# Alignment examples of fictional characters.



## Dark Jezter (Sep 8, 2002)

My friends that I discuss D&D with have often had (somewhat long) discussions about which alignment so-and-so would be.  This discussions can get very interesting, and I thought I'd carry them on over to here.  I'll start by listing an alignment and characters whom I believe to be prime examples of that alignment, so here goes...

*Lawful Good:*  Superman, King Arthur.
*Neutral Good:*  Richard Cypher (Sword of Truth), Jean Valjean (Les Mierables)
*Chaotic Good:*  Robin Hood,  Ryoko (Tenchi Muyo)
*Lawful Neutral:*  Javert (Les Miserables)
*True Neutral:* Karla (Record of Lodoss War)
*Chaotic Neutral:*  Conan the Barbarian, Faye Valentine (Cowboy Bebop)
*Lawful Evil:* Ashram (Record of Lodoss War)
*Neutral Evil:*  Saruman, Lex Luthor.
*Chaotic Evil:*  Emperor Palpatine, Carnage (Spider-Man)

These are a few I've thought up, and no doubt some people will disagree with me on some of these, but hey, that's what this thread is about.  ^_^


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 8, 2002)

Alignment examples of fictional characters (Edena_of_Neith's take) :


Lawful Good: Superman, Captain America, Samwise Gamgee, Faramir Son of Denethor, Queen Amidala

Neutral Good:  Spider-Man, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Keltset the Troll, Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Arwen, Boromir Son of Denethor, Saltheart Foamfollower, Yoda, Qui-Gon Jin, R2-D2, Leia Organa/Skywalker

Chaotic Good:  Batman, Robin, Joan of Arc, Wil Ohmsford, Allanon, Gimli Son of Gloin, Legolas Greenleaf, Meriadoc Brandybuck, Peregrin Took, Buffy the Slayer, Luke Skywalker

Lawful Neutral:  Judge Dredd, Bannor the Bloodguard, Obi-Wan Kenobi

True Neutral:  Thomas Covenant, C-3PO

Chaotic Neutral:  Conan the Barbarian, Walker Boh, Damson Rhee, Panamon Creel

Lawful Evil:  Sauron, Emperor Palpatine, Jabba the Hut, Hitler

Neutral Evil:  Morgoth (Melkor), Saruman, the Warlock Lord, Darth Vader, Boba Fett the Bounty Hunter

Chaotic Evil:  Lex Luther, Lord Foul, Fleshharrower the Giant-Raver, the balrog in FOTR, MacBeth

Unknown ((never saw them)) :  Richard Cypher (Sword of Truth), Jean Valjean (Les Mierables), Ryoko (Tenchi Muyo), Javert (Les Miserables), Karla (Record of Lodoss War), Faye Valentine (Cowboy Bebop), Ashram (Record of Lodoss War), Carnage (Spider-Man)


----------



## the Jester (Sep 8, 2002)

I'll add a few here- a few are historical figures as well.

LG: Captain America, Daredevil
NG: Luke Skywalker
CG: Han Solo, Spider-Man, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gonn
LN: Hamlet, the Vorlons (Bab 5)
N: Corwin of Amber
CN: The Shadows (Bab 5), Anakin (ep 2)
LE: Palpatine, Hitler 
NE: Thanos of Titan, Pryrates (or whatever his name is from Memory, Sorrow, Thorn)
CE: Darth Vader, Macbeth, Stalin


Obviously there's bound to be some disagreement here...


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 8, 2002)

*Lawful Good* 
Superman 
Batman 
Galahad 
Percival 
Optimus Prime 

*Neutral Good* 
King Arthur 
Buffy 
Jack Bauer 

*Chaotic Good* 
Wolverine 

*Lawful Neutral* 
Judge Dredd 
Palomides 

*Lawful Evil* 
Dr. Doom 
Emperor Palpatine 
Darth Vader 
Scorpius 
Lex Luthor 
Magneto 
Apocalypse 
Aku 
Bane 
Megatron 
Shockwave 

*Neutral Evil* 
Thanos 
Venom 
Faith 
Starscream 

*Chaotic Evil* 
Carnage 
Dark Phoenix 
Joker 
Sabretooth 
Galvatron


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2002)

LG: King Arthur
NG: Gandalf, Hawkmoon
CG: Buffy, Robin Hood
LN: Judge Dredd, Boromir
N: Conan, Moonglum, Gray Mouser, Thomas Covenant
CN: Elric (overall), Nemesis the Warlock
LE: Hitler, Stalin, Torquemada, Baron Meliadus
NE: Emperor Palpatine, Fu Manchu
CE: Hannibal Lecter, Michael Myers, Elizabeth Bathory, Arioch


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2002)

Hm.  Given the difficulty of fitting non-D&D characters into the alignment system, not a bad job 

Villains whose main purpose is "world domination" - like Stalin, and Darth Vader, are probably not Chaotic.  Their purpose is at least partly to impose an _order_ on the universe.  If the effects they cause is somewhat chaotic (like in Stalin's case), it's probably best to classifly than as NE.

Similarly for heroes - depending on which continuity you look at, Batman is usually far, far to personally disciplined to be called CG.  Robin is far more likely to fit that mold (and that also gives you a justification for their later conflict )


----------



## Moe Ronalds (Sep 8, 2002)

LG--- Possibly Batman (he has the whole no killing code thingy), Mace Windu, Yoda (the Jedi are kind of like super duper futuristic paladin people (even though they're actually HISTORICAL paladin people since it's long long ago...)

NG---Spider Man (he doesn't follow any code to my knowledge but he doesn't do w/e the hell he likes)

CG--- The "New" Batman with the flying and the future and the old batman mentor 

LN--- Hera from Greek Mythology (not good, not evil. ANd Strict (Note: I don't own dieties and demigods so if I'm wrong... meh.))

TN--- Chewbacca at the beginning of a new hope

CN--- Han at the beginning of a new hope 

LE--- Palpatine (Palpatine's like a chess palyer, but he replaces the pieces with underlings. And if he wins, the result is fear, anger, hate, and suffering instead of "good game")

NE--- Couldn't think of one

CE--- The Green Goblin (the dude's a madman)


----------



## kengar (Sep 8, 2002)

For you Pratchett fans:

LG = Captain Carrot, Granny Weatherwax
CG = Nanny Ogg
NG = Magrat Garlick
TN = Susan Sto Helit
LN = The Patrician, DEATH
CN = Nobby Nobbs
NE = Mr. Teatime 
CE = The "Lords & Ladies" (Elves)
LE = The Auditors


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 8, 2002)

Here's my take on the _Yu Yu Hakushu_ cast (including quite a few villains...)

LG--Keiko, Kuwabara, Mr. Tanaka
NG--Botan, Kurama
CG--Yusuke Urimeshi
LN--Koenma, Mr. Akashi, Mr. Iwamoto
N--Genkai
CN--Hiei, Atsuko Urimeshi
LE--the Four Saint-Beasts, Kazemaru
NE--Kibano
CE--Gouki, Rando


----------



## Mucknuggle (Sep 8, 2002)

What happened between Batman and Robin anyway?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2002)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> *What happened between Batman and Robin anyway? *




Basically, Robin's puberty  

The same thing that happens between any father figure and a young man growing up.  But only slightly worse because Bats has obsessive tendencies and control issues.


----------



## Moe Ronalds (Sep 8, 2002)

Mucknuggle said:
			
		

> *What happened between Batman and Robin anyway? *




Robin got jealous of Alfred and went on to form the Neo-Village People.


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 8, 2002)

My take on the Lodoss cast:

Spark, Ghim, Kashue, Greevis:Lawful Good
Deedlit, Parn, Leylia, Little Neese, Etoh, Slain, The golden greater dragon whose name I can't remember:Neutral Good
Cecil, Shiris, Leaf, Garrack, Ryna:Chaotic Good
Hobb, Ashram:Lawful Neutral
Maar, Karla:True Neutral
Pirotess:Chaotic Neutral
Duke Raster:Lawful Evil
Narse, Shooting Star, Abram:Neutral Evil
Vagnard, Kardis:Chaotic Evil


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 8, 2002)

If I remember, the classic way of telling people about the difference between Law, Chaos, Good and Evil (at least in the UK) was to say that Doctor Who is CG and the Daleks are LE.

And I don't think Nobby Nobbs <b>has</b> an alignment...that would intimate he thought about moral issues...


----------



## fusangite (Sep 8, 2002)

All these lists do is confirm my view that the alignment system is not useful for describing behaviour and only minimally useful for describing ideology.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2002)

fusangite said:
			
		

> *All these lists do is confirm my view that the alignment system is not useful for describing behaviour and only minimally useful for describing ideology. *




*shrug*

All it really confirms is that different DMs will have slightly different views.  But we knew that already - it's why we have Rule 0.  Doesn't make it not useful.  Just means you need to put some thought to consistency within your own game.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Sep 8, 2002)

LG: King Arthur, Sir Tristan/Lancelot/etc.

NG: hmm...

CG: Robin Hood (duh!) & his Merry Men

LN:  James Bond, any 'Dispensing Justice' type figure (Judge Dredd, anyone?)

N:  Merlin, Han Solo (in the beginning of Episode 4)

CN:  hmm...

LE:  Saruman, Torquemada(RL), the Devil(as seen in the Bible and 'Paradise Lost' and such)

NE:  Lady MacBeth (later digresses to CE as she goes crazy), Sauron, etc.

CE:  Blofeld(from James Bond; the famous bald, scarred madman), the Joker, Lady MacBeth in the later parts of the play, MacBeth


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 8, 2002)

Ryoko!


