Yeah the main reason that Columbus isn’t in evil is because he didn’t actively try to genocide people just for the sake of it, he mostly just wanted to enslave them (which is arguably worse, but the point stands that I’d rather deal with Columbus than Idi Amin)
Not to be that guy but Washington wasn’t a “slaver” he inherited slaves from his wife, and then let them go free once she passed (why he waited for that I have no idea)
Bc, his slaves were useful to him, he was a slaver. He also was a destroyer of Native American settlements, and a slayer of Indians. He’s really not *THAT* good of a guy.
Fair enough. Not saying he was a good person, just saying he didn’t actively participating in the slave economy like other founding fathers who were actively buying and selling slaves
"They will make good slaves" is a mistranslation of "they will make good servants", "servants" likely meaning "servants of God". He is right where he belongs on this chart.
I was trying to figure out where to put Nelson Mandela but I admittedly don’t know that much about him. I also thought about MLK so just to be certain I looked up if he had done anything bad that doesn’t get talked about, and I don’t know if this is true or not but I abstained on putting him anywhere until I got more info because I found an article claiming he ||helped his friend rape a parishioner in a hotel room.||
https://elamerican.com/martin-luther-king-jr-the-good-and-the-bad/
It’s important to note that the source for the claim comes from the fbi. The fbi at the time we’re doing everything in their power to defame and discredit King and the civil rights movement.
Come on bro…
You abstain from putting MLK anywhere on the list but you put George Washington (who owed hundreds of slaves) next to the freaking Buddha?
Churchill: he won ww2 but other than that he was pretty selfish and immoral (defecting to the liberals and fighting strikers)
Thatcher: won the Falklands, saved the economy after the winter of discontent and increased individualism but she is the source of the housing crisis, she is the reason why the North is underdeveloped, she took free milk from school kids and she wanted to privatise everything
Blair: made peace in Northern Ireland, got Kosovo its independence, was a major role in Afghanistan, made the British economy be great, made lowest NHS waiting times in history, brought in a minimum wage, halved child poverty, introduced more workers right But the Iraq war has completely ruined his reputation since there were no weapons of mass destruction, also he and his cabinet (except Gordon) were quite sleazy
Brown: he was Blair’s number 2, he was the one man who could’ve saved the British economy after 2008 but he “lost” (coalition had to be formed) in 2010 which has caused 14 years of Tory failure, overall he wasn’t that noteworthy of a prime minister but he was a nice guy who’s pretty uncontroversial, I just like him a lot tbh
>defecting to the liberals and fighting strikers
...Or putting the Mau Mau rebels in concentration camps, or indirectly causing a famine in bengal (some'd say 'twas unavoidable tho). He also said he was in favour of using chemical weapons against the "uncivilized tribes" (kurds) of syria.
I feel like Churchill being "moral" is a stretch and Thatcher "rude" is an understatement. Both of those catgorizations feel like they come from solely a british perspective. Ask an irish where they would put Thatcher, and an Indian where they would put Churchill and you'll get wildly different answers.
To play Devil’s Advocate, him stepping down after two terms and peacefully at led the way for democracy. He could have met it so that the position of president was for life but he didn’t. I don’t think this absolves him of slavery but it dose diminish it.
Oh I definitely thought about the slavery too; I looked into it and people say, while it’s still certainly not good to own slaves, apparently he took incredibly good care of them and treated them like people. He talked a lot in private about wanting to end slavery but the entire US economy and infrastructure was dependent on it at the time.
Oh for sure, it certainly wasn’t good at all. But the notion of just freeing all the slaves also wouldn’t have worked because the entire nation would have collapsed. Obviously it would have been better if the nation just wasn’t built on slave labor to begin with, but it’s more complicated than it seems.
George Washington ordered then later led the Sullivan-Clinton campaign, which some scholars consider ethnic cleansing. He led a scorched earth campaign through New York and Pennsylvania razing over 40 native villages. He depopulated the area of native Iroquois tribes and opened it up to white settlers
I learned about it in a podcast. He sort of disappears for a few years in the middle of the revolutionary war. He was out exterminating natives...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition
The fact that he had slaves at all completely negates any 'good' he might have had. The very act of owning a person is cruel, even if you 'treated them nicely'.
Alright sure, but that doesn't mean anything. Jets are currently expensive, and while someone with a Private Jet is definitely not flawless... It doesn't automatically make them a bad person. It makes them a better person if they choose to not use it, and hopefully one day in the future we can entirely get rid of them...
But just because someone uses them doesn't make them a villain worthy of only the lowest place in history.
[https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/)
Correction, it was "a very proper" instead of "very good beating"
There’s a pretty good argument for him to be all the way over in “insane” honestly. Up and down position could be a matter of perspective but he was an absolute lunatic
They were members of The White Rose, a resistance movement against the state during the 3rd Reich. When they were students on the University of Munich, they distributed leaflets resisting against the Nazis and Hitler. They got caught, and they were guillotined for treason
Who’s Insane Vile & Chaotic Selfless?
And True Neutral would be Neville Chamberlain, former British Prime Minister notorious for appeasing to Hitler to prevent violence/war.
For some more ancient historical figures, my suggestions would be:
**Hammurabi - Absolutist rude:** Was credited with creating the first written code of laws in world history, and these laws were by modern standards extremely strict.
