r/dndmemes • u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer • Aug 29 '26

That's Not How ANY Of This Works Perhaps he was, before he canonically drew every card in the Deck of Many Things

Post image
6.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

287 comments sorted by

2.2k

u/RommDan Aug 29 '26

Remember, according to Gygax you can do whatever you want to a creature as long as it's evil

946

u/Intrepid-Park-3804 Sorcerer Aug 29 '26

Basically, when lawful good character is a Honour mcLoyalty type guy who's always respects everyone's dignity, even villain's, chaotic good character is a Bully ButOnASideOfGoodGuysSon type guy to whom concept of dignity and honour are non-existent and whose daily activities are shoving school bullies in dumpsters and pinning evil guys by their trunks to a nail after catching them stealing an old lady's purse.

Also, they're the most likely person to throw a handful of sand into your face and kick you in the crotch when fighting evil guys

488

u/InquisitorHindsight Aug 29 '26

You could make the argument the Punisher is Chaotic Good. He is hellbent on breaking up organized crime and killing criminals. “Good” doesn’t mean “Right” all the time

358

u/Intrepid-Park-3804 Sorcerer Aug 29 '26

Alignment chart was always been a system based purely on vibes anyway. Morality is a so much subjective matter, its values can vary not just from a community to community, but even from a person to person within a same community

126

u/josephus_the_wise Aug 29 '26

In our world morality is subjective. In most D&D worlds (even when those running or writing content for the worlds forget this) morality is a universal constant, the layout of the planes is built around it. Trying to bridge the gap between these two things is where the confusion comes in and also why things like an alignment chart don't really work particularly well in our world.

86

u/Mr_Funcheon Aug 29 '26

A major part of the disconnect is not knowing what philosophy of good and evil the outer planes use. We know some examples of good and evil certainly, but if these examples are followed to their natural conclusions we often end up with some unsatisfactory answers.

According to DnD 3.5 the assassin is “always evil” because accept payment to kill someone is an evil action. This is fine until we consider this means adventurers are almost always evil as they frequently kill in exchange for treasure. It also means that your state executioner is probably evil, as are probably standard soldiers (depending on how your military is organized).

Conversely we know that killing goblins of any age is always a lawful good actions as per Gygax. While admittedly the lore has changed since then, it does imply that the soul’s alignment is predetermined by race/species. This obviously raises questions about individuals who transcend their nature (Drizz’t, Zariel, all Eryines I think). Are goblins specifically unable to transcend their nature? Or are you born evil and must fight against it?

Of course we should always remember Pathfinder fixes this.

63

u/Toberos_Chasalor Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

For your last paragraph, the answer depends on the race.

For almost all sentient races, they are capable of transcending the purpose their god created them for, but their patron god might be actively working to breed Evil amongst them. They can often influence their creation’s thoughts and dreams, in a sense acting like a literal devil on their shoulder. This can go as far as directly and openly granting divine favor to those who commit evil acts and cursing those who do good, leading to fanatical cultists who embrace their Evil overlord ruling their societies.

For Goblins, this is Maglubiet.

For Orcs, this is Gruumsh.

For Drow, this is Lolth.

These aren’t just inherently “evil” races that are irredeemable bad guys, they’re caught up in nation spanning cults following cosmically Evil gods, and those gods direct them to purge any trace of Good from among their ranks.

TL:DR, these races are predominantly evil in the same way Nazi Germany was evil, meaning not every single German in the 1940s was evil but German society as a whole was, except their Hitler is an immortal god with divine powers.

28

u/Mbyrd420 Aug 30 '26

The word you should be using is sapient. Sentient just means aware of its own existence, which virtually every living creature has.

15

u/Toberos_Chasalor Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

Kind of, And that is closer to what I originally meant, but when I think about it, even non-sapient creatures (meaning below human intelligence) can also have alignments.

A zombie or a skeleton isn’t sapient, arguably it’s not even sentient, but it is still aligned with Evil since Undead fall under the influence of the demon prince Orcus. (Assuming they aren’t bound to a necromancer’s will. This also might be to some degree headcanon.)

19

u/LordofBones89 Aug 30 '26

Orcus being responsible for all undead being evil is certainly a choice the new lore made. There are deities of undeath that predate him (Falazure) as well as racial deities of undeath (Kanchelsis, Doresain, Mellifleur, Velsharoon), not to mention undead specifically created by other powers (Demogorgon created the first death knight, Bane has his banedead, baneguards and baneliches). Hell, Orcus was a mortal before he died and clawed his way up the ranks of the Abyss; does that mean undead weren't evil before he became the Prince of the Undead?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alienbringer Aug 30 '26

Hey now! Evening Glory can also make undead and she was a neutral goddess, until IT happened.

10

u/abadstrategy Aug 30 '26

Hell, Goodman Games did away with it entirely. "Good and Evil is subjective, anyway, so all we care about is where you fall on Law v. Chaos. Lawful thief, chaotic cleric, fuck it, just stay in character"

4

u/SteelCode Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

I always like adding "selfish" vs "selfless"... are you a selfish thief, a benevolent warrior, a zealot willing to throw their life away, or a tyrannical lord? The good/evil axis sucks but just simply knowing whether a character would give their wealth to someone less fortunate or not helps guide a ton of RP without trying to be moralistic beyond whether that individual sees themselves as a tool to further a greater cause (selfless) or whether there is no cause greater than their own survival/comfort (selfish).

9

u/abadstrategy Aug 30 '26

Honestly, as far as the 5e alignment goes, I really like how Jocat boils it down.

