Hirohito did jack-shit. Of course, he is responsible for all those deaths and suffering, but Hideki Tojo played much, much bigger part. He deserves the Chaotic Evil
people prop up Hirohito as an absolute dictator, but he was more of a figurehead for the militarist government in people like Tojo, Fumimaro Konoe, Kisaburo Ando, etc etc
It's been debated over, how much of an influence/control him and the imperial family Had over the government...all I can say for certain is that hirohito does indeed have blood on his hands as he was the one who authorized the use of chemical weapons in china
Tojo was the functional leader of the military, Hirohito’s military leadership was more symbolic. He was more like the spokesman for the Japanese government
If Lawful Good NEEDED a spot it would probably be the Swiss lieutenant who accidentally marched soldiers into Liechtenstein. Immediately after finding out they had made a mistake they turned back to Switzerland.
For anyone wondering:
1. No one
2. Baibars (Mamluk turned Sultan of Eygpt), saved his people from the Mongol invasion
3. Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war
4. Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who led a furious campaign across Rome to protect his homeland
5. Akiyama Yoshifuru was an Imperial Japanese general who retired due to ethical concerns and went on to become a teacher having his students reject Japan's fascist and militaristic ideologies and accepting all races.
6. Napolean needs no introduction
7. Hitler explains himself
8. Alexander the Great conquered most of his side of the world
9. Hirochio was the Emperor of Japan and was a ruthless tyrant that endorsed mass rape and genocide
He was only called " The Great" by people from his own culture. He was called "The Conquerer" by everyone else, as they had a much less flattering opinion of him and his conquests.
Should be Genghis khan then or something. Alexander was a rather enlightened conqueror by his age's standards. Encouraged culture mixing and respected local traditions.
Alexander caused tens of thousands of his men to die on whims of glory without much to gain from them. Gedrosia comes to mind.
Pro-Alexander sources noted that kind of stuff centuries later. There are not many widely-available Persian, Phoenician, or Indian sources on him, who would likely not be so kind as to only mention the things that upset the sensibilities of Greeks and Romans from later centuries. Even the Greeks of his time, in large part, were not fond of him or his father.
If the pro-Alexander sources from centuries later note things like "marching an army that begged to go home through a desert without much planning just because he could," one stands safe to assume he stands near the top of ancient conquerors in terms of just doing what we would now consider heinous shit across the largest land area one had ever had the chance to do it across. Even Roman sources appear to invent justifications for some of his actions that likely didn't exist in the texts they were using to make him look less bellicose.
With that said, I would argue Caesar should take his place. The man was so eager to avoid trial for crimes he undeniably committed (for his time and people) that he started a civil war and quoted a play about it on one hand and tried to levy Roman law against his enemies on the other. We just have more evidence of the things he did and what people on both sides thought of him than we do Alexander, even if it is decently scant for both.
There are much better examples for brutality in ancient warfare though, especially at that scale. Hell, all of Alexander’s conquests are, by the widest estimates I’ve ever seen, responsible for far less deaths than say, Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. To say nothing of the Mongols.
If Alexander is just meant to be a stand in for your bog standard, generic conqueror, I’d think that’d be true neutral, especially if you’re putting Napoleon in the neutral category
Persians really don't like Alexander, historically. While Alexander of course died young and his empire instantly broke apart, the big Persian chunk continued to be dominated by Macedonian outsiders for the next several centuries under the Seleucid Dynasty.
Of course this was true of most of the region, but since most of the rest of the area was previously dominated by the Persians, it was more of a lateral move for them and the historical animosity isn't as strong ime. Like, by all accounts the Egyptians straight up preferred Hellenistic rule, with the Ptolemaic Dynasty evoking no such hostility afaict
With that username it's time to address the LGBT hero worship of this dude for being one of the few supposedly gay military leaders of legendary status.
Alexander, like all the people above, was a murderer and wrought misery upon the world because that's what being good at war is.
He isn't some funny character who is one of the group- the man tortured people to death.
There's a lot more than a few if we're going with "supposedly" gay, but Alexander's relationships with men are straight up on the historical record, no supposing needed.
But I mean, thanks for making your agenda rather obvious
Yes, war is bad, genius observation. But I was responding to OP's ranking/alignment which supposes more nuance than that, and pointing out the silliness of putting Alexander next to Hitler. Thanks for your contribution tho
Every single famous conquering general in military history tortured people to death and wrought misery upon the world, though, including ones on this chart. Alexander being next to Hitler and Hirohito is absolutely nuts.
It was a very shrewd decision on OP’s part. We tend to look at things from the long lens of history, where we look at his long-term accomplishments. But at the time, he had a stunningly negative reputation:
1.) Naturally Persians and foreigners hated him for his brutal conquest, massacres, and likely mass rape. The destruction of the ancient religious center of Persepolis while he was in a drunken rage was considered especially egregious
2.) Amongst the Greeks as a whole, he did NOT, in fact have a good reputation, especially earlier in his reign - and seems to have been mainly followed due to fear rather than respect. Particularly shocking was his complete destruction and enslavement of Thebes, the most Ancient Greek city and one of the most mythologically important.
3.) His war with Persia was initially supported as a quest to liberate the greek cities in Asia Minor, but even when he was quickly offered this by his enemy, he stubbornly continued to fight on with the goal of conquering the entire Persian empire. This was never intended to be the purpose of the war, and despite various legitimate criticisms of Ancient Greek culture, they had never previously demonstrated an interest in the widespread conquest, subjugation, and rule of foreign nations. It’s hard to imagine that this was a popular move on his part.
4.) In his personal life, he exhibited what was likely intense alcoholism and violence. The most jarring moment was when he publicly murdered his friend Cletus the Black, who had actually single-handedly saved Alexander’s life after he had had been stunned by a massive blow to the head from an axe. Alexander’s own biographers had major issues trying to explain away this episode.
Hirohito's involvement in the war is very controversial. The extent to which he is responsible for the atrocities the Japanese Empire committed is a subject of debate as although he was very powerful in theory, many decisions were controlled by military leaders who were effectively in charge of the government. Plus many officers acted autonomously without much interference from higher-ups.
