# What alignment are these Harry Potter characters? (Spoilers abound.)



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Read HP7, loved it, and am participating in the review thread elsewhere on this site.

But here on General RPG Discussion, I want to know: What alignment are these guys?

Let's start with the heroes:

*Harry Potter* is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?

*Hermione Granger* sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead?

*Ron Weasely* has Weasely blood in him, which seems to give him both red hair and a Chaotic Good attitude, unless you're Percy, in which case you're the white sheep of the family and are Lawful Git instead.

As we see in HP7, *Albus Dumbledore* doesn't have a spotless record, but he seems to have spent his long life trying to make up for being a brat for 18 months or so as a young man. He's secretive and cryptic, but that doesn't necessarily change his alignment. I'd say he's a safe Neutral Good.

Then there's the villains:

*Voldemort* is Evil, no question, and is entirely focussed on himself, which would suggest Chaotic, but folks often like to argue that the ability (and inclination) to make long-range plans suggests Lawfulness. So what is he? CE, LE or NE?

*The Malfoys* are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?

And then there's ...

*Severus Snape* is a weird one. His behavior is all over the map -- snide and bullying, insolent to authority that won't physically retaliate, capable and even eager for love -- but ultimately, while he does what he does out of love and duty, he doesn't really seem interested in the larger good, nor does he seem particularly eager to truly renounce the worldview of Voldemort and those like him. I'd peg him as floating between Neutral and Neutral Evil, myself.


----------



## smootrk (Jul 23, 2007)

As you note a few times in your post, it is difficult to give an alignment to most of the characters.  I don't think you can really drop an alignment on them, much like anyone in the real world as well.  Circumstances, loyalties, changes of heart, and other factors keep the characters shifting about... this and the lack of full knowledge of secrets of the plots keeps one from pinning alignments.  JKR skillfully shifts suspicion of the characters intentions around... see Sirius Black, Severus, etc.


----------



## Obrysii (Jul 23, 2007)

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Snape, I'd peg him at either chaotic neutral (with good tendencies) ... he's just a major antihero.

After all, in the first book, he worked hard to SAVE Harry from Quirrel (sp?)...and at least in the third book, he jumped in to protect him again there, as well. That's a good action, and I don't think it was completely caused by selfish motive.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> As you note a few times in your post, it is difficult to give an alignment to most of the characters.  I don't think you can really drop an alignment on them, much like anyone in the real world as well.



That suggests that well roleplayed characters can't have an alignment as well. 

So let's skip past the inevitable "this is why alignment is teh suk" and pretend someone's got a wand to our heads and assign them alignments.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Snape, I'd peg him at either chaotic neutral (with good tendencies) ... he's just a major antihero.
> 
> After all, in the first book, he worked hard to SAVE Harry from Quirrel (sp?)...and at least in the third book, he jumped in to protect him again there, as well. That's a good action, and I don't think it was completely caused by selfish motive.



According to HP7 -- including Snape's own comments -- they're 100 percent selfish, but not for the reason you might think, until you get to that book/movie.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2007)

Only watched the movies.

That being said, I don't get the difficulty of putting alignments to these characters (and most others).

Harry Potter -> Neutral Good (He has a rebellious streak, but longs to belong somewhere, striking a balance between Chaotic and Lawful)

Hermione Granger -> Lawful Good (She's well-mannered and disciplined. That she enjoys a little mischief means she's no Paladin material, but she's still Lawful)

Ron Weasley -> Neutral Good (Like Harry, he strikes a balance between Law and Chaos, and is not a full-fledged Chaotic... Fred and George are)

Albus Dumbledore -> Lawful Good (He does whatever he can to help Harry from within the system, he's disciplined, and he respects authority, even if he's nto subservient)

Voldemort -> Chaotic Evil (Nihilistic and murderous, he's a shark in the water who smells blood *all the time*. Plus, he tried to kill a baby)

Draco Malfoy & Mom -> Neutral Evil (Looking out for themselves is the epitome of Neutral Evil)

Severus Snape -> Neutral (He's an outsider, he's disciplined, he's loyal, he's mean... which pegs him as Neutral, like most common people)


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *The Malfoys* are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?




I would agree with Klaus, and would add that Lucius Malfoy is Lawful Evil.  He seeks to control others by changing the system - not by destroying it.

Those who see themselves as nobility / aristocrats are inevitably Lawful as they identify with hierarchy - they simply wish to be at the top of it.

Valdemort is more NE with CE tendencies I think. He seeks to impose a new order  -  not DISorder

Bellatrix Lastrange is, on the other hand, classic CE - for the very good reason that she is _quite_ insane.


----------



## nobodez (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *The Malfoys* are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?
> 
> And then there's ...
> 
> *Severus Snape* is a weird one. His behavior is all over the map -- snide and bullying, insolent to authority that won't physically retaliate, capable and even eager for love -- but ultimately, while he does what he does out of love and duty, he doesn't really seem interested in the larger good, nor does he seem particularly eager to truly renounce the worldview of Voldemort and those like him. I'd peg him as floating between Neutral and Neutral Evil, myself.




For the Malfoys, I'd sat that they were NE with LE tendencies, and they are looking out for themselves (that's the definition of Evil IMHO).

As for Snape, he's hard under the Alignment Sytem, but if you put him in the Allegiences system, he's much easier.
1 - Lily Evans Potter
2 - Self
3 - Power

Those last two might be switched, but as seen in B7C34, Snape is all about Lily. Everything he does for Harry is actually for Lily, and if he had been a Glryphindor rather than a Slytherin, Lily would probably have married Severus and not James.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 23, 2007)

> *Hermione Granger* sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead?



I don't think so. Harry is charismatic and she may have Int 18, but her Wis is much lower.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

nobodez said:
			
		

> but as seen in B7C34



Ack! A Harry Potter scholar! Get him!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 23, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> JKR skillfully shifts suspicion of the characters intentions around...




Skillfully?

Wantonly? Capriciously? 



Randomly?


----------



## Felix (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *Harry Potter* is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?



I'd put him as NG; he'll do what he needs to do despite the rules, but not _because_ it's against the rules. Fred and George seem to be the exemplars of Chaos, and Harry ain't them.



> *Hermione Granger* sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead?



Bookish isn't necessarily Lawful, but she does seem more enamored of precedent, and more aware of what they should or shouldn't do according to the rules. I'd say LG is a good peg for her.



> *Ron Weasely* has Weasely blood in him, which seems to give him both red hair and a Chaotic Good attitude



I think Ron is as Chaotic as Hermione is Lawful; he's just over the border. He seems much more excited about the prospect of breaking rules, though he does have a fear of getting caught, and that seems to keep him in line somewhat.



> unless you're Percy, in which case you're the white sheep of the family and are Lawful Git instead.



You, sir, have just won.



> As we see in HP7, *Albus Dumbledore* doesn't have a spotless record, but he seems to have spent his long life trying to make up for being a brat for 18 months or so as a young man. He's secretive and cryptic, but that doesn't necessarily change his alignment. I'd say he's a safe Neutral Good.



I'd agree.



> Then there's the villains:
> 
> *Voldemort* is Evil, no question, and is entirely focussed on himself, which would suggest Chaotic, but folks often like to argue that the ability (and inclination) to make long-range plans suggests Lawfulness. So what is he? CE, LE or NE?



I'd put him at NE. Being self-centered is not a requirement of Chaos: Fred and George aren't Chaotic because they only think of themselves: they're chaotic because they derive pleasure from breaking and destabilizing the rules they feel oppress their (and others') spirits.

