So one of my players wanted to play a "LOL SO RANDUMB" Chaotic Neutral Rogue. After a short argument that was completely pointless and kicking the player out, I think me and my players came up with good (but probably not accurate) definitions of what each alignment is.
>Lawful Good: Works with in the law for the good of the people.
>Neutral Good: Does the right thing for everyone no matter what.
>Chaotic Good: Fights for everyone's freedom and positive change.
>Lawful Neutral: Adheres to laws above all things including morality.
>True Neutral: Concerned for what's good for himself only, but has limits on how far he's willing to go and only wants enough to survive.
>Chaotic Neutral: Fights for change of anysort, be it positive or negative. Hates stagnation.
>Lawful Evil: Twists and takes advantage of the law inorder to benefit himself.
>Neutral Evil: Does what's best for him with no constraints, especially moral ones. Driven by greed.
>Chaotic Evil: Concerned for only his (most likely immoral) personal freedoms and negative change.
But the thing we realized that's the most important is:
>Alignments are cancer
Actually, those suck.
>>47268145
Well Fuck I tried out of ten.
"Lawful" implies that you work with some law. The 'some' part is important here. It could be the law of the land, it could be the law of your god, or it could be a personal law you have which you don't back down on, no matter what.
Thus, Batman is lawful good. He breaks the law of Gotham city (He does many unlawful things, such as breaking and entering, vigilantism, resisting arrest) but he is still lawful good. This is because Batman operates under his own law, which he never breaks. His law is that he doesn't kill people, and as long as he continues to abide that one law, he will always be lawful. If he breaks it, he may be chaotic good or true good.
>>47267690
Those are pretty accurate, actually.
LN doesn't necessarily adhere to laws. Sometimes it can be a code of conduct, hence why there are LN characters who break laws and always follow their own code.
TN is (contrary to popular belief) the most versatile alignment. It could be a character concerned with balance above all else, a random civilian bystander, a mindless animal, or a guy who just does his thing without concerning himself with good/evil-law/chaos. In a sense, they're not much different from CN.
NE isn't necessarily driven by greed.
>>47268270
>"Lawful" implies that you work with some law.
It implies that to many, but it doesn't mean that.
>>47268270
lawfulness is about wanting everyone to follow a common set of rules. lawful characters don't have to agree on what those rules should be, hence why you have lawful good, lawful neutral and lawful evil. but they all agree there should be a common set of rules, that people should follow them. hence they tend to respect law, social mores and authority in principle, if not always in practice.
or at least, that's what it originally meant.
>>47267690
Marvel Loki and Myth Loki are both essentially pretty chaotic. It's what they do. They might have better long term planning and thinking skills than Carnage, but they exist to cause trouble "for the Evulz" or "The Lolz". Loki killed Baldur, who EVERYONE liked, you know, because. To make everyone unhappy. Maybe because he was jealous. There was not a calculated plan there. It was fucking evil and disruptive. The trickery serves no real purpose other than malice and petty entertainment, or simply as a factor of compulsive basic nature. It would not be particularly wrong to depict Loki as a chronic liar of the worst sort. He would probably lie constantly, at great length, and very eloquently. But also about completely petty things and for no good reason.
I'm trying to find quotes which most accurately describe each alignment.
Any ideas? I made this so far but it's pretty bad.
Anyone have the alignment grid where the bottom right three are all "Mom said you have to let me play too"?
>>47268817
First off, your quote from Ecclesiasties is out of context. Put that shit in Neutral Good or True Neutral.
The ends justify the means is only evil if you're Kant. Otherwise, put that into Lawful Good because consequentialism is what makes the world go round. Besides, medical triage is how you save lives.
>>47267690
Only alignment chart that matters.
>>47268932
>Put that shit in Neutral Good or True Neutral.
I don't understand why. Isn't that quote, even when put back in its context, essentially about the enjoyment of life?
>consequentialism
Right, but LG characters aren't really about that.
Wouldn't it belong in LE, rather?
Do you have other suggestions? Thanks for your help
>>47268975
Those fucking tvtropes alignments are retarded. Don't post that shit here.
>>47267690
>Punisher
>Lawful Neutral
What the fuck
Revolutionaries are actually lawful good.
Post more alignment charts.
On the subject of defining alignment, I hate the idea of True Neutral as a sort of balancing act. i.e; I did something good, so I balance it out with something evil to balance it out. I've run into a lot of people that interpret neutral this way and it never fails to piss me off.
"BALANCE" in this context is not an alignment, it is a belief system.
Here's my take on it:
>LG: Uses the Law as a tool to fight for Good.
>NG: Uses whatever is best to fight for Good.
>CG: Uses Chaos as a tool to fight for Good.
>LN: Obeys the Law.
>TN: Obeys what is most useful.
>CN: Obeys their selves.
>LE: Uses the Law as a tool for Evil.
>NE: Uses whatever is best to fight for Evil.
>CE: Uses Chaos as a tool for Evil.
What do you think /tg/?
>>47269105
Too dependent on the entity knowing the concept of good and evil.
>>47269011
The alignment system itself is retarded, and only retards take it seriously, you retard.
>>47269094
What the fuck is true neutral anyway? People say it's broad (see >>47268301's pic) but I don't see it. It seems very limiting. It's either people who lack motivation or "muh balance" assholes.
>>47269121
Let me rephrase good as 'what they believe to be good' and evil as 'selfish needs'. How about that?
>>47269137
>It's either people who lack motivation or "muh balance" assholes.
Also anything that isn't smart enough to actually have motivation, like animals.
>>47269168
Yeah that's my point. There's no way to create an interesting and compelling TN character. It's either a mook, an animal or some fruity druid.
>>47269162
Probably easier to simply look at it in terms of "constructive", "preservative" and "destructive".
>>47267690
>>Chaotic Neutral: Fights for change of anysort, be it positive or negative. Hates stagnation.
CN is more "Very selfish and only cares about what he wants, but doesn't directly harm innocents to get it"
>>47269011
They're more accurate than what /tg/ thinks of alignments.
I have a question /tg/.
Is this image more an example of Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Evil? Or neither?
It was named Chaotic Neutral when I was posted, but I'm not so sure.
>>47269286
I'd say it's more Neutral Evil.
>>47269294
Uh, yeah, I meant Neutral Evil not Lawful Evil. My bad.
Also, thanks.
>>47269317
Anytime, dude.
