#finding ways to neutralize Superman is just like a side quest

[jmoriarty-221b]

So I saw somewhere a post that talked about how some fictional characters just have a divorce vibe going on, like, at no point in time were they ever married but they just give off that feeling that they got divorced

And now I can only think of Clark Kent and Lex Luthor having that vibe

And I spent close to an hour talking about this to my sibling and how it would be a good idea for a new DC show like, you can make so much money off of just the main Batfam alone and there are literally so many people in there that it’s just an amazing idea to have them all in a show together but kind of like a Good Luck Charlie kinda thing because there’s more than enough angst in the world

But in the case of not having enough of a budget for so many characters in one show I turned to the Superfam (Batfam is Huge like, I don’t even know half of the extended family version and that’s like at least ten characters so I could see why it wouldn’t be entirely feasible to have a show that included everyone while still being good with nice character development without having a billion dollars for the budget)

The Superfam, in my personal experience, is composed of Ma & Pa Kent (farm vibes plus I refuse to have either of them die in my AU), Clark Kent (main Superman), Lois Lane (Lana? was Smallville Lois i guess??? But idk enough about her so she’s not here), Jon Kent (Superboi II), Kara Danvers (Supergirl) & Conner Kent (Superboi I)

Now I’ve stopped watching CW shows like, forever ago??? But my brother kinda keeps up with them and basically the gist is that the ratings of every other show suck Except for the Superman & Lois show (because it’s 💫new💫) and I saw the cover of the poster like “Ah, the werewolf dude. . . mmmhhmmm that’s Lois yes, yes that’s Johnny boi, and um is that???? Nooooo, they wouldn’t do that to Conner right???? Please tell me they didn’t make Conner blonde” and I was informed that the blonde teen is Chris???? Like

Whoms’t do ye speak of

I’m not even joking but the only way I even know of Chris is from a random fanfic I read where Dick Grayson gets his own super from an alternate reality named Chris, that’s my only point of reference for this character

But let’s talk about how Conner Kent (OG Superboi) was excluded

Now I haven’t seen any episodes of this and I probably never will (no hate I’m just really unmotivated to start new shows at all) so idk if they might mention Conner or even allude to him in one scene or something

But this was my main motivator as to my new Superfam TV Show Idea

Have Lex Luthor not be a Superman villain, he’s mainly a successful businessman, a little shady but who isn’t, and he doesn’t want to Kill Superman, he just wants to be able to have some sort of viable protection against a Kryptonian in case of an invasion (see Man of Steel + CW’s Supergirl) or suddenly having a mind controlled Superman on their hands (see Justice League series or just look up what Red Krytonite does) so he makes it like his side thing to figure out ways to neutralize or hold back a Kryptonian, Clark totally thinks that Lex is obsessed with finding a way to kill Superman because they had a bad end to their friendship in high school so he’s always suspicious of Lex, Lex hasn’t really ever tried to kill him though because 1. It’s not that deep Clark ok? And 2. He’s a busy busy man with a very important job position and a company to run so does he look like he has time to harbor an obsession over someone who rejected him back in high school??? You’re more of a constant side quest Clark, so stop trying to put him on the JL watchlist ( btw ik about Lena Luthor, haven’t forgotten her but she doesn’t really play a part in this AU so let’s just have her and Kara off to the side doing their own thing ok? Ok)

Lex, Bruce & Oliver all knew each other when they were kids and went to the same school, this is just an extra detail I wanted to happen because Lex and Ollie definitely know Bruce is Batman and absolutely HATE having to deal with Brucie Wayne because “I know you’re just doing this to irritate me Bruce, you just want to see if you can make a vein throb in my forehead but I will valiantly ignore your dumbassery because I know you hate being Brucie just as much as we hate having to put up with Brucie so suck on that you petty bitch” because they bonded in ye olden days, childhood friends so to speak