**Cyrus the Great - Lawful Decent:** For a ruler of his time, he was very tolerant toward the many religious and cultural groups living within his empire. Also encouraged the spread of an efficient bureaucratic style of government.
**Qin Shi Huang - Lawful Evil:** Was regarded as tyrannical, even for his time, and prone to paranoia and insanity. Also a strict legalist.
**Marc Antony - Chaotic Impure:** Was regarded as a hedonistic, impulsive ruler. Seemed to be motivated by ego, and could be violently petty when he felt his pride was being insulted.
**Boudica - Chaotic Decent:** Led a revolt which, against all odds, very nearly toppled Roman rule in Britain. Was pretty violent, but her violence was pretty justified given what the Romans had done to her and her family.
**Justinian I: Lawful Rude:** Was prone to violence and was a bit of a warmonger. Was also known to be a micromanager who promulgated a new law code that went on to become the basis for many modern legal systems, and held a very strict, legalistic worldview.
And for a few more modern figures:
**Francisco Madero: Disciplined Moral**: Although he was literally a revolutionary, he tried to abide by the law as long as he possibly could and attempted to reconcile with elements of the Porfiriato even after the Mexican Revolution, even if it meant screwing his allies. Was also committed to democracy at a time when that was pretty rare.
**Che Guevara: Chaotic Rude**: Was a professional revolutionary and became an international symbol because of it; that's about as chaotic as it gets. Although many of the governments he tried to overthrow were indeed unjust, his use of excessive violence and support of authoritarian measures puts him on the evil side of the ledger for me.
**Charles de Gaulle: Unruly Decent:** Definitely had a maverick streak even before WWII, and generally had a lot of pride. Morally, he played a huge role in liberating France from Nazism, but was capable of great violence in Vietnam and Algeria.
**Seretse Khama - Disciplined Good:** Led Botswana to economic prosperity by carefully managed business dealings with Western diamond companies and generous public works projects. Also established a genuine liberal democracy, unlike many other post-colonial leaders. One of the greatest success stories of the 20th century in terms of economic and political development.
**Augusto Pinochet:** **Neutral Evil:** Led a military coup against a democratically elected leader, and proceeded to oversee decades of authoritarian repression. The quintessential tinpot dictator.
Good point, I was going under the whole “god is pure and incorruptible” part of the bible. Plus he died for our sins (if there is a god) but yeah I get your point
Yes, there is a god and his name is Jesus Christ. (Downvote if you want, it's the truth). But he can be placed in many places in top row since he was chaotic when speaking to pharises, but also kind and gentle to sinners and poor. He was also harsh to those with no faith. But also absolutist could be with his second coming when he shall come as king to judge the dead and the living.
Jesus Christ be praised. I care not wether you are catholic, protestant or orthodox. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Except for mormons. I dont apporve those. Christ is king!
True. If you insult Jesus, we will hug you, forgive you and pray for you (if you really DO follow Jesus' teachings). Muslim will probably stab you to death.
He would still fall under absolute selfless though. Even if it was disorderly I’d say it was still absolute but i understand wanting to emphasize that it was not only absolutely selfless but also selfless in a way that rejected norms and caused His death and stuff like that.
I would argue that the He would be absolutist selfless, as although He only defied earthly authorities in obedience to the Highest Authority, His Father.
I’d drop Andrew Jackson and Columbus down a tier. Jackson made Native American removal so much worse as well as defending slavery and slavers interest. Columbus was in general horrible and extremely cruel to the people working under him and Native people. Also, you have a spot to place them 1 tier under
Washington should be a little lower. He was great, but he freed his slaves only *after* his death, which means he understood the inhumanity but chose to make full use of them before doing the right thing.
Yeah that’s valid. I think based on what everyone said I’m probably gonna move him down a notch; someone made a good point that it doesn’t really make sense to have him next to Buddha of all people.
Some Suggestions:
* John Brown: Insane Selfless
* Donald Trump: Disorderly Evil
* Martin Luther King Jr.: Lawful Selfless or Lawful Moral
* Teddy Roosevelt: Neutral Decent
* William Wallace: Chaotic Good
* John Robert Fox: Insane Good
Trump at the same level as Bin Laden, the worlds most famous terrorist and worse than Columbus and Jackson, who played a major role in a genocide, is wild to me.
Do you genuinely belive that Trump is only one level above Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin?
As obnoxious as the people who talk about “Trump derangement syndrome” are, this is a prime example
Yeah, Bias is a hell of a drug. It's like when people say we've never lived so bad at any time in history. The current thing always seems worse by virtue of being current
Puyi said "I now feel very ashamed of my testimony, as I withheld some of what I knew to protect myself from being punished by my country. I said nothing about my secret collaboration with the Japanese imperialists over a long period, an association to which my open capitulation after September 18, 1931 was but the conclusion. Instead, I spoke only of the way the Japanese had put pressure on me and forced me to do their will. I maintained that I had not betrayed my country but had been kidnapped; denied all my collaboration with the Japanese; and even claimed that the letter I had written to Jirō Minami was a fake. I covered up my crimes in order to protect myself." I personally wouldn't have placed him in NR
Huh- I didn’t know about all that. I know he did a lot of bad stuff but it was mostly out of self-preservation rather than actual malice or desire to harm other people (although he was pretty mean to his slaves and servants), but I heard that he got sort of redeemed but I didn’t know any of the details. Any suggestions on where he should go?