>>47269191
Could also be someone horribly depressed to the point of not caring about anything anymore. Although that doesn't really make for interesting PCs. Maybe an NPC if the DM is well-versed on the subject of clinical depression.
>>47269320
CE Eddie: Yeah until you found out he's the most loyal kind of not-dog just waiting for his master to come back.
Lands him squarely in lawful as fuck.
>>47269361
I guess, but that still sucks.
Would the lone traveler archetype work with TN? A guy with a clear goal who doesn't concern himself with the setting's various actors, unless it can help him reach that goal?
Or maybe a bounty hunter who just wants his paycheck?
Those were suggested in a previous alignment thread and seem to make sense.
>>47269366
Misato is lawful good.
Shinji is true neutral. Angels should all be true neutral as well, by definition (mindless)
SEELE is closer to lawful neutral, in my opinion
>>47269398
Those could work, but I'd recommend only starting them on TN. Give them some character development over the course of the campaign and try to get them to shift alignment to whatever you think would work best with the character you've written and played.
>>47269446
Why? Is it impossible to have character development without changing the character's alignment? I'd like to play TN from start to finish. They can grow a bit closer to good and become less selfish over the course of the campaign for example, but would I need to make drastic changes?
>>47267690
> It's an Alignment thread
>>47269502
You don't have to if you don't want to. It's just the way you were complaining about True Neutral motivations, I thought you might not want to stay TN through the whole campaign. If you want to stay TN, sure, then you can have slower, less drastic changes in personality.
>>47269543
Well, I've played every alignment so far except TN because despite the fact that I like the idea of that alignment, I could never figure out how to make a TN character interesting. So that's my goal now.
I like this chart.
>>47267690
You are wrong on a few points:
Neutral Good - does the right thing when able to but weighs the bennefits first and may back away from trouble
Lawfull neutral - adheres to the law because it suits him and keeps out of trouble while doing what he wants within the constraints of the law.
True neutral - only ever reacts to things that affect him and does what he wants.
Neutral evil - as above but will actively ignore any 'decent' option when there's a shortcut leading through stabbing someone in the back.
Chaothic evil - does what they want in an egocentric way without concern for others and will actively harm others.
Chaotic neutral - do what they want when they want it.
Chaothic good - as above but with good intentions.
![gallery-diehard-1-gallery-image[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9xxdNXt.jpg "gallery-diehard-1-gallery-image[1].jpg")
>>47268817
A lot of people link "The ends justify the means" with chaotic good.
For example, John McClane from Die Hard is often called chaotic good because he is fighting for good at the end of the day but achieves his goals not through the proper channels but by his own means.
>>47267690
I disagree with the evaluation of LE here but yeah they're pretty stupid and only serve to limit a characters growth.
>>47268932
Triage is a really bad example because you're hurting one person to benefit that person overall (ultimately saving them) whereas in the classic few vs many scenario you're actually killing a small group to save a large one which in no way benefits that group (unless they are morally obligated to die but that's another arguement entirely). Even the one vs many scenario isn't the most brutal example of this though; maybe that thought process should be discarded entirely when looking at classifications of morality like this.
>>47269069
Couldn't Gendo be lawful evil because everything he does is for one singular purpose? He's lawful to his own conviction.
lawful good - self righteous cunts
neutral good - nice people
chaotic good - idealistic college kids
lawful neutral - autists
true neutral - decent people
chaotic neutral - nutjobs and "so random xD"
lawful evil - lovable villains for the most part
neutral evil - cowards
chaotic evil - solipsists and nihilists
did I get it right?
>>47267690
This is what I tell my players:
"You can play any alignment so long as you can logically explain to me why you are that alignment. But if you start doing decidedly evil actions and are not an evil character, you have 5 chances (depending on the severity of the action) before I forcibly change your alignment. The same goes for decidedly good actions. Play you fucking alignment."
>>47269615
>Alignment Abuse.
The key words that everyone ignores when discussing alignments.
>>47267690
Good = Selflessness
Evil = Selfishness
Lawful = Holds conduct in high regard
Chaotic = Apathetic to any form of code or conduct
Neutral just means they don't fall too strongly on either side. For example:-
>You could hold your own conduct in high regard but not other people's.
>You'd risk your life to save your friends and family but wouldn't do so for strangers.
>>47267690
>Alignments are cancer
/thread
>>47267690
No. No! NO! Stop treating the Lawful<->Chaotic axis as "follows laws". That becomes stupid the moment a character crosses a border and suddenly slavery stops being legal.
>>47269811
I think this shows a big problem I have with alignments.
Instead of characters changing slowly over time its a switch from one to another at a specific moment. Like instead of the trials of being a hero wearing down a characters sense of rightousness over the campaign, he just snaps and suddenly changes his entire personality in a second.
>>47269863
This is actually the best and most concise definition I've read.
Alignments should help define a character, not define the character in its entirety.
You slap an alignment onto your character AFTER you've finished fleshing out his personality, in order to give a general indicator of how he might behave.
That's how I see it, at least.
>>47269069
>dark purple text on a black background
How fucking stupid do you have to be
If anything, I'd go with
Selfish<->selfless
Principled<->unprincipled
>>47270055
Pretty much. Was there any alignment-based restriction to make it an issue post 3e, anyway?
>>47269137
>>47269168
>>47269191
>>47269361
>>47269398
There's three kinds of TN characters;
1) people who seek balance
2) people doing what's natural
3) people who are too complicated to fit neatly into any other alignment
The third option is the most compelling (to me) to make a character out of. Imagine, for example, a man leading the revolution to overthrow a despotic empire. His ultimate goal is to set up a fair and just system of law: LG. To do that, he arms a bunch of dissatisfied citizens and convinces them to fight for him: CG. Some war criminals who were imprisoned by the empire escape and offer their assistance to the ailing rebel force, our leader accepts their much needed help even though he knows these men have committed horrendous atrocities: NE.
TN characters are the shit because they're no just good, and not just evil. They're just them, which is what most people are.
That looks pretty LG or at worst LN to me. Depending on how the deal with the war criminals went.
>>47269286
Chaotic Neutral leaning Evil. It's not being actively malicious, but it is selfish enough to push the alignment a bit south.
>>47269398
My go-to example for TN is exactly that.
>>47269645
>ESL
>>47270691
The best characters are always True Neutral.
>>47270772
>Best
>Not Gayest
>>47270772
Isn't Roland closer to lawful neutral?
>>47269398
Most of the true neutral PCs I've encountered haven't been all that complicated or given a runny shit about balance.
