# Complete Scoundrel gives alignments for Batman, James Bond, Riddick, and more...



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

One of the sections in the first chapter of Complete Scoundrel discusses the personalities of scoundrels of each alignment, and provides examples based on fiction. Check it out:

*Lawful Good:* Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
*Lawful Neutral:* James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from _Yojimbo_)
*Lawful Evil:* Boba Fett, Magneto
*Neutral Good:* Spider-Man, Zorro
*Neutral:* Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from _Dracula_)
*Neutral Evil:* Mystique, Sawyer (from _Lost_)
*Chaotic Good:* Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (_Firefly_), Starbuck (_Battlestar Galactica_)
*Chaotic Neutral:* Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (_Deadwood_), Snake Plissken
*Chaotic Evil:* Riddick, Carl Denham (_King Kong_)

Some interesting decisions there. Many folks think of a lawful good character as upholding the law of the land, but CS assumes that a scoundrel is only beholden to his own code (if he even has that), and thus a lawful character can break the laws others set in place. So, Batman winds up as LG in their book.

Some of the picks for evil are, naturally, the most interesting. Sawyer behaves like a selfish thug (particularly early in the series), but the viewer finds that he's actually hiding a lot of guilt and self-loathing, and mainly acts in ways that will bring a world of hurt onto himself, which is in direct opposition to the self-interested nature of a NE character. I think of his actions being more CN myself. Then there's Riddick, who is certainly a real nasty piece of work but still is capable of valuing others and acting in a selfless (as in the latter half of Pitch Black where he goes back for Jack and the Muslim guy).


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

Yay, another alignment thread! Haven't had a good argument for a while... 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *Lawful Good:* Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
> *Lawful Neutral:* James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from _Yojimbo_)
> *Lawful Evil:* Boba Fett, Magneto
> *Neutral Good:* Spider-Man, Zorro
> ...




Quite a lot of these I'm not familiar enough with to comment on. I shall restrict myself therefore to the ones I am familiar with...

Batman's alignment depends very much on which version of the character you're dealing with. The Adam West version of the character is clearly Lawful Good. Other versions vary, but he is seldom Lawful, and sometimes non-Good.

Indiana Jones I would have pegged as Neutral Good. I don't recall anything he's done that's particularly Lawful.

James Bond (as portrayed in the novels, in the early films, and in Casino Royale) is Lawful Evil. The character's alignment is closer to Neutral Good in much of the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan eras.

Han Solo I would have pegged as Chaotic Neutral at first, shifting to a clear Chaotic Good by the end of Star Wars.

I don't recall Boba Fett ever actually doing anything Evil. Neutral for this one. Neutral Evil if you can persuade me as to the character's evilness... but as I said, I don't see it in the films. (That said, he doesn't do much of anything in the films, when all is said and done.)

Sawyer I list as a clear Chaotic Neutral. He doesn't care for others, but he's not outright scum, despite what he'd like us to believe. And he's definately in the "every man for himself" camp, which fits Chaotic very neatly.

I would probably peg Mystique as a (very mild) Chaotic Evil, but must confess to a lack of knowledge of the character beyond the films.

I agree on Magneto, Spider Man, Zorro, Malcolm Reynolds, Starbuck, Captain Jack, and Riddick. Robin Hood is only Good if the rich he's stealing from are corrupt lords who are excessively overtaxing the peasantry, such that all he's doing is restoring wealth to where it rightly belongs. If his victims are just the medieval equivalents of Bill Gates and Donald Trump, then his thefts are Evil, and he's certainly not Good.



> Some interesting decisions there. Many folks think of a lawful good character as upholding the law of the land, but CS assumes that a scoundrel is only beholden to his own code (if he even has that), and thus a lawful character can break the laws others set in place. So, Batman winds up as LG in their book.




CS is half right. A Lawful character is not necessarily beholden to the specific laws of the land. However, a Lawful character will necessarily be a believer in the notion of laws, and will accept that in virtually all cases the individual should be beholden to the laws of the land, even where he personally disagrees with them.

Following your own code is not a sufficient condition for being Lawful. Firstly, the code itself could be Chaotic. Even if it is not, following your own notion of right and wrong is a classically Chaotic position. It places the individual over society.

Very often, though, the characters who "follow their own code" over the laws of the land are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they are subscribing to some communal, but perhaps not generally-accepted, standard of behaviour, such as the knightly code of chivalry, of the samurai's bushido. In either case, the character is generally Lawful, because he is beholden to a specific and public code, and can be held accountable to it. It's not just some code he's cobbled together for himself based on his own whims, and that is subject to change when it's inconvenient.



> Some of the picks for evil are, naturally, the most interesting. Sawyer behaves like a selfish thug (particularly early in the series), but the viewer finds that he's actually hiding a lot of guilt and self-loathing,




Why you act in an Evil manner has little to no bearing on your alignment. A pattern of Evil actions makes you Evil, whether you do it out of fun, or out of some twisted psychological need to be seen as a monster.

However, as I noted above, I agree that Sawyer isn't Evil.



> Then there's Riddick, who is certainly a real nasty piece of work but still is capable of valuing others and acting in a selfless (as in the latter half of Pitch Black where he goes back for Jack and the Muslim guy).




One such action does not make for an alignment change. If he had used that as an opportunity to change his behaviour (as, arguably, he did in CoR) then that would have some weight.


----------



## Zaister (Jan 18, 2007)

The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Why you act in an Evil manner has little to no bearing on your alignment. A pattern of Evil actions makes you Evil, whether you do it out of fun, or out of some twisted psychological need to be seen as a monster.




It is indeed actions that matter, but the point I was making about Sawyer is that when push comes to shove, his facade has a tendency to crack and he actually winds up behaving like a human rather than a monster (though he might offer self-serving rationalization to others). But again, we are not actually in disagreement on the character's alignment.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jan 18, 2007)

I wouldn't class Batman as LG, but a rather extreme LN. Maybe once, early in his career he may have been good but I don't think he is anymore.

Sawyer ... thats a tough one. I don't see him as NE at all. After some internal debate I think he's CN. He's certainly not evil IMO.

And finally, Riddick, he's not CE at all. He's NE bordering TN to my mind. Yes, he's a remorseless killer but as we see from both films he is prepared to make a stand for something.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 18, 2007)

Those are some nice insights in CS. Gotta get me that book.

I see Batman as LG. He follows the law of the land (he has an utmost belief that the "System" will work, and keeps sending the loonies back to Arkham) and while he does break a few bones here and there, he has the strictest stance in "Never Kill" in all of DC heroes.

Sawyer I see as NE. We do understand why he's that way, but that doesn't change the fact that he hurts people (financially and emotionally) to benefit himself.

If we go simply by the tales we're told of him, Riddick is CE. It's just that the movies show us caring about that girl/woman, something CE doesn't preclude.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Following your own code is not a sufficient condition for being Lawful. Firstly, the code itself could be Chaotic. Even if it is not, following your own notion of right and wrong is a classically Chaotic position. It places the individual over society.




This I'll disagree with. Check the definitions in the PHB and esp. the definition of Lawful Neutral. Following a personal code stringently is a very lawful activity in the D&D alignment paradigm. It just happens to place more emphasis on internal than external order.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 18, 2007)

It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?


----------



## philreed (Jan 18, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...




I would call him an opportunist and manipulator rather than evil. Sure he'll commit -- and have committed -- evil acts but he also does some good (and less evil) things.


----------



## philreed (Jan 18, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?




The original DC RPG had an excellent section on the contrast between the two characters. Superman blindingly follows law and authority while Batman seeks justice no matter the cost or laws broken.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?




Superman is pretty much as iconically LG as you can get.

However, this does not preclude Batman from also being LG. Not all flavours of LG are identical. And, in fact, LG characters can come into conflict, without either of them ever ceasing to be either Lawful or Good, or even necessarily being mistaken.


----------



## edemaitre (Jan 18, 2007)

*Alignments and fictional characters*

I also thought this discussion is interesting and may even give the "Complete Scoundrel" a look, although I've been buying fewer splatbooks in preparation for D&D3.6 or D&D4.0, but that's for another thread...

I would also make Robin Hood of most legends and later versions Neutral Good. Except for some modern revisionist takes, he is helping Anglo-Saxon peasants against cruel Normal feudal lords (yes, it's ahistorical propaganda, but that's also another story). Who's to say that the Bill Gates and Donald Trumps of today aren't corrupt plutocrats? ;-) 

I would give Indiana Jones a NG. Yes, he prefers to put artifacts in museums, but why not leave them with the indigenous peoples? He's not averse to working with smugglers in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and in the later movies, his hatred of the mostly Neutral Evil Thugee and Lawful Evil Nazis overcomes his reluctance to be a hero, not a strict code of honor.

As for Batman and Superman, I agree that their alignment depends on which version--comic book, animated, or live-action television and movies. I see the iconic versions of both superheroes as being different strains of Lawful Good, just as Paladins of different deities might approach situations differently. Batman may be a vigilante, but he tries to uphold most laws in an effort to protect the innocent of Gotham City. Superman generally respects authority, but that doesn't stop him from opposing Lex Luthor, who has been U.S. president.

For those of you reading Marvel Comics' "Civil War," how would you describe the alignments of the main characters there? How do they relate to D&D? Lately, Captain America has been breaking laws, but his ideals may make him Lawful Good not unlike Batman or Superman above. Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic have committed some evil acts in the name of what they believe is a greater good--Lawful Neutral? Misguided Lawful Good? Slipping toward Lawful or Neutral Evil?

In my game, Paladins have occasionally slain someone in the heat of battle, only to realize later that the foe wasn't truly evil. Atonement rituals usually ensue, and this is a good way to encourage role-playing over mere hack-and-slash tactics. Talking to one's enemies, even in combat, is a properly cinematic/literary part of genre entertainment, IMHO...


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 18, 2007)

Starbuck is _Good_? Huh?!


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> And, in fact, LG characters can come into conflict, without either of them ever ceasing to be either Lawful or Good, or even necessarily being mistaken.




See the conflict between Roy and Miko, in Rich Burlew's "Order of the Stick" (starting around #199), as a very nice example of this.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Jan 18, 2007)

No alignment for House? Bah!


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Starbuck is _Good_? Huh?!




She repeatedly and consistently puts her life in direct danger for the protection of the remnants of the human race. That's pretty Good right there. And I'm hard pressed to think of more than a couple of Evil actions. (That said, the third season has just started over here; her alignment may shift.)


----------



## edemaitre (Jan 18, 2007)

*More on alignments*

I'd say that Starbuck in the original 1970s "Battlestar Galactica" was Neutral or Chaotic Good. Occasionally selfish, but generally benevolent. In the SciFi Channel's current revisionist military space opera, Kara Thrace is more self-destructive and is barely able to keep her commission due to personal problems including alcoholism, but she's still a sympathetic character.

The newer Starbuck is still a hot-shot Viper fighter pilot, gambler, and occasional protector of the innocent. She may fight on the side of humanity, but she has been involved in vigilante reprisals against collaborators with Cylons, slept with her best friend despite the fact that both of them are married, and frequently disobeyed orders with few disciplinary consequences. I'd make her Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies. Of course, the distinctions between order and anarchy, good and evil are deliberately blurred in the current television show...


