| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Stule08-27-05, 11:34 AM | Hey guys, In my game often my players like to say what Alignment they think their favorite hero's are. I was thinking, what are your favorite hero's and what do you think their Alignment is? Some of the ones my players have come up with... Lancelot - LG Wolverine - CG Dirty Harry - CG (I am not really sure of this.). What are yours? |
| TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe08-27-05, 11:41 AM | I would personally hazard a guess that Dirty Harry was actually Lawful Neutral....but I have no proof. He just doesn't seem like a "good-guy" to me. Beowolf - NG Dernit, you took Dirty Harry and now my brain doesn't work. I'll post again later. |
| LCD2YOU08-27-05, 11:58 AM | Han Solo - CG/CN Spiderman - NG Cyclops (X-Men) - Lawful Stoopid/Annoying Neutral |
| Von Bek08-27-05, 12:28 PM | Captain America-Lawful Good Batman-Neutral Good Green Arrow-Chaotic Good The Holy Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000)-Lawful Neutral Alien-True Neutral Jawas-Chaotic Neutral Destro-Lawful Evil Megatron-Neutral Evil Cobra Commander-Chaotic Evil |
| JosephHeller08-27-05, 12:45 PM | Link-Neutral Good Mario-Lawful Good Kirby-Chaotic Good DK-Chaotic Good Ganon-Lawful Evil Bowser-Neutral Evil King Dedede-Chaotic Neutral (He's just selfish) King K.Ruel-Chaotic Evil Luigi-Lawful Jealous ( :D ) I just had a whole bunch of 'em. I forgot half of them! :banghead: |
| jukar08-27-05, 12:55 PM | Sabin Rene Figaro- NG Setzer Gabbiani- CN Gambit- CN, slowly becoming CG with age Monet St. Croix- LN, or possibly Lawful Egotistical :) Mirielle Bouquet- LN, possible LE depending on your view of assassins. Virginia Maxwell- NG Utena Tenjou- CG Haruka Tenoh- CG Heather Mason- NG Eustace Scrubb- LN, later becoming LG Princess Eilonwy- CG Prince Gwydion- LG Prince/King Rhun- CG Kiku, Night's Flower- ??? I have no flipping clue. NE? LN? CN? LE? |
| Ankalagon08-27-05, 01:12 PM | Dangermouse - CG Oh and if Batman is NG then my name is Timmy Flowerhead and I live at No1 Cake Lane, Fairy Land. |
| revnk08-27-05, 01:20 PM | I would personally hazard a guess that Dirty Harry was actually Lawful Neutral....but I have no proof. He just doesn't seem like a "good-guy" to me. I tend to agree, altho' you could point to Harry's rule-breaking tendencies as evidence of a chaotic streak: I'm not sure a true LN would, say, stand on a suspect's injured leg to extract information, but maybe I'm just dumb. I hereby nominate Bender Bending Rodriguez as a CE hero. Even if he is occasionally nice to Fry. Maybe because he's occasionally nice to Fry. :D Cheers. |
| Von Bek08-27-05, 01:31 PM | Dangermouse - CG Oh and if Batman is NG then my name is Timmy Flowerhead and I live at No1 Cake Lane, Fairy Land. Hi Timmy! Batman's alignment depends upon who is writing him. In my belief he has too consistent of an internal code to be chaotic, but skirts the law too often to be lawful. I stick with the Good alignment, though he is probably borderline Neutral. There's my rationale-now why do you disagree? |
| LCD2YOU08-27-05, 01:55 PM | Batman's alignment is one of those major sticking points when dealing with alignment. As far as I know, he's never killed anyone intentionally. That is not to say that bad things happens to bad people he's fighting. Bad thing do happen to his opponents and he has let them "reap their just deserts". In my estimation, saving some of thoe bad guys would require him to go out on a limb and seriously risk his life. It will also leave him open to treachery and completely vulnerable. If a bad guy were to stick a knife between his shoulders after he rescues them and has just he clears the last deathly trap to avoid, it ain't worth it. With that said, if it were an innocent, he would do so without heistation. So I agree Batman is NG, albeit not everyone's first ideal of the giving Florence Nightingail or Mother Teresa types. |
| TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe08-27-05, 02:10 PM | I tend to agree, altho' you could point to Harry's rule-breaking tendencies as evidence of a chaotic streak: I'm not sure a true LN would, say, stand on a suspect's injured leg to extract information, but maybe I'm just dumb. Good point. I was just thinking "non-good", but with your information in plain view perhaps he's actually "TN with Lawful tendencies." But, I would definately stick to my "Neutral with regards to the Good <---> Evil axis. |
| Von Bek08-27-05, 02:28 PM | Batman's alignment is one of those major sticking points when dealing with alignment. As far as I know, he's never killed anyone intentionally. That is not to say that bad things happens to bad people he's fighting. Bad thing do happen to his opponents and he has let them "reap their just deserts". In my estimation, saving some of thoe bad guys would require him to go out on a limb and seriously risk his life. It will also leave him open to treachery and completely vulnerable. If a bad guy were to stick a knife between his shoulders after he rescues them and has just he clears the last deathly trap to avoid, it ain't worth it. With that said, if it were an innocent, he would do so without heistation. So I agree Batman is NG, albeit not everyone's first ideal of the giving Florence Nightingail or Mother Teresa types. He does save bad guys fairly often-keeping them from falling off buildings, knocking them down so they don't get shot, etc. I agree that he isn't the standard NG stereotype. He is more NG because he doesn't really fit either Law or Chaos, but is somewhere in between. |