Anyway so Cadmus tries to get Lex to make an investment in their company, seeing as Cadmus is shadier than Gotham when it rains Lex is basically like ‘no ❤️’ and doesn’t make a deal with them, Cadmus gets mad at not having Lexcorp financially backing them so Lex has an ‘accident’ and they steal his DNA, then they steal Superman’s DNA somehow and *boom* a Superboi is formed

Because I don’t know much about how the Core Four became friends in the first place (Robin Tim Drake, Impulse Bart Allen, Wonder Girl Cassie Sandsmark & Superboy Conner Kent) I’m just gonna go with what happens in the show Young Justice except it’s the Core Four becoming the Core Four when they liberated Conner (who at this point believes himself to be a clone of Superman and has only been given Superboy as a name) from Cadmus, same shit goes down meaning that Clark is just straight up NOT vibing with Conner, Conner just wants a mentor please, and the Bats kinda give Clark a passive aggressive treatment for not taking Superboy under his wing or at least agreeing to teach him how to control his powers, especially Tim because that’s his Bestie so yes

Anyway, YJ saves ppl and is on the news or whatever and Lex finds out about Superboy’s existence that way, so he researches this new super on his free time, finds out that he came from Cadmus and claims to be a clone of Superman, yet doesn’t have the whole power set Superman has??? Wait, didn’t Lex reject Cadmus’ proposal and the got into a mysterious accident??? Long story short Lex goes connecting the dots, hacks into Cadmus’ files, finds out he technically has a son with Superman and decides to take Superboy under his wing (I’ll go more in depth as to why Lex would want to do this in this AU later but the abridged version would be that he wants a kid but doesn’t have the time nor interest in finding a wife??? Also the radiation that made him bald as a kid also affected his reproductive system so while it’s not impossible for him to conceive kids he would have a very hard time actually getting to father a kid)

Him and Conner, who still goes by Superboy at this point in time, meet up and Conner finds out that here is a parent figure that is both available and actively wants to be a part of his life, so he agrees to get to know Lex and the series would focus on them becoming a family, with a special episode when Conner asks Lex for help in choosing a name for himself and it ends up with him agreeing to become Conner Luthor, it would be heartwarming and Mercy would make sure it happens within a day (Mercy is Lex’s bodyguard/PA but they’re also besties and she becomes the Responsible yet Chaotic Aunt as Lex and Conner’s father-son relationship progresses)

Obviously Clark becomes super suspicious of Lex getting close to his ‘clone’ and when Conner decides to go public as Lex’s son he’s like *GASP* and calls up Bruce because we need to get on this Bruce, Lex is a villain and blah blah blah but Bruce would be over Clark’s shit and hit him with that “actually, Lex was also an unwilling genetic donor to Superboy, who actually is not your clone either, and has agreed to take him in, I’ve been on this shit since they first met and the kid is doing just fine so if you keep poking your nose in their business then that’s your problem but you better be ready to pay child support bitch . . . have a good day ❤️”

The series would just focus on Conner getting to have a good parent figure in Lex and go more into their civilian lives rather than focusing on the superhero thing, Conner, Bart, Tim & Cassie have a sleepover at Lex’s house at one point, Lex totally Knows what’s up but it’s all good because these are his baby’s friends and they’re good people who are more than willing to prank Superman for rejecting his kid and giving his baby self worth issues (Mercy supports them)

Anyway, that’s basically the idea for a new Superhero Show

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

What if Star Wars had tanked?

May 1977, 20th Century Fox distributes a really WEIRD movie.  It’s a science fiction fantasy story about medieval knight samurais in space with laser swords and fighter pilots.  Nobody expected it to be a hit, it seemed to be such a niche movie, one that would garner a small cult following then be swept under the rug by the other summer tent poles like “Smokey and the Bandit” or “The Spy Who Loved Me.”  To everyone’s surprise, it became an instant success, rocketing no name George Lucas from a no-name bush-league indie director into the echelon of A-list Blockbusters.  His idea for a decade spanning six part saga (two sequels, three prequels) was greenlit then and there, and the budget for Star Wars 2, now called Star Wars 5, was double what he was given for the original.  Star Wars 1, nor 4, was given the subtitle “A New Hope” to let audiences know it was just the beginning of a series, and the rest is history.

