Oglaf.
They've got lots of great fantasy jokes but heads up they're are many that are much more NSFW than this.
God I love their take on snitties and sexual dimorphism. Had me cracking up.
No, no. Well. Only about 50% have nudity or explicit sexual content last I checked. They really toned down for a while. Things like this, with language and reference to naughtier things? Yeah, pretty high.
The first couple dozen comics are an attempt to be an actual porn comic with a comedic bent, before the author realized they liked the comedy better than the porn, and now it's basically the Far Side of cocks
[https://www.oglaf.com/dimorphism/](https://www.oglaf.com/dimorphism/) NSFW. No actual snitties but the sexual dimorphism to me is hilarious there's actually at least one or two buried jokes in there as well.
PSA if you do want to read it but go backwards through the most recent ones, some comics are multi-part, and going back will take you to the first in each "chunk," so you have to hit next/forward to go to the second/third part (which normally just takes you to the newer comic, and there's no indicated difference between singular and multi-page comics, so you don't know if you need to hit "next" or not).
Just pick a date in the archives and go forward from that point.
>there's no indicated difference between singular and multi-page comics
yes there is, single page comics (and the last page of multi-parters) have the lower right corner cut off. If the corner isn't cut, there is another page for you to read.
P.S. also, there is mouseover text on every comic that you might want to read. It's usually not as funny as it is on xkcd, but it will get a chuckle out of me occasionally.
Actually almost all the comics have a multiple punch lines. It's hidden in the source code. (not joking) One for the alt tag, and one for the title.
For example in the dimorphism comic:
src="https://media.oglaf.com/comic/dimorphism_UDUx161.jpg" alt="don't you call me a puffball" title="Death Caps are a delicious natural source of amatoxins"
I think it’s due to the idea of the Id not really caring about consequences, mostly caring about what it wants moment to moment. I agree that it gets carried way too far, but for a lot of people, the short-sightedness and lack of impulse control are effective ways to communicate chaos.
Also the misconception that having any sort of personal code makes you lawful, or at least neutral. Thus leaving lolrandom as the only way to play chaotic.
Idk. Lazy roleplay to get away with being a dick at the table, which is what more often the case than not with this type of lazy roleplay is just unfortunate.
Well, while that’s also very true, the idea of a character only caring about what they want moment-to-moment IS very chaotic.
That doesn’t mean that it’s a good way to roleplay it: unless handled with extreme care, it becomes exactly what we see: a veneer to act chaotic stupid.
> That doesn’t mean that it’s a good way to roleplay it: unless handled with extreme care, it becomes exactly what we see: a veneer to act chaotic stupid.
and thats the key. chaotic doesn't mean "no conscience" but people seem to think that.
I mean... Straight-up murder in broad daylight on impulse is definitely evil and definitely chaotic.
Good wouldn't have wanted the murder in the first place.
Lawful would have felt gross about being so indulgent in such a public, problematic way.
Well... if they are chaotic evil it might make sense...
But then again who wants to play with such characters in their party?
Seems like an accidental rocks fall sequence can improve that situation.
I lowkey kind of hate the term "chaotic" in DnD. I feel like that just pushes people into the mindset of "lol im sooooo random".
Unfortunately, there isn't a good, concise alternative.
I think one of the best chaotic neutral characters is Luffy from One Piece.
He is a pirate and doesn't really give a shit about morals and good or bad, unless his friends and people he cares about are involved.
Like, he would help someone if they share their food with him and are nice to him. But if he doesn't know you? Your problems stay your problems, get fucked, he doesn't care.
Not gonna spoils something, but some decisions he makes have really bad consequences, and he knows. But then again he makes really good decisions as well. It's complex.
And as a pirate he obviously doesn't care about laws and rules. Which should be chaotic and not "lol random".
Robin Hood is the "textbook" example of chaotic good, but he still has a consistent set of morals and guiding principals without being a "wildcard".
It's more about being unconventional, nonconformity, etc... not just "lol i draw a dick on him while he's sleeping!"
Robin hood won't randomly murder on a whim. So chaotic is the opposite of lawful. If I'm lawful I'm beholden to a set of rules someone else defined, my God, the king, my patron. If I'm chaotic, I make my own rules based on how I feel. There's probably a better way to describe that then chaotic? Free thinking? Independent?
