If World leaders were D & D alignments

[EgonSpengler]

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

D&D is really horrible at defining its Alignment system, so even those of us who are familiar with the games have to put our own definitions behind the labels.

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 tend to agree, although I'm wracking my brain for an exception. Sometimes I think that if you do nothing where you could have done something, you're taking the side of whomever or whatever ends up on top when the dust settles. In an election, for example, if you're eligible to vote and don't, I think you're casting a de facto vote for the eventual winner of that election. In a lot of cases, whether or not you're part of the picture isn't your choice; we're often stuck with responsibilities we didn't ask for and don't want, and 'doing nothing' is a choice that has consequences.

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.

Right, in the real world, Alignments are like nicknames: You can't give yourself one.

 

[sherbz]

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.

I mean you cant pick on one thing she has done and then say "well, she isnt that alignment because 5 years ago she did something that didnt align with that classification." In the D&D world you would only change alignment after something fairly spectacular, like a paladin who murders for revenge. I guess the equivalent in politics is something along the lines of starting a war for no good reason when up until then you had been a kind of ok guy/girl (cough Tony Blair cough).

Therefore, in general, i would say that most leaders of democratic nations fall into the good alignment, with notable exceptions being Trump - who is quite clearly chaotic neutral. And maybe countries/people like the Swiss with their historic policy of neutrality. As you go more toward the authoritarian side - the Putins, the Ji Pings of this world - they would also fall into the neutral bracket. And that leaves the real head cases like Assad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, Hitler etc in the evil bracket.

 

[Zkribbler]

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

I disagree. Trump's only foci are amassing his own personal fortune and reveling in his power, regardless of the law, regardless of the pain he causes others, regardless of the damage he dose to the nation. He bullies, he lies, he betrays. He has no compassion, no empathy. He is hte Evil.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I don't think May has done anything to merit a good alignment and she's definitely one of our most authoritarian prime ministers for a very long time. If she was interested in the common good, she shouldn't have conducted the Brexit negotiations as if it was her sole prerogative to decide what happens to everyone in Britain and she might even have sought a consensus in Parliament to avoid a less terrible "compromise".

 

[MaryKB]

Good isn't merely the absence of pure evil. I loved reading @Arakhor's link, and it says to be "Good" you have to be self sacrificial, so if you're a leader and you're just doing what's best for your party and not for everyone, I don't believe you can be "Good".

 

[AmazonQueen]

Good isn't merely the absence of pure evil. I loved reading @Arakhor's link, and it says to be "Good" you have to be self sacrificial, so if you're a leader and you're just doing what's best for your party and not for everyone, I don't believe you can be "Good".

And theres your neutrals, the many people who don't try and harm others, but basically just look after themselves and their family.

 

[sherbz]

Good isn't merely the absence of pure evil. I loved reading @Arakhor's link, and it says to be "Good" you have to be self sacrificial, so if you're a leader and you're just doing what's best for your party and not for everyone, I don't believe you can be "Good".

And on that basis i side with May. She accepted the poisoned chalice of becoming PM when it was a fools errand. Did she do it for her? Or her party? Or power? Or did she do it for what she felt was the best interests of the country? Agree or disagree with her, i think it likely to be the latter:

I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country - a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly Global Britain - the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too.

Thats hardly the words of a "neutral at best" person.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And on that basis i side with May. She accepted the poisoned chalice of becoming PM when it was a fools errand. Did she do it for her? Or her party? Or power? Or did she do it for what she felt was the best interests of the country? Agree or disagree with her, i think it likely to be the latter:



Thats hardly the words of a "neutral at best" person.

Shes a politician, words are just a means to an end. You have to look at her actions.

 

[Zardnaar]

As I said previously there are a lot of incorrect assumptions about the D&D alignment system. You don;t have to be pure to be good. Good aligned people are allowed to defend themselves and kill people, they might even allow slavery in an environment where you have no geneva convention or prison system. You an also be good aligned an be a coward. ALignment is a tendency not an absolute except maybe for angels/demons/devil etc.

Using the Nazi regime as an example (because its easy).

Nazis prototypical LE regime, you could argue Hitler himself is NE.