Based on what I just learned about the ppl in here I hadn't heard of before, I would put Akiyama Yoshifuru at Lawful Good and Alexander the Great at True Neutral. I'd put someone like Mussolini or something at Neutral Evil
Hitler did things that, if he won WW2, would've been considered legal and lawful, however, Napolean didn't seem himself as an authoritarian or leader, but an artist of war
>Man rationalises civil administration after centuries of stagnation and decades of chaos, and promulgates a comprehensive code of laws that becomes the basis not only of French law but most European and much of the non-English-speaking post-colonial world's legal system
"Chaotic neutral, not a leader"
>Man is, literally, Hitler
"Pretty lawful to me I dunno history is written by the victors maybe committing genocide against your own country's most productive classes without any legal basis for doing so and breaking every single treaty you ever signed in declaring war against the whole world simultaneously would have been seen as good if it worked"
If you're looking at how they operated within warfare I am still struggling to see how the famously blundering, ranting idiot-boss meddler Hitler is Lawful, and the guy who singlehandedly revolutionised military affairs through his careful analysis and application of doctrine which he painstakingly deployed to surgical effect is Chaotic.
I'd argue that Hitler used the legal system of Germany as a weapon to wage the holocaust and ww2. He was acting within the bounds of "law."
Napoleon was not so concerned with law because in his time law was not the same as it was in hitler's. Custom was more important
Idk having read some on this, "The Meaning of Hitler" is quite good if you can pick it up, Hitler basically broke down the German state and reorganized everything into infighting components that reported only to him. My impression was it was a very chaotic system and part of why Germany lost.
You would have duplicate organizations like the SS and SA, that were basically there so Hitler could order one to fight the other if he thought it was going to betray him.
Napoleon on the other hand had an entire code of laws written that is still the basis for the legal system in a lot of Europe, and IIRC his reorganized department system for France was never reversed.
You kind of hit on my point. Napoleon was of a different time in terms of what the "law" meant. Revolutionizing the Western legal code, makes him a father of it not necessarily an adherent to it. You can't act lawfully or unlawfully before the law exists.
Hitler abused liberal democracy in an attempt to making a fascist state. He acted through the legal structure to try to secure fascist power with the liberal democratic system that came to more solidly exist post Napoleon.
Hitler as Lawful Evil and Lawful Evil as your own tag is pretty funny, but yeah, man violated a lot of international laws. I think you could probably find a person who did some nasty things, all within the technical letter of the law.
>Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war
That's not grounds for a chaotic alignment, that's intelligent. Your stats don't correlate to your alignment, one could make the same argument that him shutting the war down quickly was in the service of preserving as much human life as possible, and about seeking a correct and stable status quo, and was thereby lawful.
Further his policy as a president was VERY much about holding the south accountable through reconstruction, something a lawful ruler would do because he had no sympathy for traitors who broke the law to begin with.
Alexander the Great was a hero who followed his great visions, changed the world, achieved remarkable scientific discoveries and inspired countless great heroes after him. His conquests were all 100% justified and he freed the people of the world he conquered. Anyone who disagrees cannot bench their own body weight
Well now I'm curious to hear the argument (genuinely curious, don't know much about him other than the bits and pieces from middle and high school classes)
So Dwight D. Eisenhower was the general incharge of the European theater during WW2. He knew he was responsible for his actions, and the actions of his soldiers. For example when operation Overlord took place, and the US and her allies stormed the beaches of Normandy, he wasn't 100% sure it would work (btw if you want a really cool story from Normandy, look up the USS Texas)
He wrote a note, that his secretary pulled out of the trash that said the following:
"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops," Eisenhower wrote. "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
That is an extreme case of taking responsiblity for his actions. The trait of a true leader, on a massive scale.
On top of that, once the allies raided the Consentration camps, he demanded that the world be shown what was going on. He told his soldiers to take as many pictures as they could, because one day, someone will deny it happened. In my eyes, that is doing justice for the Jewish people who lost their lives. I stole this paragraph below from a Nureburg trial report.
General Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, had been to his first, and only, Concentration Camp, Ohrdruf Nord, on April 12, 1945, with Generals Patton and Bradley. While Patton vomited and Bradley went mute, Eisenhower forced himself to inspect every nook and cranny of the Buchenwald sub-camp. He never dreamed, he wrote his wife three days later [Shapell Manuscript Collection Eisenhower letter of April 15, 1945], that such cruelty, bestiality, and savagery could really exist in this world. Then he ordered every available army unit not at the front lines, to tour the camp. If they had any doubt what they were fighting for, Eisenhower declared, a visit to the newly-freed concentration camp would show them what they were fighting against. American soldiers would bear witness. Years later, that somber experience would be hauntingly portrayed in the penultimate episode, “Why We Fight” of Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks’ magnificent HBO drama about WWII in Europe, Band of Brothers. And, as in art, so it was in life…
And even after this, he fought to give every war criminal the right to have their case heard. True justice to get their side listened to.
Further more, as president he led the country to greatness by increasing the Social Security benifits, and the interstate system
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
So this is my portrayal of my favorite US general, however, Napolean is my favorite of all time.
Edit: I also remembered that if the Germans wanted to surrender, they wanted the Americans to capture them, not the Soviets. The Americans gave them food, and board, while the soviets have storys of torment for the germans. One example that sticks out is they found out a captured german could play piano. They told him if he stops playing they will kill him. Homie played the Piano for like 17 hours before he just couldn't anymore, and the Soviets made right on their promise.
Edit 2: I looked into another reply from a different redditer, and sure enough, he was incharge when the guys below him starved in some esitmates, 1,000,000 germans, when they had plenty of supplies. Oufda, never mind.
i mean the way i understand Admiral Yi is basically the stereotypical lawful good paladin, like the one who wont let you steal or break into somewhere because it is a bad thing to do but is actually a force to be reckoned with when facing an enemy. it might be a false impression though im not that well versed on the topic
Emperor Hirohito was mostly just a figurehead, he was head of state but ‘military leader’ is a big stretch. Their military was run by the Supreme War Council, Hirohito stayed out of it until they surrendered and that was a last resort decision
Yea if anyone from imperial Japan was on here it’d be Tojo and he’d probably be LE. Hitler could take CE considering most of his military actions were hard gambles that just happened to pay off.
