Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timespike 03-25-04, 01:25 AM	What alignments would you say are posessed by the following: Detective Vic Mackey (From the Shield) The Punisher Blade Batman "Sam" (From the movie Ronin) Particularly on the punisher and vic mackey I'm at wit's end as for how to shoehorn them into the alignment grid.
burning_blood 03-25-04, 02:55 PM	Now, I've only seen one episode of "The Shield" so I'm hardly qualified to judge, but based on that one episode I'd guess that Vic Mackey's alignment is NE. I actually had a pleasant argument with friend about whether the Punisher was LN or CN. What we concluded is that it depends on how the law-chaos axis is defined; is it based on the relationship between the individual and the state, or is it based on the self-consistency of the individual's behavioural patterns? The Punisher certainly has an internal sense of justice which he acts upon consistently, but his brand of justice doesn't line up with that of the state. So if the first relationship (person vs. state) is the important one, then he's totally CN. If the second relationship is the definitive one, then he's probably LN. IMO person vs. state is most relevant, and therefore he's CN.
titlt 03-25-04, 03:34 PM	Batman is definately LG with his bring-criminals-to-justice help the needy type of thing+his strong morals.. he is the epitome of LG really
MonkeyPaladin 03-25-04, 06:43 PM	I'd say the Punisher is lawful neutral or lawful good. Some people disagree because he kills people, but the average D&D character leveling from 1 to 20 will have a similiar body count. I would lean towards neutral out of his motivations as written by Garth Ennis. "Why do you kill bad people?" "Because I hate them." "Oh, I thought maybe it was to protect good people." -dead silence. Batman is neutral good. He actively wants to protect people and punish the bad guy. He has a pretty tight code he follows, although his obsessive tendencies and paranoia tend to alienate people. If you look at his having plans sitting around to take out the rest of the JLA and his heavy handedness dealing with other Gotham heroes, it's hard to call the guy lawful good. Neutral good fits better. Vic Mackey from the Shield is a crooked bastard in general. I'd say he does believe in what he's doing and that he is serving a purpose, so lawful evil would be my call. Blade's definitely good aligned, but he tends to go off on his own and act on personal vendettas a lot rather than follow a code of honor. I'd say he's chaotic good. Never saw Ronin though.
littlesaltz 03-29-04, 07:07 PM	Batman seems like the most realistic modern paladin. With all those explosions he's dodged, he certainly has Divine Grace :).
Baron Phylos 03-29-04, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by littlesaltz Batman seems like the most realistic modern paladin. With all those explosions he's dodged, he certainly has Divine Grace :). Haven't seen the Dark Knight do much prayin' over the years. Batman is Neutral Good with heavy True neutral leanings. He fights evil without letting the ethical sides of things get in the way of his crusade. He commits alot of acts that are blattantly against the law, ranging from simple breaking and entering and driving an illegal vehicule to crazy stuff like flying an armed jet fighter, hacking into government computers, tax evasion(pretty sure the guy never paid a cent of tax on that batcave;) ) Interfering with authorities and aiding and abedding criminals(Catwoman, the new ex-assassin batgirl, etc. etc.) He can't be anywhere near lawful.
rilem 03-30-04, 02:49 PM	Batman's alignment varies with who's writing him. I'd say he varies between NG and LG, occasionally dipping towards TN. Sam is clearly neutral/unconcerned.
JohnSnow 03-30-04, 07:50 PM	Can't comment on all the characters, but I'll level my opinions on the ones I know. Batman is solidly Neutral Good. According to the PHB, "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them...Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order." It's true that Batman has elements of Lawful Good (Dedicated, relentless opposition to evil) but he also has little use for "the system," "rules," or "playing fair" (all CG traits). In addition, he's not always the best sort of "team player" (as evidenced by his frequent problems as a member of the JLA). The combination ends up as a really complex form of Neutral Good, with occasional moments over the years where his alignment has shifted. The Punisher - I'd say Castle is Lawful Neutral. Barely, he manages to avoid being Lawful Evil because he doesn't do it to advance his own situation. He also tries to avoid harming the innocent. But he's relentless, and follows his personal code to the letter (the definition of LN). He may not lie, but he keeps only the LETTER of his word. If Frank says to a criminal "I won't kill you," trust that he's figured out a way for the guy to die without him having to pull the trigger directly. Or he'll promise not to shoot someone and stab them instead. That said, his motivation is clearly vengeance & hatred, not protecting the innocent. Frank thinks of this "crusade" as a "war" and has been known to justify "collateral damage," a distinction that didn't sit well with either Daredevil or Spiderman (both LG/NG characters much more like Batman). The difference between these two characters is huge. And very interesting because they're different reactions to essentially similar events (the murder of one's family by criminals). One became a crusader to protect the innocent, the other became a Judge to PUNISH the "guilty." Interestingly, Spiderman is very much like a younger, more idealistic version of Batman (with less psychological baggage).
