If World leaders were D & D alignments

[sherbz]

Title says it all. Must post a reason for the alignment. Feel free to disagree with my options/opinions.

Donald Trump - Chaotic Neutral - Impulsive populist who does pretty much what he feels like. Rather than have a carefully laid out and consistent plan he tends to do whatever he feels about a given situation.

Theresa May - Lawful Good - Believes in the law, and believes that her actions and leadership should be for the good of the nation.

Jeremy Corbyn - Chaotic good - Seeks to subvert the established order, doesnt have a problem with direct or even sometimes violent methods of getting a point across (support of the IRA, recognising groups like Hezbollah, Hamas etc)

Bernie Sanders - Chaotic Good - Similar to Corbyn above. A political maverick seeking to overthrow the existing order.

The Queen - True Neutral - Doesnt get involved in politics.

Kim Jong Un - Lawful evil - Strong state, but will use torture and coercion to achieve his ends.

Vladirmir Putin - Lawful Neutral - Believes strongly in a strong and authoritarian government and the total independence of the nation state from other nation states.

Barrack Obama - Neutral Good - Does what he thinks is right (arguably not very well, but thats besides the point)

 

[Zardnaar]

From your list.

Kim Jong Un- Neutral Evil. More like Stalin comes across more as amoral, self indulgent and cruel.

Vladimir Putin- Lawful Evil. Has no problem killing people and backing regimes that do. The Smart Trump/Kim Juong Un

Trump. Chaotic Neutral. Amoral, self indulgent, narcissistic but not evil as such (more amoral).

Queen. Politically Neutral, personally probably LN or LG.

Probably no other major disagreements.

A few others

Angela Merkal. LG did the right thing for refugees at political cost.

Jacinda Adern. Neutral Good. Basically Obama but female.

 

[sherbz]

Yes, how one views this list will depend quite a bit on your politics. I am trying though to be as neutral as possible. So Putin gets Lawful neutral - as I think the vast majority of Russians don't consider him a tyrant. I doubt the same is true of Kim. And I think much of Putins neutral credentials come from being an unquestioning serviceman. I think most tyrants would tend to be Lawful evil. Like Assad for instance. Even Stalin as well - as all of his victims were made to confess in show trials (i.e. so that their killing was Lawful".

Also agree on Merkel. I was going to put her in as LG but forgot

As for evil leaders. I struggle to think of ones that aren't Lawful. Or at least appear to be. Simply because they are leaders so presumably in charge. A good neutral evil archetype tends to be a normal criminal. In fiction I think Cersi Lannister in game of thrones is a pretty good fit.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you guys are understating the evil of Trump and that he provides the evil leader that isn't lawful, where Putin and Kim would both qualify as Lawful Evil. There's no question that Trump has the same morality as a tyrant based on his open admiration for them, he is just too disorganized and whimsical to carry it off for himself. Plainly Chaotic Evil...like the definition of it.

I submit Xi Jinping as lawful neutral. Certainly totalitarian levels of order, but I think China under his leadership is mostly pragmatic rather than overtly aggressive or covertly murderous.

Other than Trump it's hard to find genuine Chaotics in positions of political leadership, sort of by definition. Wannabes like Sanders are probably as close as they get so I think you have that right. Maybe as a serious throwback blast from the past Jimmy Carter as Chaotic Good. I think he was probably the most morally upright president of my lifetime, but he was much better equipped to run a small state, or more like be the mayor of a small town, than to manage the US. His "I'm looking at this right now, and everything else is falling apart around me" version of 'focus' would fall under Chaotic well enough, at least in outcome if not intent.

 

[Arakhor]

Theresa May is Lawful Neutral at best. What's good for the nation in her eyes frequently coincides with what's good for the Tory party, her stubborn refusal to compromise to obtain a better deal is purely in her control and this inability to compromise descends from her obsession with getting immigration down to unprecedentedly low level.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you guys are understating the evil of Trump and that he provides the evil leader that isn't lawful, where Putin and Kim would both qualify as Lawful Evil. There's no question that Trump has the same morality as a tyrant based on his open admiration for them, he is just too disorganized and whimsical to carry it off for himself. Plainly Chaotic Evil...like the definition of it.

I submit Xi Jinping as lawful neutral. Certainly totalitarian levels of order, but I think China under his leadership is mostly pragmatic rather than overtly aggressive or covertly murderous.

Other than Trump it's hard to find genuine Chaotics in positions of political leadership, sort of by definition. Wannabes like Sanders are probably as close as they get so I think you have that right. Maybe as a serious throwback blast from the past Jimmy Carter as Chaotic Good. I think he was probably the most morally upright president of my lifetime, but he was much better equipped to run a small state, or more like be the mayor of a small town, than to manage the US. His "I'm looking at this right now, and everything else is falling apart around me" version of 'focus' would fall under Chaotic well enough, at least in outcome if not intent.

