If someone is nice they are probably hiding something. They sure are not nice for it hurts them.

+Caim Pact That's chaotic neutral. Doing whatever you want, whenever you want without regard to whether it's good or evil.

Yea I guess that sounds about right.

I find neutral evil to be the most evil personal. Generally a lawful evil has a moral code while neutral evil cares about nothing. Thats my take on it.

Yeah, I had the exact same epiphany :)

Nathan Shandy about the best fictional persona in existence. Did you read the book he wrote? “A stitch in time” is amazing and rounds out the characters story from top to bottom

I love the character of Garak SO MUCH

I think it's worth noting how Chaotic characters might not necessarily be against society as a concept (though they can be), because it encompasses anarchism: not against society, just the current one and the structures it perpetrates, i.e. wanting another kind of society that's antitheitcal to the current one. I know it's what it says in your comment, but I think a lot of people might read it and think "oh, so they wanna burn it down to the ground".

You made it too simple. To be good is not to protect, but to protect is usually good. To be evil is not to dominate, but to dominate is usually evil. To be neutral is not to preserve, but preserving can be neutral. If I'm good I may not be here to protect society, but just am a nice guy who doesn't know or care about the bigger picture. If I'm evil I may just be willing to do anything to get what I want, I'll burn an orphanage to get the treasure under it. No domination here. If I'm neutral I'm probably not preserving anything unless I'm obsessed with equilibrium. I probably don't care about anything or anyone, or like in the video I'm skeptical to believe anyone or anything could be correct.

Ultimately I'd make it even simpler and remove the whole "society at large" framework - Good is being selfless more often than being selfish and Evil is being selfish more often than being selfless, in both cases to pronounced degrees; it is obvious then that Neutral is a complex (and realistic) mixture of both. Likewise, Lawful and Chaotic are not about believing in Order on one hand or anything but on the other, instead they are about whether an individual conducts themselves in accordance to internal and/or external rulesets and patterns. Let's say we have a character in a modern or say cyberpunk setting. Where would you place someone who diligently goes to work every day but gambles, parties and drinks in the evening, follows the laws except for occasionally crossing red lights and littering, doesn't hurt others but also doesn't go out of their way to help old ladies cross the street and, finally, has friends and family but places themselves above all else when push comes to shove? I'd say that that would be a very real and authentic example of a typical modern person and I'd with strong conviction say that such a character is Lawful Evil.

Goddang, that was really well written.

My description is good is focused on helping others (usually the innocents), neutral helps oneself with a constant awareness to not act in detriment to others, evil is just advancing oneself with disregard of others. Lawful works off a system of moral absolutes and struggles whenever they have to act against it, neutral works off a system of ethics but understands there are exceptions, chaotic follows their hearts doing what feels appropriate.

I think that's a great example. 👍

“‘You! Your heart is so full of hatred you are not fit to be a King.” This is why Matt’s right that it’s difficult to pin down alignments. Okoye struggles with the fact she’s supposed to serve the throne (lawful) no matter who sits on it (neutral), but eventually she breaks that promise to become Neutral (she goes against her oath/interferes) Good (she does so because Killmonger is a bad guy). Alignment is complex.

@@marxdd1894 That's the thing though, per your example alignment can change ! It is definitely complex which is why it's hard to pin down, but that doesn't mean that when we were first introduced to Oyoke she wasn't lawful neutral. I guess a more simple explaination of what I mean is, alignment is complex because people can change

@@Nihilakh4life That's... not the point though. The point that was made originally is that she's lawful neutral because she serves the throne no matter who sits on it. By deciding that Killmonger going against tradition is BAD means that Okoye has not stayed neutral, but has chosen the side of GOOD. There's nothing *wrong* with that, but it's still breaking her oath because it's not her place to interfere at all.

I sen something a while back that was very useful; the notion that alignments aren't perfectly balanced, they can be weighted. In this case, Okoye could be interpreted as lawful good, but she's probably LAWFUL good, if you get me! She's good, she has moral inclinations about what is right and wrong, but believes in the law above her moral preferences as seen in the executive power episode he released more recently, and it causes her notable internal difficulty for that reason. This is also really useful in a RP context, that NPCs and PCs alike can have interesting conflicts with themselves over the two halves of their world view 😊

unaligned example is cow

Sorrowful Cheshire What about Lawful Stupid, the dumbass character who always follows the law no matter what and if any party member every breaks a law (looking at you Rogue), they kill them without mercy, their justification being ‘they broke the law, I served justice’?