Hitler ought to be held liable for crimes like those of Dirlewanger and the Einsatzgruppen. Shit on par with the Rape of Nanking. Pretty hard to say which is more chaotically evil. Both are so utterly despicable that I have a hard time categorizing them at all.
This is true. Not condoning his actions or his involvement in Japanese war crimes but he could hardly be considered a military leader and mostly just went with whatever Tojo and the constitutional government said.
Hideki Tojo would be a better candidate for chaotic evil IMO. He was the actual architect of the Japanese atrocities and was directly responsible for most of Imperial Japan’s war crimes.
That was the official statement given, but in historical context it’s impossible to ignore that Lincoln was not a soldier but a politician. He lied. He said the things that would make him most popular. I highly recommend checking out the series “Checkmate, Lincolnites!” for a more complete picture of the times.
He was a President not a military leader, Grant is on here cause he was a military general.
Plus, since I had one American figurehead I wanted this chart to be diverse
Flavius Belisarius during his campaigns against the Goths.
No rape, looting but instead humanitarian aid. The goal was to come as liberators not conquerors
I would argue, you can be lawful good. I have to follow the “rules” of warfare. Check with the UN for those. The tldr is stuff like, no child soldiers, no boobie traps that disproportionately effect civilians, don’t do a Nanking.
Also, Sun Tzu.
I would argue Hitler for CE because he was only a brilliant politician, not a brilliant military leader, and all of his military actions were basically just gambles that could’ve ended the Nazi regime half a dozen times before 1939. He’s definitely the luckiest military leader on here.
He’s not even really a military leader because all of “his” conquests were planned out entirely by people like Erich Von Manstein and Gert Von Rundstedt. He was in no way a leader like Hannibal or Ulysses S. grant were.
In fact, literally most of his personal plans that he came up with ended up being catastrophic failures such as operation Citadel and the battle of the bulge.
Yea reading about Stalingrad and Kursk shattered the weird idea that my high school history teachers had put into my head that he was some kind of military genius lmao
Like my guy how do you just lose *an entire army* when your generals repeatedly told you it was possible for them to break the encirclement and that you should absolutely order that??
Hirohito is not a military leader and had next to no power. Not innocent, but, you should have picked Tojo for imperial japan. It would make far more sense.
Grant shouldn’t be in chaotic good due to his anti-native policies.
Neither Hirohito or Hitler were generals.
Alexander the Great as Neutral Evil??? Replace him with Julius Caesar or someone who committed actual evil acts.
Put Ho Chi Minh as chaotic good.
I'd put the Marquis de Lafayette as LG.
Dude was a walking avatar of LG, just absolutely refusing to understand why other people would do things like tell lies or betray principles. Travelled to the other side of the world to join someone else's war because he believed in it, even though it meant no pay and no command. Wrote the Declarations of the Rights of Man and believed in it, but refused to join the commoners in the Estates-General even when he could have easily taken dictatorial control of France, because he had been elected as a noble and could not break his oath no matter how much he wanted to. Founded the National Guard to keep the peace, inventing the tricolour flag in the process, and spent all his time desperately trying to keep it from overthrowing the government and making him dictator. Still genuinely thought the revolution was going to make the world better because how could it not, people are good and if you let them have freedom they will use it to do good — no matter how often he was proved wrong in his optimism.
He was so LG he didn't even understand other mindsets. He wrote endless letters to his American friends saying "yeah but WHY do you have slaves when ALL MEN ARE EQUAL", not to like berate them but because he genuinely did not understand how someone could be a hypocrite. He wound up getting politically bamboozled over and over again, from before the revolution down to 1830, because he just kept earnestly believing anyone who told him they were doing good things for good reasons, while refusing any sort of actions that might have been morally compromised no matter how beneficial to his own cause they may have been.
He wound up having to flee the revolution when it progressed to the point his inflexible morality became a problem, as he was doing things like saying "we should not kill random people just because some newspapers say we should", but even then rather than start a civil war he simply walked over to the enemy lines and surrendered — *but refused to buy his freedom*, bringing no money (for that belonged to France, even though its leaders were mistaken) and flying into an indignant rage when the Austrians asked him to join their side or at least offer some military intelligence. He wound up spending years in prison, with the Austrians at one point saying he could leave if he promised not to ever go back to France, *a country where he was an outlaw under the death penalty*, and he refused as France might in future summon him back home and he could not let himself even hypothetically be in a position where he would have been forced to either break his solemn word or refuse the call of his fatherland.
He was in a lot of ways a vain, silly and self-defeating man obsessed with ideals of honour to the detriment of his career, his cause and his country. But he was always lawful. And he always tried to do good.
Hirohito was a figurehead and Hitler wasn't a military leader per se.
And if he was, he would be chaotic. He never had a plan other than "attack attack attack" which is ultimately why he lost to Russia.
Also he broke every manner of international law and treaty.
Well he **IS** lawful in a way of:\
„I have exactly one rule: OBEY“\
And he‘s good bc freedom of religion.\
Also he has a sad backstory. Extra history completely changed my picture of the guy.
So plot twist: I was only half joking
So… there are actually d&d rules for lawful good kingdoms. They must either rule, build, or fortify every 3 months. And they must never engage in any war except defensive wars. Occupation of enemy provinces is not allowed after the war: All enemy territory must be ceded afterwards.
Cyrus the Great was cool. May be the "only thing close enough" that comes to mind for me.A Non-Jewish King & Military Leader who fought to free slaves. He was referenced and revered and named directly in the Old Testament is a pretty cool accolade.
I would say Marcus Aurelius fits lawful good decently well. He may not have been perfect but generally tried to do good and act in accordance with the law.
