While this is cool I don’t think it’s very accurate to how the D&D alignment system works.
Lenin for example can’t be Lawful Good as he was a revolutionary, which is antithetical to a ‘Lawful’ character. The category specifically refers to how the individual interacts with authority, in which a Lawful character respects the authority of institutions/figures even while trying to fight against them (basically reformism).
‘Chaotic’ by contrast has little to no reverence for authorities - even nominally ‘good’ ones - and is closer to an anarchist than a communist. Not where I’d put Stalin at all.
“Neutral” is an explicitly moral quantifier; the middle ground between “Good” (compassionate, empathetic, selfless, etc.) and “Evil” (cruel, corrupt, petty, etc.) and refers to literal moral grayness; e.g. a “True Neutral” would be a mercenary-type figure. Not how I’d classify Marx at all.
While this is cool I don’t think it’s very accurate to how the D&D alignment system works.
Lenin for example can’t be Lawful Good as he was a revolutionary, which is antithetical to a ‘Lawful’ character. The category specifically refers to how the individual interacts with authority, in which a Lawful character respects the authority of institutions/figures even while trying to fight against them (basically reformism).
‘Chaotic’ by contrast has little to no reverence for authorities - even nominally ‘good’ ones - and is closer to an anarchist than a communist. Not where I’d put Stalin at all.
“Neutral” is an explicitly moral quantifier; the middle ground between “Good” (compassionate, empathetic, selfless, etc.) and “Evil” (cruel, corrupt, petty, etc.) and refers to literal moral grayness; e.g. a “True Neutral” would be a mercenary-type figure. Not how I’d classify Marx at all.
Also, Yeltsin doesn’t belong on this chart at all since he wasn’t a Marxist.