I mean, based on philosophy, moral code, way of life and style of thinking I think we can place every human in 9 alignment categories.
Or a hundred⌠in the end if i were to ask someone âwhatâs justice?â then there would be tons of different opinions and reasoning.
Lawful good
A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good. Such characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves. Lawful good creatures include the noble golden dragons.[12]
Neutral good
A neutral good character typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A neutral good character has no problems with cooperating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a lawful good character would.[9]
Chaotic good
A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well.[9] Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society.[9]
Lawful neutral
A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, but often follows a personal code in addition to, or even preferably over, one set down by a benevolent authority.[9] Examples of lawful neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the letter of the law, and a disciplined monk.[9]
Neutral
A neutral character (also called âtrue neutralâ) is neutral on both axes and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment, or actively seeks their balance.[9] Druids frequently follow this dedication to balance and, under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Playerâs Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnollsâ clan from being totally exterminated.[8]
Most animals were originally considered true neutral, because they lack the capacity for moral judgment in general, guided by instinct rather than conscious decision. The 4th edition introduced an additional alignment called âunalignedâ for creatures not sapient enough to make decisions based on alignment, even that of neutrality; this alignment is also used in the 5th edition.[12]
Chaotic neutral
A chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own heart and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although chaotic neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free.[9]
Lawful evil
A lawful evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, corrupt officials, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.[9]
Neutral evil
A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals.[9] A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. Another valid interpretation of neutral evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evilâs sake and trying to spread its influence.[9] Examples of the first type are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind their superiorâs back, or a mercenary who readily switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.[9]
Chaotic evil
A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other peopleâs lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative. Examples of this alignment include higher forms of undead, such as liches, and violent killers who strike for pleasure rather than profit.[9]
There are those who do good without a sense of honor or duty, there are those with egoâs and superiority complexes, there are those who feel negatively to all alignments but donât have a alignment themselves, there are those who do justice just for fun, there are those who donât care about any of that and there are those who just enjoy life, i could keep going on and on.
9 is far to minimal and even if somebody has one of those traits they certainly wouldnât have all of them within any of those descriptions.
I could argue that it covers them all. Good without sense of honor or duty, assuming honor and duty is the concept of law = chaotic good. Ego and superiority complexes is too vague to say anything, you havenât said why he does things he does, in the name of what. Neutral covers everyone who has no alignment. Justice for fun is too vague, be more specific.
You canât go on and on simply because you canât be specific enough. You could say BIG G A Y with same success and be happy because you havenât listed characteristics.
hammond is good not evil. he friend with winston.
Neutral. Friendship with Winston canât automatically make him good.
So dva is evil?
No.âââââââââââââââââ
Ether way youâre going by dungeons and dragons, thereâs lots of flaws in that system and itâs just made for a role playing game.
Thatâs exactly why i brought it up, why do people do the things they do? itâs all about reason and reason canât be defined as easily as that, and hereâs another one, what about those who donât have a choice?
You like a baby. If someone asked you âWhat temperament out of 4 do you have?â you would answer âI like collecting figurines of frogsâ.
How about you list character that canât be applied to DnD alignment table? From history, books, films etc. Then we can argue of substance.
I think theyre using dnd alignment. So evil means those that act with malicious intent e.g. reaper because he s out on revenge. While breaking the law itself is only chaotic in nature (as opposed to lawful alignment) and not evil inherently
Really? you resort to this when weâre just having a discussion.
Also what about those who only care about those around them.
And for a characters, haruhi suzumiya, marty mcfly
Even with that system it becomes no more then a opinion for who fits what role.
What should I do if you say unrelated things and triumph? I made comparison to show that you are not on topic.
What do you mean by âthose around themâ? Relatives and friends? Or you mean that they donât care about themselves? Assuming that care means solicitude.
I watched Back to Future quite long time ago. I would put marty mcfly in neutral category, because he acts simply because he is in danger. He has no strong feeling about law too.
Reaper did nothing wrong.
jumps out the window
1 Like
It was completely related to the topic at hand between us.
But he also caused his own problems in the first place (after the initial going back in time, that was the docs fault), also neutral would require there to be sides, and itâs specifically what laws, school rules or something sure and laws in times that he doesnât belong is also a sure but i wouldnât put him in a section who doesnât care about breaking laws, breaking laws was the docs thing, thatâs what started the whole movie.
Iâm kinda done since weâve been going at this for awhile but iâll read your reply.
Sides not necessarily mean good and bad. And neutral could be neutral by himself. If I remember it right it was the book with the list of winning teams. This would move him towards chaotic a bit, but not far enough to warrant chaotic neutral.
this is the venom debate all over again âhow can someone be good if they kill people to do itâ
thats why these alignments are great its true not everyone can fit fully into one alignment or another but if a majoity of their character lines up with one or the other its safe to say tht that is their alignment in the venom case they are chaotic neutral and i wouldnt call sombra evil more chaotic neutral only doing what is best for her and making deals with whoever can do the most for her
Thereâs one last thing iâd like to bring up that doesnât necessarily have to do with this, can somebody actually be neutral or is that just another side/their own side?
its very rare that a character is a true neutral but it has happenedbut thats why there is also chaotic and lawful neutral