PDA

View Full Version : The alignments of fictional characters (books)



Brendan
2009-12-25, 05:38 PM
Hi, so I was thinking about alignments, and, after recently finishing rereading another discworld book, wondered what the alignments of the major characters were. For Moist von lipwig, I decided chaotic evil (he is a protagonist, but he steals and ruins the lives of people for fun), for Death I decided he was the epitome of true neutral. I was thinking that it would be interesting to brainstorm the alignments of various book characters.
I would suggest no books based on roleplaying games, and no books that started the idea of rpgs (things like tolkien) what are some book characters and what are their alignments?

Malfunctioned
2009-12-25, 05:39 PM
Batman.




Discuss.

Morty
2009-12-25, 05:41 PM
Moist von Lipwig might have been Chaotic Evil but later, he became Chaotic Neutral, I'd say.
And the problem with determining the alignment of fictional characters is that it leads to endless arguments which can't be resolved - each opinion tends to have as much support as the other one. This is because many books don't use black-and-white, D&Desque moralty.
@^ Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I said.

Mystic Muse
2009-12-25, 06:04 PM
Batman.




Discuss.

Stupidly awesome? (the little known tenth alignment.)

mabriss lethe
2009-12-25, 07:12 PM
Pretty much everyone in The Black Company: Something-evil.

togapika
2009-12-25, 07:13 PM
What about Mr. Tea ah time uh or whatever his name was... the assassin from hogfather.

mabriss lethe
2009-12-25, 07:16 PM
What about Mr. Tea ah time uh or whatever his name was... the assassin from hogfather.

Teatime could be anywhere from a rather twisted true neutral to lawful evil, depending on how you view his actions.

Brendan
2009-12-25, 07:21 PM
For Teatime, I would go with NE, but TN for him sounds even scarier, as he views each kill as just his job or hobby, not taking any sides, but just killing. He is maybe a psychotic TN verging on evil. Very evil.

Spiryt
2009-12-25, 07:26 PM
TN sounds attractive for Teatime, but not really accurate.

He may be really twirly insane, but he is performing evil deeds for his own selfish goals (no matter how weird they may appear), murdering, manipulating and generally screwing people's lifes, even when less.... drasticall means would have been better.

Evil as hell.

What would be actually fun about him is the Law/Chaos scale.

He seem totally chaotic and crazed, but his mind definetly work in rather organised way....

Xzeno
2009-12-25, 07:39 PM
I always figured Batman was CG. Not that I really thought about it.

How about Odysseus (from the Odyssey of Homer, of course)? He doesn't really strike me as good and he seems to have a "How do I solve this problem... oh right: Bloodshed!" way of thinking. Maybe he was just an adventurer.

elonin
2009-12-25, 07:42 PM
This isn't a book character but Riddick would be a contender for CN.

aje8
2009-12-25, 08:49 PM
Teatime is evil. He inhumes people's families for no reason other than that it strikes his fancy. That means he's harming others for no particular reason, thus textbook evil. This does not, in anyway, make him less awesome, however.

On the Law vs. Chaos point..... I fall firmly in the Frank and K camp and thus ignore it.

Here's a tough one: Rorschach. I actually have no idea for him.

Saph
2009-12-25, 08:59 PM
Here's a tough one: Rorschach. I actually have no idea for him.

LN would be my vote for Rorschach. You could make a good case for LE, but in my book his actions in the final chapter (where he's the only one not willing to become an accessory after the fact to the murder of several million innocent people) put him up to LN.

Teatime I'd say is a very definite NE. He follows his own interests and cares for absolutely nothing else. Those interests can involve quietly reading a book, or they can involve murdering people, and the reason his character is so scary is that he genuinely doesn't see much difference between the two.

Moist von Lipwig would be somewhere between CE and CN at the start of the books, rising to a definite CN by the end.

Death would be LN with some Good tendencies. He's really quite a nice guy once you get past the whole Grim Reaper thing.

Lupy
2009-12-25, 09:00 PM
Odysseus: TN

He basically does what Athena tells him to (L) but he also does whatever he feels like (C). He tortures that guy who beat him up when he was a beggar (E), but he also takes care of his crew (G). He listens to the sirens when told not to (C). I'm thinking TN.

Teatime: Straight up NE.