| OctoberRaven08-27-05, 02:40 PM | Spike (post-brain chip)- CN The Crow- CG Selene (from Underworld)- CN, she defies the vampire laws too often to be True Neutral, and she's not really good per se. Buffy- NG Batman- I always see him as a Paladin of sorts, so I'm going against the grain here and say he's LG. Remember that bending the law for a greater purpose isn't neccasarily a chaotic act. Police officers often have to speed in car chases, and they will sometimes have to resort to lethal force. Black Mage (from 8-Bit Theatre)- NE/CE, but I think he's just plain evil. |
| jukar08-27-05, 03:56 PM | Batman- I always see him as a Paladin of sorts, so I'm going against the grain here and say he's LG. Remember that bending the law for a greater purpose isn't neccasarily a chaotic act. Police officers often have to speed in car chases, and they will sometimes have to resort to lethal force. I think you have the right idea, but there is something you are forgetting. For starters, Batman's attitude tends to fluxuate based on who is writing him, and over as many years there has been a LOT of fluxuation. However, I would definitely say that while he has good tendencies, calling him good is a bit of a stretch, at least initially. Don't forget that he didn't chose to fight crime because he found the idea of it particularly morally offensive, but rather because he was motivated by grief and feelings of vengeance for his slain parents. To me, that's a neutral goal since it hinges upon self-oriented feelings and attitudes. |
| Von Bek08-27-05, 04:45 PM | While his primary motivation is open to question (helping justice or revenge?), his actions make him good. He stops evil-doers and saves innocents on a regular basis. |
| jukar08-27-05, 05:13 PM | While his primary motivation is open to question (helping justice or revenge?), his actions make him good. He stops evil-doers and saves innocents on a regular basis. I suppose it's a matter of your view of alignment, then. |
| Darrian08-27-05, 05:24 PM | Elric: Chaotic Evil (although I think he is more CN). He is the first anti-hero I ever read about. Darrian (It all begins with Elric) |
| darkdrow6608-27-05, 05:33 PM | Croaker: LN |
| Sapp08-27-05, 05:35 PM | Gatts (Berserk) - Chaotic Evil Lenny (Memento) - Chaotic Evil Homer Simpson (Simpsons) - Chaotic Evil T1000 (T2) - Lawful Neutral William Wallace (Braveheart) - Chaotic Good (barely good) Batman - Lawful Good ( I think you guys are trying too hard. Batman actively enforces the law, despite being a vigilante. Lawful. He's spending millions/billions of his own private money/funds to help/protect people. He donates fortunes to charity. Good. Actions determine alignment. |
| jukar08-27-05, 05:43 PM | Actions determine alignment. Again, if that's your interpration. Homer Simpson, CE? CN, maybe. Definitely not CE. Of course, adhering to your opinion that actions dictate alignment, he may very well be. Lord knows he's caused quite a bit of havoc and harm in his day, albeit mostly unintentionally or out of bad judgment. |
| Sapp08-27-05, 05:50 PM | If actions don't determine alignment, what does? Intention? Emotion? Action is the culimination of all. Emotions, intentions, nature, nurture... they all combine to determine your actions. Hence, I believe actions determine alignment. What's your take? I think Homer Simpson is CE. We both agree that he's too stupid and random to be Lawful or simply neutral. I think there are enough examples where Homer foresakes the needs/well-being of people around him. His selfishness is quite obvious. His twisted desire to see Ned Flanders suffer is also quite evident. The rare moments he does show some acts of sympathy/compassion/benevolence, which aren't overshadowed by his stupidity, are moments that make the audience think, "Awww, I can't believe he did that." This shows that we have lowered our expectations of him so much that we are impressed when he shows Goodness. |
| Melpomene08-27-05, 06:11 PM | The Almighty Emperor of Humanity is LE. Very much so. Death to the false emperor, etc. Always been more of a "dark eldar" sort of guy, myself. |
| jukar08-27-05, 06:21 PM | If actions don't determine alignment, what does? Intention? Emotion? Action is the culimination of all. Emotions, intentions, nature, nurture... they all combine to determine your actions. Hence, I believe actions determine alignment. What's your take? I think Homer Simpson is CE. We both agree that he's too stupid and random to be Lawful or simply neutral. I think there are enough examples where Homer foresakes the needs/well-being of people around him. His selfishness is quite obvious. His twisted desire to see Ned Flanders suffer is also quite evident. The rare moments he does show some acts of sympathy/compassion/benevolence, which aren't overshadowed by his stupidity, are moments that make the audience think, "Awww, I can't believe he did that." This shows that we have lowered our expectations of him so much that we are impressed when he shows Goodness. I believe intention and attitude towards others determines alignment, at least on the moral axis. Someone motivated to help others or to make their world better and is good. Needless to say, there are precious few good people in our world. People