I'm so glad you guys are branching out into RPGs! They're an amazing way to express your creativity and grow as a storyteller. Once become such a better writer after my years playing and running RPGs. And while D&D is a very easy entry point, I should also recommend taking a look at other systems, too. They have different tools that focus on different kinds of stories and characters. D&D is, as you say, "technically a flavor," but in my opinion hardly the best. Some recommendations: -- Genesys (also the current Star Wars system); more flexible and action-oriented, and a lot more collaborative. There's a super-heroes rule that could also let you do MCU-type adventures! -- Powered by the Apocalypse (the official Avatar: the Last Airbender system coming out next year will use this!) Another of my favorites, is very simple and let's you focus on who characters are and why they act as they do, rather than spending too much effort on dice mechanics. -- World/Chronicles of Darkness. An old-school system that's nonetheless very fun, featuring classic monsters in a unique modern setting. With some work, I'm certain you could use this for stories on the Name of the Wind world!
My first thought for the "True Neutral" category was the centaurs, at least minus Firenze and for most of the series. They are dedicated to keeping to themselves and not getting involved with the bigger conflict, and even seem to leave long-term planning to astrology; that is, deferring to something completely outside their control.
True neutral: The night bus driver. Breaks too many traffic laws to be lawful, but keeps too tight a schedule to be chaotic. Will drive Bellatrix just as soon as Harry.
However, you gotta remember that Stan is a Harry superfan/supersupporter and is most likely talking about Harry Potter non-stop, but he also didn’t realize he was talking to Harry at first so take this with a grain of salt ig?
True neutral to me is clearly Olivander. Admiring Voldemort for his powers, but not supporting him and giving Harry Information, but not helping or supporting him. He only cares about wands.
Yes, and my interpretation was that he have Harry info because he feared him. Harry knew information only ollivander and Voldemort should have known. That along with Voldemort’s twin wand choosing Harry probably rattled Ollivander to the core. He probably felt he had no choice
@@rocksour21 but one could argue thats due to self preservation and personal trauma/pain, and not not any inherent morals of right v wrong that were always there
I would actually call him closer to lawful neutral. He was a shopkeeper, so he obeyed the rules. He didn't really choose sides and sold wands to whomever needed them.
chaotic good is literally the weasly twins and hagrid, they're good people but make their own rules and ignore others. They fight for the good cause but as the twins say, they love breaking rules and will dabble across it a bit.
@@Ninjamanhammer he openly disobeys ministry rules about creatures because he doesnt think theyre right and he does reckless actions like housing acromantula, 3 headed dogs and a dragon, hes not intent on being chaotic but he is
@@Ninjamanhammer His love for illegal animals, and his continuing to use magic (his 'umbrella') after his wand was broken. I totally love him, but yeah, a bit chaotic. (Blast-ended skrewts. Around children. *shudders*) :) I don't think anyone can argue that point about the twins.
Wouldn't Slughorn be a better True Neutral. He actively secluded himself so as not to choose Good or Evil and he shares sympathies for both sides (has a clear bias for pure bloods yet finds himself impressed by the unicorn "talented muggleborn").
@@brianlefevre3220 I agree I think he's NG. I don't think it's that he wants to stay neutral I think he wants to be on the right side and fight Voldemort he's just terrified because he knows just how powerful Voldemort is better than almost anyone who isn't a death eater. When finally pressed he does choose the right thing and when he's given the chance to flee the final battle he instead attacks Voldemort (granted he's one of several to duel Voldemort but he still chooses to fight evil instead of run).
Olivander is True Neutral. He spoke of Voldemort doing great things and doing terrible things and sold the wand to Voldemort in the beginning. He seems to be pretty close to true neutral
Ollivander didn't know then who Voldemort would become, and in the last book he helps Harry. In my opinion, the true neutral is someone like Griphook, who just thinks of himself and his 'people'.
@@МаксимЯромич In the last book Olivander is just supplying information about his field of expertise to people who have just helped him out of a bad situation. He had no intention of joining the fight in any way.
For true neutral I would have put olivander. He is the only “good” character that has shown a level of respect for Voldemort. I always think back to Harry’s first and last encounters with him where he didn’t know how to feel about olivander, yes the dark side tortured him, he isn’t on their side however he never showed alliance to Harry either, only helping cause Harry’s visions gave him information that intimidated him. Olivander only cares for wands and admiration of the power produced by them, good or bad
I disagree, many of the supposed good guys respect Voldemort while still hating him. Throughout Book 6 Harry and Dumbledores learning about him and coming to understand him are very much about Harry preparing for the Hunt, but also learning to respect Voldemort as a dangerous opponent.
I think slughorn could fit neutral. He is out for himself. He doesn’t want to support either side, but yet he has supported both sides, giving the horcrux info to Tom riddle, giving the memory to Harry. But almost nothing he does is for the sake of right or wrong, it’s basically how can I survive this current conflict and get back to my comfortable life style. He does not want an active part in ending the conflict, he’s doesn’t want to be perceived to be “on Dumbledor’s side” if staying neutral will keep him alive longer.
@Emily Jewett... I would argue that Slughorn is a very mild neutral evil. As you pointed out he avoids picking a side not out of a sense of loyalty to either side, or for any moral reason, but because his main goal, from his introduction into the series and throughout most of its conclusion, is to survive and return to his comfortable lifestyle collecting the favor of influencers. While this doesn't make him Voldemort levels of evil, it is still a purely selfish worldview/motivation and also seems to guide everything he did and does during his career and retirement, and at it's core the moral concept of evil vs good on the alignment chart is selfishness and greed vs selflessness and altruism. Being evil doesn't mean you have to kill for fun like Voldy, it just means you always put yourself first, even when considering others. So evil characters can do good things for purely selfish reasons and still be considered evil. I would also push Lockhart more towards evil just because everything he did was for purely selfish reasons. Even attempting to help others was done to make himself look good.
tbh, I think Narcissa is a true neutral. She doesn't pick sides. She helps voldemort for her husband and she helps harry for her son. I thinks she is perfect for this catagory cuz she doesn't support either side she's just looking out for her family.
I disagree. Narcissa Malfoy is Neutral Evil. It's not because she jumps out of Voldemort's train that she stops being evil. The Malfoys fell out of grace in the eyes of Voldemort, so Narcissa tries to save her family.
@@MissA834 i don't necessarily think she's selfish but definitely not a great person either. I don't agree but I respect your opinion, i can see why you think that
Fenrir was one of the few people Dumbledore considered among the death eaters, even excluding Voldemort and Bellatrix, to be absolutely beneath any empathy. Whether it be due to age or regret, he always talked to Tom Riddle and Bellatrix as if they were young students who had fallen down the wrong path. He didnt think they would ever reform obviously, but he treated them as such all the same even as he did everything he could to stop them. When he met Fenrir, Dumbledore didnt give him an ounce of his normal sagely empathy. Fenrir was an evil being that just spread misery, who got pleasure from mutilating and killing children. Even Voldemort admitted that he didn't like senseless killing of wizard children unless it truly helped his goals. Yes he was pure evil and would kill children to further his goals, but one of Voldy's warped ideologies is he hated pure blood wizards dying before they could realize their potential under his empire, as in his mind it contradicted his own code for living. Fenrir was simply a child murderer. Dumbledore would of happily ended his life if given the chance, but he had to die before that.
He might be chaotic neutral since he really just wants to be a ferocious wolf and could care less about Voldemort. He just hangs out with the Death Eaters cuz it’s convenient edit: obviously he’s a heartless murderer at the end of the day, so chaotic evil fits too
I'd say Aberforth is more neutral/neutral. He's not in most of the story, but he's still someone you'd expect to be more active in the plot, considering he's Albus' brother. Yet he's living his own life on the sides, not helping anyone, letting things happen. At least until the very end when he does help somewhat.
Honestly, I think the final book and battle pushes Aberforth into Neutral Good. If he hadn't participated in the final battle, then I think there'd be a case to define him as a True Neutral. But since he did finally do something at the end, I don't think he qualifies as a True Neutral.
He's more neutral good, he still acts in ways that are good for the sake of good (funneling students out of the castle) but he is generally non plussed with order or chaos.
I would like to put Xenophilius Lovegood forward as chaotic neutral. He starts as a chaotic good character, but by the end of the story, he has made decisions to protect himself and his daughter at the cost of giving the bad guys what they want. When push comes to shoves, his own interests come first.
He still freely fed Harry information about the deathly hallow that no one else had, and as soon as he called in the death eaters regretted it. Not because he know it was right or wrong, but because they were Lunas friends, and he didn't want her to think poorly of him.
True Neutral: Moaning Myrtle, she was in the room each time the chamber was opened in Chamber of Secrets and never turned in anyone, lawful, good or evil, she didn’t report it. Reliably she didn’t report students brewing potions in there either, so she isn’t chaotic Neutral. Cedric Diggory leaned Neutral Good more than he leaned Neutral Evil. Like with Mertle, it’s easy to point out where they helped or returned the favor to Harry, but not really as easy to point to where Cedric was neutral towards evil, unlawful, or chaotic actions.
My point isn’t just towards Riddle and the Basilisk but everything Myrtle looked the other way for… Draco and Harry both… IE: Myrtle was aware of polyjuice potion being brewed and never turned anyone in. Section from the book on Myrtle being discovered… if she knew it took hours for someone to find her body, she must have seen something and just not brought it forward… killed by the basilisk but how long was she dead before she came back as a ghost? We see others come back as ghosts pretty quickly in the examples we’re given… maybe the PTSD of it didn’t allow her to speak of it further… “Nobody missed me even when I was alive. Took them hours to find my body - I know, I was sitting there waiting for them. Olive Hornby came into the bathroom - 'Are you in here again, sulking, Myrtle?' she said, 'because Professor Dippet asked me to look for you -' And then she saw my body...”
Someone like Ollivander would probably make a good candidate for Neutral Neutral. He technically leans towards good to an extent like Neutrals tend to do, but he doesn't really actively support either side in any direct ways. Aberforth also came to mind. It's also fairly easy to cheat and answer plot-unimportant characters for this role, too. Like, someone like Stan Shunpike is probably Neutral Neutral, but... Really, would you pick him as an example?
I would put Cedric closer to LN or even LG. He's generally a good person, and is all about the rules and fair play. For True Neutral I would put up the centaurs. They literally don't pick sides as part of their culture, they simply watch the planets and stars and see how they influence the ebb and flow of events around them.
I would say that Slughorn is True Neutral. He is just about himself. Would rather not do anything bad, but then again if he could have he would have gone through the wizarding war as a neutral, but it was only because he could get something out of it and it would be more comfortable that he goes to Hogwarts. He witholds the memory from the good guys when it would have helped them, not because he wanted evil to win but because he didn't want to confront the truth of the matter. He gathers influence for himself, not not for evil gain but so that he can have favours and comforts. He will do whatever is most expedient at the time for himself.
Slughorn was who came to my mind for true neutral as well. The only fact that might swing him more towards the good side would be him dueling the death eaters during the battle for Howarts. Which still technically could be viewed as self preservation, so.....
Would that make pettigrew nuetral aswell rather than leaning towards evil? Even if he did bad things he kept swaying back and forth not having a place on either side. Yes he looked for Voldemort, killed 12 muggles and orchestrated the entire triwizard tournament to kill Cedric and bring Voldemort back. This sounds obviously evil and it is but that one instant when he avoids killing Harry and the hand kills him, I think could qualify as neutral. After all this I just saw how much killing there is! Definitely neutral-evil
true neutral is aberforth in my opinion. He doesn't do anything when it comes to picking a side. He only helps Neville bc room of requirements opens a tunnel there adn he just help to people in need as a neutral does. Also he helps the good guys at the battle of hogwarts bc he grew the like people from hogwarts and he still just want to help. He never picked a side he was just there and mostly the good guys came to him.
I like this pick. Especially since he actively tries to convince Harry to abandon the path of good and seek a path of freedom from the war. He actively expresses a neutral position, one of the very few to do so.
nah Aberforth is def neutral good. He fought alongside of the Order of Phoenix in both wars against Voldemort. Not to mention when you look at the expanded lore and world Aberforth also fought in the war prior to Voldemort against Grindelwald. Nothing about him is true neutral as he always gets involved and helps the good side when its necessary.
@@FenixTheDon Agreed. The fact that he could see the evil that Dumbledore was doing with Grindelwald shows that he is indeed motivated by good intentions. Just because he didn’t trust/agree with Dumbledore’s method’s doesn’t make him truly neutral. Plus he harbored Harry at a time when it was extremely dangerous, showing that he was not indifferent to Voldemort’s reign of terror.
Since they specifically brought it up, no Cedric isn't true neutral, but Snape is. Because Snape is unconcerned with Good/Evil or Law/Chaos. As a child he seems to like Dark Magic not because it's evil, but because it's useful for what he wants. And he hangs around with the fellow future Death Eaters not because he wants to be cruel but because they're the people who treat him well. And then, in then converse, he doesn't join the Order because of a repulsion against the horrible things the Death Eaters are doing, but only because of his specific attachment to Lilly, i.e. selfish, personal reasons. Finally, he's perfectly happy to enforce the rules when it suits him (punishing students from other houses when they break rules) but is perfectly willing to bend or break those rules when it suits him as well (all the things he ignores about Slytherin students).
I disagree. I think some of the things he does--in particular to Neville--are straight up cruel. If you look at the book and not Alan Rickman's portrayal, he eggs on the Slytherin students, not just ignores them. And he actively shows malice when others are in pain. And we do have some indication that he didn't just "like" the Dark Arts, he was fascinated and obsessive about Dark Magic. There is a good case for him being Neutral Evil.
@@janealroberts7585 I suppose I was thinking more of the Alan Rickman / movie portrayal than book version. But I don't think he is egging on Slytherin students or tormenting non-Slytherin because he enjoys the cruelty of it. I think he still sees himself as the bullied child targeted by James, and he sees Slytherin house as the house hated by everyone else, and has connected the two in his mind. The fact that he still sees himself as the victim is evident in how he treats Harry when talking about James. And because of that, I think he believes he's perfectly justified in inflicting pain back on the people he perceives as representing his bullies, and working with his house to proactively "defend" himself from the others. Voldemort, neutral evil, wakes up each morning and wonders how he can hurt more people, because he wants to hurt them. Snape wakes up and wonders how he can pay back the pain that was given to him. None of this justifies his actions. Even people with good intentions can cause pain to people around him, let alone someone acting purely selfishly. And I think Snape would have seriously benefited from some therapy (looks at the video's sponsor) but I don't think he's acting maliciously, wanting to hurt people for the sake of hurting. I think he's hurting others because he thinks he's allowed to because of his sense of victimhood.
Heh, I just typed up almost the same thing. I need to check the comments before doing that. Yes, I completely agree. He wasn't like the Neutral Druid, pushing for balance, he was the other kind of neutral, detached. He was both self serving, yet selfless, good, evil, and never really lawful or chaotic. That puts him square in the middle.
I’d argue that the True Neutral character was Cornelius Fudge. His main concern was keeping the status quo at all costs. He neither helped nor hindered either side in the wizarding war, almost aggressively so. He was also simultaneously “The Law” as the chief executive of the magical government, but also clearly threw away the rules when it suited him. For example, He reacts completely differently to Harry using underage magic in front of muggles in books 3 and 5. He also appears to have close relationships with important figures in the war on both sides. Dumbledore, Kingsley on the good team. Lucius, and Um*BEEP* on the bad. As well as being steadfastly against “criminals” on both sides, Sirius and Bellatrix. As for Snape, I’d say Chaotic Good, at least in the story seen. He is on the side of good, but his motivations are based on some dark emotions like jealousy , anger, revenge, obsession , and grief.
I agree 100% with fudge, but I would argue that Snape isn't good. He is a second rate antagonist for most of the books, actively trying to get Harry thrown out. It also seems like he just really enjoy bullying the students. It is only really in book 7 that he actually helps Harry
This is spot on in my opinion. He really only followed the law to the extent that it would. I think he's unique though in that where normally a character is true neutral because of their lack of leaning, Fudge seems to fit the role because he leans everywhere, depending on the circumstance.
Is she though? She uses the law where it fits her, but also has no problem breaking crucio to torture harry or sending a dementor to kill him/compromise him.
@@Azaghal1988 before she does crucio she mentions "I'm sure the minister won't mind" and similar for demantors. I get what your saying just stating why I don't agree
Snape, in many ways, is a True Neutral who wants to be Neutral Good but is held back by his former descisions and his own bitterness. He literally treads the line between good and evil in a way that has him being both (more good than evil, but both are still present) in a way that can really only be called Neutral because we lack a better term for it. He is a very interesting character, and one of my favs.