They're simply people with no strong principles one way or the other, and therefore simply do what seems like a good idea at the time.
They're not malicious enough to be evil but they don't have the moral fortitude to be good, and expedience is more important to them than following or breaking the rules.
This is part of why I consider TN the cop-out alignment, but I'm aware there are good arguments to the contrary.
>>47269863
>>47269955
This.
![13221646_10154142662927974_4537654691351240637_n[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fnoXRZK.jpg "13221646_10154142662927974_4537654691351240637_n[1].jpg")
LG: Does good always within the law
TG: 'Tries' to do good within the law
CG: Does what he thinks is good, no matter the law
LN: Enforces the law, good or bad
TN: -Blank Spot-
CN: Just an oddball with his own moralities and little care for laws
LE: Bends the law in his favor
TE: Cares only about himself with disregard for the lives of others
CE: This is your gibbering madmen or mindless, rabid wild animal
>>47271334
Shit chart.
Dany is lawful good.
Including Hodor and the sand snek bitch is stupid, they're completely irrelevant. Replace them with any of those: Varys/Bronn/Daario/Jaqen Hgar and Arya/Sandor/Oberyn/Drogo, respectively.
Littlefinger isn't really evil.
Tywin is lawful neutral.
Hell, you should make a character's beliefs, personality and goals before you stick them on the chart anyways.
>>47269767
>He's lawful to his own conviction.
That's retarded.
>>47271337
>TG: 'Tries' to do good within the law
No, NG just does good, period
>>47269011
It's more accurate than the shitty ass descriptions people have "officially" given the alignments.
>>47273635
Just because /tg/ is retarded doesn't mean the original definition of alignments are.
>>47273640
The definition of CN, NE, and CE are all essentially the same fucking thing, psychopath!
Yet you're telling me that the original definitions aren't retarded.
>>47273680
>CN
I do what I want when I want, I answer to no one but myself
>NE
I do whatever benefits me regardless of how morally wrong it is, I answer to whomever can help me further my goals
>CE
I do what I want when I want, I answer to no one but myself, also I'm a huge asshole
>>47273728
So...psychopath.
No seriously, all three of those descriptions could apply to fucking Deadpool (guess) or Mr. Hyde (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) or Jayne (firefly) or any other psycho for hire.
You're pretty shit at this mate.
>>47273728
>also I'm a huge asshole
you can append that addendum to any PC
>>47273792
>psychopath
You don't know what that word means. Look up APD.
>>47273804
I was highlighting the similarity between CN and CE. CE is fundamentally the same as CN except they're defined by the belief that might makes right, and, like NE, are entirely focused on themselves.
>>47271517
>Tywin
>Lawful Neutral
He had children murdered and brought their pulped corpses into court as a sign of his loyalty.
>>47273849
>reading the books
>>47273826
Missing the point entirely.
All three of those descriptors could apply to the same character at the same time, which raises the question of why they're even there when they could easily just be combined into one alignment.
>>47273912
Missing the point entirely.
Alignments are there in order to place a character on two axes: good-evil and law-chaos. Based on those axes you can more or less figure out how the character behaves. That's it.
>>47273921
But is it really an axis when 1/3 of the options can be slotted into one option without changing anything?
I mean, I understand the concept perfectly but the way it's executed is just poorly thought out and explained. If I'm presented with nine options, I expect them all to be unique enough to really affect my play, rather than just being there to fill in three arbitrary slots.
>>47273991
It does change things.
Chaotic means disregard for "laws" in the broadest sense, while neutral means indifferent as long as it benefits one's goal. NE will follow laws if it suits them, CE and CN probably won't.
Evil means pure selfishness, neutrality means indifference towards the good-evil axis and therefore a tendency to perform both altruistic and selfish acts. Therefore, CE will most likely be much more destructive and self-centered in their actions than CN.
>>47269069
Nigga go back and give me another 1000 hours of ms paint, because half your fucking text is unreadable.
Spider-man is neutral good but more Chaotic good while Cap is more Lawful good
>>47273826
>APD
APD isn't necessarily psychopathy. And psycho- and sociopath are mostly colloquial words anyway, so giving them narrow definitions for everyone to agree on is an exercise in futility.
>>47274035
You're not listening to me mate.
Take a look at your own descriptions here >>47273728
All three of these descriptions basically describe the exact same person, an asshole who doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything but themselves and their own devices.
I could disregard the laws or I could ignore the laws, but at the end of the day I'm still not following them.
I could perform a crime or I could let a crime occur, but at the end of the day I'm still allowing someone to suffer from a crime (whether it's theft, murder, rape, or any other crime) when I could've prevented it from happening.
You know that one quote where it basically says "evil wins when good men do nothing," well with that in mind, is there really a difference between disregard, indifference, and selfishness?
>>47274184
Yeah, he's missing some nuances there.
Chaotic Neutral is basically Chaotic Evil without the complete disregard for others' will-being.
Neutral Evil is basically Chaotic Evil without the utter contempt for rules and regulations.
Although all the Chaotic alignments are retarded imo.Lawful Evil is best alignment.
>>47267690
NE is driven by passion, CE by instinct.
NE desires money or power, but it could also be knowledge or simply to be the best candlemaker in town burning down the shack of the competitors.
CE is mostly only acting on impulse on whim, and is exactly where the "lol random" players should have their alignment but most write CN down because they know no one is allowing CE.
Your CN isn't bad at all, because "desire" is sort of at the heart. Move forward, always getting bigger and better, always be a consumer. The big issue is retarded writers dumping madness into CN when it should be CE.
>>47274316
Even if it's not complete disregard or contempt, it's still a degree of disregard/contempt for the law and authority.
It's not like there's a sliding scale to how much of an apathetic psycho you can be, and it's only really an issue between these three alignments because of how similar their descriptions are.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
>A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom.
>A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple.
>A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.
Or simply, they do what they want and give no shits if someone else suffers because of it.
The specific reasons don't matter because at the end of the day, they're all characters who will leave you to rot if it ever comes down to your life and theirs.
>>47271517
>Littlefinger isn't really evil
>Tywin is lawful neutral
>Dany is lawful good
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
![godzilla_alignment_chart___millennium_by_adiraiju-d7n8pps[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/K1k9tCh.jpg "godzilla_alignment_chart___millennium_by_adiraiju-d7n8pps[1].jpg")
SKREEONK!!!!!