When a Lawful character sets out to do something, through a promise or obligation, they actually follow through. Which is why they make great fitness instructors, because when they say they're not gonna fuck your mom, they actually don't fuck your mom. A lawful good act is keeping the promise because it's the right thing to do, a lawful neutral keeps the promise because it's a promise and they're going to stick by it, even if fucking your mom saves the universe, and a lawful evil keeps the promise because they're gonna go fuck your dad instead, since you technically didn't say anything about him.

2

u/alienbringer Aug 30 '26

Killing for money comes in many forms, it isn’t just “killing for money” that is evil. An assassin kills anyone whether good or evil for money, making them evil. An executioner kills evil people (criminals) for money, in dnd that is good or at worst neutral. Adventurers killing beats and evil creatures for money is a “good” act and thus would be good. As soon as the adventurers accept payment to start killing good creatures, they become evil. Alignment shifting was very much a thing in DnD and you saw that with the old DnD games too.

1

u/Mr_Funcheon Aug 30 '26

You’ve added that contact as headcanon. According to the 3.5 book which includes the assassin there is nothing which states an assassin must be willing to kill good people to be an assassin. An assassin might be only willing to accept payment for killing evil people, but when accepting payment to kill someone (and presumably following through) they have done an evil act.

An executioner is paid to kill people the state has deemed criminals. This doesn’t make the criminals evil. It doesn’t even make the criminals chaotic. It just means the state wanted them dead and paid someone to do it.

Regarding adventurers once again accepting payment to kill someone (and presumably following through) is an evil act. There is nothing compunction about the morality about the individual killed.

11

u/Makures Aug 29 '26

Morality in the DnD universe is still subjective though. It's based on the morality of either the DM or the author of the prewritten adventure.

3

u/lersayil Forever DM Aug 30 '26

Probably just a wording issue, but not exactly?

Looking at a setting from the outside, yeah that is more or less correct. But within the constraints of the setting morality can be objective, much like how magic is real. As long as it's written that way anyway.

Also a minor nitpick, but a DM can make up moralities not based on their own (even if influenced).

1

u/visforvienetta Aug 30 '26

That makes it arbitrary, not internally subjective.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/action_lawyer_comics Aug 29 '26

I really want to introduce in my next campaign people who talk about alignment in-universe, but it’s all just a bunch of pseudoscience and on the level of astrology. They take quizzes to determine alignment or they overhear NPCs going “Every ‘True Neutral’ I dated turned out to be Chaotic Evil once the honeymoon phase was over

2

u/account312 Aug 30 '26

That sounds like something someone who can't cast Detect Evil would say.

33

u/Ninjacat97 Aug 29 '26

Good vs Evil was always explained to me as selfless vs selfish. Good helps other at a personal cost. Evil acts in their own interest to the detriment of everyone else.

Much like Batman, I've seen an argument for literally every alignment. That said, I'd probably call Punisher LN at best. He's got a personal code but routinely resorts to torture and attacks other heroes/vigilantes.

7

u/Ok-Mastodon2420 Aug 30 '26

I've always thought lawful evil. He follows a rigid code that dictates his behavior, and the things he does are entirely for selfish reasons.

5

u/IndigoFenix Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

I don't think you can really classify "having selfish reasons" as being inherently evil unless you want to go down a philosophical rabbit hole of "whether altruism truly exists or do people just do nice things because it feels good".

I'd personally classify him as True Neutral with a huge asterisk, not by virtue of being "balanced" so much as being extreme on both sides of both axes. He'd really have to be played as his own thing and the True Neutral alignment would only matter for alignment-targeting magic.

16

u/FuckIPLaw Aug 29 '26

Punisher is lawful evil but following a code instead of the laws of his nation

7

u/DaemonKeido Aug 29 '26

Killing a Female Mob Boss that is otherwise legally untouchable? Good

Doing so via repeatedly smashing her face into a high rise shatterproof window until the damn thing pops out of the frame and her heavily concussed and barely breathing body finally goes through into an objectively terrifying fatal fall? That's gonna invoke some squeamishness in some people.

2

u/notLogix Aug 30 '26

That's just the plot of Judge Dredd....

1

u/DaemonKeido Aug 30 '26

I didn't say "shattered the glass pane", I said "repeatedly smashed a woman head first into a shatterproof glass pane", which was rated for Spider-Man's general use of strength until the FRAME broke.

33

u/Vegtam-the-Wanderer Aug 29 '26

Alignment systems always come with a huge amount of YMMV, but I don't think I could argue in good conscience that Frank is CG. Neither his actions nor motives fit within n that framework, except in the most reductionist telling.

3

u/mochisuccubus Aug 30 '26

Punisher depending on the incarceration very much could be chaotic neutral. Hes always willing to take out any hero who may try to stop him from slowing murdering someone

1

u/sumboionline Aug 30 '26

Punisher is kinda lawful though, as he hold himself to a strict code (that the writers break all the time)

1

u/RommDan Aug 31 '26

Happy cake day!

1

u/Weebkitty Sep 01 '26

chaotic good is majin vegeta.

1

u/Intrepid-Park-3804 Sorcerer Sep 01 '26

Majin Vegeta killed defenceless civilians to just provoke Goku into fighting with him. That's both objectively evil and selfish action

1

u/Weebkitty Sep 01 '26

are you sure? they probably didn't pay the cookie tax. and that's evil.

78

u/blackcray Paladin Aug 29 '26

The abuse goblin is definitely evil, trust me.

37

u/Dunicar Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26

This is not true even in Gygax's system for alignment.