A LE person probably likes such a system and seeks to use it. Odds are such a person joins the Nazi party or the military and seeks to advance their personal goals. Any differences they have are likely personal rather than ethical.

A NE person doesn't mind the regime and seeks to exploit it for their own personal benefit. Hitler himself is arguably NE- do as I say not as I do.

A CE person probably doesn't like the system but might be able to exist in it. There PoV however might offend some of the others and they might go to far even for the LE types. Dirlewanger is an example of such a person.

A LN type will more or less do whatever the law is. The stereotypical government bureaucrat who follows orders and runs the trains to the death camps is an example of this alignment. More or less happy most of the time barring extreme circumstances (ie once Germany started losing). Will passively collude with the regime.

N/Unaligned. This person will tend to go along with whatever and keep their head down and try and look after themselves and their family as best as they can. They might work against it or they might not depending on the person. Will passively collude with the regime up to a point.

A CN type won't like this type of regime. If they are a solder they are probably in a penal battalion or getting in trouble with their superiors.

A LG type in a LE system doesn't like the regime but might still go along with it. They will try to change or reform the system if they can perhaps resorting to violence if they can't. They may also try and find roles where they don't have to participate if they can't legally do much. A Soldier or member of the Nazi party requesting a transfer from the extermination squads or posting in a death camp might be an example. They may not have known about the extent of the regimes crimes and they don't want to participate. They might want to change or overthrow the government or they might suck it up and go along with it to a certain extent but make the best of it as they can. Would likely turn a blind eye to family and probably friends working against the government. Oscar Schindler could be an example.

A NG type is not happy in a LE government. They will seek to change it, flee, or perhaps keep their heads down. They might go as far as actively undermining the system. Probably would turn a blind eye to friends and family working against the government.

A CG type is very unhappy and is likely a dissident, subversive or otherwise hates the government. They might not resort to overthrowing it but won't support it in any way except maybe the bare minimum (keep your head down, pay tax). Will likely turn a blind eye to friends, family and strangers working against the government and/or join them.

In any case most people regardless of alignment would not be suicidal and if they have no power as such they would at least pretend to be neutral just to survive if the repression is bad enough.

 

[sherbz]

As I said previously there are a lot of incorrect assumptions about the D&D alignment system. You don;t have to be pure to be good. Good aligned people are allowed to defend themselves and kill people, they might even allow slavery in an environment where you have no geneva convention or prison system. You an also be good aligned an be a coward. ALignment is a tendency not an absolute except maybe for angels/demons/devil etc.

Using the Nazi regime as an example (because its easy).

Nazis prototypical LE regime, you could argue Hitler himself is NE.

A LE person probably likes such a system and seeks to use it. Odds are such a person joins the Nazi party or the military and seeks to advance their personal goals. Any differences they have are likely personal rather than ethical.

A NE person doesn't mind the regime and seeks to exploit it for their own personal benefit. Hitler himself is arguably NE- do as I say not as I do.

A CE person probably doesn't like the system but might be able to exist in it. There PoV however might offend some of the others and they might go to far even for the LE types. Dirlewanger is an example of such a person.

A LN type will more or less do whatever the law is. The stereotypical government bureaucrat who follows orders and runs the trains to the death camps is an example of this alignment. More or less happy most of the time barring extreme circumstances (ie once Germany started losing). Will passively collude with the regime.

N/Unaligned. This person will tend to go along with whatever and keep their head down and try and look after themselves and their family as best as they can. They might work against it or they might not depending on the person. Will passively collude with the regime up to a point.

A CN type won't like this type of regime. If they are a solder they are probably in a penal battalion or getting in trouble with their superiors.

A LG type in a LE system doesn't like the regime but might still go along with it. They will try to change or reform the system if they can perhaps resorting to violence if they can't. They may also try and find roles where they don't have to participate if they can't legally do much. A Soldier or member of the Nazi party requesting a transfer from the extermination squads or posting in a death camp might be an example. They may not have known about the extent of the regimes crimes and they don't want to participate. They might want to change or overthrow the government or they might suck it up and go along with it to a certain extent but make the best of it as they can. Would likely turn a blind eye to family and probably friends working against the government. Oscar Schindler could be an example.