@@tomon5598 Then their character is Chaotic Evil hidden in the skin of a Lawful Good character, the lawful thing to do would be perform a citizens arrest and escort them to the nearest guardhouse

Lawful Lawful was also forgotten 😂

@@craigbainton4173 ...Paladins...

Some people, like Douglas Adams, would say the most average

A lot of comedy protagonists fit as Neutral Neutral.

His alignment is Tea

he also keeps losing his home to bypasses

@@JamieCurrant and definitely not Thursday

aka Neutral...

_"So neutral is in between."_ Neutral characters are equally capable of good or evil. Think of alignments as overlapping sets rather than set partitions.

What about when i want to help the poor and innocent, but wanna punish the evils and even give up on my anger and make them suffer, and not ending it and want them to suffer till the day is coming when they die

Not sure about basic D&D, but in pathfinder animals are considered true neutral. Because they have basic self interest, are incapable of malice, but nor do they do good, at most you can have a social animal try to help what it considers its own group.

Evil isn't activly hurting others. Good = working for others benefit Evil = working for own benefit Evil will hurt someone if there is benefit to it. It's not that evil character wants to hurt others, it's just it doesn't care if his/her actions will hurt someone in the process. This is big difference. Evil character can still save many people if there is profit to be had. If you get quest "rescue 3 viligers for 100 gold but if you rescue all 6 you will get 300 gold, evil character will go the extra mile to try to get that money. But if things get to dangerous, that character will have no problem with abandoning people who aren't worth the risk. Evil character might appear good to many just because it's more beneficial while leaving in society. Society is full of evil people, most just want to think of themselves as good.

I disagree on the DM being LN. I think they're True Neutral, or at least the good ones. Bad DMs are either Chaotic or Lawful, the ones who either don't follow the rules or follow them exactly as written. A good DM follows the rules, but knows when to lay off the rules, and sees the rules as a framework rather than the whole picture.

@@CakeRocketProduction The DM is the DM. He/she is what they choose be. It is not for a player to determine if a DM is good or bad but are they worthy to posses the power of a D20. 😊😁😛😛😛😁😊😎

I disagree on the chaotic evil one. Sure you can be a chronic backstabber,but you don't need to be. No,chaotic evil is willing to do almost anything to achieve their personal goals as well as the goals (real or perceived) of the comrades they choose to have. Chaotic evil is an inherently selfish alignment,one whose moral code exists but can be changed as necessary to suit their circumstance. But when they DO choose to take a stand for something they do so not because it is the right thing to do;but because for them personally it is the best thing to do. The friends of a chaotic evil person are indispensable to them,regardless of who they are the chaotic evil individual can see them as something akin to an extension of themselves. Thus they see any opportunity to better themselves as a possible way to better their allies;if this means short term selling short and ally or even killing off unrelated individuals because they know the benefits for all outweigh the inconvenience of the rest of their comrades finding out. Ideally a chaotic evil person SEEMS (to their close friends) like a loyal,ideal friend,who always has your back and would do ANYTHING to further the goals of the group. (Goals this chaotic evil person directly profits from repeatedly) Interested in the princess? Well an awful SHAME her suitor died,it happened shortly after we left town last. She could probably use a friendly face around though,maybe you should visit her? I heard we needed money so I picked up the bounties on those missing children;my best guess is they'd been out there in the swamp for over two weeks. I hate to do it,but at least the families have closure now. (is responsible for the murders directly and hid the bodies the week before after the kids witnessed them smuggling. Didn't tell the group they ever "caught the spies". Just said it was "No problem." is happily profiting off of the murders now with their friends just happy for the money. "You KILLED these people!" "I KILLED them to SAVE you! Grow up! Not everything can be fun and games Marcus; you just need to accept these people were planning to kill you and you'd have NEVER seen fair justice. I did what I had to do." after saving their friend who was imprisoned,didn't think twice about lethal force. After all,they DID imprison THEIR friend. Which is practically as bad as attacking them personally. These kinds of things,chaotic is not stupid and can have a moral code. It will be very personal and selfish;the world can burn outside of their small group. But as long as they have them;everything will be okay. Minus all of the things they do that can be seen as horrific;but played off right you end up the well intentioned extremist rather than "for the evulz" evil.

Disagree about NE -- they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals, screwing over the other PCs if necessary, *BUT* trying to do so _without_ getting caught. (That is a minor inhibitor which will at least semi-regularly keep him/her "in check" from a table-dynamic-POV.) But they absolutely *will* screw over the other PCs if they can get away with it. (The difference here vs a CE character is that the latter will rarely have the degree of self-control that NE and LE character more often demonstrate; whether it takes hours, days or whatever time, they *will* betray/use the other PCs to the character's own benefit and their detriment... and it will more often than not be notable/understood as such by the other characters.)

