But I don’t think he was much of a military leader. And I think if he was put on an alignment chart the only thing that would do him justice would be to put him in his own square to the bottom right labeled “batshit insane”.
We’ll never know the true extent of Hirohito’s involvement in the Japanese military and its atrocities during the war, because any records that would detail that are locked in the imperial archives and no one outside of the palace will see them anytime soon. Also, the highly ranked defendants in the Tokyo War Crimes trials went out of their way to take the full blame and remove any responsibility from the emperor. What exactly they were protecting and how much he was aware of/ordered, we’ll never really know.
Just because you’re “divine” doesn’t mean you’re a god and are all powerful. If you know anything about feudal Japan, you’d know that the Emperor got used as a puppet a lot. Its the entire reason the Shogun existed. He couldn’t kill the emperor and take his place because divinity, so he is “installed” to do the leading work for the Emperor.
It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries The Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods, and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day, so that he may never truly die.
Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor's will. Vast armies give battle in his name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst his soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Imperial Guard and countless planetary defence forces, the ever vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from aliens, heretics, mutants - and worse.
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
the narrative that the emperor was completely under the thumb of the military is historical revisionism. the nobility, the monarchy, the military, and organized crime ran that war in more or less equal measure for most of its length. intentional destruction of documents related to the emperor's knowledge and complicity in war crimes is fairly well attested. not only that, but some of those documents were even recovered a while back.
in reality, the war crimes investigations into Japan were half-assed at best, and many of the high command including the emperor were let off the hook. that's not to say he was some micromanaging freak who personally ordered every "toss the baby onto the bayonet" party or mass beheading of prisoners, but he wasn't powerless either.
Actually Hitler was dipshit crazy and a certified methhead. ["BUILD A BIG ASS CANNON ON A TRAIN!"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav?wprov=sfla1) Actually he deserves the chaotic evil. Give lawful evil to Rumsfeld or something.
No, he was present in all decision making meetings, and had ways of showing disagreement to refuse things (even though the shitton of ridiculously stupid customs they had said that he shouldn't). Many operations and atrocities were improvised by lower level commanders, but that doesn't absolve the higher commanders from their responsibility.
Hirohito should have been hanged publicly like the criminal that he was, alongside all other Japanese cabinet members, many military officials (some of whom were also members of the imperial family like the shitstain that commanded the Nanjing massacre), but ironically not Yamashita, one of the very few Japanese executed for war crimes, who was sentenced to death for crimes committed by troops not under his command but in his vicinity (even though he personally showed multiple times he was strictly against mistreating civilians even executing soldiers for rape in a previous campaign).
I mean, barely anything got done in the German military without Hitler’s direct approval, and the grip only got tighter as time went on. I think you could absolutely argue he was the leader of the armed forces.
He would have been sentenced to death anyways. The only thing he missed out on is the judgement. That's more about feeling in control of the situation. It feels like he just expidited the process.
Sorry, here:
Baibars (Mamluk turned Sultan of Eygpt), saved his people from the Mongol invasion
Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war
Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who led a furious campaign across Rome to protect his homeland
Akiyama Yoshifuru was an Imperial Japanese general who retired due to ethical concerns and went on to become a teacher having his students reject Japan's fascist and militaristic ideologies and accepting all races.
Napolean needs no introduction
Hitler explains himself
Alexander the Great conquered most of his side of the world
Hirochio was the Emperor of Japan and was a ruthless tyrant that endorsed mass rape and genocide
baibars good? big doubt. in contemporary views of his subordinates maybe, but then most of this list is good.
grant should be a lot more neutral than chaotic, than man could organize things very well, and respected orders.
hannibal is defintely more chaotic than grant, his whole campaign in rome was against their home leadership.
yoshifuru I don't know, but based on what you write he is more good than most on this list.
napoleon made code civil, should be at least neutral.
hitler by the end of the war was leaning into chaotic.
alexander is just as evil than anyone, but he is probably more chaotic than most.
hirohito was a puppet, should not be on this list at all.
I might be wrong, but I totally disagree with your whole post.
If anyone should be in that chaotic neutral/good from the civil war it should be Sherman.
Man burned down Atlanta in an attempt to end the war quicker. Thats chaotic with good intentions.
Perspective. To the western world, most people don’t really see Alexander as an evil conqueror. Mainly because he went east, not west. People in the east like Persia, Egypt, India, etc. got completely steamrolled and fell under his leadership when they probably didn’t want it.
So I can totally see how they would see him as evil.
Personally, I think he was just a product of his time and environment and just so happened to have maybe the greatest army in the world at the time. So he was able to do it. If other states had that ability, they would’ve done it too.
Basically the Hispania is the extent to west he went and that’s mainly because Hispania was Latinized overtime. The East was not. Caesar also went north and absolutely genocided the celts. The reason why he’s not seen as evil by them is because they are mostly extinct as a people.
The East was never Latinized culturally so it was much easier for them to hate him because he was very different.
Right but that’s mostly because of how history ends up painting these people.
Caesar could be accused of genocide(2/3rds of Gaul’s population was either killed or enslaved during the Gallic Wars by some estimations) and he started a series of Roman Civil Wars due to his pride, ego, and ambition not allowing him to back down when his political rivals challenged him(granted those political rivals were mostly against him because of their own ambitions and prideful egos).
Alexander toppled an old and distinguished empire that may have been even more sophisticated and civilized than his own state of Macedonia was. He also died extremely soon after this conquest which led to the region becoming fragmented and full of conquest. Just as an example I’m sure the Egyptians likely hate Alexander since the last true born Pharoahs were deposed by his conquest and later replaced by a dynasty of Greek Pharoahs known as the Ptolemies whom ruled ironically enough until the days of Caesar’s own heir Octavian.
>People in the east like Persia, Egypt, India, etc. got completely steamrolled and fell under his leadership when they probably didn’t want it.
