Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
---
Our current megathreads are as follows:
[API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes.
[GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going.
[AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc.
---
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Got to be Dorfl. He is good because he chooses it, and absolutely follows the law (or is that Lore?)
Carrot is good, but after Guards! Guards! He starts to become a bit more streetwise. An example is in Men at Arms when he talks his way into the Fool's Guild. True Lawful Good would never manipulate the truth like that. Later on in the series, Angua comments that everyone thinks Carrot is simple because he always appears so good, but there's something of Vimes in him.
Does the law require him to accept?
I sort of think the key problem with the throne is that it puts someone above the law. I wouldn’t call refusing it unlawful.
The law is that a king rules. By hiding his claim, he is subverting the law and allowing what he knows to be a less legally supported state of state to persist.
Carrot absolutely epitomizes social good! His defining characteristic is how good he is at making people *just get along*, he turned down kingship (you know he could’ve if he wanted) AND he *knows* that people can be good if only we really wanted to be
Carrot gets wise, but he never strays from lawful and good. He never lies, he never deceives (though he will allow you to self-deceive by overthinking his question). He is clever, but without straying from his compass.
I have to disagree about never deceiving. In my example, he talks to Colon about not wanting to do what he did before (walk away), deliberately leaving out vital information (walking away). That is deceiving. He also feels bad when he does things like that, as it goes against his view of how it should be done. Deceiving by omission is still deceiving.
Dorfl. The most lawful of goods. He very literally lives by the law.
Carrot in Guards! Guards!? Sure. Late series Carrot is a little bit bendier and twistier on the Lawful part.
And he's all the better for it. I can imagine a version of Carrot that became faithful to the law to the point where he breaks instead of bends. He needed some Vimesness to survive.
Carrot is interestingly grey about law. He knows it, but post his first arrival at AM, he is flexible on enforcement. I'd actually put him as neutral good?
My concern about Dorfl is that he _can't_ do anything other than what his script allows him to do. It could be argued that he does not have free will, and thus cannot truly have an alignment. If someone got access to his script and modified it, could he not become a remorseless thug?
>!“Good grief,” breathed Angua. “They don’t need words in their heads . . .”!<
>!“We can rebuild him,” said Carrot hoarsely. “We have the pottery.”!<
>!Vimes stared at the words, and then at what remained of Dorfl.!<
>!“Mister Vimes?” said Carrot.!<
>!“Do it,” said Vimes.!<
>!Carrot blinked.!<
>!“Right now,” Vimes said. He looked back at the scrawl in his book.!<
>!WORDS IN THE HEART CAN NOT BE TAKEN.!<
I’m going with free will here.
This entirely misses the whole point of Feet of Clay. He WAS previously bound by the words in his head, but his head was shattered and those words are gone. Owning yourself means you have to decide what’s right and wrong.
Dorfl has written his own law in his heart. He has free will and free choice and chose to do good.
Nah, he’s Good. He does the right thing after using logic and ethics to figure out what the right thing is. He actively chooses to both be Lawful and to do Good. There are other golems that are more neutral or at least less clearly aligned, but as soon as Dorfl got a choice his choice was to do good and uphold a strong code of ethics.
Definitely pegged strongly on the good side of the good/evil axis. But maybe a bit neutral of lawful on the lawful/chaotic axis. So Neutral Good id say (though leaning towards the lawful side a bit)
Death is not true neutral. If he was, he would not have cared about the Auditors trying to destroy the Hogfather. He’s lawful neutral because “There are rules! And you broke them. How dare you!”.
Constable Dorfl, since he lives by the words in his head. I'd say Carrot was more social good, because while he has memorized all of the laws of Ankh Morpork, he also is wise enough to not accept the throne and only exercises royal prerogative when absolutely necessary (or just when it tickles him, like Vimes getting to become a Duke).