Xey42
2009-12-25, 09:08 PM
To be a bit more fair to Mr. Teatime, he only ever really killed people as part of his job. The tooth fairy carriage driver and sir george's dog were the only killings mentioned that were a bit off, but they were still in pursuit of his job.

Does this mean hes not a psychotic, scary, and totally awesome villain falling into the bottom right of the alignment spectrum? definitely not..

Definitely evil, follows the law's of the guild, but misinterprets or just doesn't understand them because of how his mind works so frequently goes outside in a chaotic fashion.. sounds neutral to me because of the balance.

--Just watched the hogfather, great christmas movie :smallbiggrin:

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-25, 09:43 PM
LN would be my vote for Rorschach. You could make a good case for LE, but in my book his actions in the final chapter (where he's the only one not willing to become an accessory after the fact to the murder of several million innocent people) put him up to LN.
Let's review the situation at the end of Watchmen.

It's too late to prevent the sacrifice of millions of people in order to avert global nuclear war. On the other hand, it's still possible to undo the scheme's positive effects and put the world back on the road to global nuclear war.

You think that being the one willing to do that makes Rorschach less Evil? The point at which he plainly demonstrates that punishing what he perceives as evil is massively more important to him than human life; that's when he stops being Evil?

Ozymandias is closer to (if not actually) Good, since he sacrificed lives in order to save many more lives. Sacrificing lives just to fulfill your personal sense of justice is Evil.

Agrippa
2009-12-25, 10:57 PM
What Ozymandias did was evil, he sacrificed millions of mostly innocent people. The fact that he did so to save the world deosn't change this fact. It only makes the atrocity he committed understandable if not absolutely needed and partially diminshes the evil of the act. I'd class him as a very sympathetic and well intended Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil. That said, trying to punish him immedately for his crimes, at least without having devised some fool proof plan to prevent backsliding into near inevitable nuclear war, at best foolhardy and poorly thought out. At worst, self righteously evil and the work of a madman.

Platinum_Mongoose
2009-12-25, 11:17 PM
His Dark Materials characters seem to play strongly to alignment.
Lyra Silvertongue: CG, though I can there being see a good argument for Lyra as CN and Pantalaimon as NG.
Will Parry: LG, maybe NG
Lee Scoresby: NG
Iorek Byrnison: LN (with strong Good tendencies, I'd say)
Mrs. Coulter: LE
Lord Asriel: Okay, this one's tricky. He's definitely Chaotic, what with the whole war on order thing he's so obsessed with... but is he doing it for freedom (Good) or pride (Evil)? I'll leave this one up for debate.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-25, 11:19 PM
How much more Evil is ending an innocent life than saving an innocent life is Good?

And wouldn't stopping Ozymandias also have been Evil, since it would have caused even more deaths than it prevented?

CDR_Doom
2009-12-25, 11:45 PM
And wouldn't stopping Ozymandias also have been Evil, since it would have caused even more deaths than it prevented?

That could depend on whether you think that there was any other way to prevent the war besides killing a bunch of innocents. If that was the only way, then Ozymandias made the right call. If there was any other method that would have saved even one more life than his way, and could have been implemented in time to stop the war then he made the wrong call.

Also it varies depending on whether you believe the ends justify the means, which Ozymandias does and Rorschach does not. Using the end to justify your means can be dangerous though, since it permits waste in the pursuit of the goal.

Platinum_Mongoose
2009-12-25, 11:48 PM
I think it's possible that Rorschach is the only actual case of Lawful Chaotic.

Agrippa
2009-12-25, 11:53 PM
How much more Evil is ending an innocent life than saving an innocent life is Good?

Enough that intentionally killing even one innocent without concent, even to save millions more, is evil or at best morally gray. Even then it would be the lesser of two evils and by extension the only moral option, unless you could find a better one. If you were a paladin you'd still fall, but at least you could honestly say that you did the best you could to save the innocent.


And wouldn't stopping Ozymandias also have been Evil, since it would have caused even more deaths than it prevented?

Unless you could find a truly better way then Ozymandias, most likely. What Veidt did was most likely the lesser of two evils, but it was still evil. I'd argue that a paladin who did what Veidt chose to do would fall, permanently. He killed millions of mostly innocent people. Even if it truly was neccisary he has the blood of millions of innocents on his hands, he can never be fully redeemed, it would simply be to cheap. Instead he teaches a new generation of paladins to be wiser than he is and to be better able to find solutions that don't involve loss of innocent life so they won't have to do what he did to save the world.