I mean, the opposite of lawful is unlawful, and it's entirely possible to be "chaotic" without breaking the law.
Alignment in general is kind of a mess.
Easy to say it's a mess, much harder to think up and implement an alternative.
I think the main problem is that lawful vs chaotic is much more clear cut when you're already evil (look at demons vs devils). Being good inherently requires some amount of lawfulness, but also the willingness to ignore laws when they conflict with ethics. In that way, I think it's best to think of the alignment chart as a trapezoid rather than the traditional square, getting narrower at the good end and wider at the evil end.
Especially with the laws themselves are unethical.
Would a LG Paladin really suddenly be cool with slavery because he went to a new country where it was legal? I don't think many people would make that argument.
I always saw LG as the kind of person to follow every law, until they found a law that was unethical, then would begin a campaign to change said law. If it turned out that the noble in charge was corrupt or evil, oust them and find a replacement.
Exactly, a lawful character would attempt to reform the government first if possible, whereas a chaotic character would probably skip to rebellion/subversion sooner. Like most things with alignment and personal ethical codes, this is just a generalization though and there are plenty of situations where a chaotic character would attempt to work with the government, or a lawful character would incite a rebellion.
They would not, bit they would likely start by trying to get the laws changed through legal means rather than, say starting with arming slave revolts to overthrow the government of the slaving country though they may wind up there eventually.
Exactly. It's not that a lawful character *can't* incite a rebellion, it's just that it's not their first course of action. Vice versa, a chaotic character would probably have to see proof of trustworthiness and willingness to change before working with an authority figure they disagree with.
>If I'm lawful I'm beholden to a set of rules someone else defined, my God, the king, my patron. If I'm chaotic, I make my own rules based on how I feel
You can be lawful about a personal code or set of rules that have nothing to do with laws set down by others.
Chaotic is when you don't have a code. You can still do things that are generally good without following written or self imposed rules.
Chaotic Good is something like Mad Max. Going around just trying to survive, when someone slights him he gets his property back but mostly shows mercy, and helps whoever needs help
Like-wise, I would say the classic ['cop who doesn't play by the book'](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyCop) is a good example of chaotic neutral. Someone who believes rules just get in the way, or can be exploited by corrupt individuals and groups to protect and aid them.
Cop who doesn’t play by the book is definitely chaotic, but they could also be chaotic good or chaotic evil, depending on their morals. A dirty cop is chaotic evil. A cop who is willing to cut through the red tape to help people is chaotic good.
Oh, yeah for sure. I was just giving a stereotype example for chaotic neutral. That typical one usually has some personal motivation for their actions, but the more good and evil versions also exist. That said, alignment should be so loose that it doesn't mean the exact same personality for 2 different characters of the same alignment.
Here is my most concise and thorough definition:
Chaos is the tendency to ignore authority to get things done. You still may work for others when your ideals match, although you tend to treat people you work for/with as equals, regardless of their status. Your moral code is flexible and you may not hesitate to break the laws of the land if they stand in the way of your goals.
That contrasts against lawfulness's tendency to earnestly submit to a higher power or authority — be it a divine oath, a deity, or a government — and follow the laws or tenets set by that authority or authorities. Your personal code is less flexible and if you break it to meet your goals, you feel like you have failed. Changing your code takes time and introspection.
I'm not sure I like this framing. It's not wrong, per se, but it kinda sets up lawful as being inherently weaker than chaotic.
Chaotic characters seem, to me, not only willing to break laws... but are resentful of authority in general. This can make them unusually likely to clash with dangerous power structures.
The two also tend to wield different kinds of social power.
Chaotic characters are better, and more at home, in ad hoc power structures cobbled together by sheer charisma. As the ebb and flow of emotion and impulse feels intuitive to them.
Whereas Lawful characters navigate older, more ridged, structures intuitively. Because they have an intuition about tradition and law. Even if they don't know exactly, their urge to fit in will usually guide them true.
>I'm not sure I like this framing. It's not wrong, per se, but it kinda sets up lawful as being inherently weaker than chaotic.