Neutral evil would seek benefit regardless of the well-being of the other players. That what you describe is a true neutral, in my opinion.

ty

Judge Dredd /Lawful Neutral

That's a wrap!

Don't forget the cat for chaotic evil

@@AndrewChumKaser Eh… cats are more chaotic neutral, if they were to even have an alignment in the first place.

Flying Hawaiian thought of that too haha

@@LuizGMohallem yeah, I was really hoping someone else was laughing about this and not just me!

Cheers for indicating the spoiler!

@@1n20DnD Only villains would do otherwise

*laughs in Divine Soul Sorcerer*

He is the best example

He IS the Law.

Mercykillers are pretty much the D&D version of street judges.

LAAAAAAAAAAAH

Well, more like when you *let* it prevent you from doing so.

Picard’s actions shift between LN, LG, and NG routinely depending on the circumstances. When he allows a person or planet to die because of the Prime Directive, because he’s committed to allowing a culture to act as it feels right against his personal morals, he’s smack dab lawful neutral.

I love this concept, and have used it to a degree. To add to what a Neutral might think: A Neutral might see themselves as good, and both Good and Evil to be evil. They might view a Good society's execution of an Evil serial killer as the same thing.

It actually makes a lot more sense to say that chaotic neutral characters consider law to be a supression of alignment, for instance, a lawful good character is *less* good because they have to follow the rules which may prevent them from doing good, and the same goes for evil. Similarly, if a lawful good government increases the number of restrictions in society and reinforces the punishment, it can ultimately lead to tyranny. That’s at least how I see it.

This is how my character views law and chaos.

Agreed. Alignment has to be considered from the popular perspective. What would the majority of intelligent, objective people in this world think this person is? That's usually their alignment.

You could even argue that Robert, Earl of Locksley is Lawful Good - what does he do when the corrupt Norman powers dispossess him of his rightful lands and title? He moves into the greenwood, and sets up a new society, with its own laws, and campaigns to restore the rightful King, Richard I. He goes to great lengths to keep his oaths as a knight, his oath to his ultimate liege, and to carry out his duty to his people. He is an outlaw, but only because the law itself has been corrupted, and he cannot both follow the rules, and keep his promises. His outlaw society is, if anything, more lawful than the misrule by the Sheriff of Nottingham under John.

I don't think a chaotic character necessarily has to not believe in law, a less extreme chaotic character can just say that the law should only cover certain things leaving plenty of room for freedom. They may also be willing to break the law in the name of furthering a goal.

*[...] "a less extreme chaotic character can just say that the law should only cover certain thing [...]"* This would be an example of a neutral character, and depending on the motivation, either a neutral good, true neutral or neutral evil one. *"[...] leaving plenty of room for freedom"* Plenty of room for freedom isn't enough. A chaotic character would say, that no one should be able to interfere in his/her business. Full freedom or nothing. His/her motivations decide, if he/she is either chaotic good (helping others), chaotic neutral (helping oneself without hurting others for evil reasons) or chaotic evil (doing evil things he/she likes, whenever he/she likes), without law having any influence in it. *"They may also be willing to break the law in the name of furthering a goal"* Any character that is not lawful might break the law for a greater goal in mind.

Rick West,,,. Hey, just something I have found useful; instead of writing "he/she" I like to use "s/he" it is shorter/easier to type. & ladies first. Just thought that might be useful. P

Rick West,,,. Hey, just something I have found useful; instead of writing "he/she" I like to use "s/he" it is shorter/easier to type. & ladies first. Just thought that might be useful. P