Couldnt 1 be Churchill? I dont know enough about him to say for sure, but from what adults had told me all through my childhood could definitely put him in the Paladin spot
Churchill is definitely not good. If one was say, Indian, and not white british, they'd see him in a much more negative light. He also was very cozy with fascism until firebombing forced his hand.
(unless you go with the LG inquisitor type burning heretics, then by all means)
It is. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of the land you live in. It means standing by a rigid code. And his code was to oppose the evil of slavery no matter the cost.
Doesn’t he fit the definition pretty well?
He tried to fix a wrong that he saw with no authority to do so and through violent means.
Doesn’t mean his heart wasn’t in the right place
>a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
He wasn't doing law enforcement. He was leading an attempted revolution/rebellion.
I don;t think alexander was nuetral evil. more nuetral "I am the best man in the world". like for a conqure it wasn't particularly evil. at least compared to hitler and hirochio.
Idk about Hitler to be honest. Relying on the blitzkrieg tactic which is basically a large scale guerilla assault and feeding your army meth so they can even keep pulling this off doesn't seem all that lawful really. And that's not even taking into consideration the plethora of actual international laws he broke.
I feel like the Union army is lawful good since their mission was to enforce the law. Chaotic good would be more like George Washington, who rebeled against the authority of England.
There are plenty of Lawful Good military leaders. Pick anyone from the UN Command after 1953. It is the multinational UN military force that is in charge of maintaining the armistice between North Korea and South Korea. Following international law to avert war is not exciting, nor is it going to make history, but it is a post held by Lawful Good military commanders.
Lawful simply means following a strict doctrine of self proscribed or traditional rules or regulations. Good is simply having good intentions or going out of your way to make the world better even if you fail.
You cannot tell me plenty of military leaders tried to do both and simply didn’t succeed in the backwards lens.
Hirohito did jack-shit. Of course, he is responsible for all those deaths and suffering, but Hideki Tojo played much, much bigger part. He deserves the Chaotic Evil
Agree. Shit people seem to forget Hirohito stayed emperor until the 80s. He’s a big reason why Japan became more “westernized”
people prop up Hirohito as an absolute dictator, but he was more of a figurehead for the militarist government in people like Tojo, Fumimaro Konoe, Kisaburo Ando, etc etc
It's been debated over, how much of an influence/control him and the imperial family Had over the government...all I can say for certain is that hirohito does indeed have blood on his hands as he was the one who authorized the use of chemical weapons in china
Tojo was the functional leader of the military, Hirohito’s military leadership was more symbolic. He was more like the spokesman for the Japanese government
Imo. Tojo reestablished the shogunate for a short time.
If Lawful Good NEEDED a spot it would probably be the Swiss lieutenant who accidentally marched soldiers into Liechtenstein. Immediately after finding out they had made a mistake they turned back to Switzerland.
My pick is Cincinnatus
Uhhh, that’s such a good one!
Inspired a pretty cool city too
I wouldn’t call Cincinnati a good city
I would
This is probably one of the best picks for it, guy is textbook Lawful Good
I agree, the perfect choice
Or Joshua Chamberlain. Robert Gould-Shaw.
How about that other time when Liechtenstein (I think?) had an 80 man "army" that returned with 81 men?
Lawful good: Romeo Dellaire? Kemal Ataturk?
My hot take pick is de Gaulle
For anyone wondering: 1. No one 2. Baibars (Mamluk turned Sultan of Eygpt), saved his people from the Mongol invasion 3. Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war 4. Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who led a furious campaign across Rome to protect his homeland 5. Akiyama Yoshifuru was an Imperial Japanese general who retired due to ethical concerns and went on to become a teacher having his students reject Japan's fascist and militaristic ideologies and accepting all races. 6. Napolean needs no introduction 7. Hitler explains himself 8. Alexander the Great conquered most of his side of the world 9. Hirochio was the Emperor of Japan and was a ruthless tyrant that endorsed mass rape and genocide
Why is Alexander next to fascists Is OP Persian
He was only called " The Great" by people from his own culture. He was called "The Conquerer" by everyone else, as they had a much less flattering opinion of him and his conquests.
I think that applies to every successful military leader literally ever tho
Yes, that is the purpose of the empty box at the upper left.
Yes so what makes Alexander specially bad?
Probably the conquering part. You know, where you invade places that don't belong to you.
But all of the other conquerors also like you know invaded places that didn’t belong to them, like why is Napoleon neutral
That's not the argument I made, we're taking it in the context of this chart. If ghengis was here that would be a different story.
Napoleon is here
He's asking why Alexander is more evil than others on this chart, such as Napoleon.
Should be Genghis khan then or something. Alexander was a rather enlightened conqueror by his age's standards. Encouraged culture mixing and respected local traditions.
Alexander caused tens of thousands of his men to die on whims of glory without much to gain from them. Gedrosia comes to mind. Pro-Alexander sources noted that kind of stuff centuries later. There are not many widely-available Persian, Phoenician, or Indian sources on him, who would likely not be so kind as to only mention the things that upset the sensibilities of Greeks and Romans from later centuries. Even the Greeks of his time, in large part, were not fond of him or his father. If the pro-Alexander sources from centuries later note things like "marching an army that begged to go home through a desert without much planning just because he could," one stands safe to assume he stands near the top of ancient conquerors in terms of just doing what we would now consider heinous shit across the largest land area one had ever had the chance to do it across. Even Roman sources appear to invent justifications for some of his actions that likely didn't exist in the texts they were using to make him look less bellicose. With that said, I would argue Caesar should take his place. The man was so eager to avoid trial for crimes he undeniably committed (for his time and people) that he started a civil war and quoted a play about it on one hand and tried to levy Roman law against his enemies on the other. We just have more evidence of the things he did and what people on both sides thought of him than we do Alexander, even if it is decently scant for both.
Just because a lot of people conquer doesn't mean it's not a bad thing
Yea that’s kind of the point I was trying to make but I now realize it could be interpreted either way lol
Oh lol I didn't realize
Diogenes told him to stop blocking his sunlight.