Yeah my thought was Snape as true neutral also. I mean, nobody except Dumbledore was completely sure of his allegiance until after he died and Harry found out what Dumbledore knew. If that's not neutral, idk what is.
I don’t know about Cedric. He seems more Lawfully Good than even Hermione (I mean, do we remember the quidditch match in Harry’s 3rd year? The third task when he, technically, makes it to the center of the maze first? That’s a good kid!) I think Slughorn fits True Neutral the best. He is out to save himself, neither WANTING to help the “good” or “bad” side (though he has at one point or another). He isn’t NG, otherwise he would have joined Dumbledore the first time he asked, and he isn’t NB otherwise he would have joined Voldy the second that first deatheater came knocking
Cedric certainly is a lawful good , I think his untimely demise signifies the cost of war. And he never showed an ounce of cockiness despite being almost universally loved. If he can be a casualty of a conflict he had no part in,anyone can be .
Love how the black sisters basically sit diagonally in the grid. I mean, Andy is probably lawfully good, Cissa is a true neutral and Bella is a chaotic evil!
@@ChildOfDarkDefiance i don‘t think that contradicts the point as much as you think. We don’t know at all how much it turns her stomach. But as long as it doesn’t hurt her family she won’t get involved or be bothered. That’s is the epitome of neutral. Most neutral is good leaning (because it’s better to live amongst good people). Neutral is not good. Neutral can even perpetuate evil that is not a contradiction (not even in reality)
My first thought for true neutral was Ollivander, mainly because the line "Voldemort did many great things, Teribble, but great" showing that he doesnt rlly side with anyone (obvsly hes still a good person and is on the side of harry, but he acknowledges the "great" things moldevort has done, whereas any "good neutral" character would instantly dismiss and severely ridicule those actions)
@@AirQuotes The genocide of the muggle borns (great in the sense that it was rlly important to everytging that happens after it), attaining the elder wand (its a great feat to attain the elder wand, though he did terrible things with it) and many other things, basically his whole life lol
Well... I mean he was literally tortured by DE's and Voldy. But then promptly leaves the story again afterwards so I guess we'll never actually know his true feelings.
I really thought that Aberforth was going to be the example for Lawful Neutral and Mundungus of Neutral Neutral. Mundungus really didn't care about picking a side, he was just following whoever was winning and his only interests were saving himself. I think that was a great example.
Mundungus is 100% chaotic neutral. A better example of true neutral is the centaurs, with their persistent refusal to get involved or even assist wizards whatsoever - at least until the very end, but even then, they only attack after the "balance" has been swayed in Voldemort's favor, which is another true neutral trait.
Snape is Chaotic Neutral. Everything is does is for his love, hate, and the emotions in between. Both helping Harry and bullying him stems from his emotions of Harry's Parents. He joins Voldemort due to his magical pride but leaves when Lily is in danger. He has no moral hangups with good or evil so long as they benefit him and the ones he considers important. My choice for a true Neutral would be the Prime minister of Magic. (Forgot his name) He messes with Harry and denies Voldemort is back but doesn't want a war to happen or back up Voldemort when he actually see him back.
Oooooh that's a good point. I was thinking lawful neutral with the caveat that the laws he followed were of his own making, but this makes much more sense.
When Voldemort gets up in the morning, he puts on his socks like most people, then says, "These socks are amazing!" Only then does he go on to think of evil things to do.
Taking everything into account, at the moment of his death, I believe Snape is a True Neutral. I am going to make a correction first before I explain though: Yes, True Neutral's can be defined as their lack of moral commitment to either side, as a player and DM of Dungeons and Dragons, they can also very much be defined by their moral commitment to neutrality- staying out of any and all conflcit, a neutral presence. (See Switzerland for a geographical TN.) Snape obviously isn't committed to not committing to a side, because he crosses back and forth more often than a chicken over a road, but the defining factor for me at least, is his motivation. He was driven by a love for Lily at the base of it, and though that could end up placing him on the side of good, it's the fact that _he_ wanted to be the one to give and return Lily's affections, Snape wanted it to be him, and _only_ him. But this is just my opinion, he's possibly the most complex character in the entire series so a single person on the internet isn't going to represent an entire fanbase. Honestly, I think Aberforth works well as a True Neutral character, if he isn't NG.
Yeah Idon't think loyalty can tip anyone towards good, so Snape's loyalty to his love for Lily and Abeforth's loyalty to his brother don't really make them any less neutral.
I came here to comment the exact same thing. Certainly after all of the buildup, I thought that Snape would be revealed as the true neutral character. You make a compelling argument for Aberforth, too!
For the most part I agree with this. However, I think the key point about his motivation is the defining part that actually puts him in Chaotic Neutral. Because the thing is, his desire to be the one to give and return Lily's affection is unambiguously a selfish one. He desires that for himself, not for the sake of others, and most importantly, not for Lily's own sake. Such an unhealthy, one-sided obsession is also in opposition of accepted societal norms. Opposing the rules (even unwritten ones) for one's own selfish needs is a very chaotic trait
@UCOfBMr8GLtVb2qKMqnwJQkQ I agree, the way he polices the school and his classroom, and disciplines himself. He has a code, specific to him, but an abiding set of rules that he will not break. If not for Lily he very well might have stayed out of conflict all together.
Would have loved to see a full breakdown of literally every character and where they fit. I think there’s some really interesting characters that weren’t discussed
So, Cedric doesn't support Harry in his fight against Voldemort... because he never gets a chance to! He gets killed in the first five seconds! I don't think it's fair to use that as evidence for his being neutral. Also, I think Lockhart is probably more true neutral than chaotic neutral. Sure, his end results tend towards chaotic, but that's just from incompetence rather than alignment. The best example of a chaotic neutral character is Peeves. He doesn't care what's going on from a good/evil standpoint; he just cares that it's chaotic. Edit: I also saw a comment about centaurs being true neutral. I agree, and I think they're probably the best ones to put in there. Except Firenze. Firenze is neutral good. Most of the centaurs have the same thing of siding with Harry in the end, but overall there's no better example for true neutral.
Aren't the centaurs obsessed with their own set of rules regarding the stars, and thus lawful neutral? The only true neutral I can think of is Olivander, though I feel I'm overlooking a ministry official of some kind.
I see Dumbledore as a chaotic good character. Like his “big plan” involves putting Harry in a lot of dangerous predicaments for “the greater good” and in order of the Phoenix he legit escaped being captured by Umbr*ge and fudge causing chaos in the school as a result.
I agree with this assessment, but only for his later life. I'd put his as more of a chaotic neutral when he was a younger man. He had a big change when his sister died and he learned from the fallout of that experience. He always seemed to think of himself as above the rules that others follow and he had the power and smarts to survive that way. It is hard for chaotic characters to live a long life unless they are actually more powerful than the rules that have to follow.
more extra neat to such an extant that it might seem chaotic, (a level probably impossible to reach unless you have an AI in your brain or smth). definitely not chaotic.
Nope! Honestly I don’t see any chaos in Dumbldore’s character at all. I understand you can’t see him lawful but the reason is that he is above the law!! He’s an older version of Harry, a neutral good!
Nah NG, he is with Harry and against Voldemort so he’s definitely on the side of good. He follows the rules for the most part but has no particular problem with disregarding them either. If you were to take away the Harry VS Voldemort conflict he’d be closer to TN as his motivations are mostly to fulfil his own ambitions. I imagine him as an adventuring wizard in his younger days hunting for lost tomes, magical relics, and feeding his hunger for power.
The way he was describing Neutral Neutral immediately made me think of Snape. He supported Harry only because he cared about Lily, not because it was right. He supported Voldemort only because he thought he was supposed to, not because he believed in Voldemort's cause. He was out for himself, within what was expected of him. True Neutral all the way.
Ooo please he initially supported harry like you said for lily but after some years he slowly came to believe in the right cause, it is given in the prince's tale chapter. He also stick on to the plan even after realising harry is going to be dead. Most of the good things he does in the book other than protecting harry have nothing to do with Lily. If anything he was not selfish after he parted from voldemort. I don't think he would perfectly fit in any of the categories
I personally think Snape would be chaotic neutral. For one, his main influence isn’t good or evil, just Lily. I think he’s chaotic because because he’ll do anything for Lily or against James even if it doesn’t make sense within rules or nature: he bullies Harry all the time just because he resembles James even though it’s not fair and Harry’s the son of Lily, and he works with Voldemort loyally until he switched sides completely to try and save Lily. He’s just very inconsistent and unorganized with his decisions. P.S. no shade on Snape, just my thoughts on his alignment
Even I thought of Snape but I don't think he fits anywhere , he's really complex and the neutral character does things for themselves ,so they can be at peace but this defeats the whole purpose of Snape being neutral cause everything he does is for lily and not for his peace. A neutral character is a more of idc character but Snape is too complex to even say that .
@@gsiya4023 good thoughts. I agree that he’s too complex to place, I was just saying where I thought he would go if he were to be placed. But I like your ideas though
I really feel like Narcissa needs her own category. She, in my opinion, would be a “Questionable Neutral” or a “Can someone keep an eye on her - Neutral”😂
i just got unnecessarily protective of Cedric when you called him a true neutral 😂 i think he’s probably more of a neutral good because he definitely leans good.
Cedric was not mean to Harry even at the point where basically all the rest of Hogwarts were siding with him and going against Harry directly. He even calmed the most vocal of those. Cedric was definitely good, I'd say either Lawful Good (the Paladin style) or neutral good (in a similar way Harry is neutral good, just fighting injustice being the highest virtue).
I think Snape would be a true neutral. His motivations are only ever for himself (not Harry or Voldemort), and while he mostly follows the rules, he still has no problem breaking them when necessary.
Snape never cared for anyone but Lily. Even his loyalty to Dumbledore and helping of Harry was due to a misguided desire to be closer to Lily. His motivations were selfish in nature, and he would have gladly seen Harry and James dead if it meant he could have Lily. That's evil in the context of the morality square. His actions before he discovered Voldemort selected the Potters as the object of the prophecy were LE, but afterwards they were about self preservation and a twisted desire to pay penance to Lily, not any actual care for Harry, or desire to stop Voldemort. Neutral Evil. The thing about the morality square that gets overlooked the most is that it doesn't care about actions, but motivations. You can point to a long list of both good and evil things Snape has done, and call it neutral, however the motivations for both were selfish and even his good deeds weren't done for the sake of good but for the sake of power or achieving an object of desire.
@@Lreclusa I noticed that they didn't use the typical idea that self-serving is evil that I often see in these grids. Often, people like Lockhart, Slughorn and Snape would be considered evil because they are self serving, but using the SCB metric, Snape is more neutral. I do think that he did some self sacrificing things in service of his students, particularly Draco.
@@allieoneal2033 his motivations for helping Draco weren't self sacrificing. He was doing so under Dumbledore's orders. Even the unbreakable oath was part of that. The "Always." moment demonstrates that he's just a spurned suitor that couldn't get over his high school crush. But this is all interpretation, so we may see it differently. I have never cared for the "tragic romantic/misunderstood hero" angle that people try to portray him as.
@@Lreclusa Yes, Snape is a very polarizing character. IMHO, he wouldn't have risked his life with the vow, even under Dumbledore's orders, if he didn't have some kind of personal loyalty to the Malfoy family.
@@allieoneal2033 That's assuming you view the vow as a risk. The vow was to protect Draco from Dumbledore, and to kill Dumbledore in his stead. He knew Draco wouldn't have been in danger from Dumbledore, and had already promised the headmaster that he would kill him to spare Malfoy's innocence. You can even see him panicking a bit when Draco wouldn't allow Snape to help. He begins cornering the boy and trying to get information. The failed assassinations were sloppy and incurred a lot of risk, which introduced uncertainty in the outcome of the vow, hence Snape's panic.
I wouldn't do Cedric that dirty, Aragog is more of a true neutral. He only has loyalty to Hagrid, and that loyalty is pretty limited. Outside of that I think a lot of side characters fit the true neutral description, as a lot of students don't support Voldemort, but won't stand against him either. They read the room and choose the path that inconveniences them the least. In that vein Wormtail almost fits as true neutral, he bet on Voldemort because he saw Voldemort was extremely powerful and made the choice that he thought would best keep himself safe. He sold out his friends for his own self interest, but his loyalty to Voldemort is very much linked to fear and limited choices. He doesn't serve the dark lord out of support for his ideals, devotion, or even liking Voldemort. Everything Wormtail does is for Wormtail. Unfortunately for Wormtail, Wormtail made a real hash of things and really backed himself into a corner
I truly believe Draco is the one who is neutral neutral. Very susceptible to outside influence yet truly conflicted by his emotions and his upbringing.
See I also see him as neutral but more chaotic as he often makes a show of acting evil though he doesn't generally follow through and often actually helps the protagonists
He's more Lawful Neutral He follows the rules and code of conduct of his parents until it affects him and his family and abandons Voldemort before the Finale of the Battle of Hogwarts He doesn't follow this conduct because of real belief but mostly because of his parents, Lucius especially who is more Chaotic Neutral with a leaning to Evil because there is easier selfish gain by exploiting loopholes or applying violence for personal gain
I'd say both of you have a point, because while he does follow his family's principles he also is often stuck in the middle sometimes both literally and figuratively. That's evident by the fact that he is conflicted about killing Dumbledore but also knows that if he doesn't he an his family will be in danger. But in terms of alignment, I do ultimately consider him Lawful Neutral because he follows the rules of his household no matter the cost or consequences that follow.
I strongly disagree personally with cedric being true neutral. That argument really only holds up in the specifics of the conflict between harry and voldy. If you look at Cedric as a character, he does show that he adheres to a code, even to his own detriment (lawful), that code essentially being the defining traits of hufflepuff house. Kindness, Integrity, Compassion. Which are all traits that very clearly would qualify him as good. In short, if im rolling up a cedric diggory character sheet, he's 100% lawful good. For a genuinely true neutral character... The Grey Lady. Until Harry persuades her, she keeps the whole "I told him where moms diadem is" to herself despite knowing that it would help defeat him. Her reasoning seems to be 'Why bother, itll sort itself out eventually. Im dead why should i get involved.' But shes not so set in that mindset that she was unwilling to break her silence. She literally helped both sides. She was willing to just watch everything play out without getting involved further. But she broke her decades long silence when asked. All of which show that shes not good or evil, but also lawful enough to stick to her word, and chaotic enough to break that promise when the time came. Neutral.
Not gunna lie, I thought Narcissa and Draco were going to be classed as the true neutral characters. They support Voldemort, yes, but I don't think they really seemed to be too invested with either side other than for the sake of appearances. They seem to me to be on the side of their own safety and peace keeping with their own family and ancestry more than anything else.
Wouldn't Greyback also be Chaotic Evil? Also, in no way is Cedric True Neutral. Neutrality to the plot or the hero is not the same as being a force for balance between good, evil, order and chaos. The only characters I would say exhibited truly True Neutral characteristics in Harry Potter are the centaurs other than Firenze. As for Snape, he is a character who has an alignment shift throughout his arc. He starts off Neutral Good, but gradually shifts to True Neutral and even a little towards Lawful Evil before Lilly's death, only to spend most the rest of the story firmly as Lawful Neutral in the service of Dumbledore's Lawful Good plan.
Tbh, I think Gryffindors and Slytherins are typically more chaotic, Hufflepuffs are generally more neutral, and Ravenclaws are typically more lawful, just based on the characteristics of each house.
I'm probably Neutral Neutral (tho, leaning towards Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good... or maybe Lawful Good, but less) Ravenclaw, but I also agree. Nice observation, btw ^~^
Snape: Definitely lawful. All about discipline, including self-discipline and rules. On the Good-Evil axis, I'll call him neutral, because he cherishes the dark side but has enough love to case a Patronus based on the person he loves. There is actually a case to be made that Snape is True Neutral (that is, like a druid) because he seems to favor Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos whichever seems shortest in supply at the time. I don't think he perceives himself as seeking balance, but his decisions seem to follow that metric. Another such "unintentional true neutral" may be Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. When Jedi rule the galaxy, he slays Jedi. When Sith rule the galaxy, he slays Palpatine/Sidious. As far as a neutral/neutral, Mundungus Fletcher seems a good candidate.
