Are there any examples of any of these done right?

Are there any examples of any of these done right?

Pretty sure the Emu should be in the evil section. Or its an evil outsider

Also Canada goose should be chaotic, those fuckers are batshit insane even by wild animal standards

You just posted it

Any others????

Ya know, that aren't birds?

Chaotic evil seagulls is spot on. Those fuckers are evil peices of shit. I've seen them:
>try to kill a dog
>sit on top of the 24 hour macdonalds every Friday and Saturday night waiting to target the drunkest
>try to steal my pie
>kill a rabbit
>pick up a pigeon it had fucked up and lift it into the sky and drop it.
>get hit by a car and swarm the car looking for revenge.
>swallow a used condom
>eat all the baby birds out a sparrows nest

Does anyone have the one with the nature on it? Like the stars, the sun, viruses etc

...

...

>Owls
>LN

Nice

The best alignment charts are the ones that focus on one person.

>imposing human values on animals
No

Its called anthropomorphization and most people with any common sense know its intended as fiction.

Sorry meant to link

My nigga.

Acting like people are arbitrarily locked into one square and don't change how much they're willing to bend their moral code or lack thereof depending on the situation is just lying to yourself.

Crows are the most evil fucks in the bird kingdom. These things attack indiscriminately everything that walks by the tree they happen to be sitting on at any given time. They're constantly attacking other birds, people, other bird nests, other small animals with no logical incentives. They're also retarded as fuck, despite what youtube says. Annoying ass CAW too. God I wish it was legal to exterminate these things. Eat a fucking dick you shit bird.

>These things attack indiscriminately everything that walks by the tree they happen to be sitting on at any given time

You're either in Japan or in a very specific part of America where the crows are all cunts

Japanese crows are literally god's punishment for a sinful earth

Geese are chaotic evil

Crows respond in turn to how they've been treated, except the Japanese ones which are cunts for no reason.

All the crows in my area are fed french fries and pieces of burger bun by random people, and now they'll straight up land on your shoulder if you have fast food and beg for some.

>Chaotic Evil being anything other than the Cassowary

Cassowaries are chill though. They'll only kill you if you try to fuck with them.

...

Well, here's one with technically one person over and over.

There's no way that the Illusive Man was Lawful. He and his company were constantly and forever working outside of the law. They're consistently shown to be involved in illegal activities.

In this instance, I believe the intent was to follow a consistent code of conduct. That he went crazy in the third game and the book shows what he would have looked like if he had been truly insane all along instead of just cruel and manipulative.

Here's a much older version of the same thing.

Yeah, I think I understand the intent. But even the quote used - "Judge us not by our methods" - implies that he doesn't care at all about the law, or following it. If you interpret lawful as just being a personal code, and his personal code as only "humanity first" then it works.
But that's pretty loose, don't you think? Under that everyone would be Lawful.

This goes out to all us old people.

Maybe you're right. I'm just digging through my old directories, I may not agree with every line. I don't think the Tennant Doctor was Chaotic Evil either, though you could make the call that he was closest to it, especially what he did in Family of Blood.

About the one thing we can all agree on is that the Joker has become a quintessential Chaotic Evil.

...

Fair enough! I appreciate the images anyway.

...

This is the worst one ever created bar none.

Good memories of me and my pops watching that show. He's big into TT as well.

>Storm Troopers: Lawful Neutral
>Thought Police: Lawful Neutral

my god.

>Canadian Goose
>Not pure chaotic evil

Pretty sure batman is lawful good.

I mean, it's not wrong is it? TN should uphold the law or their own code of conduct without regard to whether or not it is morally correct.

They're pursuing self-gain (IE, power for the emperor) instead of law in general, blah blah blah.

The emperor (and senate) is the law tho.
The rebels are a fringe group imposing their will upon established galactic legal system because they view it to be wrong.
What do you mean by "law in general"?

Law for laws sake. Order is good because it is order.