Similarly, I don't think Voldemort seeks to destabilize law and order to cause pain; he wants to _use_ the establishment and its powers to keep people in line. This suggests a Lawful possibility, but as much as Harry only breaks rules when he feels he needs to, it seems to me that Voldemort uses the Law to further his own ends when it's convenient; he doesn't establish rules, merely takes advantage of what's there. So I'd put him at NE, squarely opposite Harry and Dumbledore at NG.



> *The Malfoys* are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?



Lawful Evil. They look towards pedigree and ranking and wish for the Dark Lord to establish a heirarchy which they may use to keep other people down. Narcissa's betrayal of Voldemort need not change her alignment, it merely helps show that Evil and love need not be mutually exclusive. Betrayal is also not unknown to Lawful Evil types; it's not as if the baatezu don't ceaselessly plot and connive betrayal against each other. And if the essence of Lawful Evil can betray one another, then is loyalty a requirement for LE humans?



> And then there's ...



...drum roll... 
...The best character in the series...



> *Severus Snape* is a weird one. His behavior is all over the map -- snide and bullying, insolent to authority that won't physically retaliate, capable and even eager for love -- but ultimately, while he does what he does out of love and duty, he doesn't really seem interested in the larger good, nor does he seem particularly eager to truly renounce the worldview of Voldemort and those like him. I'd peg him as floating between Neutral and Neutral Evil, myself.



I'd put him squarely at Neutral Evil. I do this not because all the evidence points to it; clearly his actions can move him around the alignment spectrum, and there's plenty of reason to have him at Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, and some may even suggest Good.

However, I believe that Snape is most interesting as a Neutral Evil character. He loves Lily, but hates James Potter; he both hates and loves Harry. He works for Dumbledore, but he does so not because he believes in the Good he is doing, though he is aware that he works against Evil; he works for Dumbledore and the side of Good to the end of revenging himself against Voldemort. He is able to easily assume the stance of an Evil old professor because he still is exactly that. His love for Lily warps him into Evil's undoing: that Evil will fight and betray Evil.

Snape becomes interesting not because he long ago turned from Evil to Good, but because he remained Evil.

---

Now after having written that, I believe Snape does redeem himself in the end. I do not think that redemption was his end, but rather simply working against he who killed his love was all. So perhaps it is simply a question of when he redeemed himself; perhaps as he died.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 23, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Read HP7, loved it, and am participating in the review thread elsewhere on this site.
> 
> But here on General RPG Discussion, I want to know: What alignment are these guys?
> 
> ...



Okay, I can't read all of your post because I am only on page 450 (damn the wife and kid for not letting me read!!!) and don't want to take a chance that you will ruin anything.  Also why I can't read the other posts.

Harry is definitely chaotic good.  He knows that something needs to be done and finds the best way to do it ASAP, even if he needs to be reckless in the way he goes about it, ie. stealing, knocking people out, stealing, sneaking about, stealing, etc.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *Hermione Granger* sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead??



Hermione is the Lawful Good Paladin of the group.  She won't come up with things that could get he caught, dead or worse, expelled, but if pushed into a corner, she wants to be with her friends to help protect then.  Think of trying to get a paladin to come along on a mission to rob a tomb, that is what it is like.  Some might say she is a bit more neutral in the later books, but I still maintain her heart is Lawful good, she is just forced to do things to survive, specially in H7 so far. 



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *Ron Weasely* has Weasely blood in him, which seems to give him both red hair and a Chaotic Good attitude, unless you're Percy, in which case you're the white sheep of the family and are Lawful Git instead.



Ron is Neutral Good.  His twin brothers are totally chaotic, but Ron is neutral.  He likes adventure, but he could do without it.  He is the most squeemish of the boys and while he will, mostly, follow Harry to the ends of the earth, if he had never meet Harry on the train year one, he would have been a loner and could have been content with no adventure at all.





			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *Voldemort* is Evil, no question, and is entirely focussed on himself, which would suggest Chaotic, but folks often like to argue that the ability (and inclination) to make long-range plans suggests Lawfulness. So what is he? CE, LE or NE?



Voldermort is Chaotic Evil.  He cares nothing for anyone but himself and his goals.  He kills without a thought of remorse.  He doesn't even care for the lives or wellfare of his fellow death eaters.  Just because he has long term plans doesn't make him lawful.  He was forced to make long term plans because his short term plans went to hell when his soul was torn when he tried to kill Harry Potter as an infant.

Well, I dare not write more until I read the rest of the book.


----------



## Gumby (Jul 23, 2007)

Given the Ministy of Magic's racial policies (Hello National Socialist Wizard Workers Party!) after Voldemort seizes control of it, I've gotta peg him as LE.  It's also hard for me to envision a CE wizard going to all the trouble to make those horcruxes.

Snape is LN, I'd say.  Sure his obsession with Lily Potter made him rebel against Voldie in the first place, but I've gotta think that his hanging around with Dumbledore for all that time rubbed off on him.  And since it was proven that even after Dumbledore's death he was still not on the Death-Eaters' side (attempting to wound a DE but missing and hitting George's ear instead), his alliance was Dumbledore wasn't completely out of convenience.  Still a real jerk, but...

I'd put Harry as CG, if only for the fact that the books are written with a very anti-authoritarian slant to them, and the bad guys tend to end up as LE - Voldemort, Fudge, Umbridge (especially Umbridge).

Oh and when it comes to romantic matters, Harry is Oblivious Good, but that's for another thread.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Was Cornelius Fudge evil? I'd say that he, and most of the Ministry of Magic, are squarely in the Lawful Neutral camp, like most bureaucrats.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

I think this demonstrates the weakness of the alignment system more than anything else.

I won't even try to venture on "aligning" the characters, as it eventually comes down to a completely subjective ball-park estimate at the end.


----------



## Felix (Jul 23, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I think this demonstrates the weakness of the alignment system more than anything else.



Gee. And only 12 posts after:



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So let's skip past the inevitable "this is why alignment is teh suk" and pretend someone's got a wand to our heads and assign them alignments.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2007)

What, you think I read more than the first post before responding?


----------



## HellHound (Jul 23, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Those who see themselves as nobility / aristocrats are inevitably Lawful as they identify with hierarchy - they simply wish to be at the top of it.




No, I would have to argue that point. Just because you identify with the system doesn't mean you will abide by it. You can be a noble aristocrat and still break all the rules of the aristocracy, you will just try hard not to be caught in the act.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jul 23, 2007)

*Harry Potter:* Neutral Good.  Always more interested in doing the right thing than anything else.  He certainly flaunted the rules when he felt like it, but he was always kind of aware he was breaking the rules, he just justified it as having a more important goal.  Easy to debate this as Chaotic Good behaviour though.

*Ron Weasely:* Chaotic Good.  Similar to Harry, but listen to his words, he's often quite flippant to the _ideas_ behind the rules.  (eg: in OotP after he confiscates something from a younger student he says, "Cool.  I've always wanted one of these.")  While it's true he was afraid of getting caught (and what his Mum would do to him), I see his wisecracks as suggesting a more free spirit than Harry.  Also more likely to let his passions get the better of him on smaller things (a Chaotic trait).

*Hermione Granger:* Lawful Good.  Likes order, structure, organization.  Makes plans, thinks things through, and generally doesn't like surprises.  Totally lawful behaviour.  And the fact she cares about the weak and is willing to do something about it (no matter what anybody else thinks!) makes her good.  Her willingness to break rules when needed doesn't stop her from being lawful, because once away from the immediate situation, she returns to being a planner, thinker, and organizer.