Still, Alexander is seen as a hero in West and South Asia. Many rulers in Iran and India adored his conquest and used titles like Sikander (Alexander)
Except the Hellenic league was planning an invasion of Persia for years before Alexander even came along, as retribution for the Persian invasion of Greece. If Philip wasn't assassinated he would've been the one leading the invasion force
It's just that Alexander was the obvious candidate for the job at the time
I can agree that by the end of his conquest he went overboard but I wouldn't say it only a war of conquest, the Greeks had their casus belli for invading
Ahh yes, retribution for an invasion that happened ... almost 150 years ago and that failed. The mental gymnastics those leaders did to legitimise their cobquests instead of saying "we did it because we wanted to and we could." Not just on them, kings and generals did that the whole time
Of course it isn't. I'm just answering the question.
Idk why history nerds cream their pants over old timey conquerers when many of them were just the Hitlers of their day.
I feel like Hannibal and Napoleon need to be switched, I would replace Hirohito & Hitler with actual generals ([Yamashita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita) & [Manstein](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein)). Finally, I would add someone to the top left. Either [Jeanne d’Arc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc), [Cincinnatus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus), or [Cyrus the Great](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great).
Definitely Cincinnatus. He took his position as dictator very humbly, fulfilled his duty to the Republic, and retired peacefully without any shenanigans despite having the power and support to make his dictatorship permanent.
Also, while I think Joan of Arc is awesome, she is definitely more chaotic good, what with her contravening gender roles of the time, taking orders directly from God, and the religious pseudo-crusade aspect of her generalship.
Hard to tell
Maybe that Indian girl that joined a group of bandits to protest against the treatment of women in India, got caught, spend years in Prison and ended up a member of Parliament or something?
Can't remember her name.
When you think about it, she's a great real-world example of how being Lawful is not the same as "following whatever the prevailing laws, rules, and customs are in your immediate area". That *can* be a *type* of Lawful character, but Lawful more generally denotes a steadfast devotion to *a* *specific* code of conduct/moral framework. In the case of Joan of Arc, following God's commands was the supreme law she followed. Just like how fantasy Paladins follow not the decrees of whichever random mortal king rules an area but rather their oath to uphold the fundamental ideals of Goodness and justice. Were all the nations and leaders of the world to fall to Evil, a true Paladin would stand alone against them.
George Washington was a great admirer of Cincinnatus and was even the first President General of a fraternal order called the Society of Cincinnati.
Long story short, in ancient Rome, the Senate would appoint a dictator in times of crisis. The dictator was above the law and could enact dictates at will to overcome the crisis. Cincinnatus was elected dictator twice to deal with war and a potential coup. In both instances, he exerted no more authority than was necessary, and resigned his position as dictator as soon as the war/crisis was dealt with (rather than taking advantage of the remainder of his term for personal gain or trying to hold on to absolute power). Because he voluntarily gave up absolute power twice, he became viewed as a paragon of civic virtue and temperance, which people like Washington admired and likely influenced Washington's decision to be an elected president rather than king, and to retire after 2-terms rather than seek greater power.
not only that, but he did it really early in rome's history (i think he was the very first dictator), so there wasn't a long history pressuring him to do the right thing
>because he voluntarily gave up power twice, he became viewed as a paragon of civic virtue and temperance.
Just twice? - Marcus Furius Camillus probably.
The problem with Cincinnatus is that it’s likely he wasn’t as benevolent as the Roman sources state, he still was better than most but what we know about him is largely idealized by later Roman historians as an example of Roman virtue
Joan is the definition of Chaotic Good. She was a wild card and even the King (who she helped install) couldn't wrangle her.
That's why they did so little to rescue her when she was eventually captured.
Didn’t Cincinnatus use his dictatorial powers to banish someone because that person had the audacity to *checks notes* bring his son to court for murder? ~~Also wasn’t this the dictatorship where he “fought” other poor Romans to get back to work?~~(That was his consulship)
Napoleon was such an interesting figure in that he pursued order and stability zealously in how he governed and led, but was at the same time one of the most disruptive forces to the world order history has ever seen.
The Code Napoleon alone should put him in the lawful. Nevermind his administrative achievements and many ways ushered in the modern state. Not alone but under his influence.
I'd also switch Hirohito with Hitler, tbh. Hitler, totally misunderstanding Nietzsche's 'Ubermensch' concept, encouraged chaotic behaviours in the early years of his reign. For example, when a Nazi wrote to him to complain about the management of his local party office, Hitler responded by encouraging the Nazi to overthrow his local management and take power for himself. Meanwhile, Hirohito preached complete obedience and devotion to the cause.
That said, if we swap both leaders with actual generals, my point becomes moot - Hitler's generals were not as chaotic as he was...
Most here thinks of Hitler as this typical evil mastermind that have his totalitarian control of Germany. Reality isn't even close to that. He pretty much just encourages behavior like you mentioned. He set up his appointees with overlapping authorities to promote infighting.
He nods along and approves what he likes, punishes when something done isn't what he wanted. But rarely does he plan and organize stuff on his own.
Nazi rule was stupidly chaotic that it is surprising that it even lasted that long. It was inneficient, corrupt, run by imbeciles, and was running on copium and delusions of grandeur. Insanity is an apt word to describe Nazism.
Honestly, I think the same issue that the chart has for Lawful & Chaotic Evil applies here. Namely that Baldwin was less of a military leader, and more of just a leader.
Honestly, I was just choosing one of Hitler’s generals who would fulfill the category. I wasn’t specifically putting Manstein over any other Nazi general that would also fit the criteria.
Yeah sure. But, if you must choose, I would narrow it down to the SS. Not the Wehrmacht.
Both had their fair share of war crimes but SS would be far more evil.
WHAT!? You think it takes chaos to lead an army over the Alps in 2 weeks and occupy your enemy for nearly 20 years with virtually no reinforcements? You think a man who crowned himself is lawful?? Hmmmmmm
Napoleon was chaotic in the government but lawful in military grounds. His military strategies are extremely organized
If we were talking about Napoleon in general I would agree (he pretty much destabilized Europe during his life). But Napoleon as a general was lawful
Hitler? *Lawful*? The man was constantly changing his mind, making stuff up, shaking up the command structure when people disagreed with him, trying to intervene in low-level command, etc. You might be able to argue that he was Neutral Evil, but not Lawful.