Mundugus is a odd sitituation cause he’s not evil but he’s a terrible person when Sirius dies all he does is goes to grin walks place and profits of his death and is just a bad guy but I wouldn’t consider him evil
See I thought that to first but no he's not lawful neutral. Yes he's an absolute stickler for the rules but only when it applies to other houses. He lets the slytherins do nearly anything they want. That's not lawful but its not chaos either. He's True Neutral.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia Lawful isn't necessarily about following other people's rules, and certainly not about being fair. Organized crime is definitely lawful in the D&D alignment scheme, and so is Snape.
@@SlidellRobotics I know what you mean I've been playing d&d since it came in a cardboard box and I still don't agree. Snape doesn't have the sort of strict code of honor to qualify that way either.
Personally I think I might put Viktor Krum in True Neutral. He doesn't really support either Harry or Voldemort. He doesn't really do anything evil (except while under the Imperius curse, which obviously isn't him doing it) nor does he really do things for good. And I don't think he is chaotic or lawful.
But I think he's too neutral to the point that he didn't even know Voldemort's existence,atleast ad long as he was there and was kinda just a romantic interest.I would say professor trewaleny is pretty neutral cause she's the reason the whole prophecy started and yes she leans towards good but she just is all about her won 'astrology' even though she's the focal point of how voldemort got to pinpoint Harry in the first place.
I think Snape is a True Neutral in the end. His actions were motivated by who wronged him and avenging Lily's death. True Neutral that holds grudges till the end. He was mean to Harry because he was James's son, but still worked on Dumbledore's side because Harry was Lily's son
exactly, slughorn goes to great lengths to avoid having to pick aside, becoming a nomad and faking his own death, he only finally does pick a side, when dumbledore literally has him cornered.
@@windhelmguard5295 While I definitely agree to a point, I kinda feel like Slughorn is the polar opposite of true neutral. Rather than letting things happen and "riding the wave", Slughorn is extremely proactive in avoiding gaining an alignment. He's "anti-neutral".
What about Draco? For some reason I’d put him neutral too. Not completely committed to either side, just trying to have him and his family survive. Not actually evil because he didn’t have the heart to kill Dumbledore but also didn’t fight in the battle against Voldemort.
I would say Draco is a solid Lawful Neutral. He's not capable of truly evil acts and he usually just does what is asked of him from his superiors. At the end of the day, his primary goal is self-preservation.
Neutral Evil. He doesnt really leans towards either good or evil but gets forced down that path to seek approval from his family and Voldemort. That's why he couldnt kill Dumbledore and was only doing bad things for himself and recognition. Reminds me the moment when Draco and Harry fight in Half Blood Prince and explains why he is doing bad things (Probably one of the hardest kind of characters to do). Voldemort is Chaotic Evil, he is crazy because he can't feel love, he is just bad just because like Bellatrix.
Hot Take: the True Neutral person should be Draco. Rather than not taking any stand he was FORCED to both help Voldemort AND Harry (at least at the end)
That is an extremely interesting stand. I never thought of it this way, but I think you make a very fair point. He would otherwise be very difficult to place and everything he does sort of comes out of being forced into it (even the bullying from their earlier schoolyears). I completely agree!
True Neutral- The Elder Wand, in every way. Snape, I'd say TN. Doesn't particularly care about following the rules or going against them, his chief concern is the safety of Lily... And even that is for selfish reasons. He doesn't really care about the good or evil, just himself.
When it came to true neutral, I was screaming out Ollivander. I was slightly disappointed that it wasn't him, but more disappointed that you said Cedric. Regarding Snape, it's hard to decide between lawful neutral and true neutral
@@jamieadams2589 but he secretly supported harry's fight against voldermort throughout the 7 books though, its just the way he acted around harry that was cruel. I'd say he counts as LN or maybe even good.
@@MacabreCODM around Harry and literally everyone else. Snape was cruel and vindictive to everyone, just because that includes voldemort doesn't make him a good person
I think that Snape is the perfect example of chaotic neutral. Even more than Harry. He’s simultaneously the second in command for both good and evil but will do whatever it takes to appeal to both sides.
I personally would place Snape in true neutral because as you said, he serves both sides, so you can't say good or evil there, he doesn't like the protagonist, or the antagonist, he isn't concerned with rules to the point where he is lawful, he isn't very chaotic, he's more orderly and refined, and he does tip over to the good side only for his own personal reasons (those being his love for Lily and MAYBE his respect for Dumbledore)
I think he's lawful neutral. You're right that his main driving factors are his selfish adoration of Lily and his hatred of James. But the way he goes about it is lawful imo. When he finds out Voldemort essentially betrays him, he goes to work for Dumbledore instead of planning his revenge on his own. And he's always complaining about how James and Harry and their friends are always breaking the rules. Whenever he wants to punish Harry he does so by giving him detention or taking points away from Gryffindor. So I think he's very prideful about how lawful he is.
Hm, very true, with your input I'm now starting to lean over to that side as well, but in my personal opinion, he's kind of in the middle of lawful neutral and true neutral, I think he could lean either way
@@Lightning_Lance I don't think he puts much store in the rules unless they serve his purpose. He uses the rules because they give him power not because they should always be uphold he threatens to spike Harry's drink with veritaserum. He punish the Griffindoors for stuff but look the other way when it comes to his house. To me he just uses the rules but doesn't follow them which would make.him true neutral imo
I agree he is some form of neutral, just not sure what. Possibly either chaotic or even lawful or maybe hes both. It all depends who he’s really doing it for, himself or for the greater good
I think Slughorn is the best example of a true neutral. His only interest is toward himself. Snape is difficult. His hatred of Harry stems from his hurt over Lily, and hurting those who hurt you is part of a neutral character. His cruelty reflects the cruelty shown to him as a child. At the same time, if a student were hurt, I can't imagine Snape ignoring them, even if it were Harry, Ron, or Hermione. Snape's only true allegiance is to his memory of Lily, first motivated by her rejection, then by his part in her death. He isn't necessarily aligned to Voldemort or Dumbledore, and I believe this makes him a Neutral character. Honestly, I go back and forth on which Neutral alignment he is.
I think of Snape as more of a Chaotic-Neutral. He does ultimately work for the Order, but the reason he is fighting against Voldemort was more personal than to any sense of loyalty to Dumbledore. In order to be effective as a double agent he had to disregard any relationships with the good or the bad guys.
In prisoner of Azkaban when Lupin goes werewolf Snape puts himself between the students and the beast. His instinct is to protect harry and the rest despite the fight they were in moments before. Its my favorite character moment for Snape. Its subtle, but it shows you what he's made of. .
Gonna have to disagree about Cedric. He’s definitely good. If he wasn’t killed, he would have joined Harry in the fight against Voldemort, no question. A more fitting true Neutral would be one of the Centaurs. Their whole philosophy is around staying out of the conflicts because the world ebbs and flows and they are just a part of it. Otherwise, I love this topic :) wish you would have categorized more of the characters!
I feel like Snape is like Gilderoy in that he is mostly just out for himself. I mean, helping Harry is not out of the good of his own conscious conscience but because of his misery at loosing Liliy who was all he cared about in the whole series - and even then he didn't treat her all that well, calling her a mudblood and such. He's pretty much getting back at Voldy for killing his one true love. He doesn't really care who wins or loose. He will have had a place at the table whichever side he chose. He's not even the forgiving type. He treats Harry as though his father's sins were the boy's own. It really doesn't matter to him unless there something in it for him. And, while Lily has been long gone, there was a personal emotional gratification at play here. Had he understood the situation differently, he would put the blame on himself. But he isn't going to do that. But idk, obviously he chose a specific type and stuck with it. So he has to lean on good.
You really did chaotic good dirty with that definition and character classing. Chaotic good characters tend to value personal freedom highly and frown upon the rules when they get in the way of that. They do still want the best for others as well though unlike the other 2 chaotic alignments and will do their best to act for the greater good. Hagrid is the most chaotic good character in HP imo.
Newt fits that definition as well, which is another connection to Hagrid. Young Hagrid has to meet Newt at some point. He'll probably squeal like a fangirl.
@@Jellybeansatdusk Luna is less concerned with doing good than she is with avoiding bad. She isn't anywhere near as altruistic as Hagrid. She also tends to follow the rules more strictly than Hagrid. She is closer to true neutral while still just barely inching into the chaotic good square sometimes
@@gman1515 luna does good though. She goes out of her way to be kind to people and creatures, so I guess in that way she might seem like she has less chaotic tendencies, but for chaotic hood it’s not that people don’t have desires and goals and even plans, it’s that they don’t follow the plan or rules too strictly, they do their own thing on a whim. If that isn’t the most Luna thing ever, I don’t know what is.
I was thinking about the same thing, but I think he might be more Lawful Neutral. Maybe because we only saw him as a teenage boy, but I remember countless examples when he expected that the school rules or the law would be adhered and he tried to exploit them to his favor by following them. (Basically what he did with Buckbeak.) He also clearly respects the authority of adults (mainly his dad) and his superiors (mainly Snape) and would follow them against his better judgement.
Everyone seems to have forgotten fudge the true neutral every action he takes is to better himself and maintain the status quo he's not lawful because he takes far to many unilateral decisions to bypass proper law and order but also attempts to maintain a lawful society And neutral on the good and evil scale since he talks to and listens to both political spectrums until the good spectrum seems to have headed over to the chaotic side and trying to change his status quo
@@jamieadams2589 several instances come to mind off the top of my head, 1/. The kissing of Barty crouch junior before questioning 2/.ignoring due process and going for the full trial for harry rather than the hearing that was the standard sequence of events. 3/.arresting hagrid to be seen doing something 3.5/. Arresting Hagrid he is the minister for magic not a duly appointed officer of the law a.k.a. a Auror
@@tidusffx1147 I don't remember the kissing and I'm very concerned. But as for the rest of them, he seems to just be trying to preserve law and order, not subvert it, he's just hands on at his job, and an idiot
@@jamieadams2589 2/. Is bad because of the way he went about it was an abuse of power and also still breaking the law because of failing to give proper notice of the change potentially preventing Harry from recieving legal counsel and representation if his lawyer arrived for the original hearing and location. 3 and 3.5 represent abuse of power and are illegal as Hagrid is sent to azkaban without trial and not having Aurors do it makes it even more illegal
Umbri*** being able to produce a patronus is a brilliant inclusion in the story. It shows that she genuinely thinks she's doing what's best! She's so completely power-mad that she has actually deluded herself to the point where she can feel the joy necessary to conjure a patronus! Of course, that also makes her more vulnerable to dementors than a typical "dark" wizard, but I doubt she ever even noticed, much less saw it as a disadvantage, probably because she saw herself as a basically normal, law-abiding person. Which is, like, completely insane. What a marvelously written character.
We have all had people like DU in our lives. So completely convinced that they can do no wrong yet destroying everyone around them for which they have no use or dare to oppose them.
For True Neutral, i would have gone with Mundungus. He wasn't on harry's side, he wasn't on umbridges side, but helps both only when his back is against the wall. Because Snape is devoted to dumbledore over voldemort, I'd put him in neutral good. He's not Lawful good in the sense that mcgonagal is, he's extremely unfair and abuses the rules, but he's ultimately not EVIL as he's putting himself out there to take down umbridge, lockhart, voldemort, anyone who truly doesnt align with the order. But neutral because he'd equally embarress ANYONE he doesnt like even if they Are on the good side. Hes not chaotic though, he's selfish, he's like a Lockhart who hates himself, a spiteful Lockhart working for the greater good.
For Snape, I would say he's more Neutral Evil. He's only really out for himself and his own desires. He doesn't turn away from Voldemort because he disagrees with his ideas(He might disagree with Voldemorts ideas but it doesn't come up, The only muggle born he cares about is Lily), he turned away from Voldemort because he was going to kill the woman he wanted for himself. He only helps Harry because of a vow (Again because of his own desire for Lily) and he'll die if he breaks that. He verbally abuses Harry and debatably mentally abuses him when he's teaching Harry Oclumency. He's bound to the light side because of a vow but he joined the dark side all by himself. Dumbledore is a weird mix of Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. He doesn't follow rules, his morals are wishy-washy, and he's just straight-up strange. He's a kinda mentor but more of a Chessmaster planning things from behind the scenes. Even if you don't believe in the fan theories that Dumbledore set everything up from the beginning, he DID ask Snape to kill him and set up this whole complicated plan wherein the end Harry has to die as proven by Snape's memories. He knows about the Horecruxs but doesn't tell Harry. Knows Harry is a Horcrux but doesn't tell Harry. Knows that Snape is good but doesn't tell the Order. Probably knows that Draco is going to let Death Eaters into the school but doesn't tell anyone THAT either. He could have arranged for Harry to have the sword in his will or simply told him "This is how to destroy Voldemorts soul pieces" but they had to do the research themselves. Dumbledore has all the cards but he does nothing with them.
Cedric I would classify as Lawful Good, he was as decent, forthright, and fair-spirited as they come. A Hufflepuff's Hufflepuff. Snape is, in my estimation, Neutral Evil. He is motivated solely by his own self-interest. No other character in the series, not even Harry (who is written as a sort of mirror image) so closely resembles Voldemort. The difference, the only substantive difference, between them is Snape's obsession with Lily, a "love" that Voldemort was intrinsically unable to experience. Both Snape and, to slightly lesser extent Dumbledore, had the capacity to be Voldemort level BBEGs. Dumbledore's youthful love for Grindelwald and Snape's love/obsession for Lily are what leads them onto a different (although perhaps no more laudatory) path than young Mr. Riddle.
I have to partly disagree about Snape. Once Lily was dead, I what reason did he have to protect Harry other than the fact that he was Lily’s son and he still loved her? She wasn’t there for him to win over, but he was devoted to her. No, he wasn’t kind to Harry, but he also wasn’t willing to let Harry die if he could prevent it (i.e. Harry’s first Quidditch match). He didn’t even fully understand Harry’s importance until much later. He wasn’t out for glory, and he knew that defeating Voldemort would mean putting himself in an unstable situation. That being said, I still don’t know where he fits. He might straddle the line between a few of these categories.
@@krismcg7924 Ah, but he was devoted to his internal image of Lily. He never had a romantic relationship with her, and he probably didn't see much of her after she chose James over him. So this is more of his internal obsession that he's following. What's more, he had no qualms about letting Voldemort harm James and Harry. If you truly love somebody, you don't want to see them hurt. And while he protected Harry, he also bullied Harry. Bullying from a position of authority, which is not a good act. His fighting Voldemort has a selfish motive. Voldemort killed Lily.
I think Snape is a neutral neutral with depth. Most of the neutral neutral lack it. When Snape went to dark side, it's because Snape was respected more there. When Snape joined good side, even his awesome double agent act was just to get back to Voldemort for killing Lilly
@@krismcg7924 his reason I would argue is far more guilt than love. He had an unhealthy obsession with Lilly then he gives voldemort the info that got her killed. He spent the rest of his life feeling responsible for her death so he tries to help Harry to make himself feel less guilty but still bullies him because he looks like his dad.
Cornelius Fudge is an interesting character that could be considered Neutral/Neutral, not because he is indifferent, but because he pull towards lawful in his job, but isn't a stranger to bending rules in his position. He wants the situation to stay neutral when Voldemort returns, so he is neither on the good or bad side before he confess his mistakes to the muggle prime minister in retrospect.
I agree. You would think that Fudge is dedicated to law (being the head of government, after all) but his true allegiance is to the status quo. Fudge is equally opposed to both Harry Potter and Voldemort because they both threaten the status quo.
First I thought of as well. Not Lawful despite his position because he bent or followed the rules when convenient. Underage magic doesn't matter in Prisoner of Azkaban but is a Very Big Deal two years later. He never really followed Voldemort, nor was loyal to Harry, but could be influenced in either direction by Lucius Malfoy or Dumbledore with varying degrees of difficulty depending on how circumstances suited him. In the big good vs evil test of his time, he was driven mainly by fear and denial, and ended up simply irrelevant in the battle as a result.
True Neutral I would say Narcissa, she was always in the middle in her family, as Bellatrix was on the evil side and Andromeda on the good side. I can see her being on either side of good and evil, as she only really supports Voldormort for her husband and son's sake, she also protected harry, only because of her Son safety. So she does both evil and good, to really balance it out.
I was hoping to see a larger discussion that would include characters like Mundungus Fletcher, Griphook and Mad-Eye Moody but a good video and a very interesting topic. You should have a multi-part series on this.
Mundungus and Griphook are probably True Neutral. Mad-Eye is somewhere between Lawful Good and Neutral Good, depending on what kind of internal code he's following. I would have said Neutral Good, but I'm intrigued by the line about how he never killed Death Eaters even when it was legal to.