A CE government I think is actually very rare and Trump doesn't seem that bad to qualify. I'm thinking CE as the Khmer Rogue, Tamerlane, Somali warlord type thing. LE and NE regimes are a dime a dozen. There is a tendency to over exaggerate political differences in the internet age where your opponent is evil/wrong etc.

A lot of the social issues in the USA are also subjective and not actually good or evil. Things like the abortion debate, gay marriage, guns immigration etc are not actually good or evil at least in the D&D alignment. Hence why I think Trump is CN and amoral if he could get liberals chanting Make Trump Great again wearing blue hats he would.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A CE government I think is actually very rare and Trump doesn't seem that bad to qualify. I'm thinking CE as the Khmer Rogue, Tamerlane, Somali warlord type thing. LE and NE regimes are a dime a dozen. There is a tendency to over exaggerate political differences in the internet age where your opponent is evil/wrong etc.

A lot of the social issues in the USA are also subjective and not actually good or evil. Things like the abortion debate, gay marriage, guns immigration etc are not actually good or evil at least in the D&D alignment. Hence why I think Trump is CN and amoral if he could get liberals chanting Make Trump Great again wearing blue hats he would.

I wasn't considering social issues at all. The guy can't open his mouth without lying. He would steal food from a starving person and sell it to add another layer of gold leaf to his door. He would (has) caged children to "teach their parents a lesson." Coercion, intimidation, extortion...he's game for any of those at any time. You are neglecting the restraints that US law has on him is the only way you can think he's "not that bad."

 

[sherbz]

Theresa May is Lawful Neutral at best. What's good for the nation in her eyes frequently coincides with what's good for the Tory party, her stubborn refusal to compromise to obtain a better deal is purely in her control and this inability to compromise descends from her obsession with getting immigration down to unprecedentedly low level.

I think this a rather subjective view. You clearly don't like her. Hence your opinion of LN. But there's plenty who do. And would not agree - their view would be that's what good for the Tory party is what's good for Britain.

I think this a pretty good exercise in the internet age actually. As it forces you to take a step back and not get so offended about everything

Most if not all world leaders would be either Lawful or neutral.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wasn't considering social issues at all. The guy can't open his mouth without lying. He would steal food from a starving person and sell it to add another layer of gold leaf to his door. He would (has) caged children to "teach their parents a lesson." Coercion, intimidation, extortion...he's game for any of those at any time. You are neglecting the restraints that US law has on him is the only way you can think he's "not that bad."

A lot of that is not actually evil though. Lying for example. The caged immigrant children are illegal immigrants who are breaking the law. Its not nice (not arguing its good), but most of that a D&D neutral person (LN for example) would have no problem with. Not nice doesn't make you evil. Most of the planet for example doesn't have a liberal democratic belief system and a lot of things that a liberal in the US and maybe Europe+ colonies are considered immoral outside of those countries. Securing your borders and detaining illegals is not evil in D&D terms. There is 7 billion people on the planet, 6 billion of them (at least) would probably have no massive problem with any of the things Trump does (what he says though).

The death penalty is another example of not evil at least by itself, how its used could be evil though.

I think Trump is a potato and an idiot and I am happy with my vote for a NG 37 yo women. Glad he is not my head of state. Queen Elizabeth is and I would vote for her lol.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

For such a simple system D&D alignments are a real mess.
Can somebody as blatantly corrupt as Putin be categorized as Lawlul ? A Lawful Evil autocrat will enact unjust laws, but even the most totalitarian tyrant should be at best Neutral Evil if they don't strictly follow those laws themselves.
Example: Middle Eastern monarchs who enforce Sharia law but drink expensive brandy and have mistresses in their private lives. Micromanaging your subjects' lives and doing whatever you want isn't Lawful.

I also don't see how Corbyn or Sanders are Chaotic. They want to change the system, but still operate within its limits. Pretty close to Lawful Good imho.

Angela Merkels could be Lawful Neutral or True Neutral. She presided over a corrupt party but doesnt seem to be corrupt herself. Her own conservative values are tempered with opportunistic poll chasing.
She's definitely not good. She showed (or feigned) empathy a couple of times but she was extremely callous during the financial crisis

 

[Zardnaar]

For such a simple system D&D alignments are a real mess.
Can somebody as blatantly corrupt as Putin be categorized as Lawlul ? A Lawful Evil autocrat will enact unjust laws, but even the most totalitarian tyrant should be at best Neutral Evil if they don't strictly follow those laws themselves.
Example: Middle Eastern monarchs who enforce Sharia law but drink expensive brandy and have mistresses in their private lives. Micromanaging your subjects' lives and doing whatever you want isn't Lawful.

I also don't see how Corbyn or Sanders are Chaotic. They want to change the system, but still operate within its limits. Pretty close to Lawful Good imho.

Angela Merkels could be Lawful Neutral or True Neutral. She presided over a corrupt party but doesnt seem to be corrupt herself. Her own conservative values are tempered with opportunistic poll chasing.
She's definitely not good. She showed (or feigned) empathy a couple of times but she was extremely callous during the financial crisis

There is a difference between being good aligned and being pure. A LG person would not be happy with people defaulting on loans. Lending money to Greece which basically pissed it away and then defaulted even a good person could be callous over that.

