What D&D alignment are libertarians?

Chaotic Neutral?

I value freedom above all else. We should all be free to do as we please as long as we don’t violate the rights of others to be free as well. If someone violates your rights, they forfeit the protection of freedom provided by the non-aggression principle (NAP) and you are no longer obligated to respect their rights. Do whatever you feel you need to do to defend your freedom, either on your own or by working with others. We have no obligation to be generous or kind but feel free to if it makes you happy. I thoroughly reject anyone’s authority to command others or impose laws.


For the most part, I mind my own business and appreciate others doing the same. If someone violates the non-aggression principle (NAP), they violate your rights and you’re permitted to act in your own defense and others are permitted to assist if you can persuade them to, but no one is obligated to defend your rights. We have no obligation to be generous or kind but go ahead if it makes you happy. We’re all ultimately responsible for looking out for our personal interests and defending our own rights, though we can certainly work with others for mutual gain if it suits us.


Lawful Neutral?

I value order and security for myself and others. All authority is derived from universal laws which are themselves derived from the universal non-aggression principle (NAP). Any laws not derived from this universal principle are invalid. These laws are absolutely critical for defending everyone’s rights. As long as you abide by these laws, your freedom should be respected, but if you violate these laws, you have chosen to forfeit your own rights and subject yourself to the actions of authorities as needed to enforce them. Justice must be applied but only with certainty of guilt. No one is above the law. It should be absolute, applying to peasants and kings the same.


Lawful Good?

I value all that is good and good is promoted by the consistent application of the non-aggression principle (NAP) through just laws that use force sparingly. Charity and good deeds for those in need should be encouraged but it’s wrong to force them through taxation or laws or it doesn’t mean anything. Justice is critical for the common good but one should always be merciful in their application of justice with particular attention to those who are sincerely repentant. Restitution for crimes is superior to punishment. The world becomes a better place and good is promoted for all when a criminal takes advantage of an opportunity for redemption and becomes a productive citizen. The law can only be good if it is applied consistently, from peasant to king.


Chaotic Good?

I value freedom because freedom promotes good. When people are free, they’re happy, cooperative, and productive. You should be free to do as you please as long as you’re good, and at a bare minimum, that means respecting the non-aggression principle (NAP). Kindness and charity beyond respecting the rights of others can’t be forced without violating freedoms. Therefore, you should do good deeds and encourage others to be good by example. Violating the rights of others is evil and you forfeit your own right to freedom when you’re evil. I don’t mind being a vigilante toward those who disrespect the NAP. I’m justified in doing whatever I feel is necessary to stop evil and restore freedom and good to innocents.


Neutral Good?

I value good above all else. When people are generous and kind, we’re all better off. At a bare minimum, that means respecting the non-aggression principle (NAP) and failing to do so makes you evil. All people should be generous and kind, but since forcing them would make you evil, we should do all we can to encourage such behavior short of violating the NAP ourselves. Just laws founded in the NAP that respect the freedoms of the individual are necessary to preserve the good for all.


Chaotic Evil?

I value my own needs above all else and freedom is the best way to look out for numero uno. Screw the law! I should be free to do whatever I please as long as I don’t violate anyone’s rights. You are under no obligation whatsoever to be generous or kind and most people just do it because they feel guilty when it’s perfectly rational to look after your own needs first and foremost. If someone violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) then they give up their rights. They’re fair game for whatever I want to do to them for my own restitution or even in retaliation to make an example of them. I do whatever I feel I need to do to take care of my own needs if that happens, either on my own or by convincing others to help. It’s fine and even appropriate to take advantage of other people who violate the NAP, even if you tricked them into it. That’s the price of stupidity. It’s social Darwinism. Lying is only fraud (a violation of the NAP) if it causes harm, but I’m very clever about dancing that line and convincing people of something that isn’t true without technically lying.


Lawful Evil?

I value my own needs and the law serves my needs well. The non-agression principle (NAP) can serve me as long as I’m smart about it. You are under no obligation to be generous or kind and that behavior just encourages dependency and weakness anyway. I don’t want anyone to use aggression against me so I respect the NAP myself but I’m always on the lookout for legitimate loopholes. I like being in charge or I hope to be in charge someday and I seek more authority through voluntary contracts. People are free to enter into any contract they please and I know how to use these to my advantage. I can do whatever I please as long as I abide by agreed-upon terms. If you fail to read the fine print, that’s your own fault. If you violate the terms of a contract, that’s a violation of the NAP and justice should be swift and merciless so others can learn by your bad example or the law that serves my needs will be in jeopardy.


Neutral Evil?

I value my own needs above all else. Your only obligation is to respect the non-aggression principle (NAP). Short of that, do whatever it takes to look after numero uno. I’ll be kind and even generous if it serves me personally to do so, such as toward those with whom I have relationships that are valuable to me. If people are in need, it’s probably because they’re weak. I won’t use aggression against them but good riddance if they die off due to their own incompetence. I don’t particularly care how I go about looking after my own needs. Within the bounds of the NAP, I’m willing to use lawful or chaotic tactics to do so; whatever works best.


[True] Neutral?

I value the freedom of each individual to live according to their personal beliefs and that’s what balances the world. Individuals have all sorts of different views about what’s good or evil, lawful or chaotic. We’re all imperfect and we can never know who’s right so we should respect everyone’s right to be themselves. Of course we generally benefit when people do good deeds but you can’t force it. Evil exists and always will, but individuals differ about what it means so they should make their own decisions about how to act and accept the consequences of their choices. Even evil has its place in the world or good would be meaningless. Over time, evil on an institutional level will be self-destructive and starve itself out. Organizations that are excessively structured (lawful) will be more inefficient as they grow, resulting in a kind of self-regulation. Chaos leads to it’s own kind of spontaneous order which is preferable to carefully structured large institutions, also resulting in self-regulation. Even excessive good (altruism) when imposed on an institutional level tends to punish high-achievers and those just looking out for their self-interest and will also be self-destructive. The invisible hand of the market works everything out. Generally, we shouldn’t interfere with the natural balance of the world, particularly through structured organizations that think they know how best to “run” things. There’s a place for all points of view in a world that generally runs itself.

Don’t ask me what my point is. I’m still working on that part.



  1. Stanley says:

    True neutrals would be, as a socialdemocrat I’m not sure if I fit in one of those though.
    It was a nice read (if you are into politics and D&D)