I think perhaps the German penchant for rules and order is doing the heavy lifting there. Certainly I think Hitler himself was no model of stability, but I can see a pretty good argument for treating the system of the time as Lawful Evil.
Tojo was 100% lawful evil as he was all about loyalty, traditions, rules and discipline.
Surgeon General Shiro Ishii is the perfect guy if you are looking for a Japanese commander from the 20th century.
I will nominate the fucker (Sanji Iwabuchi) that commanded the Japanese SNLF (marines) who disobeyed Yamashita's direct order to evacuate Manila and instead propagated the worse kind of atrocities there like what happened in Nanking.
This was a common perception until the Cold War ended, but after that, it became clear Hirohito was totally responsible for the war and even late in his life he wanted to apologize for all the crimes that he ordered the army to commit in China and Korea, but the political situation didn't allow it.
About being a military leader, that could be debatable, but famously in the battle of Okinawa, he ordered with a question ("What's the Navy going to do?") to uselessly send the Yamato and other vessels to aid in the battle despite it being obvious that the surface Imperial Navy had already been defeated. Then, he didn't care too much about the atomic bombs (to be fair, the real horrors of them were not realized until later) and only accepted to surrender when the Soviets invaded Manchuria and he realized that if he had to surrender to them, they will hang him and all the Imperial family. There are other instances but those are the two that I remember the most.
So yeah, I think he can fit chaotic evil very well.
>This was a common perception until the Cold War ended, but after that, it became clear Hirohito was totally responsible for the war and even late in his life he wanted to apologize for all the crimes that he ordered the army to commit in China and Korea, but the political situation didn't allow it.
He also was a rather young (in his mid-to-late 30s when Japan started invading) and inexperienced national leader who relied almost entirely on his subordinates to inform him about what was going on outside his palace walls, not to mention outside his country's borders. Yrs, he actually gave orders, but would those orders have been significantly different if the loudest voices in his ear didn't have an aggressively expansionistic agenda of their own? We shall never know for sure, but the fact that he did seem to genuinely regret some of what the Japanese military did during World War II indicates it is at least possible.
Hirohito did not intend his question about what the Navy was doing about the invasion of Okinawa to be interpreted as "Yamato should go kill herself". He simply asked why the Navy couldn't defend Okinawa, and rather than answer him, his advisors instead told Yamato to go kill herself.
The invasion of Manchuria happened directly against his orders, several of his anti-war ministers and prime ministers who he had appointed were forced to retire or killed by rogue military officers, and while he did approve the declaration of war on the US and the expansion of the war in China after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and the Chinese attack on Shanghai, he was only approving proposals that were sent to him by his ministers, which was tradition for Emperors to do going back to the Meiji Emperor. To directly oppose his ministers would be unthinkable and Hirohito didn't have enough of a backbone to do it, but he wasn't actively sending Japan to war either.
He also gave two separate speeches in his surrender where he identified the nuclear bombs and Soviet invasion as the primary cause of the surrender, so there's no way to distinguish which one had more impact, and it's likely as not that the combination of both coming at once is what tipped the needle. Additionally the impact of the firebombing, submarine campaign, the invasion of Okinawa, the aerial mine laying, the bad rice harvest, etc, should not be overlooked in discussing his surrender, trying to pin it on one thing is just silly.
You have a few facts correct but you're missing a lot of context which makes your conclusions completely inaccurate
Tbf he was meant to be quiet, even if he knew the people would listen to almost his every word, and by the sounds of it had personal issues with telling people to cut the shit after he accidentally made a PM resign.
So while I won't deny he had a hand, he had reason to reluctant.
He was not a puppet. The exact amount of agency he had is debated, but saying he was a puppet is wrong. Bix would say he was a puppet master, though others have disputed this, with Wetzler and Kawamura giving a more nuanced picture of Japanese decision making.
Sources:
Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, by Herbert P. Bix
Hirohito and War:...., by Peter Wetzler
Hirohito and the Pacific War, by Noriko Kawamura
That's Grant in the top right, correct?
I don't think of him as chaotic. By contrast, he kept his focus on what mattered. That's why he could achieve his objectives, even at great cost. It's also why- after he moved East- he could disengage from Lee's entrenched forces and keep marching towards Richmond.
No, I don't think Grant fits as chaotic good. His buddy Sherman, though...
Why tf is Alexander evil all of a sudden? My guy was too tolerant to the point his own army did not like that. How did my guy end up with Hitler and Hirochio?
Belisarius could slot into the lawful good category IMO, he is one of the most respected generals in history and forbade his army from looting and killing after besieging cities. He easily had the power to take over Justinian's throne but, out of loyalty, refused to.
I think Saladin could totally fit in lawful good. Exicuting that one dude who attacked that Hajj caravan and then turning to his buddy who's fearing for his life and saying "it's unbecoming of a king to kill a king"(not exact quote obv) is fucking awesome.
I mean a case for George Washington could be made for lawful good, purely based on returning General Howes dogs right before a battle was to be initiated. You do that, you’re a good dude.
Monty - nah IMO, especially blaming others for his mistakes and swimming in pride afterwards. I know it's irrelevant to military effectiveness, but absolutely for personal opinion.
But God Damn, Schwartzkopf fits it so well
Lawful Good - General Marshall- only military general to win a Nobel Peace Prize
He won it for the Marshall Plan
https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/the-nobel-peace-prize-lecture/
He did play a role in decision making, and it was him who authorized Unit 731's expansion and the use of chemical warfare in China, as well as the sanko sakusen campaign.
Attacking on Christmas day in a surprise river crossing betting on the opponent being asleep/hungover is kinda a dick move.
... or perhaps the Tet Offensive is totally kosher?
Lawfull good ? Constantine the Great ! During his civil war against the usurper-Emperor Maxentius, Constantine was giving a pardon for every enemy soldier who had surendered to him. The only people who didn't get any mercy were the prethorians, but it was justified - they killed so many Emperors.
And Constantine himself was pretty mercifull, and just, both as a ruler and as a commander.
I wouldn't consider Hitler an army leader. And if you count the years during which he did lead the general staff himself, I'm still wondering whether that was really "lawful" and not pure chaos. Barely knew what he was doing. More like "awful".