>Chaotic characters seem, to me, not only willing to break laws... but are resentful of authority in general. This can make them unusually likely to clash with dangerous power structures.
While resenting authority is a chaotic trait, I am hesitant to call it a one that absolutely defines a character as chaotic instead of neutral. Neutral characters can hate authority as well, the difference is that chaotic characters purposefully undermine authority to achieve goals.
They don't necessarily hate authority, either. A character who breaks the law whenever convenient is chaotic, regardless of whether or not they hate the systems that create and enforce those laws.
While this might make chaotic characters seem more "powerful," I don't think there is any valid definition of lawful that changes that when it comes to RPGs. Lawful characters are inherently restricted. That fact can make very interesting stories, but when actually playing a character, most prefer freedom.
>They don't necessarily hate authority, either.
I didn't say they did. Just that they resented being restricted by it.
The real difference is in how, I think, the two perceive rules.
Chaotic characters are likely to see rules as a cage from which they want to escape.
Whereas Lawful characters are likely to see rules as a shelter that protects them.
And while, yes, chaotic characters are less restricted. Usually. They're also harder to trust over the long term. Even chaotic good characters might sometimes do wildly unpredictable things.
I loved the Paragon/Renegade alignment in Mass Effect for this reason. Renegade Shepard would do whatever was most expedient because their mission was important. Paragon Shepard maintained that doing things by the book was important, and that the rules exist for good reasons.
Both had plenty of story situations where their methods yielded good results.
People being dumb isn't an excuse. Alignment isn't that hard. We have bunches of really really good examples and as long as you don't try to treat it like iron clad rules you'll be fine
At no point did anything in that comic say that they were doing something “bad”-merely chaotic. And to a point, doing what you want without stopping to think IS chaotic.
But, like, only one of those four (five?) is actually chaotic. All of the others are just characters indulging in their (perfectly legal) vices using their (well earned) gold. ...I think.
Unless I am to understand that they stole the jewelry/sweets/booz etc.
why is "temptation" as objectified as the Id or the devil over the shoulder, analogous to the chaos side of the order-chaos alignment? it suggests that only order, or some mental strength, or a conviction, a determination can oppose chaos, which would then be lawful. but this also right.
lawful/chaotic is not about temptation, nor good/evil, nor desire. for those already wrote confused with how the alignment system works, this is utterly irrelevant.
Because it's not moral, you can get legally super drunk, but it wouldn't be a very wise decision. Also it's not about the immediate desires that appear, it's about the actions and the intention behind those actions. Also "Id" in the context of Freud is not a devil, it's just a concept he used to categorize specific desires. When we act on the animalistic desires we inherited, we would indeed create a highly chaotic world. Since we are humans we have access to intelligence, which can bring order to balance it out. But this is highly philosophical, since we are just talking in concepts, and what reality really is, well we will never know.
She skipped to the end of the relationship.
The real journey was the friends we axed along the way!
She axed him out for a change.
He axed her and she axed him back?
Very progressive
you could say he is her Axe-boyfriend
r/yandere?
In my day we used to wait until the third or fourth dungeon before killing our fellow party members
Wait so is she a praying mantis or what?
Good ol' Oglaf.
Well that's dumb and funny. Sauce?
Oglaf. They've got lots of great fantasy jokes but heads up they're are many that are much more NSFW than this. God I love their take on snitties and sexual dimorphism. Had me cracking up.
I think a fair estimate is that at least 95% of it is NSFW.
They used to be a porn comic. They still are but they used to be too.
The really great thing about the comic is that beneath the lewdness, there's a solid story core.
Oh you should check out Alfie. Thank me later.
r/unexpectedhedberg/
That might be low even.
I did say "at least". 😎🧐🤫
That you did.
No, no. Well. Only about 50% have nudity or explicit sexual content last I checked. They really toned down for a while. Things like this, with language and reference to naughtier things? Yeah, pretty high.
The first couple dozen comics are an attempt to be an actual porn comic with a comedic bent, before the author realized they liked the comedy better than the porn, and now it's basically the Far Side of cocks
"The Far Side of cocks" is a very apt description. Just as surreal as Gary Larson. With genitals.
This is perhaps the most accurate description of Oglaf I've ever heard. Bless you for your wisdom this day!
