This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Is that really the best picture of Miko we could find? One where she's smiting an evil character who, until recently, was constantly getting his party into trouble? That specific panel doesn't look like an example to me.
I think the page should have examples organized into the different forms of stupid alignments. All of the lawful stupid people together, all of the chaotic stupid people together, same with stupid good, stupid neutral, and stupid evil
Peteman: Have we ever seen Kore use paladin powers? He may just be a glorified Fighter (Speak with Dead is a Cleric Spell btw and could have been cast with an item). The paladin power I've heard him display is Fearless, but that might also be simulated with items.
Lull the Conqueror: I'm not going to cut the long discussion of the relative merits or lack thereof of the Grey Guard in Dungeons & Dragons, but in the interest of not making it any longer I'm putting my own feelings on it here. In the hands of a good DM (and with good players), it's possible to have both "classic" paladins and Grey Guards without the former being Lawful Stupid OR the latter being Serial-Killers-With-Divine-Justification. Grey Guards still have a code of honor; they just aren't punished quite as severely for bending it. In the context of an entire order of holy knights, one can see where it would make sense to have a few members who are occasionally allowed to use "creative" interrogation techniques (for example) without immediately getting the divine smackdown. Whether this makes sense in a given game world is largely a function of how "realistic" it is.
Luc: The second half of the Zero Punctuation quote is only relevant if we include the note about the images, so I reverted to the version with the notes about the images. Otherwise, it's about 500% less funny.
Anomaly: Nuked the big Gray Guard discussion. Don't know the policy as regards main-page discussion, so I'm moving it here instead of outright destroying it. Kept the original Gray Guard entry, though.
- Mind you, the whole prestige class basically smells like "paladins for Munchkins", essentially removing all moral obligations from the paladin class and letting them play merry hell with their powers any way they wish without any repercussions.
- This troper disagrees. The Grey Guard is pretty much what the Paladin should have been from the start. A good Game Master does not need divine wrath for applying smackdown on a character who has stepped too far from the path of righteousness.
- The entire point of the paladin (and for that matter, cleric) classes in D&D is that they exist in a world where righteously directed divine wrath actually shows up when it's called for... and that paladins are some of the principal agents for delivering it! In light of this, the claim that a good Game Master 'does not need divine wrath' in adjudicating paladin actions leaves this troper entirely befuddled. The Grey Guard is neither necessary nor 'what paladins should have been from the beginning' — they relate to paladinhood the same way the albino assassin of The Da Vinci Code does to a parish priest. In other words, nothing remotely near the original intent, even if it presumes to wear the clothes. If your Dungeon Master understands that Lawful Good != Lawful Stupid, that's all you need to have fun playing paladins straight out of the core SRD. And if he doesn't understand that, then the presence or absence of a particular prestige class is the least of your problems. Or solutions.
- The Grey Guard is an abomination, a textbook example of the Knight Templar. There is nothing good or moral about that Pr C; they can take basically any action and justify it by the fact that they're only "following orders" from their superiors or deity. Showing mercy is not part of the Grey Guard code. They're judge, jury and executioner. The GG's powers are all related to torturing "heretics" and punishing chaotic people for... being chaotic. Being chaotic becomes a sin in itself, because of the common misconception that Lawful equals "good upstanding citizen", and Chaotic equals "criminal". At some level, the Grey Guard actually becomes immune to losing his powers for committing evil acts, as long as he commits them in the name of his code, and even if he manages to fall, atonement is as easy as changing socks. The people who claim "the Grey Guard is what the paladin should have been" are usually those who think paladins are ineffective pussies, and that torturing and waterboarding suspects is completely justified for the Greater Good.
- Mind you, the whole prestige class basically smells like "paladins for Munchkins", essentially removing all moral obligations from the paladin class and letting them play merry hell with their powers any way they wish without any repercussions.