For example: A lawful neutral group would not allow a place like Mos Eisley to exist. It is too chaotic and full of crime. They'd want it wiped and polished. But, despite having a presence on Mos Eisley, they allow the crime to continue largely unimpeded because they gain from the crime aspects of it.

Same reason why they allow the Hutts to continue to operate, they gain something from allowing him too, despite him breaking the law.

I'm so glad that people on this site know that LG doesn't mean total Boy Scout (Not that I mind Boy Scouts) and that just because a character's intimidating and a bit edgy or brutal doesn't automatically mean they're Chaotic.

Since we're talking about alignments, I thought I could post my OC here. How is this for defining D&D alignments?

--

Lawful Good: I'm usually selfless - I help others in need, and through law can we establish and maintain order, which will bring safety and peace to the people.

Lawful Neutral: I care about the concept of law - personal morals or wants aren't so important as making sure law is maintained and enforced, so we can avoid falling into instability.

Lawful Evil: I'm usually selfish - I don't care what happens to others so long as I get what I want, and I believe that the law allows me to get what I want from people.

Neutral Good: I'm usually selfless - I help others in need, and I believe that being virtuous and going against evil is the best way to bring the greatest good to people.

True Neutral: I don't have any strong preference any which way when it comes to people and society. I might go with how I'm feeling at a particular point in time, or I have a philosophy of maintaining balance between all concepts.

Neutral Evil: I'm usually selfish - I don't care what happens to other so long as I get what I want, and I believe that "do-gooders" are a scourge to be done away with.

Chaotic Good: I'm usually selfless - I help others in need, and not only does the law have nothing to do with what's right, its often a means to control and manipulate the people.

Chaotic Neutral: I dislike rules, there is no way to get anywhere by clinging on to restrictive marching orders all the time. If anything, law can or should be done away with.

Chaotic Evil: I'm usually selfish - I I don't care what happens to others so long as I get what I want, and I will evade, break, and overthrow anyone else's rules to get it.

>Lawful Good: Aristotle
>Lawful Neutral: Thomas Hobbes
>Lawful Evil: Ayn Rand
>Neutral Good: The Stoics
>True Neutral: Laozi
>Neutral Evil: ???
>Chaotic Good: Kropotkin
>Chaotic Neutral: Max Stirner
>Chaotic Evil: Friedrich Nietzsche

...

Eh, alignment is only good for settings built with objective morality as a core idea

I think we need to tell new players to mentally swap out lawful for disciplined so that they stop thinking about it so literally it would end so much confusion. All Lawful means in this context is being consistent in your beliefs and actions.

INGSOC go out of their way to monitor and control every citizen so they can control their every thought and rule with an iron fist.

Compare that to Judge Dredd; even though Dredd will uphold the law so harshly that he'll arrest a j-waker, he does it to ultimately keep peace and order. The Judges and the Justice Department still allow people to live normal lives and have limited freedom. In the eyes of the Justice Department law exists to keep order and peace.

In the world of 1984 INGSOC are more concerned about controlling the lives of every single person who's not the uper-elite, they go out of their way to create proxy wars with other nation states and deliberately cause supply shortages so they can keep the majority of people as poor, desperate, and indoctrinated. INGSOC might be lawful, but they exist to oppress others for their own personal gain, they are LE.

Maybe that's why they created kenku.

Also, I remember when I visited Tokyo, the caws of Japanese crows sounded eerily human.

sorry, tengu*. Its late and I am getting my weeb and geek wires crossed.

That's the thing, very few people who are "evil" know or think they are. Which makes evil a problematic word in some sense as far as defining alignment, since most good villains aren't "evil", but more complicated. Maybe Lawful Excessive should be a thing.

I've lived near murders of crows and they're one of the most chill dudes there are. They never attacked other birds either, usually smaller birds drove them away depending on the season

Okay, I suppose I understand what you're going for not that you've entirely convinced me or anything.
Considering that Tatooine is in the outer rim and therefore essentially out of the empire's jurisdiction, due to their limited power within the area, your example seems more akin to US Police only being able to apply limited force in other countries.

What exactly are Ayn Rand's philosophies?

