As much as Jinx is about her guns, I don't feel like she would deliberately shoot someone.

ABlueQuaker·Nov 17, 2016·17 votes·2,327 views

I feel like the only time Jinx would kill someone would be: a) indirectly by blowing something up and killing people as collateral damage. b) in a spray of rapidly, randomly fired bullets as she flees police. c) indirectly by some elaborate means (i.e. suspending someone over a vat of boiling oil and slowly lowering them as Caitlyn & Vi frantically try to locate and save them).

I feel like even if she was in a one on one fight with Vi, she'd just mess with her. Batter her with a barrage of concussive explosions or ding up her armor/gauntlets with her minigun.

52 Comments

L RayquazaNov 17, 201620 votes

I remember a Q&A when she first came out and one of the Rioters commented "she wouldn't deliberately shoot some random guy, but if that random guy was sitting on a pile of awesome fireworks then he may get a couple bullets in him.....and then blow up......violently......."

GreenLoreNov 17, 201611 votes

Jinx "Guns don't kill people. I mean, until you shoot them. Then they kill everything!"

Jokes aside I think you are actually right in that Jinx doesn't seem to be interested in killing people. Its just that she loves making chaos and causing destruction,which likely leads to some "collateral damage"

RalanrNov 17, 20164 votes

Hence why Riot considers her to be chaotic neutral.

GreenLoreNov 17, 20161 votes

Yeah,though I remember that some argued she'd be more chaotic evil(and I'd agree with that),since her actions still cause a lot of harm to others.

RalanrNov 17, 20161 votes

Yeah. There's a funny line inbetween.

NarasimhaNov 17, 20161 votes

She's more chaotic neutral-leaning because overall, her intent isn't to harm others. It's to amuse herself.

RebonackNov 17, 20161 votes

{quoted}

She's more chaotic neutral-leaning because overall, her intent isn't to harm others. It's to amuse herself.

Doesn't matter.

A Good character will go out of their way to improve the lives of others around them, even to the point of their own loss as a result. A Lawful Good character will often focus on the good of society as a whole while a Chaotic Good character is typically more concerned with the individual.

A Neutral character typically just wants to live their own life without getting entangled in the business of others. A Lawful Neutral character would be concerned with doing their duty. A Chaotic Neutral character would be concerned with their own personal freedom and others not infringing on it.

An Evil character is willing to cause death and suffering to accomplish their goals. A Lawful Evil character will use society to attain or maintain their power. A Chaotic Evil character follows their own whims, regardless of who will get hurt and what might be destroyed in the process often with open contempt for society.

Just because Jinx might not set out specifically to murder people (her selection quote suggests otherwise) doesn't make her any less evil due to her callous disregard for the suffering she causes.

NarasimhaNov 17, 20161 votes

Just because Jinx might not set out specifically to murder people (her selection quote suggests otherwise) doesn't make her any less evil due to her callous disregard for the suffering she causes.

Actually, it does. As you've said, an Evil character is willing to cause death and destruction. And that's the clincher. To be genuinely Evil (in terms of D&D, at the least), there has to be intent behind the action. If a person trips on a lantern which sets a barn on fire which ends up burning up an entire village, he wouldn't be called Evil regardless of how many people he killed. Why? Because he didn't mean to.

Shaco is the better example for Chaotic Neutral. He wants to hurt people, has no qualm in doing so, doesn't like being tied down, and his motives are beyond anyone's understanding.

Jinx falls into 'Chaotic Neutral' territory because she doesn't actually have any direct intention of hurting people. She doesn't go out of her way to harm anyone, nor are her actions focused around hurting people at all.It's just incidental and she could care less. She just wants to have her own fun.

GreenLoreNov 17, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Actually, it does. As you've said, an Evil character is willing to cause death and destruction. And that's the clincher. To be genuinely Evil (in terms of D&D, at the least), there has to be intent behind the action. If a person trips on a lantern which sets a barn on fire which ends up burning up an entire village, he wouldn't be called Evil regardless of how many people he killed. Why? Because he didn't mean to.