She actually has a quite high wisdom score (she's the common sense of the trio), but could not --for the life of her-- succeed on an opposed Diplomacy check against Harry.

*Fred and George:* Chaotic Good.  Heavy on the Chaotic with a light sprinking of Good.  Some of their pranks and devices were down-right dangerous, but they generally experimented on themselves first and didn't desire to cause *too* much harm... at least to people who's names weren't Flitch or Umbridge.

*Precy Weasely:* Lawful Good, pretty close to Lawful Neutral.  Heavy on the Lawful, with a small side order of Good.  He did care, but ambition did colour his vision.  He thought he was doing the right thing, and with Fred and George in the family it's no wonder he bolted.

*Fudge, Minister for Magic:* Lawful Neutral.  Concerned with the status quo and protecting his own turf.  He was afraid of Dumbeldore because he knew Dumbeldore could probably force him from office and fear drove his actions, not hate or evil.

*Lord Voldemort:* Lawful Evil.  Had long-term, subtle plans-within-plans.  Did not want anarchy, but wanted the proper order of things with himself at the top.  

*The Malfoys:* Neutral Evil.  Generally more selfish than anything else, which is what I see Neutral Evil as being an extreme example of.  It does seem that nearly every member of the family had a low Wis score.

*Severus Snape:* Neutral Evil.  Like the Malfoys he was selfish to an extreme.  He was also _passionate_ about things (loving Lily, hating James, loathing Harry), but he tried to keep things bottled up inside him.  I could easily see him as being Chaotic Evil (since his passions drove his base character), but he exercised too much control to be truly chaotic.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 23, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour[b said:
			
		

> Hermione Granger:[/b] Lawful Good.  Likes order, structure, organization.  Makes plans, thinks things through, and generally doesn't like surprises.  Totally lawful behaviour.  And the fact she cares about the weak and is willing to do something about it (no matter what anybody else thinks!) makes her good.  Her willingness to break rules when needed doesn't stop her from being lawful, because once away from the immediate situation, she returns to being a planner, thinker, and organizer.
> 
> She actually has a quite high wisdom score (she's the common sense of the trio), but could not --for the life of her-- succeed on an opposed Diplomacy check against Harry.




Hmmm ...

KNOW-IT-ALL [GENERAL]

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Knowledge checks, but suffer a -2 penalty on all Charisma-based skill checks.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 23, 2007)

Lord Voldemort is classic CE. His "new order" is "me, me, me and ME!" The only law in the new order it to please Lord Voldemort and you are punished for displeasing Lord Voldemort. Any talk of a new order was simply talk. 

Malfoys were also evil, probably L or N. Still, unlike You-Know-Who, they understodd love even if it was just for their own family and that is what saved Potter and helped cause the downfall of You-Know-Who. Actually, I think it saved him twice. Not only did Malfoy's mother feign harry's death to reach and aid her son, but earlier, Draco seemed unable to pick out Harry, Ron, and Herminone standing right in front of him. Harry was sort of messed up but Herminone was still recognizable to the point that people who had never seen here recognised her from photos. Even his answers were uncharacterisitically wishy washy. If he really didn't know he probably would have yelled at Fafnir and his bunch. At that moment, I think Draco was running the situation through his head. Weiging the option of turning in Potter versus not as to which would be the best for his family in the light of a chaotic LV who would erase all past accomplishments and service and kill a faithful follower for the slightest error.

Similarly, Snape loved Lily and did all his actions for her including helping Harry. Even if he didn't like Harry (and I don't think he did), he still did it out of selfless love for another, even if she was long dead. Once again, he understood love which Voldemort could not. In AD&D terms, I think that love for another is pretty much good, and acts done due to it would be good acts.

Still, an important thing to remember is that evil people can commit good acts and good people can commit evil acts. Harry attempted to cast an unforgivable curse or two. Evil characters still showed love for others, even when not returned. Still, in the newer, kinder D&D, that probably makes them merely evil, while Voldemort would be Vile as he was incapable of even understanding why somebody would commit one of those redeaming acts, and thus could not imagine that Snape would betray him for the love of a dead girl or that the Malfoys might turn on him to save their son.


----------



## morbiczer (Jul 23, 2007)

Severus snape was clearly Evil, I'd say Neutral Evil fits the best.

The fact that he was on the right (= good) side, doesn't change that. 

Don't forget that he originally joined Voldemort, and only switched sides when You-Know-Who went after Lily Potter. Had Voldemort chosen Neville and not Harry as his target, maybe Snape would have ended up as the chief Death Eater.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 23, 2007)

I'd be the first to admit that I didn't bother with the whole Harry Potter phenomenon. I have read a couple of the books when I was bored and my cousins left theirs lying around, but I can as easily do without.

From what I see, I'd put Hermione as LG, with a strong helping of naivety. She displayed strong idealism for the greater good, but little knowledge of how the world really works. Her efforts of doing good were thus hampered by her inability to see the practical, and her equal inability to admit that flaw (which is easily perceived as arrogance).

Harry doesn't care for the law or for freedom. He just does what is right regardless. If the law says he's right, bonus! If it doesn't, too bad. However, I would say that his "Good" component is not as strong as most. He is, after all, at the end of the day, fighting for his own survival. He doesn't truly go out of his way to help people, more of a "if you encounter me, I'd be polite and not actively try to harm you" type of alignment, which is more Neutral than Good. He does sometimes display altruism, particularly where is friends is involved, but most of the time, I find that he fights Evil because Evil is after him or just to fight Evil, not for the greater good or for ideals. I'd peg him borderline TN/NG.

Ron is NG. He helps people and he doesn't actively cause chaos and confusion just because. He tries to stay Lawful because of his mom, and to please Hermione, but he has a wild streak in him as well, when he lets loose. Thus, he is the wishy-washy definition of Neutral.

Ole Voldy is CE through and through. He is all about himself, and quite insane to boot. He is practically classic CE, to be honest, killing people that displease him, doing what he likes without regard for Good or Evil, etc. Cold, selfish, power hungry and willing to do anything to further his ends, regardless of traditions and law.

Pappy Malfoy likes to work within the system to get what he wants. He is manipulative and nasty. LE, I'd say.

Baby Malfoy seems NE. He is willing to break the rules to get what he wants or torments those he doesn't like, but he is reined in by his father.

Snape is CN. He is all over the place, and one of the first definitions of CN was "insane". He is not insane in the classic sense, but he is close to that, even though he is sane. It is his conflicting passions that drive him, and a Chaotic character is all about passions. He is Neutral because he doesn't care for Good or Evil. He just does what his passions dictate. He is not carefree that is the traditional CN, but darker, troubled, and brooding.




Don't know about the rest.


----------



## Felix (Jul 24, 2007)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> In AD&D terms, I think that love for another is pretty much good, and acts done due to it would be good acts.



That's pretty shaky ground, saying that acts done because of love get rubber-stamped as Good. After all, what Xeno Lovegood did to alert the Death Eaters was done for love of his daughter, but I'd have a hard time calling it Good.



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> He is practically classic CE, to be honest, killing people that displease him, doing what he likes without regard for Good or Evil, etc.



"He's as clumsy as he is stupid."
...
"Ah, Lord Vader, the fleet has moved out of lightspeed and we're preparing to---aaagh!"
"You have failed me for the last time Admiral."

"Apology accepted, Captain Needa."

"If this is a Conuslar's ship then where is the Ambassador?"