----------



## carolina (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Starbuck is _Good_? Huh?!




Yeah, that was exactly my first thought when I read that. 

Caprica Six on the other hand ...


----------



## Sejs (Jan 18, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?



Superman would meet the criteria for being an exalted character.  He's _extra_ lawful good.  So lawful good it makes your teeth hurt.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 18, 2007)

edemaitre said:
			
		

> For those of you reading Marvel Comics' "Civil War," how would you describe the alignments of the main characters there? How do they relate to D&D? Lately, Captain America has been breaking laws, but his ideals may make him Lawful Good not unlike Batman or Superman above. Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic have committed some evil acts in the name of what they believe is a greater good--Lawful Neutral? Misguided Lawful Good? Slipping toward Lawful or Neutral Evil?




Captain America is definitely Lawful Good. The only law(s) I have seen him breaking currently is the Superhuman Registration Act (which I'm not even positive has been ratified as a law in Civil War yet, has it?). In any case, the point is that he himself has stated time and again that he represents the ideal, the American dream and its people, and that is a concept that goes beyond the interests of any given administration and its current agenda. He quit being Captain America for a time when he disagreed with his government and what they wanted him to do, and now that his government has introduced legislation that goes at odds with his goals, he continues to fight on in the name of the larger issue. He still generally abides with the laws and system of the USA- which includes due process for criminals, etc. 

(As for Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic, I don't know. I think I'm too blinded by what I see as blatant mischaracterization and shoehorning characters to fit an editorially/creatively driven plot rather than allowing the plot to flow from the characters to really comment objectively)

I will say that I see Spider-Man as more Lawful Good than Neutral Good. His whole credo is that "with great power comes great responsibility" and he- while being a vigilante- is always serving the cause of law and order. He leaves criminals for the police to arrest and prosecute, without taking justice into his own hands. If the rationale is that "law" and "chaos" can/do represent personal codes of honor as much or equally with actual recognition of societal laws, then Spider-Man fits in that category as well. I don't really see where he would be Neutral Good at all.

Now someone like the Punisher I'm not really sure where to put alignment wise. On the one hand I could see him being Lawful Evil- in that he puts his own sense of morality/legality above that of the state, but it is a personal code he adheres to. At the same time, the fact that he considers himself judge, jury, and executioner puts him at odds with the government, which would make him Chaotic in their eyes at least. I personally consider him evil because of the methods he uses- regardless of the underlying notions of where his motivation stems from- but others might see him as being good, because his intentions are clearly in the interest of others (those he considers innocent).


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 18, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Superman would meet the criteria for being an exalted character.  He's _extra_ lawful good.  So lawful good it makes your teeth hurt.




We used to call that "Awful Good."


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2007)

> Sawyer I see as NE. We do understand why he's that way, but that doesn't change the fact that he hurts people (financially and emotionally) to benefit himself.




I agree with Klaus here.  It doesn't really matter that Sawyer is a tormented soul or that he's self destructive.  At the end of the day, he destroys lives and hurts everyone around him.  That's evil.

Starbuck I could see as CG.  Sleeping with someone isn't an evil act.  And, while she was involved in the reprisals, she didn't actually do anything.  By and large, she risks her life to help those in need.  Sounds good to me.

A character from Firefly that I thought would fit well with NE is Jayne.  He betrays pretty much anyone around him for enough money.  To the point of chucking one partner out of an airplane and selling out the Firefly crew as well.  An interesting way of seeing how an evil character can fit in with a (mostly) good party.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 18, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Lawful Good:* Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
> *Lawful Neutral:* James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from _Yojimbo_)
> *Lawful Evil:* Boba Fett, Magneto
> *Neutral Good:* Spider-Man, Zorro
> ...




This is just one of those things that not everyone's going to agree with.  There's a lot of blurred lines between all the alignments and I feel a lot of these could go different ways.

It's interesting that Batman is LG and Zorro is NG, considering that a large part of Batman's original character was based on Zorro.

Malcolm Reynolds could easily be CN.  He's more likely to stick his neck out for crew than anybody else.  Just because he cares and loves his family does not necessarily make him Good.

Some of these are a stretch.  Magneto?  Ok yeah, definitely LE.  But why is he listed as a "scoundrel"?  What about him is "roguish"?  If I were to translate him into a DnD character, I'd give a guy with his code levels in Wizard and Blackguard, or something like that.  He's not one for trickery or subterfuge; not personally anyway.  He's a commander and political leader, so he has a lot of those types at his disposal, but those skills are not his forte.  Seems to me they were just fishing for a character on that one.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jan 18, 2007)

Gotta disagree with the Han Solo alignment pick. Han was always Good... he just tried not to show it.

If I remember my Star Wars history correctly, Han was starting a career as a brilliant imperial pilot when he freed Chewbacca from becoming a slave and thus became an outlaw.  Putting the welfare of another being (especially a stranger at the time) over your own is always a good act.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 18, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...




No kidding. And Chaotic? I gotta disagree. Al's got far reaching plans and is pretty methodical. I'd peg him as NE with strong lawful tendencies.

Regardless, I think this shows nicely why alignment should be scrapped. Your character acts how he acts. When you cant agree on a label for that behavior, what's the point of said label? Its a mechanic that only supports itself, and causes lots of arguments in many groups.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jan 18, 2007)

Always did like the Palladium FRPG Alignment system better.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> This I'll disagree with. Check the definitions in the PHB and esp. the definition of Lawful Neutral.




I take it that you're referring to the bit that reads "or a personal code directs her"?

Here, I'll reiterate my position that following a personal code is not, by itself, a sufficient condition for being Lawful. And, again I'll ask, what if the code is Chaotic?



> Following a personal code stringently is a very lawful activity in the D&D alignment paradigm. It just happens to place more emphasis on internal than external order.




Fair point, and something that the alignment rules fail to take into account - the place of microcosmic and macrocosmic alignments (where Lawful in the microcosm is to do with being organised, methodical and rigourous, while in the macrocosm it's to do with societies, and laws, and order).


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 18, 2007)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Always did like the Palladium FRPG Alignment system better.




Well, it does make more sense and does have a heck of a lot better explanations.

I'm not sure about Riddick being CE, but I've always thought it was a silly alignment, anyway.  If he is CE, though, it goes a long way towards making the alignment less silly.  It would give an example of CE that isn't retarded.  The standard CE is so cartoony it just makes my eyes roll.


----------



## Wraith-Hunter (Jan 18, 2007)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Gotta disagree with the Han Solo alignment pick. Han was always Good... he just tried not to show it.
> 
> If I remember my Star Wars history correctly, Han was starting a career as a brilliant imperial pilot when he freed Chewbacca from becoming a slave and thus became an outlaw.  Putting the welfare of another being (especially a stranger at the time) over your own is always a good act.





I have always agreed. I think good vs evil works and law vs chaos works. But not together. LvC in some of the novels I have read is basically a GvE. Chaos forces were generally corrupting and were 'evil' by another name. I think the LvC mechanic is very setting independant. 

Only problem in DnD is game effects of certain alignments. 

Luckly most games I have played the Dm was more concerend with GvE and that was that. The general mechanic in DnD doesn't work so well IMHO. I also disagree with at least 50% of  the alignments given. Some also have to list a source. There are 1000 versions of Batman. Some are down right LE some are CG and some are LG,


----------



## Psion (Jan 18, 2007)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about Riddick being CE, but I've always thought it was a silly alignment, anyway.  If he is CE, though, it goes a long way towards making the alignment less silly.  It would give an example of CE that isn't retarded.  The standard CE is so cartoony it just makes my eyes roll.




Yeah, well, I think the players/DMs are partly to blame for the perception of CE. It all you ever use the alignment to depict is ravening murderers, that's what it's going to come to represent.

Riddick fits fairly well, but I think he undergoes a bit of an alignment shift.

One "in head" example that I always use as a benchmark of CE is Valmont as depicted in the movie "Dangerous Liaisons".


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 18, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...




I think maybe Swearengen and Riddik got mixed up in print, nothing else makes any sense.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 18, 2007)

Definately go with Swearengin and Riddick as evil. Doing a few goods things does not suddenly pull you off the evil bandwagon. They kill, they steal, they do what it takes to survive. And its not like they are actively trying to help people, they might if the situation is there on occasion, but in general they do more harm than good.


----------



## teitan (Jan 18, 2007)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't class Batman as LG, but a rather extreme LN. Maybe once, early in his career he may have been good but I don't think he is anymore.
> 
> Sawyer ... thats a tough one. I don't see him as NE at all. After some internal debate I think he's CN. He's certainly not evil IMO.
> 
> And finally, Riddick, he's not CE at all. He's NE bordering TN to my mind. Yes, he's a remorseless killer but as we see from both films he is prepared to make a stand for something.




Have you been reading Batman in the last year? Lawful Good all the way and judging the last 15 or so years versus the 50+ that Batman has under his belt is hardly fair. The superheroic good guy is the Batman that MOST people know, not the Frank Miller, crazy ninja "prick" Batman.

Riddick is hardly CE, I agree and I put him in the CHaotic Neutral camp myself. CN and CE can seem similar until you look underneath the character. Riddick is much like Conan. He isn't going to go out and just kill people for a good time but he isn't necessarily going to help someone without some benefit to himself MOST of the time, examples being Jack and the Muslim Priest whose name escapes me at the moment. Riddick just wants to be left alone and is misunderstood. He won't hesitate to kill because he had to in order to survive.


----------



## teitan (Jan 18, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?




Lawful Good. Superman is a white light Paladin. Two people can be lawful good and have the strained relationship of post Crisis DCU.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 18, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> Riddick is hardly CE, I agree and I put him in the CHaotic Neutral camp myself. CN and CE can seem similar until you look underneath the character. Riddick is much like Conan. He isn't going to go out and just kill people for a good time but he isn't necessarily going to help someone without some benefit to himself MOST of the time, examples being Jack and the Muslim Priest whose name escapes me at the moment. Riddick just wants to be left alone and is misunderstood. He won't hesitate to kill because he had to in order to survive.




While I'm leaning more towards CE myself, the parallels between him and Conan are very, very strong.  Spoiler in the next paragraph...



Spoiler



When he sits down on the throne at the end of the second movie, I was VERY strongly reminded of one of the classic pictures of Conan the King.  I don't think that was unintentional, either.


----------



## teitan (Jan 18, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Starbuck is _Good_? Huh?!




Might be referring to the ORIGINAL STarbuck y'know.


----------



## Seeten (Jan 18, 2007)

Riddick isnt Chaotic Evil, he didnt kill every single person in the entire movie. 

My mom had a chihuahua more evil than THAT.


----------



## teitan (Jan 18, 2007)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> While I'm leaning more towards CE myself, the parallels between him and Conan are very, very strong.  Spoiler in the next paragraph...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes but what did Riddick do that was inherently evil? Leaving whatshername behind was a necessity for survival because she had already proven she would sacrifice any of them for her own survival, without much hesitation.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 18, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Riddick isnt Chaotic Evil, he didnt kill every single person in the entire movie.
> 
> My mom had a chihuahua more evil than THAT.



 See?  That's the cartoony version of CE I'm talking about.    It might work for demons, but it doesn't work as an alignment for anyone else...


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 18, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> Yes but what did Riddick do that was inherently evil? Leaving whatshername behind was a necessity for survival because she had already proven she would sacrifice any of them for her own survival, without much hesitation.