I think Cedric is LG or NG, I think his general actions are that of a good person, even if he doesn't have agency in the larger conflict. Given a chance he would have fought for good and his sense of fair play leans towards lawful in my opinion. Olivander is the best example of True Neutral. He explicitly is written as being unwilling to help either side until threatened. Snape was NE then moved to CN, the main motivations for his good and evil actions were always selfish. Even his brave good acts were based on his weird obsession with Lilly and his self indulgent unwillingness to let her go. People are too quick to let go that he was willing to torment 11 year olds...
Cedric is unequivocally good-aligned. He's not on "Harry's team", per se, but what he does do, he does because it's "the right thing to do". That's textbook good. Harry had a leg up on the first task, and notice that he went to Cedric, but not Fleur or Viktor, because he's got a personal connection with Cedric. Cedric also helped out Harry, in part because he owed him one, but in part, because it was the right thing to do. We don't see if he helped out Fleur or Viktor, and we don't know if they'd already figured it out. The one area where Harry really outshines Cedric on the good front is the second task. That's about it. In the graveyard, Cedric doesn't flee when told to, though he's not much use either. I don't think Cedric would work as a True Neutral character. He leans too far into the Good camp, in my view. Hufflepuff, broadly, is the most Good of the Houses, because of its values of fairness and cooperation. True Neutral characters come in two flavours - characters dedicated to preserving the balance, like the archetypical druid, and characters who don't have a particular inclination toward an alignment, like most people in real life. Griphook, Trelawney, and the Dursleys are good examples of True Neutral. Griphook is self-interested, with no qualms about doing good or bad things, and no real regard for the rules, and no exceptional rebellion against them. Trelawney is mostly a fraud who goes through the motions of teaching a class. She's not really bent on helping or harming anyone, and she has no problem lying to cover for her ineptitude. The Dursleys are a mixed bag for Harry, as well. They're not so good that they'd be kind and loving to Harry, but not so bad that they'd abandon him or torture him. They just kind of treat him as an unwanted guest, with occasional moments of warmth later on from Petunia and Dudley.
Cedric is definitely not true neutral. He is more of a Lawful Good. I'd say Lockhart is the one that is the True Neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to do good or bad; he will break the law if he needs, he will follow it if it doesn't impeed him. That's true neutral.
I would say that Cedric is neutral good. He seems like a generally good guy, and people like him for it. The character best fitting into true neutral would be Snape. He is all over the chart, but also keeps to himself. Sometimes he follow and enforce the rules. Sometimes he breaks them. He also worked on different sides, both good or evil, depending on the situation. But he also generally prefers a good neighbour and does what needs to be done to stop the villain in the end.
Draco Malfoy is a true neutral, he respects rules but in the end, he’s just looking out for Draco Malfoy. I would say that Lucius is a lawful neutral, he’s keen to punish rule breakers but only seeks his own goals, while Narcissa is a chaotic neutral. She clearly doesn’t care about what she has to do, she just wants to protect her boys. Edit: Corrected rule to rules for Draco.
This is one area where this classification breaks down. What about people who want to be good, but have been brought up in such a twisted environment that their personal moral code is badly skewed? Draco is true to the values he was brought up with, which are evil, but he has to grow to adulthood before he is in a position to examine those values and realize that they are flawed and that the decisions they lead him to are bad ones. Dudley is another example - he's not really bad, he's just acting the way his parents raised him to act, which is selfish and cruel. But in the end he recognizes Harry's good character and respects him and is grateful to him for saving him from the dementors. Lucius is evil, he wants Voldemort to win and does awful things to people who have done nothing to deserve them, like 11-year-old Ginny Weasley.
This is more an example of using the Neutral alignment instead of calling them Narcissitic.....there is a difference between simply not choosing and being self-centered (although self-centered is one way of being technically "neutral" in a good v evil set up)
@supercarlinbrothers, I just gotta tell you that while I very much enjoy your videos, I hate sponsor adds. So I very much appreciate your sponsor timer bar on your videos :D
Honestly wherever he's placed is going to be an argument against it because he was a good friend to Lily before they got to school and he had to share her with other people he felt like he owned her even as small children and when he got to school with her and other people spoke to her she got jealous and the fact that she defended him when he's 15 against some beliefs he felt so emasculated he called her the m word which caused her to sever all ties to him but he still felt like he owned her and if you don't get a rapey vibe from him just think about when he showed up at her house expecting to find her husband and baby dead and get to nail her on the rebound but he found the baby alive and her dead he took it out on the baby for the rest of literally the rest of his life was dedicated to torturing this kid while also keeping him alive to defeat the dark Lord because the dark lord killed Lily if you haven't noticed I hate him I really really do always have always will
Cedric is lawful good. Everything described was an argument for lawful good. Professor Slughorn was true neutral, neither chaotic nor lawful, And would only do the right thing if it came at little to no cost for his personal interests.
I feel like most people place Snape in True Neutral (Neutral-Neutral). I agree, but at the same time I agree with you NOT placing him anywhere. *_Because Snape's all over the place, I'd say, and the average of it all is what would make him neutral_* He seems lawful a lot of the time, being strict and (like Umbridge) uses the rules to any extent he can to punish both Harry and others he doesn't like. But, as I see many people commenting on: he is actually chaotic at times too, since he lets his emotions control him, and aids both sides because of his emotions (which feels quite chaotic, I feel like). He is also both good and evil at different times. Becoming a death eater was a choice, so was calling people mudblood (even though it was a mistake to call Lily that, she says that he calls every other muggle born mudblood). Yet he sacrifices not only his life, but _all he is and all he has_ - for "the greater good", in the end.
I don't know why, but I immediatly thought of the trolley witch as a true neutral character.^^ Like, she doesn't care about good or evil, she just wants to sell her candy. And I appreciate that. :)
Oh yeah, I totally forgot!! I read cursed child once a long time ago and I'm still not sure if I would call it canon.^^ Which category fits the cursed child version of her then? Lawful evil, maybe?
I think that Snape would be the true neutral character becuase he always does things for himself. He supported Voldemort because he saw gains in it for himself and he switched sides because someone he cared about was in trouble. Its very selfish and not aligned either way. Similarly, I dont think he leans either chaotic or lawful because he breaks rules as he sees fit but isn't crazy. He seems to do whatever best benefits himself without leaning either way which i think makes him true neutral. I think its hard to see because he is such a prominent character in a book about good vs. evil.
I think it's also safe to say that he wants Voldemort defeated not because Voldemort is evil, but out of revenge for what he did to Lily. I agree, he's a True Neutral.
As presented, the goblins are far, far more like lawful neutrals. While they may be using a different code book from the wizards, they adhere to it pretty strictly.
Hagrid is definitely Chaotic Good. He tries so hard to do the right thing, but doesn't exactly know how. He does his best when he can, but it doesn't always work out the best
He's also not much at all for rules. There are easily a dozen examples of this, starting with his giving Dudley a pig's tail early in the first movie. Like Sirius Black (another CG character), his loyalties are mostly personal, to people whom he finds worth supporting either because they've been good to him or because he thinks they're doing the right thing. He had zero institutional loyalty to anyone or anything that didn't meet his standards, for instance to Um[bleep] as headmistress.
My first thought for "True Neutral" was Aragog, since he's literally just a beast of the wilds doing his own thing and not caring about anything or anyone.
@@brunopereira6789 A good point. I would say lawful evil. Evil since he's willing to eat children and lawful since he didn't out of loyalty to Hagrid (but made it clear it was a one time thing).
Snape is Lawful Neutral. His code and his moral center is his love for Lily, and we see him do both good and evil things throughout the series--namely his commitment to protecting Harry and thus working for the greater good, while being outright malicious to innocent students like Neville. He doesn't align with "traditional" rules because he plays favorites with the Slytherins, so some might argue that he isn't Lawful, but because he has that single motivating factor that drives all of his decisions he would still qualify.
He’s got an aristocratic vibe to his relationships with the houses. He probably sees his duty as being to his house. In that case he’s heeding his interpretation of the concept of sorting, which is probably a law of some sort. Even though it’s taxonomy… but we’re not talking about my thoughts
Oh my god True Neutral is so obvious! Of course it's Snape. He didn't care about right or wrong, he only cared about Lily. He didn't make his decisions based on its morality, he was morally grey. I can't believe you didn't say Snape.
You are right about the neutral, but your definition of doing everything for lily is the definition of lawful. Lawful doesn't mean they follow the laws of the land, it means they follow their own own ideals ands codes to a T. True neutral has no specific alignment nor desire to follow a certain path. They are truly neutral.
Snape is lawful neutral. The argument for aragog being true neutral is perhaps best. I would say that Lockhart is chaotic neutral. He borders on evil but he does make a good point that more people are aware on how to defeat alot of creatures thanks to his books despite him being a bumbling idiot himself. I even the first time i saw snape thought he was a good at heart character to the point i at one point argued he was undercover chaotic good. Didn't know the why and my siblings said he was obviously bad. They were impressed however when he saves harry and i said i told you so. Cedric would probably be one if he had more character development who would probably be a paladin's lawful good. Since we get such a short time I'd say lawful neutral is accurate. He was concerned with fair and balanced but without further character development I'd say that is where he rests.
For Snape, I'd place him in Lawful Neutral. He's a major stickler for the rules and even his betrayal of Voldy was based on his Task and not a whim. He's cruel and harsh (evil), but also offset by being loving and self sacrificing (good).
He'd definitely evil. He didn't help the order of the phoenix because of any sense of good. It was out of hatred for Voldemort. Everything he did was selfish.
@@Andrew-it7fb being selfish IS neutral. Being evil is hurting people for the sake of hurting people, thriving in seeing other people suffer, regardless if that brings any benefit to you or not (like Voldemort, Umbridge and Bellatrix). Snape had terrible coping mechanisms for his traumas (which don’t excuse his actions) but he doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking about how good it’ll feel to hurt random people (like Umbridge, for example probably does).
Goblins in general and Griphook in particular are true neutral. Griphook doesn't like Voldemort, but isn't so opposed that he will join the good side. He has his own goals and priorities that have little to do with wizards. He helps the trio and then betrays them all to aquire the sword, not particularly caring which side this helps in the greater conflict. Cedric Diggory is a goody two shoes and you kinda did him dirty by declaring him "true neutral". He was placed in a position to oppose Harry in sporting matches (triwizard included) but even then tries to be kind and fair to Harry. More importantly we all know what side of the war he would be on if he had survived long enough
I love the semantic shift of "Harry Potter Theory" -- from, like, speculation around a specific plot point in Harry Potter, to just, like... a cohesive body of knowledge and analysis of Harry Potter.
![Why Snape Was Forced To Teach Potions [Harry Potter Theory]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F2CoSd94C-0/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to discuss where the characters should be placed further?!
Join our Discord server and chat with us directly!
www.patreon.com/SuperCarlinBrothers
Think slughorn would of been a better neutral neutral
I think the centaurs as a group would be the best example of true neutral
Centaurs are also true neutral when it comes to the wizarding world, along with most other creatures but centaurs are more relevant to the story.
Super Carlin dnd when?
I'm so glad you guys are branching out into RPGs! They're an amazing way to express your creativity and grow as a storyteller. Once become such a better writer after my years playing and running RPGs.
And while D&D is a very easy entry point, I should also recommend taking a look at other systems, too. They have different tools that focus on different kinds of stories and characters. D&D is, as you say, "technically a flavor," but in my opinion hardly the best.
Some recommendations:
-- Genesys (also the current Star Wars system); more flexible and action-oriented, and a lot more collaborative. There's a super-heroes rule that could also let you do MCU-type adventures!
-- Powered by the Apocalypse (the official Avatar: the Last Airbender system coming out next year will use this!) Another of my favorites, is very simple and let's you focus on who characters are and why they act as they do, rather than spending too much effort on dice mechanics.
-- World/Chronicles of Darkness. An old-school system that's nonetheless very fun, featuring classic monsters in a unique modern setting. With some work, I'm certain you could use this for stories on the Name of the Wind world!
I think Griphook is a really good example of true neutral. He even says: “we goblins do not pick sides, this is a wizards war.”
This.
Yeah I instantly thought of Griphook too. He only helped Harry cause he wanted the sword in return, as he believed it belonged to goblinkind.
I think he is lawful neutral, he relies on economic rules, if he breaks them, people don't trust him any more.
That is more him being bound by his ethnic/racial culture. Griphook would be LN
Goblins pick a side. They side of the Goblins. And therefore they are not truely neutral.
My first thought for the "True Neutral" category was the centaurs, at least minus Firenze and for most of the series. They are dedicated to keeping to themselves and not getting involved with the bigger conflict, and even seem to leave long-term planning to astrology; that is, deferring to something completely outside their control.
Would that not make them Lawful however? They obey a moral code
@@parkerwalaitis2890 They vary between lawful and true neutral. Most are in the middle somewhere.
yeah, I had centaurs and aragog as true neutrals.
I agree with this, I also thought of goblins as being pretty neutral
Yes! Absolutely.
The Whomping Willow is true neutral. Good, bad, lawful, chaotic, it don't care, it'll still beat you senseless.
i completely agree
Okay! XD
technically not wrong ig
So true, unique choice p character there two, I like the way you think, mate
True neutral: The night bus driver. Breaks too many traffic laws to be lawful, but keeps too tight a schedule to be chaotic. Will drive Bellatrix just as soon as Harry.
That's a mad shout. Who thinks of something so simple, yet so genius
However, you gotta remember that Stan is a Harry superfan/supersupporter and is most likely talking about Harry Potter non-stop, but he also didn’t realize he was talking to Harry at first so take this with a grain of salt ig?
Stan is also a Death Eater.
@@tomoshazell4331 he was under the imperious curse
@@tomoshazell4331 he was under the imperious curse
True neutral to me is clearly Olivander. Admiring Voldemort for his powers, but not supporting him and giving Harry Information, but not helping or supporting him. He only cares about wands.
I would have agreed but I think being imprisoned and tortured might have changed his alignment toward the good side...
Yes, and my interpretation was that he have Harry info because he feared him. Harry knew information only ollivander and Voldemort should have known. That along with Voldemort’s twin wand choosing Harry probably rattled Ollivander to the core. He probably felt he had no choice
@@rocksour21 but one could argue thats due to self preservation and personal trauma/pain, and not not any inherent morals of right v wrong that were always there
I would actually call him closer to lawful neutral. He was a shopkeeper, so he obeyed the rules. He didn't really choose sides and sold wands to whomever needed them.
I would have placed him as chaotic neutral
chaotic good is literally the weasly twins and hagrid, they're good people but make their own rules and ignore others. They fight for the good cause but as the twins say, they love breaking rules and will dabble across it a bit.
Why is Hagrid chaotic?
@@Ninjamanhammer he openly disobeys ministry rules about creatures because he doesnt think theyre right and he does reckless actions like housing acromantula, 3 headed dogs and a dragon, hes not intent on being chaotic but he is
@@lucacvitanic Yeah, okay, I'll buy his love for illegal animals as being chaotic. That's a good argument.
@@Ninjamanhammer His love for illegal animals, and his continuing to use magic (his 'umbrella') after his wand was broken. I totally love him, but yeah, a bit chaotic. (Blast-ended skrewts. Around children. *shudders*) :) I don't think anyone can argue that point about the twins.
I think the Weasly kids in general are chaotic good excluding Percy
Wouldn't Slughorn be a better True Neutral. He actively secluded himself so as not to choose Good or Evil and he shares sympathies for both sides (has a clear bias for pure bloods yet finds himself impressed by the unicorn "talented muggleborn").
I agree
Slughorn was neutral in that he was mostly self-interested, but he fought Voldemort directly, so I would place him in Neutral Good.
@@brianlefevre3220 I agree I think he's NG. I don't think it's that he wants to stay neutral I think he wants to be on the right side and fight Voldemort he's just terrified because he knows just how powerful Voldemort is better than almost anyone who isn't a death eater. When finally pressed he does choose the right thing and when he's given the chance to flee the final battle he instead attacks Voldemort (granted he's one of several to duel Voldemort but he still chooses to fight evil instead of run).
For me the truest neutral is Narcissa Malfoy.
@@icedreamer9629 hm actually I can see that
Olivander is True Neutral. He spoke of Voldemort doing great things and doing terrible things and sold the wand to Voldemort in the beginning. He seems to be pretty close to true neutral
Ollivander didn't know then who Voldemort would become, and in the last book he helps Harry. In my opinion, the true neutral is someone like Griphook, who just thinks of himself and his 'people'.
He meant great as in 'big/impactful'.