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 8, 2002)

We seem to have expanded to include figures both fictional and historical.

My take, for what it is worth:

Lawful Good: Superman, Batman (as The Greatest Detective), King Arthur, Sam Gamgee, Faramir, Aragorn, Captain America, Alia of the Knife, Socrates, Beowulf, Decartes, St. Augustine, Spock, Jean-Luc Picard

Neutral Good: Jean Valjean, Gandalf, Frodo Baggins, Yoda, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Budda, Jesus Christ

Chaotic Good: Bilbo Baggins, Robin Hood, Batman (as The Dark Knight), Peregrin Took, Spider Man, Qui-Gon Jin, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Joan of Arc, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Lady Jessica, James Kirk

Lawful Neutral: Javert, Judge Dredd (Note that Dredd's chaoticness is the result of upholding a code derived from a chaotic society), the Vorlons, Duke Atreides, Paul Atreides, Confucius, Aristotle, James Bond, Hari Seldon, General Lee, Erwin Rommel 

Neutral: Merlin, Romeo, Juliet, Odyseus; Few heroic figures are truly 'neutral' since most works of literature are to some extent about philosophical conflict and heroes are by definition exmplararies of some belief system - even one of nonbelief.  To find neutral fictional characters (in modern Western literature in particular), we probably need to turn primarily to non-heroic figures.  

Chaotic Neutral: Conan the Barbarian, Hamlet, Cthulu, Camus, the Count of Monte Cristo, General Armstrong Custer

Lawful Evil: Darth Vadar, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (prior to to the murder), the Riddler, Sauron, Joseph Goebbels, 

Neutral Evil: Emperor Palpatine, Morgoth, Satan, Hannibal Lecter, Vlad von Tepes, Heinrich Himmler

Chaotic Evil: Lex Luthor, Hitler, Morgan Le Fae, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (after the murder), the Shadows, the Joker, Saruman, Baron Harkonnen, Darth Maul, Herman Goring


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 8, 2002)

Lawful Good: 
Nirvana
Poison
Rocktopus

Neutral Good:
Beastie Boys
Guns N Roses
Rustic Overtones

Chaotic Good:
Alice In Chains
Soul Coughing
Weezer

Lawful Neutral:
Days of the New
Pixies
Stone Temple Pilots

Neutral:
Mighty Mighty BossToneS
Pantera
Pearl Jam

Chaotic Neutral: 
Foo Fighters
Rob Zombie
Santana

Lawful Evil:
Britney Spears
Nickelback
Puddle of Mudd

Neutral Evil:
Dave Matthews
Limp Bizkit
Oasis

Chaotic Evil:
Backstreet Boys
Creed
N'Sync


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Sep 8, 2002)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Neutral Good:*  Richard Cypher (Sword of Truth),[/B]




I'm reading these books right now (actually JUST finished Stone of Tears), and I think Richard's more of a Lawful Neutral.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Sep 8, 2002)

Maraxle said:
			
		

> *Neutral Evil:
> Dave Matthews*




Ack! How _dare_ you put Dave in the same class as Bizkit! Just kiddin, to each his own.

Nirvana _does_ rock, though.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 8, 2002)

For you *David Gemmel* Fans.

LG: *Serbitar* of _The Thirty_
NG: *Druss the Legend*, *Orrin*
CG: *Tenaka Khan*, *Regnak (Rek)*, *Ulric*
LN: *Hogun*,
TN: *Decado*, *Bowman*
CN: *Sieben the Bard*
LE: *The Waylander*
NE: *Karnak One-Eye*
CE: *The Joinings*


----------



## Cedric (Sep 8, 2002)

*Political Examples*

Ok...I'll give my own twisted view of this...

Lawful Good - Harry S. Truman
Neutral Good - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Chaotic Good - Theodore Roosevelt
Lawful Neutral - J. Edgar Hoover
Neutral - Calvin Coolidge
Chaotic Neutral - Lyndon B. Johnson
Lawful Evil - Mao Tse Tung
Neutral Evil - Manuel Noriega
Chaotic Evil - Immelda Marcos (anyone with that many shoes, is chaotic...and she was definately evil!)

Cedric


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 8, 2002)

*Re: Political Examples*



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> *Ok...I'll give my own twisted view of this...
> 
> Lawful Good - Harry S. Truman
> Neutral Good - Franklin D. Roosevelt
> ...




Okay, two things--first reverse Mao and Immelda.  Immelda is a control freak with a foot fetish, and Mao was a lunatic with a thing for "perpetual revolution"...

Secondly... You know, I'm probably going to get a lot of criticism for this, but considering his extensive ties with and covering for the Mafia, especially the latest revealed ones, his tendency to indulge in blackmail, and his occasionally erratic behavior, Hoover might be better qualified as Lawful Evil...

*Sigh*  I knew it was a bad sign when the historical figures showed up, I just knew it...


----------



## Dagger75 (Sep 8, 2002)

My take on aligment. Mine is correct the rest are all wrong . (That should stop the moral/ethic debate flame war that will start soon)

 LG - Superman

 NG - The Federation from Star Trek

 CG- The Flash, The Rebels from Star Wars

 N- The Vorlons, The Minbari

 LN- Judge Dredd

 CN- Batman

 LE- The Empire, Lex Luther

 NE- The Hutts

 CE- The Joker


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 9, 2002)

"Lawful Good - Harry S. Truman
Neutral Good - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Chaotic Good - Theodore Roosevelt
Lawful Neutral - J. Edgar Hoover
Neutral - Calvin Coolidge
Chaotic Neutral - Lyndon B. Johnson
Lawful Evil - Mao Tse Tung
Neutral Evil - Manuel Noriega
Chaotic Evil - Immelda Marcos"

I think this shows considerable confusion between history, and pop history.

J. Edgar Hoover was anything but lawful.  You think just because he was the head of a law enforcement agency that this makes him lawful?  Consider his ties to criminal elements, his willingness to flaunt the laws he supposedly upheld, his deviant private life, his paranoia, and his own self serving ego (using the agency to protect himself from investigation) before throwing him in the lawful's just because he headed a law enforcement agency.  I vote for JEH as one of the most evil US figures in our history, and probably CE.

On the other hand, you have Lyndon B. Johnson as a chaotic nuetral, and I'm not sure where you get that.  LBJ was the consumate insider politician, and was clearly serving what he believed was the interests of the state using the rules of the state in order to achieve what he thought would be a better state.  I'd vote for LE.

But I do agree that Immelda was CE.  Just because she was a control freak doesn't mean that she's not CE.  Clearly she was more interested in enriching herself than in a misguided effort to enlarge the position and influence of the Philipines on the world state by the ruthless application of power.

I can see both arguements for Mao being CE and LE, so I'm going to go down the middle as NE.  Certainly, this seems fitting as the man who is most directly responsible for the single largest incidence of unnecessary deaths in history - the 'cultural revolution' and the resulting mass starvation that followed.

Manuel Noriega was probably just another petty tin horn dictator - CE. 

I'm hesitant to choose an alignment for Teddy.  He's a very complex figure.  While it would be nice to label him as 'good' as our high school history texts do, the man had some serious flaws for all his idealism and energy.  He could be ruthless, ambitious, proud, violent, and dishonorable at times.  He was not a man of peace, nor was his martial spirit reserved only for righting injustices (except in the sense that he seemed to think it unjust when he could not have what he wanted).  Certainly what he did to the Columbians cannot be dismissed out of hand.  I'd like to say that he was motivated strongly by a desire to enlarge the power of the US, but he does not appear to be anything like a man of convention despite his patriotism.   On closer examination he was more likely motivated by the desire to achieve lasting fame and recognition for himself by enlarging the power of the US - and his patriotism was how he justified this to himself.  His attempt to be the first president to run for more than two terms in office is I think telling.  I'd certainly be willing to entertain votes for almost any alignment, depending on how important you find individual traits to be relative to other ones, but I'm going to vote CN.

Maraxle: I'd really like to here your explanation of 'The Pixies' being lawful, and 'Creed' being chaotic.  And I'm inclined to think that 'The Beastie Boys' and 'Guns N' Roses' would be offended to be labeled less than chaotic.  And do realize just how bad it is for his marketing to not label Rob evil?  He tries so hard to keep up appearances, dude, give him a break.


----------



## DonAdam (Sep 9, 2002)

First a concern: there's lawful as a political ideology then lawful as in disciplined. I'm assuming political/institutional ideology, as discipline comes with most great figures to begin with.

Here's a go:

Lawful good: All the Jedi but Qui-Gonn and Luke. They were the lawkeepers and negotiators in the Old Republic, often working closely with the Judiciary Department. Captain America, Superman, King Arthur for sure.  Wong Fei Hon, from Once Upon a Time in China and The Iron Monkey, he's very reluctant to lead the revolution. Orthodox Catholicism/Eastern Orthodox would tend to fall under here as well, as would conservative Judaism with it's fierce (and IMO admirable) adherance to tradition. Maximus from Gladiator.

Neutral Good: Luke in ROTJ, Qui Gonn, Lando Calrissian in ROTJ. Batman is complex, so there's some ambiguity; he will work with the cops when possible, but if not he doesn't have problems whooping some booty vigilante style, and he'll run from the cops if they try to catch him. Same for Spider Man. Protestant Christianity, with it's distrust of large hierarchy, might come here, but Protestant Christianity is so broad that it's difficult to pin down one ideology.

Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Han Solo in ROTJ, the Iron Monkey. Wolverine for sure. Libertarians in general. The good guys in the Matrix.

Lawful Neutral: Definitely Jevere from Les Miserables. Most samurai with lords. Probably large numbers of Stormtroopers. Anakin in AOTC. USAgent perhaps? The captain of the guard in Iron Monkey.

True Neutral: Lando in ESB. Most supporting characters in crime/mob movies- they won't do evil things, but they don't have a problem being associated with them. Karla in Lodoss. Spawn.

Chaotic Neutral: Han in ANH. The Pills in Akira. Conan the Barbarian. Fey Valentine in Cowboy Bebop. The Incredible Hulk, the Punisher, Casey Jones. The crazy Irishman in Braveheart. Nietzche's philosophy.

Lawful Evil: Vader, Palpatine, Doctor Doom. The Soviet Union's leadership.  Lex Luthor. Saitou in Kenshin, Megatron.

Neutral Evil: Darth Maul possibly, if he was well enough developed. Jabba the Hutt. HHH in heel mode. Most bad guys in crime movies.

Chaotic Evil: Sabertooth, Tetsuo in Akira, the Kurgan from Highlander, the Joker, Mumm-ra, Vicious from Cowboy Bebop.


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 9, 2002)

I'd like to add my take on the Beast Wars cast

LG:Rhinox, Silverbolt
NG:Optimus Primal, Air Razor, Tigerhawk
CG:Cheetor, Dinobot
LN:Inferno
N:Tigetron, The Vok
CN:Waspinator, Rattrap, 3rd season Black Arachnia
LE:Tripredacus council, Ravage, Scorponok
NE:Megatron, Quickstrike, TM2 Dinobot pre-nemesis
CE:Terrorsaur, Starscream, Tarantulas, Depth Charge(I know most would pin him otherwise, but he would do anything to kill Rampage), First and second season Black Arachnia.


----------



## DonAdam (Sep 9, 2002)

> I'd like to add my take on the Beast Wars cast




I knew there was an implicit contest going on for the most obscure reference, and I think you just won.


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 9, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *And do realize just how bad it is for his marketing to not label Rob evil?  He tries so hard to keep up appearances, dude, give him a break. *



No matter how hard he tries, Rob Zombie could never be as evil as Creed or N'Sync.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 9, 2002)

Let's do it by Genre:

  Lawful Good:  Queen Amidala (Episode 1), Yoda (1, 2), Qui-Gon Jin (1), Mace (1, 2)
  Neutral Good:  Han Solo (5, 6), Chewbacca (5, 6), Luke Skywalker (5, 6), Senator Amidala (2), Yoda (4, 5, 6), R2-D2 (1, 2, 4, 5, 6), Leia Organa/Skywalker (4, 5, 6), most of the soldiers in the Rebel Alliance, Anakin Skywalker at the very end (6)
  Chaotic Good:  Lando Calrission (6), Luke Skywalker (4), Obi-Wan Kenobi (4, 5, 6), Anakin's mother (1, 2)
  Lawful Neutral:  Obi-Wan Kenobi (1, 2), Uncle Ben (4), Aunt Beroo (4), C-3PO (1, 2, 4, 5, 6), Jar Jar Binks (2)
  Neutral:  Anakin Skywalker (1, 2), Han Solo (4), Chewbacca (4), most of the Imperial Stormtroopers (4, 5, 6), all of the Clones (2), most of the Jawas (1, 2, 4, 5, 6), Lando Calrission (5)
  Chaotic Neutral:  most of the Sandpeople, Jar Jar Binks (1)
  Lawful Evil:  Senator Palpatine (1, 2), Emperor Palpatine (4, 5, 6), Jabba the Hut (1, 2, 4, 5, 6)
  Neutral Evil:  Darth Vader (4, 5, 6), Boba Fett (4, 5, 6), Greedo (4)
  Chaotic Evil:  Those idiots Obi-Wan killed in the Cantina in Episode 4

  Lawful Good:  High Lord Mhoram
  Neutral Good:  Thomas Covenant through the second series, Saltheart Foamfollower, most of the people of the Land, most of the Giants, Caer Caveral the Forestal, Linden Avery at the end
  Chaotic Good:  High Lord Elena, most of the people of the Plains of Ra, the Wraiths of Andelain, High Lord Callindrill, Linden Avery later on
  Lawful Neutral:  Bannor the Bloodguard, most of the Haruchai, Hollian (later Neutral Good), Warmark Quaan
  Neutral:  Thomas Covenant through the first series, the Elohim, Carroll Wildwood the Forestal, the Guardian of the One Tree, Linden Avery at the start
  Chaotic Neutral:  High Lord Kelvin, Nassic
  Lawful Evil:  Sunder Son of Nassic (later, Neutral Good)
  Neutral Evil:  Lord Foul the Despiser, Droll Rockworm
  Chaotic Evil:  The 3 Ravers

  Lawful Good:  Dayel, Wil Ohmsford, Keltset
  Neutral Good:  Shea Ohmsford, Flick Ohmsford, Balinor Buckannah, Hendel, Durin, Eventine Elessedil, Brin Ohmsford, Stell, Garth, most of the Dwarves, most of the Elves
  Chaotic Good:  Menion Leah, Allanon, Bremen, Shirl Ravenlock, Ander Elessedil, Amberle, Kimber Boh, Jair Ohmsford, Teel (before she became Shadowen)
  Lawful Neutral:  Acton, Messaline, Arion Elessedil, Rone Leah, Edain Elessedil, the Owl
  Neutral:  Slanter, Garet Jax, Padishar Creel, Wren Ohmsford (later Neutral Good), most of the Race of Man, most of the Gnomes, most of the Trolls
  Chaotic Neutral:  Palance Buckannah, Eretria, Cogline, Panamon Creel, the Spider-Gnomes, the Werebeasts of Olden Moor, most of the Changelings, the Splinterscat
  Lawful Evil:  The Dagda Mor
  Neutral Evil:  The Warlock Lord, Stenmin the Mystic, Morag, Mallenroh, the Changeling, most of the Mwellrets, the Mord Wraiths, Rimmer Dall
  Chaotic Evil:  The Skull Bearers, the Reaper, the Ildatch, the Maelmord, most of the Shadowen


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 9, 2002)

Just some points about a few characters and people:

King Arthur: Some people have him NG.  In some versions of the story, he invented Rule of Law (as opposed to Rule of Force) in England.  In most versions, he ALWAYS keeps his word.  And in most versions he invents a code of chivalry to bring order to England.  Even in the least Lawful-themed, heavily Celtic versions, he's a tactician and the forger of great armies.  This guy is REALLY Lawful Good.

The Jedi: All of the Jedi were LG, except for Qui-Gon and Luke Skywalker.  In fact, there's a case to be made that the reason the Jedi ended up being exterminated was because they were LAWFUL good  when the Will of the Force wanted them to be lawful GOOD, or Neutral Good.  Qui-Gon was NG.  He had a reputation as a rebel among the ultra-lawful Jedi, but fundamentally, he was governed by compassion, which is the heart and soul of Neutral Good.  Luke Skywalker started out Chaotic Good (like his old man) and became Neutral Good.  Personally, my theory is that Lucas intended Qui-Gon to be the perfect Jedi.  We are to assume that Luke ultimately grows up to be the spitting philosophical image of Qui-Gon sometime in the aftermath of RotJ.  (I won't bring up where most of the books took him, as it leans heavily in the direction of garbage)

Batman: LG (sometimes LN) - In some versions, he's almost Captain America.  In other versions, he was basically insane, but his insanity hinged on keeping his two identities COMPLETELY separate with elaborate rules and constructions.  i.e. They're "Bruce" and "Dick" in the Mansion, but they're "Batman" and "Robin" in the Batcave, and Robin better watch out if he slips and uses the name "Bruce" when they're in the cave.  But despite being basically insane, there's nothing Chaotic about Batman.  He lives and dies by a rigid code.  The fact that his code doesn't consistently conform to society's laws doesn't make it any less Lawful at its core.

Shakespeare's characters: As Celebrim pointed out, most literature has at least SOME philosophical conflict.  Shakespeare's characters especially, were often in the midst of alignment changes.  They're generally hard to pigeonhole.  Macbeth was evil by the end of the play, but he didn't start out that way (his wife did, but I don't want to get into Western Literature and it's handling of women at this point).  Brutus started out rather good, but I think that ultimately Will Shakespeare would agree with the placement Brutus received in the Inferno.

American politicians: Some of the really early ones were LG or CG, but in the long run, most of them have been LN.  We sneak a good guy in there periodically, but as a general rule, presidents have been all about keeping the country in relative order and covering their posterior regions.

Here's a thorny one: Jesus of Nazareth.  Please keep in mind as you read the following section that this is OPINION.  I'm not belittling anyone's beliefs here, just stating my opinion.  For the record, I'm a Christian myself, though I'm still searching for the denomination that got it right.  I've read his Book, and Jesus spoke pretty plainly.  I fail to understand the origin of all the confusion about what the man said.

Looking back at Jesus now, he seems to be Neutral Good.  But if you think about it, he was VERY revolutionary.  He was re-interpreting God's Law all _over_ the place.  And, despite what most Christians will tell you, he was _throwing large chunks of it out_.  *GOD's* Law, which had been codified and laid out for _thousands_ of years by prophets and sages, and here's this guy was telling people, "No, no, no.  You don't do it that way.  This is how you do it." and "Forget about all those rules, just follow THIS one..."  Even today, people get thrown in the nuthatch for ideas a lot less against accepted societal beliefs than "Love your neighbor as yourself."  