A NG type is not happy in a LE government. They will seek to change it, flee, or perhaps keep their heads down. They might go as far as actively undermining the system. Probably would turn a blind eye to friends and family working against the government.

A CG type is very unhappy and is likely a dissident, subversive or otherwise hates the government. They might not resort to overthrowing it but won't support it in any way except maybe the bare minimum (keep your head down, pay tax). Will likely turn a blind eye to friends, family and strangers working against the government and/or join them.

In any case most people regardless of alignment would not be suicidal and if they have no power as such they would at least pretend to be neutral just to survive if the repression is bad enough.

 

[AmazonQueen]

As I said previously there are a lot of incorrect assumptions about the D&D alignment system. You don;t have to be pure to be good. Good aligned people are allowed to defend themselves and kill people, they might even allow slavery in an environment where you have no geneva convention or prison system. You an also be good aligned an be a coward. ALignment is a tendency not an absolute except maybe for angels/demons/devil etc.

Using the Nazi regime as an example (because its easy).

Nazis prototypical LE regime, you could argue Hitler himself is NE.

A LE person probably likes such a system and seeks to use it. Odds are such a person joins the Nazi party or the military and seeks to advance their personal goals. Any differences they have are likely personal rather than ethical.

A NE person doesn't mind the regime and seeks to exploit it for their own personal benefit. Hitler himself is arguably NE- do as I say not as I do.

A CE person probably doesn't like the system but might be able to exist in it. There PoV however might offend some of the others and they might go to far even for the LE types. Dirlewanger is an example of such a person.

A LN type will more or less do whatever the law is. The stereotypical government bureaucrat who follows orders and runs the trains to the death camps is an example of this alignment. More or less happy most of the time barring extreme circumstances (ie once Germany started losing). Will passively collude with the regime.

N/Unaligned. This person will tend to go along with whatever and keep their head down and try and look after themselves and their family as best as they can. They might work against it or they might not depending on the person. Will passively collude with the regime up to a point.

A CN type won't like this type of regime. If they are a solder they are probably in a penal battalion or getting in trouble with their superiors.

A LG type in a LE system doesn't like the regime but might still go along with it. They will try to change or reform the system if they can perhaps resorting to violence if they can't. They may also try and find roles where they don't have to participate if they can't legally do much. A Soldier or member of the Nazi party requesting a transfer from the extermination squads or posting in a death camp might be an example. They may not have known about the extent of the regimes crimes and they don't want to participate. They might want to change or overthrow the government or they might suck it up and go along with it to a certain extent but make the best of it as they can. Would likely turn a blind eye to family and probably friends working against the government. Oscar Schindler could be an example.

A NG type is not happy in a LE government. They will seek to change it, flee, or perhaps keep their heads down. They might go as far as actively undermining the system. Probably would turn a blind eye to friends and family working against the government.

A CG type is very unhappy and is likely a dissident, subversive or otherwise hates the government. They might not resort to overthrowing it but won't support it in any way except maybe the bare minimum (keep your head down, pay tax). Will likely turn a blind eye to friends, family and strangers working against the government and/or join them.

In any case most people regardless of alignment would not be suicidal and if they have no power as such they would at least pretend to be neutral just to survive if the repression is bad enough.

I'm not sure this takes us much further though. The same person could be good or evil depending on what happens to them.
1 example. After Hitler came to power a lot of old party members got jobs. 1 old streetfighter got a job in a childrens home. When the Nazis started murdering disabled children he wasn't able to do that. He spent almost 10 years falsifying documents and hiding children. Was he a good person? By his own admission he'd beaten up and possibly killed Jews, Communists and other Nazi enemies. If they'd given him a different job that involved doing that he'd have happily continued doing that.

