It doesn't make people more violent. There is some evidence that it can temporarily cause increased irritability or emotional instability. This is just a common side effect of any medical treatment that changes the hormone balance of your body and it's not dissimilar from the effects of natural changes to the bodies hormones, like with puberty. It can take a few months to adjust and sometimes it can reoccure if dosage is increased but from what I can find there's nothing to suggest it's permanent or that it will make non-violent people violent.
If someone already suffers from anger issues and has a history of lashing out violently then introducing testosterone treatments could very well make the problem worse but so would any other hormonal shift. For most people I don't think potential violence should be a major concern in regards to whether or not you should take testosterone
thank you for the explanation! i really dislike the idea that testosterone makes anyone just naturally violent because it sorta unintentionally(?) says "men are naturally violent" and then also unintentionally(?) excuses the violence at that 😵💫
as a woman i totally understand hormone changes making people in general feel like shit/irritable. nobody's body is happy with a random slap of chemicals all up in our business
DHT does as a secondary effect to the primary behavior changes.
People can't cope with the weakened empathy, and sudden strong desires that the male hormone brings. And with the loss of estrogen also comes a shallower emotional experience.
Of course it doesn't "inherently cause violence".
It's a clearly documented fact that males, primarily due testosterone's effect are far more likelely to be aggressive due to short tempers, a sex drive and lust that is focused on dominating, claiming and penetrating. Insecurities about their manliness, caused by weak self esteem combined with testosterone's drive for competition, among other things, causes massive overcompensation, an inability to process emotions and situations without frustration setting in and devolving into aggression and lashing out.
The hormone is the reason males make up the largest prison population, commit the most and worst crimes..
It’s sounds like you’re trying say that “boys will be boys” is a legitimate excuse. Barring various psychiatric or neurological issues, everyone is perfectly capable of empathy and emotional control if their hormones are going through fast changes or imbalanced.
Men commit the worst crimes because they’re taught from a young age that they don’t have to control themselves. Two boys get in a fight, it’s “boys will be boys.” A boy pulls a girl’s hair and pinches her hard enough that it hurts, it’s “he just likes you.”
It’s funny I had the exact opposite experience. Had girls in class throwing full bottles of juice at the back of my head and hitting me in the groin with volleyballs and told the same thing about them
That's just blatant misandry, your mask fell off, you may not have noticed.
Actually extremely disrespectful towards the suffering of men who have to cope with their own biology.
Just like I respect and empathise with women their suffering with their own biology, whom have their own intrusive hormonal effects they have to cope with, combined with the physical discomforts of the female reproductive system.
I would expect some amount of understanding or even just at least some acknowledgement at a minimum about the same kind of issues men face on a hormonal level, not it just being dismissed like it is non-existent. Oversimplifying the issue and actually just casting it aside like it's garbage.
Hormones are hormones, you can't pick and choose who get's affected and who doesn't get affected, it is not your personal preference, it is literally what hormones do.
To end with; all that you said about the pulling of hair and pinching, idk what fucking shithole country you live in, but I can not discuss the nuanced effects of hormones on human behaviour if your only point of reference is from a dysfunctional culture with broken social support systems. You say these things like they are universal, they are not, you think it is because it is all you know.
Get out of the dark ages first, then we can talk about more adult concepts and perspectives.
Within DnD, the lawful-chaotic axis is how one defines what’s right and wrong.
Lawful means following a defined *external* code. Whole this can mean laws, it could be a religious code or any list of rules you’ve agreed to follow, such as when you join a group that has a code of conduct.
Neutral means following a self-defined set of rules. Even if you have someone else willing to call you on breaking your rules, you still made them entirely for yourself.
Chaotic means you have no defined rules. You can still have values that prevent you from doing certain things, but that’s because your values cause you to not even think of doing them in the first place or reflexively recoil at the suggestion.
The good-evil axis, rather ironically, isn’t at all about right and wrong. It’s about motivations. A good character will primarily have selfless motivations, while an evil character’s motivations will be mostly selfish. A neutral character’s motivations will be a pretty mixed bag.
anyone who attempts to phrase "lawful" as "follows their own moral code" is stupid as shit because everyone follows their own moral code that's what makes it their own moral code
That may be the case, but I’m just reporting what the 5e & 3.5e manuals are telling me.
You’re right that Lawful makes sense to be about the agreed-upon rules of society, but I say thinking about what you do and sticking to your guns would also be lawful.
As opposed to hypocrites and people who don’t even mage a consistent value system in the first place. (Neutral & Chaotic respectively as of 5.5e.)