But in 1977, George Lucas was not as confident in his vision as he would soon become.  He figured, as every producer did, that his film would be a flash in the pan genre piece, something that would play in theaters just long enough to make it’s budget back, then disappear into obscurity.  In 1976, he planned for the worst.

Star Wars, like many other films of the day, was being given a novelization.  Before home media became ubiquitous, the only way people could experience the film was to see it in theaters or buy the book version.  Lucas hired a ghostwriter, Alan Dean Foster, to write the novelization of Star Wars 1, AND to create a tentative Star Wars 2 that could be adapted to the screen if the original film failed to meet his high expectations.  Star Wars 2, titled “Splinter of the Minds Eye,” was written to be as low budget as possible; no big set pieces, and for that matter no big sets.  Every scene had to take place in a set that the studio already owned, and couldn’t include any major space battles because there was no guarantee that the special effects would fit into the budget.  On top of that, it meant that none of the characters played by big name actors would be included; no Harrison Ford, no Alec Guinness.  Splinter was a bare bones story set entirely on what would essentially become Dagobah, and would have taken the franchise in an entirely different direction.  None of the story elements from Lucas’ dream sequel were included, and none of the plot twists either; there is no connection between “Splinter of the Mind’s Eye” and “Empire Strikes Back,” and in fact, once Empire was released, Splinter was relegated to secondary canon because the official sequel had overidden it so the story no longer made sense.

But if Star Wars 1 had flopped, Splinter of the Mind’s Eye would have been made into the official sequel, and the story would have had to pick up where it left off; Lucas didn’t plot out a low budget version of Star Wars 3, so we can only speculate as to what may have happened.

In Splinter, Luke and Leia are going on a diplomatic mission to convince some neutral star systems to join the rebellion.  Their ship crash lands on a backwater swamp planet (called Mimban, a name eventually used for the World War I trench planet in the Disney movie Solo), which is roughly analogous to the Dagobah we saw in Empire.  Stranded on the swamp planet, Luke and Leia find their way to an imperial mining colony, get into a scuffle, and escape with the help of a Jedi witch named Halla.  The titular “splinter of the mind’s eye” is a broken fragment of a magical crystal, because this was the 1970s and crystals were a big thing in fantasy (the splinter was called the kaiburr crystal; this name would later be re-purposed in canon as the crystals used for lightsaber and Death Star laser construction).  The splinter is said to focus the force, allowing the wielder to become more powerful or something; it’s a MacGuffin, the book is vague as to what it actually physically does.  After a confrontation with locals, and a duel with none other than Darth Vader (in which Leia wields a lightsaber and Luke cuts off Vader’s whole arm), Halla takes over the role of Luke’s mentor to train him in the ways of the Force.

At this point in the series, Luke and Leia were never intended to be brother and sister.  It was clearly supposed to be a chivalric romance between a knight errant and his courtly love.  He is the royal bodyguard to the Queen of Alderaan (the entire Royal Family was destroyed in Star Wars 1, so Princess Leia should by all rights have been coronated as Queen Leia).  George Lucas added the twist that they were brother and sister well into production of Empire; in fact, in Empire he shot two scenes of Leia kissing Luke (one was to make Han jealous, the other was near the end, right after she rescued Luke from cloud city; I’m glad they cut the second one, because it undermines the fact that she literally just told Han that she loves him).  Han Solo himself is mentioned in passing, not even by name, just as some pirate Luke used to know who took his reward money from the first movie and went to pay off some debts.  If this movie had been made instead of Empire, there’s no guarantee that a Star Wars 3 would even be greenlit.

But if it had been, here’s what would have happened.