"He's no good to me dead."
"He will not be _permanently_ damaged."
...
"What if he doesn't survive? He's worth a lot to me."
"The empire will compensate you, if he dies."

"You do not know the power of the Dark Side. I _must_ obey my master."

"We can end this destructive conflict and bring _order_ to the galaxy!"​
Killing people that displease you is not monopolized by Chaotic Evil. 



> Snape is CN. He is all over the place, and one of the first definitions of CN was "insane".



While there could be arguments for Snape being CN, I absolutely reject the notion that he was insane or even close to it. What behavior would make you think so? He is complicated and is an ex-Evil agent now working for Good covertly in Evil's ranks; he both loves Harry because he is Lily's son and hates him because he is James' as well; he has conflicted emotions. He is "insane" because of this? Chalk another one up to that absurd CN definition from 2e.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 24, 2007)

*The Thayan Transcript*

Okay, here's my take on the OP cast:

*Harry Potter* is Neutral Good.
*Hermione Granger* is Lawful Good.
*Ron Weasley* is Neutral Good.
*Albus Dumbledore* is Lawful Good.
*Voldemort* is Lawful Evil.
*The Malfoys* are Lawful Evil.
*Severus Snape* is Neutral Evil.







-Samir Asad / Thayan Menace​


----------



## Xath (Jul 24, 2007)

Voldemort is totally Neutral Evil (Vile, of course).  Everything he does is for himself, to make sure he ends up on top.  Dumbledore states again and again that Voldemort only cares for himself and has no true friends.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 24, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> That's pretty shaky ground, saying that acts done because of love get rubber-stamped as Good. After all, what Xeno Lovegood did to alert the Death Eaters was done for love of his daughter, but I'd have a hard time calling it Good.
> 
> 
> "He's as clumsy as he is stupid."
> ...



Vader is Anakin, and Anakin was Chaotic as all heck. And a whinger to boot. He is only kept in line by Palpatine's Dark Side mastery. Hence the "You do not know the power of the Dark Side. I _must_ obey my master." quote.

As for Snape: The behaviour that makes him react all over the place, one second he is good, and the next bad wrt Harry. That is pretty much MPD behaviour.

Snape is not insane. I said his behaviour has elements in it that is similar to those of insane people.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 24, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> That's pretty shaky ground, saying that acts done because of love get rubber-stamped as Good. After all, what Xeno Lovegood did to alert the Death Eaters was done for love of his daughter, but I'd have a hard time calling it Good.




I'll give you that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 24, 2007)

I'm with Felix in Post 12. That's pretty much my view of 'em on D&D's spectrum.

It's interesting to see that the houses line up to some alignments, too:

*Gryffindor* values courage, chivalry and boldness. [Suggests Good: chivalrous respect and love for your fellows, and the courage and boldness to back up that idealism]. It's FIRE.

*Hufflepuff* values hard work, loyalty, patience, friendship and fair play rather than a particular aptitude in its members. [Suggests Lawful: it's the ties that bind more than the dreams you have, and the process you take helps you get there]. It's EARTH.

*Ravenclaw* values intelligence, knowledge and wit. [Suggests Chaos: the individual's power, rather than the society's. It's about YOUR mind and YOUR knowledge and YOUR ability to think different from everyone else] It's AIR.

*Slytherin* values ambition, cunning, resourcefulness and pure blood heritage. [Suggests Evil: your power over others, and your ability and drive to get it]. It's WATER.

IMO, it's interesting to see the Sorting Hat's rules applied to Alignment. It's more about your choices than your abilities, for instance. And that it's not exclusive. There's not JUST evil people in Slytherin, though probably a good chunk of them are.


----------



## Felix (Jul 24, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Vader is Anakin, and Anakin was Chaotic as all heck.



There was a reason all those quotes were from the first Star Wars movies. Lord Darth Vader was Lawful, and no amount of hack George "Morality Revising Greedo-Shoots-First" Lucas should change that.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 24, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> There was a reason all those quotes were from the first Star Wars movies. Lord Darth Vader was Lawful, and no amount of hack George "Morality Revising Greedo-Shoots-First" Lucas should change that.



Even before the second trilogy came out, Vader was portrayed as having violated his Jedi creed, and that it was his impatience and impetuousness that got him nailed by Palpy. He was basically a Chaotic person in a Lawful tradition and that was why he fell (it was less a Good vs Evil thing, more of a Law vs Chaos thing).


----------



## Moggthegob (Jul 24, 2007)

I would peg Harry at NG as many have said. I put severus to LN he is definitely all about propriety and patience(he stayed at a job he didnt want for years out of sheer principle) He helps harry even when he disagrees with him and he shows tough love becasuse its the best thing for harry. His overriding love for Lily potter and his oath to protect harry are the overriding laws in his life. He is against voldemort in the end because i fee l he eventually realizes his love for a  mudblood showed him inevitably the redemption in them.If he had different friends he would have wound up with lily evans( after all the all thought James was obnoxious). He is the secret character that he story is REALLY all about, much liek great gatsby.


----------



## morbiczer (Jul 24, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> [Harry] is, after all, at the end of the day, fighting for his own survival. He doesn't truly go out of his way to help people...




Have you read Book 7?


----------



## Felix (Jul 24, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Vader was portrayed as having violated his Jedi creed, and that it was his impatience and impetuousness that got him nailed by Palpy.



And betrayal is always and everywhere a Chaotic trait? So what have all those Baatezu been doing all this time schemeing and betraying each other for?



> He was basically a Chaotic person in a Lawful tradition and that was why he fell (it was less a Good vs Evil thing, more of a Law vs Chaos thing).



Exactly what evidence from the first three movies are you thinking about here?

Admiting the prequils, you allow that Ani was turned from Good to Evil, but can't accept a shift from Chaotic to Lawful? Uh, why?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 24, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Severus snape was clearly Evil, I'd say Neutral Evil fits the best.
> 
> The fact that he was on the right (= good) side, doesn't change that.
> 
> Don't forget that he originally joined Voldemort, and only switched sides when You-Know-Who went after Lily Potter. Had Voldemort chosen Neville and not Harry as his target, maybe Snape would have ended up as the chief Death Eater.



I don't believe that Snape was ever evil.  Even when he was a death eater it was more of a fitting in thing at Howgwarts because his house prefect was Lucious Malfoy, then it was his free will.  The only thing he ever loved was lilly.  He is more neutral than anything.  He might actually be the only true neutral character in the books


----------



## Mystaros (Jul 24, 2007)

IMO:

*Harry Potter*: Neutral Good. Likes things orderly, but not strict; willing to bend or even break the rules when necessary, but not without cause. Despises evil and all it stands for.

*Ron Weasely*: Starts out Chaotic Good like Fred and George, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Hermione's influence.

*Hermione Granger*: Starts out Lawful Good, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Harry and Ron's influences, plus first-hand experience that order isn't always better.

*Lord Voldemort*: Chaotic Evil and Vile. As mentioned elsewhere, everything he does and "believe in" is simply a front for his own desires. Chaotic Evil does not mean Chaotic Stupid (though he's got plenty of that, too). Promises are never made to be kept, lies slide from his mouth like a forked tongue from a snake, and even his least whim is usually indulged, save when he has more important matters to deal with (like his desire to kill the child in costume on Halloween... the only reason he did not do it is that it would have given him away to the Potters, and it was merely a whim!)