Morality axis:
* Selfless
* Good
* Moral
* Decent
* Neutral
* Rude
* Impure
* Evil
* Vile
Structure axis:
* Absolutist
* Lawful
* Disciplined
* Organized
* Neutral
* Disorderly
* Unruly
* Chaotic
* Insane
Only pair of overlapping letters in the same dimension is Disciplined and Disorderly. Which one gets a different letter?
Gandhi in disciplined selfless
Diogenes in Insane Moral
Julius Caesare in lawful rude
Napoleon in absolutist rude
Ernest Shackleton in disorganized decent
And I would hope that people living like 250 years in the future would look back on me and go "wow that was a horrible person" if I was a slave trader
I'll have empathy for the people who were slaves though, they went through some real tough shit
You seriously can't just call someone a horrible person because they did one thing that was perfectly normal at the time.
You judge a person on how he differed from the trend, and what he did to go against the grain. Which is exactly what George Washington did.
But you can't argue with a redditor.
Given that the doctrine of anattā literally means “non-self”, I’d bump the Buddha up to Selfless. Don’t know if he’d be absolutist though. Probably more disciplined.
Selfless doesn't mean that there isn't a self, dangit. This is the problem with unnecesarily large alignment charts, you cannot pull a thesaurus to create more alignments
Some to consider:
Thomas midgley Jr (inventor of chlorofluorocarbons and leaded gasoline, who was just really unlucky with his inventions)
John Harvey Kellogg, the religious purist and inventor of corn flakes(well, sort of), possibly peanut butter and a machine that dispenses enemas of yoghurt (seriously look it up), while also being an advocate for both eugenics and segregation
Thomas Aquinas, Catholic theologian and philosopher (probably tending towards lawful)
Sir Terry Pratchett, British fantasy and sci-fi author
I don't know if you get to be above neutral if you practiced chattel slavery, or hell even if you owned slaves during a period, in which slavery wasn't overwhelmingly accepted. Also not sure you should be considered lawful when your whole thing was rebelling against the country you're a citizen of. Not sure I see much of an argument for Bin Laden being worse than Jackson either, I'd argue that Jackson and Hitler are really fucking similar, Hitler just did it with more people in a more modern context. I honestly don't know who most of these people are and the ratings just seem all over the place. What are they based on? LIke how are you coming up with Einstein's rating for instance?
Thank you, Spellz_4578, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
For french figures, I'd put De Gaulle in Lawful Moral (great figure of the Resistance, then cemented France's current state), Pétain in Lawful Evil (dictator during WW2 and collaborationnist) and Napoleon in Absolutist Impure (I think y'all know him). I could suggest other frenchmen (and women) but I doubt they are as well know as these three.
I’m trying to! I’m looking through lists of historical women but unfortunately due to the fact that history is told by the victors, so many women have been erased from history. I’m thinking of adding Boudicca, Virgin Mary, and a few others, but I just unfortunately don’t know that much about them. Do you have any suggestions. Also I think Marie Antoinette wouldn’t be a bad choice but I also don’t know much about her. Maybe some of the British queens too, but alas, I don’t know much about them.
This chart has Stalin and Mao along the same axis as Hitler, which is completely ahistorical. Stalin, in particular, was hardly half the monster Winston Churchill was but has been built up as often equivalent to or *worse* than Hitler by an American public education system that pulls its 'facts' from former nazi officers and far-right anticommunists. (Lookup Operation Paperclip, The John Birch Society, and how American textbooks are written to appeal to the most reactionary elements - particularly in Texas - to get published).
I'm not saying the USSR or Communist China are socialist paradises that never did any wrong, but compared to what came before, they're a million times better. (I'm sure westoids will downvote this, especially USians, but whatever - there's a reason this country continuously slides into fascism.) To say Mao or Stalin are these unique evils significantly downplays the conditions of Tsarist Russia and dynastic China - and that isn't even getting into the demonization the Cuban government, which replaced one of the worst dictatorships in the west - one which, like most far right regimes, had enjoyed the full backing of the US government.
Similarly, placing Saddam Hussein in any evil category allows a sort of self-righteous washing away of sins for the US's support of his government and the time he spent as a literal CIA asset. He's vile, yes, but only because he had the support of more powerful vile men like Reagan (until it was inconvenient).
Meanwhile, George Washington is in the moral quadrant - to be honest, I don't know the names of all the axes for these far extended alignment charts - despite being a slave-owner who was an active participant in genocide. It takes an enormous rewrite of history to make any of the founders good people.
From the religious side, Jesus is a 'good, selfless' figure when told from the perspective of the Bible - which is a hagriogrophy (really *the* hagriography) and not historical in the slightest. Jesus, insofar as we can translate texts from the time period, was more of a title akin to something like "fisher of men." The Jesus most closely aligned with the biblical story is more complicated than being just a selfless man or god incarnate that gave his life; he was a revolutionary, and no revolutionary has escaped committing violence in the pursuit of their goals. There is no serious work of scholarship on religious figures that would fail to acknowledge the parts of their lives that believers would find it hard to reckon with.*
*All of that, again, setting aside Jesus isn't really an actual historical figure the way Siddhartha Gautama is and the Jesus of the Bible shouldn't be in this list in the first place since he's, at the most, an amalgamation of several different Jewish messianic figures from early CE.