littlesaltz 03-31-04, 06:41 AM	Originally posted by Baron Phylos Haven't seen the Dark Knight do much prayin' over the years. Nor do paladins need to. Batman is solidly Neutral Good. According to the PHB, "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them...Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order." It's true that Batman has elements of Lawful Good (Dedicated, relentless opposition to evil) but he also has little use for "the system," "rules," or "playing fair" (all CG traits). In addition, he's not always the best sort of "team player" (as evidenced by his frequent problems as a member of the JLA). The combination ends up as a really complex form of Neutral Good, with occasional moments over the years where his alignment has shifted. So he's Neutral Good because he combines CG and LG? Sounds fine to me. I just think his personal code of honor shines through a lot of the time. I certainly couldn't see him as predominately CG.
Galahad_Knight 03-31-04, 06:00 PM	Let's not foeget one thing here, people. "Lawful" doesn't ALWAYS mean "Obeys the law of the land" It means you are bound to SOME kind of law, set of vows, code, values, etc. It also means you think things through, always try to have a plan, don't run off half-cocked, etc. Breaking the mortal law can still be lawful, if you have a higher plan in mind. Afterr all, Lawful Evil people break the law all the time. Batman clearly has a code. There are things he will and will not do. He never acts without consideration. He always has a plan, he does things with speciffic goals and procedures. The reason Robin ran off is becaus ehe was tired of having to work within Batman;s ordered little world. No, Batman is most certainly Lawful. And his wholehearted fight against evil and defense of the innocent makes him good. Batman is LG. The Punisher fights evil, yes...but that's merely happenstance. If girlscouts had killed off his family the dude would fight girlscouts. It;s not always the actions that matter, it;s often times the intent. The Punisher's intentions are not nessecarily good. He fights evil for revenge. Batman started out on revenge but he started fighting evil for its own sake a long time ago. Granted, I haven't read a lot of Punisher, but last I checked he was fighting for revenge, not for a sense of doing good for its own sake. If I'm wrong then make him LG or CG. Otherwise replace good with neutral. Vic...Vic is a harder nut to crack. Yes, he does a LOT of illegal things and does them for personal gain. BUT at the same time, he also does a LOT of good things because its the right thing to do. While he;s certainly no paladin. he does seem to have his own sense of right and wrong, his own set of rules, his own code. However, his intentions are not always pure. I would make Vic LN. He enforces his own set of laws for his own reasons, but he does what's right when he has to, and he does what isn;t right ehen he wants to. He;s LN to me.
JohnSnow 03-31-04, 08:12 PM	Originally posted by Galahad_Knight "Lawful" doesn't ALWAYS mean "Obeys the law of the land" It means you are bound to SOME kind of law, set of vows, code, values, etc. It also means you think things through, always try to have a plan, don't run off half-cocked, etc. Breaking the mortal law can still be lawful, if you have a higher plan in mind. Afterr all, Lawful Evil people break the law all the time. Batman clearly has a code. There are things he will and will not do. He never acts without consideration. He always has a plan, he does things with speciffic goals and procedures. The reason Robin ran off is because he was tired of having to work within Batman's ordered little world. The only problem with that argument is that Batman, as ordered and devoted to his personal code as he is, cares little for what others think. He "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." That little phrase is in the PHB definition of Chaotic Good. My call of Batman as Neutral (rather than Lawful) Good has to do less with "societal" distinctions and more with Batman's own code. Sure, he can be rigid and inflexible and he's an inveterate planner (although part of that comes from a genius-level intellect). He's also prone to "bending" the rules, doesn't operate well within hierarchies, and has issues both as a follower and a leader. People have to take his word when he changes his methods that he's doing the RIGHT thing. He's not always consistent. Robin was as much frustrated because Batman kept changing the rules as anything else. The last Batman/Robin conversation between Bruce and Dick (the original Robin) went something like this... Robin: "But why? Why use such radical methods? You've never condoned this sort of thing before." Batman: "Because it's the right way to approach this. I know what I'm doing." Robin: "But I don't understand. You're not being consistent! Why should I just go along with what you say?" Batman: "Because I know better. Just trust me." Robin: "I've had it up to here with your secrets and your methods and your 'trust me.' I thought we were partners!" Batman: "We are, but I make the decisions. If you don't like it, there's the door." Robin: "Fine!" *storms out...SLAM!* That's not even an unusal conversation. Batman has lots of elements of "doesn't play well with others." He's paranoid, secretive, and doesn't accept authority well. He'll go along if he agrees, but if he doesn't, off he goes to do his own thing. A Lawful Good character would accept the group decision. Or try to persuade them that he had a better idea. If he failed, he'd go along with the plan. If Batman fails to convince a group that HIS plan is the right one, he bails and does his own thing. He's neither trusting, nor always honest. He makes his own way with no regard for what others think. Those are all Chaotic traits. However, the fact that he has a code, and the fact that he lives a very structured and ordered life moderates this enough to make him Neutral Good. I suppose technically, he's Lawful Good with chaotic tendencies...Sounds like a weird alignment.