Even more morally dubious cases. Service with the Gestapo or the SS wasn't entirely voluntary. Being a party member wasn't neccessary for being a member of either organisation. At what point did a policeman realise he'd gone beyond normal moral limits? When he was posted to a Einsatzgruppen? What did he do then? Its easy to say what would be right to do but it would be a brave person who'd do it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure this takes us much further though. The same person could be good or evil depending on what happens to them.
1 example. After Hitler came to power a lot of old party members got jobs. 1 old streetfighter got a job in a childrens home. When the Nazis started murdering disabled children he wasn't able to do that. He spent almost 10 years falsifying documents and hiding children. Was he a good person? By his own admission he'd beaten up and possibly killed Jews, Communists and other Nazi enemies. If they'd given him a different job that involved doing that he'd have happily continued doing that.

Even more morally dubious cases. Service with the Gestapo or the SS wasn't entirely voluntary. Being a party member wasn't neccessary for being a member of either organisation. At what point did a policeman realise he'd gone beyond normal moral limits? When he was posted to a Einsatzgruppen? What did he do then? Its easy to say what would be right to do but it would be a brave person who'd do it.

Well the Nazis themselves realised this and you could request and get a transfer. They only wanted willing accomplices for their worst crimes.

 

[sherbz]

Following on from your nazi example, its interesting to look at different people (and their potential alignments) and whether they colluded or resisted the regime. Here are some musings:

General von staufenberg - Lawful Good - Was lawful neutral up until the point he decided to try and assassinate Hitler

Contrasted with:

Adolf Eichmann - Lawful Neutral - the atypical military bureaucrat who followed his orders to the letter regardless of what they were

Communists - chaotic good - hated the regime and everything it stood for. Tried to subvert it to build a 'better' future

Contrasted with:

Catholics - True Neutral - looked after their own mainly - and turned a blind eye to the horrors of the regime

Social democrats - Neutral good - resisted the regime - some ended up in concentration camps, others didnt.

Oscar Schindler - Lawful good - was lawful neutral until he started to resist the regime

Karl Leibknicht and Rosa Luxemberg - chaotic good - communist leaders who tried to build a better future - were murdered by the far right Freikorps

It gets even more interesting if you were then to contrast that with Soviet Russia during the same period. Ironically in that instance you may well have people like:

Trotsky - Chaotic good
Lenin - Chaotic good (it pains me to even say that)

I think Stalin probably started off as lawful evil, and ended up neutral evil.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure this takes us much further though. The same person could be good or evil depending on what happens to them.
1 example. After Hitler came to power a lot of old party members got jobs. 1 old streetfighter got a job in a childrens home. When the Nazis started murdering disabled children he wasn't able to do that. He spent almost 10 years falsifying documents and hiding children. Was he a good person? By his own admission he'd beaten up and possibly killed Jews, Communists and other Nazi enemies. If they'd given him a different job that involved doing that he'd have happily continued doing that.

Even more morally dubious cases. Service with the Gestapo or the SS wasn't entirely voluntary. Being a party member wasn't neccessary for being a member of either organisation. At what point did a policeman realise he'd gone beyond normal moral limits? When he was posted to a Einsatzgruppen? What did he do then? Its easy to say what would be right to do but it would be a brave person who'd do it.

And there you have a neutral alignment.

You have to remember before the Nazi came to power the Communists in Germany were using political violence long before the Nazis were much more than a few hundred members. A lot of Germans saw the Communists as evil, and we all know the crimes of Lenin and Stalin. Jews were over represented in the Communist party (in Russia the Tsar would not let them do a lot of things so joining the Communists looked good I suppose) so it was easy for the Nazis to demonise the Jews when combined with ye olde anti semitism.

Its basically cause an effect. Beat up political opponent they will do the same and then someone grabs a gun. Stalin and Hitler carried it to extremes never seen before.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well the Nazis themselves realised this and you could request and get a transfer. They only wanted willing accomplices for their worst crimes.

You could although it being granted wasn't automatic. Depended on your immediate superiors. It also wasn't a plus mark for your career to do so, although its true it wasn't a massive negative. Still at best asking to be excused mass murder puts you at neutral. Hard to be good in Nazi Germany.