*Malfoys*: Lucius and Narcissa were Lawful Evil, with Neutral Evil leanings, while Draco was Neutral Evil. Note that while all Voldemort's followers were Evil, few were Vile. I'd say definitely Avery, Dolohov, Mulciber, Nott, and Rosier (the earliest Death Eaters), plus (probably) Fenrir, Bellatrix, Barty Crouch Jr., and the Carrows were Evil and Vile, while the other Death Eaters were merely Evil...

*Severus Snape*: I think in his childhood Snape was merely Neutral. Then, through influences in Slytherin and with bad experiences with James Potter and the Marauders he turned Neutral Evil. After the slaying of Lily Potter he saw the error of his ways, and was Neutral once more, with leanings toward Good. If he was pure Neutral he'd have never had a problem performing some minor Evil jobs, but in almost every case where we think he's done something Evil (like zapped George during the chase from the Dursely's), it was in fact a Good act, or a Good act gone wrong. If he'd been caught purposefully stopping another Death Eater, as he had done, he would have been killed out of hand. So I think by the end he was Neutral with Good tendencies.

Oh, and...

*Dumbledore*: Neutral Good with neutral tendencies. Bends rules happily, breaks rules when necessary, prefers order over chaos but values individuality over regimentation. Definitely good, as otherwise he could not have Fawkes, but is willing to recognize that at times less-than-perfectly-good actions must be taken.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That suggests that well roleplayed characters can't have an alignment as well.




Well, in fairness, alignment in D&D is meant to act as a guideline, not a straightjacket. This being the case, its real value isn't in categorizing behavior but in serving a requisite for mechanical effects.


----------



## Dr. Prunesquallor (Jul 24, 2007)

Put me in the "Snape is Neutral Evil" camp. Possibly Lawful Evil if his Death Eater association actually had anything to do with the Wizard/Muggle divide. If only more evil PCs rolled this way. Also gets my vote for best character in the series.

Honestly, I've got some questions about Dumbledore being good. Not so much because of his childhood waywardness as because of his treatment of Snape and Harry as, respectively, knowing and unknowing, pawns and the fact that he continued to seek to gather the hallows until it effectively killed him. (And potentialy killed James & Lily, would they have gotten away with the cloak?) In the final big reveal Dumbledore wins, but does the end justify the means? Especially since that last chapter seemed so slap-dash. I kind of feel like the final victory was the result of a bit of handwavium. 

These are just my impressions after burning through the book before handing it off to the significant other. I want to take another look at it and see if it hangs together better on a second reading. All in all, I did enjoy it immensely.


----------



## Mystaros (Jul 24, 2007)

*Evil with Law vs. Chaos and the Ministries*

Here's an example of how Evil works within the ministries and in regards to muggles, vis a vis Voldemort and the Death Eaters:

*Lawful Evil*: A Lawful Evil Death Eater, while Voldemort is not active, will advocate anti-Muggle legislation. If it does not win, he will try again. Will not use spells to modify the outcome, unless such use is legal. Might use spells to spy on opponents to get leverage, or to resort to a little blackmail; after all, politics _is_ politics. While Lord Voldemort is active but generally in hiding, will use Imperius and other such spells to control ministry members. Will torment and abuse muggles given half a chance, but will not kill them out of hand, save when Voldemort is fully in power (as after the coup in _Deathly Hallows_). *Example*: Lucius Malfoy.

*Neutral Evil*: No compunctions about using Imperius and other such spells to control members of the Wizengamot and the Ministry of Magic. Uses power and status to enforce will and get what they want when they cannot do so on their own. Enjoys abusing power in both whenever possible, and will fulfill slightest evil whims when Voldemort is secretly in power or openly in power. Will kill muggles if given half a chance but won't get caught, and will do so happily and openly once Voldemort is in power. *Example*: Dolores Umbridge.

*Chaotic Evil*: Has no regard for any Wizarding world governmental institutions; would love to tear them down, but never could from inside, as rarely would have the patience to do so. If forced to deal with the ministry, usually ends up throwing curses, unless under orders from Voldemort (who would like to himself, but has more experience at subtlety; once firmly in power, he will be the only power). Will kill muggles out of hand, laws be damned. Likes doing so painfully and slowly when given the chance. *Example*: Fenrir Greyback.


----------



## LordVyreth (Jul 24, 2007)

Mystaros said:
			
		

> *Neutral Evil*: No compunctions about using Imperius and other such spells to control members of the Wizengamot and the Ministry of Magic. Uses power and status to enforce will and get what they want when they cannot do so on their own. Enjoys abusing power in both whenever possible, and will fulfill slightest evil whims when Voldemort is secretly in power or openly in power. Will kill muggles if given half a chance but won't get caught, and will do so happily and openly once Voldemort is in power. *Example*: Dolores Umbridge.




Huh, I was just about to suggest that Umbridge was a perfect example of Lawful Evil.  I agree that she overlooked laws at times (like attempting to use an Unforgivable Curse on Harry,) but I don't think individual cases necessarily bump her down to neutral.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 24, 2007)

Hermione Grainger:  Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies
  Harry Potter:  Exalted Neutral Good
  Ronald Weasley:  Neutral Good

  -

  Neville Longbottom:  Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies
  Luna Lovegood:  Chaotic Good
  Ginny Weasley:  Neutral Good

  -

  Katie Bell:  Lawful Neutral
  Lavender Brown:  Neutral Good
  Cho Chang:  Neutral
  Seamus Finnegan:  (unknown)
  Dean Thomas:  Neutral Good

  -

  Crabbe:  Chaotic Evil
  Goyle:  Neutral Evil
  Draco Malfoy:  Neutral Evil, then Neutral
  Pansy Parkinson:  Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies

  -

  Mr Weasley:  Lawful Good
  Mrs. Weasley:  Lawful Good
  Charlie Weasley:  Neutral Good
  Bill Weasley:  Lawful Good
  Percy Weasely:  Neutral
  George Weasely:  Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies
  Fred Weasely:  Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies

  -

  House Griffyndor:  All alignments, leaning towards Good
  House Hufflepuff:  All alignments, leaning towards Lawful
  House Ravenclaw:  All alignments, leaning towards Chaotic
  House Slytherin:  All alignments, leaning towards Evil

  -

  Binz:  Neutral
  Albus Dumbledore:  Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good, then Neutral Good, then Exalted Neutral Good
  Ferienze (sp?) :  Chaotic Good
  Flitwick:  Lawful Good
  Hagrid:  Chaotic Good
  Madam Hooch:  Chaotic Neutral
  Minerva McGonagall:  Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies
  Severus Snape:  Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Evil, then Chaotic Good, then Neutral Good
  Slughorn:  Lawful Neutral
  Professor Sprout:  Neutral with Good tendencies

  -

  The Bloody Baron:  (unknown)
  The Grey Lady of Ravenclaw:  Neutral

  Peeves the Poltergeist:  Chaotic Neutral

  -

  Aragog:  Neutral
  Grawp:  Chaotic Neutral

  -

  Sirius Black:  Neutral, then Neutral Good
  Remus Lupin:  Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good
  Petter Pettigrew/Wormtail:  Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Evil
  James Potter:  Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies, then Chaotic Good
  Lily Potter:  Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good

  -

  Fleur Delacour:  Neutral with Good tendencies, then Chaotic Good
  Viktor Krum:  Lawful Neutral
  Neville Longbottom's grandmother:  (unknown)
  Xeno Lovegood, Luna's father:  Chaotic Good
  Tonks:  Lawful Good

  -

  Cornelius Fudge:  Neutral with Chaotic tendencies

  Mad-Eyed Moody:  Neutral
  Kingsley Shaklebolt:  Lawful Good
  Dolores Umbridge:  Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies

  -

  Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort:  Vile Neutral Evil

  Fenrir Greyback:  Chaotic Evil with Vile tendencies
  Bellatrix Lastrange:  Vile Chaotic Evil
  Lucius Malfoy:  Lawful Evil
  Narcissa Malfoy:  Neutral with Evil tendencies

  -

  Mr. Dursley:  Neutral
  Mrs. Dursley/Aunt Petunia:  Chaotic Neutral
  Dudley Dursley:  Neutral, then (unknown)

  -

  The Centaurs:  Various Lawful and Neutral
  The Dementors:  Vile Chaotic Evil
  The Dragon of Gringotts:  Chaotic Neutral
  The Giants:  Various (unknown)
  The Goblins:  Various Chaotics
  The Hippogriffs:  Various Chaotics
  The Unicorns:  Exalted Lawful Good


----------



## Mystaros (Jul 24, 2007)

LordVyreth said:
			
		

> Huh, I was just about to suggest that Umbridge was a perfect example of Lawful Evil.  I agree that she overlooked laws at times (like attempting to use an Unforgivable Curse on Harry,) but I don't think individual cases necessarily bump her down to neutral.




Umbrage was known in _Order of the Phoenix _for exceeding or breaking the rules whenever she wanted and for the most petty reasons while she was Inquisitor and acting Headmistress. It was she who abused her power and send the Dementors to Little Whinging. Perhaps it would appear that she was Lawful Evil with Neutral Evil tendencies. 

In _Deathly Hallows_, however, her true colors show. After the coup, she is the right-hand woman of Voldemort's hand-picked Minister of Magic, and is in charge of the group that ferrets out and eliminates muggle-born wizards. Even had this all occurred legally, pre-coup, it would have called into question her loyalty to law and order; this inquisition is not lawful by any means, using no real rules or laws of order other than the personal whims and hatreds of those in charge. It is, as some have noted, lifted straight from the _Volksgerichtshof_ or "People's Court" of Nazi Germany, which was little more than a show court, bound by no law other than the Fuehrer's will.

Rowling, like Lucas before her (and others) stole from Nazi themes to show how truly, dreadfully evil Voldemort's Order was. Fascists speak much of law and order, but hate it in truth; it is raw, naked power that they desire, and they use and abuse the law to get it. They willingly break the law or change it by fiat as they wish to further their ends. The philosophy is "Power for us, obedience or death for others." That is the essence of Neutral Evil. Chaotic Evil is "Power for ME, bugger all else" while Lawful Evil is "Order is proper, and the laws should work for me, especially if they screw over those guys over there."

This, I think, is where the differences between Lucius Malfoy and Umbridge are apparent; Lucius was not let loose after the coup, as Voldemort knew he was not fully his anymore; during his absence he gained respect for law, order, and decorum, however feeble, and realized that the lawless nature of Voldemort's Order was not what he sought. He sought power, but in his mind, what power is there without law and order? Umbridge, on the other hand, luxuriates in the power she is given, which is wholly outside any sort of law.

Why did Voldemort not just kill the Malfoys, then? Well, because if things failed... if he lost control of the Ministry... he'd need a backup, and then Malfoy would be his. Plus, he liked toying with Draco and his mother, apparently.

Anyway, though he had a will to power and despised muggles and mudbloods, Malfoy was all for law and order, which is not what Voldemort stood for at all. Umbridge desires power, unrestrained, to do as she wishes; she uses the law and the Ministry and a means to power, and respects it only in as much as it is useful to her. When it is not, she happily goes around it or abuses it. Therefore, I feel she is Neutral Evil, as opposed to Lawful Evil. I think Malfoy was Neutral Evil when he was originally a Death Eater, then during the intervening years moved to Lawful Evil, as he discovered the uses and importance of law and order...


----------



## Cameron (Jul 24, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> And betrayal is always and everywhere a Chaotic trait? So what have all those Baatezu been doing all this time schemeing and betraying each other for?
> 
> 
> Exactly what evidence from the first three movies are you thinking about here?
> ...



Impatience and impetuousness are Chaotic traits, not betrayal. Betrayal without regret is Evil.

Didn't Yoda remind Kenobi about it when they were discussing Luke's training?

The last paragraph makes no sense. Please reiterate in a different manner.


----------



## Cameron (Jul 24, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Have you read Book 7?



Umm... Have you read my entire post?

No. I just read a couple of the initial ones that my cousins left lying around. I am not a HP fan of any stripe. I just read what I can when I am bored.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 24, 2007)

Could anyone cut and paste my list of characters, and add to it, so we have them all?  (It'd be nice to have them all!)

  Then we can do a comparison on how we think about each character's alignment, if everyone wants to.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 25, 2007)

*LAWFUL does not equal FOLLOWS THE LAW*



> In Deathly Hallows, however, her true colors show. After the coup, she is the right-hand woman of Voldemort's hand-picked Minister of Magic, and is in charge of the group that ferrets out and eliminates muggle-born wizards. Even had this all occurred legally, pre-coup, it would have called into question her loyalty to law and order; this inquisition is not lawful by any means, using no real rules or laws of order other than the personal whims and hatreds of those in charge. It is, as some have noted, lifted straight from the Volksgerichtshof or "People's Court" of Nazi Germany, which was little more than a show court, bound by no law other than the Fuehrer's will.




A corrupt court is still a show of order, the power of a unified front, and the rubber-stamp legitimacy of Law.

You can break laws of society left and right in pursuit of a Higher Order. Ultimately, the belief that muggles are less worthy to live than wizards is a LAWFUL belief, a belief in hierarchy and the legitimacy of those higher up to do whatever they want to those lower down. Muggles are being "put in their place." Their place, as naturally subservient to Wizards. 

It doesn't have to be Lawful, but there are other things that point to this being Lawful instead of Neutral. Using the Ministry to execute this plan is very Lawful: you're using the power of order and control to enact your will. Having a court (even one that is a sham) is Lawful. Laws don't have to be fair or equitable, they just have to be there as a process to follow. 

If those in charge communicate to those lower down on the totem pole, their whims are LAW, and so what they do is very very LAWFUL. 

It it with an order, with authority, with the goal of establishing a correct hierarchy, that this is done. 

That's got Law written all over it.

Indeed, using the power of authority, the power of government, of systems, is very Lawful. 

Chaotic would imply that you use your personal power, and rely not on these artificial constructs of society and culture.

Neutral wouldn't be unduly concerned with authority or personal power, per se. They would be more concerned with the Evil portion of their alignment, so they would probably not worry about gaining authority in the Ministry. Most of the Death Eaters fall into this category, probably: willing to pledge their allegiance to whatever will get them more of what they want and deprive others of it.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Let's start with the heroes:
> 
> *Harry Potter* is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?



Definitely Neutral Good.  He's out to do the right thing for the greater good, rules be damned.



> *Hermione Granger* sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead?



I'd say she starts out Lawful Neutral and by series end she's Lawful Good.  Just remember that Lawful Good doesn't mean upholding rules you know are wrong, evil, or spiteful.



> *Ron Weasely* has Weasely blood in him, which seems to give him both red hair and a Chaotic Good attitude, unless you're Percy, in which case you're the white sheep of the family and are Lawful Git instead.



Ron is Chaotic Good, as are Fred and George.  Percy is Lawful Neutral, while the rest of the clan seems to be hovering around Lawful Good

[QUOTEAs we see in HP7, *Albus Dumbledore* doesn't have a spotless record, but he seems to have spent his long life trying to make up for being a brat for 18 months or so as a young man. He's secretive and cryptic, but that doesn't necessarily change his alignment. I'd say he's a safe Neutral Good.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.  Like Harry, he's willing to put everything else aside for the greater good in a form of penance for his youthful arrogance (which explains why he's willing to give everyone else a second chance).