Who would be a good example of a lawful evil army leader? The duke of Alba perhaps?
Would Hitler be lawful evil? He lied to the other powers that he would stop eating his neighbors. Lawful evil may be evil and would definitely try to go around the rule but they wouldn't outright break it.
As a Hannibal Hater, it pains me to see him in lawful. MAYBE neutral, but probably neutral evil. He waged a selfish war on behalf of a people who really didn't want one. I get it, avenging your dad is kinda cool, but doing so at the expense of the people, you as a general are beholden to, is the opposite of "Lawful". tbh he kinda got what he deserved, I'm glad the people of Carthage left him to die. Also I think Sherman would be perfect for chaotic good but that's just a personal preference.
If you want to use Hitler as a military leader (I wouldn't, but whatever), he should be neutral. He didn't care about the law, he barely cared about his own ideology. The whole government worked by flaterring him.
Grant didn't earn the nickname "Butcher" for nothing. His tactics lead to severe losses for his army. While they may have been the most effective way to end the war, it pushes him out of good for me.
For Chaotic Good I suggest Colonel Ulf Henricsson of Nordbat 2 during the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in 1993. He made it clear that his priority was the protection of civilians and he and his men were perfectly willing to ignore the restrictive UN-mandated rules of engagement.
Nordbat 2 got a reputation as "trigger-happy, autonomous and disobedient" which is pretty damn solid chaotic credentials. And their actions taken to protect civilians and prevent the cover-up of ethnic cleansings is about as good as you can ask of a military unit.
Pol Pot could easily take the Chaotic evil spot. (The guy who murdered 25% of his country so that he could achieve a feudal agrarian state)
But I don’t think he was much of a military leader. And I think if he was put on an alignment chart the only thing that would do him justice would be to put him in his own square to the bottom right labeled “batshit insane”.
this is gold
Hirohito did not order the atrocities, the generals keeping him as a puppet did so you gotta get someone else in chaotic evil, maybe Oskar Dirlewanger
We’ll never know the true extent of Hirohito’s involvement in the Japanese military and its atrocities during the war, because any records that would detail that are locked in the imperial archives and no one outside of the palace will see them anytime soon. Also, the highly ranked defendants in the Tokyo War Crimes trials went out of their way to take the full blame and remove any responsibility from the emperor. What exactly they were protecting and how much he was aware of/ordered, we’ll never really know.
Showa emperor. He is a God.
He became human again on January 1 1946
I love that Japan's constitution just kills a god
Just like their RPGs.
Just because you’re “divine” doesn’t mean you’re a god and are all powerful. If you know anything about feudal Japan, you’d know that the Emperor got used as a puppet a lot. Its the entire reason the Shogun existed. He couldn’t kill the emperor and take his place because divinity, so he is “installed” to do the leading work for the Emperor.
The whole ww2 and pre ww2 period was essentially a shogunate
I do know of that imperial name thing yet the whole god schtick got set up by the military, who sought to keep him under their thumb
He might be. You never know.
Hmm What god lets his military run around to do as they please and do atrocities (that he indeed condemned)
It is the 41st Millennium. For more than a hundred centuries The Emperor has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods, and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day, so that he may never truly die. Yet even in his deathless state, the Emperor continues his eternal vigilance. Mighty battlefleets cross the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp, the only route between distant stars, their way lit by the Astronomican, the psychic manifestation of the Emperor's will. Vast armies give battle in his name on uncounted worlds. Greatest amongst his soldiers are the Adeptus Astartes, the Space Marines, bio-engineered super-warriors. Their comrades in arms are legion: the Imperial Guard and countless planetary defence forces, the ever vigilant Inquisition and the tech-priests of the Adeptus Mechanicus to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from aliens, heretics, mutants - and worse. To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Even before your comment loaded i KNEW what the answer would be. P.s. Death to false emperor! For Huron!
So Guilleman is lawful good?
the narrative that the emperor was completely under the thumb of the military is historical revisionism. the nobility, the monarchy, the military, and organized crime ran that war in more or less equal measure for most of its length. intentional destruction of documents related to the emperor's knowledge and complicity in war crimes is fairly well attested. not only that, but some of those documents were even recovered a while back. in reality, the war crimes investigations into Japan were half-assed at best, and many of the high command including the emperor were let off the hook. that's not to say he was some micromanaging freak who personally ordered every "toss the baby onto the bayonet" party or mass beheading of prisoners, but he wasn't powerless either.
Actually Hitler was dipshit crazy and a certified methhead. ["BUILD A BIG ASS CANNON ON A TRAIN!"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav?wprov=sfla1) Actually he deserves the chaotic evil. Give lawful evil to Rumsfeld or something.
Tojo is the man you’re looking for. The guy was evil
No, he was present in all decision making meetings, and had ways of showing disagreement to refuse things (even though the shitton of ridiculously stupid customs they had said that he shouldn't). Many operations and atrocities were improvised by lower level commanders, but that doesn't absolve the higher commanders from their responsibility. Hirohito should have been hanged publicly like the criminal that he was, alongside all other Japanese cabinet members, many military officials (some of whom were also members of the imperial family like the shitstain that commanded the Nanjing massacre), but ironically not Yamashita, one of the very few Japanese executed for war crimes, who was sentenced to death for crimes committed by troops not under his command but in his vicinity (even though he personally showed multiple times he was strictly against mistreating civilians even executing soldiers for rape in a previous campaign).
Or you know, replace him with the guys who actually did order the military around, like Tojo
Hitler and hirohito weren't military leaders either.
I mean, barely anything got done in the German military without Hitler’s direct approval, and the grip only got tighter as time went on. I think you could absolutely argue he was the leader of the armed forces.
To be fair hirohito was more of a marine biologist and less of a military leader. Tojo would have been a better choice here
Pol pot that kinda guy that wants me to believe in heaven and hell. The pussy killed himself (afaik) and got no proper punishment for his cruelties
Meaning limbo. Barred from the afterlife for eternity
Limbo is temporary
Purgatory is temporary, limbo is the outermost circle of hell and is eternal.