Well, I can't remember exactly what he did to get arrested by the bounty hunter, but I remember it was pretty darn nasty.  And he didn't exactly do anything "good" in Pitch Black.  He pretty much needed to work with everyone else to get off the planet.  Only the most idiotic of villians wouldn't have been a team player when his life ABSOLUTELY depended on it.

But I do say "leaning" to CE.  I'm not sure he's actually that nasty.  He's definitely selfish first and foremost, though.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> I take it that you're referring to the bit that reads "or a personal code directs her"?




Yes.



> Here, I'll reiterate my position that following a personal code is not, by itself, a sufficient condition for being Lawful.




Fair enough. As I said, it's fine if you rule that way. As far as the PHB definition of alignment (and since alignment doesn't have a real world existence, the PHB is mostly - though not totally - what I go on), a personal code can be a significantly important condition for being lawful. Of course, it also depends on all elements of the character, but it can be an important one.



> And, again I'll ask, what if the code is Chaotic?




Then the DM and the player have to make a decision based on all elements of the character - nature of the code, how it's followed and enacted, how aspects beyond the code affect and are dealt with by the character, and so on. In short, what you do with all characters.



> Fair point, and something that the alignment rules fail to take into account - the place of microcosmic and macrocosmic alignments (where Lawful in the microcosm is to do with being organised, methodical and rigourous, while in the macrocosm it's to do with societies, and laws, and order).




No argument here. Which is why any character's alignment has to take everything into account.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 18, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Superman would meet the criteria for being an exalted character.  He's _extra_ lawful good.  So lawful good it makes your teeth hurt.




Alright, I can buy that. It just seems to me Supes and Batman have a lot to disagree on.

What about Paul Atreides? -Mua'dib! 
Lawful Good, too?


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 18, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Regardless, I think this shows nicely why alignment should be scrapped.



Truest statement in this thread.  If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Fair enough. As I said, it's fine if you rule that way. As far as the PHB definition of alignment (and since alignment doesn't have a real world existence, the PHB is mostly - though not totally - what I go on), a personal code can be a significantly important condition for being lawful. Of course, it also depends on all elements of the character, but it can be an important one.
> 
> Then the DM and the player have to make a decision based on all elements of the character - nature of the code, how it's followed and enacted, how aspects beyond the code affect and are dealt with by the character, and so on. In short, what you do with all characters.




Agreed.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 18, 2007)

I'd put Al Sweringen as Neutral with strong Evil tendencies. He's strong on an orderly society, since without some order to society nobody is going to be buying his drugs, liquor and whores; chaos is bad for business and Al is against anything that is bad for Al's business. He even sets up a quasi-lawful society in Deadwood so it won't be imposed on them from the outside. ("I'm the chairman because I have the_ bribe sheet _ (the prices for the lawmakers back East)"). The other saloon owner is way more evil than Al is and I thought that if the show had any supernatural elements to it at all that Al would be The Devil. So, that should tell you how bad the other guy is.


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

philreed said:
			
		

> I would call him an opportunist and manipulator rather than evil. Sure he'll commit -- and have committed -- evil acts but he also does some good (and less evil) things.




I don't know, I think partnering up with a bunch of bandits who rob and murder travellers on the road, scalping them to make it look like an Indian attack, is a little too dark to call a shade of grey. It's black. And as you may recall, when a little girl survives one of those attacks, Al sends Dan the knife-man to finish her off. Having little girls murdered is hard to write off as neutral.

True, he looks out for Jewel and once or twice performs some minor act of charity (like putting the preacher out of his misery), and I suspect that the CS authors ascribe that as an indicator of being chaotic, that even though he's an SOB he will capriciously decide to do something we might call "good".

Of course, that's one of the odd things about alignment. A predatory, opportunistic animal is neutral, while a predatory, opportunistic human(oid) is evil. If merely being sentient (possessing an Int higher than 2) amounted to being imbued with an innate sense of right of wrong, that might make sense, but that is not the case. Beings who are not exposed to compassion or treated fairly are not likely to develop empathy and affection for others. A troll or orc or Al Swearengen is evil for objectifying their victims, but a crocodile isn't.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 18, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Truest statement in this thread.  If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.



 Well, alignment is not necessarily a bad thing.  But D&D's alignment system is pretty complicated and esoteric.  If you look at most stories that have alignment, they'll only have two sides, with maybe some neutrals in the middle.  (Like OD&D and Michael Moorcock).

One problem with it is that, while it is a great thing for many stories and adventure ideas, it gets in the way with others.  If you want to have an evil person high in the priesthood of the Church of Pelor, for example, you have to go through some serious acrobatics and, even then, you're really violating the rules.  Pelor wouldn't allow them to stick around.

Fortunatelly, it's not hard to dump alignment from D&D.  Paladins go out the window, and some spell choices do, too.  But the champion from Arcana Evolved will port directly into regular D&D, if you should want that type of character, and there are enough new cleric domains in Comple Divine to make up for the loss of the aligned domains.  The adjustment from D&D with alignments to without is, thus, pretty darn painless.


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The other saloon owner is way more evil than Al is and I thought that if the show had any supernatural elements to it at all that Al would be The Devil. So, that should tell you how bad the other guy is.




It's interesting to see people engage in this sort of relativism. Cy Tolliver is utterly despicable, so he makes Al look he's not such a bad guy, despite all the bodies the latter has dropped off at Wu's pig pen. But what redeeming qualities does Al possess that Cy doesn't? Well, it's not so much that he's kinder and gentler--he's a murderer many times over--it's mainly that he possesses a genuine sardonic wit, which often makes him the only character a viewer can relate to simply because there are few people in Deadwood that have half a brain, "good guys" included; Seth, Alma, and Sol have varying levels of education, but they're often not very quick on the uptake. 

So, merely because we can identify with the character we're inclined to cut him slack for minor random acts of kindness. It's not rational, but I know a lot of jerks and screw-ups in real life who get a lot of breaks because they're affable jerks and screw-ups. In the field of comics, Rob Liefeld is pretty exemplary of this trait.


----------



## ivocaliban (Jan 18, 2007)

Quite a few of these I don't recognize, myself...



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Batman's alignment depends very much on which version of the character you're dealing with. The Adam West version of the character is clearly Lawful Good. Other versions vary, but he is seldom Lawful, and sometimes non-Good.




Agreed.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Indiana Jones I would have pegged as Neutral Good. I don't recall anything he's done that's particularly Lawful.




I would agree, but I can see the argument. What gets lost in all of the action, however, is that Indy is a professor and thinks that all these fantastic relics he's after belong in a museum or in the hands of fellow archaeologists. All of this points to a very ordered and lawful way of thinking, but it's true that Indy often behaves closer to Neutral or even Chaotic in the course of the films. 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> James Bond (as portrayed in the novels, in the early films, and in Casino Royale) is Lawful Evil. The character's alignment is closer to Neutral Good in much of the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan eras.




I think Roger Moore's Bond is definitely Lawful Evil throughout most of his films. It's just that his personal style (and funky 70's attire) make him seem far more benign than Connery's Bond. After all this is the same Bond that in _Live Or Let Die_, pretty much forces himself on Solitaire, robbing her of her of both her virginity and her gift as a seer. He also kills people quite off-handedly in _The Spy Who Loved Me_. After questioning Sandor he chooses to let him drop to his death without any hesitation. Later he shoots Stromberg numerous times, including once in what was likely the crotch, when certainly one well-placed bullet would have done the trick. 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Han Solo I would have pegged as Chaotic Neutral at first, shifting to a clear Chaotic Good by the end of Star Wars.




This always brings up an interesting question for me. What if your image has a different alignment than your behavior? True, the early Han Solo appears as Chaotic Neutral in his behavior, but he's also very Neutral in his mindset. He's essentially a businessman who is only interested in saving his own neck and making a buck. Of course, the business he's engaged in is illegal so that certainly makes one think he must be Chaotic. Difficult to say.

Reminds me of Rick Blaine in _Casablanca_ who obviously wants the world to believe he's Neutral and doesn't get involved. However, it's clear through his secret actions that he is generally Good, underneath it all.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> I don't recall Boba Fett ever actually doing anything Evil. Neutral for this one. Neutral Evil if you can persuade me as to the character's evilness... but as I said, I don't see it in the films. (That said, he doesn't do much of anything in the films, when all is said and done.)




Boba Fett is a bounty hunter that works for the Empire. He doesn't do very much in the films, agreed, but as a bounty hunter he is working for a Lawful establishment and he seems to be very deferential when it comes to people of authority. I would assume that his profession is fraught with rules to follow, permits to obtain and so forth. As for the Evil part, I can agree. I'd probably have pegged him as Lawful Neutral from the films alone.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> I would probably peg Mystique as a (very mild) Chaotic Evil, but must confess to a lack of knowledge of the character beyond the films.




I think Mystique is the epitome of Neutral Evil. Again, however, her frenetic nature, her powers, and even her sense of humor, makes her appear more Chaotic. Still, she only acts when it serves her own interest or the interests of those she serves. 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> I agree on Magneto, Spider Man, Zorro, Malcolm Reynolds, Starbuck, Captain Jack, and Riddick.




Of the ones I'm familiar with, I agree.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Robin Hood is only Good if the rich he's stealing from are corrupt lords who are excessively overtaxing the peasantry, such that all he's doing is restoring wealth to where it rightly belongs. If his victims are just the medieval equivalents of Bill Gates and Donald Trump, then his thefts are Evil, and he's certainly not Good.




Makes me wonder what alignment you think Donald Trump is...*heehee*





			
				delericho said:
			
		

> CS is half right. A Lawful character is not necessarily beholden to the specific laws of the land. However, a Lawful character will necessarily be a believer in the notion of laws, and will accept that in virtually all cases the individual should be beholden to the laws of the land, even where he personally disagrees with them.




So a Paladin in Baator would be beholden to its laws? Captain America (assuming you agree he's Lawful Good) in Nazi Germany would be beholden to its laws? 



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> Following your own code is not a sufficient condition for being Lawful. Firstly, the code itself could be Chaotic. Even if it is not, following your own notion of right and wrong is a classically Chaotic position. It places the individual over society.




The Lawful Neutral description in the PHB clearly states: "[The character] may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard..." It's reasonable to think that "personal order" and "codes and standards" will differ from town to town, nation to nation, world to world...and that the laws themselves clash. 

Just as Indiana Jones thinks that the world's artifacts belong in museums for study, the descendants of the natives who created the artifacts might have different views. So might the occupying forces who displaced the natives in the first place and use the artifacts for target practice. All of them have some claim to a Lawful belief. Whose law should be obeyed? The one who wants to study and protect the relic, the ones with ancestral ties to the relic, or the ones who just happen to have all the military force in the same region as the relic?


----------



## Darklone (Jan 18, 2007)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Always did like the Palladium FRPG Alignment system better.



Seconded. Aberrant evil rules. Mystique - Selfish evil. Most of the time.

I like Capt. Jack Sparrow as Chaotic chaotic.

Batman? Lawful Neutral. Never good. He seeks Vengeance and calls it Justice.

James Bond: Lawful Evil. He's a killer for a system that doesn't even matter that much to him. No matter which actor.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 18, 2007)

Forget the alignments, I'm not sure most of these guys are scoundrels at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 18, 2007)

> Truest statement in this thread. If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.




