Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alistaire 06-24-07, 05:20 PM	OK So I'm toying around with the idea of playing a character similar to the Man with No Name that was played by Clint Eastwood, combined with his later character of the Stranger/Preacher. As far as I see the character this is what motivates the character I'm playing (regardless if you agree the character is this way or not): Willing to work for evil to his profit if the cause can be of some good or if it is against another evil band. In the case of two evil factions battling each other, he will play both sides against each other to his profit and the destruction of both factions. Not willing to allow harm to come to women, children, or the elderly. Will selflessly put himself in danger if it can prevent this. Willing to be paid to capture criminals, though many times this is done free of charge if the criminal has harmed others. Will defend those who cannot defend themselves. Takes vengeance on those who he perceives as having wronged him or others, or allowed harm to come if they could have done something to prevent it. Does not believe in cheating anyone of something that they have earned, no matter if they have wronged him in the past or not. Basically what I need is to know what alignment would best fit a character such as this?
Cartigan 06-24-07, 05:33 PM	Chaotic Good
calronmoonflower 06-24-07, 06:54 PM	He's definitely lawful. He seems to be good as well.
DarkNick 06-24-07, 07:02 PM	My interpretation is this character would be CG. He has his own moral code based on what is generally considered good (he helps others, respects innocent people, and will put himself in danger to protect innocent lives). He also does what it takes in pursuit of his (good) goals regardles of law and I think that makes him chaotic - he is willing to cheat, murder, and steal as long as it all adds to the greater good. But it all comes down to interpretation and how you view alignment. There won't be a 'right' answer. I could also see him as a LG character that has no trust in the current authorities and so has taken the law into his own hands.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-24-07, 07:04 PM	I don't know the character, but from how you describe him I'd say he is Lawful and likely Good as well.
Sisial 06-24-07, 07:16 PM	I know the character well and he's definitly not lawful. At least not as far as the character is portrayed in the movies. I like to interpret The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly as CG, CN, & CE. IMO to be good you have to have some kind of rule in yourself about what you will and will not do. Good people won't do evil things. Thusly law is always involved. However whether it is the law of some society or group or whether it is your own law (which means it may be subject to more change than otherwise) defines whether you are Lawful or Chaotic. Neutral follows both. Of course I don't want to start a what is the definition of alignment thread here. I'm just trying to explain how I see "The Man With No Name" as CG. Plus it goes with the idea of a lawless frontier world, where what's right or wrong is only a subject to who has the fastest gun.
Cartigan 06-24-07, 07:25 PM	He's definitely lawful. Is no one Chaotic and Good at the same time?
Forgotten_Warrior 06-24-07, 07:42 PM	Since he is willing to work with evil, even though it is for a good purpose, we can already say that he isn't Lawful Good. I would say that he would be either Nuetral Good or Chaotic Good.
calronmoonflower 06-24-07, 07:46 PM	Is no one Chaotic and Good at the same time? Don't mistake me for Furryhowler. The description given shows a man that lives by his own personal code of honor, that goes toward being lawful. A couple of points do point toward a chaotic alignment, but even more point toward lawful. Lawful doesn't mean follow the law it means that you are ordered, disciplined, and/or systematic in your actions. Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven [edit] Perhaps netrual good will be a good alignment for him. It would depend if he bends his code when the situation calls for it.
Cartigan 06-24-07, 08:01 PM	The description given shows a man that lives by his own personal code of honor, that goes toward being lawful. A couple of points do point toward a chaotic alignment, but even more point toward lawful. Which was my point. Anyone who lives by their own code that is also Good is deemed Lawful, as seen here and the Batman topic. Lawful Evil is equally as absurd to qualify for as seen by the Riddick topic. You pretty much have to be part of the political structure to get LE. IMO, Chaotic Good is the quintessential benevolent mercenary, which is what it sounds like by the description.
JellyPooga 06-24-07, 08:09 PM	He is definitely not Good by a long shot (despite the title of the film). On the Good-Evil axis he is Neutral. Yes he does good deeds, but he also does bastard deeds too...kind of balances out. His honour is to himself only...although he's basically a decent bloke, he is not willing to put that in front of his own safety or personal gain (and that's not just monetary gain). As far as the Law-Chaos axis goes, he's also Neutral. Yes he has a personal code of honour, but similarly that code of honour holds him to no-one but himself. He will quite happily welch on a deal if it goes sour for him and he certainly holds little to no regard for any local laws except when they are of benefit to him. The Man with No Name is/was True Neutral. Tuco is/was Chaotic Neutral (bordering Chaotic Evil) and Angel-Eyes is/was Lawful Evil (bordering Neutral Evil) That's what I think anyway...
Cartigan 06-24-07, 08:16 PM	Alignments are too generous and given to personal interpretation and famous characters are also too given to interpretation and must follow the general line of the script and usually arn't classifiable easily so there topics are really an effort in futility and bee-hive stirring.