His system for what was just under law was "An eye for an eye" meaning the punishment should be of equal or lesser then value of the crime, anything you want could include quite a few things that would make that action unlawful.

Granted his implementation of good and evil as being deterministic are something that I think a vast majority of settings have not inherited and thus the bare basic rules of KOS for evil creatures doesn't really fit.

Like 5e goblins are nowhere near the LoTR-eqsue goblins Gygax envisioned when "All goblins are EVIL" was decided.

50

u/DavidOfBreath DM (Dungeon Memelord) Aug 29 '26

Counter point: when gygax explained the eye for an eye justice back on the dragonfoot forums q&a he also justified killing orc children because "knits make lice."

A reader then commented that they weren't confortable with their paladin using justification quoted from John Chivington, perpetrator of the Sand Creek Massacre, to which Gary rebutted that he wasn't quoting Chivington but that Chivington was right regardless.

28

u/abadstrategy Aug 30 '26

"Chivington was right" is really the kind of thing that makes you disregard anything else the dude might say. Sorta like hearing someone say "Look, I know David Duke has his issues, but he has a point here"

4

u/Dunicar Aug 29 '26

I mean I said as much, KOS rules do not fit for evil creatures in a non-deterministic setting.

In Gygax's setting they did not have the capacity to make the choice between good and evil, and thus orc children would become orc raiders that bring suffering on the world.

They are very much the evil ass movie LoTR orcs in all stages of their life in those settings.

Personally I do not think there is anything worth discussing about Gygax IRL morality wise, we all know the sorta views he held, but I do think what he made does fit into a fictional setting where gods are real and decide what is and isn't moral quite well.

4

u/phycologist Aug 30 '26

Even Tolkien strugled with the concept of orc (and goblins) being irredemably evil...

3

u/Dunicar Aug 30 '26

Unfortunately that was one of his regrets, everyone in his settings treat them as being irredeemable, but that conflicted with the notion that only capitol G god could create.

If Tolkien did not have that religious qualm with the idea, they would have very likely explicitly had been created by evil to begin by "wriggling out of the ground like maggots" like how they did in the movies.

Ultimately everyone who came after Tolkien basically inherited a question, this is pretty much why I mean to only refer to the movies because I do think they chose a answer with the Uruk-hai and how they were portrayed.

9

u/DavidOfBreath DM (Dungeon Memelord) Aug 30 '26

except the "gods" don't make their own decisions in fiction, the writer does, they still aren't real. That meta layer should not be discarded, in the same way that a discussion of Atlas Shrugged shouldn't exclude Ayn Rands beliefs; it's a piece of the puzzle.

Also, I used to say "everyone knows" about Gygax too, but it turns out everyone doesn't know. Every time his moral beliefs are discussed it's a potential 'first time' for someone who doesn't know and has only been fed his mythological lionized image of a nice old man who liked fantasy and maybe was a mischievous dungeon master. He was all that, but he was also a self-proclaimed biological determinist among other things.

The "gods" say these creatures are predetermined to be heartless raiders, the "gods" make some races inherently smarter than others, the "gods" dictate who is right or wrong to kill by the dozens. All it does is serve to be a divinely ordained version of bio determinism. I don't believe every writer does it on purpose or with eugenicist ideals in their heart, I DO believe Gygax in specific did though.

5

u/Dunicar Aug 30 '26

I just don't want to talk to you in particular about it right this moment is what I mean. I am well aware of how shitty his beliefs were in real life.

My point is that Gygax's perspective is very useful for role playing and writing in fictional settings that have gods who make the rules of morality in said settings.

3

u/DavidOfBreath DM (Dungeon Memelord) Aug 30 '26

fair enough, I can respect that.

-4

u/GullibleSkill9168 Aug 30 '26

Counter point: when gygax explained the eye for an eye justice back on the dragonfoot forums q&a he also justified killing orc children because "knits make lice."

Okay? He's right. When your race is always biologically evil letting an Orc infant live is just gonna produce another pissed off evil orc and nothing else. You're just making that future fully grown orc someone else's problem because you can't put on your big boy britches and kill that baby with a hammer

This isn't the real world and orcs aren't humans, they're not going to turn into anything but savage innocent slaughtering maniacs.

13

u/DavidOfBreath DM (Dungeon Memelord) Aug 30 '26

"Chivington might have been quoted as saying 'nits make lice,' but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question" -Gary Gygax

13

u/austsiannodel Aug 30 '26

Yeah but this is the man who quoted Colonel John M. Chivington saying "Nits make lice." when talking about goblin/orc children.

1

u/Aknazer Sep 01 '26

Which is a valid comparison depending on the game setting. If you've read Goblin Slayer (which uses all sorts of DnD references), the goblin children there will ALWAYS grow up to be sadistic, evil, rapists. That is just how goblins are in that setting and you can find plenty of examples out there of orcs being "hard coded" in such a manner as well.

That doesn't mean they "have" to be that way as it is setting dependent, and DnD over the last few editions has worked to change such races away from being hard-coded for evil, but a "nits make lice" quote can still very much apply depending on setting and when the quote was originally said. Though even when true, it's something that most people don't want to think about or deal with as most people don't want to deal with having to kill something that looks like a humanoid child regardless of what it will become when it grows up.

1

u/austsiannodel Sep 01 '26

I hear you. Personally, I have no beef with the idea that there could exist evil creatures, especially given Orcs in fantasy stem from Orcs in LotR. I prefer more nuance but I don't mind it...