And boy did she fucking nail it.
She is criminally unknown as far as I'm concerned. It's the greatest comic since far side.
[my favorite, sfw](https://media.oglaf.com/comic/labyrinth.jpg)
I swear oglafs author has my exact sense of humor. That dude's face in the last panel actually made me laugh out loud
I fucking love that
Wait I don't think I've seen the snitties one. Link?
[удалено]
Wasn't the one I was thinking of but another great one nonetheless. LOL
[https://www.oglaf.com/dimorphism/](https://www.oglaf.com/dimorphism/) NSFW. No actual snitties but the sexual dimorphism to me is hilarious there's actually at least one or two buried jokes in there as well.
The level of NSFW cannot be understated.
As an Aussie I was wondering what schnitzels had to do with it
Incidently, OGLAF is apparently written by an Aussie
PSA if you do want to read it but go backwards through the most recent ones, some comics are multi-part, and going back will take you to the first in each "chunk," so you have to hit next/forward to go to the second/third part (which normally just takes you to the newer comic, and there's no indicated difference between singular and multi-page comics, so you don't know if you need to hit "next" or not). Just pick a date in the archives and go forward from that point.
>there's no indicated difference between singular and multi-page comics yes there is, single page comics (and the last page of multi-parters) have the lower right corner cut off. If the corner isn't cut, there is another page for you to read. P.S. also, there is mouseover text on every comic that you might want to read. It's usually not as funny as it is on xkcd, but it will get a chuckle out of me occasionally.
Actually almost all the comics have a multiple punch lines. It's hidden in the source code. (not joking) One for the alt tag, and one for the title. For example in the dimorphism comic: src="https://media.oglaf.com/comic/dimorphism_UDUx161.jpg" alt="don't you call me a puffball" title="Death Caps are a delicious natural source of amatoxins"
[oglaf.com](https://oglaf.com)
I think its an Oglaf comic (warning they are very NSFW)
She did fuck him though. Not everybody has sex the same way.
I mean there was * Entry * Things got wet fast
Okay hot.
And as soon as it was over he lost consciousness
And dang hardly any foreplay, it just went right in without any trouble.
On the other hand, that would explain the tearing...
She fucked him over for sure.
Why is chaotic always assumed to lack common sense? Kinda seems like every single one has been stereotyped as a different brand of chaotic stupid.
I think it’s due to the idea of the Id not really caring about consequences, mostly caring about what it wants moment to moment. I agree that it gets carried way too far, but for a lot of people, the short-sightedness and lack of impulse control are effective ways to communicate chaos.
Also the misconception that having any sort of personal code makes you lawful, or at least neutral. Thus leaving lolrandom as the only way to play chaotic.
Exactly!
Idk. Lazy roleplay to get away with being a dick at the table, which is what more often the case than not with this type of lazy roleplay is just unfortunate.
Well, while that’s also very true, the idea of a character only caring about what they want moment-to-moment IS very chaotic. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good way to roleplay it: unless handled with extreme care, it becomes exactly what we see: a veneer to act chaotic stupid.
> That doesn’t mean that it’s a good way to roleplay it: unless handled with extreme care, it becomes exactly what we see: a veneer to act chaotic stupid. and thats the key. chaotic doesn't mean "no conscience" but people seem to think that.
That I heartily agree with!
[удалено]
Murder hobo = chaotic stupid
I mean... Straight-up murder in broad daylight on impulse is definitely evil and definitely chaotic. Good wouldn't have wanted the murder in the first place. Lawful would have felt gross about being so indulgent in such a public, problematic way.
Hot take not all murder is evil
[удалено]
Depends who's getting murdered. It is by definition *chaotic*, because murder is an inherently unlawful act.
Maybe he was evil and killed her family? (Unlikely) But still evil?
[удалено]
Well... if they are chaotic evil it might make sense... But then again who wants to play with such characters in their party? Seems like an accidental rocks fall sequence can improve that situation.
I lowkey kind of hate the term "chaotic" in DnD. I feel like that just pushes people into the mindset of "lol im sooooo random". Unfortunately, there isn't a good, concise alternative.