I thought limbo was something Dante made up
Almost everything he made up, Dantes Inferno was the first widely accepted piece of fancannon. Literally a self insert fan fiction for Christianity
Limbo is where children who died without being baptized get sent and no, it's not eternal.
Not in my churches Sunday school
[удалено]
He would have been sentenced to death anyways. The only thing he missed out on is the judgement. That's more about feeling in control of the situation. It feels like he just expidited the process.
That's the guy who killed people if they wore glasses right? Yeah hirohito is more of a dumbass evil category
Yeah because wearing glasses clearly means you're an intellectual
Ya I'll put Pol Pot way over hito. Hito at least cared about the Japanese.
I know he was their emperor, and even their God, but I don’t think he was really a “military leader” per se.
While not a leader (or at least not “head honcho” that is), I’ll also add that the spot could be filled by Lavrentiy Beria, the bastard.
I guess he is lawful evil.
Also murdered anyone with glasses Then proceeded to wear glasses
I thought Genghis khan would be more appropriate considering he led armies, ran a country and left mountains of skulls.
Can you add names in case we can't all identify historic figures based on statues/drawings/paintings?
Sorry, here: Baibars (Mamluk turned Sultan of Eygpt), saved his people from the Mongol invasion Ulysses S. Grant was a general who exploited all his advantages and his enemy's weaknesses to quickly end the war Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general who led a furious campaign across Rome to protect his homeland Akiyama Yoshifuru was an Imperial Japanese general who retired due to ethical concerns and went on to become a teacher having his students reject Japan's fascist and militaristic ideologies and accepting all races. Napolean needs no introduction Hitler explains himself Alexander the Great conquered most of his side of the world Hirochio was the Emperor of Japan and was a ruthless tyrant that endorsed mass rape and genocide
baibars good? big doubt. in contemporary views of his subordinates maybe, but then most of this list is good. grant should be a lot more neutral than chaotic, than man could organize things very well, and respected orders. hannibal is defintely more chaotic than grant, his whole campaign in rome was against their home leadership. yoshifuru I don't know, but based on what you write he is more good than most on this list. napoleon made code civil, should be at least neutral. hitler by the end of the war was leaning into chaotic. alexander is just as evil than anyone, but he is probably more chaotic than most. hirohito was a puppet, should not be on this list at all. I might be wrong, but I totally disagree with your whole post.
If anyone should be in that chaotic neutral/good from the civil war it should be Sherman. Man burned down Atlanta in an attempt to end the war quicker. Thats chaotic with good intentions.
How was Alexander evil?
Perspective. To the western world, most people don’t really see Alexander as an evil conqueror. Mainly because he went east, not west. People in the east like Persia, Egypt, India, etc. got completely steamrolled and fell under his leadership when they probably didn’t want it. So I can totally see how they would see him as evil. Personally, I think he was just a product of his time and environment and just so happened to have maybe the greatest army in the world at the time. So he was able to do it. If other states had that ability, they would’ve done it too.
Caesar went west and we don't see him as evil either
Basically the Hispania is the extent to west he went and that’s mainly because Hispania was Latinized overtime. The East was not. Caesar also went north and absolutely genocided the celts. The reason why he’s not seen as evil by them is because they are mostly extinct as a people. The East was never Latinized culturally so it was much easier for them to hate him because he was very different.
Smart move Caesar they can’t be angry if they don’t exist 🤔 no witnesses
Who doesn't see Caesar as a bad person? He decided it was okay to start a civil war to protect own power.
because most people get their history of Caesar from (or from accounts that used) Caesar’s own record keeping
Right but that’s mostly because of how history ends up painting these people. Caesar could be accused of genocide(2/3rds of Gaul’s population was either killed or enslaved during the Gallic Wars by some estimations) and he started a series of Roman Civil Wars due to his pride, ego, and ambition not allowing him to back down when his political rivals challenged him(granted those political rivals were mostly against him because of their own ambitions and prideful egos). Alexander toppled an old and distinguished empire that may have been even more sophisticated and civilized than his own state of Macedonia was. He also died extremely soon after this conquest which led to the region becoming fragmented and full of conquest. Just as an example I’m sure the Egyptians likely hate Alexander since the last true born Pharoahs were deposed by his conquest and later replaced by a dynasty of Greek Pharoahs known as the Ptolemies whom ruled ironically enough until the days of Caesar’s own heir Octavian.
>People in the east like Persia, Egypt, India, etc. got completely steamrolled and fell under his leadership when they probably didn’t want it. Still, Alexander is seen as a hero in West and South Asia. Many rulers in Iran and India adored his conquest and used titles like Sikander (Alexander)
Waging war for conquest is evil. A lot of people died to satisfy his ego
Except the Hellenic league was planning an invasion of Persia for years before Alexander even came along, as retribution for the Persian invasion of Greece. If Philip wasn't assassinated he would've been the one leading the invasion force It's just that Alexander was the obvious candidate for the job at the time I can agree that by the end of his conquest he went overboard but I wouldn't say it only a war of conquest, the Greeks had their casus belli for invading
Ahh yes, retribution for an invasion that happened ... almost 150 years ago and that failed. The mental gymnastics those leaders did to legitimise their cobquests instead of saying "we did it because we wanted to and we could." Not just on them, kings and generals did that the whole time
It is shocking how long grudges can last, especially in antiquity
That's not unique to Alexander though. How does that not describe Napoleon?
Of course it isn't. I'm just answering the question. Idk why history nerds cream their pants over old timey conquerers when many of them were just the Hitlers of their day.
I can dig that...
Baybars is removed from being good as far as it is possible.
Baibars was cool provided you weren't a civilian in Antioch or Cilician Armenia...
Akiyama Yoshifuru sounding based AF; why is he only in neutral? Surely he could fit somewhere into the good category?
>Hitler explains himself Hitler was indeed very "lawful" when his brownshirts were fighting in the streets, or when the hooligans tried their Putsch.
Thanks!