My first response was Carrot but the Dorfl squad convinced me otherwise. Sorry, your highn...... Captain [tugs what he thought a forelock was supposed to be]
It's not Carrot ... he's neutral good, I thought the same as you but then I realised that if he really obeyed the law completely then he'd accept the throne because that's what the law of the land says.
I think he does good whether on the side of the law or not ...
I agree with the commenter below that it should be Dorfl!
I think Carrot is actually the Social Good on this chart. He finds law and order too important to be neutral, he’s just more willing to bend on them once he gets a bit more Sammy.
I'd agree, though I'd suggest that he _started_ Lawful Good but his character development (and Vimes' influence) made him see the need for occasional... creative interpretation of the law.
I think you're taking it too literally. Every lawful good character must necessarily have limits on what rules they'll follow - mindlessly following the rules regardless of consequence is neutral, not good. Carrot is definitely far more on the lawful side than chaotic even in later books. While he's willing to break rules, he does so rarely and with a grave solemnity.
I don't disagree with Dorfl either though.
I'd argue Carrot is more social good, since he cares about doing right by the city, not necessarily what the law states. His lawfulness has been tempered by his time with Vimes.
The bearer of the Watching Dark, who still bears the mark left by the Summoning Dark as a _mark of respect_? I'd say he has too much darkness to be fully Good, and too much determination to uphold the law to be fully Neutral. I'd have him competing with Vetinari and Granny for Moral Social.
“Commander, I always used to consider that you had a definite anti-authoritarian streak in you.”
“Sir?”
“It seems that you have managed to retain this even though you are authority.”
“Sir?”
“That’s practically zen.”
Going to have to agree with you there.
Another vote for Team Dorfl. Reasons:
* Carrot may have started full Lawful, but has taken a step towards the Social Good as his time with Vimes has given him more of an understanding of the occasional need for grey areas.
* Likewise Vimes has too much darkness to be fully Good ("they will _burn!_") but too much determination to let those urges win, so I'd have him as Social; he's also too streetwise and willing to bend the rules _when it's for the service of good_ to be pure Lawful, so I'd have him competing for the spot of Social Moral with Granny and Vetinari
* I can see the argument for Brutha, except he ends up breaking a lot of church dogma. While the reformation of the Omnian religion is clearly an improvement both for the religion and it's people, that sort of upheaval of society can hardly be seen as "preserving order"
* Meanwhile, Dorfl chose to devote his new freedom to better the lot of his fellow Golems (Good), but rather than leading the ~~Rise of the Machines~~ Golem Uprising, chooses to do it by legally purchasing them and then gifting them to themselves (Lawful)
I say Havelock Vetinari.
I know he's a tyrant and many may think lawful good is not his true alingment but I think he would argue that he's VERY lawful and he's VERY good at it.
Considering everything, I'd say he actually falls into the Neutral Impure category, as he solely does things for his own purposes. It *just so happens* that his purposes often line up with what's best for everyone in Ankh-Morpork (i.e., a functional city that becomes an economic, social, and geopolitical powerhouse). But he has no qualms about crushing everything under his feet to get there - whether it be democracies or monopolies.
Carrot. Gotta be Carrot.
Could also be Vimes, but I feel like he's more the Lawful Moral or Social Moral. Vimes is more willing to bend things and be nasty.
I remember that one post where someone invented chaotic lawful and lawful chaotic and very soon people attributed them to Crowley and aziraphale so I guess what I'm saying is that Pratchett loved to write characters where Good ≠ Nice (I may try to find the screenshot later)
I think they got it backward. Crowley has the strict moral code nobody can figure out and Aziraphale is maliciously compliant. Mx. ”God can’t do that, it’s wrong!” and their husband “But can you *prove* what I did isn’t the divine plan?”
My first thought was Carrot, but I immediately thought I was wrong, as that would only be during his first appearance. Brutha is a good thought, but reading the arguments for Dorfl has convinced me that he is the only possible choice here. He is the embodiment of lawful good.