+Adrian lyacon Agreed. One of my favorite personal characters to date was a Chaotic Evil Human Fighter named Cylarus the Polished, a mercenary who turned away from knighthood, trained with dwarves in the art of battle (with axes of various sizes) and who loves to be something of a "D&D troll." In his first session, he managed to get the female archer and a big assassin to owe him big-time by saving them both from a gelatinous cube (he collected on his favors in VERY different ways) AND turned in the rogue who had stolen something from another party member (and who tried to pin it on Cylarus) to their patron paladin. He also tried fried shocker lizard while in the dungeon (which didn't agree with him, so he then relieved himself... right there in one of the nearby cleared rooms, corpses and all), held back a room of wights so that the Lawful Good dwarf cleric of the party (who ended up becoming Cylarus's only trusted friend and who trusted him just as much, strangely enough) could help the others with their mummy and ghoul problems before coming to handle the wights, and made wooden dolls for children. Yes, I had actually spent points on Craft (Dollmaking); Cylarus's Intelligence was tied for highest ability score with Strength. Sorry about the rant, but I love telling Cylarus's story because I played him partially to prove to myself that Chaotic Evil does not always have to be the Joker OR Chaotic Stupid, and partially because I loved the idea of a former squire-turned-mercenary who voluntarily insulted knights everywhere by being a mockery of one (such as going unbathed and shirtless yet wearing only a helm, left plate vambrace and pauldron, plate gauntlets, leather pants and boots for long periods of time, claiming honor and then reneging when it was most dramatic/advantageous, and generally being a selfish bastard). Sadly, I only got to play him for two unconnected one-shot adventures.

I'd argue the Joker isn't insane either. He might act like it, but he's faaar to clever and calculated for true insanity. A sort of terrifying method behind the madness. A truly insane character would be what's referred to as "Chaotic Stupid" not CE.

But when they do CARNAGE is trilling

Cluny the Scourge from Redwall, Barry from Archer (yeah he's kinda nuts but not in the same way as the Joker), and the monster from It would all be CE. Some might argue though that any human or human-like being would have to be a bit touched in the head to be CE.

He's also just a character that was made a long time ago that stands more as an icon now than a living, breathing, human. In my opinion.

Garak night not be true neutral, he did some messed up stuff for the obsidian order

whynaut ok great, i don’t care / know about most of those characters

I like the "Alignments are useless" at the bottom

Manhattan isnt true neutral, he killed Rorsharch to protect the newly built status quo.

@@oldmanlogan9616 Seems pretty true neutral. He did not desire to do it, but if he allowed Rorschach to live then total nuclear war would follow. It was a decision predicated on net good similar to ethical hedonism.

Or Stupid Evil.

Well part of the problem with that is in roleplay some evil alignments MUST do "evil" things often for the sake of evil... not for the sake of it being a smart move.

My take on chaotic evil is Angelica from Rugrats. She does what she wants but only when she wants something. Just often those goals end up hurting someone. Like stealing a cookie from a baby.

I think that's actually not helping his neutrality that much. Wanting to do good, but being incapable is very different thatn not doing good. He doesn't really have the option to do anything when he says that.

Devin Redd the shin megami tensei series of rpgs have order and chaos branches of story that aren't any more good or evil than one another, I think using SMT characters to explain alignments would be really easy for people who know SMT

I love Shin Megami. Never even thought of that.

That and how shitty of a person will you be to do what you gotta do

"Order good" "Order evil" They don't exactly roll off of the tongue.

+Siobhan Kafei Ordered Good, Ordered Evil?

I agree. If the good guys were building a mega mall in the ents neck of the woods;) then I feel they most certainly would have helped the bad guys

You're mixing book with movie here, and leaving out many a detail. The Ents already knew of the burning of Skinbark trees ( NOT Fangorn's trees, mind you. Fangorn is the true name of Treebeard, it wasnt his forest that got burned by Saruman ), with Bregalad being the one who told the hobbits this event, not the other way around. And at the end of the Ent Moot, the Ents were roused to war against Saruman by Treebeard. And from what he says, in record time too ( only 3 days of decision making ). As well, the question for the Ents wasnt whether they could stop it or not, but rather whether this last fight was worth all their lives. TreeBeard: " of course, it is likely enough, my friends, that we are going to our doom: the Last March of the Ents. But if we stayed at home and did nothing, doom would find us anyway, sooner or later. That thought has long been growing in our hearts ; and that is why we are marching now. It was not a hasty resolve. Now at least the Last March of the Ents may be worth a song. We may help the other peoples before we pass. " and its that last part that really brings it home, for me, that they're NG at least. From their perspective, they are all going to die, but if that can help the races of man resist evil, its worth it to them. Now, as for why they let Saruman go, that had far more to do with Saruman than the Ents. He is one of the greatest wizards of the world even after his being locked away, and he was able to use his magics to trick the ents into letting him leave. You'll recall that when he was finally confront in Two Towers, he was able to convince nigh everyone in the party, from Gimli to Aragorn that he was actually a good guy with his words.

He also has one of the most classic true neutral quotes ever: "Side? I'm on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side." Neither side is looking out for his interests, so he doesn't see the conflict is his concern.

