League of legends character alignment

Seba7290·Aug 24, 2017·1 votes·1,024 views

True neutral Chaotic neutral Lawful neutral True neutral Chaotic evil Chaotic good Neutral good Chaotic good Lawful good Lawful neutral Lawful evil Chaotic neutral(With chaotic good motive) Chaotic evil Chaotic neutral Neutral evil Chaotic evil Neutral good

These are all horrendous i know

9 Comments

HonestJohnTheConAug 24, 20174 votes

I hate using the standard D&D alignment system when comparing characters in League. Some of them are pretty obvious, but Karthus? He thinks he's doing a good thing with ugly motives. Zed and Viktor? They think he's doing the right thing as well, even though they get far less admiration than their main rivals (Shen and Jayce).

Sure, it's easy with some characters (it's pretty obvious Braum and Bard are genuinely some of the best characters in league moral-wise) but it gets more complicated when you consider actually people, ESPECIALLY the newer ones.

Chembaron YamadaAug 24, 20171 votes

Karthus is still evil in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the person thinks to be a good guy himself. That applies to alot of horrible people in the world.

For example: Hitler himself considered his actions as "good". But I don't think that anyone is really questioning him being evil. Karthus wants to kill people. Just because he thinks himself that it's better for them doesn't make him good. He is forcing his own ideals upon others, violently. He is evil.

Viktor isn't evil, since he doesn't force his own ideals on anyone. He is providing augmentations to people who want it themselves, not kidnapping them and turning them into robots. But he doesn't go out of his way to do "the right thing" either. He is neutral.

I understand that you dislike that system and that champions can be really complex and therefore hard to put in a category. But still want to point out: what the person considers his own actions doesn't really matter.

HonestJohnTheConAug 24, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Karthus is still evil in my opinion. It doesn't matter if the person thinks to be a good guy himself. That applies to alot of horrible people in the world.

For example: Hitler himself considered his actions as "good". But I don't think that anyone is really questioning him being evil. Karthus wants to kill people. Just because he thinks himself that it's better for them doesn't make him good. He is forcing his own ideals upon others, violently. He is evil.

Viktor isn't evil, since he doesn't force his own ideals on anyone. He is providing augmentations to people who want it themselves, not kidnapping them and turning them into robots. But he doesn't go out of his way to do "the right thing" either. He is neutral.

I understand that you dislike that system and that champions can be really complex and therefore hard to put in a category. But still want to point out: what the person considers his own actions doesn't really matter.

Fair. You make good points. The main thing I was trying to explain was that the system is two-dimensional and doesn't reflect people in real life.

NixtarmaAug 24, 20171 votes

Yes, a two-dimensional alignment classification system does not describe people perfectly. To do that, one would need to recount their entire life history, actions, motivations, and beliefs, which is, admittedly, much easier for fictional characters.

However, the two-dimensional system is fairly well-known and also decent for describing a character's moral base, so it is a pretty good tool for generally comparing characters.

Besides, it is fun! -Nixtarma

Chembaron YamadaAug 24, 20172 votes

I wouldn't consider Jhin chaotic evil, but lawful evil. His obsession with art and the number 4 seems to qualify him as lawful.

EDIT: Would be great if someone could explain to me why the downvotes. ô.o Am I wrong? Isn't being lawful in that sense meant that the character has some rules he follows? That applies to Jhin, doesn't it?

NixtarmaAug 24, 20171 votes

I agree. Lawful has always meant (to me, and to the people I play with, at least) that one follows a prescribed moral code. It it just meant following the rule of law "Lawful Evil" would be an impossibility, as it is rare, if not impossible, to have a long-standing evil rule of law.

ZyraniumAug 24, 20171 votes

Ahri True Neutral Annie Neutral Evil Anivia Lawful Good (She maintains Freljord's cold) Elise Lawful Evil (She serves Vilemaw) Cassiopeia Lawful Evil (She serves Noxus) Braum Lawful Neutral (He do what his mama said) Azir Lawful Neutral Ekko Neutral Evelynn Evil (She only wants to make suffer) Galio Lawful Neutral Chaotic Evil Janna Lawful Neutral Leblanc Lawful Evil Lissandra Chaotic Evil Lulu True Neutral Lucian Lawful Neutral Syndra Chaotic Neutral (She's not evil, she only wants to train her power) Vayne Lawful Neutral Zyra Chaotic Evil

Chembaron YamadaAug 24, 20171 votes

How is Braum not good? >__>

NixtarmaAug 24, 20171 votes

I'll argue that Urgot is Lawful Evil.

He has his philosophy well-thought out, from its basis in Noxian strength-worship to his education is suffering is Zaun. In fact, he will gladly spend an entire game educating you in it.

The key point is that what defines a lawful character is that they motivated themselves by a moral code they are strongly aware of, even if that moral code is against the rule of law. This puts Urgot in the roughly the same boat as resistance fighters: both oppose the existing rule of law for ethical reasons, but anarachist like Urgot do not want to establish a new one.

Cheers, -Nixtarma