who are motivated by their own needs are usually neutral. People who would go to great lengths to provide for their family, protect their country, or to keep themselves safe are neutral. While neutral people aren't generally concerned with anyone outside of their immediate influence, they aren't driven to harm others, and generally find those that harm others to be offensive- if only because they don't want them to bring harm to themselves. Evil people are concerned with themselves, and don't mind stepping on a few toes to further their goals. Evil people may even seek to harm others to or gain at the expense of others. I don't like the idea of action dictating morality, because it's very possible to do a good thing for a bad reason, or vice versa. Similiarly, by those standards, one could do a good or evil act with good or evil intentions, but inadvertantly have the opposite outcome. For example, two rival red dragons might duel over their hordes. Both are clearly evil, and only really want to win the duel to acquire more wealth. However, let's say one dragon in this duel routinely oppresses the people of a nearby village, making their lives miserable and causing a great deal of suffering. The other dragon is too distant from the village to be concerned with it. Now, let's say this dragon kills the other, and although he only kills him to take his gold, he manages to make the lives of the entire village much much better in the process. Now, barring any actions such as taking over the village himself, his actions ultimately led to greater good, as a single act of murder or theft is easily outweighed by the liberation of hundreds of innocent, effectively powerless lives. According to the conception that alignment is determined by action, would the dragon be in danger of becoming good? Therein lies my problem with that mentality. Now, according to the PHB, alignment has no grey areas in game terms. It's a black and white force that guides the cosmos. However, we aren't talking about D&D, we are talking about characters from entirely different cosmologies and worlds, most of which are from worlds where morality is not so black and white and grey areas are indeed quite plentiful. So to judge them by the same standard is probably impossible, much like it is very difficult to judge one's own alignment with accuracy. The truth is, even in cases of Homer Simpson, most of these characters are far too complicated to be snugly fit in the box of any one alignment- especially considering the fact that morality and ethics are concepts that have troubled mankind for generations. You don't really understand morality. I don't really understand morality. Most of the greatest philosophers and thinkers in our history don't understand it, at least not from an authoritative standpoint. We have conceptions and notions, but no one can surely claim they fully comprehend something so ubiquitous yet vague. (The conundrum here is that everyone, despite this fact, assumes that they DO understand it). So, while alignment MUST be simplified to a glorified code of conduct (or at least roleplaying guideline) in the game world of D&D, to apply to real people or even fictional characters is difficult. Hell, alignment as a black and white concept is difficult for a lot of people, despite it's simplicity. If it weren't, we wouldn't see nearly as alignment related threads. Even as stated as such a simple rule, it's still an abstract concept, and the truth of the matter is that most people are inherently concrete in their understanding. That is why I tend to favor a motivationally based ideal of alignment in my games, as it's easier for a person to scrutinize and understand WHY they are doing something rather than what the outcome of their actions will be. Well... it at least keeps my paladins from constantly worrying about having to murder and rape orcish toddlers or what have you. Edit: Of course, I'm not saying that a person should be able to do whatever they want and claim they are merely following their alignment. A LG person shouldn't be able to walk up to a pregnant woman and stab her in the heart, and then claim they did it for the greater good, because the child could have been born evil. So, to a degree, action does have an influence on morality. However, it isn't the only aspect of what determines alignment. Someone who would do something like mentioned above would be doing an evil act, but would not nessecarily be an evil person. As cheap as an excuse as it is, they may have very well been doing what they did because they truly believed it was good. |
| Sapp08-27-05, 06:30 PM | I have a very similar view, only I see "intention" as not the main factors but the conditions. For example, murder/killing is always more Evil than Good. However, if the killing was done in self-defense, that is a mitigating factor. The act becomes neutral and doesn't affect alignment. If the act of killing was done in defense of an innocent, it is still neutral. Killing in self-defense is not Good. No one but yourself benefits. It's not the act of killing that makes the Paladin good. It's the act of self-sacrifice, putting himself at risk solely for the benefit of someone else. That is Good. Again, if the Paladin was paid to protect that innocent victim, that is another mitigating factor, and the act of protecting the innocent becomes neutral act and doesn't affect alignment. I see intention as an extra note to add on to actions. Actions are what mainly determine alignment. Intention and circumstance only mitigate what action determines. It would appear as though the designers agree with me, having explicitly stated that, for the purest form of Good, "the ends never justify the means." AKA, for the purest Good, "intention never justifies action." For your average "Good", sure, intention can be an excuse for action. But that kind of Good is diluted and often borders on being neutral. EDIT: In fact, that's how I would picture fallen Angels fall from grace in the first place. Good intentions, Evil actions. |