@@GamerRMT that quote, however, is coming from the movie and not the book. The book's version of said quote tells quite a different tale: Two Towers, TreeBeard, pg. 455; TreeBeard: " I don't know about sides. I go my own way; but your way may go along with mine for a while. " You see, he's not on a side, because he doesn't know the sides. He doesn't know all of whats happening.

@@GamerRMT youll also find him go on my about it in page 461: TreeBeard: " Hoom, hm, I have not troubled about the Great Wars. They mostly concern Elves and Men. This is the business of wizards: wizards are always troubled about the future. I do not like worrying about the future. I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me: nobody cares for the woods as i care for them, not even elves anymore. It was the elves that cured us of dumbness long ago, and that was a great gift that cannot be forgotten, though our ways have parted since. And there are some things, of course, whose side i am altogether not on; i am against them altogether: these - burarum - these orcs, and their masters. " And this quote also paints a very different picture than the movie. This quote shows that he still likes the elves, and men, but that the goals of elves and men are just different than his; they are doing their parts in different ways now. And it also shows that he IS against the orcs and those that lead them.

Yeah, I can't stand the "he's to hard to write for" excuse.

@@Pixxeria not really an excuse if it's true.

A friendly bugbear that speaks quickly?

squattingheads A giant hairy-er bugbear, with a friendly Matt Colville voice and face!

gaah!... What has been seen cannot be unseen xD

Agree. True neutral is not as complicated as a lot of people make it out to be. Any given every day person who looks out for themselves but generally doesn't actively help or harm other people is true neutral.

Seems like it'd depend on whether you define alignment based on actions or beliefs, as well as where you set the bar in terms of how good you have to be in order to count as Good.

@@Anthropomorphic It has to be a mix of both in my mind. You have to intend to do good and fallow through on it.

@@worthasandwich Would it require setting out to look for opportunities to do good things, or to simply do good when an opportunity arises? If it's the former, even most supposedly Good D&D heroes probably wouldn't count as Good.

Most people are Neutral, but err on the side of Lawful and Good.

By the way, apologies for the poor diction: I posted this at the end of a 36 hour shift, so my mental faculties weren't working properly. [:P] In fact, until I saw your reply, I assumed that the act of making this post had merely been part of a weird dream. [:P]

That would be useful, yes. [:P] Or I could just stop browsing the internet after I become sufficiently shattered. [:P]

True. [:P] Welp, I guess I'll just have to keep on posting random, semi-conscious posts about D&D alignment then. [:P]

I find the ents to be true neutral, they don't end up doing the right thing because it's the right thing, they do it due to pure emotion and will of vangence of the dead trees, wich were being killed by Isengard. Treebeard says that's it's not up to the ents to interfere with whats happening, in either side of the war, they end up helping the good guys, because mary and pippin tricked them into seeing all the dead part of the forest, and inspiring rage. The ents reaction and actions thereafter are purely based on emotion .

I don't quite agree. The ents care about their world and seek to protect it. I would argue it is not vengeance but countering an injustice and righting a wrong which is their main motive, together with protecting their world. Yes, they were angry, but that doesn't mean that drives their main motive when they were made aware of Saruman's doings. As to their alignment I'd say they are true neutral as well. Not lawful nor chaotic as they care little for law or chaos but they are the tenders of the forest so they may lean a bit towards law. Not truly good and certainly not evil, either. One might argue they are lawful neutral, though. The question remains why they aid the Rohirrim. Probably because Saruman has revealed himself to be an enemy of them and they wish to see him gone rather than out of desire to do good.

No they aren't. If they were, they would no conscript criminals who await judgement, or the execution of punishment. Nor would they (Spoilers) Let their mages be bound, and be slaughtered as sacritifce for a huge demon army in order to whipe out the darkspawn. Nor would they allow blood mages amongst themselves.

@1234kalmar: I respectfully disagree, even though I'm 6 months late. The Grey Wardens are not lawful in that they follow the law of the land so much as they follow their own code of laws (similar to the Samurai or Arthurian knights mentioned in the video). Their only goal is to destroy darkspawn, but they don't do so in a way that contradicts their own system of beliefs and order. While their laws and codes generally correlate with the law of the land (hence the opener with the Wardens working with King Cailan), it's also obvious that the Wardens are willing to go against the grain to find allies where they're needed. To my knowledge, the Wardens have no explicit rulings against the Maleficarum, even though it is societally accepted that they are evil by nature. I think it's problematic, as Matthew Colville said, to try to place where alignments are in fiction, but I would put the Grey Warden as either LN or NG, as either could be argued (which is why Neutral is difficult in the first place).