>Neutral evil
Mainländer?

>Lawful Excessive should be a thing
I think this is exactly it.
I would argue that any government enforces laws because they believe it is in their benefit to do so.
Just because the laws in Judge Dredd are comparably less extreme doesn't mean they are enforced for some completely different reason.

...

Essentially, she believes that altruism is evil, that the government should exist but only exist to protect property and keep people from straight up murdering each other, and that anyone who ever questions this is a parasite and a moocher.

She also claimed Mozart's music suggested communistic tendencies.

huh.

So like a anti-charity Adam Smith?

Neato

you have a very naive notion of nature, user.
the seagull must eat, or it will die a horrible death.
every living thing must kill or be killed.
such is life.

I'd say you are way off on the whole lawful thing, a bit on the chaotic as well. I'd define L N and C as the following.

Lawful; My actions flow from codes of conduct which I hold to be sacrosanct. These codes can be legal, moral, or they can be personal, as long as they are coherent. What makes one lawful is that one strictly obeys their own codes and rules. My core self is rigid and fixed.

Neutral: My actions flow from my own concerns and self interest, I will generally act rationally in my own favor and thus consistently, but my behavior is situational and can change as circumstances do. My core self is defined, yet flexible.

Chaotic: My actions flow from my own concerns and passions, I will generally act how I wish and often not entirely consistently, my behavior is situational and can often change. There is not a strong core self which defines my actions but many competing situational selves each with their own values.

>Garrus
>Chaotic

He's the most calibrated trooper on the Normandy

This, mother nature is a fucking bitch, which is why humans have always used the technological skills she gave us to usurp her whenever we get the chance.

Made me chuckle
Though I believe you can be ingredient neutral and still believe an ice cream sandwich to be a sandwich

my personal favorite

What alignment would Rogal Dorn fall under?

Personally, I agree that Law-Chaos axis can apply to personal behaviour and internalization, but I'm not so sure it determines how impulsive vs. how logical or rational you are, which seems to be a common trope that many people do go with.I feel those things are more determined by how you wish to roleplay the character's personality quirks, as the Alignment chart seems to more represent values.

My interpretation has always been that it determines whether a character goes along with or against societal rules and expectations. I admittedly did write it through the lens of attitude towards law, but the scope really includes more.

I always thought that it was originally developed for old-school D&D, which would determine how well a rogue or paladin could mesh with a party or how cooperative an NPC would be to the party's cause, though I am not so sure about this.

If Adam Smith had ended Wealth of Nations with, "PS, fuck every other guy, maximize your own self interest at all costs," then why not.

To be fair, she'd been subjected to the worst privations of Leninism kicking off, followed by Stalin's first grasp of power; she herself was purged from school for being bourgeois shortly before graduating. (She was later allowed to finish.) She had a lot of pathos driving her to be really, really angry at all forms of collectivism. The problem isn't her, it's everyone that treats her as gospel passed down by the Lord Exchequer Jesus Christ.

Lawful stupid

>wallful stupid

You had one job.

I tried giving all the Primarchs a shot.

Not entirely satisfied with 'em.

1/2

>but I'm not so sure it determines how impulsive vs. how logical or rational you are,
I would agree for the most part, I tried not to make it sound too much like I was saying that Lawful has to have their code of conduct be rational, or that chaotic has to not think things through. Though generally that's how things tend to go. I think one can make a lawful character who's personal rules are quite illogical to others, even if not self contradictory. Or that a chaotic person can act on their feelings rationally and deliberately, even if they don't act consistently across time.

In my own conception at least I prefer the definitions I have given because I find them more universally descriptive of a range of internal motivations. I mean if we define law as social rules and exceptions then IMO we run into the problem of what happens when a character has come from a different society with different values. Sure the definition includes that too, but I've seen people get into silly arguments about how a lawful person would respect the rules of a society they would personally find abhorrent and that sort of thing. That's why I think it's better to define it in terms of generalized internal motivations and tenancies and then clarify and refine those motivations with external reasons.

...