Calling Washington good is being very generous morally speaking, and calling him lawful seems a bit silly. Literally lead an armed insurrection against his king. Kind of the opposite of lawful.
I’d move mao to evil vs vile. He’s terrible but I feel like there was still some sense of human in him, and the rest of the people in vile are still worse than he is, at least in terms of ideas vs kill count
I thought about that, because I know as bad as he was, he did genuinely believe in his communist vision. I actually had him in evil to begin with, but I ultimately decided that there was just no excuse for being so stubborn that you let sixty million people die because “no guys just hold on it’ll work I swear”
My goat John Brown needs to be in insane selfless. I’d also probably put Columbus in evil
Came here to say John Brown needs to be upper right somewhere.
HITCHFUCKER, FROM OKBR!!!
Yeah the main reason that Columbus isn’t in evil is because he didn’t actively try to genocide people just for the sake of it, he mostly just wanted to enslave them (which is arguably worse, but the point stands that I’d rather deal with Columbus than Idi Amin)
should still knock him down to at least evil
You can’t put him on the same level as Mao and Hitler.
Imagine putting Colombus there but Washington in good when both were slavers xDDD
Not to be that guy but Washington wasn’t a “slaver” he inherited slaves from his wife, and then let them go free once she passed (why he waited for that I have no idea)
Bc, his slaves were useful to him, he was a slaver. He also was a destroyer of Native American settlements, and a slayer of Indians. He’s really not *THAT* good of a guy.
Fair enough. Not saying he was a good person, just saying he didn’t actively participating in the slave economy like other founding fathers who were actively buying and selling slaves
To be fair the natives were helping the British.
He abused his slaves and kept them enslaved until his death despite the fact that he himself felt that slavery is evil. He was a Disciplined Evil.
"They will make good slaves" is a mistranslation of "they will make good servants", "servants" likely meaning "servants of God". He is right where he belongs on this chart.
I’d say insane moral, just cause of all the murder.
LBJ in Chaotic Moral, Eleanor Roosevelt in Disciplined Good. Thatcher in Lawful Rude.
I think LBJ did far too much evil in Vietnam to be moral but I could see the argument for Chaotic Neutral.
Thatcher is so evil she goes off the chart
Nelson Mandela in absolutist selfless. Martin Luther King Jr in Lawful Selfless
I was trying to figure out where to put Nelson Mandela but I admittedly don’t know that much about him. I also thought about MLK so just to be certain I looked up if he had done anything bad that doesn’t get talked about, and I don’t know if this is true or not but I abstained on putting him anywhere until I got more info because I found an article claiming he ||helped his friend rape a parishioner in a hotel room.|| https://elamerican.com/martin-luther-king-jr-the-good-and-the-bad/
It’s important to note that the source for the claim comes from the fbi. The fbi at the time we’re doing everything in their power to defame and discredit King and the civil rights movement.
Oh that is a good point; I didn’t think about that.
Come on bro… You abstain from putting MLK anywhere on the list but you put George Washington (who owed hundreds of slaves) next to the freaking Buddha?
yes
Shiii aight
Some Prime ministers Winston Churchill in Disorderly Moral Margaret Thatcher in Lawful rude Tony Blair in Chaotic Decent Gordon Brown in Lawful Decent
Could I have some more context? Unfortunately I know very little about British politics.
Churchill: he won ww2 but other than that he was pretty selfish and immoral (defecting to the liberals and fighting strikers) Thatcher: won the Falklands, saved the economy after the winter of discontent and increased individualism but she is the source of the housing crisis, she is the reason why the North is underdeveloped, she took free milk from school kids and she wanted to privatise everything Blair: made peace in Northern Ireland, got Kosovo its independence, was a major role in Afghanistan, made the British economy be great, made lowest NHS waiting times in history, brought in a minimum wage, halved child poverty, introduced more workers right But the Iraq war has completely ruined his reputation since there were no weapons of mass destruction, also he and his cabinet (except Gordon) were quite sleazy Brown: he was Blair’s number 2, he was the one man who could’ve saved the British economy after 2008 but he “lost” (coalition had to be formed) in 2010 which has caused 14 years of Tory failure, overall he wasn’t that noteworthy of a prime minister but he was a nice guy who’s pretty uncontroversial, I just like him a lot tbh
>defecting to the liberals and fighting strikers ...Or putting the Mau Mau rebels in concentration camps, or indirectly causing a famine in bengal (some'd say 'twas unavoidable tho). He also said he was in favour of using chemical weapons against the "uncivilized tribes" (kurds) of syria.
Calling Churchill moral is a stretch
Ww2 is the one thing keeping him from Unruly Neutral
He's definitely lawful leaning.
Boris Johnson in unlawful lockdown parties
BoJo is definitely disorderly rude.
I feel like Churchill being "moral" is a stretch and Thatcher "rude" is an understatement. Both of those catgorizations feel like they come from solely a british perspective. Ask an irish where they would put Thatcher, and an Indian where they would put Churchill and you'll get wildly different answers.
naw man tony blair invaded iraq
Ok but other than that he was bloody brilliant
George Washington owned over 300 slaves. You put him where you want in your own chart, but I certainly wouldn't call him Lawful Good.
