You can not follow external rules and still be lawful, just operate on your own internal rules. That said, house doesn't even do that from what I've seen. He's chaotic hands down.
House has 'rules' that he follows and holds other people accountable to, but hes also a total hypocrite and will bend the rules so he can do no wrong - especially when it comes to drugs
I’d say neutral. 99% of the time, He only helps people for selfish reasons. He does good acts that save lives, but he only does so for the sake of his own ego or challenge. He actively avoids helping people if it isn’t mentally stimulating for him
Nah, Chaotic good. House's whole character arc is about how he says he doesn't care about his patients, but in reality he does. It's why he only takes cases that are 'interesting' because he believes he and his team are the only ones that can save them, which is typically true. It's also why he doesn't interact with his patients directly, to avoid getting attached to them in the event he fails. House cares, he's just too egotistical and jaded to show it.
My understanding was that you can have your own personal code and still be lawful. Like Chidi from The Good Place is an example of someone who has his own code of ethics and is very, very set on following those rules. His core conflict is morality is complex and he's never sure what rule to follow, but imo the importance he places on rules makes him lawful.
Meanwhile Eleanor is pure chaos and seems to have no rules governing her actions at the beginning of the show.
I was just arguing on the definition of Lawful. The\_Ghast\_Hunter had a good definition but it's different from how I understood it.
Not questioning their conclusion on House. He's definitely chaotic.
The hundreds of fictional doctor commit and a average of 4 acts of medical malpractice every year. This stat is flawed however, as the average changes .3 acts when you don’t include Dr. House
Ted's act was ultimately selfless. He could have easily killed himself but chose to kill the others instead first.
How could euthanasia have been morally grey in the scenario the story portrays? It's either die or be tortured for the rest of eternity in new, horrific ways, while your captor is immortal and impossible to destroy.
Had Ted succeeded proper (killing himself as well) AM would have to suffer for the rest of eternity alone, a fitting act of justice against it.
Anyway, Ted can still fit into neutral, I'm just not sure about "chaotic" neutral. He's not necessarily a good guy in any version of the story.
Thackery Binx from Hocus Pocus, the funny Vicodin man, and the Qu from All tomorrows.
Lawful evil looks familiar, but I couldn't say what it is.
Is it from that 9 movie with the weird sentient dolls?
Judge Holden from the book Blood Meridian. He is often considered the most evil fictional character due to the long list of horrific crimes he has committed. Some people even theorize that he's the devil.
As someone who considers House one of my favorite shows ever, have binged it dozens of times, I would argue House is chaotic neutral.
Ultimately curing and saving people matters to him, but overall solving the PUZZLE matters. If they die he’s sad, but more importantly, he HAS to know WHAT killed them.
But he is certainly not lawful. He will break every rule, violate every principle, and piss on the Hippocratic oath while laughing and popping Vicodin to get his answer. The answer is a secondary addiction. He’s addicted to the puzzle and method of diagnostic medicine as much as he is opiates. Finding out the solution is all that matters; he will often put patients in jeopardy to get the answer. That’s why he avoids talking to them and distances himself with dehumanizing anecdotes like “everyone lies”. Once he gets to know them and sees them as human, he can’t bear to let them die for his answer (which is why he isn’t evil), but he’s still annoyed that he has to give a damn.
Edit: based off my argument, one could make a good case for him being chaotic good before being lawful neutral, neutral good, or true neutral, but I still feel like all things considered chaotic neutral is the best fit.
House should be chaotic neutral, fabrication machine should not be lawful, and this slug from I have no mouth and I must scream should be neutral good.
Well I haven't been able to get a physical copy due to some financial problems, but I've tried my best to learn the plot of the book and verse myself on important details.
Qu in neutral evil? Didn't they just fuck up humanity FOREVER because they thought it'd be funny? that's chaotic evil type shit right there.
House hates every rule ever made because they're rules, as long as he has a puzzle to solve he will stop at nothing to accomplish it, he is in Chaotic Good at best and chaotic neutral at worst.
