Lawful/Chaotic is how socially independent you are. If you’re lawful, you think governments, corporations, societal norms, etc are good, and generally strive to follow them. If you’re chaotic, you think those things are bad, and actively strive to break them. (if you’re neutral, you have no opinion- a law can be good or bad, but you don’t have an inherent opinion on laws as a concept). As we all know, this leaves a lot of grey areas.
So let’s split them up!
Principle/Unprincipled is how personally consistent you are. If you’re principled, you have strong codes you cling to no matter what. If you’re unprincipled, you’re proudly adaptable, doing whatever the situation needs.
Thus, Principled Chaotic would be a character who holds to a strong code of conduct in defiance of society. Unprincipled Lawful would be someone with no personal code, they just do whatever the law says and if that changes, so do they.
The main advantage of this is that it resolves the incessant arguments about whether any given character is lawful or chaotic. “Batman defies the law so he’s chaotic, but he follows an inner code so he’s lawful!” No, he’s Principled Chaotic, problem solved. I think this solves most of these arguments
The second reason is hey you now have a new way to define your characters into easy categories!
What are people’s thoughts on the alignment system of most ttrpgs? ie good/evil and lawful/chaos.
It has always felt arbitrary to me because there are so many different interpretations of good and evil and just labeling your character good or evil or lawful or chaotic tells us essentially nothing about them. This gets even more tricky with systems like pathfinder where your good, neutral, or evil status has actual consequences in various aspects of the game. Whose moral judgment is an entire planescape abiding by? How can an entire planescape abide by the same moral standards? Does every plane have different moral standards? This would actually be a cool concept to explore in a game like pathfinder where your alignment has a lot more in game weight but I digress.
The alignment system acts like it has more importance than it does and it makes me sad because it has a lot of potential in being able to tell us how your character interacts with the world in a simple phrase. I have a possible alternative system that might be more useful but I’m still working out the kinks before I post it.
What are your thoughts and experiences with the good/evil/lawful/chaotic alignment system?
The Tempus gender system is made up of two twin gender systems, each with their own terms and poetic meanings.
There are two meanings for each gender, their masc-fem-neu-xenic alignments, and the secondary description of the gender, so if you reject the alignment system altogether, you can still use these as sort of scene genders.
The Noxic gender system is mirrored with the Diesic gender system in the overarching Tempus Gender System, the Vespic and Auroric genders being demigenders of them.
For a combination of Diesic and Noxic, the two roots would be combined Noxic-Diesic, i.e. Vitalunatempic for a gender that is like night over nature and the moon in daytime together.
For a gender that isn't described by the system or if someone doesn't wish to describe it, Noxic / Diesic / Tempic or Othernoxic / Otherdiesic / Othertempic works as well.
The Alignment Charts
The Symbols
The Noxic system is represented by a moon inside a circle. The Diesic system is represented by a circle with four triangular sun rays. Each symbol represents the poetic meaning.
The Other Meanings
The Noxic System
Vitanoxic: A gender that's like all of nature at night.
Lunanoxic: A gender that's like the moon at night.
Stellanoxic: A gender that's like a starry night sky.
Pluvianoxic: A gender that's like rain at night.
Urbanoxic: A gender that's like a city at night.
Vitavespic: A gender that's like nature at twilight.
Lunavespic: A gender that's like the moon at twilight.
Stellavespic: A gender that's like the first stars every night.
Pluviavespic: A gender that's like rain at twilight.
Monsnoxic: A gender that's like night over the mountains.
Luxinoxic: A gender that's like a streetlight at night.
Nubenoxic: A gender like moonlight shining through the clouds.
Tempenoxic: A gender that's like a storm in the night.
Cosmonoxic: A gender that's like a meteor shower.
Varianoxic: A gender that's like a bright and colorful night sky.
Inanoxic: A gender that's like a night without a star in the sky.
Vianoxic: A gender that's like a country road at night.
Speculanoxic: A gender that's like the reflection of the moon on water.
Admiranoxic: A gender that's like the feeling of thinking about the night/dreaming.
Umbranoxic: A gender that is obscured, like the moon in a lunar eclipse.
The Diesic System
Soladiesic: A gender that's like the sun.
Lunadiesic: A gender that's like the moon in the daytime sky.
Silvadiesic: A gender that's like a forest in the daytime.
Pluviadiesic: A gender that's like a warm daytime rain.
Urbadiesic: A gender that's like a bustling city in the daytime.
Solauroric: A gender that's like the rising sun.
Lunauroric: A gender that's like the setting moon.
Silvauroric: A gender that's like the sun's rays shining through the forest in the morning.
Pluviauroric: A gender that's like a morning rain shower.
Eclipsidiesic: A gender that's like a solar eclipse.