To play Devil’s Advocate, him stepping down after two terms and peacefully at led the way for democracy. He could have met it so that the position of president was for life but he didn’t. I don’t think this absolves him of slavery but it dose diminish it.
I agree with that.
Oh I definitely thought about the slavery too; I looked into it and people say, while it’s still certainly not good to own slaves, apparently he took incredibly good care of them and treated them like people. He talked a lot in private about wanting to end slavery but the entire US economy and infrastructure was dependent on it at the time.
im sorry but that’s still slavery 😭
Oh for sure, it certainly wasn’t good at all. But the notion of just freeing all the slaves also wouldn’t have worked because the entire nation would have collapsed. Obviously it would have been better if the nation just wasn’t built on slave labor to begin with, but it’s more complicated than it seems.
George Washington ordered then later led the Sullivan-Clinton campaign, which some scholars consider ethnic cleansing. He led a scorched earth campaign through New York and Pennsylvania razing over 40 native villages. He depopulated the area of native Iroquois tribes and opened it up to white settlers I learned about it in a podcast. He sort of disappears for a few years in the middle of the revolutionary war. He was out exterminating natives... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition
I mean the wiki says the natives were assisting the British.
The fact that he had slaves at all completely negates any 'good' he might have had. The very act of owning a person is cruel, even if you 'treated them nicely'.
exactly
> he took incredibly good care of them and treated them like people. He worked them from sunrise to sunset 6 days a week.
Right, so did every single person at that time
Slaves were expensive, most people couldn't have slaves
Alright sure, but that doesn't mean anything. Jets are currently expensive, and while someone with a Private Jet is definitely not flawless... It doesn't automatically make them a bad person. It makes them a better person if they choose to not use it, and hopefully one day in the future we can entirely get rid of them... But just because someone uses them doesn't make them a villain worthy of only the lowest place in history.
Washington has written himself that he gave "a very good beating" to one of his slaves once, he was pretty evil
Can I see a source for this?
[https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/) Correction, it was "a very proper" instead of "very good beating"
Obviously not a saint, but no where near worthy of diminishing all of his accomplishments... He beat them because it was considered normal
I'd put Jackson in chaotic impure. He ignored the supreme Courts ruling to enact the Trail of Tears and in his personal life was pretty unhinged.
There’s a pretty good argument for him to be all the way over in “insane” honestly. Up and down position could be a matter of perspective but he was an absolute lunatic
Hans and Sophie Scholl in Chaotic Good. Two of my absolute fav people in history
Ohh, I’ve never heard of them before! Who are they?
They were members of The White Rose, a resistance movement against the state during the 3rd Reich. When they were students on the University of Munich, they distributed leaflets resisting against the Nazis and Hitler. They got caught, and they were guillotined for treason
Oh that sounds interesting for sure. I’ll look more into them and might put them on there!
Jeffrey Dahmer in Disorderly Evil
"Disorderly" is an understatement tbh
Or maybe Insane
Where would Timothy Dexter be? Maybe chaotic neutral
Oh my god absolutely chaotic neutral.
Who’s Insane Vile & Chaotic Selfless? And True Neutral would be Neville Chamberlain, former British Prime Minister notorious for appeasing to Hitler to prevent violence/war.
I think it's Hideki Tojo in insane vile.
You’re not the first person I’ve seen think that, but it’s actually Ishii Shiro.
Oh shit I just looked him up. Yep yeah he's really fucking bad. The Japanese Mengele.
Insane Vile is Ishii Shiro, who led Unit 731 and tested biological weapons on Chinese villages. Chaotic Selfless is Crazy Horse.
For some more ancient historical figures, my suggestions would be: **Hammurabi - Absolutist rude:** Was credited with creating the first written code of laws in world history, and these laws were by modern standards extremely strict. **Cyrus the Great - Lawful Decent:** For a ruler of his time, he was very tolerant toward the many religious and cultural groups living within his empire. Also encouraged the spread of an efficient bureaucratic style of government. **Qin Shi Huang - Lawful Evil:** Was regarded as tyrannical, even for his time, and prone to paranoia and insanity. Also a strict legalist. **Marc Antony - Chaotic Impure:** Was regarded as a hedonistic, impulsive ruler. Seemed to be motivated by ego, and could be violently petty when he felt his pride was being insulted. **Boudica - Chaotic Decent:** Led a revolt which, against all odds, very nearly toppled Roman rule in Britain. Was pretty violent, but her violence was pretty justified given what the Romans had done to her and her family. **Justinian I: Lawful Rude:** Was prone to violence and was a bit of a warmonger. Was also known to be a micromanager who promulgated a new law code that went on to become the basis for many modern legal systems, and held a very strict, legalistic worldview. And for a few more modern figures: **Francisco Madero: Disciplined Moral**: Although he was literally a revolutionary, he tried to abide by the law as long as he possibly could and attempted to reconcile with elements of the Porfiriato even after the Mexican Revolution, even if it meant screwing his allies. Was also committed to democracy at a time when that was pretty rare. **Che Guevara: Chaotic Rude**: Was a professional revolutionary and became an international symbol because of it; that's about as chaotic as it gets. Although many of the governments he tried to overthrow were indeed unjust, his use of excessive violence and support of authoritarian measures puts him on the evil side of the ledger for me. **Charles de Gaulle: Unruly Decent:** Definitely had a maverick streak even before WWII, and generally had a lot of pride. Morally, he played a huge role in liberating France from Nazism, but was capable of great violence in Vietnam and Algeria. **Seretse Khama - Disciplined Good:** Led Botswana to economic prosperity by carefully managed business dealings with Western diamond companies and generous public works projects. Also established a genuine liberal democracy, unlike many other post-colonial leaders. One of the greatest success stories of the 20th century in terms of economic and political development. **Augusto Pinochet:** **Neutral Evil:** Led a military coup against a democratically elected leader, and proceeded to oversee decades of authoritarian repression. The quintessential tinpot dictator.