| jukar08-27-05, 06:34 PM | I have a very similar view, only I see "intention" as not the main factors but the conditions. For example, murder/killing is always more Evil than Good. However, if the killing was done in self-defense, that is a mitigating factor. The act becomes neutral and doesn't affect alignment. If the act of killing was done in defense of an innocent, it is still neutral. Killing in self-defense is not Good. No one but yourself benefits. It's not the act of killing that makes the Paladin good. It's the act of self-sacrifice, putting himself at risk solely for the benefit of someone else. That is Good. Again, if the Paladin was paid to protect that innocent victim, that is another mitigating factor, and the act of protecting the innocent becomes neutral act and doesn't affect alignment. I see intention as an extra note to add on to actions. Actions are what mainly determine alignment. Intention and circumstance only mitigate what action determines. It would appear as though the designers agree with me, having explicitly stated that, for the purest form of Good, "the ends never justify the means." AKA, for the purest Good, "intention never justifies action." For your average "Good", sure, intention can be an excuse for action. But that kind of Good is diluted and often borders on being neutral. Hmm, it seems our views on alignment are not so different after all. This is also a reason why I use alignment graphs for characters and PCs, because it allows for a way to deal with out of alignment actions and incorporates grey areas without totally throwing out the black and white canon idea. It makes it possible for a person to be just a little good, or very good. The more good a person is, the less likely they are to justify the ends with the means. Also, law and chaos have influence on these actions, but it's not a strict determiner. After all, a very good CG character will be just as unwilling to sacrifice an innocent to save many more innocents. I guess the real difference between our opinions is that you see action as what determines the initial alignment and it's growth, and that intention or motivation is used as a type of litmus test for morally ambiguous situations, whereas I think the initial intention dictates the alignment, and the actions determines the growth or change of that alignment. Ultimately, we both agree that action has an influence on alignment. |
| PhaedrusXY08-27-05, 06:45 PM | Roland of Gilead (aka the Gunslinger) of Steven King's Dark Tower series: True Neutral? Maybe Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, even. I've also heard it argued that he is a Palladin. :D The Man with No Name from Sergio Leone's westerns (played by Clint Eastwood): again, I'd say True Neutral. The similiarity between the two is not a coincidence, as SK says in one of the Dark Tower books that he was influenced by Eastwood's character when writing them. I wouldn't really call either of them "heroes" in the traditional sense, but they are some of my favorite characters in both books and films. |
| Sapp08-27-05, 06:53 PM | That's why most of my favorite heroes tend to be more Evil than Good. Neutral and Evil heroes tend to be more practical and reflect my own thoughts more clearly (Yes, I admit I am Evil by D&D standards). If I caught a spy and need to know exactly what he'll tell my enemies, hell, the FIRST thing that would come to my mind is "torture". My Good allies and party members might be squeemish and try to convince me not to resort to torture. My neutral allies won't care and might have even done the same thing if no other simple alternative was available (spells, mindreading, etc). (To be truthful, torture really is the first thing that came to mind. It took me about 4 seconds to come up with "mindreading" and "charms/spells"). If I'm getting revenge on someone, I want him to suffer. It won't be quick and painless. Eye for an Eye. Y' know? My excuse/intention would be "dealing justice". "They deserved it."... (Practicality is always the best excuse.) I think most people are Neutral or Evil. I'm sure we've had this thought a few times while watching movies or TV: "Oh come on! You're putting yourself at risk for THAT? Don't be stupid! Have some common sense! Worry about yourself" |
| Mirikon08-27-05, 06:58 PM | Hey guys, In my game often my players like to say what Alignment they think their favorite hero's are. I was thinking, what are your favorite hero's and what do you think their Alignment is? Some of the ones my players have come up with... Lancelot - LG Wolverine - CG Dirty Harry - CG (I am not really sure of this.). What are yours? Punisher - CN Wolverine - CG Black Mage - CE |
| Callista08-27-05, 07:37 PM | Roland? Oh, yeah, definitely Lawful. If there's anything that describes the man, it's "single-minded". |