SignalAce They aren't Lawful, absolutely not. And they are debatably good given their hyperfocus on stopping the blight, including doing awful, awful things to stop it and refusing the help of the Architect.

cryofpaine excellent description. Javert is an amazing and complex character that people don't rate high enough

One point of correction: the line is "I am the law and the law is not MOCKED" not marked.

+Jadasc Schneiderman Yeah! In fact I think he and Han Solo have a lot in common.

@@mcolville never thought of that but they totally do, starting to see a few similarities to star wars now that you mention it

+oO PPH Oo A problem with Superman that winds up being kind of a boon is that it's incredibly hard to make him interesting. He's been set up for so long with such immense power. When Superman died, it was literally the single most interesting thing that happened to him - and even that's problematic because it had to happen TO him, not be something he did. DC's writers have struggled with it for years, to the point where they've changed his entire power set several times (once even recently but not by very much, he just has an ability now where he can blow his solar load and has to Clark it up for a few days to recharge) all in the name of making him more interesting to read. Stories like Superman vs the Elite are interesting more because of how Superman interacts with others than anything he can or won't do in a fight, which is disappointing because he can do everything in a fight. He's made to win all the fights. The single most entertaining thing I've enjoyed of Superman outside of his Doomsday fight death arc was the scene in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited where he gives Darkseid a little speech about how he has to treat the world like cardboard because if he lets his control slip for even an instant, he'd potentially ruin someone's life. Imagine having to be that way - any minute you shake someone's hand or walk across a room or give someone a hug, if you apply even a fraction too much force, someone could die. And then he unloads on Darkseid because he's finally found a target who can take the abuse. The only disappointment there is that big D had an out and ended the beating way too early, and it ruined what would have been a perfect climactic moment for the series.

I really hate to argue with you about your own character, and to be frank this is a philosophical argument in nature, but being 100% ration all the time is the embodiment of order and law. Completely succumbing to your emotions and taking no logic into account all the time is the embodiment of chaos and anarchy. So if you wanted a perfectly balanced cosmos, wouldn't it be better to have your actions be dictated by rational, tempered by your own emotions?

nice to find someone who also sees the old republic jedi code as a code of lawfulness, rather than good. it prescribes peace knowledge serenity harmony none of these are actually good. they are just lawful, since it asks for balance and rationality. the sith code on the other hand, doesn't prescribe evil, simply chaos, as: peace is a lie (competition and survival of the fittest are the fundament of nature and evolution) there's only passion (with stone cold logic, you'd have no motivation for anything) all the rest is a chain of passion < strength < power < victory < freedom. the sith code simply states social Darwinism and that passion is the path to power, which is the path to freedom. jedi vs sith may be good vs evil, but in truth, their ideologies are law vs chaos.

oO PPH Oo I think superman is more of neutral good. This is a little more hidden in his stories but he has a tendency to not work against the government, follow the law, or bow to other countries boundaries. The main continuity at least.

Superman has stated that doing what is RIGHT is what matters to him. When it comes to laws, if he disagrees with a law then he will and has refused to follow it. In the New 52, the United Nations demanded that he allow them access to his Fortress to inspect if for weapons of mass destruction and he flat out told them no. In the previous Modern Age, 1986 to 2011, he was more concerned with being a good person and being seen as an inspiration. However, he was not above letting his true thoughts out in private or with those close to him like Batman and Wonder Woman and Lois and what those thoughts actually were, is that he would let the world burn to save one of his loved ones. Batman called him on that and went on about emotional attachment getting in the way of the mission, and Supes said that if he didn't have his emotional attachments, then he wouldn't care about the world. In For Tomorrow, he was willing to destroy the earth Avatars themselves if they didn't back down from wiping out all life. They said that when all life was gone, they would still BE and would start life anew and Superman cut that off saying, "I will burn off your atmosphere, evaporate your oceans, crumble your surface into dust and then you won't BE anymore. And when you're nomore, I'll still be here and I'll fly off to make my home somewhere else." A priest asks him if he would have really carried out the threat and Supes just looked ashamed of himself. Those are not the actions of a Lawful Good character. One of the biggest worries in the DC universe about Superman is that he is not accountable to anybody except himself. He's smarter than anybody on the planet, stronger than any other being on Earth, has access to technology that humans can't even begin to understand and the only thing that keeps him from ruling the world is that he just doesn't want to. His morals determine his actions, not laws. He does not like the government but tolerates it as a necessary evil with the understanding that if the government gets too far out of line, he's there waiting.