> Then there's the villains:
> 
> *Voldemort* is Evil, no question, and is entirely focussed on himself, which would suggest Chaotic, but folks often like to argue that the ability (and inclination) to make long-range plans suggests Lawfulness. So what is he? CE, LE or NE?



Neutral Evil.  He's only in it for himself, which is the epitome of NE.



> *The Malfoys* are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?



Lawful Evil for the most part.  Work within the framework for their own benefit, which Lucius and Draco certainly did.  Narcissa would be more True Neutral I think.  Bellatrix would be Chaotic Evil.



> And then there's ...
> 
> *Severus Snape* is a weird one. His behavior is all over the map -- snide and bullying, insolent to authority that won't physically retaliate, capable and even eager for love -- but ultimately, while he does what he does out of love and duty, he doesn't really seem interested in the larger good, nor does he seem particularly eager to truly renounce the worldview of Voldemort and those like him. I'd peg him as floating between Neutral and Neutral Evil, myself.



I'd go True Neutral.  His main goal seemed to be avenging Lily after her death, and he was largely willing to do whatever it took, good or bad.  Of course, how much of his attitude was acting to make Voldemort's followers think he was on their side is up for debate.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 26, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> *Harry Potter* is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?



After some thought, I change my mind on Harry Potter.  I think throughout the first 6 books Harry is Chaotic Good, but in the last book I think he made the change to Lawful Good.  I think this is evident in the change of heart towards the Malfoys.  Whether or not he trusted them, he did save Draco from the demon fire.  As much as I personal would have let those three die, and long before this book.  

He chose to save Draco's and Goyles life (and even Crab's, even if he was too late), even when they were trying to kill him and his friends.  I think that, coupled with his desire NOT to gain the power of the hallows for personal use, and his choice to disarm Voldemort instead of trying to kill him and even his willingness to give him one last chance to turn back from his evil ways has turned him into Lawful Good in the end.

I still think that Ron is neutral good, hermione is lawful good leaning toward neutral good (but not quite there) Voldemort is Chaotic evil and Snape is True Neutral (never evil, he only has one concern, his love for Lily.  In spite of his, at times what seems like, hatred towards Potter, it is really a re-living of his feelings for James Potter.  He loves Harry as much as lily, just can't express it.  He is niether good nor evil.  Neither Chaotic nor Lawful.  He just is.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 3, 2007)

Hmmm, Harry Potter - Neutral Good leaning toward True Neutral just a bit, though he re-centers his Good alignment in Hallows.

Hermione Granger - Neutral Good, and very little shilly shallying about it - likes rules, but is more than willing to break them if greater good is served.

Ron Weasely - Another Weasely? Griffendor! Errr, I mean Neutral Good leaning a touch towards Chaotic Good, likes their fun the Weaselys do.

Albus Dumbledor - Lawful Good, shaping the laws to serve good. 

Severus Snape - Once Lawful Evil, still leans that way a bit, but has taken enough hits to his Evil nature to turn away from it. Summed up best near the end of Hallows -  [sblock]"Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?" 
"Lately, only those whom I could not save."[/sblock]

The Auld Grump


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 3, 2007)

I'm surprised to see so many votes for a NE voldemort - I can barely think of any other protagonists who seem *more* CE than that guy.

It seems to me that he goes way past the mere selfishness of NE and well into the wanton cruelty of CE


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 3, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> *Harry:* Definitely Neutral Good.  He's out to do the right thing for the greater good, rules be damned.
> 
> *Hermione:* I'd say she starts out Lawful Neutral and by series end she's Lawful Good.  Just remember that Lawful Good doesn't mean upholding rules you know are wrong, evil, or spiteful.
> 
> ...



*(names above added by me for clarity)*

I have to agree with all of these assessments.

For other characters, I'll add that Dolores Umbridge looks LE to me, tending towards NE.

Fudge, and other members of his administration in the Ministry, I'd peg as LN- willing to do whatever it took to keep order and unwilling (even terrified) of accepting change even when evidence of its inevitability and fact was presented.

Rita Skeeter, I'd say is probably TN- the best example of it in the series other than Snape- though with a tendency towards CN since she appeared willing to break rules of courtesy (at the very least) to get her stories.

Hagrid is almost certainly LG, accepting of rules even when it hurts him and those he loves but willing to go along with authority figures he trusts even when they themselves break established rules.

The Dursleys are probably TN with a tendency towards NE, though Dudley certainly reveals himself as moving away from Evil in book 7.

Xeno Lovegood is a wonderful example of CN behavior, IMO. He generally rails against the Establishment at every turn, though in a generally benign way rather than destructive. When his buttons are pressed appropriately by the bad guys, he betrays people he himself was exhorting others to ally with, but his reasons for doing so are sympathetic (even if cowardly).

Crabbe and Goyle are probably NE with a tendency towards LE due to Draco's influence and their constant toadying up to him.

That's all I can think of for now.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 3, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That suggests that well roleplayed characters can't have an alignment as well.




I think thats about right. At least they cannot be afraid to change alignments or the very least break the alignments taboos.

I think the malfoys are neutral, and i would say snap is lawfull good or lawfull neutral. In that i mean he is honer bound to lilly and as far as I can tell, he remains so the entire chronicle of books. after hogworts and before the books he could have very well been evil though. We just dont know how many he killed or what he did.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 4, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Was Cornelius Fudge evil? I'd say that he, and most of the Ministry of Magic, are squarely in the Lawful Neutral camp, like most bureaucrats.




Bureaucrats and bureaucracies are lawful evil by definition. They exist solely for their own empowerment.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 4, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm surprised to see so many votes for a NE voldemort - I can barely think of any other protagonists who seem *more* CE than that guy.
> 
> It seems to me that he goes way past the mere selfishness of NE and well into the wanton cruelty of CE




Yeah. Particularly among his inner circle, there weren't rules, there weren't hierarchy, there was just keeping Voldemort happy. He used the Ministry in the seventh book, but he didn't set up an orderly system, he decided not to spend the time to tear down the existing one when it could still be useful to him. His death eaters, as a general rule, didn't even pretend to work under the rule of law.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 4, 2007)

paradox42 said:
			
		

> Hagrid is almost certainly LG, accepting of rules even when it hurts him and those he loves but willing to go along with authority figures he trusts even when they themselves break established rules.




Hagrid lawful? In the first book, he has an illegal wand, does illegal magic, keeps an illegal pet, none of this for any good reason. I'd peg Hagrid as CG; he's extremely loyal to his friends, but would ignore the rules in a heartbeat.



> The Dursleys are probably TN with a tendency towards NE, though Dudley certainly reveals himself as moving away from Evil in book 7.




I'd say NE or LE. They acted with cruelty towards their helpless nephew. TN is the average human, and the average human would never treat their nephew the way they do.



> Crabbe and Goyle are probably NE with a tendency towards LE due to Draco's influence and their constant toadying up to him.