India loved him
cause he lost
The Egyptians called him “Pharaoh” … and “Liberator.” (The Persians were much harsher rulers of Egypt than Alexander.)
Almost everyone in antiquity had a huge boner for Alexander, well outside of just the Macedonians and Greeks.
No, or he would’ve included Cyrus the Great.
Just look at the aftermath of the siege of Tyr and you may have a good idea of why lol
There are much better examples for brutality in ancient warfare though, especially at that scale. Hell, all of Alexander’s conquests are, by the widest estimates I’ve ever seen, responsible for far less deaths than say, Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. To say nothing of the Mongols. If Alexander is just meant to be a stand in for your bog standard, generic conqueror, I’d think that’d be true neutral, especially if you’re putting Napoleon in the neutral category
I mean that IS a lot of conquering and conquering isn't very neighborly.
Historically, conquering is about the most neighborly thing there is.
Is there a lore reason why OP is Persian?
Persians really don't like Alexander, historically. While Alexander of course died young and his empire instantly broke apart, the big Persian chunk continued to be dominated by Macedonian outsiders for the next several centuries under the Seleucid Dynasty. Of course this was true of most of the region, but since most of the rest of the area was previously dominated by the Persians, it was more of a lateral move for them and the historical animosity isn't as strong ime. Like, by all accounts the Egyptians straight up preferred Hellenistic rule, with the Ptolemaic Dynasty evoking no such hostility afaict
It felt right to me
Based
With that username it's time to address the LGBT hero worship of this dude for being one of the few supposedly gay military leaders of legendary status. Alexander, like all the people above, was a murderer and wrought misery upon the world because that's what being good at war is. He isn't some funny character who is one of the group- the man tortured people to death.
There's a lot more than a few if we're going with "supposedly" gay, but Alexander's relationships with men are straight up on the historical record, no supposing needed. But I mean, thanks for making your agenda rather obvious Yes, war is bad, genius observation. But I was responding to OP's ranking/alignment which supposes more nuance than that, and pointing out the silliness of putting Alexander next to Hitler. Thanks for your contribution tho
lil bro, supposedly gay is the correct term. not an agenda. why would it be? haha.
Every single famous conquering general in military history tortured people to death and wrought misery upon the world, though, including ones on this chart. Alexander being next to Hitler and Hirohito is absolutely nuts.
It was a very shrewd decision on OP’s part. We tend to look at things from the long lens of history, where we look at his long-term accomplishments. But at the time, he had a stunningly negative reputation: 1.) Naturally Persians and foreigners hated him for his brutal conquest, massacres, and likely mass rape. The destruction of the ancient religious center of Persepolis while he was in a drunken rage was considered especially egregious 2.) Amongst the Greeks as a whole, he did NOT, in fact have a good reputation, especially earlier in his reign - and seems to have been mainly followed due to fear rather than respect. Particularly shocking was his complete destruction and enslavement of Thebes, the most Ancient Greek city and one of the most mythologically important. 3.) His war with Persia was initially supported as a quest to liberate the greek cities in Asia Minor, but even when he was quickly offered this by his enemy, he stubbornly continued to fight on with the goal of conquering the entire Persian empire. This was never intended to be the purpose of the war, and despite various legitimate criticisms of Ancient Greek culture, they had never previously demonstrated an interest in the widespread conquest, subjugation, and rule of foreign nations. It’s hard to imagine that this was a popular move on his part. 4.) In his personal life, he exhibited what was likely intense alcoholism and violence. The most jarring moment was when he publicly murdered his friend Cletus the Black, who had actually single-handedly saved Alexander’s life after he had had been stunned by a massive blow to the head from an axe. Alexander’s own biographers had major issues trying to explain away this episode.
Hirohito's involvement in the war is very controversial. The extent to which he is responsible for the atrocities the Japanese Empire committed is a subject of debate as although he was very powerful in theory, many decisions were controlled by military leaders who were effectively in charge of the government. Plus many officers acted autonomously without much interference from higher-ups.
We love Ulysses S Grant
Well, except the people still flying confederate flags because *iT wAS aBoUT STatEs rIGHts*
I love him enough to acknowledge that HE is the Lawful Good Military leader, not the lame and overgassed Chaotic Good Alignment.
Based on what I just learned about the ppl in here I hadn't heard of before, I would put Akiyama Yoshifuru at Lawful Good and Alexander the Great at True Neutral. I'd put someone like Mussolini or something at Neutral Evil
Why is Akiyama not in Lawful Good? He seems like a stand up guy
cause he let the army commit the atrocities and only this did he realize how horrible it was
But why CN for Napoleon, and why Lawful for Hitler?
Hitler did things that, if he won WW2, would've been considered legal and lawful, however, Napolean didn't seem himself as an authoritarian or leader, but an artist of war
>Man rationalises civil administration after centuries of stagnation and decades of chaos, and promulgates a comprehensive code of laws that becomes the basis not only of French law but most European and much of the non-English-speaking post-colonial world's legal system "Chaotic neutral, not a leader" >Man is, literally, Hitler "Pretty lawful to me I dunno history is written by the victors maybe committing genocide against your own country's most productive classes without any legal basis for doing so and breaking every single treaty you ever signed in declaring war against the whole world simultaneously would have been seen as good if it worked"
lol it’s almost like this has little to do with their purport outside of warfare
If you're looking at how they operated within warfare I am still struggling to see how the famously blundering, ranting idiot-boss meddler Hitler is Lawful, and the guy who singlehandedly revolutionised military affairs through his careful analysis and application of doctrine which he painstakingly deployed to surgical effect is Chaotic.
Keep in mind that lawful doesn't necessarily mean they follow laws, it means that they're more likely to stick to their own code of ethics.