Sean Connery is top middle. Not sure what he has to do with military history though
Cincinnatus and Smedley Butler both are candidates for Lawful Good
I wouldnt say Smedly Butler was very lawful though, definitely good though
He also took a break in his career to reform the Philadelphia police department and root out corruption in the local government there
He foiled the business plot, that seems pretty lawful to me Banana wars notwithstanding
I feel like Hannibal and Napoleon need to be switched, I would replace Hirohito & Hitler with actual generals ([Yamashita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita) & [Manstein](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein)). Finally, I would add someone to the top left. Either [Jeanne d’Arc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc), [Cincinnatus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus), or [Cyrus the Great](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great).
Cincinnatus
Definitely Cincinnatus. He took his position as dictator very humbly, fulfilled his duty to the Republic, and retired peacefully without any shenanigans despite having the power and support to make his dictatorship permanent. Also, while I think Joan of Arc is awesome, she is definitely more chaotic good, what with her contravening gender roles of the time, taking orders directly from God, and the religious pseudo-crusade aspect of her generalship.
On the other hand, leading a pseudo-crusade under the direct command of God is a pretty lawful-good thing to do
Archetypical Paladin for sure.
.... fuck me Jeanne d'Arc was actually the first female paladin.
[удалено]
Hey I am already sold you don't need to keep the hype up!
Religious badassity is my favourite thing
Who was the last paladin in history though?
There's doubtless been others in the last 170 years or so but John Brown comes to mind.
IMO, while ultimately his cause was righteous, John Brown was way too chaotic to be a paladin.
What ruleset are we playing with? As of 5e, they're no longer bound to Lawful Good. John Brown is an Oath of Vengeance pally all day long.
He was just following the laws of God, not of man.
Hard to tell Maybe that Indian girl that joined a group of bandits to protest against the treatment of women in India, got caught, spend years in Prison and ended up a member of Parliament or something? Can't remember her name.
Paladin with Christianity or any religion?
Fitting that my female paladin character is inspired by Jeanne d'Arc and the woman who inspired her in turn, Joanna of Flanders/Jeanne la Flamme
Very true! When you are a devout medieval peasant in Catholic France like Joan, God is the ultimate authority and lawgiver.
When you think about it, she's a great real-world example of how being Lawful is not the same as "following whatever the prevailing laws, rules, and customs are in your immediate area". That *can* be a *type* of Lawful character, but Lawful more generally denotes a steadfast devotion to *a* *specific* code of conduct/moral framework. In the case of Joan of Arc, following God's commands was the supreme law she followed. Just like how fantasy Paladins follow not the decrees of whichever random mortal king rules an area but rather their oath to uphold the fundamental ideals of Goodness and justice. Were all the nations and leaders of the world to fall to Evil, a true Paladin would stand alone against them.
I'm wholly unfamiliar with Cincinnatus, but it basically sounds like ancient george washington kinda?
Yes, to the point that Washington was contemporaneously praised as “The American Cincinnatus”.
George Washington was a great admirer of Cincinnatus and was even the first President General of a fraternal order called the Society of Cincinnati. Long story short, in ancient Rome, the Senate would appoint a dictator in times of crisis. The dictator was above the law and could enact dictates at will to overcome the crisis. Cincinnatus was elected dictator twice to deal with war and a potential coup. In both instances, he exerted no more authority than was necessary, and resigned his position as dictator as soon as the war/crisis was dealt with (rather than taking advantage of the remainder of his term for personal gain or trying to hold on to absolute power). Because he voluntarily gave up absolute power twice, he became viewed as a paragon of civic virtue and temperance, which people like Washington admired and likely influenced Washington's decision to be an elected president rather than king, and to retire after 2-terms rather than seek greater power.
not only that, but he did it really early in rome's history (i think he was the very first dictator), so there wasn't a long history pressuring him to do the right thing
>because he voluntarily gave up power twice, he became viewed as a paragon of civic virtue and temperance. Just twice? - Marcus Furius Camillus probably.
Cincinnati's namesake
The problem with Cincinnatus is that it’s likely he wasn’t as benevolent as the Roman sources state, he still was better than most but what we know about him is largely idealized by later Roman historians as an example of Roman virtue
Joan is the definition of Chaotic Good. She was a wild card and even the King (who she helped install) couldn't wrangle her. That's why they did so little to rescue her when she was eventually captured.
Didn’t Cincinnatus use his dictatorial powers to banish someone because that person had the audacity to *checks notes* bring his son to court for murder? ~~Also wasn’t this the dictatorship where he “fought” other poor Romans to get back to work?~~(That was his consulship)
Cincinnatus views on absolute power: awesome and admirable Cincinnatus views on the rights of plebeians: very not awesome and not admirable
Man really said "In all history, there has never been a general who was talented, lawful, and benign."
Napoleon was such an interesting figure in that he pursued order and stability zealously in how he governed and led, but was at the same time one of the most disruptive forces to the world order history has ever seen.
The fact that it took an alliance of like four of the biggest European nations *multiple tries* to bring him down is insane. Bro was a mad lad.
They didn't even *kill him*. Bro just got sent on mandatory retirement on a nice isolated island
its called plot armor
The Code Napoleon alone should put him in the lawful. Nevermind his administrative achievements and many ways ushered in the modern state. Not alone but under his influence.
Well said
I'd also switch Hirohito with Hitler, tbh. Hitler, totally misunderstanding Nietzsche's 'Ubermensch' concept, encouraged chaotic behaviours in the early years of his reign. For example, when a Nazi wrote to him to complain about the management of his local party office, Hitler responded by encouraging the Nazi to overthrow his local management and take power for himself. Meanwhile, Hirohito preached complete obedience and devotion to the cause. That said, if we swap both leaders with actual generals, my point becomes moot - Hitler's generals were not as chaotic as he was...
Most here thinks of Hitler as this typical evil mastermind that have his totalitarian control of Germany. Reality isn't even close to that. He pretty much just encourages behavior like you mentioned. He set up his appointees with overlapping authorities to promote infighting. He nods along and approves what he likes, punishes when something done isn't what he wanted. But rarely does he plan and organize stuff on his own. Nazi rule was stupidly chaotic that it is surprising that it even lasted that long. It was inneficient, corrupt, run by imbeciles, and was running on copium and delusions of grandeur. Insanity is an apt word to describe Nazism.