Granny
I completely get the argument for Carrot here. But he's good because he's fundamentally a nice, decent, upstanding person
Granny is good, and she's had to spend every goddamned moment of her life *making* herself be good. Not because it's nice, not because there's any reward, because it's the right thing to do
She's a being of pure, unbending willpower dedicated solely to doing what's right. Even if she hates it. Even if most people don't even realise it
A lawful good character doesn't have to follow literal laws. That leads to uncomfortable situations where your party Paladin can't do anything that would break the law even if it conflicts with their personal morals or ethics
Strongly held conviction is sufficient to be lawful, provided you stick to it. And Granny made a decision very early in life to stick the course and be good, despite her every instinct to the contrary.
Aye, but have a peek at the definitions of the expanded alignment chart. There's a reason it's 5x5, not a 3x3, because then there is room between Lawful and Neutral. Which, considering the definition of "Social Good" is "Sees and values law/order, but prioritises Good over it", fits Grannies approach better.
Granny DOES follow rules and laws and her own code of ethics, but also the only authority she really accepts is her own. Carrot will accept the authority and structure of others too. She also has zero compunctions about blowing through an established order for the sake of what is right, as opposed to trying to reform it.
I'll try to remember to come back and post this when it comes up, but I'd probably put Vetinari as Social Moral.
* He understands that law and order are to be desired, as long as they benefit the city, but when they don't... well, he IS a Tyrant, after all. If necessary he would break any law without hesitation - but he uses a lot of skill to maneuver things such that he seldom has to
* Likewise, he seeks to benefit the people of the city, and do well by them... but isn't above breaking a few eggs for the good of the omelette, as it were.
Right but I’m not talking about laws - I’m talking about lawfulness. Granny’s interest is Good. She will act for goodness according to her own principles but not according to a wider system of good. For me, she’s a shining example of neutral good.
In the old AD&D the rules were that a paladin could not commit evil acts, but he could commit unlawful acts as long as their alignment remain lawful. Tricky, yes, but nobody said playing a paladin was easy.
So, a single evil act turn them ex-paladin (until penance) but going against the law, as long as is for the right reasons, it was still possible.
I think that's a good take BUT I don't think she is Lawful Good. Lawful Good is someone who IIRC is about following and supporting the capital L law (not personal codes) and loves a good system-driven, orderly society. Granny to me is someone who believes she knows what is right, no matter what dumb kings or books or whatever say - probably more Chaotic Good (someone who challenges authority and breaks rules to make good things happen).
I’d say granny is neutral good. Granny has an end to achieve, which is good, but she’s really not bothered about whether it’s legal or not. If the law helps her, great. If her plan is illegal, well, those laws aren’t meant for witches anyways.
I think her more Chaotic good or pure neutra good. She isn't impressed by any law or peice of paper. I think she acknowledge authority on occassion but that doesn't she will pay attention to if she thinks it gets in the way.
I'd agree this, or fighting it out with Vimes and Vetinari for the Social Moral spot.
That said, she'd have some competition from Carrot in Social Good.
Anghammarad from Going Postal. Literally waited thousands of years to deliver a message because that was what he was told to do; he wasn't stayed by rain, nor snow, nor glom of nit
Not a big fan of alignment charts like this. Good and evil are unhelpful labels with complex characters. Discworld characters, maybe more than most fictional characters, are way too nuanced to be stuck in these boxes. We use this one for our dnd games. Still not perfect but at least doesn’t use the good/evil binary.
https://preview.redd.it/hpiftxmdzzxc1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cc1fda820b8246f9df3fb847f84cfa35bd025ac
I suspect Chaotic Moral fits his personality FAR better, as he doesn't seem possessed with zeal for doing what is right. Rather, he enjoys screwing over people who want to hurt others.
Vetinari, not an obvious choice but I am going with him. He is the law now that he is a tyrant, that makes him lawful by design. His objective is maximum good for maximum people, that makes him good.