Fabrication Machine from 9 always had unclear motives, though it probably wanted to 'become' the scientist in a way by uniting the soul fragments from inside the stichpunks. Lawful evil? maybe, neutral evil is probably a better fit since, y'know, it kinda wants to kill the stitchpunks in a way with little regard for how.
I don't care about the rest uhhh they all go in true neutral :\]
Holden would be Lawful Evil, in my opinion. >!Mccarthy spent a huge chunk of the book giving insight into Holdens (deeply warped) moral code. I mean, there are the "Anything that exist without my knowledge" and "War" speeches, and the last chapter is pretty much Mccarthy straight-up telling us that while Holden is an absolute monster, he is following what he believes to be a (again deeply disturbed) set of morals. !<
The fact that house is anywhere near lawful anything is outrageous. His whole thing is not following the rules
You can not follow external rules and still be lawful, just operate on your own internal rules. That said, house doesn't even do that from what I've seen. He's chaotic hands down.
House has 'rules' that he follows and holds other people accountable to, but hes also a total hypocrite and will bend the rules so he can do no wrong - especially when it comes to drugs
yhea. House is Chaotic good or Neutral
I’d say neutral. 99% of the time, He only helps people for selfish reasons. He does good acts that save lives, but he only does so for the sake of his own ego or challenge. He actively avoids helping people if it isn’t mentally stimulating for him
Nah, Chaotic good. House's whole character arc is about how he says he doesn't care about his patients, but in reality he does. It's why he only takes cases that are 'interesting' because he believes he and his team are the only ones that can save them, which is typically true. It's also why he doesn't interact with his patients directly, to avoid getting attached to them in the event he fails. House cares, he's just too egotistical and jaded to show it.
My understanding was that you can have your own personal code and still be lawful. Like Chidi from The Good Place is an example of someone who has his own code of ethics and is very, very set on following those rules. His core conflict is morality is complex and he's never sure what rule to follow, but imo the importance he places on rules makes him lawful. Meanwhile Eleanor is pure chaos and seems to have no rules governing her actions at the beginning of the show.
Okay but House does not do that
I was just arguing on the definition of Lawful. The\_Ghast\_Hunter had a good definition but it's different from how I understood it. Not questioning their conclusion on House. He's definitely chaotic.
This chart is chaotic neutral lmao
Has anyone done an alignment chart of alignment charts?
I would love to see it
If we get 9 of those, we can make an alignment chart of alignment chart alignment charts
Why is house in lawful neutral? He is the most chaotic neutral person ever.
He's either neutral or chaotic neutral. In some ep, he's just rude/have bad ethics while in others he straight break the laws.
The hundreds of fictional doctor commit and a average of 4 acts of medical malpractice every year. This stat is flawed however, as the average changes .3 acts when you don’t include Dr. House
this is literally the most all over the place chart i’ve ever seen. the thing from 9 is a crazy pull
To my knowledge it doesn't think, so shouldn't it be true neutral?
I don’t know I have no mouth yet I must scream and monk are almost the same
the literal savior and victim from i have no mouth and i must scream is neutral?
Tbf his method of saviour was- morally gray imo, or at the very least occurred within fucked up circumstances that somewhat morally polluted the act
Ted's act was ultimately selfless. He could have easily killed himself but chose to kill the others instead first. How could euthanasia have been morally grey in the scenario the story portrays? It's either die or be tortured for the rest of eternity in new, horrific ways, while your captor is immortal and impossible to destroy. Had Ted succeeded proper (killing himself as well) AM would have to suffer for the rest of eternity alone, a fitting act of justice against it. Anyway, Ted can still fit into neutral, I'm just not sure about "chaotic" neutral. He's not necessarily a good guy in any version of the story.
Monk mentioned!!!
MONK MENTIONED
I'm not sure House is lawful neutral with how much he enjoys tormenting people
Or that time he talked about wanting to have sex with a 16 year old girl
I recognize like 3 of these, good job making it all over the place lol
who do you recognize?