At any rate, Jesus was Chaotic Good.

EDITED to remove needlessly inflamatory comments that my antihistamine-addled brain thought were reasonable at 1:30 in the morning.  Sorry.


----------



## DM_Matt (Sep 9, 2002)

How is it that everyone here lists Buffy as NG or CG.  She the only LG character on that show, and thats often significant.  She follows an almost Paladin-like code in which she refuses to break the law in any major way for the greater good (although Faith got her to steal once), leaves everything possible to the appropriate authorities (although she did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Initiative, but it turned out that they were extremely corrupt), including being unwilling to harm humans except in self-defense.  She also generally favors mercy over vengeance, and refuses to use her powers for selfish reasons.

In the S5 finale, after she defeats Glory and Glory retreats back into Ben, Buffy does not kill him.  Rather, Giles approaches saying "Buffy can't kill you.  She's a hero.  She is not like you and I." and proceeds to kill him.

While I'm at it, the alignments of other characters:

CG: Willow, Dawn, Potentially S7 Spike
NG: Xander, Giles (CG in his youth, tempered by Watcherness and experience), Angel, Oz
LN: Anya, Hallie, De'Hoffryn, the second Sunnydale High principal
N: Original Cordelia
CN: Post-Chip Infatuated with Buffy Spike
LE: Maggie, The Mayor
CE: Original Spike, Angelus, Adam, Glory, Most Vamps and Demons, Oz and Veruca in wolf form


----------



## BeanFruit (Sep 9, 2002)

Lawful Good: Abraham
Neutral Good: King David
Chaotic Good: Winston Churchill


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 9, 2002)

I see that everyone is in agreement about Judge Dredd being Lawful Neutral.

  It is rare to see everyone on the ENBoard agreeing totally on something.
  Judge Dredd must have something going for him!

  - - -

  What about the NPCs of the settings, folks?
  What alignment are they?


----------



## Samothdm (Sep 9, 2002)

*Lawful Good*
_Marcie._  She's a loyal "companion" to Peppermint Patty, and is one of the few characters who never seems to get mad at the other characters.  
_Woodstock_ also fits the "loyal companion" type.  
I'd put _Charlie Brown_ in this category, too.  He lives in a very ordered universe (get up, eat breakfast, then go face the day and have terrible things happen to you, get ignored by your dog, have friends pick on you.  Repeat).  But, he still is pretty nice to everyone.  Acted as a "natural leader" during "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown".  

*Neutral Good* 
_Linus Van Pelt._  He's the most spiritual of the group and is always trying to do things for other people with no concern for himself.  Let's Charlie Brown borrow his most treasured possession (his Blanket) as a good luck charm for the spelling bee.  

*Chaotic Good*
_Peppermint Patty._  Genuinely a good person, but not very structured (forgets to do her homework, falls asleep in class, switches between hitting on Charlie Brown and then yelling at him).  Foreced Charlie Brown into a leadership position in "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" and then constantly put obstacles in his way to prevent him from succeeding.  Lives in a very Patty-o-centric Universe (invited herself over to "Chuck's" for Thanksgiving, but then convinced herself that he had invited her over).  Veers close to Chaotic Neutral.  
_Snoopy._  He's the epitome of chaos.  Obviously not concerned with rules and regulations (consistently entered hospitals, buses, and libraries that clearly displayed signs of "No Dogs Allowed!").  Veers close to neutrality versus good since his primary concern is when the Round-Headed Kid is going to feed him.  Doesn't really seem to know who his owner is, but fiercely protects his friend Woodstock.

*Lawful Neutral.*
_Lucy Van Pelt._ Single-minded determination to make Schroeder her beau.  Seldom seen doing things for other people (exception: rescued Linus from freezing in the Pumpkin Patch and brought him home).  Veers dangerously close to evil with her constant taunting and belitting of Charlie Brown.
_Schroeder_ Dedicates himself to practicing songs by the same composer every single day.  Even ignores the flirtations of Lucy to focus on his goal of playing Beethoven.    

_Sally Brown_ also fits here ("All I want is what I have coming to me.  All I want is my fair share".).

*True Neutral.*
_Violet_ and _Franklin_.  They just kind of hang out and do their own thing.  Never really seen doing things to help other people.  

*Chaotic Neutral.* 
_Pig Pen_ fits in this category (creates a cloud of dust in the middle of a snow storm).  Called a "Complete mess" by Frieda, his response when looking in a mirror is, "On the contrary, I didn't think I looked that good."  Never is really seen doing things for other people.  More concerned with himself (ie, "neutral" versus "good").  
_Freda with the Naturally Curly Hair_.  Lives in her own reality where everything relates back to her naturally curly hair.  Only makes decisions based on whether other women with naturally curly hair would make the same decision.  Again, never really seen helping people.  

*Lawful Evil.*
None (although, see "Lucy Van Pelt", above). 

*Neutral Evil.*
Those kids in "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" who kept shouting, "We're Number One!  We're Number One!" and then sabotaged all of the other kids' boats.  

*Chaotic Evil.* 
That cat who lives next door to Snoopy and keeps swiping at Snoopy and Woodstock with his claws.


----------



## kenjib (Sep 9, 2002)

Robin Hood (at least in his most popular incarnation) is neutral good.  He only fought against and stole from King John because he deemed him an illegitimate king that put undue tax burden on the poor and had usurped the throne.  When Richard resumes the throne, Robin suddenly becomes Mr. Goody Two Shoes brown nose kissy-kissy again.

He believes in fighting for what is right, and does not strictly adhere to order but supports it when it is used responsibly by those who hold it.  In all, he seeks the greater good by all means, which is a pretty straightforward description of neutral good.


----------



## Dagger75 (Sep 9, 2002)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> *I see that everyone is in agreement about Judge Dredd being Lawful Neutral.
> 
> It is rare to see everyone on the ENBoard agreeing totally on something.
> Judge Dredd must have something going for him!
> ...




 Yeah Judge Dredd must be the Iconic LN character.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 9, 2002)

Samothdm: I love your interpretation of the Peanuts gang.  Excellent choice of material, as the Peanuts were always about philosophy.  I think that for the most part, your assigned alignments are spot on, but in one category I'm mystified. Why did you place Lucy and Sally among the lawful neutrals?  Your evidence for this seems to be that they are primarily self interested, which they certainly are, but I don't see how it follows that they are lawful.  Are you suggesting either a) that egotism is a neutral trait, and law/chaos is a personality trait like neatness? or b) that egotism is lawful trait?

Is Patty chaotic because she lives in a self centered universe, or is that the reason you say she borders on chaotic neutrality?  Etc.

I would tend to see Lucy and Sally as being Chaotic Nuetrals. Actually, very young children like Sally usually don't have alignments and we might be best with Neutral, but Sally does seem to play foil to Charlie's lawfulness quite often.

If we suggest this, then it would nicely explain why Charlie seems to be picked on by almost everyone else in the group except Linus (whose alignment is similar and procludes torment anyway) and possibly Shroeder (whose alignment is similar and limits interest in divisive behavior).


----------



## takyris (Sep 9, 2002)

Interesting remarks on Jesus.  Hope I can reply without offense.  I'm Catholic, by the way.

I'd differentiate between what the aposltes thought of Jesus and what he actually did and said.  Most of what Jesus said, when you get right down to it, was trying to get people to obey the spirit of the old laws rather than the letter of the old laws.  That's still a law that he's trying to get people to follow.

At the time, most of the Pharisees (spelling, sigh) were likely LN or LE.  Jesus could be attempting to sway minds against their draconic interpretation of old rules and still be LG.  His forgiveness of sinners and willingness to break Sabbath to heal people points to him being good first, lawful second -- as in, the original purpose of the Sabbath law doesn't jive with using the Sabbath law to stop him from healing someone.

I think a Chaotic Jesus would have run away rather than be crucified.  So I'd put him at NG or LG, in an LE or LN society at the time.

Or possibly, I'm full of poo. Again, no offense intended.

-Tacky


----------



## Samothdm (Sep 9, 2002)

> I love your interpretation of the Peanuts gang. Excellent choice of material, as the Peanuts were always about philosophy. I think that for the most part, your assigned alignments are spot on




Thanks - it was a lot harder than I first thought it was going to be.  



> Why did you place Lucy and Sally among the lawful neutrals? Your evidence for this seems to be that they are primarily self interested, which they certainly are, but I don't see how it follows that they are lawful. Are you suggesting either a) that egotism is a neutral trait, and law/chaos is a personality trait like neatness? or b) that egotism is lawful trait?




I was thinking of it more like in "a".  There isn't a lot of real "evil" in the Peanuts world, so I had to take some liberties.  For the good-versus-evil axis, I looked at:
Good = helping other people/doing things for others
Neutral = doing things for yourself and not getting too involved with others' well-being.
Evil = Actively promoting the unfair treatment of others.  

Based on this scale, one could argue that Lucy and Violet (along with a little-seen character named "Patty" who is NOT "Peppermint Patty") would be "evil" since they, above all others in the cartoons, constantly berate and belittle Good Ol' Charlie Brown.

As far as the law-versus-chaos aspect, that was a lot harder.  
I was tempted to put Sally into Chaotic Neutral, but then I remember her quote from the Christmas Special about getting her "fair share".  Obviously she knows that there is fairness/justice in the world just as their is unfairness and injustice.  She was obviously coming from the "justice angle" (getting what was coming to her, in this case "Tens or Twenties").  Given that her interests were self-motivated (she wanted money for herself because it was "due" her, not because she wanted to use it to help people), I pegged her as Lawful Neutral.