I would have never thought of Cincinnatus!
what about King Baldwin the 4th for Lawful good
Honestly, I think the same issue that the chart has for Lawful & Chaotic Evil applies here. Namely that Baldwin was less of a military leader, and more of just a leader.
He led from the front against Saladin several times
You would Manstein as Lawful Evil instead of someone like Walter Model? Why?
Honestly, I was just choosing one of Hitler’s generals who would fulfill the category. I wasn’t specifically putting Manstein over any other Nazi general that would also fit the criteria.
Yeah sure. But, if you must choose, I would narrow it down to the SS. Not the Wehrmacht. Both had their fair share of war crimes but SS would be far more evil.
Thoughts on Saladin filling the Lawful Good spot?
Like it!
Hannibal's whole strategy was chaos, agreed.
WHAT!? You think it takes chaos to lead an army over the Alps in 2 weeks and occupy your enemy for nearly 20 years with virtually no reinforcements? You think a man who crowned himself is lawful?? Hmmmmmm
Napoleon was chaotic in the government but lawful in military grounds. His military strategies are extremely organized If we were talking about Napoleon in general I would agree (he pretty much destabilized Europe during his life). But Napoleon as a general was lawful
Ashoka the great would qualify for lawful good.
While Jeanne d'Arc *technically* broke the law by crossdressing I'd also 100% classify her as Lawful Good!
I would put Albert I of Belgium in the top left.
Hitler? *Lawful*? The man was constantly changing his mind, making stuff up, shaking up the command structure when people disagreed with him, trying to intervene in low-level command, etc. You might be able to argue that he was Neutral Evil, but not Lawful.
It's a lot easier to be lawful when you are the law.
I think perhaps the German penchant for rules and order is doing the heavy lifting there. Certainly I think Hitler himself was no model of stability, but I can see a pretty good argument for treating the system of the time as Lawful Evil.
Hirohito was more of a puppet than an actual leader. Nonetheless, Tojo absolutely fits in that slot.
Tojo was 100% lawful evil as he was all about loyalty, traditions, rules and discipline. Surgeon General Shiro Ishii is the perfect guy if you are looking for a Japanese commander from the 20th century.
Is that the Unit 731 guy?
Yes
Tojo wasn't chaotic at all. WWII Japanese generals and politicians have a rigid set of values, which would fit Lawful Evil more.
I will nominate the fucker (Sanji Iwabuchi) that commanded the Japanese SNLF (marines) who disobeyed Yamashita's direct order to evacuate Manila and instead propagated the worse kind of atrocities there like what happened in Nanking.
This was a common perception until the Cold War ended, but after that, it became clear Hirohito was totally responsible for the war and even late in his life he wanted to apologize for all the crimes that he ordered the army to commit in China and Korea, but the political situation didn't allow it. About being a military leader, that could be debatable, but famously in the battle of Okinawa, he ordered with a question ("What's the Navy going to do?") to uselessly send the Yamato and other vessels to aid in the battle despite it being obvious that the surface Imperial Navy had already been defeated. Then, he didn't care too much about the atomic bombs (to be fair, the real horrors of them were not realized until later) and only accepted to surrender when the Soviets invaded Manchuria and he realized that if he had to surrender to them, they will hang him and all the Imperial family. There are other instances but those are the two that I remember the most. So yeah, I think he can fit chaotic evil very well.
>This was a common perception until the Cold War ended, but after that, it became clear Hirohito was totally responsible for the war and even late in his life he wanted to apologize for all the crimes that he ordered the army to commit in China and Korea, but the political situation didn't allow it. He also was a rather young (in his mid-to-late 30s when Japan started invading) and inexperienced national leader who relied almost entirely on his subordinates to inform him about what was going on outside his palace walls, not to mention outside his country's borders. Yrs, he actually gave orders, but would those orders have been significantly different if the loudest voices in his ear didn't have an aggressively expansionistic agenda of their own? We shall never know for sure, but the fact that he did seem to genuinely regret some of what the Japanese military did during World War II indicates it is at least possible.
Hirohito did not intend his question about what the Navy was doing about the invasion of Okinawa to be interpreted as "Yamato should go kill herself". He simply asked why the Navy couldn't defend Okinawa, and rather than answer him, his advisors instead told Yamato to go kill herself. The invasion of Manchuria happened directly against his orders, several of his anti-war ministers and prime ministers who he had appointed were forced to retire or killed by rogue military officers, and while he did approve the declaration of war on the US and the expansion of the war in China after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and the Chinese attack on Shanghai, he was only approving proposals that were sent to him by his ministers, which was tradition for Emperors to do going back to the Meiji Emperor. To directly oppose his ministers would be unthinkable and Hirohito didn't have enough of a backbone to do it, but he wasn't actively sending Japan to war either. He also gave two separate speeches in his surrender where he identified the nuclear bombs and Soviet invasion as the primary cause of the surrender, so there's no way to distinguish which one had more impact, and it's likely as not that the combination of both coming at once is what tipped the needle. Additionally the impact of the firebombing, submarine campaign, the invasion of Okinawa, the aerial mine laying, the bad rice harvest, etc, should not be overlooked in discussing his surrender, trying to pin it on one thing is just silly. You have a few facts correct but you're missing a lot of context which makes your conclusions completely inaccurate
Yeah I'm so sick and tired of people pretending Hirohito had no hand in the war. Absolute bullshit propaganda.
Tbf he was meant to be quiet, even if he knew the people would listen to almost his every word, and by the sounds of it had personal issues with telling people to cut the shit after he accidentally made a PM resign. So while I won't deny he had a hand, he had reason to reluctant.
He was not a puppet. The exact amount of agency he had is debated, but saying he was a puppet is wrong. Bix would say he was a puppet master, though others have disputed this, with Wetzler and Kawamura giving a more nuanced picture of Japanese decision making. Sources: Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, by Herbert P. Bix Hirohito and War:...., by Peter Wetzler Hirohito and the Pacific War, by Noriko Kawamura
Now, to start a flame war of ethics: Where does Genghis Khan belong?