Darth Vader is not Luke’s father in this version; that too was a twist Lucas invented after the series took off.  So, in this version of Star wars 3, which I will call “Revenge of the Jedi,” Luke goes on a quest to slay the evil Emperor.  It’s a fantasy movie, in any other setting the point of the franchise would be to kill the main bad guy; imagine if Lord of the Rings had ended without the heroes destroying the ring and defeating Sauron, that would have made no sense.  In this version of the story, Darth Vader is just the archetypal Black Knight; tying back into the Japanese influence on the series, he is an evil Shogun, appointed by the Emperor to be the military dictator.  There would be more emphasis on fight choreography in this version, drawing influence from the works of Akira Kurosawa.  The word Jedi comes from the word for the Japanese film genre Jidaigeki, meaning ‘period piece,’ featuring samuri and ronin (for western audiences, “Ronin” are nomadic heroes, like Clint Eastwood’s man with no name, or the Road Warrior).

Revenge of the Jedi would end with a climactic fight scene in the Emperor’s palace, with Luke battling his way through the many levels, defeating wave after wave of imperial soldiers and those red guards fans love to care about even though they do literally nothing on screen.  The prequels we got in canon were bogged down with boring politics about trade federations and unions and guilds and alliances, but politics can be interesting if done well (and written by someone who isn’t George Lucas; the original trilogy we got was good DESPITE him, not BECAUSE of him).  Revenge of the Jedi would see Leia building an army, the rebellion becoming an actual superpower in the galaxy; the New Republic wouldn’t just be restored after the Empire was defeated, it would be restored during the war with the express intent of rallying neutral systems behind an actual government body against the Emperor.

Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Luke’s father, but more importantly he committed genocide against Leia’s people, the survivors of which now live in diaspora.  Sound familiar?  “The Rebellion” isn’t a great name, but “the Alliance” is perfect because it evokes the Allies of World War II and shows that it is a galaxy-wide phenomena, not just a single splinter cell as depicted in the films in our timeline.  Luke wants to avenge his father, but if you’re insistent that the good guy isn’t allowed to kill the bad guy, you could have Vader go out the way he did in “Return of the Jedi,” turning back to the light side and sacrificing his life to kill the Emperor.  Everyone loves a redemption story, but Darth Vader really was a piece of shit and didn’t deserve to just get a free pass into Jedi Ghost Heaven because he decided to stop being evil five minutes before he died.

Maybe in this version of Star Wars 3, Harrison Ford returns for a cameo as a favor to George Lucas.  If so, he dies; Ford wanted Han to die in “Return of the Jedi,” and only agreed to do “The Force Awakens” if they finally killed him off then.  If he returns for “Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Jedi,” he will sacrifice himself for the Alliance, going out as a hero.  After the Emperor is defeated, the threat doesn’t just go away; suddenly there’s a power vacuum, with all the admirals and regional governor’s vying to replace him.  In both pre- and post-Disney Star Wars, the Emperor had a son (Triclops in Legends continuity, and Rey’s dad in Canon), so he would be heir to his father’s throne; perhaps he is propped up as a puppet for the military leaders, or maybe he surrenders to the Alliance and allows his Empire to be balkanized into dozens of independent powers, as with the fall of every great Empire; Rome (East and West), Mongolia, China, Austria-Hungary, Britain, the USSR, the list goes on.

This Star Wars trilogy would not be the enormous franchise we know today, it would still be a very niche series with a cult following.  It would be a step up from the Planet of the Apes series; sure, people have heard of it, and there have been attempts to revive it in the modern day, but it’s not even close to being a tent pole of the modern cultural zeitgeist.  Nobody looks forward to the new Planet of the Apes movie every year, it’s not a multi-billion dollar multi-media enterprise, there’s no dedicated “Planet of the Apes Celebration,” no cartoons, no streaming service shows that everyone geeks out about online, no triple-a video games, nothing.  This version of Star Wars would be just another weird artifact of the 1970s.  Maybe there would be a push to release a sequel, Star Wars 4, in like 2007, but that would be closer to Rambo IV or Superman Returns or Tron Legacy.