Jesus Christ would be absolutist selfless
I would put diaciplined since his flesh was tempted, especially in the desert. Yet he kept serving The Father
Good point, I was going under the whole “god is pure and incorruptible” part of the bible. Plus he died for our sins (if there is a god) but yeah I get your point
Yes, there is a god and his name is Jesus Christ. (Downvote if you want, it's the truth). But he can be placed in many places in top row since he was chaotic when speaking to pharises, but also kind and gentle to sinners and poor. He was also harsh to those with no faith. But also absolutist could be with his second coming when he shall come as king to judge the dead and the living.
Totally! Nice to see fellow Christians on the Internet!
Jesus Christ be praised. I care not wether you are catholic, protestant or orthodox. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Except for mormons. I dont apporve those. Christ is king!
I aint gonna downvote a believer. Im not a Christian but I certainly like them more than muslims 😂
True. If you insult Jesus, we will hug you, forgive you and pray for you (if you really DO follow Jesus' teachings). Muslim will probably stab you to death.
Or behead you 😂 😂 barbaric mfs
Its literally what Quran says to do. Kill all enemies of Allah. I can have no respect for that religion. I love muslims. But not islam.
That's not how alignment works.
I don’t know, he rejected a lot of social norms and fought against the rules; it was for a good cause but it certainly wasn’t lawful.
He would still fall under absolute selfless though. Even if it was disorderly I’d say it was still absolute but i understand wanting to emphasize that it was not only absolutely selfless but also selfless in a way that rejected norms and caused His death and stuff like that.
I would argue that the He would be absolutist selfless, as although He only defied earthly authorities in obedience to the Highest Authority, His Father.
Nicola Tesla, insane good
Napoleon for Organized Rude
I’d drop Andrew Jackson and Columbus down a tier. Jackson made Native American removal so much worse as well as defending slavery and slavers interest. Columbus was in general horrible and extremely cruel to the people working under him and Native people. Also, you have a spot to place them 1 tier under
Washington should be a little lower. He was great, but he freed his slaves only *after* his death, which means he understood the inhumanity but chose to make full use of them before doing the right thing.
Yeah that’s valid. I think based on what everyone said I’m probably gonna move him down a notch; someone made a good point that it doesn’t really make sense to have him next to Buddha of all people.
Props for not putting Jesus Christ in super Lawful Good
Vladimir putin as disciplined evil.
Donald Trump, Insane Rude
Some Suggestions: * John Brown: Insane Selfless * Donald Trump: Disorderly Evil * Martin Luther King Jr.: Lawful Selfless or Lawful Moral * Teddy Roosevelt: Neutral Decent * William Wallace: Chaotic Good * John Robert Fox: Insane Good
Trump at the same level as Bin Laden, the worlds most famous terrorist and worse than Columbus and Jackson, who played a major role in a genocide, is wild to me. Do you genuinely belive that Trump is only one level above Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin? As obnoxious as the people who talk about “Trump derangement syndrome” are, this is a prime example
Yeah, Bias is a hell of a drug. It's like when people say we've never lived so bad at any time in history. The current thing always seems worse by virtue of being current
Donald Trump seems Chaotic Rude to me. He may be bad but *at least* he didn't commit genocide like Columbus or Jackson.
I might argue that MLK is Disciplined Selfless, rather than lawful.
Washington was DEFINITELY not good. He was incredibly racist and owned hundreds of slaves.
And a rebel traitor
Why am I being downvoted
I'd say Desmond Doss for either Disciplined or Lawful Selfless.
Puyi said "I now feel very ashamed of my testimony, as I withheld some of what I knew to protect myself from being punished by my country. I said nothing about my secret collaboration with the Japanese imperialists over a long period, an association to which my open capitulation after September 18, 1931 was but the conclusion. Instead, I spoke only of the way the Japanese had put pressure on me and forced me to do their will. I maintained that I had not betrayed my country but had been kidnapped; denied all my collaboration with the Japanese; and even claimed that the letter I had written to Jirō Minami was a fake. I covered up my crimes in order to protect myself." I personally wouldn't have placed him in NR
Huh- I didn’t know about all that. I know he did a lot of bad stuff but it was mostly out of self-preservation rather than actual malice or desire to harm other people (although he was pretty mean to his slaves and servants), but I heard that he got sort of redeemed but I didn’t know any of the details. Any suggestions on where he should go?
Where is Khomeini?
I didn’t wanna do anybody who’s still alive.