I am totally supporting this statement. Olivander is the best example of a neutral to me too
@@МаксимЯромич In the last book Olivander is just supplying information about his field of expertise to people who have just helped him out of a bad situation. He had no intention of joining the fight in any way.
He had to sell to TOM RIDDLE as he has to sell to everyone also he wasn't voldemort yet and ollivander cant see the future he ain't trelawney
For true neutral I would have put olivander. He is the only “good” character that has shown a level of respect for
Voldemort. I always think back to Harry’s first and last encounters with him where he didn’t know how to feel about olivander, yes the dark side tortured him, he isn’t on their side however he never showed alliance to Harry either, only helping cause Harry’s visions gave him information that intimidated him. Olivander only cares for wands and admiration of the power produced by them, good or bad
Yeah I thought of Ollivander too!!
Yes!
I think Ollivander is lawful neutral.
I disagree, many of the supposed good guys respect Voldemort while still hating him. Throughout Book 6 Harry and Dumbledores learning about him and coming to understand him are very much about Harry preparing for the Hunt, but also learning to respect Voldemort as a dangerous opponent.
He's a quintessential Ravenclaw I think. He appreciates knowledge and skill regardless of morality
I think slughorn could fit neutral. He is out for himself. He doesn’t want to support either side, but yet he has supported both sides, giving the horcrux info to Tom riddle, giving the memory to Harry. But almost nothing he does is for the sake of right or wrong, it’s basically how can I survive this current conflict and get back to my comfortable life style. He does not want an active part in ending the conflict, he’s doesn’t want to be perceived to be “on Dumbledor’s side” if staying neutral will keep him alive longer.
My first thought was also slughorn
I have the same thought!
Very compelling
Yep, that was my first thought, as well.
@Emily Jewett... I would argue that Slughorn is a very mild neutral evil. As you pointed out he avoids picking a side not out of a sense of loyalty to either side, or for any moral reason, but because his main goal, from his introduction into the series and throughout most of its conclusion, is to survive and return to his comfortable lifestyle collecting the favor of influencers. While this doesn't make him Voldemort levels of evil, it is still a purely selfish worldview/motivation and also seems to guide everything he did and does during his career and retirement, and at it's core the moral concept of evil vs good on the alignment chart is selfishness and greed vs selflessness and altruism. Being evil doesn't mean you have to kill for fun like Voldy, it just means you always put yourself first, even when considering others. So evil characters can do good things for purely selfish reasons and still be considered evil. I would also push Lockhart more towards evil just because everything he did was for purely selfish reasons. Even attempting to help others was done to make himself look good.
tbh, I think Narcissa is a true neutral. She doesn't pick sides. She helps voldemort for her husband and she helps harry for her son. I thinks she is perfect for this catagory cuz she doesn't support either side she's just looking out for her family.
I disagree. Narcissa Malfoy is Neutral Evil. It's not because she jumps out of Voldemort's train that she stops being evil. The Malfoys fell out of grace in the eyes of Voldemort, so Narcissa tries to save her family.
I disagree because she does it for selfish reasons and if it didn't benefit her or her family she would've turned in Harry.
@@Xerxes2005 of course, she's a black after all, she was raised in those beliefs and continues to follow it
@@MissA834 i don't necessarily think she's selfish but definitely not a great person either. I don't agree but I respect your opinion, i can see why you think that
I can see that but she was pretty evil
Fenrir Greyback also fits Chaotic Evil along with Bellatrix.
Absolutely
Fenrir was one of the few people Dumbledore considered among the death eaters, even excluding Voldemort and Bellatrix, to be absolutely beneath any empathy. Whether it be due to age or regret, he always talked to Tom Riddle and Bellatrix as if they were young students who had fallen down the wrong path. He didnt think they would ever reform obviously, but he treated them as such all the same even as he did everything he could to stop them.
When he met Fenrir, Dumbledore didnt give him an ounce of his normal sagely empathy. Fenrir was an evil being that just spread misery, who got pleasure from mutilating and killing children.
Even Voldemort admitted that he didn't like senseless killing of wizard children unless it truly helped his goals.
Yes he was pure evil and would kill children to further his goals, but one of Voldy's warped ideologies is he hated pure blood wizards dying before they could realize their potential under his empire, as in his mind it contradicted his own code for living.
Fenrir was simply a child murderer. Dumbledore would of happily ended his life if given the chance, but he had to die before that.
He might be chaotic neutral since he really just wants to be a ferocious wolf and could care less about Voldemort. He just hangs out with the Death Eaters cuz it’s convenient
edit: obviously he’s a heartless murderer at the end of the day, so chaotic evil fits too
That’s exactly what I was thinking
His was my first thought
I'd say Aberforth is more neutral/neutral. He's not in most of the story, but he's still someone you'd expect to be more active in the plot, considering he's Albus' brother. Yet he's living his own life on the sides, not helping anyone, letting things happen. At least until the very end when he does help somewhat.
He was my guess for true neutral too
I thought Aberforth as well
or all the malfoys
Honestly, I think the final book and battle pushes Aberforth into Neutral Good. If he hadn't participated in the final battle, then I think there'd be a case to define him as a True Neutral. But since he did finally do something at the end, I don't think he qualifies as a True Neutral.
He's more neutral good, he still acts in ways that are good for the sake of good (funneling students out of the castle) but he is generally non plussed with order or chaos.
Okay, that “Professor Um- *bleep*” got me. That was great.
SAME!
"She-who-must-not-be-named"
Honestly the best way to describe Um - *bleep*
Top comment be ruining the punchline 😂 fax tho
@@aaronpaz676 more like the pinkish toad from the dump
I would like to put Xenophilius Lovegood forward as chaotic neutral. He starts as a chaotic good character, but by the end of the story, he has made decisions to protect himself and his daughter at the cost of giving the bad guys what they want. When push comes to shoves, his own interests come first.
Ngl I had a hard time coming to grips with that turn of events. I remember feeling pretty angry at X.L.
He still freely fed Harry information about the deathly hallow that no one else had, and as soon as he called in the death eaters regretted it. Not because he know it was right or wrong, but because they were Lunas friends, and he didn't want her to think poorly of him.
He was my first choice for true neutral but he also fits that really well!!
I'm pretty sure that anyone would give in to demands when you threaten their children.
I agree with you
True Neutral: Moaning Myrtle, she was in the room each time the chamber was opened in Chamber of Secrets and never turned in anyone, lawful, good or evil, she didn’t report it. Reliably she didn’t report students brewing potions in there either, so she isn’t chaotic Neutral.
Cedric Diggory leaned Neutral Good more than he leaned Neutral Evil. Like with Mertle, it’s easy to point out where they helped or returned the favor to Harry, but not really as easy to point to where Cedric was neutral towards evil, unlawful, or chaotic actions.
I was thinking Myrtle too
The cursed child ruined Cedric
Myrtle didn't know about the Chamber of Secrets at all. Even she didn't know what killed her.
My point isn’t just towards Riddle and the Basilisk but everything Myrtle looked the other way for… Draco and Harry both…
IE: Myrtle was aware of polyjuice potion being brewed and never turned anyone in.
Section from the book on Myrtle being discovered… if she knew it took hours for someone to find her body, she must have seen something and just not brought it forward… killed by the basilisk but how long was she dead before she came back as a ghost? We see others come back as ghosts pretty quickly in the examples we’re given… maybe the PTSD of it didn’t allow her to speak of it further…
“Nobody missed me even when I was alive. Took them hours to find my body - I know, I was sitting there waiting for them. Olive Hornby came into the bathroom - 'Are you in here again, sulking, Myrtle?' she said, 'because Professor Dippet asked me to look for you -' And then she saw my body...”
I would consider her Chaotic Neutral
Someone like Ollivander would probably make a good candidate for Neutral Neutral. He technically leans towards good to an extent like Neutrals tend to do, but he doesn't really actively support either side in any direct ways. Aberforth also came to mind. It's also fairly easy to cheat and answer plot-unimportant characters for this role, too. Like, someone like Stan Shunpike is probably Neutral Neutral, but... Really, would you pick him as an example?
I’d say Stan Shunpike is a lawful neutral because he’s very concerned about people breaking the rules by falling over.
Dursleys
@@doctorravenclaw2649 WHATCHA FELL OVA FOR?
@@gingermlg I didn’t do it on purpose
As far as plot unimportant characters go my dad tried to argue Susan Bones
I would put Cedric closer to LN or even LG. He's generally a good person, and is all about the rules and fair play. For True Neutral I would put up the centaurs. They literally don't pick sides as part of their culture, they simply watch the planets and stars and see how they influence the ebb and flow of events around them.
That's a good point. I mean, he was the only champion in the triwizard tournament to not cheat and find out the first task.
Yeah, I think we see to little of Cedric to get a full sense of him but I wouldn't have chosen him as true neutral.
For true neutral I would pick Peter Pettigrew He just seeks power
Goblins too for that matter.
@@stevesome1202 more he just seeks the powerful and associates with them
I would say that Slughorn is True Neutral.
He is just about himself.
Would rather not do anything bad, but then again if he could have he would have gone through the wizarding war as a neutral, but it was only because he could get something out of it and it would be more comfortable that he goes to Hogwarts.
He witholds the memory from the good guys when it would have helped them, not because he wanted evil to win but because he didn't want to confront the truth of the matter.
He gathers influence for himself, not not for evil gain but so that he can have favours and comforts. He will do whatever is most expedient at the time for himself.
Slughorn was who came to my mind for true neutral as well. The only fact that might swing him more towards the good side would be him dueling the death eaters during the battle for Howarts. Which still technically could be viewed as self preservation, so.....
I agree
No cause he chooses a side he stands against voldemort at the battle of Hogwarts, and in the book even duels Voldemort with Kingsley.
He did object to murder though.
Would that make pettigrew nuetral aswell rather than leaning towards evil? Even if he did bad things he kept swaying back and forth not having a place on either side. Yes he looked for Voldemort, killed 12 muggles and orchestrated the entire triwizard tournament to kill Cedric and bring Voldemort back. This sounds obviously evil and it is but that one instant when he avoids killing Harry and the hand kills him, I think could qualify as neutral.
After all this I just saw how much killing there is! Definitely neutral-evil
true neutral is aberforth in my opinion. He doesn't do anything when it comes to picking a side. He only helps Neville bc room of requirements opens a tunnel there adn he just help to people in need as a neutral does. Also he helps the good guys at the battle of hogwarts bc he grew the like people from hogwarts and he still just want to help. He never picked a side he was just there and mostly the good guys came to him.
I like this pick. Especially since he actively tries to convince Harry to abandon the path of good and seek a path of freedom from the war. He actively expresses a neutral position, one of the very few to do so.
Aberforth occurred to me too as I listened. I am not surprised that someone else came up with his name.
nah Aberforth is def neutral good. He fought alongside of the Order of Phoenix in both wars against Voldemort. Not to mention when you look at the expanded lore and world Aberforth also fought in the war prior to Voldemort against Grindelwald. Nothing about him is true neutral as he always gets involved and helps the good side when its necessary.
I would say neutral gooodddd
@@FenixTheDon Agreed. The fact that he could see the evil that Dumbledore was doing with Grindelwald shows that he is indeed motivated by good intentions. Just because he didn’t trust/agree with Dumbledore’s method’s doesn’t make him truly neutral. Plus he harbored Harry at a time when it was extremely dangerous, showing that he was not indifferent to Voldemort’s reign of terror.
Since they specifically brought it up, no Cedric isn't true neutral, but Snape is. Because Snape is unconcerned with Good/Evil or Law/Chaos. As a child he seems to like Dark Magic not because it's evil, but because it's useful for what he wants. And he hangs around with the fellow future Death Eaters not because he wants to be cruel but because they're the people who treat him well. And then, in then converse, he doesn't join the Order because of a repulsion against the horrible things the Death Eaters are doing, but only because of his specific attachment to Lilly, i.e. selfish, personal reasons. Finally, he's perfectly happy to enforce the rules when it suits him (punishing students from other houses when they break rules) but is perfectly willing to bend or break those rules when it suits him as well (all the things he ignores about Slytherin students).
Even I thought of snape! He just perfectly fits the description
I disagree. I think some of the things he does--in particular to Neville--are straight up cruel. If you look at the book and not Alan Rickman's portrayal, he eggs on the Slytherin students, not just ignores them. And he actively shows malice when others are in pain. And we do have some indication that he didn't just "like" the Dark Arts, he was fascinated and obsessive about Dark Magic. There is a good case for him being Neutral Evil.
@@janealroberts7585 I suppose I was thinking more of the Alan Rickman / movie portrayal than book version. But I don't think he is egging on Slytherin students or tormenting non-Slytherin because he enjoys the cruelty of it. I think he still sees himself as the bullied child targeted by James, and he sees Slytherin house as the house hated by everyone else, and has connected the two in his mind. The fact that he still sees himself as the victim is evident in how he treats Harry when talking about James. And because of that, I think he believes he's perfectly justified in inflicting pain back on the people he perceives as representing his bullies, and working with his house to proactively "defend" himself from the others. Voldemort, neutral evil, wakes up each morning and wonders how he can hurt more people, because he wants to hurt them. Snape wakes up and wonders how he can pay back the pain that was given to him.
None of this justifies his actions. Even people with good intentions can cause pain to people around him, let alone someone acting purely selfishly. And I think Snape would have seriously benefited from some therapy (looks at the video's sponsor) but I don't think he's acting maliciously, wanting to hurt people for the sake of hurting. I think he's hurting others because he thinks he's allowed to because of his sense of victimhood.
Yes! Snape is the truest of all neutrals
Heh, I just typed up almost the same thing. I need to check the comments before doing that.
Yes, I completely agree. He wasn't like the Neutral Druid, pushing for balance, he was the other kind of neutral, detached. He was both self serving, yet selfless, good, evil, and never really lawful or chaotic. That puts him square in the middle.
I’d argue that the True Neutral character was Cornelius Fudge. His main concern was keeping the status quo at all costs. He neither helped nor hindered either side in the wizarding war, almost aggressively so. He was also simultaneously “The Law” as the chief executive of the magical government, but also clearly threw away the rules when it suited him. For example, He reacts completely differently to Harry using underage magic in front of muggles in books 3 and 5. He also appears to have close relationships with important figures in the war on both sides. Dumbledore, Kingsley on the good team. Lucius, and Um*BEEP* on the bad. As well as being steadfastly against “criminals” on both sides, Sirius and Bellatrix. As for Snape, I’d say Chaotic Good, at least in the story seen. He is on the side of good, but his motivations are based on some dark emotions like jealousy , anger, revenge, obsession , and grief.
This is literally what I was about to put in the comments. You deserve all the thumbs up!
Could not agree more. He was ALL about keeping the status quo.
YES I was looking for Fudge in the comments I was going to write him myself
I agree 100% with fudge, but I would argue that Snape isn't good. He is a second rate antagonist for most of the books, actively trying to get Harry thrown out. It also seems like he just really enjoy bullying the students. It is only really in book 7 that he actually helps Harry
This is spot on in my opinion. He really only followed the law to the extent that it would. I think he's unique though in that where normally a character is true neutral because of their lack of leaning, Fudge seems to fit the role because he leans everywhere, depending on the circumstance.
Umbridge is one of the best media showings of lawful evil ever seen
100% She is a wonderful character. We all love to hate her so much!
You mean Umb**h.
Nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is the worst (or best?)
Is she though? She uses the law where it fits her, but also has no problem breaking crucio to torture harry or sending a dementor to kill him/compromise him.
@@Azaghal1988 before she does crucio she mentions "I'm sure the minister won't mind" and similar for demantors. I get what your saying just stating why I don't agree
Snape, in many ways, is a True Neutral who wants to be Neutral Good but is held back by his former descisions and his own bitterness. He literally treads the line between good and evil in a way that has him being both (more good than evil, but both are still present) in a way that can really only be called Neutral because we lack a better term for it. He is a very interesting character, and one of my favs.
I agree i thought they would say Snape for true neutral
This was also my though. Snape is also my fave character. I feel for him.
Yeah my thought was Snape as true neutral also. I mean, nobody except Dumbledore was completely sure of his allegiance until after he died and Harry found out what Dumbledore knew. If that's not neutral, idk what is.
I don’t know about Cedric. He seems more Lawfully Good than even Hermione (I mean, do we remember the quidditch match in Harry’s 3rd year? The third task when he, technically, makes it to the center of the maze first? That’s a good kid!)