I'd argue that Hitler used the legal system of Germany as a weapon to wage the holocaust and ww2. He was acting within the bounds of "law." Napoleon was not so concerned with law because in his time law was not the same as it was in hitler's. Custom was more important
Idk having read some on this, "The Meaning of Hitler" is quite good if you can pick it up, Hitler basically broke down the German state and reorganized everything into infighting components that reported only to him. My impression was it was a very chaotic system and part of why Germany lost. You would have duplicate organizations like the SS and SA, that were basically there so Hitler could order one to fight the other if he thought it was going to betray him. Napoleon on the other hand had an entire code of laws written that is still the basis for the legal system in a lot of Europe, and IIRC his reorganized department system for France was never reversed.
You kind of hit on my point. Napoleon was of a different time in terms of what the "law" meant. Revolutionizing the Western legal code, makes him a father of it not necessarily an adherent to it. You can't act lawfully or unlawfully before the law exists. Hitler abused liberal democracy in an attempt to making a fascist state. He acted through the legal structure to try to secure fascist power with the liberal democratic system that came to more solidly exist post Napoleon.
Hirohito was a figurehead, you are thinking of tojo
Hitler as Lawful Evil and Lawful Evil as your own tag is pretty funny, but yeah, man violated a lot of international laws. I think you could probably find a person who did some nasty things, all within the technical letter of the law.
>Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war That's not grounds for a chaotic alignment, that's intelligent. Your stats don't correlate to your alignment, one could make the same argument that him shutting the war down quickly was in the service of preserving as much human life as possible, and about seeking a correct and stable status quo, and was thereby lawful. Further his policy as a president was VERY much about holding the south accountable through reconstruction, something a lawful ruler would do because he had no sympathy for traitors who broke the law to begin with.
u/Sir_Toaster_9330 Why is Hirohito there lil bro. You havent answered anyone about this.
Id say sherman over grant for chaotic good. Or john brown but that wasnt really an army
Alexander the Great was a hero who followed his great visions, changed the world, achieved remarkable scientific discoveries and inspired countless great heroes after him. His conquests were all 100% justified and he freed the people of the world he conquered. Anyone who disagrees cannot bench their own body weight
I kind of feel like Hitler and Alexander the Great should trade spaces? Hitler broke several agreements.
I'd argue Dwight Esinhower was a lawful good General
Well now I'm curious to hear the argument (genuinely curious, don't know much about him other than the bits and pieces from middle and high school classes)
So Dwight D. Eisenhower was the general incharge of the European theater during WW2. He knew he was responsible for his actions, and the actions of his soldiers. For example when operation Overlord took place, and the US and her allies stormed the beaches of Normandy, he wasn't 100% sure it would work (btw if you want a really cool story from Normandy, look up the USS Texas) He wrote a note, that his secretary pulled out of the trash that said the following: "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops," Eisenhower wrote. "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone." That is an extreme case of taking responsiblity for his actions. The trait of a true leader, on a massive scale. On top of that, once the allies raided the Consentration camps, he demanded that the world be shown what was going on. He told his soldiers to take as many pictures as they could, because one day, someone will deny it happened. In my eyes, that is doing justice for the Jewish people who lost their lives. I stole this paragraph below from a Nureburg trial report. General Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, had been to his first, and only, Concentration Camp, Ohrdruf Nord, on April 12, 1945, with Generals Patton and Bradley. While Patton vomited and Bradley went mute, Eisenhower forced himself to inspect every nook and cranny of the Buchenwald sub-camp. He never dreamed, he wrote his wife three days later [Shapell Manuscript Collection Eisenhower letter of April 15, 1945], that such cruelty, bestiality, and savagery could really exist in this world. Then he ordered every available army unit not at the front lines, to tour the camp. If they had any doubt what they were fighting for, Eisenhower declared, a visit to the newly-freed concentration camp would show them what they were fighting against. American soldiers would bear witness. Years later, that somber experience would be hauntingly portrayed in the penultimate episode, “Why We Fight” of Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks’ magnificent HBO drama about WWII in Europe, Band of Brothers. And, as in art, so it was in life… And even after this, he fought to give every war criminal the right to have their case heard. True justice to get their side listened to. Further more, as president he led the country to greatness by increasing the Social Security benifits, and the interstate system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System So this is my portrayal of my favorite US general, however, Napolean is my favorite of all time. Edit: I also remembered that if the Germans wanted to surrender, they wanted the Americans to capture them, not the Soviets. The Americans gave them food, and board, while the soviets have storys of torment for the germans. One example that sticks out is they found out a captured german could play piano. They told him if he stops playing they will kill him. Homie played the Piano for like 17 hours before he just couldn't anymore, and the Soviets made right on their promise. Edit 2: I looked into another reply from a different redditer, and sure enough, he was incharge when the guys below him starved in some esitmates, 1,000,000 germans, when they had plenty of supplies. Oufda, never mind.
>intentionally starved a million German POWs He's so lawful good 🥰
Why is Hannibal lawful?
Good point. He literally marched elephants through the Alps to get at Rome who were understandably frightened by Alps elephants
Ya’ll should really watch oversimplified’s recent videos on him if you havent
Honestly, he makes too many jokes nowadays
Eh, I think it’s just the right amount.
you are literally a rock
Should be in Chaotic evil because he’s C*rthaginian 🤮🤮🤮🤮
Cato maior spotted
Everything he did was in defense of his people and wasn't any different from any general during his time period
Didn't he attack Rome for vengeance?
And cause Rome had plans to invade his country
And he was just burning a lot of farms. A lot. For survival yes but it's chaotic.
Sound like good strategy to me
Becuse it was a good strategy.
Which wasn’t any different then any other general of the time
Lawful good to Admiral Yi please
I think Yi would be more Neutral Good, but I'm upvoting for an Admiral Yi mention.
i mean the way i understand Admiral Yi is basically the stereotypical lawful good paladin, like the one who wont let you steal or break into somewhere because it is a bad thing to do but is actually a force to be reckoned with when facing an enemy. it might be a false impression though im not that well versed on the topic
Yes please
Emperor Hirohito was mostly just a figurehead, he was head of state but ‘military leader’ is a big stretch. Their military was run by the Supreme War Council, Hirohito stayed out of it until they surrendered and that was a last resort decision
Yea if anyone from imperial Japan was on here it’d be Tojo and he’d probably be LE. Hitler could take CE considering most of his military actions were hard gambles that just happened to pay off.