Jinx falls into 'Chaotic Neutral' territory because she doesn't actually have any direct intention of hurting people. She doesn't go out of her way to harm anyone, nor are her actions focused around hurting people at all.It's just incidental and she could care less. She just wants to have her own fun.

She might not go out of her way to injure/kill people,but she goes out of her way to cause destruction and panic,both of which are directly harmful for people,so she does go out of her way to harm people,just not in the direct sense.

Shaco is the better example for Chaotic Neutral. He wants to hurt people, has no qualm in doing so, doesn't like being tied down, and his motives are beyond anyone's understanding.

Not sure how someone who intentionally harms people for fun would be considered chaotic neutral,I mean that is pretty much the definition of chaotic evil....

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

She might not go out of her way to injure/kill people,but she goes out of her way to cause destruction and panic,both of which are directly harmful for people,so she does go out of her way to harm people,just not in the direct sense.

While true, that puts her in the Chaotic camp, not the Evil. For her actions to be evil, she'd have to be committing them with the intent and knowledge that they'd be hurting others. Jinx doesn't work like that. Jinx doesn't blow up a building because it has people in it. She blows it up because she thinks it would be funny. If people were in the building, that's just circumstantial. That lack of caring is what makes her neutral. Chaotic Good would probably make sure no one was in the building before blowing it up, and Chaotic Evil would make sure as many people as possibly were in it.

Not sure how someone who intentionally harms people for fun would be considered chaotic neutral,I mean that is pretty much the definition of chaotic evil....

Thats 100% on me, I meant to put that he was Chaotic Evil (hell my entire arguement indicates as such), but I got mixed up down the line. Bleh.

GreenLoreNov 18, 20161 votes

{quoted}

While true, that puts her in the Chaotic camp, not the Evil. For her actions to be evil, she'd have to be committing them with the intent and knowledge that they'd be hurting others. Jinx doesn't work like that. Jinx doesn't blow up a building because it has people in it. She blows it up because she thinks it would be funny. If people were in the building, that's just circumstantial. That lack of caring is what makes her neutral. Chaotic Good would probably make sure no one was in the building before blowing it up, and Chaotic Evil would make sure as many people as possibly were in it.

Well but isn't destroying others stuff for fun also evil?It still harms them in a way. I mean if I blew up your house,would you say that was a neutral action,just because I didn't do it to harm you specifically?

Another point is that she causes panic on purpose,which is also harmful.

In the end 2 chaotic evil characters aren't necessaryly equally evil. Shaco harms people for fun,Jinx destroys stuff for fun. Causing destruction is something that is considered evil(unless justified),thus Jinx would still fall under the evil category,its just a different kind of evil than that of Shaco.

Thats 100% on me, I meant to put that he was Chaotic Evil (hell my entire arguement indicates as such), but I got mixed up down the line. Bleh.

Yeah I was kinda confused about this too^^

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

Well but isn't destroying others stuff for fun also evil?It still harms them in a way. I mean if I blew up your house,would you say that was a neutral action,just because I didn't do it to harm you specifically?

Actually, fun fact, but no. Destruction of property is counted in Lawful vs Chaotic rather than Good vs Evil. It's because the very concept of owning something is not a natural 'law'. It's something made by people (or sentient beings, rather). Destroying something for the sake of destroying it counts as a rejection of that law, rather than malicious intent. Destroying something to hurt someone is Evil, aye. But destroying something just because it's there is just Chaotic.

Another point is that she causes panic on purpose,which is also harmful.

This is part of what puts her in a grey area, to be sure. An important thing to note is her reaction, however. Jinx doesn't incite chaos and pandemonium to make people suffer. She does it for her own amusement. People being hurt probably does add to her amusement, which does edge her toward Evil. But it's also not a goal or even focus of hers. She enjoys the panic because of the chaos, not because of the suffering.