I think Slughorn fits True Neutral the best. He is out to save himself, neither WANTING to help the “good” or “bad” side (though he has at one point or another). He isn’t NG, otherwise he would have joined Dumbledore the first time he asked, and he isn’t NB otherwise he would have joined Voldy the second that first deatheater came knocking
Cedric certainly is a lawful good , I think his untimely demise signifies the cost of war.
And he never showed an ounce of cockiness despite being almost universally loved.
If he can be a casualty of a conflict he had no part in,anyone can be .
Love how the black sisters basically sit diagonally in the grid. I mean, Andy is probably lawfully good, Cissa is a true neutral and Bella is a chaotic evil!
Oh, jeepers! You're right!!!!
Didnt even think of Narcissa as a TN! That’s smart
@@Jay-zb4iq thanks 😄
@@Jay-zb4iq She down for torture and murder, just as long as it doesn't risk her little family. I would not call that neutral.
@@ChildOfDarkDefiance i don‘t think that contradicts the point as much as you think. We don’t know at all how much it turns her stomach. But as long as it doesn’t hurt her family she won’t get involved or be bothered. That’s is the epitome of neutral. Most neutral is good leaning (because it’s better to live amongst good people). Neutral is not good. Neutral can even perpetuate evil that is not a contradiction (not even in reality)
My first thought for true neutral was Ollivander, mainly because the line "Voldemort did many great things, Teribble, but great" showing that he doesnt rlly side with anyone (obvsly hes still a good person and is on the side of harry, but he acknowledges the "great" things moldevort has done, whereas any "good neutral" character would instantly dismiss and severely ridicule those actions)
What great things did voldy ever do?
@@AirQuotes The genocide of the muggle borns (great in the sense that it was rlly important to everytging that happens after it), attaining the elder wand (its a great feat to attain the elder wand, though he did terrible things with it) and many other things, basically his whole life lol
@@AirQuotes Not "great" as in "good".
@@AirQuotes Great as in large.
Well... I mean he was literally tortured by DE's and Voldy. But then promptly leaves the story again afterwards so I guess we'll never actually know his true feelings.
I really thought that Aberforth was going to be the example for Lawful Neutral and Mundungus of Neutral Neutral. Mundungus really didn't care about picking a side, he was just following whoever was winning and his only interests were saving himself. I think that was a great example.
Didn't he steal a buncha stuff though? That's pretty chaotic tbh
Totally agree great thoughts
i think mundungus would honestly be chaotic neutral
To be fair, in the book it says that mundungus was loyal to Dumbledore, so he is helping the order of the Phoenix and the protagonists
Mundungus is 100% chaotic neutral. A better example of true neutral is the centaurs, with their persistent refusal to get involved or even assist wizards whatsoever - at least until the very end, but even then, they only attack after the "balance" has been swayed in Voldemort's favor, which is another true neutral trait.
Snape is Chaotic Neutral. Everything is does is for his love, hate, and the emotions in between. Both helping Harry and bullying him stems from his emotions of Harry's Parents. He joins Voldemort due to his magical pride but leaves when Lily is in danger. He has no moral hangups with good or evil so long as they benefit him and the ones he considers important.
My choice for a true Neutral would be the Prime minister of Magic. (Forgot his name) He messes with Harry and denies Voldemort is back but doesn't want a war to happen or back up Voldemort when he actually see him back.
100% this
Oooooh that's a good point. I was thinking lawful neutral with the caveat that the laws he followed were of his own making, but this makes much more sense.
I rated him as neutral good, but I like yours too.
When Voldemort gets up in the morning, he puts on his socks like most people, then says, "These socks are amazing!"
Only then does he go on to think of evil things to do.
Taking everything into account, at the moment of his death, I believe Snape is a True Neutral. I am going to make a correction first before I explain though: Yes, True Neutral's can be defined as their lack of moral commitment to either side, as a player and DM of Dungeons and Dragons, they can also very much be defined by their moral commitment to neutrality- staying out of any and all conflcit, a neutral presence. (See Switzerland for a geographical TN.) Snape obviously isn't committed to not committing to a side, because he crosses back and forth more often than a chicken over a road, but the defining factor for me at least, is his motivation. He was driven by a love for Lily at the base of it, and though that could end up placing him on the side of good, it's the fact that _he_ wanted to be the one to give and return Lily's affections, Snape wanted it to be him, and _only_ him. But this is just my opinion, he's possibly the most complex character in the entire series so a single person on the internet isn't going to represent an entire fanbase. Honestly, I think Aberforth works well as a True Neutral character, if he isn't NG.
Yeah Idon't think loyalty can tip anyone towards good, so Snape's loyalty to his love for Lily and Abeforth's loyalty to his brother don't really make them any less neutral.
I came here to comment the exact same thing. Certainly after all of the buildup, I thought that Snape would be revealed as the true neutral character. You make a compelling argument for Aberforth, too!
Snape is Chaotic Neutral.
For the most part I agree with this. However, I think the key point about his motivation is the defining part that actually puts him in Chaotic Neutral. Because the thing is, his desire to be the one to give and return Lily's affection is unambiguously a selfish one. He desires that for himself, not for the sake of others, and most importantly, not for Lily's own sake. Such an unhealthy, one-sided obsession is also in opposition of accepted societal norms. Opposing the rules (even unwritten ones) for one's own selfish needs is a very chaotic trait
@UCOfBMr8GLtVb2qKMqnwJQkQ I agree, the way he polices the school and his classroom, and disciplines himself. He has a code, specific to him, but an abiding set of rules that he will not break. If not for Lily he very well might have stayed out of conflict all together.
Would have loved to see a full breakdown of literally every character and where they fit. I think there’s some really interesting characters that weren’t discussed
Same! I loved this!!!!
So, Cedric doesn't support Harry in his fight against Voldemort... because he never gets a chance to! He gets killed in the first five seconds! I don't think it's fair to use that as evidence for his being neutral.
Also, I think Lockhart is probably more true neutral than chaotic neutral. Sure, his end results tend towards chaotic, but that's just from incompetence rather than alignment. The best example of a chaotic neutral character is Peeves. He doesn't care what's going on from a good/evil standpoint; he just cares that it's chaotic.
Edit: I also saw a comment about centaurs being true neutral. I agree, and I think they're probably the best ones to put in there. Except Firenze. Firenze is neutral good. Most of the centaurs have the same thing of siding with Harry in the end, but overall there's no better example for true neutral.
Aren't the centaurs obsessed with their own set of rules regarding the stars, and thus lawful neutral?
The only true neutral I can think of is Olivander, though I feel I'm overlooking a ministry official of some kind.
What do you think about mundungus fletcher ?
Where would the Weasley twins fall? Clearly chaotic but are they neutral or good?
@@janet6421 ofc good
Lockhart is neutral evil. He wipes peoples memories and takes credit for their accomplishments.
I see Dumbledore as a chaotic good character. Like his “big plan” involves putting Harry in a lot of dangerous predicaments for “the greater good” and in order of the Phoenix he legit escaped being captured by Umbr*ge and fudge causing chaos in the school as a result.
I agree with this assessment, but only for his later life. I'd put his as more of a chaotic neutral when he was a younger man. He had a big change when his sister died and he learned from the fallout of that experience. He always seemed to think of himself as above the rules that others follow and he had the power and smarts to survive that way. It is hard for chaotic characters to live a long life unless they are actually more powerful than the rules that have to follow.
more extra neat to such an extant that it might seem chaotic, (a level probably impossible to reach unless you have an AI in your brain or smth). definitely not chaotic.
I think he is more of a Neutral Good...
Nope! Honestly I don’t see any chaos in Dumbldore’s character at all. I understand you can’t see him lawful but the reason is that he is above the law!! He’s an older version of Harry, a neutral good!
Nah NG, he is with Harry and against Voldemort so he’s definitely on the side of good. He follows the rules for the most part but has no particular problem with disregarding them either.
If you were to take away the Harry VS Voldemort conflict he’d be closer to TN as his motivations are mostly to fulfil his own ambitions. I imagine him as an adventuring wizard in his younger days hunting for lost tomes, magical relics, and feeding his hunger for power.
The way he was describing Neutral Neutral immediately made me think of Snape. He supported Harry only because he cared about Lily, not because it was right. He supported Voldemort only because he thought he was supposed to, not because he believed in Voldemort's cause. He was out for himself, within what was expected of him. True Neutral all the way.
Actually Snape has many personalities revealed to us step by step, so we cannot put him specifically in any of the cells.
Ooo please he initially supported harry like you said for lily but after some years he slowly came to believe in the right cause, it is given in the prince's tale chapter. He also stick on to the plan even after realising harry is going to be dead. Most of the good things he does in the book other than protecting harry have nothing to do with Lily. If anything he was not selfish after he parted from voldemort. I don't think he would perfectly fit in any of the categories
I personally think Snape would be chaotic neutral. For one, his main influence isn’t good or evil, just Lily. I think he’s chaotic because because he’ll do anything for Lily or against James even if it doesn’t make sense within rules or nature: he bullies Harry all the time just because he resembles James even though it’s not fair and Harry’s the son of Lily, and he works with Voldemort loyally until he switched sides completely to try and save Lily. He’s just very inconsistent and unorganized with his decisions.
P.S. no shade on Snape, just my thoughts on his alignment
Even I thought of Snape but I don't think he fits anywhere , he's really complex and the neutral character does things for themselves ,so they can be at peace but this defeats the whole purpose of Snape being neutral cause everything he does is for lily and not for his peace. A neutral character is a more of idc character but Snape is too complex to even say that .
@@gsiya4023 good thoughts. I agree that he’s too complex to place, I was just saying where I thought he would go if he were to be placed. But I like your ideas though
I really feel like Narcissa needs her own category. She, in my opinion, would be a “Questionable Neutral” or a “Can someone keep an eye on her - Neutral”😂
i just got unnecessarily protective of Cedric when you called him a true neutral 😂 i think he’s probably more of a neutral good because he definitely leans good.
Cedric was not mean to Harry even at the point where basically all the rest of Hogwarts were siding with him and going against Harry directly. He even calmed the most vocal of those.
Cedric was definitely good, I'd say either Lawful Good (the Paladin style) or neutral good (in a similar way Harry is neutral good, just fighting injustice being the highest virtue).
I don't think that you were alone in feeling that way!
I think Snape would be a true neutral. His motivations are only ever for himself (not Harry or Voldemort), and while he mostly follows the rules, he still has no problem breaking them when necessary.
Snape never cared for anyone but Lily. Even his loyalty to Dumbledore and helping of Harry was due to a misguided desire to be closer to Lily. His motivations were selfish in nature, and he would have gladly seen Harry and James dead if it meant he could have Lily. That's evil in the context of the morality square.
His actions before he discovered Voldemort selected the Potters as the object of the prophecy were LE, but afterwards they were about self preservation and a twisted desire to pay penance to Lily, not any actual care for Harry, or desire to stop Voldemort. Neutral Evil.
The thing about the morality square that gets overlooked the most is that it doesn't care about actions, but motivations. You can point to a long list of both good and evil things Snape has done, and call it neutral, however the motivations for both were selfish and even his good deeds weren't done for the sake of good but for the sake of power or achieving an object of desire.
@@Lreclusa I noticed that they didn't use the typical idea that self-serving is evil that I often see in these grids. Often, people like Lockhart, Slughorn and Snape would be considered evil because they are self serving, but using the SCB metric, Snape is more neutral.
I do think that he did some self sacrificing things in service of his students, particularly Draco.
@@allieoneal2033 his motivations for helping Draco weren't self sacrificing. He was doing so under Dumbledore's orders. Even the unbreakable oath was part of that. The "Always." moment demonstrates that he's just a spurned suitor that couldn't get over his high school crush.
But this is all interpretation, so we may see it differently. I have never cared for the "tragic romantic/misunderstood hero" angle that people try to portray him as.
@@Lreclusa Yes, Snape is a very polarizing character. IMHO, he wouldn't have risked his life with the vow, even under Dumbledore's orders, if he didn't have some kind of personal loyalty to the Malfoy family.
@@allieoneal2033 That's assuming you view the vow as a risk. The vow was to protect Draco from Dumbledore, and to kill Dumbledore in his stead. He knew Draco wouldn't have been in danger from Dumbledore, and had already promised the headmaster that he would kill him to spare Malfoy's innocence.
You can even see him panicking a bit when Draco wouldn't allow Snape to help. He begins cornering the boy and trying to get information. The failed assassinations were sloppy and incurred a lot of risk, which introduced uncertainty in the outcome of the vow, hence Snape's panic.
I wouldn't do Cedric that dirty, Aragog is more of a true neutral.
He only has loyalty to Hagrid, and that loyalty is pretty limited.
Outside of that I think a lot of side characters fit the true neutral description, as a lot of students don't support Voldemort, but won't stand against him either. They read the room and choose the path that inconveniences them the least.
In that vein Wormtail almost fits as true neutral, he bet on Voldemort because he saw Voldemort was extremely powerful and made the choice that he thought would best keep himself safe. He sold out his friends for his own self interest, but his loyalty to Voldemort is very much linked to fear and limited choices. He doesn't serve the dark lord out of support for his ideals, devotion, or even liking Voldemort. Everything Wormtail does is for Wormtail. Unfortunately for Wormtail, Wormtail made a real hash of things and really backed himself into a corner
I truly believe Draco is the one who is neutral neutral. Very susceptible to outside influence yet truly conflicted by his emotions and his upbringing.
See I also see him as neutral but more chaotic as he often makes a show of acting evil though he doesn't generally follow through and often actually helps the protagonists
He's more Lawful Neutral
He follows the rules and code of conduct of his parents until it affects him and his family and abandons Voldemort before the Finale of the Battle of Hogwarts
He doesn't follow this conduct because of real belief but mostly because of his parents, Lucius especially who is more Chaotic Neutral with a leaning to Evil because there is easier selfish gain by exploiting loopholes or applying violence for personal gain
I'd say both of you have a point, because while he does follow his family's principles he also is often stuck in the middle sometimes both literally and figuratively.
That's evident by the fact that he is conflicted about killing Dumbledore but also knows that if he doesn't he an his family will be in danger.
But in terms of alignment, I do ultimately consider him Lawful Neutral because he follows the rules of his household no matter the cost or consequences that follow.
I don't necessarily disagree with Cedric being Neutral Neutral, but I think that Horace Slughorn would've been a better example
I think he’s further down the CN line, like Lockhart
Yeah Horace is either chaotic neutral or true neutral. and Cedric definitely neutral good.
I was fully expecting him to say this. I was surprised when it was Cedric.
But Slughorn was fighting Voldemort at the end of the Battle of Hogwarts
@@MasterGX only because he was guided into to don't that her was doubtful of aligninging him self right up the very end
I strongly disagree personally with cedric being true neutral. That argument really only holds up in the specifics of the conflict between harry and voldy.
If you look at Cedric as a character, he does show that he adheres to a code, even to his own detriment (lawful), that code essentially being the defining traits of hufflepuff house. Kindness, Integrity, Compassion. Which are all traits that very clearly would qualify him as good. In short, if im rolling up a cedric diggory character sheet, he's 100% lawful good.
For a genuinely true neutral character... The Grey Lady. Until Harry persuades her, she keeps the whole "I told him where moms diadem is" to herself despite knowing that it would help defeat him. Her reasoning seems to be 'Why bother, itll sort itself out eventually. Im dead why should i get involved.' But shes not so set in that mindset that she was unwilling to break her silence. She literally helped both sides. She was willing to just watch everything play out without getting involved further. But she broke her decades long silence when asked. All of which show that shes not good or evil, but also lawful enough to stick to her word, and chaotic enough to break that promise when the time came.
Neutral.
Not gunna lie, I thought Narcissa and Draco were going to be classed as the true neutral characters. They support Voldemort, yes, but I don't think they really seemed to be too invested with either side other than for the sake of appearances. They seem to me to be on the side of their own safety and peace keeping with their own family and ancestry more than anything else.
I see the malfoys like everyone sees peter pettigrew
Wouldn't Greyback also be Chaotic Evil?
Also, in no way is Cedric True Neutral. Neutrality to the plot or the hero is not the same as being a force for balance between good, evil, order and chaos. The only characters I would say exhibited truly True Neutral characteristics in Harry Potter are the centaurs other than Firenze.
As for Snape, he is a character who has an alignment shift throughout his arc. He starts off Neutral Good, but gradually shifts to True Neutral and even a little towards Lawful Evil before Lilly's death, only to spend most the rest of the story firmly as Lawful Neutral in the service of Dumbledore's Lawful Good plan.
Tbh, I think Gryffindors and Slytherins are typically more chaotic, Hufflepuffs are generally more neutral, and Ravenclaws are typically more lawful, just based on the characteristics of each house.