Thackery Binx from Hocus Pocus, the funny Vicodin man, and the Qu from All tomorrows. Lawful evil looks familiar, but I couldn't say what it is. Is it from that 9 movie with the weird sentient dolls?
yes it is the Fabrication Machine from 9
The "funny Vicodin man" is the best description I've seen of Dr. House lol
Hey OP can you tell me who that chaotic evil guy is? I keep seeing him popping up online but I have no idea who he is or what he is from
Judge Holden from the book Blood Meridian. He is often considered the most evil fictional character due to the long list of horrific crimes he has committed. Some people even theorize that he's the devil.
He's actually lawful though, not chaotic. He breaks laws, but he follows his own moral code.
House is incredibly chaotic neutral
Chuck. He grows tulips.
Kind of curious why Ted is CN
As someone who considers House one of my favorite shows ever, have binged it dozens of times, I would argue House is chaotic neutral. Ultimately curing and saving people matters to him, but overall solving the PUZZLE matters. If they die he’s sad, but more importantly, he HAS to know WHAT killed them. But he is certainly not lawful. He will break every rule, violate every principle, and piss on the Hippocratic oath while laughing and popping Vicodin to get his answer. The answer is a secondary addiction. He’s addicted to the puzzle and method of diagnostic medicine as much as he is opiates. Finding out the solution is all that matters; he will often put patients in jeopardy to get the answer. That’s why he avoids talking to them and distances himself with dehumanizing anecdotes like “everyone lies”. Once he gets to know them and sees them as human, he can’t bear to let them die for his answer (which is why he isn’t evil), but he’s still annoyed that he has to give a damn. Edit: based off my argument, one could make a good case for him being chaotic good before being lawful neutral, neutral good, or true neutral, but I still feel like all things considered chaotic neutral is the best fit.
I like tulips
You get a like for Monk, but you get a dislike for putting house anywhere near Lawful
Dr. House is definitely not lawful, Monk could be tho.
House should be chaotic neutral, fabrication machine should not be lawful, and this slug from I have no mouth and I must scream should be neutral good.
House is Chaotic Neutral
Judge Holden from Blood Meridian
Holden is pure evil, House is just chaotic
Who’s the guy in chaotic evil
Judge Holden
Thanks
HELL YEAH MONK MENTIONED
I grow tulips
He grows tulips
Unless you’ve read Blood Meridian imma need you to stop right there
Well I haven't been able to get a physical copy due to some financial problems, but I've tried my best to learn the plot of the book and verse myself on important details.
Dang not even a single person brought up fox.
MONK!
HELL YEAH NINE MENTIONED 🗣️🗣️🗣️💯💯💯🔥🔥🔥
Qu in neutral evil? Didn't they just fuck up humanity FOREVER because they thought it'd be funny? that's chaotic evil type shit right there. House hates every rule ever made because they're rules, as long as he has a puzzle to solve he will stop at nothing to accomplish it, he is in Chaotic Good at best and chaotic neutral at worst. Fabrication Machine from 9 always had unclear motives, though it probably wanted to 'become' the scientist in a way by uniting the soul fragments from inside the stichpunks. Lawful evil? maybe, neutral evil is probably a better fit since, y'know, it kinda wants to kill the stitchpunks in a way with little regard for how. I don't care about the rest uhhh they all go in true neutral :\]
I grow tulips :)
Is that monk?
What the fuck connects all these?
These things seem so thematically different that it’s hardly even makes sense
Apparently you and I have very similar taste in media.
Who is lawful good and true neutral?
TN is Chuck from Amphibia. He grows tulips
House is chaotic neutral
house is the opposite of lawful
Holden would be Lawful Evil, in my opinion. >!Mccarthy spent a huge chunk of the book giving insight into Holdens (deeply warped) moral code. I mean, there are the "Anything that exist without my knowledge" and "War" speeches, and the last chapter is pretty much Mccarthy straight-up telling us that while Holden is an absolute monster, he is following what he believes to be a (again deeply disturbed) set of morals. !<
Who is the chaotic neutral yellow feller
House is chaotic good
Nah, chaotic neutral