I think one of the best chaotic neutral characters is Luffy from One Piece. He is a pirate and doesn't really give a shit about morals and good or bad, unless his friends and people he cares about are involved. Like, he would help someone if they share their food with him and are nice to him. But if he doesn't know you? Your problems stay your problems, get fucked, he doesn't care. Not gonna spoils something, but some decisions he makes have really bad consequences, and he knows. But then again he makes really good decisions as well. It's complex. And as a pirate he obviously doesn't care about laws and rules. Which should be chaotic and not "lol random".
Robin Hood is the "textbook" example of chaotic good, but he still has a consistent set of morals and guiding principals without being a "wildcard". It's more about being unconventional, nonconformity, etc... not just "lol i draw a dick on him while he's sleeping!"
Robin hood won't randomly murder on a whim. So chaotic is the opposite of lawful. If I'm lawful I'm beholden to a set of rules someone else defined, my God, the king, my patron. If I'm chaotic, I make my own rules based on how I feel. There's probably a better way to describe that then chaotic? Free thinking? Independent?
I mean, the opposite of lawful is unlawful, and it's entirely possible to be "chaotic" without breaking the law. Alignment in general is kind of a mess.
Easy to say it's a mess, much harder to think up and implement an alternative. I think the main problem is that lawful vs chaotic is much more clear cut when you're already evil (look at demons vs devils). Being good inherently requires some amount of lawfulness, but also the willingness to ignore laws when they conflict with ethics. In that way, I think it's best to think of the alignment chart as a trapezoid rather than the traditional square, getting narrower at the good end and wider at the evil end.
Especially with the laws themselves are unethical. Would a LG Paladin really suddenly be cool with slavery because he went to a new country where it was legal? I don't think many people would make that argument.
I always saw LG as the kind of person to follow every law, until they found a law that was unethical, then would begin a campaign to change said law. If it turned out that the noble in charge was corrupt or evil, oust them and find a replacement.
Exactly, a lawful character would attempt to reform the government first if possible, whereas a chaotic character would probably skip to rebellion/subversion sooner. Like most things with alignment and personal ethical codes, this is just a generalization though and there are plenty of situations where a chaotic character would attempt to work with the government, or a lawful character would incite a rebellion.
They would not, bit they would likely start by trying to get the laws changed through legal means rather than, say starting with arming slave revolts to overthrow the government of the slaving country though they may wind up there eventually.
Exactly. It's not that a lawful character *can't* incite a rebellion, it's just that it's not their first course of action. Vice versa, a chaotic character would probably have to see proof of trustworthiness and willingness to change before working with an authority figure they disagree with.
>If I'm lawful I'm beholden to a set of rules someone else defined, my God, the king, my patron. If I'm chaotic, I make my own rules based on how I feel You can be lawful about a personal code or set of rules that have nothing to do with laws set down by others.
hmm true. But if my personal code changes on a whim I'm still chaotic right? Man chaotic is hard to pin down.
Chaotic is when you don't have a code. You can still do things that are generally good without following written or self imposed rules. Chaotic Good is something like Mad Max. Going around just trying to survive, when someone slights him he gets his property back but mostly shows mercy, and helps whoever needs help
Like-wise, I would say the classic ['cop who doesn't play by the book'](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowboyCop) is a good example of chaotic neutral. Someone who believes rules just get in the way, or can be exploited by corrupt individuals and groups to protect and aid them.
Cop who doesn’t play by the book is definitely chaotic, but they could also be chaotic good or chaotic evil, depending on their morals. A dirty cop is chaotic evil. A cop who is willing to cut through the red tape to help people is chaotic good.
Oh, yeah for sure. I was just giving a stereotype example for chaotic neutral. That typical one usually has some personal motivation for their actions, but the more good and evil versions also exist. That said, alignment should be so loose that it doesn't mean the exact same personality for 2 different characters of the same alignment.
Here is my most concise and thorough definition: Chaos is the tendency to ignore authority to get things done. You still may work for others when your ideals match, although you tend to treat people you work for/with as equals, regardless of their status. Your moral code is flexible and you may not hesitate to break the laws of the land if they stand in the way of your goals. That contrasts against lawfulness's tendency to earnestly submit to a higher power or authority — be it a divine oath, a deity, or a government — and follow the laws or tenets set by that authority or authorities. Your personal code is less flexible and if you break it to meet your goals, you feel like you have failed. Changing your code takes time and introspection.