GreenLoreNov 18, 20161 votes

Ok,so this is the definition of a chaotic evil character in D&D:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

So yeah,lust for destruction is already listed as one of the possible reasons for a character to act CE in the very definition of CE.

And overall I'd say that the whole "ownership isn't something natural"-thing would only really matter if Jinx failed to understand that her actions harm others(like a dog doesn't understand that he did something bad to you,when he destroys your couch). But Jinx does understand that,which is made pretty clear from her quotes about how she kills and harms others with her guns.

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

And this is the comparison of a Chaotic Evil vs Chaotic Neutral character

Chaotic neutral and the chaotic evil characters will disagree on the nature of freedom. Both value their own freedom above that of other beings, but the chaotic neutral character feels all creatures should be free to pursue their goals, for good or ill. They do not feel that others have the right to restrict them of their freedom, but the chaotic neutral character may restrict others. **The chaotic neutral character may not be malicious in the liberties he takes. He will generally leave others alone, any evil they suffer because of his actions is incidental. Chaotic evil characters believe that freedom should only exist for those creatures strong enough to keep it. They will go out of their way to corrupt the good and destroy their works. **They see no value in any individual's life, other than whatever value it has to gratify that particular chaotic evil character. Chaotic neutral characters are not concerned with life, but do not feel that others exist for their exploitation, necessarily.

Key differences right there. Plus, even by the definition you gave, Jinx only fits one of the three characteristics. She's not particularly greedy, and the only thing she hates is boredom.

GreenLoreNov 18, 20161 votes

Not every CE needs to fit all criteria(I mean a character who murders for fun would be considered CE even if he/she doesn't do it out of greed),fitting one of these criteria is enough.

Also in the very text that you highlighted it talks about how CE characters

will go out of their way to corrupt the good and destroy their works.

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

True, true, but note the phrasing. A CE character 'will go out of their way to corrupt the good and destroy their works.' To be more exact, a CE character will do what they can to hinder good. Insofar as I've seen, Jinx doesn't really believe in the concepts of 'good' and 'evil'. She's just as likely to blow up a mafia gang that might be bugging her as she is to deface an office building to piss off Caitlyn. Her actions can't be put on the 'Good/Evil scale' because she herself doesn't follow the scale. An important part of D&D is intent. A person how to be aware of their actions and their consequences. Jinx certainly doesn't care about what her actions might lead to.

GreenLoreNov 18, 20161 votes

Honestly the "good"-part of that description isn't really relevant. An evil character who torments another person for fun is still evil regardless if the person is good,neutral or evil as well. So just because she doesn't care if the person whose stuff she destroys,doesn't make the action itself less evil.

And Jinx might not care about her actions,but she is definetly aware of them,I mean her selection quote is "Rules are made to be broken... like buildings! Or people!"

PermabannedGarenNov 17, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Actually, it does. As you've said, an Evil character is willing to cause death and destruction.

Which Jinx is. She prioritizes the latter over the former, but she willingly endangers the lives of others for her fun and is completely remorseless about that fact. And she is perfectly willing to murder others, and derives enjoyment from doing so.

There's no moral ambiguity here. She's evil.

RebonackNov 18, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Actually, it does. As you've said, an Evil character is willing to cause death and destruction. And that's the clincher. To be genuinely Evil (in terms of D&D, at the least), there has to be intent behind the action. If a person trips on a lantern which sets a barn on fire which ends up burning up an entire village, he wouldn't be called Evil regardless of how many people he killed. Why? Because he didn't mean to.

There's a world of difference between tripping over a lantern and launching rockets into buildings in a densely populated city. Pretty sure the 'whoops, didn't know anyone would be in there!' excuse really doesn't fly.

An evil character is totally okay with causing death and suffering to accomplish their goals.