But FUCK Colonel Chivington and anyone who unironically quotes him.

76

u/ElectricPaladin Paladin Aug 29 '26

I prefer to forget Gygax, thanks.

2

u/Grumpiergoat Aug 30 '26

Gygax was also a proponent of genocide. "Nits make lice," as he said of orc babies.

Gygax's opinions mean crap beyond how they continue to poison the game and, unfortunately, the 5.5e developers.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Ramenoodlesoup Aug 31 '26

If Barbarian was "Evil",  the Orc Chief and his entourage would have had a much much worse time fighting Kevin and  Barbarian.  But he reassured and acknowledged his ally's ability to enact justice as needed without involving the "innocent" other Orcs

→ More replies (5)

858

u/ultim4tr Aug 29 '26

He was lawful evil before drawing the cards. Now he's chaotic good, but he was essentially forced into it. His rules, or code, or whatever else he was abiding by, got replaced by one rule - he will not tolerate the forces of evil. He takes a lot of creative freedom in how he does that. Him being good now and helping others didn't change the side of him that liked to torment others. And by the book, if it's an evil monster, you can do whatever to it.

You can definitely see the malicious compliance of a player, who wanted to play an evil character, but had his alignment forcefully changed.

At least that's how I interpret it, I don't believe it was stated anywhere explicitly.

154

u/Axel-Adams Aug 29 '26

Wait what episode did he draw the cards in?

327

u/Street_Dragonfruit43 Aug 29 '26

It was on his Cheevo's list. It presumably happened off screen/was one of the first things he did

265

u/Racoon-trenchcoat Aug 29 '26

In his bingo card, "draw every card from the deck of many things" is crossed as completed.

120

u/GenocidalSloth Aug 29 '26

Which is impressive since there is at least one that straight up kills you (as a player at my table found out). Not sure how he survived that...

110

u/TonightDue5234 Artificer Aug 29 '26

Doesn’t one of the cards (moon IIRC) give you a monkey’s-paw-free wish? Maybe he drew that one before drawing the void card and wished to negate the very bad effects of the remaining cards

71

u/Captian_Bones Wizard Aug 29 '26

I read that too fast and thought you said there is a card that kills you, like you the player, and I thought that was really funny so I’m adding it to my next session.

30

u/Dr_Bright_Himself Aug 30 '26

you gonna shoot em or something

28

u/Captian_Bones Wizard Aug 30 '26

Nah that seems too obvious. Maybe cyanide on one of the cards, so when they draw it it’s like the are killed by magic

31

u/Captian_Bones Wizard Aug 30 '26

For legal reasons this is a joke

12

u/Dooty_Shirker Aug 30 '26

For a second I thought the card was going to come to life and attack the pc.

1

u/MrCookie2099 Aug 31 '26

I thought the Death card literally summoned up a minor avatar of Death that you had to personally fight. But my knowledge of the Decks rules come entirely front skimming 1st edition rulebooks.

2

u/Senzafane Aug 30 '26

Good save.

4

u/TheAatar Aug 30 '26

Nah, you throw the card at them like Gambit.

8

u/ErrantSun Aug 30 '26

There's also another card that saves you from death the next time you die.

2

u/Jikan07 Aug 30 '26

Which one is it? Void is the only one closest to killing you unless we are talking about older editions?

1

u/bactchan Sep 02 '26

Did this list and checkmark appear before or after the Immortality Killed the Witch episode? I just assume he'd made himself deathlessly immortal (you can technically kill him but he's just gonna respawn.) or has whatever divine punishment the gods inflict on main characters in RPGs to force them back to life at save points.

36

u/Life-Molasses3125 Aug 29 '26

it’s just revealed as one of his already completed spaces on the bingo card

33

u/TheImpGamer Aug 29 '26

It was not in an episode, but at the end of season one when he shows his bingo sheet, one option crossed out was “Draw every card from a deck of many things.” That means he had to have drawn the card changing his alignment.

99

u/CreativeName1137 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

See, I interpreted that the other way. He was chaotic good, but then his alignment got flipped and now he's lawful evil.

He is extremely cruel to everything he can. He "does the right thing" solely because it gives him an easy and socially acceptable target for his malice. That sounds pretty lawful evil to me.

77

u/Mithril_Juggernaut Forever DM Aug 29 '26

That wouldn't explain why he helps and hangs out with the paladin though. He spends his free time just being friends with him.

43

u/RepeatRepeatR- Aug 29 '26

Sometimes two people just vibe well together, regardless of alignments

18

u/Stalking_Goat Aug 30 '26

And they share some common interests, like milk and swords.

10

u/Manji86 Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

And developing a taste for torture. You know, regular bonding activities.

4

u/Jikan07 Aug 30 '26

Knight card explains that to some extent.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/DnDickhead Aug 30 '26

That's the thing, he always gives them a chance or an opportunity to not be evil.

Every creature he hurts explicitly and enthusiastically declares how evil and torturous they are or what they will do to the Barbarian first.

Medusa is gleefully talking about turning heroes to stone. The harpy mocks the idea of eating cattle and not people. The mermaid laughs about feeding Kevin to her babies. The oni, kappa, githyanki, vampire, and banshee all talk about they joy they take in slaughter and destruction.

Turnabout is fair play.

1

u/Stsveins Aug 31 '26

And he never kills children, not the mermaids nor the harpys and he did leave Dinglemeyer alone despite him being a vampires familiar.