There are dedicated fans, but it’s not the biggest movie of the year.

Star Wars (1977)

Star Wars 2: Splinter of the Mind’s Eye (1979)

Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Jedi (1982)

Star Wars: Journal of the Whills (2011, a prequel set during the Clone Wars mentioned in the first movie)

[sonofkhaz]

Spyder’s Guide to Alignment

According to Wikipedia’s definition, alignment is the “categorization of the ethical and moral perspective of player characters, non-player characters, and creatures.”

Alignment is and/or was a key game element to the early editions of Dungeons and Dragons. However, the term and its categorizations have become widespread, as they can now be found in other tabletop games, RPGs, books and movies to name a few mediums of entertainment. When I have discussed alignment with other people, the subject sometimes invokes one of two responses

1. Players state that they don’t like using alignment because they find it confusing.

2. Players state that they don’t like using alignment because each archetype is too definitive.

Alignment has sparked a lot of debates over the decades, and is the main source of demotivational posters on the web. Additionally, it has created a lot online “alignment” tests which I find completely inaccurate (example: one test decided that one of my characters was “neutral evil” because his favorite color is dark red.) I decided to create this guide in order to explain each archetype and offer a broader perspective on alignment.

LAWFUL GOOD

Truth, Justice, Picket Fences and Apple Pie. Lawful good characters are often depicted as “goody-two shoes” boy/girl scouts. They believe in the good of all people, and act as is expected of a good person. Conversely, however, some lawful good characters will compulsorily object if friends/allies act in a way that contrasts their often rigid guidelines. Furthermore, they may object to breaking a law, even if it’s for a good reason, and will be left wondering if good comes before a law, or if law comes before good. Super heroes, such as Superman and Captain America are often seen as “lawful good” characters. The term “Lawful Stupid” is coined for  lawful good characters, because some lawful good characters have a tendency to screw the party over with what they think is “justice”. It’s characterized by following the rules arbitrarily without actually understanding what they entail.

In the earlier editions of Dungeons and Dragons, paladins were required to be lawful good (if anyone complains to you that Dungeons and Dragons is “Satanic”, feel free to point out that Gary Gygax was a devout Christian). If they failed to uphold this alignment, they became “fallen” paladins, meaning that they lost the majority of their special abilities, and became average fighters who would have to “atone” with their church - an often odious task - or just switch classes. Thankfully, we don’t have to worry about this as much anymore.

NEUTRAL GOOD

Neutral good is the quintessential “nice person” alignment. A neutral good character is someone who devotes most of their time helping others. Sometimes they will use the law to aid in their quest to help folks. However, it’s important to note that neutral good characters follow an “internal” guideline instead of an “external” to determine what is good. Though they might use the law, they’re not confined by it, and will sometimes do what is right even if the law says no. Good doesn’t always mean “gentle”. They look at the axis of the lawful-chaotic spectrum, and see the merit of both sides.

A good example of neutral good characters are the Followers of the Apocalypse from the Fallout franchise. They’re a dedicated group of men and women who have taken up the responsibility of humanitarianism. They provide medical care, teach locals about agriculture, and search for Pre-War knowledge with the intent of sharing it with everyone. Though they’re good people at heart, they won’t tolerate raiders, slavers, or bullies from Caesar’s Legion.

CHAOTIC GOOD

Chaotic good characters live by the credo, “An unjust law is no law at all”. They are strong individuals with strong hearts who believe in good but have no use for law. They favor a change for the greater good that doesn’t require bureaucratic organizations that may get in the way of social progress. They often fight not only for themselves, but for the good of other people as well. They mean well, but sometimes in their attempts to do good they may break a few laws because to them, the “good” comes before the “law”.