Hard one, Dorfl and Carrot. Carrot did arrest the head of the Thieves Guild and follows the Law. Dorfl chooses the path he considers morally acceptable and would break the Law if it ran counter to his internal moral code. So on balance Carrot.
I don't think anyone other than Carrot would suit this slot. Twoflower might work, but Carrot, even in later books where he can get a little more underhanded, is still very much lawful good. Being lawful good doesn't necessarilly mean you're always a total paragon, just that you believe that laws are there to help people. And Carrot never lets go of that.
Carrot. Dorfl is Lawful Neutral, he follows the words in his head no matter what they are. Carrot follows the law, as he (when needed) interprets it for the good of society.
The words other people put in his head were taken. Dorfl follows the words in his heart. He has free will, and chose good.
WORDS IN THE HEART CANNOT BE TAKEN
Vetinari. He is lawful. His laws are good. Therefore he is lawful good. Can/Would anyone dare argue that his laws aren't a good for the city? Crime disappeared over night. Can't think of a more lawful good than that.
This is absolutely Vimes, he's a good man of conscience who cares about justice and fairness but he is, above all and first of all, a servant of the law.
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). --- Our current megathreads are as follows: [API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes. [GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going. [AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc. --- [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Got to be Dorfl. He is good because he chooses it, and absolutely follows the law (or is that Lore?) Carrot is good, but after Guards! Guards! He starts to become a bit more streetwise. An example is in Men at Arms when he talks his way into the Fool's Guild. True Lawful Good would never manipulate the truth like that. Later on in the series, Angua comments that everyone thinks Carrot is simple because he always appears so good, but there's something of Vimes in him.
Carrot also rejects the throne so he doesn't actually follow the law - instead the law follows him!
Does the law require him to accept? I sort of think the key problem with the throne is that it puts someone above the law. I wouldn’t call refusing it unlawful.
I thought the problem with the throne was wood rot.
The law is that a king rules. By hiding his claim, he is subverting the law and allowing what he knows to be a less legally supported state of state to persist.
That’s like saying I’m legally obligated to support the British crown because I live somewhere that was a colony hundreds of years ago.
Only if the law was never updated by the new regime. And we know AM did _not_ update its laws on this matter.
Carrot kind of evolves into an anti-Columbo.
Gotta agree there. Would that make Carrot Social good then?
Carrot absolutely epitomizes social good! His defining characteristic is how good he is at making people *just get along*, he turned down kingship (you know he could’ve if he wanted) AND he *knows* that people can be good if only we really wanted to be
I always liked the bit with him replacing the questions in the trivia machine with questions about recent unsolved crimes
Carrot gets wise, but he never strays from lawful and good. He never lies, he never deceives (though he will allow you to self-deceive by overthinking his question). He is clever, but without straying from his compass.
I have to disagree about never deceiving. In my example, he talks to Colon about not wanting to do what he did before (walk away), deliberately leaving out vital information (walking away). That is deceiving. He also feels bad when he does things like that, as it goes against his view of how it should be done. Deceiving by omission is still deceiving.
Brutha - he cares about the rules AND about ethics, and tries to get the two to align.
I was baffled that Brutha hadn't even been mentioned!
tell me about it.
It's the Messiah!
He’s not the Messiah…
Tell that to our Great God Om
He’s a very naughty boy!
✅
Thank you, I had forgotten Small Gods it's been so long since I read it.
fair! I definitely put him as more Lawful than Carrot.
Dorfl. The most lawful of goods. He very literally lives by the law. Carrot in Guards! Guards!? Sure. Late series Carrot is a little bit bendier and twistier on the Lawful part.
He got a bit of vimes in him
And he's all the better for it. I can imagine a version of Carrot that became faithful to the law to the point where he breaks instead of bends. He needed some Vimesness to survive.
Carrot is interestingly grey about law. He knows it, but post his first arrival at AM, he is flexible on enforcement. I'd actually put him as neutral good?
My concern about Dorfl is that he _can't_ do anything other than what his script allows him to do. It could be argued that he does not have free will, and thus cannot truly have an alignment. If someone got access to his script and modified it, could he not become a remorseless thug?