Maradiesic: A gender that's like the sun over the ocean.
Nixdiesic: A gender that's like a snowy day.
Villadiesic: A gender that's like daytime in a small village.
Aurudiesic: A gender that's like golden sun rays.
Speculadiesic: A gender that's like the sun's reflection on windows, water, etc.
Cavernadiesic: A gender that's like the daylight shining into a deep cave.
Tempediesic: A gender that's like a daytime thunderstorm.
Tenediesic: A gender that's like a cloudy day.
Calidiesic: A gender that's like a hot summer day.
Vitadiesic: A gender that's like life being active in the daytime.
So we’ve got good/evil, law/chaos. But Batman and Superman are both Lawful Good, and they’re very different people.
I propose that Superman is Fluff Lawful Good, and Batman is Angst Lawful Good.
Wonder Woman is Fluff Chaotic Good, Spider-Man is Angst Neutral Good, Flintheart Glomgold is Fluff Neutral Evil as opposed to Magica DeSpell’s Neutral Neutral Evil, and so on.
After analyzing some actions from the characters that we got till now, I have come to a conclusion that in the end might be a little wrong, but ether way is very interesting to think about.
⚠️ BUT BEFORE WE START LET ME GIVE YOU A LONG POST WARNING!! BELIEVE ME, THIS IS A LONG LONG LONG POST, BUT IS SURE WORTH IT ⚠️
Ok, now that I have put this here, let's actually start with the theorizing.
THE NINE SANDERS SIDES THEORY
For you to understand the theory first I need you to understand the Alignment System, and the hole concept of Good, Evil and Neutral. And Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral (yes, we have two neutral, we will get there, ok?).
If you are already familiar with the system then feel free to jump all the part were I explain what all this things are and just go to the point.
If you don't, than please read it, cause it will help you a lot not only with this theory but also to understand character development in general.
THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity, but It doesn’t mean that you should restrict your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it’s alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Now let's understand what each therm means for this context.
GOOD, EVIL AND NEUTRAL
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if they think that doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are “neutral”, with respect to good and evil, might be against killing the innocent, which does not mean that they are commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help strangers. But they can be committed to protect others by personal relationships. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, they try to maintain a balance between the two.
LAWFUL, CHAOTIC AND NEUTRAL
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness believe that promoting lawful behavior creates a society where people can rely on each other and make sure that everyone will do your part to maintain the peace.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior believe that freedom of thoght and action allows people to express themselves fully, and that society will benefit from what potentially this induviduality can bring to them.
Someone who is “neutral”, with respect to law and chaos, has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others if necessary. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Now that we conclude that thought and you understand better this terms, let's go to why I put each character in each position and why I think there will three more characters to be add in this series.
Patton- “Lawful Good“/“The Crusader”
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. They combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keep their word, help those in need, and speak out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
To be honest, I don’t think I really need to explain this one. Patton is Thomas morality after all, which means he will go beyond his capabilities to make sure he is doing what’s best, while also promoting good behavior for Thomas and other’s benefits.
But, even tho Lawful good combines honor and compassion, it can be sometimes dangerous when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest. Just like we see in the last video. By been too strict to Thomas thoughts, Patton good intentions end up not doing all good.
Roman- “Chaotic Good”/“The Rebel”
A chaotic good character acts as their conscience directs them, usually with little regard for what others expect from them. Even tho they like to make their own way, they also are kind and benevolent, believing in goodness while also keeping a certain desregard for the rules. They hate it when people try to intimidate others or tell them what to do, thending to follow their own moral compass most of the time, which, although good, may sometimes not agree with the rest of society.
Now this is where it gets a little dificult, but let me explain before you desagree. Even tho Roman is in general a good person, he still is Thomas creativity and passions, which at the end means he is a free spirited person. To seek for his passions and spread his creativity sometimes he will need to break the rules, and pass through morality to conquer his quests (a good exemple of this behavior is in the video “can lying be good?”, when he is whiling to lie if it’s for Thomas benefits). However at the end of it all, he will always go for the morally right choice, which even tho is not bad, it’s also not totally good for his own desires.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit, but it can also disrupt the order of society and punish those who only do good for themselves. Which means that even tho Roman is a good sidec and want to do whats right, sometimes he can be a little selfish and desregarded from others interests besides his own (I still love him tho).
Logan- “Neutral Good”/“The Benefactor”
A neutral good character usually does the best that a good person can do, they are devoted into helping others and are very likelly to work beside society’s rullers, but don’t feel beholden to them.