| Sapp08-27-05, 09:48 PM | Anakin Skywalker (Star Wars) - Lawful Evil Magus/Janus Zeal (Chrono Trigger) - Lawful Evil I like both of these anti-heroes. Both start off having "good intentions"... Janus - Avenging Schala. Destroying Lavos (a harbinger of the Apocalypse). Anakin - Promoting Galactic peace. Saving Padme. but their good intentions lead them to the wrong path, and they perform a series of evil actions which twisted them into their current alignment. Why did their actions ultimately twist their alignment? Shouldn't actions determine intentions and not the other way around? Psychology is a tricky issue, and the answer is not always clear. One flavorful explanation of how action does determine alignment is through Cognitive Dissonance Theory. If an individual is continuously forced to perform enough actions against his will, sooner or later, those forced actions won't be forced, and they won't be against his will. Enough evil actions, and sooner or later, regardless of original intentions, you will be evil. Cognitive Dissonance: "You are what you do." (Wikipedia reference for people who are unfamiliar with the term "Cognitive Dissonance" as it relates to psychology.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) (EDIT: Note that the same could be applied in reverse. If a demon protects the innocent and risks his own life enough times to help others, even if originally for selfish reasons, has a chance of salvation.) Besides, I'm sure a LOT of people have good intentions. A lot of people truly do wish there were no homeless people around where they lived. Do these people do anything about it? Do they donate to charity? Do they volunteer as tutor for unpriviliged students who attend poorly funded public schools? No? It doesn't matter how Good their hopes/thoughts are, they are just NEUTRAL. "I wish I was Good." "You do? Well do something about it instead of just thinking." |
| speeblefreak08-27-05, 11:28 PM | Majora's Mask: CE Skull Kid: N (C tendencies) |
| Von Bek08-28-05, 01:09 AM | I think perhaps your requirements for Good are too strict. I see Batman's motivation as trying to make the world a better place and making sure what happened to him won't happen to others. I see good as a combination of motivation, circumstance, and action. If you feel love for everyone in the world but do nothing for them that is not particularly good. Yet if you don't care about individuals but do the right thing because of your own convictions you could accomplish much good. |
| «hõ†šÞïkê18»08-28-05, 08:57 AM | Jack Sparrow (I'm still not sure about this one) - Chaotic Neutral? |
| LCD2YOU08-28-05, 09:51 AM | Jack Sparrow (I'm still not sure about this one) - Chaotic Neutral?Yeah, he's tough. I don't know if he's CN or TN. Jack Sparrow has a code. Just because he does not follow nor respect the law of the crown but has his own code. As the description of neutral is: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. S/he doesn't fel strongly about one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs chaos. Mosyt neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather then a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all s/he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still s/he's not personally commited to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.The other part of neutrality is the dedication to balance which I don't see Jack Sparrow doing. |
| Ibbins08-28-05, 01:09 PM | From Seinfeld George Costanza- Neutral with evil tendencies. He's not sadistic, like... Elaine Benes- NE. She's just flat-out evil. They're both hypocrites about being good people. And then there's Jerry. He's a good guy. NG. Kramer... um. |
| OctoberRaven08-28-05, 01:59 PM | The entire Seinfeld foursome is CN with G tendencies. |
| Andrew_98008-28-05, 02:31 PM | The elric brothers from full metal alchemist NG? LG? to of the most good characters Vampire hunter D LG my favorite paladin yeah i'm a toon freak, sue me |
| Minister_for_Moral_Truth08-28-05, 08:36 PM | The Immortal God-Emperor of Man himself would most likley be LN, utter dedecation to a good cause (the protection of his species) using some questionable means but retaining honour and bringing justice to his subjects. The Imperium he built, however, is LE when taken as a whole, with strong LN tendancies. Grand Admiral Thrawn: LN, and the best character in all of Star Wars. Rincewind: N. Helps people, as long as it is in his interests or desn't require too much work. Is friendly to everyone, or at least tries to be. Obeys the law, as long as it isn't activley ranged against him. Coop (Megas): CN. No question. Emperor Palpatine: LE. No question, really. Installing order throughout the galaxy, and making damnable sure you're at the top of the heap. |
| LCD2YOU08-29-05, 09:20 AM | Blade: Neutral, ever so slightly NG. He'd like to be all good but he has a nasty habit of killing familiars of the vampires too easily and without remorse. That may not be such a bad thing. |