Lucy I also thought about making Chaotic Neutral.  In the end, I decided to put her as Lawful due to her unflagging determination and regimen in her constant pursuit of Schroeder.  I felt that this amount of determination would not be becoming of a Chaotic character, who would most likely flirt with everyone at her whim.  There are obviously other males around for her to focus her attentions on, yet she keeps going after Schroeder time and again.  Perhaps should would be better as a "True" Neutral.



> Is Patty chaotic because she lives in a self centered universe, or is that the reason you say she borders on chaotic neutrality?




I put Patty as chaotic based upon her actions in the comics and the cartoons which are very inconsistent.  She says one thing and means another, and, deep down, I don't really think she even knows _what_ she means.  Her confusion over "the funny looking kid with the big nose" (who everyone can see is really Snoopy the Dog) makes her seem delusional.  I figured that Chaotic Good was the best way to describe her.  

The reason I felt that she was drifting toward neutrality versus good is because, based on my above scale, we don't see her selflessly do things for the other characters as often as some of the others.  



> I would tend to see Lucy and Sally as being Chaotic Nuetrals.




That's interesting.  How come?  

Glad you enjoyed the post.

EDIT: Corrected spelling error.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> *I think a Chaotic Jesus would have run away rather than be crucified.  So I'd put him at NG or LG, in an LE or LN society at the time.
> 
> Or possibly, I'm full of poo. Again, no offense intended.*




I'm hard to offend.  My problem is that I forget that other people take things seriously (hence the massive edit to my previous post when I actually read it in the light of day). 

I disagree with the statement above because it implies that Chaotic Good characters are cowardly.  I don't think that's true at all.  Bravery is a Good trait, not a Lawful one (it's almost universally listed as a virtue, after all).

My personal interpretation has always been that Jesus was more about individuals than Laws.  Societal taboos are really just another form of Law, and Jesus broke those left and right in order to help people.  He was busily turning everyone's perceptions of God and the Messiah on their ear, and introducing the notion that God cared less about glory and worship than about people helping each other.  Law doesn't even enter into that.  He took the 10 Commandments (and all the derivative "laws") and eschewed them in favor of a code: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Much more effective, and has the advantage of growing with the times.

This could definitely be considered Neutral Good (with a leaning toward Chaos because of his strong push for the individual), but in the context of his society, he seems flat-out Chaotic.


----------



## takyris (Sep 10, 2002)

Interesting.  I'm no Biblical scholar, but my understanding was that Jesus was not so much trying to "tear down" the established religion as reform the existing religion to bring it back to its original spiritual roots. Looking at what he said, he never espoused ditching Judaism altogether -- it ended up being later people who formed a completely new church.  At the time, he was a reformer of Judaism.

(Um, Religious Studies people, please kick me if I'm full of it)

And I didn't say that as a true CG he'd have run away because it was cowardice.  I think he'd have run because staying and dying in obedience of laws that (as CG) he didn't respect would be stupid, when compared to continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority.

He was definitely trying to bring about a new and less corrupt set of rules and guidelines to live by. And he was trying to get sinners back into church by forgiving them and telling them to live good lives again. To me, it still sounds like LG-to-NG.

As for "CG in a LE society", I don't see alignments as changing based on the society they're in.  If someone is LG and they enter and live in an LE society, you don't suddenly call them CG because they don't respect the LE laws.

-Tacky


----------



## DonAdam (Sep 10, 2002)

I'll pipe in on the Jesus issue (Catholic Theology major speaking, if that means anything):

I said Lawful Good.

Socially, he certainly did some reinterpretation (you can read it as "tearing down," but that goes against his claim that he has come to _fulfill_ the law).

However, popular interpretation is that he brought the law back to it's original meaning.

Furthermore, Jesus always and everywhere believes in following God's law. If you interpret that as merely good/evil, then there may be some ambiguity towards the lawful/chaotic question.

Remember Jesus' statement: give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Just because he doesn't recognize the authority of the Pharisees over _him_ (true authority comes from the Father, who by Catholic interpretation is of one being with Jesus) doesn't mean that he denies the existence of a legitimate social authority.

The sabbath thing highlights the above parenthetical note. Man is not allowed to work on the sabbath, but God must always act, and Jesus is God as well. The miracles are certainly a work of Jesus's divinity. Furthermore, it is commonly understood that the Pharisees had imposed their interpretation of the law as the law itself, and so the core of God's law took precedence.

The whole notion of the kingdom of God is like an invasion of God's forces into the kingdom currently held by Satan, the earth. So, rather than Jesus being revolutionary, he was a conquerer reclaiming the hearts of God's people under God's law, God's rule, and God's Word, which is then revealed to be Jesus Himself.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

I always thought Creon, from Antigony, was a great example of LN.

FD


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> *Interesting.  I'm no Biblical scholar, but my understanding was that Jesus was not so much trying to "tear down" the established religion as reform the existing religion to bring it back to its original spiritual roots. Looking at what he said, he never espoused ditching Judaism altogether -- it ended up being later people who formed a completely new church.  At the time, he was a reformer of Judaism.
> 
> He was definitely trying to bring about a new and less corrupt set of rules and guidelines to live by. And he was trying to get sinners back into church by forgiving them and telling them to live good lives again. To me, it still sounds like LG-to-NG.
> *




He was definitely a reformer of Judaism.  No argument here.  But he was instituting MAJOR reform.  God was an unpleasant fellow in the Scriptures up to that point.  He even encouraged genocide (of the Canaanites, for example), and tended to smite sinners, even among his chosen people.  Jesus showed up with an ENTIRELY different idea of a Supreme Being.  His didn't smite.  He forgave.  Didn't like the whole "chosen people" routine.  Consorting with Gentiles and Sinners!  GASP!  People figured the Messiah was going to come and lead them to dominion over their Roman oppressors, and here was this Jesus guy taking a "live and let live" view of Rome: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." and so on.  

*"And I didn't say that as a true CG he'd have run away because it was cowardice.  I think he'd have run because staying and dying in obedience of laws that (as CG) he didn't respect would be stupid, when compared to continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority."*

I wasn't even thinking about the "obedience to law" angle.  Jesus didn't go to the cross willingly because of obedience to the law.  He went because he knew that by his suffering he opened the way to Heaven for his people.  The law had nothing to do with his motivations there.  In fact, I find it ironic that the corrupt law put Jesus exactly where he needed to go.  Besides, "continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority" wouldn't gain him anything in the long run.  If he got lucky, he would have scrabbled together a minor Jewish cult.  By dying, (and rising again, if one believes in that sort of thing), he founded a lasting religion (if one that IMO ignores a LOT of what he was all about).    

*As for "CG in a LE society", I don't see alignments as changing based on the society they're in.  If someone is LG and they enter and live in an LE society, you don't suddenly call them CG because they don't respect the LE laws."*

Point to you.  That was a pretty inane remark from me.  Being against a particular Lawful society doesn't make one chaotic.  Reading what Jesus said, as opposed to how he was subsequently interpreted, has always led me to list his priorities like so:
1. Compassion
2. Worth of Every Individual
3. Respect and Love for God (which is shown via compassion for all people and respect for God's Creation)
4. Church and Secular Law
Neutral Good may be a better choice, but I still think he leans more to the Chaotic side than the Lawful side.


----------



## Romotre (Sep 10, 2002)

i can't believe nobody has mentioned Iago from Othello. Great example of lawful evil.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 10, 2002)

*CAUTION*

Let's stick with the Peanuts (and Thomas Covenant!), but not Jesus.

  If you'all keep on with Jesus and religion, I think the moderators will close this thread.

  Remember, they do not permit Religion or Politics to be discussed on the ENBoards.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Romotre said:
			
		

> *i can't believe nobody has mentioned Iago from Othello. Great example of lawful evil. *




Neutral Evil all the way- he did not respect the laws and had no code of behavior. He was perverse (old definition)- in doing evil for the sake of evil.

The best example of LE: Scrooge.

FD


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 10, 2002)

I would also like to comment that:

  If Judge Dredd is the Iconic Lawful Neutral character ...

  Snoopy is, in my opinion, THE Iconic Chaotic Good character.

  So, who does everyone think are the true Iconic Characters of each of the alignments?
  This one I am intensely curious about!

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## DonAdam (Sep 10, 2002)

Some replies to what Canis said:

.







> He was busily turning everyone's perceptions of God and the Messiah on their ear,




Very true.



> and introducing the notion that God cared less about glory and worship than about people helping each other.




This isn't my interpretation. Rather, one worships God _by_ showing charity towards one's neighbor.



> Law doesn't even enter into that.




Law does enter into it. The law (which, by Catholic theology, everybody has implicitly via the natural law) is necessary to know what, in fact, helps your neighbor. Sleeping with someone's spouse because he or she is "lonely" doesn't cut it, and you need the law (natural or revealed) to tell you that.



> He took the 10 Commandments (and all the derivative "laws") and eschewed them in favor of a code: "Love your neighbor as yourself."




Not true. He SUMMED UP the 10 commandments with that statement.   



> Much more effective, and has the advantage of growing with the times




Orthodox theologians (and myself, and orthodox student of theology) would argue that God's truth is eternal, so what's right and wrong won't change with time.

However, I will agree with what I see to be the nugget of truth in this statement: it is adaptable to individual situations, which allows prudence to enter into the picture.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Sep 10, 2002)

*WARNING*

- - - WARNING - - -

  The moderators do NOT allow Religious or Political Topics on the ENBoards.
  I wish to keep this thread open - they WILL close it if a theological debate starts.