Logan is Thomas logic, that’s why is common sense to say that he cares for Thomas and is always willing to help him when in need. Everytime Thomas or anyother side needs to solve a problem, Logan is there to bring the logic and help to find a solution for the matter. The importance of his whole is that by being a neutral he doesn’t hold on to other sides expectations, he doesn’t care if the solution might not be what everyone else wants, be cause he knows that sometimes what we want is not what we need. He tells the truth even if it hurts, but he always compansates it by being the best person he can be while helping Thomas.
Neutral good means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Virgil- “Lawful Neutral”/“The Judge”
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. Order and organization are paramount to them, they believe in personal order and thend live by a code or standard.
This one is pretty easy to get actually. Since Virgil is Thomas anxiety, is obvious that his main goal is to lead Thomas into an organized life and following a social standard. Of course, he may sometimes overreact when this goals become a burden or when the standarts are too high for him to keep up, and he can show some dificulties at handling things calmily, but for the most part he just wants what he things is the best for Thomas.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot, but it also can be bad when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society. Not always what Virgil thinks is best, is actually the best, just like what he thinks is bad, not always is bad.
He is a overthinker, and by overthinking to much he sometimes can restrict Thomas liberty by pushing this social stadand he needs to fufill down his throat. But his presence is also exential for Thomas to keep his life in order. As long as there is a balance in his actions, Virgil’s presence can be good.
Deceit- “Lawful Evil”/“The Dominator”
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what they want within the limits of their code of conduct without regard for who it hurts. They care about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not as much about freedom, dignity, or life. They play by the rules but lack mercy or compassion. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood or not letting children come to harm (remember Deceit being against nazis?), and they belive that these limits put them above unprincipled villains (like chaotic neutrals, for exemple, who thend to not follow any type of logical thinking).
Being a lawful evil means that even tho Deceit is a villain, he is whiling to do the right thing if it benefits himself, or in this case, if it benefits Thomas egoistical desires. Diferent from a Chaotic evil, they aren’t so desregarded for the rules, and actually think that rules are good, as long as they can benefit from it.
A intersting fact is that lawful evils are sometimes called "diabolical", because devils (as we know) are the epitome of lawful evil. I particularly don’t see Deceit much like a devil, because I belive that just like Virgil, he can be good as long as if there is a balance. But there are some comparissons to do with this statement, pricipally at the “deal” part and the “lord of the lies” part. Since Thomas is a religious man, I guess such line of thought is valid to some point, but let’s be carefull to not overly demonize his character.
Every side has their propose, and with the right amount of balance Deceit can show Thomas that sometimes being selfish can be good for self care and mental health. As long he doesn’t overstep Thomas morals for social convivence, Deceit can be a nice add to the crew.
Remus- Neutral Evil “The Malefactor”
A neutral evil villain does whatever they can get away with. They are out for themselves, pure and simple, and shed no tears for those they kill, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. They have no love for others and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make them any better or more noble. On the other hand, they don't have the restless nature or love for conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
In resume, Remus is just plain awful. Being a neutral evil makes him regardles of emotions, which at times can leed him to the bad side. He doesn’t quite follow a sense of mind, like lawful evils that use the law to gain what they want, or chaotic evils who are just against every type of good. No, Remus has no logic and no sense, he just does what he does, he is umpredictible and demented, he doesn’t think in concequeces because he doesn’t care, and he is evil because he is.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Neutral evil beings can advance themselves without regard for others, but it also represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
The Three Mysterious Characters
Now, after all this you are probably thinking “okay, but what does this has to do with anything?” and I will tell you.
There are still three charactes that are not yet to be found: The Free Spirit, The Destroyer, and The Undecided. or to be more clear: The Chaotic neutral, The chaotic evil, and the true neutral.
After analazing all that we can get some closer conclusions of what the next sides can or will bring to the table. Is pretty obvious at this point that Thomas mind works in a protagonist and antagonist kind of way. Even if he works all the time with desconstructions of good and evil, it’s still pretty clear that he creates his sides with this two aspects in mind.
Being Remus the antagonist for Roman, and Deceit the anatgonist for Patton. We can see that two of the three mistery characters might be antagosnist for Logan and Virgil, someone who questions his logic, and someone who questions his social standars.
In all logic, we can pretty much predict what this antagonists will probably bring to the series by analising the alligments that thend to conflict with our ramain protagonists.
For Virgil it makes more sense that his antagonist is a Chaotic Neutral person, not because it’s the oposite from him (since antagonist not always oposite eachother, like Remus and Roman for exaple, Remus is much more an oposite for Logan than for Roman, but he is still not his antagonist) but because Chaotic Neutrals are known for their lack of stability and care for social standards.
Going back to “Accepting anxiety” we can see what are the downside of Thomas lack of care, but if Thomas downside are always caused by someone, than doesn’t that means that his lack of care in that particular situation would be caused by someone too? If he lacks anxiety, he still has Logan, Patton and Roman to take care of things and to hold him to a certain standard. So why would he be so carefree and reckless?