A prominent chaotic good character is Robin Hood, along with his band of Merry Men. They stole from the rich and gave to the poor. For more modern characters, Jim Raynor and his Raynor’s Raiders go from planet to planet, helping out settlements being strong-armed by the Dominion. Garrus from Mass Effect can be seen as a chaotic good character, because he dislikes the “red tape” that prevents him from doing his job. This is compounded in the later installments as he admits to Shepard that killing a mass-murderer in cold blood without a trial is perfectly acceptable.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL

Think early edition paladins without the moral restrictions. Lawful neutral characters are essentially the living embodiment of the law made manifest. They endeavor to uphold the law without second guess. Steal food to feed your starving family? You’re going to jail. Steal medicine to save your dying friend? Jail time for you. Go 40 miles over the speed limit while driving to the hospital because you’re bleeding out? You’re going to pay for that.

Judge Joseph Dredd is often seen as the mascot of the lawful neutral alignment. He is the judge, jury, and executioner; if he catches you breaking the law, you’re going down with no exception. Take it with a grain of salt, however - he’s lawful neutral, but not lawful stupid. He doesn’t ignore the circumstances, and will always get to the root of the problem.

The High Heavens from the Diablo franchise are an example of lawful neutral as well. They’re concerned with upholding order in the known universe, but aren’t particularly concerned with the foibles and troubles of “mere mortal humans”. Tyrael is an exception to this rule, as the game depicts him as being lawful good.

TRUE NEUTRAL

True Neutral can be tricky, and is often categorized into two varieties: “Dedicated to Balance” and “Live as you live” mentalities.“Dedicated to Balance” characters are those who believe that the morality of their choices do not matter, only that it affects the “status quo” balance of all things (whatever the “status quo” entails is up to interpretation). This means that “balance” characters will allow things like war, disease, to happen if it keeps the balance in check.  This ideology is often adopted by some Druids, especially since the base animal alignment is true neutral. They’re not particularly malevolent, but at their worst they see the world as some giant checkbook that needs to be balanced out, regardless of impending consequences.

“Live as you live” characters are unfairly treated as bland, uninspired or uncommitted people, all of which are often inaccurate. “Live as you live” describes most true neutral characters, because they don’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to moral choices like law vs. chaos and good vs. evil. For example, a mercenary may take a job to protect fleeing refugees one day, but take a well-paying job to smash up a merchant’s stockroom the next. A researcher may work alongside a good organization to create a vaccination for a disease, but they might just work with an evil organization if it means the research is being advanced. A soldier may be ordered to protect the civilians of his country, but will kill turncoats because he is ordered to do so and it’s easier to follow orders than to question them. 

Yoshimo from Baldur’s Gate 2 is designed as a true neutral character because he supports intelligent decisions and making good money through both honest and dishonest work. In Runescape, the god Guthix is literally described as the “god of balance”, as he brought in other races to the world to let them live in harmony without the concepts of gods, good, or evil (it didn’t work out that well).

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL

Chaotic neutral characters follow their whims. Players often describe chaotic neutral characters as, “doing whatever the hell they want, when they want”. They’re often described as being individualistic and rebellious. They challenge authority, restrictions, tradition and customs in the name of true freedom.

Much like lawful good and “lawful stupid”, chaotic neutral suffers from “chaotic stupid” stereotypes as well. Where lawful stupid characters will adhere to a rigid code of conduct beyond the point of reason, chaotic stupid characters are notorious for their refusal to abide by anything whatsoever. Some will push this to a level of deliberately breaking any public code, law or custom, or deliberately doing the exact opposite of the party’s objectives because, “Tee-hee, I’m chaotic.” It’s important to understand that being chaotic is not about being “LOL SO RANDOM!”, but more about a strong dislike for order, laws, and routines. It’s also important to note that there is a difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil (killing someone and pissing on their corpse is an example of chaotic evil).