  Stick with fictional characters!  

  - - -

  I repeat my question above:

  Who do you all think represent the Iconic characters of each of the alignments?

  Everyone seems to be in agreement that Judge Dredd is lawful neutral, so he might be the Iconic Lawful Neutral character.
  But what about all the other alignments?

  What are your opinions?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

DonAdam said:
			
		

> *However, popular interpretation is that he brought the law back to it's original meaning. *




You might have a debate on that.  I'm not a Biblical scholar, just a guy who spent a LOT of time reading it (Catholic School, teaching Sunday School until my own questions got harder to answer than the kids').  I do, however, know some history.  If what I know of the earliest written forms of the Bible holds water, it was written by people who had just made a transition from nomadic herders to full-scale agriculture.  Incidentally, they annihilated a couple races of people in order to acquire the land.  Their God was a wrathful, jealous War God, a God of Fire and Air, who had a tendency to lay plagues on people and destroy their cities at any provocation.  From our modern (and theoretically enlightened) perspective, we forget the sheer POWER of the notion of being God's Chosen People.  The original meaning of the 4th-10th Commandments would have included ONLY other Hebrews.  "Thou Shalt Not Kill [other Hebrews]."  "Thou Shalt Not Steal [from other Hebrews]."  etc.  Even today, talk to a fundamentalist of ANY faith about their faith's historical enemies, and they will give you a variation on the "They are animals, and should be slaughtered like animals" speech.

If Jesus was bringing that part back to its original meaning, I must have SERIOUSLY misunderstood him.  Seems to me Jesus was kicking that idea down for all he was worth.


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 10, 2002)

I would go for Karla being the iconic true neutral character.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Sep 10, 2002)

The iconic Chaotic Neutral character is Q, of the Star Trek universe. He's shown hints of having a conscience, particularly in later episodes, but he primarily acts on his own self-interests, and passing interests at that (often acting on a whim, doing whatever amuses him). He has often given the Enterprise crew a break (sometimes only when begged to do so), but as Data put it, Q seems fond of Picard, treating him like a pet.

Q's not evil, but again, why should he be? He has nearly unlimited power, so what more could he desire? As Sisko (I think) said in DS9, "It's easy to be a saint in paradise."


The only serious competition Q has for Iconic CN is Daffy Duck.


----------



## Omega Lord (Sep 10, 2002)

I was about to protest an earlier posting of batman as CG instead of but then i remebered that im thinking of the Dark Knight Returns batman.

Lawful Neutral no doubt

And he kicks supermans butt, TWICE!!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

With apologies to Edena, I hear your point, but I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with the rational discussion going on here.  We've all been very good boys and girls so far.

For the record, I fully support Snoopy as an icon for Chaotic Good.

T.H. White's King Arthur makes an excellent Lawful Good icon, unfortunately, there have been so many variations on Arthur that he makes a bad choice for an icon.  Galahad could serve.  He's ALWAYS Lawful Good, but he's packed with ALL the stereotypes)  Jean-Luc Picard may be the best untainted choice.

I know there's been disagreement on this, but Palpatine is, I think, the epitome of Lawful Evil, as was Darth Vader in the Empire Strikes Back.

I can't even imagine who could be icons for True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.  True Neutral because it's so rare, and Chaotic Neutral because it's so hard to define.  Hercules, maybe?  (The mythic one.  The TV show Hercules seemed Chaotic Good from what I saw.)

Anyway, back to the forbidden discussion.  I would ask that any moderators who take exception to this, just edit my post to remove the below, rather than closing the thread.  I'll take the hint.



			
				DonAdam said:
			
		

> *This isn't my interpretation. Rather, one worships God by showing charity towards one's neighbor.*




EXACTLY!  But that's not what many people do.  They go into Church once a week, repeat endless variations of "Yay God!" and then go home and kick the neighbor's dog.  The message has gotten lost somewhere.  For actual, honest-to-goodness charity, I'd put the stoned, atheist, ultra-liberal college student way out in front of 90% of your steady churchgoers.  And I hate to give them that much credit because those kids annoy me to no end, but it's true.

*"Law does enter into it. The law (which, by Catholic theology, everybody has implicitly via the natural law) is necessary to know what, in fact, helps your neighbor."*

No, all you need is common sense, empathy, and basic listening skills to tell you what helps your neighbor.  I don't need the law to tell me murder is wrong.  I don't need the law to tell me adultery is wrong.  If I took a vow to love one person only, I don't need the State or the Church to keep an eye on me.  And it's not hard to make the connection that helping someone else break their vows is also wrong.

*"Not true. He SUMMED UP the 10 commandments with that statement." 
...
"Orthodox theologians (and myself, and orthodox student of theology) would argue that God's truth is eternal, so what's right and wrong won't change with time.

However, I will agree with what I see to be the nugget of truth in this statement: it is adaptable to individual situations, which allows prudence to enter into the picture." *

Agreed on the nature of truth.  Right and wrong are eternal constants.  And I was not referring so much to allowing prudence into the picture as removal of inherent biases that creep into both Scripture and Law.  Gender bias, for example, STILL appears to be lurking about in theological law.  And despite Jesus accepting all people as equal in the eyes of God, it took the Church a LONG time to get hot under the collar about slavery.  Jesus summed up the intent of the law, without all the baggage that law picks up.  Ditch the law, and focus on the MESSAGE behind it.  That way gender bias, racial bias, and all the rest go right out the window.


----------



## DonAdam (Sep 10, 2002)

Since the points about Jesus and Christianity have been totally diverted from the question of translating his ideas into an alignment, I won't answer your observations, Canis.

If you would like to continue the discussion over email, I'd be willing to.

All I will do is correct you in a factual error, because I don't believe in allowing those to spread: the Vatican condemned slavery for a long, long time, it was only the American church that didn't listen. In fact, this, the French revolution, and the persecution of Catholics are what caused the Church to reject liberal democracy in the 1800's.

I agree with Q being CN, though the collective as a whole would probably be True Neutral.

Just for fun, RPG alignments (I'm sure to start a flame war here, all of this is IMHO):

Lawful Good: Hero System- lots of rules on a good system if you want really detailed stuff

Neutral Good: D&D 3rd edition/D20- a bit more simplistic than Hero, but still has a good structure and balance (in the core)

Chaotic Good: AD&D 1st edition/Hackmaster- simple rules that require lots of DM judgment calls, but still way cool

Lawful Neutral: GURPS- just rules, rules, rules

Neutral: WEG Star Wars- fair amount of rules, sometimes poorly conceived (some of those skill-ability associations still blow my mind), and the buckets of dice make for a humdrum system

Chaotic Neutral: D&D Basic- Neutral just because I didn't have anything else to go here, and the simpleness of this can get repetitive

Lawful Evil: I believe it was called Phoenix, but I'm not sure- it had a separate attack table for every weapon... ugh

Neutral Evil: Elric d20, Swashbuckling Adventures d20

Chaotic Evil: D&D 2nd Edition- made pretty much no improvements upon first edition

Chaotic Angst: White Wolf Games- these don't even deserve to be on the sacred D&D alignment system (flames in 3,2,1...)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

DonAdam, being of a much more Lawful persuasion than I, has brought an end to our extended hijack.  My apologies again to anyone who may have been offended.

To the topics at hand...

Q - Enigmatic.  A moral train wreck.  All about the individual.

  Definitely a candidate for Chaotic Neutral.

No wonder he irritates Picard so much.

Daffy Duck isn't much of a contender IMO since in his early cartoons he was actually insane.  I'm not sure insanity fits on the alignment meter.

Batman really is a train wreck.  There have been too many re-interpretations of him.  He makes a terrible icon.

He he...  Chaotic Angst...


----------



## drothgery (Sep 10, 2002)

The Wheel of Time (because someone has to, and it might as well be me)

Lawful Good: Galad Damodred, Elayne Trakand, Siuan Sanche
Neutral Good: Moiraine Damodred, Nynaeve al'Maera, Egwene al'Vere, Perrin Aybara
Chaotic Good: Rand al'Thor, Matrim Cauthon, Faile Aybara
Lawful Neutral: Pedron Niall, Elaida a'Roihan
Neutral: Cenn Buie, Verin Mathwin
Chaotic Neutral: Aram (the ex-Tinker), Masema (the Prophet)
Lawful Evil: Sammael, Alviarin Friedhen, Messaana
Neutral Evil: Rahvin, Demandred
Chaotic Evil: Lanfear, Padan Fain, Mazrim Taim


----------



## Beckett (Sep 10, 2002)

Pretty good WoT assessment.  The only one I'd quibble on is Mazrim Taim; I'd have to flip through the books again, but I'd lean toward Neutral Evil.

Your list also reminded me that a character who holds strictly to his/her alignment can be a real detriment.  Galad and his record of always doing the right thing is a great example of this.  He always does the Lawful and Good thing, even if this is not in his best interest or that of the people he's trying to help.