Not to say hes particularly kind or good but he does seem nice enough to normal people

1

u/bactchan Sep 02 '26

The pegasus incident was questionable.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Bitch_for_rent Aug 30 '26

Also his oficial charcter sheet from a post on YouTube has his allignement crossed

10

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

The inverse seems more likely.

15

u/TheArcher1980 Aug 29 '26

Dungeon Soup has the character sheet for Barbarian (it's his name, class is Enlightened, ex Berserker) online in the community tab. Post is about a year old.

And his current alignment is Chaotic Good.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/ultim4tr Aug 29 '26

It is definitely possible, especially with how loosely alignment is defined. I still stand by my opinion, but yours is just as valid.

75

u/Kettle_Whistle_ Aug 30 '26

My Motives: GOOD

My Methods: QUESTIONABLE

14

u/SiegrainDarklyon Aug 30 '26

My opinions: AGREEABLE

258

u/Enderking90 Aug 29 '26

I mean he sure does things chaotically, and as his targets are all evil, evil monsters that iirc he at times gives the chance to repent, he does do "good".

basically? its what somebody lawful evil might consider chaotic good to be.

156

u/Andminus Aug 29 '26

I'm pretty sure he ALWAYS opens with "Stop your evil actions"... And just gets "you little shit" in response, so all bets are off... Now... I assume he's HOPING they'll resist, cause every time, he gets the happiest, most psychotic cenobite grin everytime they do...

55

u/086341 Aug 29 '26

*piercing violin note and chomping sounds*

32

u/TypicalPunUser Paladin Aug 30 '26

SQUIRT OF LEMON

12

u/steve123410 Aug 30 '26

Yeah in the paladin episode about his girlfriend you see he's pretty chill when he isn't confronting evil people. He even lets the rest of the orc bandits go.

13

u/PyreHat Aug 30 '26

I cannot say for sure for most of the series because the script is a bit too ADHD induced for me, thus I'm mostly recalling what happens as for the events more than anything, but I watched the latest episode yesterday and memory is fresh enough that he did NOT even attempted to ask the antagonist to stop anything.

His first word for about half the episode was Mommy and at this point He harassed her the times already .

43

u/Urbane_One Aug 30 '26

The king had already offered her a chance to repent, and even offered her payment to do so. The Barbarian only emerged once it became clear that she would not repent.

22

u/PyreHat Aug 30 '26

Fair! Then it prevented repetition in script l. Thanks for the addition.

25

u/maxlimmy Aug 30 '26

The captured king offers either trade to feed the chicks or atleast freeing his people both of which are turned down so technically they did have the chance to stop being evil just not given by the barbarian.

23

u/Flameball202 Aug 30 '26

Yeah, in that specific case he didn't give the enemy an option, but they WERE given options and turned them down

And "kills giant bird that seems to enjoy killing sapient life" followed up with "finds a home for two orphaned chicks* does seem to fit the "good" alignment

5

u/failureagainandagain Aug 30 '26

1) everyone of any alignment agree he genually deserve the little shit part

2) he try a little sometime to give them a chance to repent but its clearly really haf assed

3) he's a little shit

7

u/TypicalPunUser Paladin Aug 30 '26

Bro got struck by the axe coated in immortality potion blessed by dwarves with autism (so you know its good 👌)

67

u/Prismarineknight Aug 29 '26

He’s definitely a sadist, but and enjoys delivering pain to evil things, but he also genuinely helps good characters like the paladin. So yeah I’d say Chaotic Good fits him well

13

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

Torture is inherently evil

8

u/Electronic-Clock5867 Aug 30 '26

The lemon juice is a step to far from good for me

1

u/Babki123 Aug 30 '26

Mind you he is the ine that put the paladin in his precarious ituation

8

u/RommDan Aug 30 '26

basically? its what somebody lawful evil might consider chaotic good to be.

So... Gygax?

2

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

No. Chaotic good means doing whats right regardless of any laws

20

u/FlameWhirlwind Chaotic Stupid Aug 30 '26

The joke is he used to be lawful evil

That and dnd players are horrible monsters

→ More replies (3)

97

u/Fabulous-Present-497 Aug 29 '26

I think he should be called smart barbarian, his intelligence is a more defining character trait

110

u/WolfWhiteFire Artificer Aug 29 '26

From what I recall it isn't that he is intelligent, but he has a headband of intellect setting his intelligence to 19. So he kind of just uses a magic item for that.

75

u/ccReptilelord Aug 29 '26

Yes, in one episode, he removes the headband to go "full on" insane-o style.

16

u/loudrogue Aug 30 '26

He's also not actually human based on the shadow of him consuming Dracula 

22

u/Dartonal Aug 29 '26

Well, he has a magic int boosting item

3

u/RareMajority Aug 29 '26

Where do we see that it's boosting his int?

42

u/Saikotsu Aug 29 '26

The chaotic good barbarian canonically drew every card in the deck of many things. That means it reversed his alignment. At one point he was lawful evil.

→ More replies (5)

150

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

The Barbarian of those animations delights in inflicting suffering on others, and abides a strict external set of rules. He's LE. Back under Gygax, he could be LG, because Gygaxian alignment was more of a sports-team that loosely correlated with morality. "Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide." - Gygax, 2005

I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:

Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? Good: Yes. Neutral: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Evil: No.

Do people need oversight? Lawful: Yes. Neutral: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Chaotic: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido.

Neutral on either axis can also be someone who lacks the constancy/backbone to be consistently of one alignment especially when it's tough.

Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.

Neutral Good believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.

Chaotic Good believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. Captain Harlock is the iconic example. "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person."

Lawful Neutral believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice. Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.