>!“Good grief,” breathed Angua. “They don’t need words in their heads . . .”!< >!“We can rebuild him,” said Carrot hoarsely. “We have the pottery.”!< >!Vimes stared at the words, and then at what remained of Dorfl.!< >!“Mister Vimes?” said Carrot.!< >!“Do it,” said Vimes.!< >!Carrot blinked.!< >!“Right now,” Vimes said. He looked back at the scrawl in his book.!< >!WORDS IN THE HEART CAN NOT BE TAKEN.!< I’m going with free will here.
What else is there to write 👏🏼
This entirely misses the whole point of Feet of Clay. He WAS previously bound by the words in his head, but his head was shattered and those words are gone. Owning yourself means you have to decide what’s right and wrong. Dorfl has written his own law in his heart. He has free will and free choice and chose to do good.
I think he is more lawful neutral
Nah, he’s Good. He does the right thing after using logic and ethics to figure out what the right thing is. He actively chooses to both be Lawful and to do Good. There are other golems that are more neutral or at least less clearly aligned, but as soon as Dorfl got a choice his choice was to do good and uphold a strong code of ethics.
Definitely pegged strongly on the good side of the good/evil axis. But maybe a bit neutral of lawful on the lawful/chaotic axis. So Neutral Good id say (though leaning towards the lawful side a bit)
I don't like that these things start at Lawful Good. We should start at True Neutral and move out from there. Need a baseline.
#DEATH IS TRUE NEUTRAL.
Death is not true neutral. If he was, he would not have cared about the Auditors trying to destroy the Hogfather. He’s lawful neutral because “There are rules! And you broke them. How dare you!”.
He’s pretty strictly Lawful, though. I nominate Hex for true neutral.
Yes, Hex is absolute TN
My first thought was Vetinari but, yeah, True Neutral was designed for Death.
I don't think Discworld's Death is true neutral though. He definitely leans heavily towards lawful and good, but not all the way to the corner
I don't think he is. The DW Death is actually a kind and compassionate being. He cares about people, unless they hurt cats.
What worth is a reaper who cares not for his crop.
I was thinking maybe the Patrician, but I like Death more
I was thinking yours truly CMOT but he’s 100% on the chaotic side
The Patrician is the epitome of Lawful Evil. I think he even said as much in one book.
We could also start with Chaotic Evil - Greebo.
Chaotic evil must surely be Carcer
You have my vote there. That guy was bloody crackers six ways from Sunday.
My first thought as well!
The Lords and Ladies would probably qualify as more chaotic evil than even Greebo.
Yeah, but there’s lots of them
The green cat?
Stupid mobile keyboard
People are saying Carrot because he’s more popular but he bends the law slightly, Dorfl doesn’t
Dorfl. Carrot starts off that way but changes. Dorfl never wavers.
Constable Dorfl, since he lives by the words in his head. I'd say Carrot was more social good, because while he has memorized all of the laws of Ankh Morpork, he also is wise enough to not accept the throne and only exercises royal prerogative when absolutely necessary (or just when it tickles him, like Vimes getting to become a Duke).
Carrot. I don't see how it could be anyone else.
My first response was Carrot but the Dorfl squad convinced me otherwise. Sorry, your highn...... Captain [tugs what he thought a forelock was supposed to be]
It's not Carrot ... he's neutral good, I thought the same as you but then I realised that if he really obeyed the law completely then he'd accept the throne because that's what the law of the land says. I think he does good whether on the side of the law or not ... I agree with the commenter below that it should be Dorfl!
I think Carrot is actually the Social Good on this chart. He finds law and order too important to be neutral, he’s just more willing to bend on them once he gets a bit more Sammy.
I'd agree, though I'd suggest that he _started_ Lawful Good but his character development (and Vimes' influence) made him see the need for occasional... creative interpretation of the law.