----------



## Bragg Battleaxe (Sep 10, 2002)

There sure is alot of disagreement in this thread about what is Lawful and what is Chaotic. My take is that very very few people in the world are really either, most being neutral but following the law because they are supposed to. Chaotic characters are pretty rare, but are common among villains. I have seen both Darth Vader and Palpatine listed as CE alot here... how? They both maintain a huge Empire, which is by its nature lawful. A true chaotic ignores law, possibly even hating it. Vader and the Emperor are evil 'because' they care so much about law and order that they are willing to do anything to achieve their vision of that order.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

Bragg Battleaxe said:
			
		

> *There sure is alot of disagreement in this thread about what is Lawful and what is Chaotic. My take is that very very few people in the world are really either, most being neutral but following the law because they are supposed to. Chaotic characters are pretty rare, but are common among villains. I have seen both Darth Vader and Palpatine listed as CE alot here... how? They both maintain a huge Empire, which is by its nature lawful. A true chaotic ignores law, possibly even hating it. Vader and the Emperor are evil 'because' they care so much about law and order that they are willing to do anything to achieve their vision of that order. *



In real life, Chaotic people are relatively rare, but I think they're more common in literature and books (there's a difference  ).  IMO, anyone who values individuality over society is somewhat Chaotic.  Anyone who ignores what the law and/or society says is right to do what _they_ think is right is somewhat Chaotic.  Robin Williams is (at least) slightly Chaotic.  People who work from inspiration and eschew things like schedules and deadlines are somewhat Chaotic.  Add a few of these up in one person, and they're definitely Chaotic.

I agree with you about Palpatine and Vader.  How anyone can see them as Chaotic is beyond me.  But I think Chaotic villains aren't all that common.  Outside of Padan Fain (and maybe Gollum), I'm having trouble thinking of a sentient Chaotic Evil villain.  Chaotic heroes are much more common, IMO.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 10, 2002)

I think Chaotic heroes are more common than Chaotic villains is because it's more fun for the heroes to be fighting against the system than it is for them to be a part of it.

I mean, how often do you get a bunch of rebels against an over powering force compared to a bunch of people trying to quash an illegal rebellion?


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, how often do you get a bunch of rebels against an over powering force compared to a bunch of people trying to quash an illegal rebellion? *




It depends on the origin of the fiction- from the older eastern stories I have read, the heroes/villians tend to be quite different then those of western fiction.

FD


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *I think Chaotic heroes are more common than Chaotic villains is because it's more fun for the heroes to be fighting against the system than it is for them to be a part of it.
> 
> I mean, how often do you get a bunch of rebels against an over powering force compared to a bunch of people trying to quash an illegal rebellion? *




All cop shows have protagonists working for Order against Chaos.

Chaotics IRL tend to be either criminals or artists IMO...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *All cop shows have protagonists working for Order against Chaos.
> 
> Chaotics IRL tend to be either criminals or artists IMO...  *




Are you watching the same loose-cannon cop shows I am?  While there are some cop shows that are Law vs. Chaos, and (very rarely) good vs evil, most are moral ambiguity vs. moral ambiguity, or at best moral ambiguity vs. evil.


----------



## Henry (Sep 10, 2002)

In regards to all the above alignment perspectives:

Remember to separate LAWFUL behavior from GOOD behavior, and likewise separate CHAOTIC from EVIL. 

In Buffy t.v.s.'s case, for example, it is GOOD that she shows compassion and mercy. It is not so clear cut when she leaves things to the authorities. In fact, many times she does NOT leave things to the authorities, and in fact handles them herself. In the instance where she thought she had killed someone, she wanted to turn herself in because she wrong she had done wrong, not because of notions of crime and punishment. Someone who has broken and entered as much as she has, caused assault and battery as much as she has, and flagrantly violated school authority in the past is NOT the definition of lawful. She exhibits lawful tendencies, but can also do without that law in the interests of good.

Although it's amazing that some characters (e.g. Conan, Wolverine, Judge Dredd, Superman) consistently come up as the same alignment by most posters. Is this because of strong characterization, or because of lousy stereotyping on the pat of some writers?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2002)

Canis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are you watching the same loose-cannon cop shows I am?  While there are some cop shows that are Law vs. Chaos, and (very rarely) good vs evil, most are moral ambiguity vs. moral ambiguity, or at best moral ambiguity vs. evil. *




Typical shows - Law & Order, NYPD Blue, Homicide: Life on the Street.  UK shows like 'The Bill'.  The cops seek to promote Law/Order, at any rate they don't seek to increase Chaos!  As for morality, I wasn't discussing good vs evil, but generally the cop protagonists are good, or neutral-to-good, and the criminal antagonists are evil.

That there's moral ambiguity when eg a cop beats up a scumbug suspect, or when a cop shoots dead the criminal kingpin they can't get a conviction on, doesn't change the fact that the cops are seeking to promote Law/Order in an 'end justifies the means' way.  Few if any cop shows have corrupt (Neutral?) bribe-taking, criminal-helping cops as protagonists, they tend to appear only in shows like 'The Sopranos' where the protagonists are criminals, and may be Chaotic: Tony Soprano isn't Chaotic, but several of his minions appear to be.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *In regards to all the above alignment perspectives:
> 
> Remember to separate LAWFUL behavior from GOOD behavior, and likewise separate CHAOTIC from EVIL.
> 
> ...




I agree about Buffy - she seems to have little respect for authority-per-se, I'd put her at Neutral Good.  Giles is ambiguous but somewhere LG-to-NG with maybe N tendencies.  Xander seems CG.

I agree on Dredd-LN, Wolverine-CN, Superman-LG, they can almost seem like Alignments with a personality tacked on; but I see Conan very much as N not CN, he may be a thief but he's a king too - his alignment is that of the animal, essentially non-aligned, that means N.  I can't see Wolverine or other true CNs being happy as a ruler, although some CNs may have rulership as a goal, it being the best way to achieve personal power and thus autonomy.


----------



## Henry (Sep 10, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *I think Chaotic heroes are more common than Chaotic villains is because it's more fun for the heroes to be fighting against the system than it is for them to be a part of it.
> 
> I mean, how often do you get a bunch of rebels against an over powering force compared to a bunch of people trying to quash an illegal rebellion? *




One of my favorite pet RPG's of all time is the Continuum Time Travel Game from Aetherco. In it, you play a part of a lawful society who KNOWS they are going to win - but they still have to actually go out and win the fight, because if they don't their very individual existance is threatened.

In the Narcissist game, (also from the same company), you play the other side. Your goal? To beat the Continuum and break out of the timeline that is so "inevitable." 

Fascinating little game of Law vs. Chaos.


----------



## Henry (Sep 10, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *...but I see Conan very much as N not CN, he may be a thief but he's a king too - his alignment is that of the animal, essentially non-aligned, that means N.*




However, Conan changed somewhat over the course of his saga. Conan the stripling young barbarian, was CN to a 'tee'. Conan the soldier was still somewhat CN but began exhibiting neutral tendencies. By the time he has become King of Aquilonia, he is IMO somewhere between TN and possibly even LN. So to descibe his alignment you have to "pick your Conan", much like Kevin Pollack has to "pick his Shatner" when imitating Captain Kirk.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Typical shows - Law & Order, NYPD Blue, Homicide: Life on the Street.  UK shows like 'The Bill'.  The cops seek to promote Law/Order, at any rate they don't seek to increase Chaos!  As for morality, I wasn't discussing good vs evil, but generally the cop protagonists are good, or neutral-to-good, and the criminal antagonists are evil. *




I'll give you Law & Order, and I never watched Homicide, but NYPD Blue is the defining example of what I'm talking about.  Paying lip service to Order while at work, and then turning everything you touch in your personal life to Chaos does not a Lawful person make.

And, generally speaking, most cops on TV are more about the personal power their badge and gun give them than actually promoting Order.  And why does using unlawful methods to promote law still make them lawful, while using evil methods to promote good still makes people evil?  "The ends justify the means" is acceptable on one moral axis, but not the other?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 10, 2002)

Bragg: I agree that there is, and always has been, alot of disagreement over what chaos and law mean.  In fact, I'd say that the continuing discussion over alignment in D&D always comes down to one of two points: 'What is the meaning of law and chaos?' and 'Does everyone have to be a paragon of thier alignment all the time to have an alignment?'.  

The law and chaos confusion is really EGG's fault, I'm afraid.  Or rather, it was the fault of latter players for trying to thrust Good and Evil into a moral system that already (supposedly) had an absolute axis.  But, that's really an excuse, because I'm not sure that it is possible to define an absolute moral axis for Law and Chaos because (even if we were to believe that Good and Evil were subjective) we are forced to admit when examining that they are highly subjective.  For example, one problem readily arrises when we note that 'law' refers to a broad body of equally 'lawful' behaviors that are in direct conflict with each other.  One man's lawfulness is another man's (in a different society) law breaking.

OF COURSE, to be fair, some people see the same problem with the good evil axis.  For instance, Weis & Hickman in the DL stories seem to indicate (rather strangely to my mind) that absolute good is the same as absolute evil, because the Cataclysm occured not because someone was evil, but because someone was 'too good'.  For my part, I tend to see absolute good and evil as being poles apart, whereas absolute law and chaos are very nearly the same thing. 

You bring up a very good example of the latter when you say, "I have seen both Darth Vader and Palpatine listed as CE alot here... how? They both maintain a huge Empire, which is by its nature lawful."  I disagree.  Heading a lawful organization is not proof in and of itself of lawfulness.  To a chaotic evil person, there is nothing better in the universe than having an entire organization of lawful loyal types doing your every whim.  Note that I put Hitler for example as Chaotic Evil, whereas I put some of his more important cronies as Lawful Evil.  I also elsewhere in the thread suggested that Hoover was CE despite heading the law enforcing agency the FBI.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is a common synergy between any 'lawful' and 'chaotic' group.  Lawful groups easily fall into the trap of being lead by ambitious men whose principal interest is in themselves not the organizations ideology or the organization, and don't notice because loyalty to the superior is an unquestioned and defining trait.  Simmerally, chaotic societies typically are 'lead' (to the extent they are lead) by a lawful subelement that believes the interest of the whole would be much better served if everyone would be just a little more lawful.  Because in any unorganized state, the lawful group is going to be the enherently the most influential, it is easy for them to have disproportionate influence.  But of course, at the top of these lawful subelements you are likely to find chaotic heads.  This exercise leads one to a greater understanding of American politics if it serves no other purpose.