- I was thinking of adding the Goddesses in Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn to this page, but I'm not entirely sure if they count. But, anywho, what I'd be adding:
Harley Quinn hyenaholic: I have some things to say about Stupid Neutral, something which could also be in here, but would require the renaming of the page. It's the Alignment of True Neutral, basically, but the Stupid Neutral person will do anything to remain True Neutral, just like the Lawful Stupid person will do anything to be Lawful Good and the Chaotic Stupid person will do anything to stay evil. They'll switch sides if their team starts winning. To the villains should the heroes start winning. Or even if they think they're taking sides too much. I have a healer character who is technically True Neutral (down to her lack of bias) but her Stupid Neutral traits (and her sociopathy) make her borderline on Neutral Evil, and it's a line she could cross without noticing. She sees everybody as equally bad, which is not a very nice trait, but she's still technically a healer. Healing is her job, not her calling. Your Knight Templar could well be Stupid Neutral, if he's particuarly fanatic.
- Athmel: Eh, isn't this the whole point to the Druid class in Dn D? To prioritize neutrality, to make sure neither side has an overwhelming advantage over the other? The act of making sure the 'angry humans from the village' don't complete their 'justified' genocide on the 'orcs down the river' is endearing - at least to me. Neutral evil is doing what YOU want, when YOU want, and not caring about how you get it done, it's the underlying philosophy that matters.
Charred Knight: since no one has told me how Britannia is not Chaotic Stupid I put it back. I like Code Geass, its a great fun series, but the average Brittannia makes the Nazi's look smart. The only way you can justify Britannia action as not Chaotic Stupid is if the Emperor loves wasting money on costly rebellions.
Uknown Troper: Mainly because they don't seem to be of the 'blow up everything for shits 'n giggles', I'd say. Sure, they're horribly racist and many of them are rather incompetent (especially Clovis), but come on. They don't kill things just for the sake of killing things or spread random mayhem out of boredom. They're not all that far from several real-life conquering nations, prime amongst them Nazi Germany. Compare them to, say, Drow nobility in the Forgotten Realms, whose idea of recreation is essensially hobo-hunting (basically they take to the street with retainers and kill anything they come across that they feel would give them some sport, except for nobles) and they're not even a blip on the radar.
Come to think of it, that hobo-hunting would give drow a space on this list, if they're not already.
Zeke: This article really needs to acknowledge its debt to the_ferrett, whose LJ post introduced the terms. The most brazen part is that there's a link to a comment on that post.
(Later) Okay, since no one was interested in doing this, I've done it myself. Ferrett isn't my favourite guy (especially since the Open Source Boob Project thing), but whoever created this article should be ashamed of ripping him off.
Caswin: The Star Trek Voyager entry reeeally bothers me. Look at the example it gives as evidence of Janeway's Lawful Stupidity: "In one episode, she refused an offer from Q to take her and her ship back home. The catch? She had to make his baby." Aheh. There's a euphemism for (as far as she knew) "have sex with him" I genuinely don't think I've heard before...
- Alara J Rogers: It's worse than that. As someone who's had a baby, the idea that it is a simple or trivial thing to endure nine months of pregnancy, have a baby, and then hand it off to a guy who you think is one of the most irresponsible creatures in all of creation, with the added caveat that if he screws the kid up the immortality and omnipotence will ensure that the entire galaxy must deal with the consequences, seems absurd. Janeway had fantastic reasons for not having a child with Q, among them the fact that he wanted to take the kid off to the Continuum to raise it as soon as it was born — which is sort of like promising your first born child to the fairies in return for magic favors. She was well within the range of reasonable to refuse. If it had simply been sex, she might have agreed. Also, she didn't risk her crew in his war; he teleported her into his war, she risked herself in a futile effort to bring peace (which, given that the war was blowing up stars, was the right thing to do), and her crew risked themselves to rescue her. However, the Lawful Stupid part comes when at the end, after Q has had a baby with his girlfriend, he offers to send her home anyway... and she refuses because "we have to do it on our own." You can imagine the reaction of Voyager's crew had they been there for that scene: No! No, Captain, we really don't! Let Q send us home! ...Can the example be rewritten to focus on that part, instead of acting like having a baby and handing it over to Q would have been a minor trivial thing and not a life-changing event?