Jinx' goal is blowing stuff up and causing as much mayhem as possible. She's totally okay with causing death and suffering to accomplish her goal of causing said mayhem. Therefore, she's Evil.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that nearly all of her in-game (and out of game) quotes paint her as a violent psychopath.

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

An evil character is totally okay with causing death and suffering to accomplish their goals.

You seem to be misunderstanding this point. For an Evil character, pain and suffering is as much a goal as their real objective. They're not just 'ok with causing death', they will actively work in people's demise and anguish to make their goals work. That way, even if they somehow fail, they still get the satisfaction of watching other people scream and cry and rage. It's just as important to them.

As you yourself said,

Jinx' goal is blowing stuff up and causing as much mayhem as possible. She's totally okay with causing death and suffering to accomplish her goal of causing said mayhem.

And that's the difference. Jinx doesn't make her goals with the intent of making people suffer. People are entirely incidental. She wants to blow stuff up. She wants to blow EVERYTHING up. People dying because of it is just them being 'jinxed'.

And in fact, Riot themselves summed it up quite well.

"If she were walking past a stranger in a dark alley, she wouldn’t automatically stab that person and take their money. But if she were walking past a stranger in a dark alley near a PILE OF FIREWORKS, she would totally blow up the fireworks and unintentionally light the stranger on fire because fireworks are freakin’ fun. That’s her attitude. She’s not a classical villain archetype, but more of a trickster archetype who loves chaos."

Jinx is simply someone who doesn't think about the consequences of her actions. She lives for the moment, especially if the moment involves explosions.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that nearly all of her in-game (and out of game) quotes paint her as a violent psychopath.

And this is the summation of it all. Jinx is a psychopath. Jinx doesn't shoot people to kill them, or to get something out of it. She shoots because she finds it bloody (pardon the pun) hilarious. It's certainly not a Good act, but it's also not Evil because she genuinely isn't out to cause death and pain. They just happen to be side effects of what she does.

Valor BotNov 18, 20161 votes

Jinx doesn't make her goals with the intent of making people suffer. People are entirely incidental.

Really? Because her Champion Select quote seems to indicate she at least has a mild interest in murder:

"Rules are made to be broken. Like buildings! ...Or people!"

Not to mention her wanted poster blatantly states she's wanted for murder.

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

Really? Because her Champion Select quote seems to indicate she at least has a mild interest in murder:

"Rules are made to be broken. Like buildings! ...Or people!"

Already made a response to this point

Jinx doesn't shoot people to kill them, or to get something out of it. She shoots because she finds it bloody (pardon the pun) hilarious. It's certainly not a Good act, but it's also not Evil because she genuinely isn't out to cause death and pain. They just happen to be side effects of what she does.

Not to mention her wanted poster blatantly states she's wanted for murder.

No one ever said she didn't murder people. Plus, considering Jinx herself made the wanted poster, it's probably more than a little out there.

Valor BotNov 18, 20163 votes

So, shooting people for the sake of self-amusement isn't an evil act in your view?

NarasimhaNov 18, 20161 votes

Oh, don't get me wrong, in MY view it is. But in D&D, it isn't that simple. A person's motives in commiting an act is the determining factor. Shooting someone to hurt them, or someone else, is indeed an Evil act. But shooting them because they're there, or because you find it purely funny, isn't. The person committing the act has to be aware of the consequences of their actions. If Jinx genuinely shoots people to have fun, and death and injury is only a side effect, then no matter how abhorrent the action is, its not Evil. Because the person doing it can't see it on a scale of 'Good and Evil'.

PermabannedGarenNov 17, 20167 votes

{quoted}

Hence why Riot considers her to be chaotic neutral.

Riot considers her chaotic neutral because rioters are, frankly, kind of dumb.

People need to stop apologizing for Jinx because she's cute and fun. She's a psychopathic monster. She's not on the level of evil of Mordekaiser or Jhin, but she's still evil.

"Stay still! I'm trying to shoot you!"