To be fair though, I agree that neither Darth Vader or Palpatine where CE.  Vader is clearly motivated both in the original trilogy and in the prequels by a desire to 'make the system work' and 'restore order to the galaxy' and it is clear that at some point he comes to believe that the only way to do this is be ruthless and Machiavellian.  Palpatine is I think motivated by no other desire than to see the most damage done to the most people for the longest period of time using either chaos or law to suit his purposes, and as a 'satanic figure' I place him as NE.


----------



## jasper (Sep 10, 2002)

Garfield CN only cares for himself and his stomach
Odie	CG cares for himself will occasionally pick Garfield and Jon but cares for both of them
Nermal CE only cares for herself and thinks she the cutes
Jon	NG loves both his pets but will occasionally play pranks
Vet	LG she cares so much about pets she puts up with Jon asking for date all the time
Any body else remembers Jon’s roommate/ friend Odie’s original owner

H.R. Puff in Stuff LG being the mayor of hatville and always tries to make sure every one behaves
The boy NG cares about the hats of Hatville but wants to escape the hat
Flute TN cares about the boy (Timmy) but was once a companion of Witchey Poo
Witchey Poo CE Cares only for herself and wants to destroy most of citizens of Hatville
Wizard CE same as witchey poo


Heckle and Jeckel 
Both CN as summed up in the quote “you can do anything you want in an animated cartoon”

Warner brothers
Taz TN all he cares about is lunch which can be you.
Sylvester NE just wants to eat 
Tweedy Bird CE goes out her way to trick Sylvester and actively tries to harm Sylvester favorite quote “No more pigges!”


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 10, 2002)

Hmmm...

Personally I think a lot of the problem in the entire Law/Chaos is that people tend to start as defining law (incorrectly) as "the Law of the Land", and from that faulty premise, they go on to assume that Chaos, because it is _opposed_ to Law means that Chaos is being, essentially, a criminal or an anarchist.  Others take a more general view--Law means thinking about the group, and Chaos means being self-centered...  The problem of course is that both of these definitons lead to so many difficulties, and are so immensely unsatisfying that few people want to use them...

Personally, my own take on the matter is that Law can be understood as the preference for structure, order, and discipline.  Chaos is the preference for individuality, innovation, and freedom.  Of course, both have a dark side, and both are capable of selfish action.  That is why Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil exist, after all.

And Celebrim--I'm noticing a tendency on your part to make all villains who possess "good" intentions LE, and any villain who acts for personal gain CE.  Care to elaborate...?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 10, 2002)

Celebrim--I'm noticing a tendency on your part to make all villains who possess "good" intentions LE, and any villain who acts for personal gain CE. Care to elaborate...?"

LOL.  Yes.  What makes you think that estalishing order is a 'good' intention?  I think you may be confusing law and good, which is frequently done because Gygax himself (never intending for 'good' to be introduced as a concept) frequently confused the two.  (Note for example that in the Basic D&D game, Law=Good and Chaos=Evil.)  Not to mention the many real life social institutions of 'good' that insist on good being the adherence to thier rituals.  

"Personally, my own take on the matter is that Law can be understood as the preference for structure, order, and discipline. Chaos is the preference for individuality, innovation, and freedom."

That is fine, and if the DM defined it as such, I'd have no quibble.  Certainly in many ways it resembles my own thinking.  However, I think it likely that an extreme preference for freedom and individuality is much the same as selfishness, which means that extreme chaos is much the same as evil if you by evil mean selfishness...

"Of course, both have a dark side, and both are capable of selfish action. That is why Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil exist, after all."

...which you apparantly do.


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 10, 2002)

And here's where we differ.  I'd say an extreme preference for order and ritual can be selfish, and an extreme preference for freedom and individuality can be idealistic.  The range exists for both alignments.

Hey, look at my choices for *Yu Yu Hakusho*.  I have Mr. Akashi and Mr. Iwamoto down as LN, and those guys are willing to use all sorts of dirty tricks to expel Kuwabara and Yusuke.  This is because they view them as punks who disrupt and ruin the reputation of their school, mind you...

And I wouldn't say that being selfish equals being evil, but extreme selfishness is a component of evil...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 10, 2002)

So, are we building up to:

Absolute Law => Stagnation & Oppression, and therefore => Evil

and 

Absolute Chaos => Destruction => Evil

There's a strong case to be made there, but what does that say about our iconic CN and LN characters?  If the closer you get to epitomizing one of these concepts, the closer you come to evil, than shouldn't we expect our LN and CN characters to be decreasingly distinguishable from evil characters?

LN - Judge Dredd: Don't know the character very well, but that's because he always struck me as being very nearly evil and unbothered by it.  I just can't get into those kind of characters.  At least the LN versions of Batman have some angst about how close they are to falling from grace, as it were.  LN Batman generally _knows_ he's about a half step away from Joker-ville himself, and it may be the only thing that scares him.

CN - Q has definite evil potential, but then he also has some capacity for good.  This was distinctly noticeable in "All Good Things..."  Of course, that could just be 7 years of Picard's influence shining through, which might make him a bad example.  So...

CN - Wolverine: It's been a few years since I read comics regularly, but it always seemed to me that without Chuck Xavier, Jean Grey, and (to a lesser extent) Jubilee, Logan would have long since turned into a Chaotic Evil engine of destruction.  He was always walking the tightrope between Good and Evil.  When he started falling on the good side of that tightrope, they gave him a little extra push in that direction.  When he started falling on the evil side, one of them was usually there to steady him, or at least catch him and toss him back up to the tightrope.  Of course, with those three (and a number of others, intermittently) working to pull him into the light, he'd have become an angel if there wasn't something pulling him at least as hard in the opposite direction: his overly chaotic nature.

Off-topic Wolverine question: I noticed in a comic book store recently that Logan has his adamantium back.  I have to wonder: Did they handle that well, or was it just thrown in to appease all the fan-boys who were crying, "You made Wolvie into a wuss!  How dare you try to make an interesting character change to someone so popular!"?  And how long did it take Marvel to cave to fan pressure on that one?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 11, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> However, Conan changed somewhat over the course of his saga. Conan the stripling young barbarian, was CN to a 'tee'. Conan the soldier was still somewhat CN but began exhibiting neutral tendencies. By the time he has become King of Aquilonia, he is IMO somewhere between TN and possibly even LN. So to descibe his alignment you have to "pick your Conan", much like Kevin Pollack has to "pick his Shatner" when imitating Captain Kirk.  *




I see Conan as a purely self-interested survivor - Neutral.  He does what suits this goal best at different ages, from thief to king, but I don't think he ever went through anything that could be classed as an alignment change.

BTW I think real-world villains like Hitler are really hard to classify in D&D alignment terms, they talk about the need for Order but seem to actively promote Chaos.  Moorcock has Hitler aligned with Chaos, whereas many would see him as Lawful-Evil; I think either view is equally justifiable.

Star Wars is easier - Vader seems Lawful Evil, he genuinely wants to restore Order to the Galaxy, albeit preferably with him and his dynasty in charge, and is willing to undermine Palpatine's Empire to achieve this.  Palpatine seems Neutral Evil, he's consumed by the Dark Side and seeks nothing but personal power.  Most of the Imperial military like Tarkin (just saw Ep IV last night - great film, except for the cheesy CGI add-ins) are Lawful Evil.  The Rebels seem basically NG with some LG leaders.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 11, 2002)

Canis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll give you Law & Order, and I never watched Homicide, but NYPD Blue is the defining example of what I'm talking about.  Paying lip service to Order while at work, and then turning everything you touch in your personal life to Chaos does not a Lawful person make.
> 
> And, generally speaking, most cops on TV are more about the personal power their badge and gun give them than actually promoting Order.  And why does using unlawful methods to promote law still make them lawful, while using evil methods to promote good still makes people evil?  "The ends justify the means" is acceptable on one moral axis, but not the other? *




I don't see Law-Chaos as a 'moral' axis - I guess that means I'm Neutral vis-a-vis the two! 
I suppose you can argue that having chaotic personal lives means people are chaotic, but do they _want_ their personal lives to be Chaotic, or is that the result of the stresses placed upon them by their job?  If the latter, I don't see how that makes them Chaotic.  

As far as 'unlawful methods to promote law' goes, I'd say it was a question of whether they casually resort to unlawful methods (NYPD Blue, often), or resort to them in desperation because the legal system itself is incapable of dealing with the threat (Homicide).  I agree that not all the NYPD Blue characters are Lawful, some like Sipowicz seem more Neutral if anything.  The red-haired guy's girlfriend who shoots the Mafia boss in the first episode is the only one I can think of who might actually be Chaotic.

As for 'doing evil to promote good', I think it's a question of degree.  Dirty Harry (in the original movie) I'd say is Lawful Good, in fact a good paladin archetype; 'executing' the serial killer is justifiable when he knows the system itself has failed.  Others disagree and class him as LN (ends don't justify means) or even Chaotic (because he breaks the Law).  Vigilante characters who go around happily shooting every thug they find (Charles Bronson's Deathwish character) seem more N to CN.


----------