Galahad_Knight 04-01-04, 03:36 AM	Well, the problem with alignments is that you HAVE to give each alignment its own spectrum or lots of things just won't fit. Giving players a spectrum that represents each alignment also gives them more freedom to express their characters and makes it so that no two characters of the same alignment behave exactly the same. Heck, no two *paladins* should behave exactly the same all the time. I like to use Superman as Batman to illustrate the LG spectrum. On the surface they seem like polar opposites, but really they're nopt that different. Their goals and ends are the same, it's just the means that differ. Supes works witin the la of the land, the Bat follows his own laws. But they both have a sense of order, they both fight to uphold order (and even batman fights to *uphold* mortsal laws, even if he doesn't feel bound to them himself), and they are both adamantly opposed to evil. Sure, Batman doesn't care what other people think, but that doesn't nessecarily make him chaotic. Yes, not giving a crap IS an element of the description for CG, but there's two things to remember. 1) it's just an example. They can't tell you all aspects of a CG character in one paragraph, so they give you the average example. 2) Just because a CG character might not care what you think, doesn't mean that all people who don't care what you think are chaotic. Grass is green, but not all that is green is grass. If you want to take it further, not all grass is green. Most grass is green, but some is brown or whatever. Likewise, most chaotic good characters don;t care what others think of their methods, but some might. But you can;t really express all that in a quick paragraph. As to robin... I think part of the reason that the Bat changed the rules in regards to Robin was that her was trying to protect the person he sees as his son. Not nessecarily because of chaotic tendancies. But that's me. I like to class him as an atypical LG character, but still LG. Just opposing ends of the LG spectrum, but still the same piece of the pie. Anyhow, that's me.
Henry Hankovich 04-05-04, 04:35 AM	Sam is definitely LG. ****SPOILERS**** He's not really a mercenary, after all, he's still working for the CIA (or whichever). So his "freelancing" work is really just a sting, to try to capture or kill a BBEG--Seamus. At the same time, though, he does have a personal code of honor, and tries to do the best he can by his teammates. He goes the extra mile for them, especially Jean Reno's character, even though he (especially as an undercover agent) doesn't have to do anything beyond what his 'contract' requires. And he seems to actually want--even if he's pragmatic enough to know it won't happen--to protect Dierdre, both from herself, and from the fallout of her boss--Seamus--being brought down.
D.K.R. 04-06-04, 02:52 AM	Originally posted by burning_blood IMO person vs. state is most relevant, and therefore he's CN. I love this debate/pleasant argument - and since it is pretty much on topic for this thread, I'll say this - Lawful alignment in D&D has nothing to do with the state, by the rules (or by my opinion either). Of course, DM is the ultimate say as to how it is in his game, but by the book, Lawful is an internal code of conduct - many of which will personal codes choose to honor the rules of the local land they are in at the time, but most certainly not always. I could say much more, but I'll leave it open for debate for now ;) . . .
Timespike 04-07-04, 03:45 PM	You know, this debate would be REALLY interesting if we could contrast the punisher with Tim Rackley from The Kill Clause, but I doubt anyone else here has read it... Yes, that IS a plug. Fantastic book about what can go wrong when someone goes vigilante. One of the best books I've ever read.
burning_blood 04-07-04, 04:54 PM	Originally posted by D.K.R. ...Lawful alignment in D&D has nothing to do with the state, by the rules (or by my opinion either) ... but by the book, Lawful is an internal code of conduct... From the SRD: Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Emphasis mine. "Authority" is self-explanatory; it includes the state, as well as leaders in the family, church, etc. Tradition and duty imply that there is someone (or something), in a position of power over the individual, who is requires the individual to act according to a set of guidelines. For tradition this is usually society itself, especially the older generations who are often the very ones who hold the positions of authority. Duty generally refers to a code of conduct, which could be either internal or external, or both. So, by the book, both the external (eg. the state) and the internal (eg. personal codes of conduct) are considered part of the law-chaos axis. So when it comes to pigeonholing someone like the Punisher into a D&D alignment, the issue becomes which of these -- the internal or the external -- is the most important. [Edit: I have the sneaking suspicion that this question has been discussed many, many times already.]