Sheogorath, the Daedric Prince of Madness, is an example of a chaotic neutral character. He helped the Chimer (early Dunmer) move from the Summerset Isles and establish their pre-tribunal culture, but will punish people for the most trivial reasons imaginable (like having a beard). Another example of a chaotic neutral character is Atton Rand from Knights of the Old Republic 2. Atton is a smuggler, completely out for himself, but is often varied in how he reacts to the protagonist’s actions. Even though he can be influenced, his attitude mostly remains the same, and he’s not very keen on getting the attention of the Republic, the Sith or the Exchange.

LAWFUL EVIL

A lawful evil character will do what they please within limits and without regard for whom it may affect. Basically, anyone who can commit evil and be a dick while staying in the confines of the law and tradition. A lawful evil character may care about order, society or law but won’t give a second glance to freedom or life. Corrupt politicians/leaders, or wealthy tycoons playing the system may be considered lawful evil, but it would often be difficult to notice since they’re so integrated in society.

Darth Vader from Star Wars can be seen as a lawful evil character, as he carries out the will of Emperor Palpatine with an iron fist, has little patience for failure, and crushes anyone who stands in his way, albeit without amusement. King Logan from Fable 3 is a lawful evil character, as he pushes Albion to its limits, orders his soldiers to shoot protesters, cuts down entire forests, and forces children into working in factories in preparation for a larger threat.

NEUTRAL EVIL

Neutral evil is the “malefactor” alignment or, more commonly known, the “asshole alignment”. Characters of this alignment have no qualms about ditching their allies, since they are typically selfish and only care about themselves. They have no qualms about hurting other people to get what they want; however, they will not go out of their way to harm if they don’t benefit from it. They obey the law when it’s on their side, but will break it if it is no longer convenient to them.

Dean Domino from Fallout: New Vegas is an example of a neutral evil. He is extremely self-serving, vengeful, and vindictive, and is largely responsible for a lot of the horrible things happening in the Sierra Madre Casino. He will try to kill you the moment you meet him if you don’t act completely subservient to him, and he views people as convenient rubes.

CHAOTIC EVIL

If chaotic neutral characters are free spirits, then chaotic evil characters are free EVIL spirits. They are usually psychopaths who are vicious, unpredictable, unstable and violent. They have no respect for rules, little-to-no regard for human life or the freedom of others. Strong leaders are needed in order to keep chaotic evil characters in line.

Shiro Tagachi from Guild Wars: Factions is an example of a chaotic evil character. Throughout the story, he is hellbent on destroying the entirety of Cantha as vengeance for being dead. HK-47 from Knights of the Old Republic is chaotic evil as he cheerfully wishes to wipe out all “meatbags”, and his tendencies are only kept in check by his master’s will.

PERSPECTIVES ON ALIGNMENT

As I mentioned at the beginning of this guide, alignment is something people have argued about for decades. Some will argue that using alignment dilutes character personality, and categorizing something philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists have been researching for thousands of years is pointless.

Alignment can become a problem for character creation, because categories can be too narrow to describe characters. After all, characters aren’t always split into “good” or “evil” - they are often complex people with more than one side to them, or they might be pursuing a goal rather an ideal.

Lawful mentalities, for example, are regarded as “I follow the rules of the land” while chaotic leans towards, “I do what I want, when I want, how I want”. However, it doesn’t need to be so cut and dry: lawful can mean that the character simply follows a code or set of rules instead of literal laws, and chaotic can mean that your character doesn’t care for the above mindset and simply changes their own on a whim.

It’s important to understand that alignment is supposed to represent tendencies rather than stagnant points. A good-aligned character can be cajoled and shoved into committing an evil act, or an evil character may be required to perform a good deed because it furthers their goals. A lawful character can choose to painstakingly break a law in order to prevent a catastrophe, or a chaotic character may choose to work with the law to help out a friend in need. People acting in ways that don’t suit them is a good sign of character development. For example, just because a lawful character might go against the norm once does not constitute an alignment change, but that character might learn something new from the situation.

In conclusion, alignments are not set in stone, and newer tabletop editions and RPGs have made strides in reflecting this fact. You can have a lot of fun with characters this way, and you’ll never truly be confined to one alignment.