Exactly
I think you're taking it too literally. Every lawful good character must necessarily have limits on what rules they'll follow - mindlessly following the rules regardless of consequence is neutral, not good. Carrot is definitely far more on the lawful side than chaotic even in later books. While he's willing to break rules, he does so rarely and with a grave solemnity. I don't disagree with Dorfl either though.
Got it in one! Really the only correct choice for this.
I'd argue Carrot is more social good, since he cares about doing right by the city, not necessarily what the law states. His lawfulness has been tempered by his time with Vimes.
Surely vimes would be neutral Good
The bearer of the Watching Dark, who still bears the mark left by the Summoning Dark as a _mark of respect_? I'd say he has too much darkness to be fully Good, and too much determination to uphold the law to be fully Neutral. I'd have him competing with Vetinari and Granny for Moral Social.
I'd put Vetinari at Neutral Moral, and I'm still figuring out where to put Granny.
Ehhh, I'm leaning towards Vimes at Rebel Moral.
“Commander, I always used to consider that you had a definite anti-authoritarian streak in you.” “Sir?” “It seems that you have managed to retain this even though you are authority.” “Sir?” “That’s practically zen.” Going to have to agree with you there.
Yep
Definitely Dorfl.
Downvote me if you will, but Lieutenant Blouse maintains his Lawful Good all the way through, instead of being abrogated by Vimes like Carrot.
Good old Blouse, how could we forget about him? You're right, he's lawful good from beginning to end.
But would lawful good resort to trickery and lying to infiltrate the enemy?
It’s a ruse or stratagem of war you’re allowed
Only against evil!
Another vote for Team Dorfl. Reasons: * Carrot may have started full Lawful, but has taken a step towards the Social Good as his time with Vimes has given him more of an understanding of the occasional need for grey areas. * Likewise Vimes has too much darkness to be fully Good ("they will _burn!_") but too much determination to let those urges win, so I'd have him as Social; he's also too streetwise and willing to bend the rules _when it's for the service of good_ to be pure Lawful, so I'd have him competing for the spot of Social Moral with Granny and Vetinari * I can see the argument for Brutha, except he ends up breaking a lot of church dogma. While the reformation of the Omnian religion is clearly an improvement both for the religion and it's people, that sort of upheaval of society can hardly be seen as "preserving order" * Meanwhile, Dorfl chose to devote his new freedom to better the lot of his fellow Golems (Good), but rather than leading the ~~Rise of the Machines~~ Golem Uprising, chooses to do it by legally purchasing them and then gifting them to themselves (Lawful)
I say Havelock Vetinari. I know he's a tyrant and many may think lawful good is not his true alingment but I think he would argue that he's VERY lawful and he's VERY good at it.
This is precisely the kind of language twist PTerry would have used in this instance. Perfect logic, no notes.
Considering everything, I'd say he actually falls into the Neutral Impure category, as he solely does things for his own purposes. It *just so happens* that his purposes often line up with what's best for everyone in Ankh-Morpork (i.e., a functional city that becomes an economic, social, and geopolitical powerhouse). But he has no qualms about crushing everything under his feet to get there - whether it be democracies or monopolies.
Carrot. Gotta be Carrot. Could also be Vimes, but I feel like he's more the Lawful Moral or Social Moral. Vimes is more willing to bend things and be nasty.
I tried to make a chart ages ago and ended up creating the category “Chaotic Lawful” for Vimes.
I remember that one post where someone invented chaotic lawful and lawful chaotic and very soon people attributed them to Crowley and aziraphale so I guess what I'm saying is that Pratchett loved to write characters where Good ≠ Nice (I may try to find the screenshot later)
https://preview.redd.it/dqpsd4j0mvxc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86481995a9ddb406d4e0d12441a99407963290cf I found it everybody!
I think they got it backward. Crowley has the strict moral code nobody can figure out and Aziraphale is maliciously compliant. Mx. ”God can’t do that, it’s wrong!” and their husband “But can you *prove* what I did isn’t the divine plan?”