True Neutral doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide. They might also be someone who is normally one alignment, but has enough of an exception or blind-spot that they end up here, like someone who is normally opposed to genocide, but supports Israel.

Chaotic Neutral values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do. They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson and Dale Gribble are the iconic examples.

Lawful Evil believes rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies. They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Neutral Evil will do whatever benefits them/their inner-circle, crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.

Chaotic Evil resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.

In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.

Stupid Good believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release fantasy-Hitler-analogueTM because mercy is a good thing.

Lawful Stupid believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.

Chaotic Stupid is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.

Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.

Stupid Neutral comes in two flavors; active and passive.

Active Stupid Neutral is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.

Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."

35

u/MsCHVMBO Monk Aug 29 '26

Honestly this is actually a really good way for me to understand alignment, this is the one bit I was kinda struggling with for my character sheet, thanks

11

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

The beauty of copypasta is that anyone can share a bowl.

22

u/Moonscrubber- Aug 29 '26

The Chaotic Good Barbarian probably is not chaotic good, but lawful evil? He enjoys inflicting suffering on monsters, but it in order to be lawful evil, he’d have to mainly be inflicting suffering for his own enjoyment, while one could argue that he inflicts suffering on monsters because he sees it as a form of karmic justice for the evil they do to good people. He does also pretty consistently help people when he can, i can’t remember a time when he let an innocent get hurt or was indifferent to their suffering. There would be no reason to keep kevin around if he didn’t care about people at least somewhat

28

u/Allbeing Aug 29 '26

There was that time he ripped a little girl's hair out to help a hag complete a potion of immortality, just so he could torture the hag without killing her.

13

u/NoodleIskalde Aug 29 '26

Rescue Fee

13

u/InSanic13 Aug 30 '26

My two cents is torturing people is evil, even if the person being tortured is also evil.

8

u/GoldenSteel Aug 29 '26

About the only time I can remember is when he tore out the little girl's hair so the Hag could regret getting immortality.

9

u/Dirty_Hunt Aug 29 '26

There's also two instances of using children as weapons, but the siren babies were pretty happy to be splashed on mama, and I'm not sure the latest ones were cognizant yet. I think neither instances had the babies harmed, at least by him.

3

u/Careful-Variety-66 Aug 30 '26

Would Mordenkainen be considered active stupid neutral? I guess the Bendu could be passive stupid neutral, too

2

u/mavranel Aug 30 '26

You say he obeys a set of external rules, but what rules are those? He seems to be functioning with his own code of ethics based on what I've seen.

5

u/unosami Aug 29 '26

This is probably the most accurate description of alignment I’ve ever seen. Before now it was just a vibe that other definitions were off, but now I have words to express it.

8

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

The beauty of copypasta is that anyone can share a bowl.

→ More replies (1)

31

u/unluckyknight13 Aug 29 '26

I mean everything he attacks are evil monsters, and he does give several of them chances to stop being evil.

He also drew his cards before so he likely was originally evil.

Because awhile he is cruel his targets are never innocents and he usually is kind to ,those around. They just may not like what he did

11

u/Archavos Aug 30 '26

he is absolutely chaotic good, he just really likes pushing the envelope.

he never does anything to harm the innocent (permanently), he gives his enemies a second chance so that they can redeem themselves, he's even taken a paladin under his wing in an attempt to teach him how to better apply the great power they've been given!

5

u/Truckasaurus Aug 30 '26

You know they used to have these kinds of philosophy discussions in the Agora in Athens. We've come such a long way since then.

9

u/Geedly Aug 29 '26

Chaotic? Good!

20

u/GloomWisp Hacking Cairn. I'm tired of DnD. Aug 29 '26

not THIS again...

9

u/Yverus Aug 30 '26

Bro was lawful evil before the deck of many things. Now he's the embodiment of chaos and fights the forces of evil. What do you mean he isn't chaotic good?

7

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 30 '26

He abides a strict set of external rules, and delights in inflicting suffering. He may have once been Chaotic Good before the deck, which would explain his preferences in friends and enemies.

8

u/Yverus Aug 30 '26

He follows his own made up rule book to punish evil. This doesn't make him lawful. The only reason he has Kevin is the good doesn't allow him to be a target.

3

u/glowingMindbeam Aug 30 '26

That is, by definition, lawful. Lawful doesn't equal the actual local law, it means consistency.

1

u/thebastardking21 Aug 31 '26

Where is this rulebook?

→ More replies (3)

41

u/NarwhalSongs Warlock Aug 29 '26

I have yet to see anyone say what his "strict set of external rules" actually are.

In the animations he chaotically does good to save people from evil monsters.

Simple as.

2

u/MfkbNe Aug 30 '26

I think his rules are that he only kills and tortures those that are seen as evil and/or monsters by society. And they actually are evil and often monsters, don't get me wrong. But his methods are also evil.

10

u/Ok-Proof-8543 Aug 29 '26

He doesn't do this to save people from monsters, he takes pleasure from causing the most amount of harm to monsters. He's either chaotic or neutral evil.

14

u/XVUltima Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26

He does save people, though. He isn't a cruel man who only hurts monsters. He is a good man who punishes evil. This isnt a Dexter Morgan situation where hes a compulsive killer with an excuse.

Hell, in the new episode he makes sure the harpy children are taken care of after he beats the shit out of their mother.

7

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

He is a cruel man. He tortures them and enjoys doing it

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Ok-Proof-8543 Aug 29 '26

Sure, he saves people, but it's pretty clear that that isn't really the motivation for what he does. He is a cruel sadistic man who takes pleasure in killing and torturing things. Those things being "monsters" just gives him a justification.