+Diogenes Castor Yeah I had a lot of quotes I could have used where Garak is just pragmatic. He's not ethical, he's just interested in survival. "You'd stab a man in the back?!" "Well it's the safest way, isn't it?"

Got to love that character!! One of my all-time favorites.

Agreed! Garak was always my favorite.

season 6 ep 19 .. in the pale moonlight. awesome Garak

Definitely. I never really thought about his alignment, and I accept the TN argument, but I reckon more NE myself.

"Trying to think of other examples of Chaotic Evil characters..I'm not sure I can.." Matt stares at his cat's face. Turns to camera and smiles a bit.

But SMT doesn't use all of the alignments though

Daniel Welker or even Judge Dredd

I would actually argue that Inspector Javert is Lawful Good. He's unquestionably lawful because his whole life is built around working to bring justice to criminals as seen through the eyes of the justice system, which itself is a neutral system in the time-period of the story, caring not for motivation, only deeds. I would argue that if Javert were truly Lawful Neutral, he would be content carrying out the law and bringing justice to Jean Valjean because he is deserving of persecution in the eyes of the justice system, but he doesn't. He commits suicide because he knows that arresting Jean Valjean is an evil act, yet it is the lawful thing to do. If he were truly Lawful Neutral this wouldn't bother him because whether the act was good or evil would be irrelevant, but it DOES bother him, and I believe this is proof that Javert is of a Lawful Good alignment.

I see your point, but it doesn't apply to Javert's character for most of the story. Like the video mentioned, alignments can change. Han Solo's alignment was different when he died because of Luke Skywalker's influence. Similarly, Javert's alignment may have been disrupted by the end due to Jean Valjean (although he doesn't live long enough to truly act according to the Lawful Good alignment). However, before that point, Javert had tried to lock Jean Valjean away several times regardless of whether he was doing good or not. For example, he refused to grant Valjean the three days he needed to get Cosette, even though that would have been the good thing to do. Only at the very end of his life is he even able to admit that Jean Valjean was a good man without being really lawful, and it's obviously a huge revelation to him. He's never thought that was possible before because to him the only two polarities were order and chaos, and order was good and chaos evil. Because of this, the argument of good vs. evil doesn't apply to him. He is completely neutral in that regards. He is the embodiment of justice and the law, seeing everything in black and white, and so when his worldview is shattered he has no option but to take his own life.

Pour que no le dos?

The cat would have to be dangerously close.

+Matthew Colville I really hope the horrible Spanish grammar is just auto corrects

Spanish? I though...I thought that was Japanese.

La'roy Jnknz

+Grant Ellis I was worried this discussion would distract people from the original alignment discussion. But as it's own video it's less of a conflict I think. I don't mind if people start arguing over who is what alignment in this context.

+Grant Ellis are you from louisiana?

Matthew Colville It is a distraction, but works perfectly as a companion video. It also helps control the length and makes it easier to rewatch. With that said, I tend to rely on the framework of the franchise: Star Wars characters are usually light side or dark side leaning; or neutral. A view[point of "hokey religions and ancient weapons" can transform over time, usually because the light and dark of the force actively work on people... There's a video you once made about game systems "not knowing a character" (Wolverine was the example)... it could be D&D alignment does not know the character; they would need a different system.

Daniel Brunson No, I'm based in VA.

Sorry for your loss. I've never had a dog but I know people who've been devastated when they die. I've taken a lot of comfort from watching Critical Role and other DnD videos despite never playing them myself. Hope you're in a better place now anyway.

Are you assuming his alignment? Not all werewolves are evil! Hahahahaha

WOLVERINE?! IS THAT YOU?

7:47 more like a werecat :3

He even avoids swearing at all costs Werewolves, not swearwolves

Bugbear. He even said it himself.

Sock the lizard

Seems closer to CN

If you follow a code that's lawful. It doesn't have to be the laws of the government.

Always sounded super cool to me!

I prefer Shadowknight and Paladin as to term what type of god they follow. It really just is Evil Paladin for following an Evil God.

In my eyes a paladin following a god always follows a code and therefor he's always Lawful. An anti-paladin could be more like the joker, not following a code but just being an agent of chaos. Out to ruin everyone else's day.

I think the easiest way to fix the alignment issues with the Paladin, would be to make the lawful neutral. It would make sense as they would be devoted to the law of their god(s); regardless if their god is neutral, evil, or good. That is an opinion though.