 :\ 

The fact that we're discussing this shows that it *can* be expressed through the system. "Satisfying" is only a matter of the DM and players coming to some agreement on what it means for their game. 

Relativism and alignment are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 18, 2007)

Batman doesn't seek vengeance. Vengenace is what young Bruce Wayne was after when he walked up to Joe Chill with a hidden gun in Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne became Batman to keep others from suffering the loss he did.

In the Mayfair DC Heroes game, Batman's motivation is Seeking Justice.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 18, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Forget the alignments, I'm not sure most of these guys are scoundrels at all.




QFT


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 18, 2007)

You can't really say that Starbuck risking her life to save others makes her good and not neutral. As the best pilot there is, it would be stupid not to risk her life, because she is saving her own neck at the same time. Otherwise, the Cylons would of won long ago. You shouldn't confuse good intentions with survival instinct. Besides, there is also the rush of frakkin' those robots. In my opinion Kara is firmly Chaotic Neutral.


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Forget the alignments, I'm not sure most of these guys are scoundrels at all.




Naturally, Complete Scoundrel provides its working definition of ""scoundrel", which is sufficiently broad in scope to encompass most of these characters. Some, like Lucy Westerna, I'm not familiar with so I'm not sure why they were even considered.


----------



## El Ravager (Jan 18, 2007)

Punisher - Lawful Good (In DnD). 

Possibly a Paladin with a few tweaks.  Mostly for the relentless fight against evil.  I am also working under the PHB assumption that Lawful does not necessarly = follows laws of the government. 



Just replace all the criminals with Orks, Gnolls, Bandits, and any of the other evil things Adventurers kill in droves.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 18, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Naturally, Complete Scoundrel provides its working definition of ""scoundrel", which is sufficiently broad in scope to encompass most of these characters. Some, like Lucy Westerna, I'm not familiar with so I'm not sure why they were even considered.



I can reframe a word so as to define it so broadly as to be meaningless, but I'm not sure anyone's better off by me doing so. 

Quite a few of those characters don't rely on trickery or their wits or operate outside societal norms or anything else that might be commonly associated with the word "scoundrel."


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jan 18, 2007)

*Starbuck*



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> She repeatedly and consistently puts her life in direct danger for the protection of the remnants of the human race. That's pretty Good right there. And I'm hard pressed to think of more than a couple of Evil actions. (That said, the third season has just started over here; her alignment may shift.)




Oh yeah, they take Kara Thrace's Starbuck to some pretty dark places. She went from being my 3rd favorite character to my wishing they would just write her off the show. Looking at her overall character arc thus far, I'm thinking I would classify Kara Thrace as neutral. She is often chaotic, but is still a member of the law-driven military and very often a leader (CAG) charged with upholding laws. She certianly has some good in her, but _plenty_ of bad too. I would estimate that all this washes out to a neutral aligment all around. This is a different variety of neutral than your druid/monk "universe is in balance" type, but neutral nonetheless.

Also, I think early Han Solo puts on a show of being a selfish badass, but has some good tendencies that he works to hide. These soon get revealed when he tells Luke "May the Force Be With You" in the Yavin IV hanger deck. After Chewie admonishes him for leaving, he  defensively says "What? I know what I'm doing." Of course he does since he later he comes back and saves the day. His character truly undergoes a character arc from Star Wars to Jedi, going from CG from the beginning to LG by the end. An arc that admittedly is diminished if Greedo shoots first, but that is a conversation for a different day.


----------



## arscott (Jan 18, 2007)

ivocaliban said:
			
		

> So a Paladin in Baator would be beholden to its laws? Captain America (assuming you agree he's Lawful Good) in Nazi Germany would be beholden to its laws?



Captain America is an invading soldier.  He's not beholden to Germany's laws, but he is beholden to laws, regulations, and orders of the US military.  Likewise the paladin in hell will be beholden to the laws of his god and church.

That said, I think lawful characters in evil lands are still beholden to the laws, to a certain extent.  Of course, a paladin won't stand idly by while the king butchers peasants on trumped-up charges.  But he'll still follow the speed limit, whether it was set by Pelor or by Vecna.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

ivocaliban said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder what alignment you think Donald Trump is...*heehee*




Always dangerous talking about the alignments of real-world figures... so I won't. However, the point I was trying to get at is that the lords in the Robin Hood example were basically using their authority to force the peasants to pay excessive taxes. By contrast, Gates and Trump, despite some questionable business practices, don't go that far. You never actually _have_ to buy the latest Windows... you _can_ choose to try to manage without.



> So a Paladin in Baator would be beholden to its laws? Captain America (assuming you agree he's Lawful Good) in Nazi Germany would be beholden to its laws?




No. That was the bit I said about not being beholden to the _specific_ laws in place. Where the laws are clearly unjust or unworkable, the Lawful character is, of course, free to step outside them. However, where the laws are merely inconvenient the Lawful character should follow them as best he can. (An example here is speed limits. These clearly aren't particularly unjust, although in some cases the limit applied has been set incorrectly for the road. And, in most cases, a few extra MPH won't hurt anyone. And yet, the Lawful character should generally accept the inconvenience of the set limit, because he will acknowledge that there needs to be some limit, and allowing everyone to just pick and choose their own limits can lead to real dangers.)



> The Lawful Neutral description in the PHB clearly states: "[The character] may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard..." It's reasonable to think that "personal order" and "codes and standards" will differ from town to town, nation to nation, world to world...and that the laws themselves clash.




Yes, that was addressed by Shilsen, above. I've softened my position somewhat.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Truest statement in this thread.  If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.




Actually, it's doing pretty well. There are a handful of difficult examples that keep being argued over: James Bond, Gaius Baltar, Batman, Jack Bauer, Sawyer, Londo Mollari, etc.

In many of these cases, the character in question shifts alignment (Londo) over the course of his story, which means that the arguement is clouded by the question of when each party is talking about. Other examples are complicated by the fact that different versions exist (Batman), and so the argument is similarly clouded. The Adam West Batman is completely different from the Christian Bale Batman, so determining an alignment to reconcile these two is rather pointless.

Alignment arguments are further clouded by a couple of fallacies: "He's fighting against <someone worse>, so he must be Good", "I like him, so he can't be Evil", and my own particular failing "I understand alignment better than anyone else". There's also a tendency to think in terms of a Law/Chaos and Good/Evil binary decision, omitting Neutral.

Oh, and then there's the caricatures of Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, which are largely holdovers from previous editions, and which really don't help.

But, if you cut through that, you tend to find that most examples are pegged reasonably consistently by most people, which suggests that the tool does its job. It's not a perfect tool, but what is?

(Of course, that speil is off-topic for this thread - the "Alignment Myths" thread presents a lot more debate on this issue.)


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jan 18, 2007)

*It's not a perfect tool but what is?*

To answer the above question, I offer a system that isn't perfect, but I like it a little better. It is interesting how alignment is used to classify a charcter's moral or ethical system. As useful as it is for RPGs, I think it is still a little crude and charcter's can't always be pigeonholed so neatly. The system proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is an interesting one through which to examine morality. It classifies ethics based on cognitive sophistication. Although admittedly flawed, I think it is a much more useful paradigm for examining the motivations of fictional and real-life characters. Here's how it works. There are six levels of ethical reasoning.

1. What says the authority? Will I be punished?
2. What do I get out of it? How will this help me?
3. Will it please the ones I care about? Will mommy give me approval?
4. Is this in line with law or duty?
5. Is this for the greater good? Will this help others or support social mutuality?
6. Is this in accord with a principled conscience?

Here are some SPOILERific examples ...

A. Laura Roslin wants to beat Gaius Baltar in Presidential election at all costs. She knows Baltar is bad news, so it would clearly be for the greater good. She is operating at level 5, a very pragmatic point of view given humanity's situation with the Cylons. BUT, Adama catches her. Too bad for Laura that Adama lives at level 6. He reminds her that she should also be a person of principle. She defers to his superior system of ethics. Of course they suffered for it later, but they made the decision according to ethical sophistication instead of silly things like the greater good. Nice work, nimrods. Now you broke Kara.

B. Star Trek's Prime Directive is all about the level 5/6 dilemma (as are the themes in many of my favorite shows). Check it out ... while down on an alien planet, Wesley Crusher is playing space basketball with the local alien kids. In a stunning show of coordination, poor Wesley accidentally smashes the super-sacred religious triangle situated 5 feet from the space basketball court. Now the aliens say, according to their alien lawbooks, Wesley must die (yay!). This puts Picard in a pickle! On one hand, he loves this little brat and feels duty to Beverly and her dead husband. On the other, the prime directive and greater good (of the audience?) dictate that Wesley die like a pig. Picard LOVES to operate at level 6, by jiminy, so what does he do? He tricks those primitive screw-heads into thinking they killed Wesley with a little Transporter-sleight of hand. Wesley lives, the primitives are happy, and Picard ingratiates himself even deeper into Beverly's bountiful old-lady bosom. Everybody wins ... except the maybe audience.

To draw some crude relationships ...

Level 1-2 ... aspects of chaos, neutrality, or evil
Level 3 ... aspects of neutral or good
Level 4 ... aspects of law
Level 5 ... aspects of good
Level 6 ... aspects of good, but mostly true neutral


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> It is interesting how alignment is used to classify a charcter's moral or ethical system. As useful as it is for RPGs, I think it is still a little crude and charcter's can't always be pigeonholed so neatly. The system proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is an interesting one through which to examine morailty. It classifies ethics based on cognitive sophistication.




It's an interesting system, and one I shall think on some more. But it strikes me as a little too philosophical for use in D&D (perhaps in Mage, though...). Mostly, I think players want to kill things and take their stuff, and not worry overly about their 'cognitive sophistication'.



> To draw some crude relationships ...
> 
> Level 1-2 ... aspects of chaos, neutrality, or evil
> Level 3 ... aspects of neutral or good
> ...




I disagree with your relationships, mostly because I peg Roslin, Adama, and Picard as all being Lawful Good. In the specific example of the Roslin/Adama election issue (since it's fresher in my memory), the decision to let the election slip was most definately the Lawful one, and probably the Good one.

There was no evidence that Baltar was actually a Cylon collaborator (and, in fact, he was not at the time he was seen by Roslin - he was duped, and only became a collaborator later). There was no way of knowing that setting on New Caprica would lead to a disaster.

And, the will of the people was clear. Roslin and Adama didn't like it, were sure it was a mistake (and, in point of fact, were correct), but the point remained that if they had stolen the election they would have done irrepairable damage to their society, turning it from a democracy into an unelected dictatorship backed by military power. (Not to mention that Zarek _knew_ the election was rigged, and could and would have brought the whole affair down. Three people can keep a secret only if two of them are dead... and there were way more than three people in on it.)

All in all, although it turned out badly, the decision was the right one, and made for entirely the right reasons.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

Speaking of, there's an interesting question: what is Tom Zarek's alignment, and does it change any over the course of the series?

To be honest, I find it really hard to peg him properly, probably because we don't really see enough of him.