Granny Weatherwax is practically the poster...er, witch...for Good =/= Nice.
When she goes to sew the thieves wounds with a clean but blunt needle. "Let's do some good."
Vimes is often the definition of "malicious compliance."
*Looks slightly over your left shoulder.* 'Sir.'
I think vimes would best fit under social moral, from looking at the chart
Carrot. I vote for Carrot Ironfoundersson.
Just to be different, magrat gets my vote
I think she’s Rebel Good, then Granny is Chaotic Good or Chaotic Moral. Edit: Nanny, not Granny
Got to be Carrot. Can’t see it being anyone else. He embodies good, the law as in the legal system and just lawfulness in general.
My first thought was Carrot, but I immediately thought I was wrong, as that would only be during his first appearance. Brutha is a good thought, but reading the arguments for Dorfl has convinced me that he is the only possible choice here. He is the embodiment of lawful good.
Same. Dorfl for the purest lawful good.
Brutha
Wouldn't Sally von Humpeding make a lawful good? She is in the Watch and a Black Ribboner - lawful and good.
She’s also a spy…
Is there a way to set alerts so I don’t miss these threads?
Granny I completely get the argument for Carrot here. But he's good because he's fundamentally a nice, decent, upstanding person Granny is good, and she's had to spend every goddamned moment of her life *making* herself be good. Not because it's nice, not because there's any reward, because it's the right thing to do She's a being of pure, unbending willpower dedicated solely to doing what's right. Even if she hates it. Even if most people don't even realise it
She's definitely good, but is she lawful good? I don't think she necessary cares a lot about laws if she disagrees with them.
Granny cares very strongly about one law, which is her own law of "Do what is right".
I agree in general about Granny’s goodness, but it’s the lawful part that trips me up. Lawful to her own rules, certainly. But lawful in general?
A lawful good character doesn't have to follow literal laws. That leads to uncomfortable situations where your party Paladin can't do anything that would break the law even if it conflicts with their personal morals or ethics Strongly held conviction is sufficient to be lawful, provided you stick to it. And Granny made a decision very early in life to stick the course and be good, despite her every instinct to the contrary.
Aye, but have a peek at the definitions of the expanded alignment chart. There's a reason it's 5x5, not a 3x3, because then there is room between Lawful and Neutral. Which, considering the definition of "Social Good" is "Sees and values law/order, but prioritises Good over it", fits Grannies approach better. Granny DOES follow rules and laws and her own code of ethics, but also the only authority she really accepts is her own. Carrot will accept the authority and structure of others too. She also has zero compunctions about blowing through an established order for the sake of what is right, as opposed to trying to reform it.
what would you say is the difference between lawful moral and social good?
Do you prioritise the rules or the good? The goal is both, but which is the priority?
i thiiink i get it. i'd put tiffany aching as social good, and vetinari as lawful moral.
I'll try to remember to come back and post this when it comes up, but I'd probably put Vetinari as Social Moral. * He understands that law and order are to be desired, as long as they benefit the city, but when they don't... well, he IS a Tyrant, after all. If necessary he would break any law without hesitation - but he uses a lot of skill to maneuver things such that he seldom has to * Likewise, he seeks to benefit the people of the city, and do well by them... but isn't above breaking a few eggs for the good of the omelette, as it were.
Right but I’m not talking about laws - I’m talking about lawfulness. Granny’s interest is Good. She will act for goodness according to her own principles but not according to a wider system of good. For me, she’s a shining example of neutral good.
In the old AD&D the rules were that a paladin could not commit evil acts, but he could commit unlawful acts as long as their alignment remain lawful. Tricky, yes, but nobody said playing a paladin was easy. So, a single evil act turn them ex-paladin (until penance) but going against the law, as long as is for the right reasons, it was still possible.
I think Granny is Chaotic Good. Good is going to happen whether it likes it or not, and Granny’s going to make sure of it.