Yea
Wow that's cool. Hadn't thought of it that way
I'm a chaotic good Ravenclaw and I agree. :Pb
I'm probably Neutral Neutral (tho, leaning towards Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good... or maybe Lawful Good, but less) Ravenclaw, but I also agree.
Nice observation, btw ^~^
I agree but I think slytherins are more fluid and can fit in any character
Snape: Definitely lawful. All about discipline, including self-discipline and rules. On the Good-Evil axis, I'll call him neutral, because he cherishes the dark side but has enough love to case a Patronus based on the person he loves. There is actually a case to be made that Snape is True Neutral (that is, like a druid) because he seems to favor Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos whichever seems shortest in supply at the time. I don't think he perceives himself as seeking balance, but his decisions seem to follow that metric. Another such "unintentional true neutral" may be Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. When Jedi rule the galaxy, he slays Jedi. When Sith rule the galaxy, he slays Palpatine/Sidious.
As far as a neutral/neutral, Mundungus Fletcher seems a good candidate.
Had the same thought on Mundungus.
Mundugus is a odd sitituation cause he’s not evil but he’s a terrible person when Sirius dies all he does is goes to grin walks place and profits of his death and is just a bad guy but I wouldn’t consider him evil
See I thought that to first but no he's not lawful neutral. Yes he's an absolute stickler for the rules but only when it applies to other houses. He lets the slytherins do nearly anything they want. That's not lawful but its not chaos either. He's True Neutral.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia Lawful isn't necessarily about following other people's rules, and certainly not about being fair. Organized crime is definitely lawful in the D&D alignment scheme, and so is Snape.
@@SlidellRobotics I know what you mean I've been playing d&d since it came in a cardboard box and I still don't agree. Snape doesn't have the sort of strict code of honor to qualify that way either.
Personally I think I might put Viktor Krum in True Neutral. He doesn't really support either Harry or Voldemort. He doesn't really do anything evil (except while under the Imperius curse, which obviously isn't him doing it) nor does he really do things for good. And I don't think he is chaotic or lawful.
Interesting approach
But I think he's too neutral to the point that he didn't even know Voldemort's existence,atleast ad long as he was there and was kinda just a romantic interest.I would say professor trewaleny is pretty neutral cause she's the reason the whole prophecy started and yes she leans towards good but she just is all about her won 'astrology' even though she's the focal point of how voldemort got to pinpoint Harry in the first place.
I think Snape is a True Neutral in the end. His actions were motivated by who wronged him and avenging Lily's death. True Neutral that holds grudges till the end. He was mean to Harry because he was James's son, but still worked on Dumbledore's side because Harry was Lily's son
Oh. My. God. Hes wearing a BLANK t-shirt and jeans. This is a moment that will change the course of history.
I feel like Slughorn is the neutral neutral. Like I was so certain he was about to say Slughorn. He's far more neutral than Cedric IMO.
It's True Neutral
Not Neutral Neutral
I thought so too
I belive he may be the trueest of nutral.
exactly, slughorn goes to great lengths to avoid having to pick aside, becoming a nomad and faking his own death, he only finally does pick a side, when dumbledore literally has him cornered.
@@windhelmguard5295 While I definitely agree to a point, I kinda feel like Slughorn is the polar opposite of true neutral.
Rather than letting things happen and "riding the wave", Slughorn is extremely proactive in avoiding gaining an alignment.
He's "anti-neutral".
What about Draco? For some reason I’d put him neutral too. Not completely committed to either side, just trying to have him and his family survive. Not actually evil because he didn’t have the heart to kill Dumbledore but also didn’t fight in the battle against Voldemort.
I would say Draco is a solid Lawful Neutral. He's not capable of truly evil acts and he usually just does what is asked of him from his superiors. At the end of the day, his primary goal is self-preservation.
Neutral Evil. He doesnt really leans towards either good or evil but gets forced down that path to seek approval from his family and Voldemort. That's why he couldnt kill Dumbledore and was only doing bad things for himself and recognition. Reminds me the moment when Draco and Harry fight in Half Blood Prince and explains why he is doing bad things (Probably one of the hardest kind of characters to do). Voldemort is Chaotic Evil, he is crazy because he can't feel love, he is just bad just because like Bellatrix.
He's literally a death eater...
I had him as true neutral or lawful neutral in my mind!
I could see him as being True Neutral. But more because he is still deciding his path and being pulled at from both ends.
Hot Take: the True Neutral person should be Draco. Rather than not taking any stand he was FORCED to both help Voldemort AND Harry (at least at the end)
That is an extremely interesting stand. I never thought of it this way, but I think you make a very fair point. He would otherwise be very difficult to place and everything he does sort of comes out of being forced into it (even the bullying from their earlier schoolyears). I completely agree!
Draco was the first name that came to mind when he got to true neutral. I agree completely
That's the character that came to mind for me as well, and for the same reasons.
More true for Book 7. Books 1-5 he would definitely lean true evil, he was openly rooting for Hermione’s death
No Draco is lawful evil but then becomes true neutral after HBP
Another thing to consider, especially in Snape's case, is that a person's alignment will shift over the course of their life.
True Neutral- The Elder Wand, in every way.
Snape, I'd say TN. Doesn't particularly care about following the rules or going against them, his chief concern is the safety of Lily... And even that is for selfish reasons. He doesn't really care about the good or evil, just himself.
When it came to true neutral, I was screaming out Ollivander. I was slightly disappointed that it wasn't him, but more disappointed that you said Cedric.
Regarding Snape, it's hard to decide between lawful neutral and true neutral
I would say Snape orbits around LN.
I agree with Ollivander but Snape somewhat between LN and LE.
I think he's closer to evil then neutral. Sure he plays both sides but he's cruel and sadistic
@@jamieadams2589 but he secretly supported harry's fight against voldermort throughout the 7 books though, its just the way he acted around harry that was cruel. I'd say he counts as LN or maybe even good.
@@MacabreCODM around Harry and literally everyone else. Snape was cruel and vindictive to everyone, just because that includes voldemort doesn't make him a good person
I think that Snape is the perfect example of chaotic neutral. Even more than Harry. He’s simultaneously the second in command for both good and evil but will do whatever it takes to appeal to both sides.
I personally would place Snape in true neutral because as you said, he serves both sides, so you can't say good or evil there, he doesn't like the protagonist, or the antagonist, he isn't concerned with rules to the point where he is lawful, he isn't very chaotic, he's more orderly and refined, and he does tip over to the good side only for his own personal reasons (those being his love for Lily and MAYBE his respect for Dumbledore)
I think he's lawful neutral. You're right that his main driving factors are his selfish adoration of Lily and his hatred of James. But the way he goes about it is lawful imo. When he finds out Voldemort essentially betrays him, he goes to work for Dumbledore instead of planning his revenge on his own. And he's always complaining about how James and Harry and their friends are always breaking the rules. Whenever he wants to punish Harry he does so by giving him detention or taking points away from Gryffindor. So I think he's very prideful about how lawful he is.
Hm, very true, with your input I'm now starting to lean over to that side as well, but in my personal opinion, he's kind of in the middle of lawful neutral and true neutral, I think he could lean either way
@@Lightning_Lance I don't think he puts much store in the rules unless they serve his purpose. He uses the rules because they give him power not because they should always be uphold he threatens to spike Harry's drink with veritaserum. He punish the Griffindoors for stuff but look the other way when it comes to his house.
To me he just uses the rules but doesn't follow them which would make.him true neutral imo
I agree he is some form of neutral, just not sure what. Possibly either chaotic or even lawful or maybe hes both. It all depends who he’s really doing it for, himself or for the greater good
I think Slughorn is the best example of a true neutral. His only interest is toward himself.
Snape is difficult. His hatred of Harry stems from his hurt over Lily, and hurting those who hurt you is part of a neutral character. His cruelty reflects the cruelty shown to him as a child. At the same time, if a student were hurt, I can't imagine Snape ignoring them, even if it were Harry, Ron, or Hermione. Snape's only true allegiance is to his memory of Lily, first motivated by her rejection, then by his part in her death. He isn't necessarily aligned to Voldemort or Dumbledore, and I believe this makes him a Neutral character.
Honestly, I go back and forth on which Neutral alignment he is.
I think of Snape as more of a Chaotic-Neutral. He does ultimately work for the Order, but the reason he is fighting against Voldemort was more personal than to any sense of loyalty to Dumbledore. In order to be effective as a double agent he had to disregard any relationships with the good or the bad guys.
Lawful neutral?
My first thought for neutral neutral was also slughorn for the same reasons you mentioned 😁
In prisoner of Azkaban when Lupin goes werewolf Snape puts himself between the students and the beast. His instinct is to protect harry and the rest despite the fight they were in moments before. Its my favorite character
moment for Snape. Its subtle, but it shows you what he's made of. .
Making him Chaotic Good.
Gonna have to disagree about Cedric. He’s definitely good. If he wasn’t killed, he would have joined Harry in the fight against Voldemort, no question.
A more fitting true Neutral would be one of the Centaurs. Their whole philosophy is around staying out of the conflicts because the world ebbs and flows and they are just a part of it.
Otherwise, I love this topic :) wish you would have categorized more of the characters!
I feel like Snape is like Gilderoy in that he is mostly just out for himself. I mean, helping Harry is not out of the good of his own conscious conscience but because of his misery at loosing Liliy who was all he cared about in the whole series - and even then he didn't treat her all that well, calling her a mudblood and such. He's pretty much getting back at Voldy for killing his one true love. He doesn't really care who wins or loose. He will have had a place at the table whichever side he chose. He's not even the forgiving type. He treats Harry as though his father's sins were the boy's own. It really doesn't matter to him unless there something in it for him. And, while Lily has been long gone, there was a personal emotional gratification at play here. Had he understood the situation differently, he would put the blame on himself. But he isn't going to do that. But idk, obviously he chose a specific type and stuck with it. So he has to lean on good.
You really did chaotic good dirty with that definition and character classing. Chaotic good characters tend to value personal freedom highly and frown upon the rules when they get in the way of that. They do still want the best for others as well though unlike the other 2 chaotic alignments and will do their best to act for the greater good. Hagrid is the most chaotic good character in HP imo.
Newt fits that definition as well, which is another connection to Hagrid. Young Hagrid has to meet Newt at some point. He'll probably squeal like a fangirl.
Luna
@@Jellybeansatdusk Luna is less concerned with doing good than she is with avoiding bad. She isn't anywhere near as altruistic as Hagrid. She also tends to follow the rules more strictly than Hagrid. She is closer to true neutral while still just barely inching into the chaotic good square sometimes
@@gman1515 luna does good though. She goes out of her way to be kind to people and creatures, so I guess in that way she might seem like she has less chaotic tendencies, but for chaotic hood it’s not that people don’t have desires and goals and even plans, it’s that they don’t follow the plan or rules too strictly, they do their own thing on a whim. If that isn’t the most Luna thing ever, I don’t know what is.
True neutral could have been Draco since he wasn't really on Harry's side but he didn't want to be on Voldemorts side either. Just spitballing.
I was thinking about the same thing, but I think he might be more Lawful Neutral. Maybe because we only saw him as a teenage boy, but I remember countless examples when he expected that the school rules or the law would be adhered and he tried to exploit them to his favor by following them. (Basically what he did with Buckbeak.) He also clearly respects the authority of adults (mainly his dad) and his superiors (mainly Snape) and would follow them against his better judgement.
@Joa Nnali i disagree with some of these
@Joa Nnali the Dursleys? I interpret them (especially in the first book) to be really lawful
Everyone seems to have forgotten fudge the true neutral every action he takes is to better himself and maintain the status quo he's not lawful because he takes far to many unilateral decisions to bypass proper law and order but also attempts to maintain a lawful society
And neutral on the good and evil scale since he talks to and listens to both political spectrums until the good spectrum seems to have headed over to the chaotic side and trying to change his status quo
you took the words right out of my mouth
What does fudge do to bypass law and order?
@@jamieadams2589 several instances come to mind off the top of my head, 1/. The kissing of Barty crouch junior before questioning 2/.ignoring due process and going for the full trial for harry rather than the hearing that was the standard sequence of events. 3/.arresting hagrid to be seen doing something 3.5/. Arresting Hagrid he is the minister for magic not a duly appointed officer of the law a.k.a. a Auror
@@tidusffx1147 I don't remember the kissing and I'm very concerned. But as for the rest of them, he seems to just be trying to preserve law and order, not subvert it, he's just hands on at his job, and an idiot
@@jamieadams2589 2/. Is bad because of the way he went about it was an abuse of power and also still breaking the law because of failing to give proper notice of the change potentially preventing Harry from recieving legal counsel and representation if his lawyer arrived for the original hearing and location. 3 and 3.5 represent abuse of power and are illegal as Hagrid is sent to azkaban without trial and not having Aurors do it makes it even more illegal
Umbri*** being able to produce a patronus is a brilliant inclusion in the story. It shows that she genuinely thinks she's doing what's best! She's so completely power-mad that she has actually deluded herself to the point where she can feel the joy necessary to conjure a patronus! Of course, that also makes her more vulnerable to dementors than a typical "dark" wizard, but I doubt she ever even noticed, much less saw it as a disadvantage, probably because she saw herself as a basically normal, law-abiding person. Which is, like, completely insane. What a marvelously written character.
We have all had people like DU in our lives. So completely convinced that they can do no wrong yet destroying everyone around them for which they have no use or dare to oppose them.
One of my school teachers was an Umbit**
For True Neutral, i would have gone with Mundungus. He wasn't on harry's side, he wasn't on umbridges side, but helps both only when his back is against the wall.
Because Snape is devoted to dumbledore over voldemort, I'd put him in neutral good. He's not Lawful good in the sense that mcgonagal is, he's extremely unfair and abuses the rules, but he's ultimately not EVIL as he's putting himself out there to take down umbridge, lockhart, voldemort, anyone who truly doesnt align with the order. But neutral because he'd equally embarress ANYONE he doesnt like even if they Are on the good side. Hes not chaotic though, he's selfish, he's like a Lockhart who hates himself, a spiteful Lockhart working for the greater good.
I would say mundungus is a chaotic neutral. He's on only for himself, like bagman and Lockhart
If there's a chaotic character, that's Mundungus
For Snape, I would say he's more Neutral Evil. He's only really out for himself and his own desires. He doesn't turn away from Voldemort because he disagrees with his ideas(He might disagree with Voldemorts ideas but it doesn't come up, The only muggle born he cares about is Lily), he turned away from Voldemort because he was going to kill the woman he wanted for himself. He only helps Harry because of a vow (Again because of his own desire for Lily) and he'll die if he breaks that. He verbally abuses Harry and debatably mentally abuses him when he's teaching Harry Oclumency. He's bound to the light side because of a vow but he joined the dark side all by himself.
Dumbledore is a weird mix of Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. He doesn't follow rules, his morals are wishy-washy, and he's just straight-up strange. He's a kinda mentor but more of a Chessmaster planning things from behind the scenes. Even if you don't believe in the fan theories that Dumbledore set everything up from the beginning, he DID ask Snape to kill him and set up this whole complicated plan wherein the end Harry has to die as proven by Snape's memories. He knows about the Horecruxs but doesn't tell Harry. Knows Harry is a Horcrux but doesn't tell Harry. Knows that Snape is good but doesn't tell the Order. Probably knows that Draco is going to let Death Eaters into the school but doesn't tell anyone THAT either. He could have arranged for Harry to have the sword in his will or simply told him "This is how to destroy Voldemorts soul pieces" but they had to do the research themselves.
Dumbledore has all the cards but he does nothing with them.
I think that Mundungus is Chaotic Good.
"Snape is...a spiteful Lockhart working for the greater good." I like that description; it sums up both characters nicely. Good work. :D
Cedric I would classify as Lawful Good, he was as decent, forthright, and fair-spirited as they come. A Hufflepuff's Hufflepuff.
Snape is, in my estimation, Neutral Evil. He is motivated solely by his own self-interest. No other character in the series, not even Harry (who is written as a sort of mirror image) so closely resembles Voldemort.
The difference, the only substantive difference, between them is Snape's obsession with Lily, a "love" that Voldemort was intrinsically unable to experience. Both Snape and, to slightly lesser extent Dumbledore, had the capacity to be Voldemort level BBEGs. Dumbledore's youthful love for Grindelwald and Snape's love/obsession for Lily are what leads them onto a different (although perhaps no more laudatory) path than young Mr. Riddle.