My best guess is that he's probably Chaotic, since he seems always to be at odds with whatever authority he faces, be it the government of the colonies, the Roslin administration, Adama (when he's helping Roslin's rebellion, no less), the Cylons... And yet, he seems very methodical in a lot of his actions and planning, siding with Baltar when he realises he can't win the election, planning to remove Apollo to ingratiate himself as Roslin's right-hand man, and so on.

Likewise, he's probably Evil, based on his total lack of qualms about killing Apollo (he backs out, but only because the situation makes that plan unworkable), his black market dealings, and so on.

Which would make him Chaotic Evil... but that really doesn't feel right.

Any takers?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jan 18, 2007)

It is easy to conflate law, duty, and good with principle. These are difficult concepts, and Kohlberg himself later retracted level 6 altogether. He found that no one consistently operated at level 6, instead they vascilated between 5 and 6. Plus, it was slippery to define.

Yeah, I wasn't even going to try to draw the relationship between the two systems. They are both separate and flawed systems. Please feel free to ignore my comparisons. I only wanted to provoke discussion.

EDIT: RE: Battlestar example ... Laura knows Baltar vascillates between levels 1 and 2. He's great for this reason. But Laura's reluctant decision to break the law by rigging the election came out of reasoning more sophisticated than the blind following of law. The decision was made was for the greater good, at level 5. Adama, however, pointed out a more sophisticated ethical position: Laura is a good person of principle and also the President. She knowingly choose to operate within the boundaries of law not only because she realizes that she shouldn't manipulate the system to get her own way; she is a person of high principle. She believes in the system and what it stands for (and what her position as President means) and prefers not to abide corruption. She would risk abandoning her principles and all the work she'd done to live a principled life up to that moment. It is a sort of selling out that would compromise her integrity as a highly principled character. What's more, she would have to live with that choice, and she would likely be changed by it forever. So in the end, even through her actions superficially appear lawful and maybe even good, it is because of higher cognition and ethical reasoning that brought her to that decision as opposed to blindly following laws or trying to manufacture good. She knows the consequences. Level 6 is sort of selfish and self-indulgent in this way. She chose not to sully her own advanced system of ethics than save the humans from Baltar. As you can probably tell, I'm too much of a pragmatist. The ends always justify my means according to my conceptions of good. Hence, I live at level 5. But sometimes I get this far off look in my eye, and I wish I could be more like Adama or Picard.

EDIT: Zarek ... his character certainly undergoes an arc, but as you pointed out, there is a relativism at work here too. Most recently, it seems that living under cylon rule has attenuated his thirst for power. The enemy of my enemy is my bid for the Vice-Presidency. But the alignment system is over-simple for pidgeonholing because of moral relativism. Laws and conceptions of good/evil change from society to society, from person to person, and from situation to situation.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 18, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?




Exhalted Lawful Good


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 18, 2007)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Always did like the Palladium FRPG Alignment system better.




I agree.  They even go so far as to give specific examples of how characters of such an alignment would act.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> It's an interesting system, and one I shall think on some more. But it strikes me as a little too philosophical for use in D&D (perhaps in Mage, though...). Mostly, I think players want to kill things and take their stuff, and not worry overly about their 'cognitive sophistication'.




I hear what you're saying. But at the same time, I think D&D is a very sophisticated rules set designed to be adaptable for lots of styles of play. At its best, it can strikingly resemble good literature and be a far cry from a hack and slash lootin-tootin dungeon crawl. Depending on the communal authors sitting at the gaming table, playing with ethical dilemmas and consequences can be great fun. I would argue that D&D is absolutely equipped to run this sort of game.

BTW, for this style game, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Dynasties and Demagogues.


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> I hear what you're saying. But at the same time, I think D&D is a very sophisticated rules set designed to be adaptable for lots of styles of play.




Agreed.

I have found, though, that a lot of players seem to have a little 'mental switch' that triggers when they're playing D&D (and often, any d20 game) and pushes them into a certain style. This seems to be a bit less true with other games... of course, it could just be the people I game with.

This is similar, but I don't think related to, the switches that control their behaviour when the character sheet has "Paladin", "Lawful Good", "Chaotic Neutral" or "Evil" on it. Sometimes, I wish I'd done a Psychology degree, so I could apply for funding to do a Doctorate in a study of character alignment as it affects players.


----------



## ivocaliban (Jan 18, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> Always dangerous talking about the alignments of real-world figures... so I won't. However, the point I was trying to get at is that the lords in the Robin Hood example were basically using their authority to force the peasants to pay excessive taxes. By contrast, Gates and Trump, despite some questionable business practices, don't go that far. You never actually _have_ to buy the latest Windows... you _can_ choose to try to manage without.




The musing about Trump's alignment was really meant to be rhetorical and amusing. I generally agree with the original statement.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 18, 2007)

Am I the only one who thinks Spider-man is Lawful Good, rather than Neutral Good? What am I not getting?


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Quite a few of those characters don't rely on trickery or their wits or operate outside societal norms or anything else that might be commonly associated with the word "scoundrel."




Care to share which don't fulfill any of the criteria that you specified? The only character I see that might be questionable is Lucy Westenra from Dracula, and even then I suppose as a sexually insatiable vampiress that she might make the cut.

EDIT--Unfortunately, Dick Tracy is only familiar to many folks today through the crappy Warren Beaty movie, thinking of him much as they would Joe Friday, but during Chester Gould's run he was a cagey character that matched his foes trick for trick as well as bullet for bullet.


----------



## Aeric (Jan 18, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.




Which is exactly why alignments should reflect character actions and philosophies, not the other way around.  Sure, a player may put LG on his character sheet and proceed to act in a manner that he feels is LG, but if I as the DM see it as being anything but LG, that's going to be how the game elements (Detect spells, magic items, etc.) are going to react to him as.  It's like the end of _Falling Down_ where Michael Douglas is confronted by the cops and he asks, "_I'm_ the bad guy?"  He was doing what he thought was right, when really he had become a sociopath.

Some people say that alignments are subjective, while others say they are totally set in stone.  I say they are both.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 19, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thinks Spider-man is Lawful Good, rather than Neutral Good? What am I not getting?



He regularly breaks the law when he feels that his goals are more important. (The same reason that Batman shouldn't be Lawful Good, incidentally.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Care to share which don't fulfill any of the criteria that you specified? The only character I see that might be questionable is Lucy Westenra from Dracula, and even then I suppose as a sexually insatiable vampiress that she might make the cut.




The only major tricksy thing Odysseus does is fool a cyclops in one of his many adventures. He's a man of action, not a man of wit. 

Boba Fett doesn't do anything that suggests that he's clever or tricky. He mostly stands around in a suit of armor. Frankly, I suspect he's watching porn in there most of the time.

Magneto is a brilliant and charismatic leader who relies on his formidable powers and his ability to influence others in the same way a military or political leader does. He does not routinely dupe or deceive.

Lara Croft is physically active and is a good fit for the Complete Adventurer, but acrobatics does not make one a scoundrel.

Lucy Westerna is an extremely strange choice. There doesn't seem to be much basis for calling her a scoundrel whatsoever.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Jan 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The only major tricksy thing Odysseus does is fool a cyclops in one of his many adventures. He's a man of action, not a man of wit.




Have to respectfully disagree with you there, Whizbang. Throughout the Illiad, Odysseus is hailed as being the most clever of all. He hatches the Trojan Horse plan. He dressed up in disguise a lot. He stole King Rhesus' horses. He was always coming up with clever schemes. Look it up. I'm not sure he should be considered a scoundrel, but he was always considered a brilliant strategist.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 19, 2007)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Have to respectfully disagree with you there, Whizbang. Throughout the Illiad, Odysseus is hailed as being the most clever of all. He hatches the Trojan Horse plan. He dressed up in disguise a lot. He stole King Rhesus' horses. He was always coming up with clever schemes. Look it up. I'm not sure he should be considered a scoundrel, but he was always considered a brilliant strategist.



OK, we agree, I just stated it poorly.

Simply using one's head doesn't make one a scoundrel, IMO. The Trojan Horse certainly was clever, and its familiarity made me incorrectly discount it.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The only major tricksy thing Odysseus does is fool a cyclops in one of his many adventures. He's a man of action, not a man of wit.




As Dragonlord explains in detail, Odysseus is a master trickster and schemer. Being a man of action is not mutually exclusive with being tricky. 



> Boba Fett doesn't do anything that suggests that he's clever or tricky. He mostly stands around in a suit of armor. Frankly, I suspect he's watching porn in there most of the time.




In the movies, Fett does jack, and I've always wondered what made such an inactive character so popular, but he's certainly very much the scoundrel, as the galaxy's best bounty hunter would kinda have to be.



> Magneto is a brilliant and charismatic leader who relies on his formidable powers and his ability to influence others in the same way a military or political leader does. He does not routinely dupe or deceive.




Doesn't a brilliant and charismatic leader make the perfect scoundrel if he's using his followers as disposable pawns? Maybe comics-Magneto lacks subtlety, but if we're talking movie-Magneto, I'd definitely go with scoundrel. He manipulates and deceives the heck out of his mutant lackeys--catch that "he's mine" look he shoots Mystique after he sweet-talks Pyro in X2. He forges an alliance of convenience with the X-Men and tricks them into helping him kill all humans on the planet. But regardless, manipulation and deception aren't the sole defining traits of a scoundrel, as you previously acknowledged. He definitely "operates outside societal norms", which was one of your stated criteria.



> Lara Croft is physically active and is a good fit for the Complete Adventurer, but acrobatics does not make one a scoundrel.




She robs tombs for a living, often an illegal endeavor. She's sneaky, survives by her wits, operates outside societal norms....c'mon.



> Lucy Westerna is an extremely strange choice. There doesn't seem to be much basis for calling her a scoundrel whatsoever.




Yeah, that one I don't get.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> OK, we agree, I just stated it poorly.
> 
> Simply using one's head doesn't make one a scoundrel, IMO. The Trojan Horse certainly was clever, and its familiarity made me incorrectly discount it.




For those interested parties, this is from CS's opening section "What Makes a Scoundrel?"

Scoundrels break rules.
Scoundrels think on their feet.
Scoundrels avoid fair fights.
Scoundrels know their enemies' weaknesses.
Scoundrels don't restrict themselves.
Scoundrels get dirty.
Scoundrels apply themselves.
Scoundrels rely on instinct.
Scoundrels are not all corrupt. 

Each of those is a heading followed by a brief explanation. Note they are not saying "if you apply yourself, you're a scoundrel". It's more of a scale where hits exceed misses by a certain margin.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I agree with Klaus here.  It doesn't really matter that Sawyer is a tormented soul or that he's self destructive.  At the end of the day, he destroys lives and hurts everyone around him.  That's evil.
> 
> Starbuck I could see as CG.  Sleeping with someone isn't an evil act.  And, while she was involved in the reprisals, she didn't actually do anything.  By and large, she risks her life to help those in need.  Sounds good to me.
> 
> A character from Firefly that I thought would fit well with NE is Jayne.  He betrays pretty much anyone around him for enough money.  To the point of chucking one partner out of an airplane and selling out the Firefly crew as well.  An interesting way of seeing how an evil character can fit in with a (mostly) good party.




I don't get this on one hand you say that Sawyer is evil because he destroys lives and hurts people. But Starbuck through her actions has hurt a lot of people is chaotic good. :\ 

Starbuck with her drunkeness has at time risked lives of her fellow pilots. By breaking the rules she got her lover Zac killed. She is a married woman cheating with a married man thus destroying two men.