D.K.R. 04-07-04, 05:03 PM	The authority as stated can just as easily be a god, an order outside of political powers, or a single being who taught the character all that he/she knows. In any of these cases, it con quite easily go along with or come into conflict with the local laws of the land. If the character follows the local laws, and not the authority that they had been following previously, they are breaking one law to meet another. That is, at best, neutral, not lawful. If a monk is a member of an evil (LE of course) order whose conventions require him to never be without a certain weapon, say a ceremonial dagger; and this monk enters a town in which it is forbidden for any but the members of the Guard to carry a weapon, is it lawful of him to conceal the weapon and continue to carry it? Or, is it lawful for him to relinquish it, and follow the local town's policies?
burning_blood 04-07-04, 08:19 PM	For the monk in question, the conflicting regulations are both external; the laws of his order vs. the laws of the town. Whichever course he chooses he's still following someone else's rules, and so remains lawful either way. Same for the examples you gave of other powers and authorities; the god, the apolitical organization, and the revered mentor are all figures who could require obedience from the individual. Whatever demands they make are an attempt to impose their will on someone else's. My mistake was in using the state as the primary example for external authority. You're right, there are many different kinds of external authority with often conflicting demands. But the question of lawful vs. chaotic doesn't hinge on which external authority one chooses to obey, but rather on whether one chooses to obey external authority in the first place. The chaotic person would choose to follow their own internal code of conduct regardless of whether or not it agrees with any external codes, because his personal freedom to act according to what he believes is right is more important than someone else's rules and restrictions. That sounds to me almost exactly like the Punisher's way of thinking.
Galahad_Knight 04-09-04, 05:43 AM	For a start, those quotes are EXAMPLES of AVERAGE characters. As I said, every slice of the alignment wheel is a spectrum. There's range between one side of it and the other. Besides that, there's a huge difference between "Respect" and "Obey" I respect the police, boards administrators and my dad...but I don't, haven't and probably will not obey everything they say. Going back to the batman example...even if the Bat doesn;t obey the laws, he DOES respect the law,and he DOES respect the police force (by and large) He just realizes that his sense of law and order doesn;t always jive with it. If lawful characters weren;t allowed to disobey authority then all it would take would be one evil dictator to tell the Paladin that he has to kill his friends and it;s game over. (which is why the paladin;s code actuall stipulates that they are to respect LEGITIMATE authority, nd not ALL authority) Lawful is not absolute. Lawful evil characters break laws all the time and often have zero respect for the current system. If I want to overthrow the government to plunge the kingdom into bloody anarchy then I'm CE If I want to overthrow the government so I can take over the kingdom and institute my own brutal docterine of rulership then I'm LE. Likewise, I can want to overthrow brutal and oppressive regime in place now so that a new golden age of fair and just rulership can begin...that makes me LG. Lawful characters respect authority in some form or another. However, that doesn;t mean that they respect *all* authoruty. Maybe they only respect certain docterines laid out by their church or monastic order. Maybe they only respect the authority that they can bestow. Maybe they respect the authority of their ruler but not of some other ruler. And, again, not all of them are particularly obliged to obey authority. Just respect it.
Spongly 04-09-04, 01:47 PM	What're people's ideas about the alignment of Rorshach from Watchmen, as a point of interest. A similar character to the Punisher I'd say, and essentially a pseudo-fascist psychopath with a firm code, but also a form belief that he is justified in acting as judge, jury and executioner to anyone he perceives as "evil". I'd say both hover between Lawful Nuetral and Lawful Evil personally - classic examples of people whose fight against 'evil' has driven them well over the edge - "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he himself becomes a monster."
Alkaline 04-15-04, 01:58 PM	I agree with Galahad_Knight completely. Batman is Lawful Good. He's Lawful because he follows a strict way of life. Of course he doesn't follow the local authority's laws, but he follows a personal moral code. He has principles. He is Good because he sacrifices himself to the benefit of others. Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. This sounds exactly like Batman to me. He's a "Crusader" for justice. He acts as a good person is expected to act, meaning he doesn't lie, cheat, steal, etc... He has a commitment to oppose evil and has the discipline to fight relentlessly. And I know Batman HATES to see the guilty go unpunished. This is a key part. Because the reason Batman doesn't always agree with the system is because the system can be abused. A rich villian can afford a badass lawyer and get away. Batman KNOWS this. That is why he is for the "right thing to do", which is a lawful statement. A Neutral Good character might say that there isn't a right thing to do. Only what you can and cannot do. You do the best you can. Alkaline