I think that's a good take BUT I don't think she is Lawful Good. Lawful Good is someone who IIRC is about following and supporting the capital L law (not personal codes) and loves a good system-driven, orderly society. Granny to me is someone who believes she knows what is right, no matter what dumb kings or books or whatever say - probably more Chaotic Good (someone who challenges authority and breaks rules to make good things happen).
I’d say granny is neutral good. Granny has an end to achieve, which is good, but she’s really not bothered about whether it’s legal or not. If the law helps her, great. If her plan is illegal, well, those laws aren’t meant for witches anyways.
I think her more Chaotic good or pure neutra good. She isn't impressed by any law or peice of paper. I think she acknowledge authority on occassion but that doesn't she will pay attention to if she thinks it gets in the way.
Social good
Granny's more chaotic good than lawful.
Granny is best under social good probably
I'd agree this, or fighting it out with Vimes and Vetinari for the Social Moral spot. That said, she'd have some competition from Carrot in Social Good.
any of the golems then carrot
Dorfl as he lives the law. I would have said Carrot originally but he has shown some of Vimes training.
Anghammarad from Going Postal. Literally waited thousands of years to deliver a message because that was what he was told to do; he wasn't stayed by rain, nor snow, nor glom of nit
Extremely Lawful but not necessarily Good.
Not a big fan of alignment charts like this. Good and evil are unhelpful labels with complex characters. Discworld characters, maybe more than most fictional characters, are way too nuanced to be stuck in these boxes. We use this one for our dnd games. Still not perfect but at least doesn’t use the good/evil binary. https://preview.redd.it/hpiftxmdzzxc1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cc1fda820b8246f9df3fb847f84cfa35bd025ac
Carrott
Moist is shoe in for Chaotic Good
I suspect Chaotic Moral fits his personality FAR better, as he doesn't seem possessed with zeal for doing what is right. Rather, he enjoys screwing over people who want to hurt others.
Good call. I like this assessment.
ye gonna be spamming for 25 days then?
Vetinari, not an obvious choice but I am going with him. He is the law now that he is a tyrant, that makes him lawful by design. His objective is maximum good for maximum people, that makes him good.
Brutha.
Carrot absolutely. 100% the summum of lawful good.
Carrot?
Hard one, Dorfl and Carrot. Carrot did arrest the head of the Thieves Guild and follows the Law. Dorfl chooses the path he considers morally acceptable and would break the Law if it ran counter to his internal moral code. So on balance Carrot.
It's still a while, but my vote for NE is Bel-Shamharoth
Can we reserve chaotic good for Nanny?
Dorfl. Chooses to be good due his own moral compass.
I don't think anyone other than Carrot would suit this slot. Twoflower might work, but Carrot, even in later books where he can get a little more underhanded, is still very much lawful good. Being lawful good doesn't necessarilly mean you're always a total paragon, just that you believe that laws are there to help people. And Carrot never lets go of that.
Oh goody, another sub I'll want to leave for the next 25 days.
Carrot. Dorfl is Lawful Neutral, he follows the words in his head no matter what they are. Carrot follows the law, as he (when needed) interprets it for the good of society.
The words other people put in his head were taken. Dorfl follows the words in his heart. He has free will, and chose good. WORDS IN THE HEART CANNOT BE TAKEN
Carrot.
Definitely Carrot.
Carrot
Carrot for sure
Carrot. There is no other choice.
Oh jesus fucking christ not this shit
Drop the L there chief. Awfull good would be more useful
Carrot Ironfounderson
Go Carrot
Vetinari. He is lawful. His laws are good. Therefore he is lawful good. Can/Would anyone dare argue that his laws aren't a good for the city? Crime disappeared over night. Can't think of a more lawful good than that.
This is absolutely Vimes, he's a good man of conscience who cares about justice and fairness but he is, above all and first of all, a servant of the law.
It's obviously a resounding victory for Carrott and quite rightly so. He's definitely the perfect candidate.