That actually makes a lot of sense

What is going on in the Neutral Evil picture?

Seagulls are definitely bigger assholes about it than most animals. Common grackles are pretty bad too.

Cuckoo

Lays it's eggs in other birds nests and makes them raise it, in that picture you can clearly tell it's not the same bird as the one feeding it since the chick is already like 3 times the size of the "parent".

I'd place Dr. Horrible as chaotic neutral or chaotic good. He's all about anarchy and overthrowing the status quo, but is motivated by a desire to fix the suffering he sees all around him. The only individual he ever considered killing (and needed egging on to do so) was one that beat him up on regular occasion and wanted to make him miserable. Still not a Good action, but that's the most evil he ever got.

Surely eating a used condom is more of a chaotic neutral thing

There is a theory that other birds are raising baby cuckoos because all adult cuckoos in the zone will beat them up if they don't.

Y'all heard about that study where some researchers kidnapped and scared crows while wearing masks ... and then when released, the crows not only attacked anyone who wore those masks but trained neighboring crows and even subsequent generations of crows to attack them

This is a pigeon falseflag
dont believe what he says
pigeons do nothing but spread disease.

Hedonists?

I gotchu

...

Found the Aussie.

Not only that, Batman but actively believes in the law, EVEN AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE THAT IT DOESNT WORK, he knows the villains will escape next friday and he still puts them in the same prison.

>INGSOC Thought Police
>Anything other than the sickest most twisted Lawful Evil imaginable
wew

This chart seems to think you can't be lawful evil unless you're the one calling the shots

In 1984 O'Brien implies that all the experiences Winston had that led him to question the Party were deliberately constructed, just so that someone from the Inner Party might later have the chance to crush his spirit one on one. The Party exists to maintain and abuse power, that is the pleasure Inner Party members take in life, because to them that's all that matters. Power for the sake of power. And what is the truest expression of power? The ability to make someone else suffer.

this is the best one

This one is excellent except obviously the Neutral Evil example is textbook Lawful Evil and they should be swapped

Here's how I think of them-

>Lawful Good
The Good King beloved by his subjects
>Neutral Good
The Wandering Druid who helps the innocent
>Chaotic Good
The bandit who steals from the rich to give to the poor
>Lawful Neutral
The city guard just doing their job
>True Neutral
The average joe/jane off the street
>Chaotic Neutral
Traveling bard who messes with people for laughs
>Lawful Evil
The evil overlord trying to take over the kingdom
>Neutral Evil
Outlaw gang leader out to make a profit off of other's suffering
>Chaotic Evil
Crazy mercenary who kills for pleasure

...

Breaking a government enforced law is not a chaotic act, but it is an act a chaotic person is more likely to perform.

>GullOut

Yes, if you use them as guideline and not as rules. I for example use them, whenever I am DM, to see where the characters stand, and keep that in mind.

Reminder that a NE player should have no issue obeying the law and supporting the party- so long as the alternative is prohibitively dangerous. He is capable of anything- with the proper motivation.

That said NE operates on profit, cost and loss. Breaking the law needs to be faster and more rewarding and only carry an acceptable hike in risk. As an example

>the blacksmith has something you want
>you can't afford it yet
>plying your trade will make enough gold for you to sink every copper into this item
>you'll be in the area for a couple weeks and are likely to pass through again

Now you try and rob the blacksmith. But unless you're a career thief this is dangerous, the risk of discovery is high and after being seen there earlier suspicion is going to fall on you. Or you could kill him. This is fast and gets you what you want. But now you're a criminal, the town's out for blood and you've lost a blacksmith to boot.

The NE character in this scenario would choose to work and buy what he wanted. The loss of gold, while less then ideal is the safest path to what he wants. Changes in circumstance will naturally alter the character's thoughts. Stabbing a merchant in bumfuck nowhere you'll never return to is a far more viable prospect then the same in a trading hub. The same goes for just about everything

Shockingly enough, a significant percentage, if not a majority, of people are true neutral with neutral evil leanings. Such is the human condition.