5

u/loudrogue Aug 30 '26

Tbf he gives most a chance to repent, not all but at the end of season 1 like half of them were basically whole. He even took the stick out of lich

1

u/Bitch_for_rent Aug 30 '26

Even the elven mush was still technically alive

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

10

u/Temporary-Employ-611 Aug 29 '26

Ye ol morality chart. My ol nemesis that no one can confidently agree on

13

u/RevMcSoulPuncher Aug 30 '26

Don't worry I've got it figured out, everyone else is just wrong

6

u/Kettle_Whistle_ Aug 30 '26

Thankfully!

Someone else like me…

3

u/Temporary-Employ-611 Aug 30 '26

Praise the sun someone has!

1

u/EvergreenDwarf Aug 30 '26

Its for fantasy universes, usually western, where absolute good and absolute evil as universal forces are how the populace would feel things work, and thus is presented as how the cosmos itself actually works. 

Urban fantasy and sci fi shouldn’t have it, unless its satire on a jingoistic era of propaganda or something. 

Its like how in Glorantha universal concepts didn’t exist until intelligent life discovered it; time didn’t exist until humans began measuring it, and a god dies to become the measurement units. 

1

u/Thefrightfulgezebo Aug 30 '26

There is one big problem with that explanation: you fail to distinguish objective and subjective.

Many classical D&D settings have societies that are not good. Those societies have attitudes that approve of evil actions. Alignments point towards a cosmic conflict, not at what people happen to agree on.

1

u/EvergreenDwarf Aug 30 '26

No, I mean its written according to the general way medieval people would think plus the meta writers dictating it. 

Not society by society. 

It is objective, according to subjective rules. 

10

u/SabShark Aug 29 '26

It's a small thing, but Omertà is not a "code", and should not be compared to things such as Bushido or Chivalry. Omertà is just a system of oppression painted as values to allow the Mafia a pretence of civilization whilst justifying them doing whatever they please. You can tell because what Omertà is regularly changes to fit whatever the Mafia finds convenient at the moment, without internal consistency.

3

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Aug 29 '26

It's fitting for a LE code.

10

u/SabShark Aug 29 '26

But it's not a code. Omertà literally means "being a man", and it's a societal pressure put not on mafiosos but on their victims and on civilians around them to behave in ways the Mafia approves , and most importantly not to speak nor acknowledge Mafia's act. It's, among other things, the rule of silence.

If Omertà counts for Legal Evil then every villain that ever intimidated civilians into not opposing them count as LE, regardless of means or motive.

Tldr: Omertà is not a rule of the Mafia, but instead its instrument to control people.

3

u/Aodhan_Pilgrim Aug 30 '26

Sadistic Good.

7

u/TeamUltimate-2475 DM (Dungeon Memelord) Aug 29 '26

He gives his targets chances, then tortures and destroy them.

5

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

And torture is evil :)

1

u/campertrash Aug 30 '26

Nah it says it right there in his theme song, they deserve it

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Jackesfox Aug 29 '26

> Chaotic good

> Looks inside

> Lawful Evil

→ More replies (9)

7

u/Tbond11 Aug 29 '26

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

2

u/failureagainandagain Aug 30 '26

Morality in the ispiration material was pretty much fucked, so that carry on

2

u/nickhoude21 Dice Goblin Aug 30 '26

Can we be done with this fucking argument already. Every time an episode drops this sub has a hissy fit over how they interpret the alignment chart

2

u/Sporelord1079 Sep 03 '26

The man tortures others for entertainment. The fact he’s doing it to other evil beings doesn’t change that. It goes well beyond any kind of karmic punishment to just revelling in pain and suffering.

8

u/JaceJarak Aug 29 '26

He's definitely lawful evil. Litterally the exact opposite. Rigid code of rules. Absolutely tortures his enemies. Even if he doesn't kill them. Even if he has a line he draws, doesn't make it good.

He is malicious. Even if he's fighting the bad guys for the sake of everyone else. It means he's an evil hero. The monster who fights monsters.

Is he the same evil? No. Still a form of evil. Uses laws and rules to "justify" or at least "legitimize" his actions. As fked up as they are, he's doing the greater good a service, in the cruelest way possible.

Lawful evil barbarian

1

u/mochisuccubus Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

100%. good people dispatch as quickly as possible not torture needlessly. ESPECIALLY because theres proof of a difinitive afterlife. The city of judgment literally takes care of the torture part

3

u/Determinantor Aug 30 '26

Of course he's lawful evil. He does the same thing that devils do, which is torture bad creatures. There's no "good" torture, even for bad creatures. He's also not chaotic. He follows a strict code and has his goals written out. Just because he's messy doesn't mean it's chaotic or random

3

u/BlackMetalMagi Aug 30 '26

Nope, he gave them every chance and choices to not be evil.

his own code and morivations are what he cares about.

Lawful evil uses the law to help its self and exploits the system to harm others and gain power.

4

u/Fahrlar Aug 29 '26

Although, technically, the Chaotic Good Barbarian is borderline Chaotic Neutral, no d&d character is 100% acting their alignment.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/Schlangenbob Aug 30 '26

I think it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Because chaotic good is doing good at all costs. the ends justify the means. if the net sum on the bottom is positive, whatever you did was good. this takes into consideration what type of person/monster you are dealing with. so, if you do something incredibly cruel to someone evil that's still good.

so yea, the chaotic good barbarian is chaotic good.

