My boyfriend and I created a photo showing what we think would be the Dungeons & Dragons alignments of the current presidential candidates. D&D alignments sort of exhibit the morality and interests of someone. Does someone abide by the rules? That means that they are lawful. Are they self-interested? They are neutral. Will they accomplish their goal by whatever means? They are chaotic. Here, I shall explain why we perceive them to be this way.

John Kasich: Lawful Good

The former Ohio governor who constantly cites his work in the state's office exhibits a beacon of hope for the conservative voters who are as not xenophobic as Donald Trump nor evangelical as Ted Cruz. He has good intentions, wanting to improve education and the middle class. He has a passion for the people exhibited in his concern to even extend rights to the unborn baby and his pro-life positions (although he advocates defunding Planned Parenthood, despite taxes not going toward abortions). He even told his colleagues to cease fighting against gay marriage, despite his being against it. However, his exhibition of Republican establishment positions in the first place (pro-life, anti-LGBT) as well as his classic preaching about mall government and Reaganomics make him lawful. Ultimately, Kasich feels as though he is fighting for the good of the people, but he plays by the preset expectations of the establishment, making him lawful good.

Martin O'Malley: Neutral Good

Former Maryland governor and since-dropped-out Democratic candidate Martin O'Malley has the experience of a governor and he cares for the issues of the many. An advocate of clean energy, raising the minimum wage, taking in refugees and immigrants, caring for soldiers and veterans, and gun reform, O'Malley surely showed his desire for good. This is especially apparent with his mild attacks against Wall Street and monopolies, asserting his position on campaign finance reform. However, his inability to create a momentum among the voters and to gain a stronger following made him a more neutral presence. Some felt that he was like all the other "slimy politicians" of the scene. He became so worried about gaining more support that his aura of sincerity seemed to dwindle.

Bernie Sanders: Chaotic Good

Calling himself a democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders looks to Scandinavian countries with stars in his eyes. He wants to give the people free college, free healthcare, a higher minimum wage, stronger labor unions, a warless time period, a haven for immigrants and refugees, and a land of equal treatment and opportunity. More than ever, he wants to defeat the big bad of his campaign: Wall Street, the big banks, lobbyists, and politicians corrupted by money in politics and he will do whatever it takes to defeat them. Be it through raising taxes by tens of percents which will pay for free college, by breaking up commercial and investment banks, by mandating public campaign finance, or by banning tax havens overseas, Sanders will do whatever he can to win the fight for the greater good and the many. However, Sanders's aggressive assertions and the extent to which he will go to win puts off and worries many voters. They fear the effects of his plans, making him a chaotic good entity.

Hillary Clinton: Lawful Neutral

Hillary Clinton has been around many parts of the political sphere--from Senator to First Lady (of a governor and a president) to Secretary of State. She is infamous for being a face of the establishment and for using typical political tricks to further her support and legitimize her actions. When Sanders accused her of being part of the establishment, Clinton replied with, "Honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.” However, people feel that her taking so much money from Wall Street donors, the fact that politicians are at war about criticizing her, and her thick resume in politics and business make her a part of the establishment--or lawful. However, because she will change her positions in the face of Wall Street donations and use fallacious arguments (like her sex) to advance her position, this makes her self-interested and neutral.

Jeb Bush: True Neutral

Trying to escape the expectations of his family name due to his father and brother, Jeb Bush has tried vehemently to separate himself. Advocating for good old conservative values, he seemed like a very safe candidate for Republican voters against the loud and destructive Donald Trump and/or liberal policies. However, his safety and softness were also shown in his spirit and attitude. Trump repeatedly beat Bush around like a bully on the playground during Republican debates, even shushing him on stage before the New Hampshire primary. Bush was leading the conservative candidate pool in the early months of the race, but when more people joined and Trump gained his momentum, Bush's weakness was truly exposed. All in all, Bush's inability to assert himself makes him neutral to many sides of the spectrum. Furthermore, his deterioration in saying whatever he thought would be popular in a desperate attempt to gain support (and to not make his donors feel like they wasted millions on him) make him a true neutral.

Rand Paul: Chaotic Neutral

A libertarian in the Republican party, Rand Paul constantly asserts the sanctity of the Constitution and protecting the rights of the American people. He famously said that he wants, "a government so small you can barely see it," exhibiting his chaotic nature when it comes to conservative ideals. He has also said that to begin to reform the tax code, "We ought to scrap the entire tax code, we can either burn it, stick it into a wood chipper or chop it up with a chainsaw." Nevertheless, his want to only protect the rights of some and his firm stance against any gun control make him more neutral. In this sense, yes, he wants to protect the rights of Americans at any cost, but he does not extend this to immigrants or refugees, to whom he wants to restrict entrance, which makes him more of a chaotic neutral to Sanders's chaotic good.

Marco Rubio: Lawful Evil

Marco Rubio is another establishment politician who has recently been criticized for "short-circuiting" during a debate, repeating the same talking point over and over in between Chris Christie criticizing him for the rehearsed "25 second sound byte." This is something that voters hate about politicians--they seem disingenuous because of how rehearsed they are and how they seem to swoon voters through lies and deceit. This, again, makes Rubio a lawful persona. Why is he evil? He is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, refuses any sort of gun control, denies climate change (despite being a Floridian) and does not see it as an imminent threat, denounces academics, and will say whatever he thinks that his donors or the voters want to hear, even if it means hurting the American people. The harm that a Rubio presidency would cause is evil.

Ted Cruz: Neutral Evil

He's supposedly an evangelical Christian fundamentalist and an advocate for carpet-bombing the Middle East. Which is it, Ted Cruz? He has called the protesters of Black Lives Matter "rabid" and claimed that they advocate killing police officers. Not only does he not believe that climate change exists, but he says that it is an elaborate ruse organized by "liberal politicians who want government power over the economy, the energy sector and every aspect of our lives." He not only wants to completely throw out Obamacare and anything that looks like it, but he wants to abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This would create chaos for the economy and the executive branch and cause a massive regression for the economy and development. Cruz's disregard for the catastrophic effects of his attempts to minimize "big government" and how it hurts the American people all under the guise of being a good Christian exhibit his concerns only for his own twisted ideology, his twisted big donors, and his bank account, making him neutral evil.

Donald Trump: Chaotic Evil

Ban all Muslims! Mexicans are all criminals and rapists! Build a wall! Bomb ISIS--even their families! Donald Trump is xenophobic and does not care nor does he want to hide it. He claims to want to fix the income tax bracket in favor of the middle class, but it would add trillions to the deficit and save the rich a ton of money. He paints enemies out of so many different people, which is literally a primary trait of fascism. Making fun of disabled journalists, hitting on his own daughter, being accused of violent rape by his ex-wife--Trump renders many people uncomfortable and disgusted. He does not care about what others think of his ideas or the effects that they will have on the American people. He only wants to make himself more famous and to promote his own ideas of America being horrible and in need of being made great again by his hand. This makes him chaotic evil.