![godzilla_alignment_chart___showa_by_adiraiju-d7n8okf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tg5vd4a.jpg "godzilla_alignment_chart___showa_by_adiraiju-d7n8okf[1].jpg")
MORE GODZILLA!!!
![godzilla_alignment_chart___heisei_by_adiraiju-d7n8pbe[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/555mrDe.jpg "godzilla_alignment_chart___heisei_by_adiraiju-d7n8pbe[1].jpg")
KNOCK KNOCK, WHO'S THERE, GODZILLA!!!
![gamera_alignment_chart_by_adiraiju-d8wh8n2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3Py4KGE.jpg "gamera_alignment_chart_by_adiraiju-d8wh8n2[1].jpg")
and now gamera
>>47274510
>Quoting Pathfinder
>>47269336
What's M-Epic? Is it something from Delta Green? I've not been able to find anything by googling it
>>47269336
HOLY SHIT I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR THIS IMAGE FOR HALF A DECADE THANK YOU YOU BEAUTIFUL MAN
>>47274914
its the canuck paranormal department
do you know what YY-II is?
>all these new age definitions
Please stop.
>Alignments are cancer
Alignments are totally fine when they're ONLY used as two buzzwords to quickly describe your character. When Joe says "I think I'll play a Neutral Good Human Cleric." he gives everyone else at the table a general idea of the sort of character he'll be playing. The important thing is that after character generation is over everyone accepts that Neutral and Good are not the be all, end all of his character's personality.
>>47274965
>YY-II
Nah, nothing coming up on the google!
>>47274903
It's literally the exact same description from 3.5, just with a bit more detail added.
>>47275041
its the Delta Greens Deep one storage facility
Does it make alignments better or worse when you make them a role to play? When you say "I'm going to play a LE character' in the same way as 'I'm going to play a lord whose children have rejected him, much to his grief'?
>Lawful Good
I am willing to sacrifice my own wants and desires, and even my own life if need be, for the benefit of others, including those I have never met. And will conduct myself in a Just and Honourable manner and ask others do the same.
>Neutral Good
I will work to help as many as I can, I might be principled but I would not consider myself, or anyone else, bound to those principles.
>Chaotic Good
I'll go out of my way to help anyone I can, I don't care about holding myself to any standard or following any form of code.
>Lawful Neutral
My code is my most important virtue, I will follow this code and hold my, and everyone else's conduct sacrosanct. Whether I will help someone is up to me but I will not needlessly cause harm.
>True Neutral
I may not have a strong compunction towards selflessness but I lack the cruelty to be callous to people undeserving of it. Or I might be upholding a cosmic balance or be utterly uncomprehending of Good and Evil. I care mainly for myself but I do not cause needless suffering, I might follow some form of code or law but I do not consider it binding.
>Chaotic Neutral
I care only for myself, but I lack the selfishness to be truly cruel to others. The laws of the land or anyone else mean nothing to me. If they benefit me then great, if not, then they will be quickly discarded.
>Lawful Evil
I am a self-interested person but I hold my conduct, and everyone else's, in high regard. I work for my own benefit first and I don't care if something I do happens to benefit someone else - so long as it benefits me more.
>Neutral Evil
My own ambitions matter the most to me. I might honour a code or a law but I won't let it get in the way of my own benefit.
>Chaotic Evil
My own desires are all that matter to me, other people are merely a means to an end. Codes and laws are repulsive to me, but I will be unlikely to turn down the benefits of a law if it so happens to align with my interests.
>>47267690
>So one of my players wanted to play a "LOL SO RANDUMB" Chaotic Neutral Rogue.
He "wanted to"?
As in, he never got to show how he would have actually played the character?
As in, you decided to ban someone from your group for something you assumed would happen?
>>47268995
and how is chaotic evil about the enjoyment of life?
>>47269801
So applied to pro wrestling:
>Lawful Good
Bret Hart
>Neutral Good
Eddie Guerrerro
>Chaotic Good
The Rock
>Lawful Neutral
Kurt Angle
>True Neutral
Stone Cold
>Chaotic Neutral
HBK
>Lawful Evil
The Undertaker
>Neutral Evil
Triple H
>Chaotic Evil
Kane
I came in here expecting alignment charts of tabletop parties. Now I'm not sure what this is.
But anyway, would you guys like a high quality template for these?
>>47278115
It's not, he was applying that quote to CN.
>>47267690
>captain america isn't lawful good
triggered
Is there a worse alignment than lawful good?
>>47268817
You don't understand that Crowley quote. It doesn't mean "do what you want", it refers to your Will as ordained by your Holy Guardian Angel (your higher self or divine nature).
>>47269615
Wow I never thought that you could fail so hard at being funny.
>>47282513
It points out some pretty legit recurring problems though.
>>47269378
He's not purely evil either; most of the games involve him trying to just prolong his life until Zato comes back (which he didn't know would happen). You can't really call a creature trying to exist evil.
I like to change the names of the alignments when I try to explain them, so the players can undestand them better:
>L-C Axis: Enforces Order - Neutral - Destroys Order
One can enforce the ones around him (paladin) or enforce himself (monks)
>G-E Axis: Altruist - Neutral - Selfish
So
>LN Enforces Law and/for altruism
You can phrase alignments however you want. LG can defend the law as a mean to achieve good. Or think that the law itself is good. Or defend order and good as two values, etc.
>NG Altruism is the only thing that matters
(If you enforce, you are legal or chaotic)
>CG Disorder is used for altruistic means
>LN The orders is enforced for the law itself
>TN Some orders are respectad, some are disrupted. Some people are helped, some are not.
>CN Destroys order to spead chaos
>LE Enforces order as a mean for selfish ends.
>NE Selfishness is the only thing that matters
>CE Destroys order for selfish ends
>>47286789
>enforce himself (monks)
So, any guy with a code of conduct but disregard for good/evil and other stuff around him, would be considered LN?
>>47282343
^This.
Moreover, depending on the text in question, AC talks about True Will being something akin to a weak predestination, often using the course of planetary orbits as a metaphor.
>>47286812
An evil Monk could enforce order within himself to gain power and achieve his selfish ends.
I'll rephrase some of the neutral ones:
>LN Order is the only thing that matters. Disorder is inaceptable.
>CN Order is inaceptable/not fun and must be destroyed (4 teh lulz).
>>47286910
>>LN Order is the only thing that matters. Disorder is inaceptable.