She is a childish selfish self destructice she is chaotic all right but I wouldn't call her good.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jan 19, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Starbuck with her drunkeness has at time risked lives of her fellow pilots. By breaking the rules she got her lover Zac killed. She is a married woman cheating with a married man thus destroying two men.
> 
> She is a childish selfish self destructice she is chaotic all right but I wouldn't call her good.




The new Starbuck took herself off flight status when she realized she was too drunk to fly.

She spoke out loudly and forcefully against shooting down the _Olympic Carrier_, even though letting it close on the fleet would have been a bad move. 

She wanted to give Zac what he wanted, so she let his pass (definately chaotic, but something that can be seen as good).

On New Caprica, when Kacey (I think that's the girl's name) was injured, she was filled with remorse and self-recimination.  When it would have been safer to just flee, she risked her life to go back and try and get Kacey out.

Even when she knew Kacey was no longer related to her (and after a whole lot of painful soul searching), she went and saw the girl again, when it would have been a lot easier to just try and ignore her.

As for the cheating and hurting her husband and her best friend... yeah, okay.  That's stupid and selfish and dumb and hurtful.  Since she's hurting herself just as much with those actions it makes it neutral at best.

Starbuck is no paragon of chaotic *good*... but she is chaotic good.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> He regularly breaks the law when he feels that his goals are more important. (The same reason that Batman shouldn't be Lawful Good, incidentally.)




I suppose, but I think this is one of those situations where the definitions of Law/Chaos are murky.

As a general rule, Spidey is a pretty law-abiding citizen, and he certainly holds criminals to the standards of the law- as well as doing his best to make sure that they are made accountable for their actions before society's system of justice. Additionally, he's got the whole mantra of "with great power" which is a pretty solid personal code.

At the same time, as you say, he has been known to engage in a little breaking and entering if the situation called for it, and he is a vigilante, technically- which means he's operating outside the law in his heroics. 

I guess I can see the argument for him being Neutral rather than Lawful, but I think it could go either way.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 19, 2007)

Jack Sparrow is a playable CE, not CN.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Additionally, he's got the whole mantra of "with great power" which is a pretty solid personal code.




Captains Barbosa's famous quote is quite applicable here. It's not so much a "code" as what ye call a "guideline".

As inspirational as Uncle Ben's creed is, it doesn't provide Spidey any particular rules of conduct, just a general imperative to behave responsibly. We are supposed to identify with the character because he doesn't behave like he's got all the answers. He's usually conflicted about whether the greater good is served by following the rules or breaking them. It's that ambivalence that I think makes him an exemplary Neutral Good character.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Jan 19, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Jack Sparrow is a playable CE, not CN.




This was the only one that really stuck out in my book.  Being the protagonist does not make one un-evil.

I was going to say Neutral Evil, as he's basically concerned only with his own welfare, but not baseless slaughter of everyone else.

Look how easily he traded away Will to Davy Jones.  How easily he sold out the entire rest of the Black Pearl's crew.  How he had to be forcably restrained through legerdermain to do anything resembling "noble" or "good".

Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies.

-TRRW


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 19, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> This is just one of those things that not everyone's going to agree with.  There's a lot of blurred lines between all the alignments and I feel a lot of these could go different ways.



Didn't AD&D do something like this? I think it was something like a character could be LN (LG), that is to say LN with Lawful Good tendencies? Or am I misremembering something?


----------



## Nyeshet (Jan 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> As inspirational as Uncle Ben's creed is, it doesn't provide Spidey any particular rules of conduct, just a general imperative to behave responsibly. We are supposed to identify with the character because he doesn't behave like he's got all the answers. He's usually conflicted about whether the greater good is served by following the rules or breaking them. It's that ambivalence that I think makes him an exemplary Neutral Good character.



I could not agree more.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> If we go simply by the tales we're told of him, Riddick is CE. It's just that the movies show us caring about that girl/woman, something CE doesn't preclude.




Didn't Raistlin care, in some manner, for Crysania?  And he was definitely CE...

Banshee


----------



## Unkabear (Jan 19, 2007)

I am all for adding a alignment identifier to the alignment.  To add for the good side of neutral ect.  Though adding an extra line on the character sheet would be bulky.

Alignment NG   Tend Toward G    

Truth be told the whole system is buggy.  I really don't push the whole alignment thing unless a player plays a paladin, exalted or otherwise alignment bound character.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 19, 2007)

Aeric said:
			
		

> Which is exactly why alignments should reflect character actions and philosophies, not the other way around.  Sure, a player may put LG on his character sheet and proceed to act in a manner that he feels is LG, but if I as the DM see it as being anything but LG, that's going to be how the game elements (Detect spells, magic items, etc.) are going to react to him as.



Obviously, that's your prerogative as DM, and if your player is cool he'll remember Rule Zero, but I think we've all heard stories about games plagued by debates likes the ones in this thread.  Whether behavior is supposed to reflect alignment or alignment is supposed to reflect behavior, the inherent imperfections of the nine-pigeonhole system are gonna leave people annoyed from time to time.


----------



## hong (Jan 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> As inspirational as Uncle Ben's creed is, it doesn't provide Spidey any particular rules of conduct, just a general imperative to behave responsibly. We are supposed to identify with the character because he doesn't behave like he's got all the answers.




That, and he wisecracks something fierce!


----------



## airwalkrr (Jan 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Chaotic Neutral:* Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (_Deadwood_), Snake Plissken




 I'm just happy that Snake Plissken made it on the list. I love the "Escape from..." movies.


----------



## hong (Jan 19, 2007)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I'm just happy that Snake Plissken made it on the list. I love the "Escape from..." movies.



 The Escape From movies were all right, but Snake Plissken was AWESOME in the Metal Gear Solid games. Awesome, I say.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Batman doesn't seek vengeance. Vengenace is what young Bruce Wayne was after when he walked up to Joe Chill with a hidden gun in Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne became Batman to keep others from suffering the loss he did.



... or simply to fight the frustration that he can't get revenge? 


> In the Mayfair DC Heroes game, Batman's motivation is Seeking Justice.



I'd say, his aim is seeking justice, his motivation is vengeance. 

Alignments are crap. 

Snake Plissken is great. Capt. Jack Sparrow isn't evil. He's not even able to think along the good-evil line, that would take too much concentration.


----------



## Sejs (Jan 19, 2007)

Captain Jack Sparrow isn't evil.  He doesn't really display the concerted malice of forethought that is the benchmark of evil.  Jack's chaotic neutral.  He's more interested in himself than others, and frankly he's just making crap up as he goes along.  Absolutely spur of the moment.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 19, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Captain Jack Sparrow isn't evil.  He doesn't really display the concerted malice of forethought that is the benchmark of evil.  Jack's chaotic neutral.  He's more interested in himself than others, and frankly he's just making crap up as he goes along.  Absolutely spur of the moment.




I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.


----------



## S. Baldrick (Jan 19, 2007)

Zaister said:
			
		

> The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...




I agree.  Al Swearengen does have some good moments, but mainly he does some very rotten, evil things.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jan 19, 2007)

I think Al and Jack are probably both Neutral Evil.

From the SRD:
"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience."

That sounds quite a lot like Jack and Al. Sure, Jack's got the whole spacey-thing going on, but he's completely and totally 100% out for himself, with the "100 souls" bit in the 2nd movie really sealing the deal. Al is the real face of human evil; practical, somewhat banal, and completely selfish.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Jan 19, 2007)

I really wish game designers would actually ask Gary what a specific alignment means and how it effects the game. It's funny how the so-called best of the biz just don't seem to get the simplest thing, like alignment.

It's like the stats for the "kids" of the D&D cartoon. All of their alignments were NG, not what was printed. I asked Gary once --->  Neutral Good.

I look at this list and just shake my head. You can make up all the excuses, er, reasons why Batman is "actually" lawful. Just to prove you're right. In the end it just confuses people. And D&D wonders why it can't break back into mainstream.

Okay, my own take (off the notes of Alignments, Gary told me once):

Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy

Dick Tracy, LG. Batman, NG (he's not there to disrupt the law, but he acts above it). Indy Jones, NG (most fiction heroes will be NG)

Lawful Neutral: James Bond

I'd never thought about James. LN seems right.

Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto

Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men. CE (sometimes CN). I'd say Boba is NE. Mandlorians are space barbarians, like mongols or vandals were.

Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)

I'll stick with Robin being CG. He didn't recognize Prince John's laws. However, he did King Richard's. I'm tempted to say NG, but. One can change alignment through their actions. Alignments don't control the person (well, they were suppose to, but numerous Dragon articles, 2 more editions, and game writers not understanding alignment, confused everything).

Starbuck. Hmmmm. The original cool Starbuck was LG. I'm tempted to say NG, to give him more of a roguish feel, but he was military and he was self-sacrifing. The current stupid Kara Starbuck however. Hmmmm...

She is military. Yeah she originally butted heads with the X/O (for like 3 eps). She's a bit self destructive. Bad with relationships. She does her orders given to her. She's not so recklace that she endangers others. Okay, not CG! I'll go with Neutral (though she could be LN).


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 19, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men.




Is a dwarf who cares nothing for the laws of man and who believes in dwarves over men automatically not lawful?


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 19, 2007)

> *Lawful Good:* Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
> *Lawful Neutral:* James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from _Yojimbo_)
> *Lawful Evil:* Boba Fett, Magneto
> *Neutral Good:* Spider-Man, Zorro
> ...




I'm coming into this really late, but what the hell.

Indiana Jones: Neutral Good, almost certainly. A love of history and a respect for historical artifacts and relics don't make him Lawful, especially when you consider all the rules he breaks when going after said artifacts.

Odysseus: I'd be tempted to call him True Neutral - he does whatever needs to be done, by any means necessary. He's not gratuitously violent or evil, however - and certainly not by the standards of the time...

Starbuck: I'm with the people who say that she is not Good. She's mean, spiteful, self-absorbed (many times her displays of remorese have been tainted with self-pity) and has poor impulse control... She constrantly lashes out at everyone she has a problem with - as a result, in one of the more recent episodes, she definitely helped drive... Cat? (forget her name) to what was effectively a suicide. Yeah, she fights for the survival of humanity, but that's her job. The captain of the Pegasus fought the Cylons too.

Al Swearengen: Al is definitely not Chaotic - he might take advantage of the lack of law enforcement to run his various scams and schemes, but he's actually highly conservative in his personal beliefs, and has a fairly solid - if twisted - code of behavior. He's also not Neutral - he's just a realistic Evil character, instead of a cartoonish one.

Snake Plissken: Neutral? The man's pure evil. He happens to be working (unwillingly) for people who are even worse than he is, but he's an evil, spiteful S.O.B. who doesn't care about anything.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Jan 19, 2007)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> What about Paul Atreides? -Mua'dib!
> Lawful Good, too?




LN. His time with the Freeman didn't encourage good. He was born LG. After he awakened, and saw his golden path. A path that would turn him LE. He refused it. I'd say LN, but he was pushed towards it. Otherwise LG.

Leto II was LE. Duncan is LG. He's the most lawful and good character in the series, hence why he was kept by Leto II.


----------



## Mighty Veil (Jan 19, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Is a dwarf who cares nothing for the laws of man and who believes in dwarves over men automatically not lawful?