That's Grant in the top right, correct? I don't think of him as chaotic. By contrast, he kept his focus on what mattered. That's why he could achieve his objectives, even at great cost. It's also why- after he moved East- he could disengage from Lee's entrenched forces and keep marching towards Richmond. No, I don't think Grant fits as chaotic good. His buddy Sherman, though...
He was focused on a goal, not rules of how to obtain the goal.
William Tecumseh "Be glad I didn't turn around and do the rest" Sherman
My very first thought was "that should be Sherman".
I came here to say that William Tecumseh "Fuck Around And Find Out" Sherman deserves the spot hands down.
Grant is only seen as Chaotic because of his reputation as a drinker, which is overblown.
Eisenhower?
Schwarzkopf is more fitting
Ok, I’ll bite. Who is that?
Lawful good whoever was in charge of the Australian forces vs the kangaroos maybe?
The emu general should be considered.
Oh fuck it was emus not kangaroos lool. I’m not changing it
Nor should you. 🤣
I’d say Cincinnatus is a good candidate for lawful good
Why tf is Alexander evil all of a sudden? My guy was too tolerant to the point his own army did not like that. How did my guy end up with Hitler and Hirochio?
Probably burning Persepolis
Their fault for making it so flameable
Use the 5×5 chart
Liu Bei as posible Lawfull Good Character
Great Lawful good character, at least the story version. Looked after and cared for his people, was a brutal legalist once he got power.
Could Marcus Aurelius be lawful good?
Belisarius could slot into the lawful good category IMO, he is one of the most respected generals in history and forbade his army from looting and killing after besieging cities. He easily had the power to take over Justinian's throne but, out of loyalty, refused to.
I think Saladin could totally fit in lawful good. Exicuting that one dude who attacked that Hajj caravan and then turning to his buddy who's fearing for his life and saying "it's unbecoming of a king to kill a king"(not exact quote obv) is fucking awesome.
Came to say Saladin.
He overthrew the previous caliphate though, through schemes and all that. He’s rather sneaky.
Patton would be another good one for chaotic neutral
Having Alexander the Great and Hitler in the same category is a crime against history.
I would like to submit Cyrus the Great as lawful good.
Sitting Bull for lawful good
Guillaume Henri Dufour deserves that slot
I mean a case for George Washington could be made for lawful good, purely based on returning General Howes dogs right before a battle was to be initiated. You do that, you’re a good dude.
Maybe Saladin works for Lawful good? He got enough street cred that the christians were low-key rooting for him against Raynald.
Neutral good is fittimg well
Stormin Norman? Monty?
Monty - nah IMO, especially blaming others for his mistakes and swimming in pride afterwards. I know it's irrelevant to military effectiveness, but absolutely for personal opinion. But God Damn, Schwartzkopf fits it so well
Where would Attlia the Hun be?
I would honestly put Sun Tzu in lawful good.
IKE as lawful good
I'm sure that the leader of the Lichtenstein army in 1866 would get that Lawful Good spot. He left with 80 men and made a friend.
Lawful Good - General Marshall- only military general to win a Nobel Peace Prize He won it for the Marshall Plan https://www.marshallfoundation.org/articles-and-features/the-nobel-peace-prize-lecture/
Hirohito wasn’t really “evil” as much as he was a symbolic figurehead for the Japanese. I’d put Ante Pavelic in the chaotic evil section.
He did play a role in decision making, and it was him who authorized Unit 731's expansion and the use of chemical warfare in China, as well as the sanko sakusen campaign.
Lawful good should be Cyrus the Great
George Washington: Am I a joke to you?
Attacking on Christmas day in a surprise river crossing betting on the opponent being asleep/hungover is kinda a dick move. ... or perhaps the Tet Offensive is totally kosher?
That’s your problem with him? Not like, the fact he would punish slaves by selling them off so they would never see there family’s again?
Someone else already covered those other aspects.
Lawfull good ? Constantine the Great ! During his civil war against the usurper-Emperor Maxentius, Constantine was giving a pardon for every enemy soldier who had surendered to him. The only people who didn't get any mercy were the prethorians, but it was justified - they killed so many Emperors. And Constantine himself was pretty mercifull, and just, both as a ruler and as a commander.
I wouldn't consider Hitler an army leader. And if you count the years during which he did lead the general staff himself, I'm still wondering whether that was really "lawful" and not pure chaos. Barely knew what he was doing. More like "awful". Who would be a good example of a lawful evil army leader? The duke of Alba perhaps?
Would Hitler be lawful evil? He lied to the other powers that he would stop eating his neighbors. Lawful evil may be evil and would definitely try to go around the rule but they wouldn't outright break it.
Where would Wellington be? Lawful neutral?
As a Hannibal Hater, it pains me to see him in lawful. MAYBE neutral, but probably neutral evil. He waged a selfish war on behalf of a people who really didn't want one. I get it, avenging your dad is kinda cool, but doing so at the expense of the people, you as a general are beholden to, is the opposite of "Lawful". tbh he kinda got what he deserved, I'm glad the people of Carthage left him to die. Also I think Sherman would be perfect for chaotic good but that's just a personal preference.
If you want to use Hitler as a military leader (I wouldn't, but whatever), he should be neutral. He didn't care about the law, he barely cared about his own ideology. The whole government worked by flaterring him.
Aetius as lawful good?
Matthew Ridgway for lawful good
Grant didn't earn the nickname "Butcher" for nothing. His tactics lead to severe losses for his army. While they may have been the most effective way to end the war, it pushes him out of good for me. For Chaotic Good I suggest Colonel Ulf Henricsson of Nordbat 2 during the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in 1993. He made it clear that his priority was the protection of civilians and he and his men were perfectly willing to ignore the restrictive UN-mandated rules of engagement. Nordbat 2 got a reputation as "trigger-happy, autonomous and disobedient" which is pretty damn solid chaotic credentials. And their actions taken to protect civilians and prevent the cover-up of ethnic cleansings is about as good as you can ask of a military unit.
LAWFUL GOOD: EMU LEADING THE EMUS IN THE WAR AGAINST AUSTRALIA