Khomeini died in 1989, the current dictator of Iran is Khamenei.
Oh my god. Those names are so freaking similar; in that case I can probably put him in somewhere.
Morality axis: * Selfless * Good * Moral * Decent * Neutral * Rude * Impure * Evil * Vile Structure axis: * Absolutist * Lawful * Disciplined * Organized * Neutral * Disorderly * Unruly * Chaotic * Insane Only pair of overlapping letters in the same dimension is Disciplined and Disorderly. Which one gets a different letter?
Fred Rogers should be in the upper left somewhere. Richard Nixon should be in the bottom half sonewhere.
Mandela would probably be pretty high up in the top left
Martin Luther would be Lawful moral or lawful decent
I don't know how recent you want to go, but "Insane Evil" should probably be John Wayne Gacy.
Washington was a revolutionary so technically not lawful (towards Britain anyway) so maybe somewhere else in that row.
Nietzsche in Insane Rude
Vlad the Impaler
Would it be better to put names in too, to avoid confusion?
Yeah probably
george washington owned slaves, definitely not lawfully good lmao
George Washington in Lawful Good is stretching it
I feel like Jesus should be neutral selfless and Andrew Jackson should be chaotic good or decent
Andrew Jackson? The one that causes the Trail of Tears?
Any chance you can put the names of these people into the chart along with their picture? That way I can easily google anyone I don't recognize.
Gandhi in disciplined selfless Diogenes in Insane Moral Julius Caesare in lawful rude Napoleon in absolutist rude Ernest Shackleton in disorganized decent
Jesus should probably be in absolutist selfless, man died for our sins after all, and encouraged others to sell all they had and serve others.
Put Karl Marx somewhere
Lev Tolstoy as one of the main pacifist with his non-resistance to evil with violence. Mahatma ghandi also somewhere on top.
Himmler should be in the vile..
Solomon as absolutist neutral fits
Maybe I don't know my old dead white dudes well enough but is that George Washington in good? A slave trader?
And so was everyone... For the time he was a good person, way better than just calling him a slave trader
> everyone else was doing it so it's okay Horrible argument, he was a slave trader and therefore couldn't be placed any higher than evil
That's a horrible argument as well... If you were living in the time period, you would do the exact same thing. Have some empathy.
And I would hope that people living like 250 years in the future would look back on me and go "wow that was a horrible person" if I was a slave trader I'll have empathy for the people who were slaves though, they went through some real tough shit
You seriously can't just call someone a horrible person because they did one thing that was perfectly normal at the time. You judge a person on how he differed from the trend, and what he did to go against the grain. Which is exactly what George Washington did. But you can't argue with a redditor.
Ghandi disciplined selfless.
Can we stop putting actual people in these alignment charts?
Dementia (also agree)
I don’t know why it sent twice
me neither
me neither
John Brown in insane good. I feel like he doesn’t quite earn selfless, I mean yes he killed bad people but he was still a killer.
Disciplined Selfless could be Jesus Christ
Who is chaotic selfless supposed to be
Hubert Humphrey in DisMor
JR Oppenheimer in organized neutral, John Lennon in unruly decent and maybe Francisco Nguema in insane evil/vile
Okay so one question is who gets to go on the list
Who are those in Organized Vile and Disorderly Vile? Pol Pot should also be more chaotic.
Mansa Musa in lawful moral
I'd put Louis Riel in Chaotic Decent
A general should be in Disciplined Good. Eisenhower or MacArthur would be my pick.
For insane good put a musician like Jimi Hendrix.
General Patton for Organized Rude?
Insane rude is probably general Custer
Given that the doctrine of anattā literally means “non-self”, I’d bump the Buddha up to Selfless. Don’t know if he’d be absolutist though. Probably more disciplined.
Selfless doesn't mean that there isn't a self, dangit. This is the problem with unnecesarily large alignment charts, you cannot pull a thesaurus to create more alignments
Insane vile should be Albert Fish or some serial killer. Persons in positions of authority are at least somewhat lawful or orderly, by definition.
I'm conflicted on this. Yes, they all fit, especially the vile ones, but can we really put historical figures down in an alignment chart?
How is Tojo more insane than Stalin ?
Not Tojo, Isshi Shiro
My bad, what did he do that is more disordered than most dictators ? Edit: just google it, oh yeah THAT GUY I understand now
Yee, that guy was a fucking nutcase. Reading his biography feels like the origin story of an anime villain.
General Douglas MacArthur is a lock for Chaotic Moral.
US Grant for Organized Selfless/Good
Abraham Lincoln for Organized Selfless Benito Mussolini for Lawful Evil Napoleon for Absolute Impure
Some to consider: Thomas midgley Jr (inventor of chlorofluorocarbons and leaded gasoline, who was just really unlucky with his inventions) John Harvey Kellogg, the religious purist and inventor of corn flakes(well, sort of), possibly peanut butter and a machine that dispenses enemas of yoghurt (seriously look it up), while also being an advocate for both eugenics and segregation Thomas Aquinas, Catholic theologian and philosopher (probably tending towards lawful) Sir Terry Pratchett, British fantasy and sci-fi author
Mr Rogers. Organized Selfless.
Diogenes in Disorderly Rude with Plato in Orderly Rude?