- Caswin: I think it had better be. (That said, her "we have to do it on our own" scene doesn't sound so much Lawful Stupid - she doesn't have any rules to break here - as a very bad case of Plot Induced Stupidity, given that on every other meeting she has with Q, she seems more than willing to accept a way home provided no other moral compromises.)
- Removing the "example"; I think we've established that it doesn't belong here.
- Example: In one episode, she refused an offer from Q to take her and her ship back home. The catch? She had to make his baby. And later she actually risks her crew to help Q in a war etc. etc. etc., I don't even think thats Lawful Stupid and not Stupid Stupid.
Wyvernil: I've got a YKTTW going about "More Stupid Alignments" suggesting branching off Stupid Good and Stupid Evil from Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid, respectively. Just wanted to get some opinions on that matter here before I went adding stuff.
Eric DVH: Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid are definitely misnomers (LS characters are doing good stupidly, not orderliness. CS ones aren't just making a mess, they're specifically out to cause suffering,) but those are the most common terms. While I'dve preferred your terms, LS & CS are already too established around the internet, and calling them something more reasonable here would just cause confusion.
Wyvernil: Really? I've actually heard "Chaotic Stupid" applied more often to the random, unpredictable characters who are just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it. Basically, the person who does anything simply for laughs/incomprehensible whims/the hell of it, regardless of the consequences. "Stupid Evil" is basically what "Chaotic Stupid" is right now; the guy who does nothing but evil every waking moment, and is prone to betray or kill his teammates simply because it would be evil, even if it wouldn't benefit him.
As an example, a Stupid Evil character will kick, rape, or eat every dog he runs across. A Chaotic Stupid character may Kick the Dog, but is just as likely to Pet the Dog, Shave The Dog, Paint The Dog Purple, or even Ignore The Dog Entirely To Run Off Chasing Butterflies.
As a basic example of the difference between Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good; the Lawful Stupid character smites anything (with extreme prejudice) that shows up as 'evil' to his Detect Evil radar. The Stupid Good character wags his finger at the 'evil' person and tells him to stop being a bad boy or he'll have to sit in the corner.
T-T-T: I'll go do that right now, just because I considered the Paint-the-dog-purple speech to be so damn funny.
Wyvernil: Looks good so far. I did a big rewrite on the four to clarify things. If there's anything I missed, or you think I changed too much, I've saved the original and can change it back.
nobody: In response to this:
- Like hell, if Goku just let Piccolo kill Raditz Vegeta and Nappa wouldn't know about the Dragonballs. The End.
shatterspike1: How can that example dealing with the egyptian attempt to capture a terroist even be real when it's so mind-numbingly stupid?
Rebochan: I tried to rework the Sailor Moon entry to make it more accurate to both the show and how it fits this trope. Also, Usagi never got anyone killed either. She was physically incapable of fighting Sailor Galaxia, along with all the other legions of Sailor Senshi. And it wasn't even until after everyone had died that she was even given an opportunity to do something that should have actually been able to kill her, so Usagi sacrificed no one.
Dnd players should know that chaotic does not equal evil and lawful doesn't equal good. This is emphasized clearly in the game. Infact by the use or over-use of heroic rebellions and evil empires in fiction. Chaotic good and Lawful evil are very popular alignments.
Peteman: I think we should cut Stunt from this example. His actions weren't Chaotic Stupid, just... stupid.
Cut it. Alignment-Stupidity involves alignment-based idiocy. It does not necessarily involve picking up an Idiot Ball.
- Stunt, if you're in a magical land powered by Unpredictable Effects, tending to the garden of a golem who tells you not to eat his vegetables...don't eat them.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Stunt is Neutral Stupid, which is arguably an alignment of its own. (Not to be confused with Stupid Neutral, which would be more like the Neutral Planet from Futurama.)