"Gotta' die sometime!"

"Any last words? Ha! No, just die."

"Seriously, screaming helps... not at all."

"No need to be scared - or alive."

"Guns don't kill people. I mean, until you shoot them. Then they kill everything!"

This thread is wrong. Jinx would and has shot at people with the intent to kill. She doesn't value the lives of others.

RalanrNov 17, 20163 votes

Neither does Deadpool on many occasions and he's considered Choatic Neutral.

Though I think we can all agree that Lulu is the best representation of chaotic neutral in league.

PermabannedGarenNov 17, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Neither does Deadpool on many occasions and he's considered Choatic Neutral.

Though I think we can all agree that Lulu is the best representation of chaotic neutral in league.

Deadpool is a Loony Tunes character who is only chaotic neutral by virtue of his character in-universe being completely inconsistent and random.

Comic characters are by the nature of the medium inconsistent.

Jinx is not the same. She is actually pretty consistent in her wantonly causing destruction without a single tear shed over the fatalities she causes or the lives she ruins.

CrimsonCobra3Nov 18, 20161 votes

In fact, she laughs about it. However, what makes here a chaotic neutral is the fact that she's not intending to murder. Murder is just the thing she happens to do while having fun. Does this make her sane? Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. But this doesn't indicate malignant intent in the majority of cases. Usually she's apathetic about your fate--she couldn't care less. The term chaotic neutral doesn't mean she isn't evil, it means she's not an antagonist.

PermabannedGarenNov 18, 20161 votes

{quoted}

In fact, she laughs about it. However, what makes here a chaotic neutral is the fact that she's not intending to murder. Murder is just the thing she happens to do while having fun.

I really don't understand why people think that murder not being her primary directive makes her less evil when she still commits it without a shred of remorse, lol.

She still kills people, and finds it amusing when she does.

Does this make her sane? Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. But this doesn't indicate malignant intent in the majority of cases.

Destroying a city without any regard for its citizens is malevolent intent. She intends to destroy entire neighborhoods, and is at best fine with and at worst actively enjoys the deaths she causes.

Usually she's apathetic about your fate--she couldn't care less. The term chaotic neutral doesn't mean she isn't evil, it means she's not an antagonist.

Lol?

No, chaotic neutral, as opposed to chaotic EVIL, does mean she isn't evil.

And she s most certainly an antagonist. She's Vi and Caitlyn's antagonist.

CrimsonCobra3Nov 18, 20161 votes

I was thinking about this after I wrote it, and realized that she was Vi and Cait's antagonist. However, on the broad scale, she isn't an antogonist to the whole Runeterra in the same way Vel'koz, Veigar, Viktor, and Malzahar are. (There are more.) So in the story of Runeterra she's more of a neutral character.

As a note, I apologize for my rambling. When I began writing I was going to argue that she wasn't evil, depending on how you define it, and then realized that absolutely was not true. She's perfectly willing to do evil things if necessary, and that makes her evil. But I do hold that she isn't an antagonist in respect to the larger story. She's an antagonist for that small story about Caitlyn and Vi, but an irrelevant character in the big picture. (It's important to note that the terms 'chaotic neutral' and 'antagonist' have nothing to do with good and evil; they are purely literary tools used to determine the purpose of a character in regards to the story.)

Star GuardíanNov 17, 20161 votes

rioters are, frankly, kind of dumb

uh... not really. Riot hires some of the most talented, experienced and smart individuals in the entire entertainment industry.

Anyway, Jinx is an enigma, hedonistic, random and unpredictable. She's neither a force for good nor evil. Her actions have the potential to cause great harm, but who's to say her goals won't and can't line up with the people of Zaun and or Piltover?

PermabannedGarenNov 17, 20162 votes

{quoted}

uh... not really. Riot hires some of the most talented, experienced and smart individuals in the entire entertainment industry.

Being able to competently write a story and being sort of dumb are not mutually exclusive.