I don't see Draco as very lawful, and especially in what little we see in Book 7, I don't think either of them behave in a lawful fashion. NE with CE leanings, IMO.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> After some thought, I change my mind on Harry Potter.  I think throughout the first 6 books Harry is Chaotic Good, but in the last book I think he made the change to Lawful Good.  I think this is evident in the change of heart towards the Malfoys.  Whether or not he trusted them, he did save Draco from the demon fire. [...]
> 
> He chose to save Draco's and Goyles life (and even Crab's, even if he was too late), even when they were trying to kill him and his friends.  I think that, coupled with his desire NOT to gain the power of the hallows for personal use, and his choice to disarm Voldemort instead of trying to kill him and even his willingness to give him one last chance to turn back from his evil ways has turned him into Lawful Good in the end.




I see all that as Good, not Lawful. A good person would attempt to save the life of his enemies; a lawful person would attempt to see that due process was done.


----------



## hamishspence (Aug 6, 2007)

*Variability*

A good rule is that the most common behaviour/acts of a character are very important to their alignment.

Snape is an odd one: a lot like Last Temptation/Holy blood and Holy Grail versions of Judas. Betrayer following the orders of the betrayee to do so.

forgotten Realms: silver marches has an acerbic, sarcastic teacher of sorcery who is Chaotic Good. sounds a bit Snape-ish. Breaking rules and playing evil as a spy is a chaotic flavour: ends (overthrow of Voldemort) justify means (deceiving EVERYONE into thinking you're Volemorts man)

I'd say Chaotic neutral. His evil acts (bullying, permitting Carrows to do horrible things, etc) are balanced by his motives (protecting students from worse things, keeping Voldemort fooled, furthering plan for his defeat)


----------



## Felix (Aug 6, 2007)

Marshall said:
			
		

> Bureaucrats and bureaucracies are lawful evil by definition.



I must have a different edition of dictionary than you. Where is this definition from?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 6, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> I must have a different edition of dictionary than you. Where is this definition from?



He just stood in line at the DMV?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2007)

For pretty most of the Order of the Phoenix, Weasleys, non-Slytherin students we actually know anything about, I don't see much call for calling any of them anything but good. You can still be a bit rough and tumble as Sirius and James were as youths and as Fred and George are. Playing jokes, even the occasional cruel one, isn't a mark of evil or serious deviation from the general course of goodness. It's a function of maturity. It may, however, be a mark of philosophy.

So, I'd be putting James Potter, Sirius Black, Fred Weasley, and George Weasley down as CG. None of them set much store by rules, but none of them, in the main, are bad people.

Percy Weasley and Severus Snape both come closest, of the main "good" characters, to not actually being good. Percy has a lot of LN tendencies, but I still think he's more good than not. He just took a while to remember it.
Snape has, I think, too much baggage to really be good. He's on the side of good overall, but he's not a good person. LN sounds fine enough for him.

Hagrid is someone I would definitely put down as CG. He cares little for rules over all and his devotion is to individuals (like Dumbledore) rather than to institutions and structures.

Hermione, despite being a rule breaker, is LG. Her rule-breaking is typically because the rule is clearly bad or the circumstances particularly serious. Her natural inclination is, and always has been, to follow the rules, to work within the system until the system becomes so broken it must be reformed from without.

Ron does not seem to have a particular devotion to either rules and structure nor personal freedom and choice. And in the absence of much information on Ginny, Bill, and Charlie and their personal philosophies, it's easy enough to see them as NG. I'd say the same for Arthur, who has some rebelliousness to him and his dubious hobbies.

Harry could fit in as CG quite well. He has little devotion to rules compared to his own personal convictions. He could, arguably, fit in as NG either depending on the strength of  his commitment to freedom and personal choices compared to desire to chart a more middle course. While either would work OK, I'm more inclined to put him in the CG pigeon-hole simply because he's following his own moral compass so often rather than relying on rules or institutional ethics.

Fudge, I'd put in the LN category. More devoted to office than doing the right thing.
Umbridge, LE. A very model of structured, organized evil.
Voldemort, CE. It's personal strength and power that matters to him. He rules by personal strength and terror. The organization has no live or ethic of its own, it's all about him.

Rita Skeeter. She's got a selfish streak, cruel and mean spirited. She'll take anyone down, slander anyone to get ahead. She's just not brutal and violent. NE.


----------



## Felix (Aug 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> He just stood in line at the DMV?



His last name is "Auidt" and he hears from the IRS every April, maybe?


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> For pretty most of the Order of the Phoenix, Weasleys, non-Slytherin students we actually know anything about, I don't see much call for calling any of them anything but good.




The average human is TN, so I hesitate to lump everyone as good. Even those who were part of Dumbledore's Army may well be TN (or especially CN--cool stuff and a chance to stick it in the man's eye.)

http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000155.html and http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000156.html provide a good argument that the Weasley twins are bullies; after reading those articles, I have a very hard time placing them as better than neutral. Yeah, they're brave Griffindors who do the heroic things their family and friends expect, but they behave in sadistic and cruel behavior to those weaker than them.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 7, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> The average human is TN, so I hesitate to lump everyone as good.




But this is a heroic series of novels about a boy wizard fighting against an utterly evil "Dark Lord".  In such stories, amongst primary characters -- even minor character cameo appearances -- truly neutral people are generally the exception.

Ollivander, in all honesty, is one of the very, very few wizards who I could see as True Neutral.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> The average human is TN, so I hesitate to lump everyone as good. Even those who were part of Dumbledore's Army may well be TN (or especially CN--cool stuff and a chance to stick it in the man's eye.)
> 
> http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000155.html and http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000156.html provide a good argument that the Weasley twins are bullies; after reading those articles, I have a very hard time placing them as better than neutral. Yeah, they're brave Griffindors who do the heroic things their family and friends expect, but they behave in sadistic and cruel behavior to those weaker than them.




The average human is true neutral? According to whom? The debate over the nature of man is a long drawn out philosophical topic. The willingness of most of the non-Slytherin students allowed to stay and defend Hogwarts and enable Harry's great confrontation with Voldemort, all at great personal risk, rather puts the assertion they are simply neutral to the lie.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The willingness of most of the non-Slytherin students allowed to stay and defend Hogwarts and enable Harry's great confrontation with Voldemort, all at great personal risk, rather puts the assertion they are simply neutral to the lie.




Biased Sample.

No, it only means that your typical non-Slytherin students educated at Hogwarts lean toward protecting the school with their lives.

That example says nothing about the general populace.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Biased Sample.
> 
> No, it only means that your typical non-Slytherin students educated at Hogwarts lean toward protecting the school with their lives.
> 
> That example says nothing about the general populace.




Nor does prosfilaes's assertion. But we're talking about the characters in Harry Potter and not the general populace anyway.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The average human is true neutral? According to whom?




It's not as clear as earlier editions, but page 13 of the PHB says "Humans tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality." That implies there should be a good number of neutral characters at Hogwarts.



> The willingness of most of the non-Slytherin students allowed to stay and defend Hogwarts and enable Harry's great confrontation with Voldemort, all at great personal risk, rather puts the assertion they are simply neutral to the lie.




IIRC, quite a few of them left. For the ones that stayed, peer pressure is always a possibility. Also, Voldemort was making life terrifying for everyone in England and had put the Carrows in charge of Hogwarts. Just because you're neutral, or even evil, doesn't mean that you enjoyed life under his reign or wouldn't support the person, the Chosen One, the prophesied one, who could stop him. When the chance to help Harry kill him came right to their doorstep, they helped. That doesn't mean they're not fundamentally neutral.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> But this is a heroic series of novels about a boy wizard fighting against an utterly evil "Dark Lord".




I would say that the very nature of utterly evil tends to hide the difference between good, neutral, and sometimes even evil. When demons erupt from the earth, most wife-beating drug-dealers are going to be fighting them just like everyone else.


----------