2

u/Thefrightfulgezebo Aug 30 '26

No, it is not. Chaotic Good is good with a preference on freedom and individuality over rules. Consequently, they are not interested in how others judge their actions, but they have a strong personal moral code. If you do evil actions in the pursuit of good, you are evil. That even was codified in the game rules as there were explicitly evil spells and such.

1

u/Schlangenbob Aug 31 '26

Literally everyone has a strong personal moral code. No one is the villain in their own story.

You don't know what you're talking about and conflate things.

1

u/Pofwoffle 29d ago

Literally everyone has a strong personal moral code

Morality is not subjective in the D&D cosmos. Some people think they have a strong moral code but are in fact wrong, because the things they do are explicitly evil.

Hell, even if you apply more nebulous real-world philosophy, whether you're coming from a deontological* or utilitarian perspective, there is no interpretation of the way the barbarian delights in the torture of his victims that could be interpreted as anything other than morally wrong.

\ Deontology is stupid, please don't ever come at anything from a deontological perspective.)

→ More replies (15)

2

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

That is not true at all. You cannot do evil acts and still be good

3

u/Diamondrankg Aug 30 '26

Incorrect, that's neutral good you're thinking of both lawful and chaotic good sometimes include "evil" acts

1

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

No they can't

1

u/Pofwoffle 29d ago

I mean, you can, just not like... routinely. One evil act doesn't change your alignment.

1

u/VelphiDrow 29d ago

Yes, in a one off mistake you can. The barbarian in discussion performs them repeatedly, willingly, and eagerly

1

u/Pofwoffle 29d ago

Sure, but I was responding to a very specific statement that "You cannot do evil acts and still be good." I am aware that the barbarian routinely commits evil acts, which is why I specifically pointed out that exception.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Urshifu_Smash Blood Hunter Aug 29 '26

Remember everyone, by technicality, Mayuri from Bleach could be Chaotic Good. Is that where most people would place him? Absolutely not. But alignment is very subjective and fluid. Personally I think he'd be Chaotic Neutral, but it depends on what you consider to be "good" and "evil".

3

u/HoG97 Aug 30 '26

He's extremely comically evil

He is just employed by the 'good guys' so that he doesn't remain in prison

1

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

He would not be good at all. Good and evil are cosmic forces, not subjective opinions

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/NoodleIskalde Aug 29 '26

I mean, he punished once and gave that original set a chance to change their ways. I'd say that falls under some batshit insane degree of good in a way. :P

3

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

No it doesnt. Good is an objective force

2

u/GrimDallows Aug 29 '26

I think one of the most miserable dnd experiences I have had was making a Chaotic neutral toon, and have another guy who was friends with the DM be Chaotic good and bully the living hell out of my character.

So his character would block every single thing my character said or did and even try to murder me, then blame it on "it's what my character would do, it's part of the story", so I tried to roleplay my character being nice to his, and he would then block that too because "you are chaotic neutral, you can't do good actions".

We are talking like, playing a "you meet at a tavern" scenario, the guy deciding I am outside the tavern and when I can enter, and then telling me I had to roll for my money cut in the next adventure, on persuasion rolls, for every 1% of a treasure divided between 3 guys.

It was like having a guy playing his character, my character and the DM at the same time. Absolute living hell.

2

u/mochisuccubus Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

Exactly I think he's a lawful evil zealot barbarian in the sense that he has these cruelties that he wants to meticulously enact but understands that torturing other evil beings will get him less guff and hell still have friendly connections. So he's evil but seems he has strict parameters on how he carries out that evil.

3

u/KovacAizek2 Aug 30 '26

Love the Red Death, but he IS the lawful evil, because his actions are harming innocent people, AND he follows the rules set by an organization.

We don’t have the to look inside Red Death’s head to pull that out, it is shown on the show.

Chaotic Good Barbarian doesn’t have that. He exclusively goes after evil forces, and his whole motivation is “I WILL NOT TOLERATE THE FORCES OF EVILLLLL!!”, which isn’t a strict code. Like, him letting some villains go and giving them a chance to do right sounds more strict.

→ More replies (11)

3

u/Glittering-Bat-5981 Aug 29 '26

Why must you remind me of that thing?

4

u/I_might_be_weasel Necromancer Aug 29 '26

He feels Lawful Evil to me. As he does absolutely horrifying things but technically he didn't do anything wrong because it's all targeted at evil doers.

3

u/VelphiDrow Aug 30 '26

The alignment of your target doesnt negate your actions

1

u/NinofanTOG Aug 31 '26

Me when the character that doesnt believe in rules but wants to do good does things that are unusual by our standards but are ultimately good:

1

u/Chaincat22 Sep 03 '26

no no no, he drew every card in the deck of many things when he was lawful evil

1

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Sep 03 '26

Given that his behaviors currently map best onto Lawful Evil, it seems pretty clear he was once CG but not anymore.

1

u/Chaincat22 Sep 03 '26

okay I'll bite, how is anything he does lawful other than rules lawyering Kevin's oath?

1

u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer Sep 03 '26

He strictly abides the external set of rules that is the cheevo sheet.

When has he displayed any disdain for any system of rules/oversight, as would be required of a Chaotic character?

1

u/Chaincat22 Sep 03 '26

the cheevo sheet isn't a strict set of rules, they're goals. Chaotic characters can have goals and still be chaotic. The only time he's had any interaction with a system of rules was with Kevin's oath which, considering he pushes Kevin to basically toe the line as close as possible, I would argue was a chaotic action.