George R.R. Martin wrote A Song of Ice and Fire, a novel series with a huge cast of characters more complex than League can ever dream of, and wrote it with the rare skill to be able to tie every viewpoint character's stories together in ingenious ways.

He's also kind of dumb, in much the same way. Statements like "I don't think there are any wholly villainous people in my work" or "Walter White as of Ozymandias has become more evil than any character I've written" are both fairly stupid viewpoints. The former is pretty easy to argue against, and the latter is so stupid as to not merit any real discussion, since it can't be based on any legitimate ideas of morality.

I actually quite like a lot of what Riot is doing with the lore, but the statement that Jinx is chaotic neutral just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the term.

Anyway, Jinx is an enigma, hedonistic, random and unpredictable. She's neither a force for good nor evil. Her actions have the potential to cause great harm, but who's to say her goals won't and can't line up with the people of Zaun and or Piltover?

This is stupid speculation. You could justify any evil deed with "HEY HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY AREN'T DOING IT FOR A GOOD REASON!?".

I mean, how do you know Mordekaiser didn't butcher thousands of people and become an undead force of decay who slaughtered innocents in life and death for a good reason?

No, Jinx's origins are fairly mysterious, but her careless disregard for other people's property and lives (while knowing full well that what she's doing can kill people, read my quotes) make her a pretty cut and dry evil character.

There is no moral ambiguity in murdering hundreds of people for your own amusement. That the murders might not have been the goal isn't really important. She does it knowing people might die, and when they do she doesn't care. All she cares about is that she's had her fun.

Valor BotNov 18, 20161 votes

This guy gets it.

Man, it's hard to find people around here who actually know a thing or two about ethics. Seems like most players just resort to defending their Champions by appealing to subjectivism which pretty much stifles any discussion about morality. Glad to see there's actually a substantial dialogue going on here though.

ModAcademy KaynNov 17, 20161 votes

Except all of those could be considered banter to be had against whoever is currently fighting her.

PermabannedGarenNov 18, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dr Mercy,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=tGzRfVKH,comment-id=0001000000010002,timestamp=2016-11-17T23:46:34.542+0000)

Except all of those could be considered banter to be had against whoever is currently fighting her.

Nah, see, this is just reaching.

Everyone makes every excuse they can to justify Jinx's love of wanton destruction when the fact of the matter is, as written, she's just an insane and destructive psychopath who at best doesn't care if her mayhem gets peopled killed, and at worst actively enjoys it.

She's evil either way.

ModAcademy KaynNov 18, 20161 votes

I was going to keep arguing with some other stuff, but it all seems mute when i looked up her Wanted poster and the first thing on the list was murder.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVB2qjiCcAAgXhI.jpg

Yeah, I'm with ya now. If people died due to an explosion, that would be considered manslaughter/accidental manslaughter, but that is straight up Murder.

RebonackNov 17, 20166 votes

Come on, guys. It's right there in her selection quote.

"Rules are made to be broken. Like buildings. Or people!"

She's a violent psychopath. The lives and property of others exist only for her own amusement. And destruction is apparently what amuses her the most. The example of 'oh she would only kill someone if the result was funny' does not make her Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Neutral is an otherwise normal person who just doesn't want authority figures butting into their business. She's Chaotic Evil, no questions asked.

The Last ZicaNov 18, 20162 votes

That is totally what I opened this thread to post. But it's already done for me, so, yeah.

This. Except with these caveats:

She's largely a female Joker, The Dark Knight style. Her lore text even lines right up with that, though the recent Jinx vs. Vi does not; based on the lore text she has the combination of wit and luck the Joker has and would easily outfox blunt force like Vi every time. There is no sign Vi is clever enough to get past Jinx's tricks and lack of ethical or moral constraints. How would Vi EVER get close enough to do anything at all? Probably only by Jinx letting her. And chances are, from what the lore suggests... if Jinx gets caught, it's probably going to be part of the plan.