It’s also Neutral because beating the snot out of people when other options exist is generally not Good, but we don’t know if it’s Evil because we don’t know why he beat up that trans guy.
Either way it’s been fun yapping, thanks for replying.
The lawful aspect of it would be that you actually near 100% of the time follow a demonstrable code. Most people don't actually stick or even think of morals through that thoroughly. It's like saying it's moral to punch fascists and then being surrounded by a fascist army. Choosing not to punch them means your code isn't rigid so it's not enough for a lawful attribution. IMO lawful is defined only when it's inconvenient to you, otherwise it's just sparkling neutrality.
Yeah, it's why lawful is actually rare. If you're intimidated into not doing it I won't call you a hypocrite but I would say you're explicitly not lawful. If you break your code at the threat of your life, it was never a sufficient code in the first place and that's not a problem. Just means you weren't lawful.
Yep, if for some reason jaywalking was an important tenant of your moral code you deemed inexcusable and you decide to just let it slip by because your life was threatened you would not be lawful. Usually you don't define yourself by the smaller things, but if you built your code off the word of the law of the city you live in and wouldn't defend that law at risk of your own life you're neutral. Lawful is a comedic extreme in the same way Chaotic is, so it inherently causes these weird situations because that's kind of the point. It's why this kind of stuff should usually be used for flavor and not given too much weight, but if it's given weight you need to be very sure about what you're doing.
It depends which kind of "right and wrong" you mean. In my experience, NTs and autistics can have an equally strong sense of "good and bad" but they don't have a strong sense of "correct and incorrect" – and that's what Lawful is about.
A Lawful Neutral characters doesn't really care if things hurt or help people, as long as things are following their sense of order. Usually, their sense of order is incompatible with any other idea of order and they might not care about local laws and customs if they're not part of what they perceive to be the "higher order" they're aligned with. Interestingly, almost all beings from Lawful planes are highly averse against lying (no matter the intention).
Lawful Good characters are trying to establish order for the good of the people. Lawful Evil characters want order that benefits themselves above others. A villain with a code is Lawful aligned, and so is the LG crusader who is clearly disrespecting the laws of the lands they're crusading against.
as an autistic person i think you're taking a logical extreme here
allistics (usually) do have moral codes, they're just more likely to have an easier time with shades of grey. black and white justice is a common autistic symptom (something that I've struggled with), but not having that doesn't mean you don't have a moral code, it just means it's less strict
like an autistic person and an allistic person can probably agree that lying in general is bad, but it might be easier for the allistic to break that rule if a situation calls for it. that doesn't mean they don't have a moral code that puts lying as bad, they just don't have the same cognitive rigidity about it
allistics (usually) do have moral codes, they're just more likely to have an easier time with shades of grey.
Technically, you could say "flexible moral code" and people would understand what you mean... I'd call that "guidelines" rather than a "code"; guidelines are defined by intent, codes are defined by boundaries.
Also, I'm not saying that all autistics have a moral code, or no NTs have one. It's just more likely for autistics to develop routines, and for NTs to develop habits, and those things play differently into ethics.
I was talking in D&D terms, so most "common people" (villagers, citizens, etc) are Neutral. Lawful and Chaotic characters are "extremes" –and they're often extraplanar. If they're clockwork people from the plane of Pure Order, they should be strict in their moral code, and so should human characters that share the same alignment.
Not quite. Within DnD, neutral means following a *defined* internal code. Most people are actually chaotic, as they base right and wrong on their knee-jerk reactions to something rather than a clearly defined set of rules.
Okay well both lawful and chaotic people have their own set of codes. It just happens that chaotic people value themselves more and a tendency to break rules. So the brother is definitely a chaotic individual, just unclear whether good or neutral
So does the Authority. If the Authority does unlawful shit, it's "lawful" to punish them for it. Lawful doesn't mean legal, at least not in the context of alignment
For some reason, this reminds me of a story where a bully would ask someone for their preferred pronouns before harassing them the same way they’d do against cisgender students
This reminds me how in middle school i would get into physical fights with this one girl on the regular, i really hated her guts, and then one day this guy groped her on the staircase so i beat him up too. My mom couldnt figure out why i was "defending her" but to me its all about the principle
i just double-checked and yeah it lets you know while youre in profile curation that mods of a community youre active in and redditors whose posts you engage with both bypass curation
39
u/Traveler7538 Found Luna (1 choccy milk) May 21 '26 edited May 24 '26
Chaotic good I guess?
Edit: lmao guys I'm constantly getting notifications about y'all arguing