Yeah I understand, what I meant was, what does "order" mean? Is it in the broadest sense, in which case anyone who has a strict motto/creed/code of conduct/you name it would fall under the LN alignment?
Or should "order" be taken literally as the opposite of chaos, which would imply LN characters strive to eliminate what causes disorder in general?
>>47286972
That's the great question of all of the legal alignments. One must always ask
>what kind of law does the PC folow.
It might be the law of the kingdoms, the law of the market, the law of a god, a code of conduct, his view of the laws of nature, fate, a prophecy. The point is that the PC sees an order somewhere that must be mantained, and a reason to enforce it.
Guys, tvtropes.
>>47287050
>his view of the laws of nature
So, a chaotic evil "might makes right" guy is actually lawful neutral?
>>47287491
Does said character get off to pushing their will upon others? (Lawful evil arguably) Do they get satisfaction in sewing discord purely for the sake of seeing discord fester? (Chaotic evil arguably)
That's the problem lawful / chaotic is a bad discriptor IMHO. Leaves a lot for philosophy to murk up the water. Authoritarian (lawful) and Anarchist/Libertarian (chaotic) are better discriptors I feel. But what's worse is Good being altruism and evil being capitalistic. An evil person isn't inherently greedy. They just not agree with what the morals of the majority deem good.
Good example is if the land the PCs are in is OK with owning another person (slavery) one of the PCs abhors slavery and seeing a slave mistreated sets them off hard enough they beat the slaves owner to near death. Is that evil? Well the law of the land says it is.
>>47269615
B^U
>>47279035
>I came in here expecting alignment charts of tabletop parties
I have this one from my Eclipse Phase campaign if you like
>LG
Martian Ranger, got the exsurgent virus from some Yazidis in the TITAN Quarantine Zone. Quit the Rangers after the Tharsis League ordered them to start putting people in camps.
>NG
Revival from 100 BF. Forked himself so that he could experience every faction and location in the Solar System. Spends almost every penny he earns buying out the contracts of indentures in brothels like the one he used to work in.
>CG
Street shark. Doesn't really understand how much trouble he's gotten himself into by joining Firewall.
>LN
Mathematician and man of letters. Holds a tenured professorship at Carnegie Mellon Mars.
>TN
Muse illegally uplifted to AGI status. Primarily occupied taking care of CN.
>CN
Scavenger and Zone stalker. Illiterate, violent, enjoys sex with his muse.
>LE
Martian Ranger Captain. Hates stalkers, smugglers, communists and hypercapitalists equally. Utterly incorruptible, known primarily for his psychotic civilian killing behavior.
>NE
Indentured mercenary and async. Dimwitted thug who assumes the worst of others, and herself. Skilled at nothing but murder, just wants it all to be over.
>CE
Nine Lives ego editor. Addicted to psychosurgery, both on other people and on himself. Widely forked, every clandestine agency in the Solar System has at least one copy of him.
>>47290818
Doktor is lawful good.
The only alignment chart you will ever need.
>>47290818
Take out Metal Gear RAY (it's driven by an AI that isn't smart enough to make its own choices, unlike Bladewolf, and therefore would fall under True Neutral if anything), and replace it with Raiden as "Jack the Ripper".
I'm gonna repost my breakdown of Alignments, because every time I do people generally accept it pretty well.
Lawful Good
>The world would be a better place if everyone played by the rules.
Neutral Good
>The world could be a better place and we need to make it better.
Chaotic Good
>The world could be a better place and I'm going to make it better.
Lawful Neutral
>The world sucks and it's my job to keep it from getting worse.
True Neutral
>The world sucks and I don't care/don't know it/am an alien
Chaotic Neutral
>The world sucks but I'm gonna live through it.
Lawful Evil
>I'm gonna make the world suck more for some people so it sucks less for others
Neutral Evil
>The world sucks and I'm going to come out on top because of it.
Chaotic Evil
>The world sucks. You suck. I suck. We all suck. I will remind you of this constantly.
>>47291400
>Dr. Extreme
Fucking lost it.
>>47290818
I seem to remember that when we had a thread about this one anon stated that 'mgr is a story of raiden's journey through all the alignments on his way to becoming bodhisattva'
>>47278981
>the rock
>chaotic good
>ever watching the attitude era
>>47270385
>If anything, I'd go with
>Selfish<->selfless
>Principled<->unprincipled
I like that a lot. Selfish Principled reporting in. Normally I play lawful good/neutral, so that's kind of neat how much clearer alignment becomes with better descriptors.
>>47291955
> Selfish Principled reporting in.
I wish I had a screencap of that thread where the guy has a player who describes himself as "Lawful Evil" in real life. And claims Evil with a capital E doesn't mean the same thing as "evil".
Don't assign alignments to yourself.
>>47292013
The point was I generally play other alignments, but when you describe them differently, one alignment is clearly what I prefer compared to the others, and more of a fitting archetype. I just thought it was neat.
>>47292125
I find a lot of people play alignments which conflict with their personal morality. I think that's because people like certain characters because they're interesting, even if they don't agree with them.
>>47292219
I think people naturally go through evolutionary phases. Everyone starts out as a murderhobo or a shiny paladin, but as they slowly learn morality isn't black and white, they adjust their perspective accordingly. I think people like to personify difficult choices they've made in their personal lives and try to reconcile them against a fabricated scenario. After some years I find people generally settle in one of three camps:
>utilitarians
These guys just want everything to be as efficient as possible. Choices are made with numbers and as much cold logic as they can muster.
>pragmatists
These people try to see things as practically as possible and generally accept that there are things they can't influence. As a result, they respond to situations as appropriately as their circumstances would dictate.
>idealists
These people that do something because they firmly believe in their course of action, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. They will very rarely act against their general moral character.
Christ I spent too much time here
>>47292352
To expand a little bit, I'm not a fan of black being bad and white being good in general. A lot of bad people hide in the arms of a loving god and a strong safety net, while a lot of good people need to make difficult choices that tarnish their image. I think it's more important how your character will react to a situation, rather than what the ideal course of action would be if you wanted to stay in character. It's better to be loved than feared, but if you're neither loved nor feared, fear is easier to instill and harder to maintain.