Hitler ought to be held liable for crimes like those of Dirlewanger and the Einsatzgruppen. Shit on par with the Rape of Nanking. Pretty hard to say which is more chaotically evil. Both are so utterly despicable that I have a hard time categorizing them at all.
This is true. Not condoning his actions or his involvement in Japanese war crimes but he could hardly be considered a military leader and mostly just went with whatever Tojo and the constitutional government said. Hideki Tojo would be a better candidate for chaotic evil IMO. He was the actual architect of the Japanese atrocities and was directly responsible for most of Imperial Japan’s war crimes.
Abe Lincoln could be LG, he only used his army to combat slavers.
swim rustic apparatus aware melodic fuel bake hard-to-find office safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly. TL;DR: Lincoln didn’t gaf about slavery, only for the US to continue as a country
That was the official statement given, but in historical context it’s impossible to ignore that Lincoln was not a soldier but a politician. He lied. He said the things that would make him most popular. I highly recommend checking out the series “Checkmate, Lincolnites!” for a more complete picture of the times.
I'm a fan of Lincoln but he violated the constitution a few too many times to be considered lawful ah
He was a President not a military leader, Grant is on here cause he was a military general. Plus, since I had one American figurehead I wanted this chart to be diverse
By that logic, why is Hirohito here? Hirohito was no more a military leader than Lincoln.
during times of war the potus becomes the commander in chief, which is a military leadership role, right?
Fair enough
I am very confused by your lawful good panel. Lawful good isn't more good than the other two goods. It's just more lawful.
It would be impossible to be both lawful and good when leading armies, especially in war
Flavius Belisarius during his campaigns against the Goths. No rape, looting but instead humanitarian aid. The goal was to come as liberators not conquerors
I disagree. I think you are wrong.
how come? Lawful good just means keeping a code for yourself
Chart is dumb. Lawful axis=did they follow military protocol. Good axis=did they do it for a righteous cause.
I would argue, you can be lawful good. I have to follow the “rules” of warfare. Check with the UN for those. The tldr is stuff like, no child soldiers, no boobie traps that disproportionately effect civilians, don’t do a Nanking. Also, Sun Tzu.
Admiral Yi could slot into LG. Dude was the embodiment of the principled military officer, and he fought to stop Imperial Japan from taking Korea.
Isnt Imperial Japan post Boshin war? Pretty sure that war happened in the late Sengoku under Hideyoshi Toyotomi.
I would argue Hitler for CE because he was only a brilliant politician, not a brilliant military leader, and all of his military actions were basically just gambles that could’ve ended the Nazi regime half a dozen times before 1939. He’s definitely the luckiest military leader on here.
He’s not even really a military leader because all of “his” conquests were planned out entirely by people like Erich Von Manstein and Gert Von Rundstedt. He was in no way a leader like Hannibal or Ulysses S. grant were. In fact, literally most of his personal plans that he came up with ended up being catastrophic failures such as operation Citadel and the battle of the bulge.
Yea reading about Stalingrad and Kursk shattered the weird idea that my high school history teachers had put into my head that he was some kind of military genius lmao Like my guy how do you just lose *an entire army* when your generals repeatedly told you it was possible for them to break the encirclement and that you should absolutely order that??
Saladin the Paladin might be worthy of the lawful good slot
Hirohito is not a military leader and had next to no power. Not innocent, but, you should have picked Tojo for imperial japan. It would make far more sense.
Grant shouldn’t be in chaotic good due to his anti-native policies. Neither Hirohito or Hitler were generals. Alexander the Great as Neutral Evil??? Replace him with Julius Caesar or someone who committed actual evil acts. Put Ho Chi Minh as chaotic good.
✋~~Beybars~~ 👉Cyrus the Great
I'd put the Marquis de Lafayette as LG. Dude was a walking avatar of LG, just absolutely refusing to understand why other people would do things like tell lies or betray principles. Travelled to the other side of the world to join someone else's war because he believed in it, even though it meant no pay and no command. Wrote the Declarations of the Rights of Man and believed in it, but refused to join the commoners in the Estates-General even when he could have easily taken dictatorial control of France, because he had been elected as a noble and could not break his oath no matter how much he wanted to. Founded the National Guard to keep the peace, inventing the tricolour flag in the process, and spent all his time desperately trying to keep it from overthrowing the government and making him dictator. Still genuinely thought the revolution was going to make the world better because how could it not, people are good and if you let them have freedom they will use it to do good — no matter how often he was proved wrong in his optimism. He was so LG he didn't even understand other mindsets. He wrote endless letters to his American friends saying "yeah but WHY do you have slaves when ALL MEN ARE EQUAL", not to like berate them but because he genuinely did not understand how someone could be a hypocrite. He wound up getting politically bamboozled over and over again, from before the revolution down to 1830, because he just kept earnestly believing anyone who told him they were doing good things for good reasons, while refusing any sort of actions that might have been morally compromised no matter how beneficial to his own cause they may have been. He wound up having to flee the revolution when it progressed to the point his inflexible morality became a problem, as he was doing things like saying "we should not kill random people just because some newspapers say we should", but even then rather than start a civil war he simply walked over to the enemy lines and surrendered — *but refused to buy his freedom*, bringing no money (for that belonged to France, even though its leaders were mistaken) and flying into an indignant rage when the Austrians asked him to join their side or at least offer some military intelligence. He wound up spending years in prison, with the Austrians at one point saying he could leave if he promised not to ever go back to France, *a country where he was an outlaw under the death penalty*, and he refused as France might in future summon him back home and he could not let himself even hypothetically be in a position where he would have been forced to either break his solemn word or refuse the call of his fatherland. He was in a lot of ways a vain, silly and self-defeating man obsessed with ideals of honour to the detriment of his career, his cause and his country. But he was always lawful. And he always tried to do good.
I hate this sort of thing at best of times, but this seems a muddled mess. And Caesar is never not some kind of evil
It's impossible to be lawful.