A normal person who doesn’t suffer from anxiety don’t have all this careless actions like we see, they have logic and morality to keep them going. Just because Thomas projected part of his socil behavior into Virgil, that does not mean that he’s the only one responsible for it (just like we see in the “Dealing with intrusive thoghts” video, Virgil wouldn’t be so desesperated if Patton wasn’t so worried as well). The other sides share the same amount of responsability when it comes to Thomas standards, even with one of them out he would still has three more to hold on too.
Thomas side are all about equilibrium, which means that while there is someone to keep countrol, there is also someone who doesn’t, so at the end they can lean on eachother and balance things out. But without anxiety the Free Spitirity just do as he please, which is not as pleasent as the idea of liberty sometimes can be.
One of the main points that sustains my theory is the “Sleep” Character that was “recently” (cause he is been here for a while but I’m only editing this now) add in Thomas’ short videos.
Sleep, also known by the fandom as ‘Remy”, is the perfect fit for a Chaotic neutral character. Mostly because he holds a big amount of chotic energy (like the fact that he is called sleep, but is always seen drinking coffee), but at the same time he doesn’t really hold any evil to his actions, and lean into the chaos sides more for the fun of it than for any other particular reason.
Remy is a good exemple of a chaotic neutral because not only he doesn’t follow the rules he is supposed to, since he is constantly showing up late and messing up with Thomas schedules, but because he is also always seen steping into Thomas’ social standars (afecting his mood, his temper, his patience, his memory,... as well as creating many akward situations).
And let’s not forget the fact, that by being him the side responsible for Thomas sleep he would have a direct conection with Remus and the intrusive thoughts problem, probably thinking of it more like a fun game than an actual problem, while also seeing it as a way to disturb Virgil (since anxiety is one of the main reasons Thomas sleep schedual fails, it would also make sense that Remy probably isn’t very found of him).
Chaotic neutral represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's demeanor, but also it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.
Now as for Logan.
We would probably have a Chaotic Evil, and yeah, I know it would make more sense if this character was Pattons antagonist, but let me explain first.
Thomas logic is all about doing what is best and beeing a good person, so even “bad” is happening Logan makes sure to help him undersantad that such things are normal, and that that doing it or thinking of it does not make Thomas any less good. Being a Lawful neutral means that not only he is a good person, but that he also follow a good logic while still being able to see both the down sides and high sides, of evil and good.
By bringing a Chaotic Evil persona, Thomas good logic will be chalenged for someone who doesn’t see logic in being good. A Chaotic Evil character is not whiling to undestand how Thomas’ mind works, which can surely be a burden to Logan since he is Thomas’ mind. However, they aren’t as good as a villian as Lawful goods are (Deicet), because Chaotic Evils questions everything thats is good while Lawful evils use the good for being bad. And that is also why I think he will be one of the worse but not the most terrible one (at least they will have some logic to follow unlike Remus who is just... crazy).
For me, to be sincere, I don’t see any character as plenty evil, but as it was said before, this alignments are not boxes, they are just the main course of the characters development. Just because some one is Chaotic evil doesn’t mean they are a hundred per cent evil, they just have a tendency for it.
BUT THAT’S NOT ALL BECAUSE THERE IS STILL ONE MORE SIDE (I know this has been going for so long but bare with me here).
The last one is the only that i don’t know how to find, they are literelly the full neutral aspect. They don’t take sides, however they know what’s best and what is worst, the only thing is that they don’t see a point where Good, evil, chaotic and lawful can be helpfull. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil-after all, they would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, they are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
I don’t really know if we will get to see a side that is like that, as I said in the begining I may be wrong in all this theory, but this is still a good way of thinking who things will probably go from here. A true neutral is a deficult character to portrait, because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion, but it also represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.
Another theory is that maybe there won’t be a side that represent this alligment at all, because Thomas is already responsible for this hole in this series. Being him the middle ground for all the sides, he ends up being the reunion between good, evil, law and chaos, not trully condemning any form of thinking and always whilling to listen other opnions and debate them. However, he still leans into the side of good.
Final Thoughts
In the end, I don’t really know if all this will come to conclusion like that. The human mind is something quite confusing. Maybe there will be three new characters, maybe there will be ten, I don’t know. But i think that even if you desagree with everything I said, Thomas is still going to be doing a good job, and I’m fine with that more than with being right.
Hope you guys have liked this Ted talk, feel free to express your opinions and thoughts on the comments, and feel free to correct me if i’m wrong. Just please be nice, and don’t attact me because you desagree with something, and don’t attack others okay?
(also sorry if I spelled something wrong, english is not my first language :3)