I have to partly disagree about Snape. Once Lily was dead, I what reason did he have to protect Harry other than the fact that he was Lily’s son and he still loved her? She wasn’t there for him to win over, but he was devoted to her. No, he wasn’t kind to Harry, but he also wasn’t willing to let Harry die if he could prevent it (i.e. Harry’s first Quidditch match). He didn’t even fully understand Harry’s importance until much later. He wasn’t out for glory, and he knew that defeating Voldemort would mean putting himself in an unstable situation. That being said, I still don’t know where he fits. He might straddle the line between a few of these categories.
@@krismcg7924 Ah, but he was devoted to his internal image of Lily. He never had a romantic relationship with her, and he probably didn't see much of her after she chose James over him. So this is more of his internal obsession that he's following. What's more, he had no qualms about letting Voldemort harm James and Harry. If you truly love somebody, you don't want to see them hurt.
And while he protected Harry, he also bullied Harry. Bullying from a position of authority, which is not a good act.
His fighting Voldemort has a selfish motive. Voldemort killed Lily.
I think Snape is a neutral neutral with depth. Most of the neutral neutral lack it. When Snape went to dark side, it's because Snape was respected more there. When Snape joined good side, even his awesome double agent act was just to get back to Voldemort for killing Lilly
@@krismcg7924 his reason I would argue is far more guilt than love. He had an unhealthy obsession with Lilly then he gives voldemort the info that got her killed. He spent the rest of his life feeling responsible for her death so he tries to help Harry to make himself feel less guilty but still bullies him because he looks like his dad.
Cornelius Fudge is an interesting character that could be considered Neutral/Neutral, not because he is indifferent, but because he pull towards lawful in his job, but isn't a stranger to bending rules in his position. He wants the situation to stay neutral when Voldemort returns, so he is neither on the good or bad side before he confess his mistakes to the muggle prime minister in retrospect.
I agree. You would think that Fudge is dedicated to law (being the head of government, after all) but his true allegiance is to the status quo. Fudge is equally opposed to both Harry Potter and Voldemort because they both threaten the status quo.
First I thought of as well. Not Lawful despite his position because he bent or followed the rules when convenient. Underage magic doesn't matter in Prisoner of Azkaban but is a Very Big Deal two years later. He never really followed Voldemort, nor was loyal to Harry, but could be influenced in either direction by Lucius Malfoy or Dumbledore with varying degrees of difficulty depending on how circumstances suited him. In the big good vs evil test of his time, he was driven mainly by fear and denial, and ended up simply irrelevant in the battle as a result.
True Neutral I would say Narcissa, she was always in the middle in her family, as Bellatrix was on the evil side and Andromeda on the good side. I can see her being on either side of good and evil, as she only really supports Voldormort for her husband and son's sake, she also protected harry, only because of her Son safety. So she does both evil and good, to really balance it out.
I was hoping to see a larger discussion that would include characters like Mundungus Fletcher, Griphook and Mad-Eye Moody but a good video and a very interesting topic. You should have a multi-part series on this.
Mundungus and Griphook are probably True Neutral. Mad-Eye is somewhere between Lawful Good and Neutral Good, depending on what kind of internal code he's following. I would have said Neutral Good, but I'm intrigued by the line about how he never killed Death Eaters even when it was legal to.
Yeah, a video where they just went through every character and placed them would be good.
I think Cedric is LG or NG, I think his general actions are that of a good person, even if he doesn't have agency in the larger conflict. Given a chance he would have fought for good and his sense of fair play leans towards lawful in my opinion.
Olivander is the best example of True Neutral. He explicitly is written as being unwilling to help either side until threatened.
Snape was NE then moved to CN, the main motivations for his good and evil actions were always selfish. Even his brave good acts were based on his weird obsession with Lilly and his self indulgent unwillingness to let her go. People are too quick to let go that he was willing to torment 11 year olds...
I agree with you on all 3
Plus, he really did join the death eaters BEFORE he turned good and became a double agent.
the fact that voldemort doesn’t wear socks or shoes makes him a chaotic evil
Facts
I agree
According to that logic that would make Rapunzel a chaotic evil as well 😂
@@driesottevaere oh lol. well she did hit people with frying pans randomly.. and kidnap people..
Cedric is unequivocally good-aligned. He's not on "Harry's team", per se, but what he does do, he does because it's "the right thing to do". That's textbook good. Harry had a leg up on the first task, and notice that he went to Cedric, but not Fleur or Viktor, because he's got a personal connection with Cedric. Cedric also helped out Harry, in part because he owed him one, but in part, because it was the right thing to do. We don't see if he helped out Fleur or Viktor, and we don't know if they'd already figured it out. The one area where Harry really outshines Cedric on the good front is the second task. That's about it. In the graveyard, Cedric doesn't flee when told to, though he's not much use either. I don't think Cedric would work as a True Neutral character. He leans too far into the Good camp, in my view. Hufflepuff, broadly, is the most Good of the Houses, because of its values of fairness and cooperation.
True Neutral characters come in two flavours - characters dedicated to preserving the balance, like the archetypical druid, and characters who don't have a particular inclination toward an alignment, like most people in real life.
Griphook, Trelawney, and the Dursleys are good examples of True Neutral.
Griphook is self-interested, with no qualms about doing good or bad things, and no real regard for the rules, and no exceptional rebellion against them.
Trelawney is mostly a fraud who goes through the motions of teaching a class. She's not really bent on helping or harming anyone, and she has no problem lying to cover for her ineptitude.
The Dursleys are a mixed bag for Harry, as well. They're not so good that they'd be kind and loving to Harry, but not so bad that they'd abandon him or torture him. They just kind of treat him as an unwanted guest, with occasional moments of warmth later on from Petunia and Dudley.
Cedric is definitely not true neutral. He is more of a Lawful Good. I'd say Lockhart is the one that is the True Neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to do good or bad; he will break the law if he needs, he will follow it if it doesn't impeed him. That's true neutral.
True neutral? Two words, Mundungus Fletcher.
@@tricky_biggles8136 nah he is chaotic neutral
Cedric becomes Death eater in Cursed child only because he got humiliated, does not sound Good to me.
@@rudolfensisOne what is the cursed child? ive heard of it but i dont read fanfiction.
@@rudolfensisOne Darling. we don't expeculate about fanfiction
I would say that Cedric is neutral good. He seems like a generally good guy, and people like him for it.
The character best fitting into true neutral would be Snape. He is all over the chart, but also keeps to himself. Sometimes he follow and enforce the rules. Sometimes he breaks them. He also worked on different sides, both good or evil, depending on the situation. But he also generally prefers a good neighbour and does what needs to be done to stop the villain in the end.
Draco Malfoy is a true neutral, he respects rules but in the end, he’s just looking out for Draco Malfoy. I would say that Lucius is a lawful neutral, he’s keen to punish rule breakers but only seeks his own goals, while Narcissa is a chaotic neutral. She clearly doesn’t care about what she has to do, she just wants to protect her boys. Edit: Corrected rule to rules for Draco.
This is one area where this classification breaks down. What about people who want to be good, but have been brought up in such a twisted environment that their personal moral code is badly skewed? Draco is true to the values he was brought up with, which are evil, but he has to grow to adulthood before he is in a position to examine those values and realize that they are flawed and that the decisions they lead him to are bad ones. Dudley is another example - he's not really bad, he's just acting the way his parents raised him to act, which is selfish and cruel. But in the end he recognizes Harry's good character and respects him and is grateful to him for saving him from the dementors.
Lucius is evil, he wants Voldemort to win and does awful things to people who have done nothing to deserve them, like 11-year-old Ginny Weasley.
@@brucetucker4847 agreed, there need to be a few more classifications.
This is more an example of using the Neutral alignment instead of calling them Narcissitic.....there is a difference between simply not choosing and being self-centered (although self-centered is one way of being technically "neutral" in a good v evil set up)
Draco is neutral evil imo
Draco is evil who has a redemption arc.
@supercarlinbrothers, I just gotta tell you that while I very much enjoy your videos, I hate sponsor adds. So I very much appreciate your sponsor timer bar on your videos :D
Ok but seriously... where does Snape go?
Having not watched the video yet, whichever category fits an objectively evil person with major redeeming values.
true neutral? not going either way unless given a compelling argument/promise for lily?
I would say true neutral until Lily died. Then I think he doesn’t fit into any of them
chaotic neutral maybe
Honestly wherever he's placed is going to be an argument against it because he was a good friend to Lily before they got to school and he had to share her with other people he felt like he owned her even as small children and when he got to school with her and other people spoke to her she got jealous and the fact that she defended him when he's 15 against some beliefs he felt so emasculated he called her the m word which caused her to sever all ties to him but he still felt like he owned her and if you don't get a rapey vibe from him just think about when he showed up at her house expecting to find her husband and baby dead and get to nail her on the rebound but he found the baby alive and her dead he took it out on the baby for the rest of literally the rest of his life was dedicated to torturing this kid while also keeping him alive to defeat the dark Lord because the dark lord killed Lily if you haven't noticed I hate him I really really do always have always will
Cedric is lawful good. Everything described was an argument for lawful good. Professor Slughorn was true neutral, neither chaotic nor lawful, And would only do the right thing if it came at little to no cost for his personal interests.
I feel like most people place Snape in True Neutral (Neutral-Neutral). I agree, but at the same time I agree with you NOT placing him anywhere. *_Because Snape's all over the place, I'd say, and the average of it all is what would make him neutral_*
He seems lawful a lot of the time, being strict and (like Umbridge) uses the rules to any extent he can to punish both Harry and others he doesn't like. But, as I see many people commenting on: he is actually chaotic at times too, since he lets his emotions control him, and aids both sides because of his emotions (which feels quite chaotic, I feel like). He is also both good and evil at different times. Becoming a death eater was a choice, so was calling people mudblood (even though it was a mistake to call Lily that, she says that he calls every other muggle born mudblood). Yet he sacrifices not only his life, but _all he is and all he has_ - for "the greater good", in the end.
1 thing that makes voldemort neutral evil is he waits till the end of the school year to try and kill harry, must really care about his education.
0:47 *"Professor Um[beep]"*
Ok, ngl, didn't see that one coming.
A laughed out loud at professor umBEEP
I don't know why, but I immediatly thought of the trolley witch as a true neutral character.^^ Like, she doesn't care about good or evil, she just wants to sell her candy. And I appreciate that. :)
Until Cursed Child when they turned her into Pazuzu.
Oh yeah, I totally forgot!! I read cursed child once a long time ago and I'm still not sure if I would call it canon.^^ Which category fits the cursed child version of her then? Lawful evil, maybe?
"professor um(beep)" is the best name ever
I think that Snape would be the true neutral character becuase he always does things for himself. He supported Voldemort because he saw gains in it for himself and he switched sides because someone he cared about was in trouble. Its very selfish and not aligned either way. Similarly, I dont think he leans either chaotic or lawful because he breaks rules as he sees fit but isn't crazy. He seems to do whatever best benefits himself without leaning either way which i think makes him true neutral. I think its hard to see because he is such a prominent character in a book about good vs. evil.
I think it's also safe to say that he wants Voldemort defeated not because Voldemort is evil, but out of revenge for what he did to Lily. I agree, he's a True Neutral.
Dursleys may also be true neutral
I literally just scrolled down here planning to say the same thing
Yes.
@@victoriamacgregor5782 me too! I was honestly surprised when he said Cedric
The centaurs and *especially* the goblins would be True Neutrals
Totally agree, though I would exclude Firenze.
As presented, the goblins are far, far more like lawful neutrals. While they may be using a different code book from the wizards, they adhere to it pretty strictly.
I think we can all agree that Professor Um*bleep* is how she should be addressed from now on
"Dobby never meant to kill. He only meant to maim, or seriously injure."
Hagrid is definitely Chaotic Good. He tries so hard to do the right thing, but doesn't exactly know how. He does his best when he can, but it doesn't always work out the best
He's also not much at all for rules. There are easily a dozen examples of this, starting with his giving Dudley a pig's tail early in the first movie. Like Sirius Black (another CG character), his loyalties are mostly personal, to people whom he finds worth supporting either because they've been good to him or because he thinks they're doing the right thing. He had zero institutional loyalty to anyone or anything that didn't meet his standards, for instance to Um[bleep] as headmistress.
My first thought for "True Neutral" was Aragog, since he's literally just a beast of the wilds doing his own thing and not caring about anything or anyone.
I think that can apply to all the animal characters or at least most of them.
I believe beasts in dnd are 'unaligned'
Well, Aragog is at least sapient, so not just any beast
@@brunopereira6789 A good point. I would say lawful evil. Evil since he's willing to eat children and lawful since he didn't out of loyalty to Hagrid (but made it clear it was a one time thing).
R.I.P. fluffy crawly
Snape is Lawful Neutral. His code and his moral center is his love for Lily, and we see him do both good and evil things throughout the series--namely his commitment to protecting Harry and thus working for the greater good, while being outright malicious to innocent students like Neville. He doesn't align with "traditional" rules because he plays favorites with the Slytherins, so some might argue that he isn't Lawful, but because he has that single motivating factor that drives all of his decisions he would still qualify.
He’s got an aristocratic vibe to his relationships with the houses. He probably sees his duty as being to his house. In that case he’s heeding his interpretation of the concept of sorting, which is probably a law of some sort. Even though it’s taxonomy… but we’re not talking about my thoughts
McGonagall: I’ve always wanted to use that spell. J in his head: I’ve always wanted to use that spell
I was thinking Mad Eye Moody would fit perfectly for chaotic good. I agree placing Snape in a category would be difficult
Snape is basically the character that hops around on the broad. He's like a seesaw tipping ever which way.
Oh my god True Neutral is so obvious! Of course it's Snape. He didn't care about right or wrong, he only cared about Lily. He didn't make his decisions based on its morality, he was morally grey. I can't believe you didn't say Snape.
You are right about the neutral, but your definition of doing everything for lily is the definition of lawful. Lawful doesn't mean they follow the laws of the land, it means they follow their own own ideals ands codes to a T. True neutral has no specific alignment nor desire to follow a certain path. They are truly neutral.
Snape is lawful neutral. The argument for aragog being true neutral is perhaps best. I would say that Lockhart is chaotic neutral. He borders on evil but he does make a good point that more people are aware on how to defeat alot of creatures thanks to his books despite him being a bumbling idiot himself. I even the first time i saw snape thought he was a good at heart character to the point i at one point argued he was undercover chaotic good. Didn't know the why and my siblings said he was obviously bad. They were impressed however when he saves harry and i said i told you so. Cedric would probably be one if he had more character development who would probably be a paladin's lawful good. Since we get such a short time I'd say lawful neutral is accurate. He was concerned with fair and balanced but without further character development I'd say that is where he rests.
Snape is most definately evil. Sectumsempra, death eater, bully, the list goes on. His love of Lily is the exception to his character, not the core
@@Gzaerix But he helped harry and dumbledore take down voldemort in the end. imo he’s in the gray area
I would say that chaotic good would work for Snape. The way that I see it, he did bad things for good reasons.
I was so ready to punch someone when he said "he's huffelpaff, they don't suppose to win"
For Snape, I'd place him in Lawful Neutral. He's a major stickler for the rules and even his betrayal of Voldy was based on his Task and not a whim. He's cruel and harsh (evil), but also offset by being loving and self sacrificing (good).
No Snape is true neutral all the way.
He'd definitely evil. He didn't help the order of the phoenix because of any sense of good. It was out of hatred for Voldemort. Everything he did was selfish.
@@Andrew-it7fb being selfish IS neutral.
Being evil is hurting people for the sake of hurting people, thriving in seeing other people suffer, regardless if that brings any benefit to you or not (like Voldemort, Umbridge and Bellatrix).
Snape had terrible coping mechanisms for his traumas (which don’t excuse his actions) but he doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking about how good it’ll feel to hurt random people (like Umbridge, for example probably does).
@@Fernandanatac and he enjoyed making students suffer.
Goblins in general and Griphook in particular are true neutral. Griphook doesn't like Voldemort, but isn't so opposed that he will join the good side. He has his own goals and priorities that have little to do with wizards. He helps the trio and then betrays them all to aquire the sword, not particularly caring which side this helps in the greater conflict.
Cedric Diggory is a goody two shoes and you kinda did him dirty by declaring him "true neutral". He was placed in a position to oppose Harry in sporting matches (triwizard included) but even then tries to be kind and fair to Harry. More importantly we all know what side of the war he would be on if he had survived long enough
I love the semantic shift of "Harry Potter Theory" -- from, like, speculation around a specific plot point in Harry Potter, to just, like... a cohesive body of knowledge and analysis of Harry Potter.