If you're going to follow the alignments how they were set to be. Then yes. If you want to Play the confusing P.C. alignments of today or your own house rule versions. Then Riddick can be LG if you want.

Thisreminds me of someone asking Gary about Neutral (TN). He gave this LONG ying/yang description of what TN was. Gary simply replied: interesting but it's not TN.

Unless today's Magneto is some sort of politican living in a mutant land (I stopped ready reading X-Men years ago). Then he's not lawful. If you believe in and (mostly) follow the control of laws, then you're lawful. Hence the LAW in LAWful. Following popular law of the lands or the world (like the world of mankind, the dominate species in Marvel), means lawful.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 19, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.



Captain Jacks pirates kicked him off his ship because he DIDN'T do that


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> The new Starbuck took herself off flight status when she realized she was too drunk to fly.
> 
> She spoke out loudly and forcefully against shooting down the _Olympic Carrier_, even though letting it close on the fleet would have been a bad move.
> 
> ...





Starbuck got drunk because she was pining over Anders. Her not being able to fly when there are so few experienced pilots is risking the entire fleet's safety. That is selfish and self indulgent.

She gets Anders gets her rescue mission marries him even though she is hurting Lee in the process. Lee moves on with bis life marries Dee and now she wants Lee and to hell with two marraiges.

She was kind to Kacey at first but being kind to children does not make you "good" she also struck out at that same child later. Sure she later apoligized. That's Starbuck strike out at people and then say I am sorry. Like that makes the hurt go away. 

As for Zac not only did she give him what he wanted but she lied about it for over two years. She knew he was a bad pilot and as his trainer should not have alllowed him to pass basic flight but she did and when he died did she tell the truth and take her lumps no she kept her mouth shut and kept her rank.

The reason why I just don't buy the good anymore in Starbuck is that she follows the same pattern over and over again. She is hurtful to people then full of self destructive guilt over it says she sorry and goes on to do it again.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 19, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.




Killing people for their money is killing with malice aforethought. Just because the killer does not know the people does not mean the action is not taken with malice aforethought.


----------



## Psion (Jan 19, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Starbuck got drunk because she was pining over Anders. Her not being able to fly when there are so few experienced pilots is risking the entire fleet's safety. That is selfish and self indulgent.




That sounds like an assessment of her wisdom more than her alignment.

Not that it isn't pretty muddy, just sayin'...


----------



## Morrus (Jan 19, 2007)

Somehow I don't think these show writers had D&D alignments in mind when they created the characters!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> That sounds like an assessment of her wisdom more than her alignment.
> 
> Not that it isn't pretty muddy, just sayin'...




As my son always says Starbuck has a wiadom of 3.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't think these show writers had D&D alignments in mind when they created the characters!




I agree with this. Most real life and fictional characters don't fit into the DnD alignments except for Superman.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jan 19, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Starbuck got drunk because she was pining over Anders. Her not being able to fly when there are so few experienced pilots is risking the entire fleet's safety. That is selfish and self indulgent.




*shrug*  I never said she's not an idiot sometimes.  Good people can make some serious, bone-headed mistakes.  



> She gets Anders gets her rescue mission marries him even though she is hurting Lee in the process. Lee moves on with bis life marries Dee and now she wants Lee and to hell with two marraiges.




I actually agree with you here, but what's what makes her such a great character: a good person with flaws.  ^_^




> She was kind to Kacey at first but being kind to children does not make you "good" she also struck out at that same child later. Sure she later apoligized. That's Starbuck strike out at people and then say I am sorry. Like that makes the hurt go away.




But it does show she's trying.  An evil person wouldn't care.  A neutral person probably would try and avoid the issue so as not to feel bad. 



> The reason why I just don't buy the good anymore in Starbuck is that she follows the same pattern over and over again. She is hurtful to people then full of self destructive guilt over it says she sorry and goes on to do it again.




And yet she has good intentions, understands she's not doing the best she can, and tries --and fails-- to do the 'right' thing, and feels terrible about herself when she can't stop her bad behaviour.

As others have mentioned, you're criticizing her wisdom, not her alignment.




> Most real life and fictional characters don't fit into the DnD alignments except for Superman.




If you allow for variation in alignment and consider alignment to be a person's *general* behvaviour as opposed to individual actions... then actually most fictional characters can be fitted into the 9 alignments... although since everybody has a different opnion on what alignment means results in debates like this.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.




But Jack doesn't randomly kill people. He is not murderous at all. Sure, he uses people and discards them when he's finished, but CN characters do that.


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Jack Sparrow is a playable CE, not CN.




Jack isn't CE, he's manipulative and in the end he appears to be serving a greater good. Do people always forget that selfish isn't evil? What did Jack do that was Evil? Be a pirate? That in and of itself isn't evil. He's just selfish with deeply hidden tendencies to do good. The second movie shows that selfishness off in his attempts to save his own neck but gives flashes of his deeply repressed and extremely hidden tendencies towards good.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't think these show writers had D&D alignments in mind when they created the characters!





			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I agree with this. Most real life and fictional characters don't fit into the DnD alignments except for Superman.




Most writers don't have D&D ability scores in mind either, but that certainly wouldn't prevent a gamer from extrapolating based on what they've seen the characters do.


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Didn't Raistlin care, in some manner, for Crysania?  And he was definitely CE...
> 
> Banshee




He was Neutral Evil


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> He's just selfish with deeply hidden tendencies to do good. The second movie shows that selfishness off in his attempts to save his own neck but gives flashes of his deeply repressed and extremely hidden tendencies towards good.




See, I don't agree that he has a repressed sense of goodness, it's simply an impulse that strikes him sometimes, even to the extent of overriding his baser instincts--which again is in keeping with the CN alignment.


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I think Al and Jack are probably both Neutral Evil.
> 
> From the SRD:
> "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience."
> ...




I think the 100 souls bit was just for Jack to stall for time until he could find a way out that didn't cause anyone too much harm.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jan 19, 2007)

Oh what the heck, I'll give it a try.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *Lawful Good:* Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy




I'd agree that Batman is very much lawful good.  The idea that he acts out of vengeance is completely incorrect.  He takes no pleasure in hurting criminals (usually) and has no desire to see them suffer.  Instead he's driven by a desire to see that no one else has to suffer as he has suffered, that no other little boy has his parents stolen away by the scourge of crime.  He doesn't care about punishing criminals so much as protecting innocent people from their depravations.  This, by the way, is why he finds Catwoman tolerable.  She may be a criminal, but she does not (at least, from a fantasy slightly unrealstic viewpoint) cause others to suffer through her thefts or disrupt the societal order.

Batman is lawful in that he really and honestly believes in the right and ability of society to judge criminals.  Despite repeated failures, he always hands matters over to the forces of law the moment he has defused the situation to the level where they can handle it.  He is in regular contact with the police and often acts to assist them in their investigations.  (They have a special signalling device for the sole purpose of contacting him!)  He has a strong and strict code that he follows regarding what he will and won't do, and this code is largely based on what society finds to be permissible rather than something he just came up with himself.

The arguement that he is chaotic mostly boils down to him being a vigilante who likes to handle problems on his own.  But again, he's a vigilante with the utmost respect for the law and society, and who is often showing disapproving of other vigilantes if he does not believe they will follow a strict code of behavior.  If it's possible for a vigilante to be lawful, Batman is lawful.

No argument with Dick Tracy, and I think we just don't see enough of Indy's character to place him on the lawful/chaotic axis.  I guess he could be lawful good.



> *Lawful Neutral:* James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from _Yojimbo_)
> *Lawful Evil:* Boba Fett, Magneto




Some people were asking, what did Fett do that was so horrible?  Well, he dragged a man back to a sure slow torture and death at the hands of a crime lord.  That's pretty evil.  I don't know if he's lawful; in general, I find you need to see a lot more examples of character behavior to determine law/chaos than you do good/evil.

Magneto is probably lawful as he is all about assembling a society of mutants and convincing them to act as a group-  at least, in some characterizations.



> *Neutral Good:* Spider-Man, Zorro
> *Neutral:* Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from _Dracula_)
> *Neutral Evil:* Mystique, Sawyer (from _Lost_)
> *Chaotic Good:* Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (_Firefly_), Starbuck (_Battlestar Galactica_)




Starbuck is certainly chaotic.  Is she good in the D&D sense?  Maybe not quite.

She's certainly not evil, but she doesn't spend a lot of time trying to help people whom she hasn't established a personal connection with.  She's not much one for acting on pure principle, and we rarely seeing her wrestling with deep ethical questions in an effort to do the right thing, as some of the other characters on the show do quite often.

One could argue that she's putting her life on the line as a Viper pilot, and that's certainly true and a good act.  I think Kara is a Viper pilot because she loves flying, not out of a desire to protect the Fleet, though.




> *Chaotic Neutral:* Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (_Deadwood_), Snake Plissken
> *Chaotic Evil:* Riddick, Carl Denham (_King Kong_)




I think I disagree with both parts of Al's alignment here.  Obviously he's an evil man who thinks nothing of murder to achieve his desires.  But more than that, Swearengen cares deeply about society and the furtherance of an organized social structure.  Most of his more beneficient acts can be traced to a desire to see the town of Deadwood prosper.

Consider that it was Al who worked to see Deadwood annexed to a state.  It was Al who organized a town council of city leaders, Al who oversaw the selection of men to temporarily fill civic offices, and Al who demanded (and got) elections held.  I ask you, are these the actions of a chaotic man?

I'd also agree that Sparrow is evil, though he at least is definitely chaotic.  He does have occasional impulse to neutrality, but is obviously skiled in surpressing his conscience.

Riddick is evil too.  It's just that he developed some emotional attachments that caused him to act for people other than himself.  That doesn't make him not evil.  Just makes him human.


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

"Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men."

Magneto is as Lawful as it gets. Being prejudice is not a sign that someone isn't Lawful. Magneto is, in the comics, Lawful Neutral with good tendencies and outside of Morrison's run on New X-Men the last several Magneto stories since Claremont had him redeemed have dealt with him being more misunderstood than having done anything evil or his disciples doing something wrong and him having to intervene and his intentions being misunderstood. Magneto has a strict code that he lives by and he expects his people to live by them as well. Magneto is in fact a Fascist politically and a strong believer in Aristocracy and order. That is part of his tragedy is that he has become very close to that which he hates most, a Nazi except Magneto isn't a genocidal maniac.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men. CE (sometimes CN).




Mutants represent a disenfranchised segment of society, and very few people have a high regard for laws that oppress them. However, that doesn't exclude them from being lawful. A lawful character tends to work within the system if they think they can achieve their goals that way, but if they can't they will work to improve or replace the system. In the case of a lawful evil character, he might become a politician or judge, or he might try to subvert established authority by building his own order (with him firmly situated on top, of course). The latter is the path of LE villains like Magneto, Dr. Doom, and Kingpin.

To my mind, that calls into question the chaoticness of Robin Hood. He subverts the rule of John because it's unjust and (to his mind) illegitmate, not because he loves commiting crimes and has a general objection to authority. In fact, his method of fighting back is to establish his own underground organization that provides relief for the oppressed peasantry. An amnesiac Superman does the same thing when trapped on Apokolyps, as does Captain America in several instances where he's faced with a corrupt system.