>>47292352
I liken my own journey through role playing to the cycle of deconstruction and reconstruction you often see in other forms of media, or to the Thesis=>Antithesis=>Synthesis structure of Hegelian Dialectics. I started out, as you said, at the extremes, with the mustache-twirling villain and the square-jawed, white wearing hero. As I got older and read more things and experienced more life, I reached a point where it was a rare thing that I didn't play a character that wasn't some flavor of neutral, typically being mercenaries. Now I find myself gravitating back towards the extremes, but they're a bit more thought out, or at least I'd like to think so. My mustache still gets twirled, but now my villains have specific objectives, like bringing back their dead wife, or preserving their hometown, rather than taking over the world. My heroes may still wear white, but now maybe they're torn by thinking that they don't deserve to wear it. Maybe they made a bad call, or some of their human pettiness got the better of them for an instant and people got hurt.
>>47268817
"AN IT HARM NONE, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"
HOW DO MOTHERFUCKERS KEEP MISSING THE FIRST PART GODDAMN
>>47292465
that seems about right.
>>47294722
you're combining two different quotes, one wiccan and one theleman
>>47294782
Shit, you're right. My bad.
>>47274809
>>47274829
>>47274857
>>47274878
When where any of these said, if they were said. That said, they're pretty good read, might give me some inspiration for next characters I've been working on.
> Drafted this for another thread.
> Apparently the OP was misleading and we did NOT have to use MS Paint
> Fuck it, I'm just posting this whenever there's an alignment thread. Either that, or long quotations from Elric, Three Hearts and Three Lions, or The Broken Sword.
>>47267690
Gambit and the Punisher need to be switched.
>alignment charts
>>47267690
>>47267690
Christ no. I mean, obviously it depends on the system you're playing but let's take D&D 3.5 for example
>LG
>LN
>LE
Lawful doesn't necessarily have to follow the law.
"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, ""OR"" a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, ""OR"" she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government."
You can have LG rebels or LE villains who pay absolutely no attention to their nation's laws. They just happen to act in a reliable, ordered way.
>CG
Chaotic Good doesn't necessarily fight for everyone's freedom and positive change. Most freedom fighters probably are CG but CG could also include, say, a benevolent travelling healer or bard or whoever really who wanders from place to place at a whim, not fighting for freedom/positive change on any big scale, but rather just following their conscience and doing small acts of good wherever they find themselves
>CN
Similarly, they don't have to fight for change. In fact they might not really care about order or liberty outside of how it affects them personally.
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom"
>NE
Can be driven by many things other than greed. Love, hatred, lust, patriotism, pride, revenge, fear or the desire for perfection are all equally viable motivations. You're right that they're unlikely to be tied down by any moral constraints.
>CE
As with CN, doesn't have to fight for negative change. Some could but I dare say most aren't, they might just be out for themselves but with more unpredictability and arbitrary violence.
Alright i have a question. Would a monk, who secluded themselves from the world, wanted nothing to do with anyone, and was just sitting there contemplating their naval be a good example of true neutral. I'm not saying a good character, i'm just asking, would that reflect true neutrality?
>>47269027
this, seriously wtf, do you even know who he is OP?
Does mildly evil still count as evil?
Like, say you have a character who's a dick. They pull mean pranks, laugh at people who are miserable, et cetera. There is no goodness in them, and they take pleasure in making things a little worse for other people. But they never do anything that does serious or permanent harm.
Would evil-based effects, like a paladin's smite, still work on them?
>>47297165
Being a dick doesn't make you evil.
>But they never do anything that does serious or permanent harm.
They're just a Chaotic Neutral douchebag.
>>47297267
Well, what's the minimum level of evil to be Evil? Like, there are lots of undead and demons and so on who are "always" evil, by nature. How little of a shit can they give about actually doing evil before they're disqualified? Can the get away with just being an asshole?
Which alignment is "for the greater good" ?
>>47271334
This is actually one of the best charts I've seen. Maybe replace the sand-chick with Arya or something?
>>47267690
You're a shit dm if you can't cater to how a player wants to play. Stop being a faggot and just let him play his generic rogue.
>>47268975
This is the only alignment chart that matters
>>47269336
Who are all the different groups on this?
>>47297854
"LOL SO RANDUMB" Chaotic Neutral Rogues tend to actively fuck with the other player's enjoyment of the game. You're a shit DM if you feel the need to cater to a player who actively interferes with everyone else's enjoyment of the game.
>>47298090
If you can't deal with the idea that people have different styles of play then you shouldn't be a dm, design the campaign so they'll all have their part to play. If it's the player you have a problem with stop being such a bitch a bring up whatever issue you have with him.
>>47297981
>>47297981
>>47298256
your scroll has been a shrunked by a wizard good fellow!
>>47267690
>wanted to play a "LOL SO RANDUMB" Chaotic Neutral Rogue
Did he want to play an actual randumb character or just chaotic neutral and you think every chaotic neutral is randum?
>I think me and my players came up with good (but probably not accurate) definitions of what each alignment is.
Stupid idea.
>>47298264
Read what you can
Then tell me what my alignment was for posting that
>>47269137
couldn't true neutral also apply to people with absolutely no stakes in the situation?
Like, I don't know, a painter who just goes around and makes magical paintings and sells them
>>47298477
Lawful Ants
>>47267690
my brother who wanted to play with us >his character is chaotic neutral with tendency towards good
is this good or bad?
>>47269336
Who/what are the factory?
>>47298477
Chaotic evil
Does anyone have the alignment chart with various ways of saying ok? You know the one
>>47293936
>Thesis=>Antithesis=>Synthesis structure of Hegelian Dialectics
Fuck, I fell asleep last night a little too quickly. We could have had a wonderful discussion about how Gramcian amelioration can create characters that staunchly oppose their constructed alignment while simultaneously undermining positions of authority within their own social structure. It's always nice to run into well read intelligent people.
>>47301003
noone?
>>47292465
>mfw I only browse the bottom 3 out of that chart
>>47274996
>trying to bring clarity to the discussion
>uses the blurriest PNG I've ever seen
I think you're... chaotic neutral.
>>47275187
It's generally better to come up with a character's motives before you put them on the scale.
>>47274996
>This alignment is the narrowest in scope
>TN
No.
>>47268270
This. A lawful character follows a code of some sort, which may happen to be the laws of the land or may be religious code.
Chaotic characters on the other hand are impulsive.
I truly wish the word lawful was replaced with systematic, or ordered.
>>47297338
Neutral Good.
What alignment is Ginko in Mushishi?
Lawful = Thinking
Chaotic = Feeling
Good = service to others
Evil = service to self
Why does evil have to be specifically 'selfish'? Why can't it just be?