| Pyritefoolsgold08-29-05, 03:36 PM | Riddick: CE. He doesn't go out of his way to kill, but he kills anyone in his way. Neo: CG/CE Depending on whether or not the masses of innocent people in the matrix that he kills can be justified by the salvation of the human race. Richard Cypher: LG The Master Chief: LN Samus: CN Sonic the Hedgehog: CG No. XIII: LG Cloud: CG Sephiroth: CE Jim Raynor: NG Kerrigan: CG Angel: NG Mr. Incredible: NG James Bond: LN Daredevil: CG I see Batman as LG. He works to uphold the law. You may even consider him to work with the law's blessing if commishioner gordon's permission to fight crime goes that far. He is a paladin, he fights with honor, never kills intentionally (Though things often do happen when fighting on rooftops.) He leaves criminals to the police, the police love him and don't consider him a vigilante, and he never acts as judge, jury, and executioner. What inspired him to fight crime doesn't matter; he does it for the people now. Robin, however, is CG, and is only kept in line by Batman. Roland is LE. he owes his allegiance to an organization long dead, and has no qualms with killing anyone he sees as opposing him. It was not necessary to wipe out the entire town, but he did, because they opposed him. He has loyalties to his friends and companions, and has a good cause, but he will sacrifice anything and anyone to reach that cause. |
| Darkmeer08-29-05, 06:34 PM | Setzer Gabbiani- CN. We always renamed him Doc, and he was our consumate gambling buddy :D Terra Branford- Neutral. Maybe Good, especially after her looking after the children. Sabin, in D&D terms, is a monk, thus should be lawful. More likely good, b/c of his actions in the game. Mega Man- Lawful Good Proto Man- Chaotic Good X- Neutral Good (too whiney to be LG) Zero- Chaotic Good Axel- Don't know enough, but I'd venture Neutral Good. Kain- Evil. Something Evil. Probably Neutral or Lawful if I were a guessin' man. Raziel- as Human, Lawful Evil, as Vampire, Lawful Evil, as Soul-thing, Chaotic Evil. Vorador-Neutral Evil power player The Elder God: Chaotic Evil Katt: Chaotic good Sten: Lawful Neutral Jean: Neutral good Nina: Chaotic good Ryu: Shapeshifting dragon, prolly Neutral, good tendencies Bow: Chaotic Neutral There's more, but I think the Fires of Dis are coming after me! /d |
| jukar08-29-05, 06:42 PM | Setzer Gabbiani- CN. We always renamed him Doc, and he was our consumate gambling buddy :D Terra Branford- Neutral. Maybe Good, especially after her looking after the children. Sabin, in D&D terms, is a monk, thus should be lawful. More likely good, b/c of his actions in the game. Sabin shouldn't be lawful. Remember he ran away from his duty to pursue his dreams. I think he's actually probably neutral good. Terra is neutral good, caring more about doing good and righting her wrongs than following any particular ethical code. Setzer, I agree with. He's very CN. He's very reluctant (at least at first) to engage in any of the activities of the Returners, afraid to risk his comfortable lifestyle- ironic considering his profession and general attitude towards chance. |
| Stev Beren08-29-05, 10:00 PM | I think people here assign 'Evil' WAAAAAY to easily and many casers where they assign it should be 'neutral'. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. I would say the vast majority of people are neutral in at least one aspect. |
| Sapp08-29-05, 10:34 PM | But Homer Simpson does hurt and steal from others, especially Ned Flanders. He derives joy from Ned's pain, and has almost no compassion for Ned at all (Even after his wife died!). Poor Ned. |
| Darkmeer08-29-05, 10:59 PM | jukar, I can understand a thought towards Sabin being Neutral Good (as you've pointed out, he went after his dreams). I still would call him Lawful Good due to his training. Unless you're calling his training martial Clerical, i.e. searing light for Aura bolt, etc. I see him as a monk, as he had no spells to speak of until espers. Simply put Monk=Lawful. That's for a Strict D&D transition. NOW, as to your argument, I'd agree after much thought that he's probably Neutral Good if you allow Monks to be Non-Chaotic, then you're set. |
| Stev Beren08-29-05, 11:00 PM | THInking some more, I woudl say the moral axis has two components: THe first is indeed intentions - what were you TRYING to do. Good intentions are neccesary to be good. The second part is what I will call "Conscience" - how do you feel about things - and yourself - if they go bad and how determined woudl you be to set them right? UNder this model - someone who had all the good intentions in the world, tried to do good, and ended up killing people. . .woudl be evil if he thereafter tried to rationalize what happened. Neutral if he accepted it was bad but said "Hey, what can I do? Life goes on. I tried." And Good if he tried to immediately make ammends and feels horrid about what happened. ON the other hand, someone who INTENDED to do evil. Acted with Evil intentions. . is evil even if what he does turns out to be, in action terms, good. If the intention is evil it CAN'T be good, even if it is all beneficial to everyone else involved in the end. THe person is still evil even though they did good. Or something like that in rough terms. |
| Stev Beren08-29-05, 11:01 PM | oops. DOuble post. |