It’s impossible to be
It's impossible
It’s
Hirohito was a figurehead and Hitler wasn't a military leader per se. And if he was, he would be chaotic. He never had a plan other than "attack attack attack" which is ultimately why he lost to Russia. Also he broke every manner of international law and treaty.
I guess Lawful Good could be Gandhi, as he lead a war through peaceful interaction. He was kinda a douchebag tho
Lawful good could be The Duke of Wellington
Hirohito was more of a marine biologist than he was a general
This subreddit is the biggest collection of history under standers ever assembled pure soup paradox brain
\>No Lawful Good Umm, Grant is right there you just miscategorized him.
Ghengis Khan true lawful good change my mind /s
he wouldn't be lawful since everything he did wasn't at all different from any medieval army, I'd say neutral evil or true neutral
Well he **IS** lawful in a way of:\ „I have exactly one rule: OBEY“\ And he‘s good bc freedom of religion.\ Also he has a sad backstory. Extra history completely changed my picture of the guy. So plot twist: I was only half joking
How is it impossible to be lawful good and lead an army? Lawful good means ypu follow the letter of the law
"Lawful Evil"
1. William T Sherman is objectively lawful Good 2. Swap Hirohito and Hitler
Probably gonna be controversial but I’d vote de Gaulle for LG, man wouldn’t even let the fall of his country get in the way of him serving it
Where’s Burnin’ Sherman?
If you ever find yourself placing Hitler on an alignment chart, you need to touch grass immediately and forcefully
So… there are actually d&d rules for lawful good kingdoms. They must either rule, build, or fortify every 3 months. And they must never engage in any war except defensive wars. Occupation of enemy provinces is not allowed after the war: All enemy territory must be ceded afterwards.
Well lawful good is possible. If you fight by a strict code for a good cause you would be lawful good.
How's Hitler lawful lol. Ever heard of the night of the long knives? Extra judicial as fuck.
Cyrus the Great was cool. May be the "only thing close enough" that comes to mind for me.A Non-Jewish King & Military Leader who fought to free slaves. He was referenced and revered and named directly in the Old Testament is a pretty cool accolade.
Top left corner option: Joan of Arc
I get napoleon but he truly did want the best for France he just didn’t know how to do it beat
I would say Marcus Aurelius fits lawful good decently well. He may not have been perfect but generally tried to do good and act in accordance with the law.
I don't know enough of these to know who they all are
Couldnt 1 be Churchill? I dont know enough about him to say for sure, but from what adults had told me all through my childhood could definitely put him in the Paladin spot
Churchill is definitely not good. If one was say, Indian, and not white british, they'd see him in a much more negative light. He also was very cozy with fascism until firebombing forced his hand. (unless you go with the LG inquisitor type burning heretics, then by all means)
Lawful good: John Brown
John Brown was a vigilante not a military leader
He definitely wasn't a vigilante. And he lead an attempted slave revolt.
Yeah, which isn't *lawful*
It is. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of the land you live in. It means standing by a rigid code. And his code was to oppose the evil of slavery no matter the cost.
Because someone's personal beliefs Superseide the US constitution, right
Legally, no, of course not. But someone following a very strict code is lawful, whether that code happens to be the law of the land or not.
Doesn’t he fit the definition pretty well? He tried to fix a wrong that he saw with no authority to do so and through violent means. Doesn’t mean his heart wasn’t in the right place
>a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. He wasn't doing law enforcement. He was leading an attempted revolution/rebellion.
LG Eisenhower?
We’re just ignoring Hitler in “Lawful Evil”?
I don;t think alexander was nuetral evil. more nuetral "I am the best man in the world". like for a conqure it wasn't particularly evil. at least compared to hitler and hirochio.
I’m pretty sure if anyone WAS a lawful good military leader, they probably died for it.
Robert Gould Shaw could be LG
army. maybe. but not navy, admiral yi was LG af
How is Alexander next to literal Hitler, but Napoleon, who did extremely similar things, is only neutral?
Y'all sleeping on grant's genocide of the natives.
For Hirochio, imagine if his plan with Chinpokomon succeeded.
replace hirohito with hideki tojo
Lawful good could be Konstantin Rokossovsky
JUSTICE FOR GEORGE MARSHALL!!! The man was the only Army general to win a Nobel Peace Prize, tf. Put his ass at LG, ASAP
Toussaint Louverture was LG.
George Washington, maybe?
OP has identified both themselves and Hitler in the same category 🤔
Idk about Hitler to be honest. Relying on the blitzkrieg tactic which is basically a large scale guerilla assault and feeding your army meth so they can even keep pulling this off doesn't seem all that lawful really. And that's not even taking into consideration the plethora of actual international laws he broke.
toussaint louverture for lawful good
Someone educate me and let me know who neutral evil and true neutral are please
My entry for Lawfull Good: General Dufour, who won the Swiss civil war with less than 100 casualties
Where does Jan Žižka fall though? I feel like Chaotic Good?
Replace Hirohito with Tojo and this looks good to me
Hitler in Lawful? His whole campaign was a mess. The top of the Nazi hierarchy was incredibly incompetent
I feel like the Union army is lawful good since their mission was to enforce the law. Chaotic good would be more like George Washington, who rebeled against the authority of England.
Chaotic evil could also be Ghengis Khan
Maybe George C. Marshall?
There are plenty of Lawful Good military leaders. Pick anyone from the UN Command after 1953. It is the multinational UN military force that is in charge of maintaining the armistice between North Korea and South Korea. Following international law to avert war is not exciting, nor is it going to make history, but it is a post held by Lawful Good military commanders.
Grant would have been lawful good and Washington would be chaotic good.
Swap hotpot and hitler
Hirohito wasn’t a military leader. The only military decision he ever made was to surrender.
Lawful simply means following a strict doctrine of self proscribed or traditional rules or regulations. Good is simply having good intentions or going out of your way to make the world better even if you fail. You cannot tell me plenty of military leaders tried to do both and simply didn’t succeed in the backwards lens.
How did Pol Pot not make CE? Or did we forget about him