>>47303780
Evil generally means you are intentinoally doing something you know is contrary to the well-being and safety of others. That is a pretty selfish attitude, even if you make some half-baked Lawful Evil "for tha greater good!" justification. Because it ultimately means you believe you know better than anyone else who challenges you on it, even though you're causing a lot of suffering.
Humans are social animals. Someone who acts only on their own self-preservation will at some point do something to disadvantage another person. Which is by definition unethical.
Edgy "lol evil is just being realistic, moralfag!" morons need not respond to this post.
>>47303706
Neutral Good.
At first I was thinking True Neutral, but I mean, he does go around helping people.
Does anyone have the chart that had the Gentleman - Ruffian
Scoundrel - I don't remember
>>47303868
The justification he gives is pretty morally grey. Other than that I agree.
>>47303513
>A lawful character follows a code of some sort
>Chaotic characters on the other hand are impulsive
>I truly wish the word lawful was replaced with systematic, or ordered.
You've got it exactly backwards.
Repeat after me: Alignment is not personality.
>>47303904
>Repeat after me: Alignment is not personality.
People think Alignment determines personality, but really it's the other way around.
Steve Rogers is not Captain America because he's Lawful Good. He's Lawful Good because he's Captain America.
>>47303955
From other thread, wondering on what the alignment for someone who sells fake medicine to commoners would be.
Pic relatedNigel West Dickens from RDR
>>47304018
Why would being a businessman make you lawful?
>>47304112
Because running a business requires you to stick to a set of rules
>>47299805
That describes it more fully than SCP 001 proposal.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-748
unterbewertet
>>47297301
That's because systems give them bullshit "natural" alignments.
A vampire can absolutely refuse to drink human blood and do notthing but fight creatures actively harming others, He's still evil by nature.
>>47303845
Lawful Evil can perform good or altruistic actions for the betterment of all, it's just that they're doing it for all around selfish reasons rather than out of the goodness of your heart.
I mean, if a devil didn't give you what you asked for then people wouldn't call upon their services.
>>47305729
>He's still evil by nature.
I'm glad that most non-3.PF editions of D&D made it a point to say that natural alignments described most but not all members of a particular species.
You could have good drow or evil flumphs but the strong majority of them are NE and LG respectfully.
>>47303904
At this point I have to wonder what the fuck alignment is to you then. As the poster under you says (on phone or Id link) your personality determines your alignment, so personality comes first, and then we describe it with alignment. Alignment is how you do things, and why you do things.
Orderly-Chaotic
>How you do things.
Good-Evil
>Why you do things.
>Lawful Spidey
>Lawful Frank
>Not Chaotic Loki
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>47306668
Usually, the devil granting you a wish is getting something in return. Namely your soul.
Just because someone benefits in the short term doesn't mean your actions are altruistic.
>>47274878
>Gamera alignment chart
>Kenny not one of the evil ones
Are you even trying?
>>47307041
"Lawful Frank" is really the only way you can describe the Punisher's alignment.
>>47307015
>At this point I have to wonder what the fuck alignment is to you then.
Alignment is a cosmic descriptor and what you're, get this, aligned to.
But refer to this: >>47303904
>>47307066
>Usually, the devil granting you a wish is getting something in return. Namely your soul.
Only in the sense of a shopkeep giving you something you want in exchange for money. If a mortal wants to become the best swordsman in the world at the cost of his immortal soul, who is the devil to necessarily deny him that, especially when they were willing to give him their soul?
>Just because someone benefits in the short term doesn't mean your actions are altruistic.
No, but what if your actions causes long term prosperity?
I mean, a LE character would help stop an apocalypse just as much as LG, it's just that their reasoning is "I can't benefit from the total destruction of the world" as opposed to "it's the right thing to do."
It's also why LE is the easiest of the "evil" alignments to play in a mixed party, because you can easily justify a LE character's motivations as their own, yet they're smart enough to know that working with the party has more benefits than being outright antagonistic.
Alignments only matter if you can actually play them in a party together.
Also:
>Constantly perfect example of an Alignment
>Actually well crafted character
pick one
>>47308468
Aligned to what? You clearly think alignment has nothing to do with a character's character, and is instead how they align with... something. So what is that?
I still say you're spouting nonsense, but I have this morbid curiosity.
Im not the only one at a loss here, right? While you shouldnt build a personality based on an alignment, alignment is still a rough description of personality. This is a normal and common definition, right?
>>47268817
Lawful Good: "Make America Great Again"
Lawful Evil: "What emails?"
>>47267690
>alignments
Stop playing D&D.
>>47313511
>stop liking things I don't like
am i doing it right?
>>47271334
Dany should be Chaotic Neutral senpai
>>47277694
It was the last straw in a long line of bullshit. Also, holy shit, this thread is still alive ?
>>47315972
I'd swap Charlie Brown and Marcy, and Lucy and Schroeder, but otherwise I like it. 9.5/10.
>>47311066
Clinton is neutral evil.
>>47310283
>Han Solo
>CG
No.
>>47319711
>>Han Solo
>>CG
>No.
Because he's too Lawful in A New Hope, or because he's too Evil?
>>47320549
Because he's true neutral, actually. He's not selfish enough to kill people for his benefit, but he's not altruistic enough to risk his life for others (not in the beginning at least). He also doesn't care about law/chaos as long as he's getting paid.
Rate my chart.
I tried to stick to the good = altruistic, evil = selfish definition.
>>47320679
for reference:
LG is monarchism
LN is fascism
LE is communism
NG is social democracy
TN is libertarianism (and minarchism)
NE is the republican/democrat false dichotomy
CG is anarcho-communism/anarcho-syndicalism
CN is anarcho-capitalism
CE is egoist anarchism
>>47320560
>Because he's true neutral, actually.
See
>>47310283
>>Constantly perfect example of an Alignment
>>Actually well crafted character
>pick one
Protip: Any real person works out to be TN and almost all well written characters are real people.
>>47321029
Of course characters who constantly act according to their alleged alignment are bad characters. But it's still possible to assign an alignment to a well-written character
>>47321029
I wouldn't even say he's TN.
I mean, he was kicked from the Imperial Army for having scruples. He clearly has a moral code that he keeps to.
>>47320679
>monarchism
>good
>altruistic
well /pol/'d, my friend
>>47321158
A character who has absolutely no morals/code of conduct is NE or CE.
TN doesn't mean no morals.
>>47321183
I was struggling to find an ideology that fit the LG alignment. What would you say would be the closest one?