| jukar08-30-05, 08:53 AM | jukar, I can understand a thought towards Sabin being Neutral Good (as you've pointed out, he went after his dreams). I still would call him Lawful Good due to his training. Unless you're calling his training martial Clerical, i.e. searing light for Aura bolt, etc. I see him as a monk, as he had no spells to speak of until espers. Simply put Monk=Lawful. That's for a Strict D&D transition. NOW, as to your argument, I'd agree after much thought that he's probably Neutral Good if you allow Monks to be Non-Chaotic, then you're set. Well, to state that because his abilities are correlary to a monk makes him lawful is opening a whole can of worms. After all, the FF doesn't have the same standards as the D&D world. And if training and dedication alone are the only qualifiers for Lawfulness, then should all Wizards be Lawful? After all, it requires a great deal of dedication and discipline on their part. I just don't a truly LG person would ever plausibly entertain the idea of abandoning his duty as a king, let alone allow his fate to come down to a mere coin toss. Of course, the coin toss was rigged, but that's not really relevant. |
| jukar08-30-05, 08:54 AM | But Homer Simpson does hurt and steal from others, especially Ned Flanders. He derives joy from Ned's pain, and has almost no compassion for Ned at all (Even after his wife died!). Poor Ned. Eh, we all have people we don't like. He does mean things to him, but he on occasion will be nice to, or at least behave in a neighborly fashion. |
| Andrew_98008-30-05, 01:58 PM | Eh, we all have people we don't like. He does mean things to him, but he on occasion will be nice to, or at least behave in a neighborly fashion. BTK was a nice neighborly type. Acting "nice" on occasion does not excuse not caring about anyone but yourself and not caring how much others are hurt for your amusement |
| jukar08-30-05, 02:09 PM | BTK was a nice neighborly type. Acting "nice" on occasion does not excuse not caring about anyone but yourself and not caring how much others are hurt for your amusement That's an extreme comparison, and isn't really quite the same at all. But if you wanna believe a cartoon character with a personality composed of exaggerated traits and catchphrases is evil, by all means. |
| Sapp08-30-05, 02:28 PM | THInking some more, I woudl say the moral axis has two components: THe first is indeed intentions - what were you TRYING to do. Good intentions are neccesary to be good. The second part is what I will call "Conscience" - how do you feel about things - and yourself - if they go bad and how determined woudl you be to set them right? UNder this model - someone who had all the good intentions in the world, tried to do good, and ended up killing people. . .woudl be evil if he thereafter tried to rationalize what happened. Neutral if he accepted it was bad but said "Hey, what can I do? Life goes on. I tried." And Good if he tried to immediately make ammends and feels horrid about what happened. ON the other hand, someone who INTENDED to do evil. Acted with Evil intentions. . is evil even if what he does turns out to be, in action terms, good. If the intention is evil it CAN'T be good, even if it is all beneficial to everyone else involved in the end. THe person is still evil even though they did good. Or something like that in rough terms. The problem with that idea, is that actions don't even count towards alignment. Please respond to my earlier posts and tell me why you think action shouldn't count. Recall that even if a player is compelled to do Evil (through mundane or magical compulsion), he must still seek atonement, regardless of his "intention" or "guilt". In my opinion, actions do have the power to shape conscious. It might seem counterintuitive, since your personality usually determines your actions, but psychology is confusing like that. EDIT: And Good if he tried to immediately make ammends and feels horrid about what happened. Nevermind, I missed this part. I see that you meant to include "action" but just forgot to. |
| SwitchUK08-30-05, 02:30 PM | Jesse Custer (Preacher) - CG Cassidy (Preacher) - CN They're pretty much hte only ones I haven't seen mention here. However... Homer Simpson = Chaotic Evil? WTF? |
| revnk08-30-05, 03:03 PM | The problem with that idea, is that actions don't even count towards alignment. Please respond to my earlier posts and tell me why you think action shouldn't count. Recall that even if a player is compelled to do Evil (through mundane or magical compulsion), he must still seek atonement, regardless of his "intention" or "guilt". In my opinion, actions do have the power to shape conscious. It might seem counterintuitive, since your personality usually determines your actions, but psychology is confusing like that. EDIT: Nevermind, I missed this part. I see that you meant to include "action" but just forgot to. It's slightly amazing that a favorite-character-alignment thread turned into a recapitulation of the deeds-versus-salvation debate that began within the medieval Church, helped spark the Protestant Reformation, and still bedevils theologians to this day! :D |
| Eightbitmage08-30-05, 03:15 PM | I absolutely have to disagree with anyone who says captain jack is neutral on good/evil scale. He rapes pillages and plunders for a living. Just because he happens to be out of luck during the events of the movie doesn't stop the fact that its what he did before the movie and what he will likely do afterwards. He is definately evil, and probably neutral evil. |
| Loopy08-30-05, 03:23 PM | Roland of Gilead (aka the Gunslinger) of Steven King's Dark Tower series: True Neutral? Maybe Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, even. I've also heard it argued that he is a Palladin. :D Lawful Good, with more of a stress on the Lawful. He will let Jake die on his quest for the Tower, but he will tear himself to pieces over it. Fritz the Cat: A sensate to the extreme... Chaotic Neutral George Bush: Lawful Evil :devil: ::ducks:: |