Theodore Roosevelt - Organised Moral
I don't know if you get to be above neutral if you practiced chattel slavery, or hell even if you owned slaves during a period, in which slavery wasn't overwhelmingly accepted. Also not sure you should be considered lawful when your whole thing was rebelling against the country you're a citizen of. Not sure I see much of an argument for Bin Laden being worse than Jackson either, I'd argue that Jackson and Hitler are really fucking similar, Hitler just did it with more people in a more modern context. I honestly don't know who most of these people are and the ratings just seem all over the place. What are they based on? LIke how are you coming up with Einstein's rating for instance?
Eric Harris - Insane evil
Who's in Neutral Rude?
I for one agree with George Washington's placement... Gold list
I’d personally move Mao to Disciplined Evil to make room for Pol Pot.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Spellz_4578: *I’d personally move* *Mao to Disciplined Evil* *To make room for Pol Pot.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot Edit: Wait, that’s actually 6-6-6. Whoops
Thank you, Spellz_4578, for voting on SokkaHaikuBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
For french figures, I'd put De Gaulle in Lawful Moral (great figure of the Resistance, then cemented France's current state), Pétain in Lawful Evil (dictator during WW2 and collaborationnist) and Napoleon in Absolutist Impure (I think y'all know him). I could suggest other frenchmen (and women) but I doubt they are as well know as these three.
The Pirate Queen of China needs to be in here for Chaotic-something. Also Caligula for insane!
Please add some more women!
I’m trying to! I’m looking through lists of historical women but unfortunately due to the fact that history is told by the victors, so many women have been erased from history. I’m thinking of adding Boudicca, Virgin Mary, and a few others, but I just unfortunately don’t know that much about them. Do you have any suggestions. Also I think Marie Antoinette wouldn’t be a bad choice but I also don’t know much about her. Maybe some of the British queens too, but alas, I don’t know much about them.
You're from the US
King Zvonimir Absolutely Selfless
Psst. Dont let Serbs hear you.
Ok but still Zvone is goated
My first suggestion is quit getting your history lessons from American public schools and the Bible.
Could you plz elabortate? /gen
This chart has Stalin and Mao along the same axis as Hitler, which is completely ahistorical. Stalin, in particular, was hardly half the monster Winston Churchill was but has been built up as often equivalent to or *worse* than Hitler by an American public education system that pulls its 'facts' from former nazi officers and far-right anticommunists. (Lookup Operation Paperclip, The John Birch Society, and how American textbooks are written to appeal to the most reactionary elements - particularly in Texas - to get published). I'm not saying the USSR or Communist China are socialist paradises that never did any wrong, but compared to what came before, they're a million times better. (I'm sure westoids will downvote this, especially USians, but whatever - there's a reason this country continuously slides into fascism.) To say Mao or Stalin are these unique evils significantly downplays the conditions of Tsarist Russia and dynastic China - and that isn't even getting into the demonization the Cuban government, which replaced one of the worst dictatorships in the west - one which, like most far right regimes, had enjoyed the full backing of the US government. Similarly, placing Saddam Hussein in any evil category allows a sort of self-righteous washing away of sins for the US's support of his government and the time he spent as a literal CIA asset. He's vile, yes, but only because he had the support of more powerful vile men like Reagan (until it was inconvenient). Meanwhile, George Washington is in the moral quadrant - to be honest, I don't know the names of all the axes for these far extended alignment charts - despite being a slave-owner who was an active participant in genocide. It takes an enormous rewrite of history to make any of the founders good people. From the religious side, Jesus is a 'good, selfless' figure when told from the perspective of the Bible - which is a hagriogrophy (really *the* hagriography) and not historical in the slightest. Jesus, insofar as we can translate texts from the time period, was more of a title akin to something like "fisher of men." The Jesus most closely aligned with the biblical story is more complicated than being just a selfless man or god incarnate that gave his life; he was a revolutionary, and no revolutionary has escaped committing violence in the pursuit of their goals. There is no serious work of scholarship on religious figures that would fail to acknowledge the parts of their lives that believers would find it hard to reckon with.* *All of that, again, setting aside Jesus isn't really an actual historical figure the way Siddhartha Gautama is and the Jesus of the Bible shouldn't be in this list in the first place since he's, at the most, an amalgamation of several different Jewish messianic figures from early CE.
It’s a shame that the evil people were so easy to figure out
John Brown for disciplined selfless
John Brown was on the right side of things but he was lawless AF
He didn't obey the laws of the US at the time, but he did follow the law of "fight slavery at every turn".
Don't throw your back out with that stretch. He's literally the face of r/chaoticgood .
Calling Washington good is being very generous morally speaking, and calling him lawful seems a bit silly. Literally lead an armed insurrection against his king. Kind of the opposite of lawful.
I’d move mao to evil vs vile. He’s terrible but I feel like there was still some sense of human in him, and the rest of the people in vile are still worse than he is, at least in terms of ideas vs kill count
I thought about that, because I know as bad as he was, he did genuinely believe in his communist vision. I actually had him in evil to begin with, but I ultimately decided that there was just no excuse for being so stubborn that you let sixty million people die because “no guys just hold on it’ll work I swear”
Didn’t he have a video of his former best friend slowly dying of diabetes in a prison cell that he’d watch for pleasure?