>Chaotic Neutral
Post an author and their alignment
>Kafka
>True Neutral
>Lawful Evil
Dostoyevsky is lawful evil cause he's a Christian
third post best post
>Lawful Neutral
Lawful Good
>abandoned societal norms and morality
>ate fruit even after being told not to
>lawful
Fuck off with this nerd bull shit
Lawful Evil
>Chaotic Neutral
>Sam Harris
>Lawful Moron
Facebook-tier thread
Reddit tier post
>chaotic evil
>lawful evil
not even reporting this out of admiration for your baiting skillz
>Chaotic Good
>ThE ABsoLutE MadMAn
>Cervantes
Chaotic Good
>Shakespeare
True Neutral
>Dante
Chaotic Neutral
>Plato
Only he could be so autistically Lawful Good
This
Chaotic Good
Bad Goy
>Dante
>Chaotic Neutral
My god he's serious.
Goethe
Chaotic Good.
>Machiavelli
Chaotic Good
>Stirner
Lawful Good
>Biblical Authors
Chaotic Chaotic
Dante was lost upon the path. Fight me.
Holy Evil
>Homer
Neutral Good
>Chatoic Good
Chaotic Good
True Neutral
...
>Chaotic Good
Shelley
>Neutral Good
Homer
>Lawful Good
Milton
>Lawful Neutral
Dante
>True Neutral
Shakespeare
>Chaotic Neutral
Keats
>Lawful Evil
Virgil
>Neutral Evil
Wordsworth
>Chaotic Evil
Byron
>moi did nothing wrong
Chaotic Evil
>and it feels so good
Machiavelli's clearly lawful neutral, m8.
>
I feel like Pynchon is chaotic good. He's wacky and subversive but ultimately with strong moral fiber.
impressive
Yes son!
didnt he say "stay cool, but care"
>Wordsworth
>evil
explain
It's less the pynch approves of things morally as much as he disapproves of things morally
He isn't disgusted by the type of racism in GR because of moral obligations, it's because it doesn't make sense to him. It's illogical. Read his introductory to 1984 and fascism in America and it makes more sense. It's because they don't fit in line with his worldview, which he considers outside the average American perception, so therefore it should not be taken seriously as an ideology. That's pretty chaotic neutral.
In other words, Pynchon is a libcuck
No, Pynchon is a far-leftist and hates rich manhattanites
My man, you hit the needle on its head
Machiavelli is true neutral; he doesn't advocate adherence to laws, he advocates the use of laws towards one's own ends
A willingness to eschew laws when it benefits one's self-interest is part of what it means to be Machiavellian
>I have never read Machiavelli but boy have I heard of him
Machiavelli clearly believed in, and advocated for, a strong state in order to bring about protection, stability and prosperity: the highest good a ruler could bring, in his eyes. This is the end that justifies the means in that famous quote.
Self-interest is certainly machiavellian, but it's not Machiavelli. He even has a whole section in which he analyses, but condemns, "criminal" princes (Stalin and Mussolini &c. would be the modern equivalent).
>Machiavelli clearly believed in, and advocated for, a strong state in order to bring about protection, stability and prosperity: the highest good a ruler could bring, in his eyes.
sounds pretty good (not neutral) to me
I'm glad you agree with me then you tremendous dongle.
Lawful Good
Me too! I thought you were defending the person I was responding to, my bad
And you're completely right, I haven't read any Machiavelli.
Stirner is the very definition of Chaotic Neutral.
I used to know his son
Pretty chill dude
lawful good
Stirner advocates a very stringent systemlessness. He wrote a whole book on it. He used logic, he countered arguments, and then he set down a set of rules -- what must be avoided to avoid spooks.
And this is all for the good, in his opinion: he acts out of love for everybody. This might not be necessary to his philosophy, but it is to him.
If that's not lawful good, I don't know what is.
Chaotic Evil
>And this is all for the good, in his opinion
Nah, in the end he admits he does it because he enjoys doing it and doing what he does. He revels in himself. It's just that there's no a priori reason as to why that needs to go against other people, or that his sense of self needs to end at his body.
Stirner is the definition of True Neutral. It's just that he's the opposite of what's expected of that because his neutrality is based on being interested, not disinterested. What he posits is a philosophy in which, because you can't justify anything, all you do is for yourself, out of yourself, and only has yourself to blame or worry about. It's about not having having things between you and the world.
You misunderstand me: he indeed is de-spooked in ideological motivation. He doesn't advocate egoism *because* he loves us: he doesn't say "be egoistic, because it indulges in love (and love is Good).
But he himself loves us. To see us succeed makes him feel good. It is therefore egoistic, to him, to see us succeed.
His ideology -- egoism -- is not possible to confine to any alignment chart. That is, after all, the point. But he himself -- he is lawful good.
This bitch is definitely Chaotic Evil.
top kek
>Chaotic Evil
Nah he's chaotic good
Chaotic Rimjaub
>But he himself loves us.
At times. Stirner doesn't advocate for a fixed character either. He's open to changing his opinion. Though he did probably believe honest egoism brought along less problems.
Plus, there's no real "us" to love. There's only unique egos.
Yeah, but I'm talking about what he was thinking and wrote down in his book my man.
>Plus, there's no real "us" to love.
Stirner disagrees. Let's use charity as an example: devoting money to a charity that will help people you will never know of is egoistic, as long as you understand that you are trying to help specific egos. This applies to everyone who you will never know, and those you will, too.
true neutral
Read his interviews and his nonfiction books. Even ultrafeminist Virginia Despentes likes him.
That's a dank meme family
>I'm talking about what he was thinking and wrote down in his book my man.
I get it, but doesn't it need to fall under "moral good" to be classified as Good? Take for example if Stirner said he liked milk: if he'd said he liked milk because milk is a good thing, that's easily understood as Good; now if he'd say he liked milk because of his personal reasons, then him liking it has nothing to do with the correct moral choice, it'd be Neutral, even if based on things like health or taste. No?
>as long as you understand that you are trying to help specific egos.
That's still the same thing. He's helping random people but it's not a categorical thing.
>Read his interviews and his nonfiction books.
Yeah sure, those could be "neutral" ; nevertheless, I just can't read any of his novels without going "The fuck, Michel ?!?" every three pages.
>Even ultrafeminist Virginia Despentes likes him.
Don't wanna sound aggressive or anything, but I honestly don't give a fuck.
Oh and P.S.
*Virginie
>doesn't it need to fall under "moral good" to be classified as Good?
Nope. Stirner doesn't need to believe in "goodness" to be considered "good" under the alignment system. Loving everyone -- and wanting to help them, ultimately -- is very "good".
>Don't wanna sound aggressive or anything
You don't, you sound passive-aggressive.
>you sound passive-aggressive
Well, as long as it's not aggressive...
>Virginia Woolf
>woman
Passive-aggressive is immeasurably worse than aggressive. It is exactly the same as aggressive, only biliously masochistic.
>only biliously masochistic
That's what makes it even better, senpai.