The game I currently run is a home-brew and it adopts the Eberron take on deities where they are NOT present and may not even exist excepting evidence from things like magic, clerical power, etc. I find a world that is driven mostly by mortals in D&D to be much more compelling than one driven by omnipotent beings. I mean I enjoy Faerum and Dragonlance. I have had a lot of fun playing and DMing in those worlds. But I find the players feel like their actions, and the actions of NPC's, have more emotional and moral context without these divine entities force-feeding an overarching agenda. Anyway, Paladins in our games are like holy champions. They are incredibly rare and are selected based on whatever characteristics the God who chose them feels will best represent their values. They're the Captain America of that deity. So we allow Paladins of other deities - and we just call them Paladins. I do think there is a hazy line between Cleric, Knight and Paladin in D&D. They all borrow heavily from each other. But I also don't run a game where everything is clearly divided because I don't believe the world is that way.

My thoughts exactly! But what about scenes like the sword duel or when he kicks homeboy into the running starship engine?

Mark Neil however there are certain items that depend on alignment, like the magic assassin blade that requires you to be evil to get it's benefits and harms you if you are not.

+James Buchanan I think the PHB supports your view. I believe it says a lot of humans are neutral. But I always took that to mean "in the struggle of cosmic forces," for I believe Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are represented in D&D by Gods and Demon Lords and Elder Ones, "most people are just trying to get by."

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that. Tangentially, once I was in a campaign where the Chaos-Law axis morphed into a Drunkeness-Sobriety axis. I was playing a cleric of Olidimarra who took it as a holy duty to drink and carouse. My brilliant GM eventually invented a God of temperance. It worked brilliantly, my overall laid-back character turned into such a zealot when this temperance cult appeared.

Yeah, I was going to say, it all depends on the scale you look at. On the grand scale of things, as Matthew says in the struggle of cosmic forces, a normal person is completely neutral, and also pretty much insignificant. To me it doesn't really make sense to decide your alignment at that scale until maybe you're a level 20+ god slayer of character. But looking at a much more practical scale for "a person just trying to get by"; you're going hungry, the baker stepped away for a minute. Do you steal bread (C) or do you wait and pay with your last bit of money (L). Do you eat the bread yourself (E) or do you share it with your starving family (G). For alignment to make sense IMO you have to look at the scale of things where your character has influence.

Right. I would actually classify most people as Neutral Good. People generally only care about the laws that directly affect them, yet would break them (possibly grudgingly) if they feel it necessary to do so or if they believe the law is unjust. At the same time, in general, most people usually want to do what they believe is the good and just thing (which is why it is so easy to fall victims to scams - we want to believe that everyone is, in his or her heart, a good person and wanting to help - or truly in need and needing help)

trequor Good isn't helping an old lady put her groceries in her car. Good is running into a burning building to save an old lady you've never met. Just like how evil isn't telling an old lady to deal with her own groceries, it's burning an old lady's house down with her in it.

+Raisin_Girl13 10k subs is crazy! It works out to about 1k subs a week, and that's insane to me. I think it's mostly because of Liam and Matt from Critical Role!

+Matthew Colville I wouldn't underestimate the exposure you get from www.reddit.com/r/DnD. That's how I found you.

+volkovoy1191 +Matthew Colville I too l found this channel through one of the dnd reddits.

Love this! I am so glad you guys jumped in here. It is the power of you dude. They may have given you a jump start, but good stuff is good stuff and all good stuff must be shared. All hail the internet!!

Ryan Rardin By your description he'd just be chaotic good then.

Though at the same time, Deadpool is a merc to the highest bidder and frequently fights against the X-Men as well. Especially Wolverine. He plays both sides of the good and evil spectrum depending on what benefits him most, a very neutral stance IMO. Definitely chaotic though.

And he doesn't play for the team of the highest bidder, either. He does what is the most interesting thing to be done on a case-by-case basis simply because he can. Him, and Daffy Duck, are the 2 most iconic "Chaotic Neutral" examples in all of fiction. They are walking, talking 4th-wall shattering meta-aware players in the tragedy of life, and they are frequently used as literal Deus Ex Machina.

I think "Doesn't do it in a lawful way" is not enough of a reason for him to be chaotic. I think a character has to be actively promoting chaos or working against law to be chaotic. It's the other end of the spectrum of lawful after all, and lawful characters actively do things to promote law and end chaos. If Deadpool is not being lawful he could still fit in the true neutral category. I think that fits him better. After all, he's a true mercenary, and if somebody hired him to do something lawful he'd still do it.

dont know anything about the comic novels, but the deadpool from the two movies is not neutral, he only fights the bad guys. Chaotic neutral would only follow his own whims, disregarding any laws or morals of society.