The Nazis I think are your typical LE state, Hitler himself NE. Stalin's Russia NE, USSR in general LE, Stalin himself NE.

A CN Neutral nation would be hard, maybe Italy and Greece. Modern Germany LG, Imperial Germany LN, Nazi Germany LE. Most European social Democracies NG through to LG, USA N, New Zealand NG, Canada NG or LG. Right now USA government CN.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A lot of that is not actually evil though. Lying for example. The caged immigrant children are illegal immigrants who are breaking the law. Its not nice (not arguing its good), but most of that a D&D neutral person (LN for example) would have no problem with. Not nice doesn't make you evil. Most of the planet for example doesn't have a liberal democratic belief system and a lot of things that a liberal in the US and maybe Europe+ colonies are considered immoral outside of those countries. Securing your borders and detaining illegals is not evil in D&D terms. There is 7 billion people on the planet, 6 billion of them (at least) would probably have no massive problem with any of the things Trump does (what he says though).

The death penalty is another example of not evil at least by itself, how its used could be evil though.

I think Trump is a potato and an idiot and I am happy with my vote for a NG 37 yo women. Glad he is not my head of state. Queen Elizabeth is and I would vote for her lol.

Coercion is recognized as evil pretty much everywhere. Using the apparatus of the state for the task is lawful evil, just simple bullying applied capriciously is chaotic evil. If you can't see that in Trump on a pretty much daily basis you aren't watching Trump.

As to "but they are breaking the law," not only is that patently absurd, but you skipped the point that they weren't caged for breaking the law, they were specifically caged with the intention of punishing their parents who may or may not have been breaking the law as an example to other parents that whether they were legitimate refugees or not they better not come here. Coercion in its purest and most brutal form; harming children to punish parents. If you think six billion people would "have no problem with that" you need to get out more.

 

[Arakhor]

I think this a rather subjective view.

Everything about the D&D alignments is subjective, but my main prerequisite to be considered Good is by deliberately acting to bring positive benefits to the most people because it's the right thing to do. I don't think she's evil, but she's certainly not concerned with the plight of the common man, as shown by her years in the Home Office, the Windrush scandal and so on.

 

[sherbz]

Everything about the D&D alignments is subjective, but my main prerequisite to be considered Good is by deliberately acting to bring positive benefits to the most people because it's the right thing to do. I don't think she's evil, but she's certainly not concerned with the plight of the common man, as shown by her years in the Home Office, the Windrush scandal and so on.

My point is simply that she would not agree, and she would argue that she is on the side of working families. As far as alignments are concerned, it's very broad brush stuff. So you can't look at this or that specific issue and assign her one way or the other.

As for the rest, I agree with Zardnaar.

 

[sherbz]

I submit Xi Jinping as lawful neutral. Certainly totalitarian levels of order, but I think China under his leadership is mostly pragmatic rather than overtly aggressive or covertly murderous.
/QUOTE]

Good shout. I too would class Jinping as Lawful neutral.

 

[AmazonQueen]

My point is simply that she would not agree, and she would argue that she is on the side of working families. As far as alignments are concerned, it's very broad brush stuff. So you can't look at this or that specific issue and assign her one way or the other.

As for the rest, I agree with Zardnaar.

Very few people agree they aren't good.

 

[Arakhor]

As far as alignments are concerned, it's very broad brush stuff. So you can't look at this or that specific issue and assign her one way or the other.

Didn't you start this very thread to do just that? Nearly everyone's the hero of their own story, so it would be foolish to do anything other than judge people based on their words and deeds.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm not familiar with D&D, so I can only guess what things mean, but to me they sound very self explanatory.

I don't believe you can really be "Neutral", I don't think such a thing exists. If you're not good, you're passively evil by allowing evil to happen. I don't feel you can avoid taking sides, because when you do you're indirectly taking sides of whoever's in the wrong, like you know that saying "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," right?

I think too you're confusing Lawful and Good .. just because something's legally acceptable, doesn't mean it's good, right? And I don't think it matters how many followers agree with a leader who thinks he or she is good .. like with Donald Trump, I'm pretty sure he and his supporters feel everything he's doing is for the good of America, right? But I certainly wouldn't say he's good by any means. And Good and Evil aren't subjective things either, causing harm to people is evil, no matter how socially acceptable you might feel it is. When your leader threatens to take away peoples' rights, he's evil, and he's certainly not even passively "neutral" when he's really hurting someone (like immigrant children!) If he's doing what he's doing within bounds of the law, like you say those children are "illegal", well I'd think that'd make him Lawful then, right? I'd think "Lawful Evil" would mean you're doing evil actions within bounds of your laws, like separating immigrant children from their parents or rolling back women's rights.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Every single one is either lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil.

 

[Arakhor]

The best description of the D&D alignments, as well as an in-depth exploration of each one (and more besides), can be found here.