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> See, I don't agree that he has a repressed sense of goodness, it's simply an impulse that strikes him sometimes, even to the extent of overriding his baser instincts--which again is in keeping with the CN alignment.




I was agreeing with the CN assessment, I simply forgot to note it...


----------



## teitan (Jan 19, 2007)

Oh yeah, Magneto is also the ruler of Genosha, a mutant country in the area of the Indian Ocean that was mostly wiped out in an unprovoked Sentinel attack in Morrison's first issue. The Excalibur reboot focused on the rebuilding of Genosha until House of M came along.


----------



## Sejs (Jan 19, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.



Just as Darklone said - actually Jack was mutinied against precisely because he _wasn't_ going around randomly killing people for their money.  Remember, sacking Nassau Port without even firing a single shot?  Now you see, Jack, that's exactly the attitude that lost you the Pearl - people are easy to search when they're dead.

Barbossa's evil.  Amusing, but evil.  Jack is throughly chaotic, and meanders (well.. okay, _staggers_) back and forth between the two poles of neutral, sometimes being closer to good, othertimes closer to evil, but most of the time staying easily in the territory between.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 20, 2007)

The reason I say CE for Jack Sparrow is that he kills people for money, undertakes treachery on the spur of the moment, and encourages others to do the same. He contradicts himself just as easily. Sometimes he behaves in a seemingly good or lawful fashion, because it appeals to him; the rest of the time, he improvises, or resorts to evil or neutral decisions. He's willingly turned himself into an undead creature, which D&D defines as a particularly evil act in the case of the lich and similar scenarios. 

The "goodness" that he has is that of integrity, vivacity, dignity, and moral sophistication. Though he can certainly understand the impulses that drive others to altruisim, he considers it deluded behavior, in the same way a good person views falling to temptation as understandable but foolish. 

Basically, he's random, sociopathic, selfish, exploitive, treacherous, impulsive, untrustworthy, capricious, bullying, rash, murderous, rapacious, greedy, etc. He just happens to have a pretty good Wis score.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 20, 2007)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Just as Darklone said - actually Jack was mutinied against precisely because he _wasn't_ going around randomly killing people for their money.




Good business sense and allowing people to surrender out of a very minimal sense of decency does not really outweigh his other actions. Jack is not the Joker, it's true, but he's not Conan, either. He is the antithesis of Chaotic Stupid. But still a fiend, particularly in D&D terms.


----------



## Felon (Jan 20, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The reason I say CE for Jack Sparrow is that he kills people for money, undertakes treachery on the spur of the moment, and encourages others to do the same. He contradicts himself just as easily.




This is all in keeping with the characteristics of CN.



> Basically, he's random, sociopathic, selfish, exploitive, treacherous, impulsive, untrustworthy, capricious, bullying, rash, murderous, rapacious, greedy, etc. He just happens to have a pretty good Wis score.




Where is this murderousness that you speak of? According to the PHB's descriptions, the leap from CN from to CE is basically about being vicious--actively seeking to wreak destruction. If you demonstrate that Jack has a desire to inflict suffering, rather than a carefree philosophy of every-man-for-himself, then you've made a sale.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Good business sense and allowing people to surrender out of a very minimal sense of decency does not really outweigh his other actions. Jack is not the Joker, it's true, but he's not Conan, either.




What, you're holding Conan up to be the exemplar of goodness? He's depicted as being much more willing to murder in cold blod than Jack ever could get away with in a Disney film.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 20, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> What, you're holding Conan up to be the exemplar of goodness? He's depicted as being much more willing to murder in cold blod than Jack ever could get away with in a Disney film.




I'm putting Conan as a solid CN.

_Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. *Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.* Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. _

Your "viciousness" criterion does not exist. Jack Sparrow is evil, as is Jango Fett, or the protagonist of A Boy and His Dog.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 20, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm putting Conan as a solid CN.
> 
> _Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. *Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.* Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. _
> 
> Your "viciousness" criterion does not exist. Jack Sparrow is evil, as is Jango Fett, or the protagonist of A Boy and His Dog.




This actually ties in nicely with something I was going to bring up.

I think it's not hard to get people to agree that Conan is CN, and Riddick is CE... But really, what's the difference between the two (movie) characters? Aside from the fact that one comes from a fantasy setting and the other a sci-fi one, there really isn't a shred of difference. They both kill and steal for a living, and they both end up detroying a greater evil for purely personal reasons. One just happens to live in a time where his actions get him branded a mass murderer rather than a barbarian.

It's actually funny how many other, superficial similarities there are between the characters. Last survivors of a fallen people, grew up and learned to kill while prisoner/slave, end up killing the bad guy for the sake of a dead (literally in one case, figuratively in the other) girl, end up as king...


----------



## Darklone (Jan 20, 2007)

Conan... Hrmpf. He lives by his own codex and would never act against it. It's just the world that suffers from not being compatible with his sense of how it should be 

Jack Sparrow? I still don't understand why you call him murderous. How many people does he kill in the movies? How many get mentioned that have been killed by him? None, right, except Barbossa at the end?


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 21, 2007)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Conan... Hrmpf. He lives by his own codex and would never act against it. It's just the world that suffers from not being compatible with his sense of how it should be
> 
> Jack Sparrow? I still don't understand why you call him murderous. How many people does he kill in the movies? How many get mentioned that have been killed by him? None, right, except Barbossa at the end?




He does hold the damsel in distress hostage. He also pulls a gun several times. The fact that he really has to follow through on his threats is a credit to his judiciousness and charisma, not his moral charity. Also, he was the captain of that gang of pirates... how did he achieve that position? The mutiny was a question of policy versus greed, not neutral vs. evil. 

He also tries to pawn the soul of essentially his only friend in the world. Pawning souls is evil. If you put this alongside his deliberate decision to become an undead creature, he has already fulfilled the defining alignment characteristics of liches and devils by halfway through the second movie.

EDIT: How many people does Riddick kill in the first movie? How many does Darth Vader kill in Return of the Jedi?


----------



## Felon (Jan 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm putting Conan as a solid CN.



Yet Conan inflicts suffering far more casually than Jack does. In one story, Conan's in a tavern and someone makes a snide comment to him. Conan knifes the guy and flees (kind of a cheap punk in that scenario). In another story, Conan's lover sets him up. When he goes to settle the score with her, he sees her new boytoy leaving her residence, so he leaps out of the shadows and murders the guy (who he doesn't know from Adam). In yet another story, Conan hires himself out as an assassin to murder a priest. Evidence abounds that Conan was a murderous thug--a real barbarian, you might say.



> _]Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. *Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.* Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. _
> 
> Your "viciousness" criterion does not exist. Jack Sparrow is evil, as is Jango Fett, or the protagonist of A Boy and His Dog.



What you are quoting is the general descriptor of evil that covers all three types of evil. You should've kept reading. The specific description of Chaotic Evil provides the criterion. 

"Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, *hatred, and lust for destruction* drive him to do. He is *hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent*, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless *and brutal*."

So, yes indeed, viciousness is a major component of CE. And more to the point, you have described Jack as murderous and when asked to cite his murderous behavior on his part you have not actually done so. OTOH, it has been pointed out that Jack has gone out of his way to avoid taking lives when he sacks a city.


----------



## Felon (Jan 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> He does hold the damsel in distress hostage. He also pulls a gun several times. The fact that he really has to follow through on his threats is a credit to his judiciousness and charisma, not his moral charity.




If he doesn't have to follow through, then it's inconclusive evidence. He mighta done this, he mighta done that.



> He also tries to pawn the soul of essentially his only friend in the world. Pawning souls is evil. If you put this alongside his deliberate decision to become an undead creature, he has already fulfilled the defining alignment characteristics of liches and devils by halfway through the second movie.




Liches aren't evil because they become undead, but rather because of certain "unspeakably evil" acts that are involved in the process of achieving lichdom. 

Giving credit where it's due, pawning off the soul of William is certainly evidence for yoru case, although it can be counter-argued that this was a matter of survival, and CN characters certainly are the types to put their own safety first. The way to show Jack is evil is by demonstrating that he tries to profit by sacrificing others (as opposed to being forced into a corner).



> EDIT: How many people does Riddick kill in the first movie? How many does Darth Vader kill in Return of the Jedi?




Can't speak to Riddick's supposed evil, since it isn't well-demonstrated in Pitch Black (particularly in contrast to the acts of the "good guys"). But Darth Vader? He murders the younglings, blows up Alderan with a Death Star...not in Return of the Jedi, but well before.


----------



## teitan (Jan 21, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> He does hold the damsel in distress hostage. He also pulls a gun several times. The fact that he really has to follow through on his threats is a credit to his judiciousness and charisma, not his moral charity. Also, he was the captain of that gang of pirates... how did he achieve that position? The mutiny was a question of policy versus greed, not neutral vs. evil.
> 
> He also tries to pawn the soul of essentially his only friend in the world. Pawning souls is evil. If you put this alongside his deliberate decision to become an undead creature, he has already fulfilled the defining alignment characteristics of liches and devils by halfway through the second movie.




Damsels in distress? I got the feeling from the character that he wouldn't have hurt her and it was just a ploy. 

He became Captain because he owned the ship and hired the crew. Greed isn't evil and I think they pointed out his sacking without taking a life as a way to show Jack wasn't your typical, evil pirate but actually something of a more "antiheroic" cut. The pawning of Will Turner's soul also seemed to me to be a ploy as well to buy time until Jack can come up with a plan that could get him and Will out of the situations they were in, admittedly Jack put him there but that is more of a Chaotic Neutral thing when you look at the whole picture. As far as choosing to become undead... he did it in order to be able to fight Barbosa without dying, knowing FULL WELL that the process could be reversed. By the end of the first movie Jack Sparrow is shown as an obvious hero and the second movie shows he is in an extremely DESPERATE situation and he reacts in a very human manner and while Elizabeth Swan did shackle Jack to the Black Pearl he chose to go down with it...

Which beggars the question: Does that mean Elizabeth Swan is also Chaotic Evil? She willingly sacrificed Jack for her own benefit.


----------



## Severion (Jan 21, 2007)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Well, I can't remember exactly what he did to get arrested by the bounty hunter, but I remember it was pretty darn nasty.  And he didn't exactly do anything "good" in Pitch Black.  He pretty much needed to work with everyone else to get off the planet.  Only the most idiotic of villians wouldn't have been a team player when his life ABSOLUTELY depended on it.
> 
> But I do say "leaning" to CE.  I'm not sure he's actually that nasty.  He's definitely selfish first and foremost, though.




He was accused of causing the "Slaughter at Butcher Bay".  In the novelization he was a patzy on that one as he was one of the lower ranked guards at butcher bay.  In  the book he is painted as always having been given short shrift.  I prefer a nastier Riddick than the book gives us, i still see him as more CN.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jan 21, 2007)

Conan, at the beginning of his "career," is clearly CN, as has been pointed out, though later in life he becomes CG, with NG tendencies.


----------



## Psion (Jan 22, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I think it's not hard to get people to agree that Conan is CN, and Riddick is CE... But really, what's the difference between the two (movie) characters?




At the end of Chronicles, nothing. Almost literally. 

Repeating myself, but so long as the contrast has come up again: I think that Riddick at the beginning of Pitch Black is CE, but has a bit of an alignment shift by the end.


----------