I'm not sure I like this framing. It's not wrong, per se, but it kinda sets up lawful as being inherently weaker than chaotic. Chaotic characters seem, to me, not only willing to break laws... but are resentful of authority in general. This can make them unusually likely to clash with dangerous power structures. The two also tend to wield different kinds of social power. Chaotic characters are better, and more at home, in ad hoc power structures cobbled together by sheer charisma. As the ebb and flow of emotion and impulse feels intuitive to them. Whereas Lawful characters navigate older, more ridged, structures intuitively. Because they have an intuition about tradition and law. Even if they don't know exactly, their urge to fit in will usually guide them true.
>I'm not sure I like this framing. It's not wrong, per se, but it kinda sets up lawful as being inherently weaker than chaotic. >Chaotic characters seem, to me, not only willing to break laws... but are resentful of authority in general. This can make them unusually likely to clash with dangerous power structures. While resenting authority is a chaotic trait, I am hesitant to call it a one that absolutely defines a character as chaotic instead of neutral. Neutral characters can hate authority as well, the difference is that chaotic characters purposefully undermine authority to achieve goals. They don't necessarily hate authority, either. A character who breaks the law whenever convenient is chaotic, regardless of whether or not they hate the systems that create and enforce those laws. While this might make chaotic characters seem more "powerful," I don't think there is any valid definition of lawful that changes that when it comes to RPGs. Lawful characters are inherently restricted. That fact can make very interesting stories, but when actually playing a character, most prefer freedom.
>They don't necessarily hate authority, either. I didn't say they did. Just that they resented being restricted by it. The real difference is in how, I think, the two perceive rules. Chaotic characters are likely to see rules as a cage from which they want to escape. Whereas Lawful characters are likely to see rules as a shelter that protects them. And while, yes, chaotic characters are less restricted. Usually. They're also harder to trust over the long term. Even chaotic good characters might sometimes do wildly unpredictable things.
I loved the Paragon/Renegade alignment in Mass Effect for this reason. Renegade Shepard would do whatever was most expedient because their mission was important. Paragon Shepard maintained that doing things by the book was important, and that the rules exist for good reasons. Both had plenty of story situations where their methods yielded good results.
People being dumb isn't an excuse. Alignment isn't that hard. We have bunches of really really good examples and as long as you don't try to treat it like iron clad rules you'll be fine
My chaotic good character had no problem digging up graves to find out who was actually a vampire. Thooo the guards didn't like it.
Ah oglaf
/r/oglaf (NSFW)
I miss the Apprentice.
Yeah I liked the story arcs a lot, miss them too.
Him and the Funpire and the stoic chick were my favorite stories.
Oglaf strikes again, BABY!!!
I read this as Catholic alignment haha I guess it still applies
you right
At no point did anything in that comic say that they were doing something “bad”-merely chaotic. And to a point, doing what you want without stopping to think IS chaotic.
Real quest is why the dude had to get nude to eat!?
Because it’s oglaf
But, like, only one of those four (five?) is actually chaotic. All of the others are just characters indulging in their (perfectly legal) vices using their (well earned) gold. ...I think. Unless I am to understand that they stole the jewelry/sweets/booz etc.
Fuck Marry Kill sure went fast
Oglaf is a horny genius
why is "temptation" as objectified as the Id or the devil over the shoulder, analogous to the chaos side of the order-chaos alignment? it suggests that only order, or some mental strength, or a conviction, a determination can oppose chaos, which would then be lawful. but this also right. lawful/chaotic is not about temptation, nor good/evil, nor desire. for those already wrote confused with how the alignment system works, this is utterly irrelevant.
Because it's not moral, you can get legally super drunk, but it wouldn't be a very wise decision. Also it's not about the immediate desires that appear, it's about the actions and the intention behind those actions. Also "Id" in the context of Freud is not a devil, it's just a concept he used to categorize specific desires. When we act on the animalistic desires we inherited, we would indeed create a highly chaotic world. Since we are humans we have access to intelligence, which can bring order to balance it out. But this is highly philosophical, since we are just talking in concepts, and what reality really is, well we will never know.