>>47321090
>But it's still possible to assign an alignment to a well-written character
Citation needed
Seriously, any well written character assigned with another alignment could have aspects of their character cited as a different alignment.
>>47321233
>aspects of their character
Yes, but still have the majority of their actions fall under their assigned alignment. A character who corresponds to his alignment 100% is shit, unless he's TN, but that doesn't mean well-written characters don't fit any other alignment than TN
An alignment should be used to ask the question "what is this character most likely to do in a given situation?"
Doesn't mean he'll necessarily do that thing, but it's an indicator
>>47321208
It's obvious, isn't it?
Communitarianism.
>>47292465
Oh fug I'm apparently gay now
>>47321324
That's not really a political ideology, is it?
>>47321345
Hmm. Perhaps bump Social Democracy up to LG, and replace NG with Enviromentalism?
Don't know what to do with monarchism, though-
>>47321410
>Enviromentalism
I'm not sure I'd consider that NG. I originally wanted to put mutualism in the NG spot but I figured it was too chaotic.
>monarchism
Now that I think about it, isn't monarchism closer to LN than fascism?
>>47321467
If anything I'd say monarchism can fit LN and maybe put enlightened despotism as LG?
>>47319240
This. Charlie Brown is too altruistic for Lawful Neutral. And Lucy is straight CE, because she fucks with the poor guy constantly for no reason other than she can.
>>47321158
He makes his living smugling space cocaine for the biggest mob lord around though. The way I always thought about it that's what makes you CG - not caring about any popular perceptions of right or wrong, while being an actual good guy
The problem with alignment is that people have different moral beliefs, and the traditional DnD alignment chart is based on a universe with objective, known rules of evil and good.
People forget that good and evil is objective in DnD, and complain when the paladin slaughters all the demons, even though some looked harmless and begged for mercy, forgetting that the paladin just reduced the forces of evil, and thus, the paladin was objectively good.
it's retarded, but that's how it works in DnD. The system does a poor job of communicating this.
There isn't an alignment chart that can accurately reflect the modern day understanding of morality. Because modern morality is nuance.
>>47321625
How about this? Direct democracy seems LG to me since it seems to be the closest form of communitarianism applied to politics
>>47321693
This
>>47321284
>>47320560
>He's not selfish enough to kill people for his benefit, but he's not altruistic enough to risk his life for others (not in the beginning at least).
He did save Chewbacca's life, and had the morality within him to go back and save Luke
Also this >>47321158
There is an argument for Han being CN, but imo, at that point, he was just good enough to be CG.
>He also doesn't care about law/chaos as long as he's getting paid
Han Solo is a criminal smuggler who broke a deal with his criminal employer and dumped their cargo.
I find it hard to default that to Neutral over Chaotic.
>>47323183
The point is that Solo wouldn't go out of his way to save the average guy. Whether or not his action was good isn't relevant when you take his general behavior into account.
>I find it hard to default that to Neutral over Chaotic
I think that the difference is that he's not primarily motivated by freedom or the idea of breaking rules. He just does what he has to do to earn a paycheck.
>>47321671
>>47319240
There's a difference between doing the right thing and altruism. Charlie Brown does things because he thinks it's what he's supposed to do. He doesn't want to make the world better, he just wants everyone to act and feel like they should do and gets upset when they don't.
I don't think Marcie has ever acted particularly lawful.
Lucy seems to genuinely enjoy having lasting control and power over the other kids and uses rules and traditions to her favour rather than trying to undermine or destroy them.
>>47267690
>LG
There is a system in place and it works, specifically for the benefit of people in general.
You will not abide abuse of this system.
Your strength comes from this structure and you use it to help the many.
"Both the letter and the spirit of the law"
>NG
Good has no borders.
You are likely to wander around spreading peace and happiness.
Your strength comes from the flexibility to see the benefits of unbridled good or structured good.
"The greatest good for the most people"
>CG
Good should not be constrained by laws or systems.
You are likely to liberate the fuck out of a town.
Your strength comes from being able to think out of the box for the most benefit.
"The spirit is willing but the law is weak"
>LN
There is a system in place and as long as it benefits you and your interests you'll support it.
Abuse of the system is likely, but you'll prevent it from harming you and your interests.
You will not be going around rooting out corruption, but you'll be making sure people are safe.
Think traffic cop: they're there so you don't crash into people, not so you don't shoot up a school.
>TN
System or no system, you're out for your own.
'You and your interests' means your family, stuff, community, or possibly even your country.
It depends on the character, but this is what motivates you.
>CN
You are working in the best interests of your motivation. Nothing else matters.
Being the "greedy" algorithm is a good way to think about it.
>LE
There is a system for a reason. Or there will soon be a system.
A rigid system suits your purposes, but possibly no-one else's.
You will see to your goals at all costs.
>NE
You will abuse the system, or lack thereof, for your purposes.
Nothing is more important than your goals.
You are ruthless.
>CE
Anything that stands in the way of your goals will be destroyed.
Everyone is either with you or against you.
>>47323579
I'd say Marcie is Lawful because she is complacent in following directions for no purpose other than following them. Even if she's bad at it. Remember, she addresses Patty as "sir" and rarely acts in her own agency.
I'll concede the point on Charlie Brown. It's been a while, so I forgot he really only does good because he feels obligated to.
Lucy skips around. The fake psychiatrist stuff is NE, but that football shit is CE.
>>47323702
You know, is the football shit really C.E, since she follows her code to the letter.
Never let Charlie kick the goddamn ball.
>>47323252
>He just does what he has to do to earn a paycheck.
Cite one significant lawful action that Han did in the first movie.
>>47323702
The alignment of those tricks depends if you think mocking lawfulness is CE or NE. She's still NE overall tho. Gotta get those nickles and power, that way you'll be Queen in no time!
Marcie just wants to help Peppermint Patty do well in school. She follows directions more out of niavete than any sort of love for rules. I think she calls her sir as some sort of attempt at humor.
>>47324374
Isn't mocking lawfulness CN and adjacents?
>>47324102
I always hated the idea personal code = lawful
The joker has a code: "Fuck Batman". You wouldn't call him lawful.
Lucy doesn't let Charlie Brown kick the football because she thinks it's funny.
>>47324374
As for Marcie, I really do think that's an example where Alignment is the sum of someone's actions rather than the reason. Regardless of why she does it, Marcie is effectively filling the role of a bureaucrat.