| OctoberRaven08-30-05, 03:37 PM | Homer Simpson is not evil. He doesn't even really have evil tendencies. I would say he is CN, with slightly good tendency. More entries- All terminators with the exception of the "Good" T101s- LE "Good" T101s- LN (it only has interest in protecting the Connors and that chick in T3, and he only refrains from killing because John ordered him too. He's not evil, but he's not really good either.) Robocop- LN with G tendencies. However he's all about the law without a real concern for good or evil. He's kind of like the Inevitable when you think about it. Vyvian from The Young Ones- CN with E tendencies Willow (from Buffy) LG Stewie (from Family Guy)- CE. When he's not doing something evil he's doing something chaotic. |
| Arcen08-30-05, 08:40 PM | Ash - CN with leanings toward CG Bad Ash - CE Hal Jordan - LG/NG depending on who is writing him Angel - NG Angelus - CE Death - N |
| Stev Beren08-30-05, 10:35 PM | The problem with that idea, is that actions don't even count towards alignment. Please respond to my earlier posts and tell me why you think action shouldn't count. Recall that even if a player is compelled to do Evil (through mundane or magical compulsion), he must still seek atonement, regardless of his "intention" or "guilt". In my opinion, actions do have the power to shape conscious. It might seem counterintuitive, since your personality usually determines your actions, but psychology is confusing like that. EDIT: Nevermind, I missed this part. I see that you meant to include "action" but just forgot to. Oh actions can effect alignment and start _pulling_ you one way or another, definitely. But its a journey, not a light switch. A good person can do somethign that turns out for evil and not become evil. Perhaps become more vulnerable to BECOMING evil, but not outright becoming so. See . .sort of? When you become evil is when you fulfill one of several conditions: WHen you stop caring about the results of your actions and who else gets hurt. ANd the other is if you start taking actions for the wrong motives. ANd Action was sort of in there by default. If the action didn't matter than your reaction to it wouldn't matter. |
| Sapp08-31-05, 03:12 AM | Yes, of course it's not a light switch. Of course it's a journey. Great, so we don't have any argument, which is why I added the edit in my last post. I didn't think my post needed an apology to be added (it's so trivial). Also, I guess I'll back down from Homer Simpson being Evil. I just realized that although the designers didn't intend for it, they set up a confusing standard in which intelligence usually shouldn't matter in determining alignment... except in the special case where the intelligence is animal-like (3 or under), in which case the creature is almost always neutral. Crazy, I know... but I guess that means Homer qualifies for the Chaotic Neutral alignment. |
| LCD2YOU08-31-05, 08:54 AM | (snip) Willow (from Buffy) LG (snip) No, Willow, and the actress who plays her, is just HOT. Xander, of Buffy fame, is NG-CG Giles(sp?) is LG-NG Drusila is CE Cordillia was N (with very selfish tendencies) but ended up NG (but always hot too) |
| babysamurai08-31-05, 09:15 AM | Magneto: NE Corum: LN Kane (from Kung-Fu): LN Ghengis Khan: CE Ogami Ito: N |
| Eightbitmage08-31-05, 10:43 AM | Uzumaki Naruto - CG Uchiha Sasuke - LG -> LN -> LE Haruno Sakura - NG Hyuuga Neji - LE -> LN Nara Shikamaru - N Oorochimaru - LE Uchiha Itachi - NE Haku - LG in love with a CE Zabuza |
| Kalidor08-31-05, 02:14 PM | If I were going to assign Batman an alignment it would have to be LG. He has a strict moral code that he follows to the letter, and he fights crime and opression relentlessly. I know the idea of "Lawful" confuses people because they think it means they obey the 'laws', but that's not the case. Lawful is really just another word for consistent, no matter what. Eric Cartman is LE. |
| DaveReaves08-31-05, 02:47 PM | Yea, I'm gonna go Lawful Good for Batman as well, though "Paladin" I have a problem with, but that’s a discussion for a different thread. Ninja Turtles! Leo: Lawful Good Don: Lawful Neutral Mike: Chaotic Good Raph: Chaotic Neutral Superman: Lawful Good (Here is your paladin) Lucky (The Leprechaun from the cereal commercials): CE. Always going to such extreme measures to keep those kids from his marshmallows. Any one who would deney kids marshmallows is evil in my book. :pbbbtt: |
| Kalidor08-31-05, 03:02 PM | I'm not even so sure Superman isn't Neutral good. He lets stuff slide sometimes when it suits him. He-Man though.. now there's your Lawful good Paladin. Skeletor: *clinging to a cliff* Don't save me you fool! He-Man: I.. have to! *pulls him up* Skeletor: *Shoots him in the back with his staff weapon* I would have let you fall to your death, fool! He-Man: God dammit.. don't you think I know that? *punches skeletor in the stomach* |
| OctoberRaven08-31-05, 06:33 PM | Willow, and the actress who plays her, is just HOT. That too. |
| Stev Beren08-31-05, 09:01 PM | . .Chill man<G> I didn't ask for an apology nor did I expect one. Just further explaining my thoughts. |
| Kalidor09-01-05, 03:54 AM | Did someone say Willow?? http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue230/davis2.jpg |
| LCD2YOU09-01-05, 08:03 AM | Er, wrong Willow. :P |