Wyvernil: There might indeed be a niche for Neutral Stupid. The 'extreme balance' people who pull a Face–Heel Turn once their side starts winning may fit, but there's another type. Basically, the people who think of morality as balancing a checkbook; that any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by commiting an equally good deed. In short, building an orphanage and then 'balancing it out' by burning down the orphanage across the street. This pattern of kicking the dog and then stopping to pet it immediately afterwards just results in a very confused dog... and a very confused audience.
This type of 'neutral stupid' may occur in Video Games with a Karma Meter that offers no middle ground between 'cackling villain' and 'absolute saint'. So the 'neutral' route, if it even exists, ends up consisting of doing enough good and evil deeds (with no regards to common sense or reason) to balance the meter in the middle.
What do you think?
Why does the picture of Miko have red eyes added in?
Lord Seth: Actually, plenty of the colors are off...just look at the original here
.
Wyvernil: Added in Neutral Stupid. Opinions are welcome.
Peteman: Would Neutral Stupid also include people who insist on not getting involved regardless of the inherent dangers of not getting involved (like the Neutral Planet of Futurama)
TBeholder: Sitting on the fence that's a dangerous course - You can even catch a bullet from the peace keeping force ? It depends. On things like balance between self-esteem and self-preservation, especially if "both are worse" (as said Uncle Joe). Or whether "getting involved" / "not getting involved" has any sense.
Michael Saering: The entry concerning Kelemvor and the wall is technically incorrect. A person who is not aware of the Gods, or does not worship a specific God, does not end up on the wall, at least according to recent sourcebooks. The wall is simply for those who actively distain from worshipping the Gods. Someone who is indifferent does worship a God, even if they are uncertain as to who that is. The Drizzt novels are a good reference on this.
Gloating Swine: Cut
- Ranma Saotome of Ranma 1/2. His father tricks his mother into relinquishing Baby Ranma to go on a permanent training mission without "female influences" to "weaken him" by making Baby Ranma put his toddler handprint on a contract. At age 16, Ranma discovers the existence of the contract, which will compel him to commit suicide by disemboweling himself if he is judged not to be a "man among men". And at the time he has a curse that turns him into a girl on occasion, too. So he hides from his mother, but if called on the matter appears ready to actually go through with it.
- This is less Lawful Stupid and more a comment on the honorable place of sepukku and a cultural difference on the view of suicide. Western Cultures view suicide as sinful and cowardly, Eastern cultures view it as repentant and honorable. In context, while certainly exaggerated for humor, the suicide pact hold as a perfectly valid plot device.
This is more an example of Honor Before Reason than this. (Also, the other joke is that Ranma is the only character in the series who has any honor at all.)
Peteman: I'm getting together quotes from media to embody each of the 5 alignment stupidities, anyone got a good one for Lawful Stupid and Stupid Neutral?
2 Michael Saering in-world some claimed this, some that... and with all those rebuilds... it's rather obscure part. Especially if we'll compare it to the "but [Deity] IS [Portfolio]!" principle, explicitly stated at least in Elminster in Hell and Prince of lies (or was it Crucible?).
As for Fallout 3, I quickly became evil just because of rummaging through other people's lockers. Murdering The Family without even trying to talk with them might have been a factor too - I mean, everything looked pretty obvious in the beginning when everythingwas clearly showing them to be behind the murder while in reality Lucy's brother did it, staying Beneath Suspicion due to The Family's reputation. If not for utterly stupid "Lawbringer" solution, doing the Heel–Face Turn would be noticeably harder.
Bob: Why hasn't this been split already?
Citizen: It would be nice to split all these alignments... but "Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good" and "Chaotic Stupid / Stupid Evil" examples are combined. Sorting them all out would be a pain.
Petranca: Was there really an RPG where someone dropped their trousers and whizzed on the king? Or was that quote made up?