 

[Zardnaar]

Following on from your nazi example, its interesting to look at different people (and their potential alignments) and whether they colluded or resisted the regime. Here are some musings:

General von staufenberg - Lawful Good - Was lawful neutral up until the point he decided to try and assassinate Hitler

Contrasted with:

Adolf Eichmann - Lawful Neutral - the atypical military bureaucrat who followed his orders to the letter regardless of what they were

Communists - chaotic good - hated the regime and everything it stood for. Tried to subvert it to build a 'better' future

Contrasted with:

Catholics - True Neutral - looked after their own mainly - and turned a blind eye to the horrors of the regime

Social democrats - Neutral good - resisted the regime - some ended up in concentration camps, others didnt.

Oscar Schindler - Lawful good - was lawful neutral until he started to resist the regime

Karl Leibknicht and Rosa Luxemberg - chaotic good - communist leaders who tried to build a better future - were murdered by the far right Freikorps

It gets even more interesting if you were then to contrast that with Soviet Russia during the same period. Ironically in that instance you may well have people like:

Trotsky - Chaotic good
Lenin - Chaotic good (it pains me to even say that)

I think Stalin probably started off as lawful evil, and ended up neutral evil.

Trotsky and Lenin weren't good, they just offered a less extreme version of Stalin and Hitler. When you start murdering political opponents I think you are going from neutral to out right evil.

Some of the rank and file communists would have been good aligned along with some of the Nazis I suppose. I would not classify communists who wanted to overthrow the Nazis and replace it with Soviet style Stalinism as good.

 

[sherbz]

Even more morally dubious cases. Service with the Gestapo or the SS wasn't entirely voluntary. Being a party member wasn't neccessary for being a member of either organisation. At what point did a policeman realise he'd gone beyond normal moral limits? When he was posted to a Einsatzgruppen? What did he do then? Its easy to say what would be right to do but it would be a brave person who'd do it.

There is not one example i know of where a German military or policeman was disciplined or shot because they refused to kill civilians (in the camps). Most were willing participants. And a good chunk were probably just lawful neutral. They might even have been lawful good. It just depends on how much emphasis you put on "lawful". See the Milgrim experiment for an example:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Or if you like a video (everyone loves a video):

 

[Zardnaar]

You could although it being granted wasn't automatic. Depended on your immediate superiors. It also wasn't a plus mark for your career to do so, although its true it wasn't a massive negative. Still at best asking to be excused mass murder puts you at neutral. Hard to be good in Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany was not as totalitarian as what a lot of people make out and they had safety vavles. For example it was easy enough to leave Germany pre war, can't do that in places like Stalin's Russia or North Korea. Its like old Roman slavery vs the Confederacy. The Roman slavery was more insidious as it gave them hope. Be a good slave for 7 years or whatever and you can earn your freedom and become a citizen.

I think the smart autocratic regimes have a safety valve. Basically some level of dissent is tolerated or they let you leave. Putin's Russia might be an example of that. If you can bet 10-30% of the population to back you and most of the rest to pasively collude you're good to go (Jews were about 1% of the population).

 

[sherbz]

Trotsky and Lenin weren't good, they just offered a less extreme version of Stalin and Hitler. When you start murdering political opponents I think you are going from neutral to out right evil.

Some of the rank and file communists would have been good aligned along with some of the Nazis I suppose. I would not classify communists who wanted to overthrow the Nazis and replace it with Soviet style Stalinism as good.

Whilst true, they would adopt a utilitarian argument to rebut that. The ends justify the means - or - they are killing us so we should kill them and they wont give up power and remain a threat to us whilst they exist. Better to kill them and create our workers utopia (at that time undefined) for the greater good.

 

[Zardnaar]

There is not one example i know of where a German military or policeman was disciplined or shot because they refused to kill civilians (in the camps). Most were willing participants. And a good chunk were probably just lawful neutral. They might even have been lawful good. It just depends on how much emphasis you put on "lawful". See the Milgrim experiment for an example:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Or if you like a video (everyone loves a video):

Yup the Nazis were opt in for the most part. Joining the party was optional, alot of the Holocaust was by Baltic and Ukrainian volunteers.

Its like the North Korean thing. They like red apples, will tolerate red apples on the outside, green in the middle (it effects your career though), but green apples and family go to the camps.