In fact, probably the only reason Vi and Caitlyn would still be alive is, to borrow the words... they're "too much fun!" They could keep doing this forever...

I will further note that the only way Vi winning can make sense in a "present-day-league-of-legends" context is if Jinx is somehow being made available to summoners from prison... yeah, OK.

All that said, there is still some case for "neutral" instead of "evil". The killing is still likely just a means to an end, not the objective itself. All indications are she has a total lack of morality... and an extremely warped or non-existent concept of other living beings. Mental illness is, after, a certainty - she has a doctor's note. When someone legitimately doesn't understand right from wrong, it's hard to classify them as good OR evil. In terms of morality, they have more in common with an animal than a saint OR an actual, intentional criminal. And that seems to be where she lands in terms of the good vs. evil scale (in potentially considerable contrast to the Joker, depending on which of his lore you're looking at and your perspective.)

She would definitely intentionally shoot people on whim, insofar as aiming and firing with intent to cause a bullet (or more likely, a vast spray of bullets) to hit them. Whether "killing" means the same thing to her as it does to a sane person is an entirely different matter. And that's where all the messy grey area comes in.

I do think it's fairly clear the best way to survive Jinx is to be more fun intact than exploded in a chaotic blaze of glory... the more boring you are, the more likely you are to end up in many pieces. So if you ever meet a crazy gal with blue hair and a rocket launcher... entertain her!

Star GuardíanNov 17, 20165 votes

Honestly, I think it's yet to be seen. The door has been left open on Jinx for such a long time that players have imprinted and created their own identity for her. Whether Jinx Riot wants to make Jinx a psycho killer or a cute troubled young girl is yet to be seen. But I think a lot of the fanbase will be upset if she ends up being the first since most of them identify her as being troubled.

ABlueQuakerNov 17, 20164 votes

I really think if they ever wanted to do 'Jinx's Sister' they could take a darker approach. Like, actual Chaotic Evil. Someone who actually enjoys inflicting pain and suffering on people.

The Last ZicaNov 18, 20161 votes

That would actually make an amazing champ. Like Morgana and Kayle... oho...

SwordOfWarNov 17, 20162 votes

Well if she comes across Teemo tell her I said its okay to shoot X.X

Awesomedude8888Nov 17, 20162 votes

Plot twist: Teemo blinds her with his blinding dart and now Jinx can't even hit him.

SwordOfWarNov 18, 20161 votes

Lol nooo!

OglafNov 17, 20162 votes

I'm an old-school DnD:er.

Baldur's Gate II is my all-time favourite game.

Jinx is Chaotic Evil. Your waifu is a rotten egg. Deal with it.

Also, it saddens me that a lot of you get the Chaotic part semi-wrong. it isn't about being entirely random, it is about being the opposite of Lawful. Lawful characters often have codes of honour, they keep their promises etc. That is why a Paladin cannot be either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good - they **have ** to be Lawful good.

Characters who are Chaotic may simple reject the law of man (Druids, Barbarians and other "wild folk"), for example.

Alex LuuNov 17, 20161 votes

I think she's like this: -The "fun" people she wouldn't want to kill but she goes all out because she knows they won't die easily anyways,so she attempts to kill them A.K.A. Vi and such -She doesn't care about the weak and boring so she doesn't even care about killing them,so she won't kill them as the main focus I believe she is crazy, I don't believe she has any good in her heart, I don't believe she can be saved in any way. She's a dangerous psychopath and I just want the OP to know this because I'm feeling like you're starting to crush on her or something

GilGaMeSh JrNov 17, 20162 votes

jinx = waifu.

Craft ZeppelinNov 17, 20161 votes

Actually, if you look at the piltover people at the new champion comic you will probably know why she finds amusing blowing people up. Piltover is a state that keep zaun weak at a very tight leash.

Maybe there was a reason she started to do this, but just forgot it in the excitement like all young kids do when they have a cause.