AirGuitarGod32
2009-12-25, 11:53 PM
To whoever said Riddick, Complete Scoundrel places him as an eample of CE, though I can see the Arguement for CN.

I also wish to interject both Altair Ibn La-Ahad and Enzio from the Assassin's Creed series. I'd be inclined to LN, simply because they obey their own laws, not those of the normal community. Lawful states you are disciplined and follow a set of rules and guidelines. This doesn't allways mean the laws of a region or city. This simply means you obey some form of Laws.

Zaydos
2009-12-26, 12:17 AM
Veidt made a lawful neutral decision. By no means was killing millions of innocents good, but it was not done for his own good (okay theoretically he might have but I choose not to make that assumption) but to help the greater number. When lives hung in the balance he chose to save as many as possible, like a Lawful Good character would do (not necessarily true with a CG). BUT he still killed millions and in doing so if he had been a paladin he would have fallen. A paladin wouldn't believe himself fit to wield such power after such a decision. That saidIt is the ultimate moral dillemna for a LG character. A CG character will simply say: No. I won't commit evil for the greater good, I won't lie to the world. Rorschach gives this response hence I'd say he's more Chaotic than Lawful. A LG character? He will have to consider it and he might choose it. He'd never forgive himself, and he'd live with the guilt for that until he died. I'd definitely agree a paladin would fall, because even when there is no good option a paladin will fall for choosing an evil one, but I'd still say a LG character would do it. They'd hate themselves for it, but they'd do it. Ultimately I'd say Roschach is CG, Veidt is LN, and Nightowl is LG.

BobVosh
2009-12-26, 12:37 AM
Moist is CN in most books
Vimes is LG
Vetinari is LN
Batman is all, as is obvious from the poster
Riddick is a good example of CE.
Satan (dark jewels trilogy) is LG.
Daemon (dark jewels trilogy) is CN at the beginning and becomes CG.

Ormur
2009-12-26, 12:39 AM
Rorschach may possibly be Chaotic (his character really displays the trouble with the lawful-chaos axis) but he's not Chaotic Good. He's a dogmatic psychopath who takes on the role of judge jury and executioner. He's really a good example of a paladin gone wrong. He isn't doing good he's punishing what he perceives as evil no matter what the consequences are.

Optimystik
2009-12-26, 12:41 AM
The trouble with Batman (and indeed, any comic book character) is that multiple writers over the years get a chance to interpret and reinterpret them. Because of this, Batman's been made to fit all 9 alignments based on his actions under different teams of writers.

As for Rorshach, I can't really see how he's Lawful. He metes out punishment on his own and has little use for any authority. He works with the Watchmen when their goals are aligned with his, and is more than happy to work independently of them when he feels they are dragging their heels. When the Keene Act was passed (outlawing masked vigilanteism) he openly defies it to continue his agenda against the criminal element in the city. He has a strong individualistic streak and uses any means at his disposal to take down his target. And unlike Batman (and even the Punisher), he uses lethal force against police when they get in his way.

Yes I know that Lawful does not just mean "obeys the Law" but his actions just ring very strongly Chaotic to me.

Saph
2009-12-26, 07:43 AM
It's too late to prevent the sacrifice of millions of people in order to avert global nuclear war. On the other hand, it's still possible to undo the scheme's positive effects and put the world back on the road to global nuclear war.

It's not a 'sacrifice', it's mass murder. And the idea that nuking a city is somehow going to prevent global nuclear war is utterly insane reasoning, and it would be insane even if it wasn't for the fact that it only takes one person figuring out what really happened to make the entire plan a joke.

I have very little patience for the "Other people are morons, I'm enlightened and wise, so I have to manipulate them for their own good" attitude. In my experience people like that tend to be the cause of problems, not the solution to them.

LOTRfan
2009-12-26, 08:32 AM
The trouble with Batman (and indeed, any comic book character) is that multiple writers over the years get a chance to interpret and reinterpret them. Because of this, Batman's been made to fit all 9 alignments based on his actions under different teams of writers.

As for Rorshach, I can't really see how he's Lawful. He metes out punishment on his own and has little use for any authority. He works with the Watchmen when their goals are aligned with his, and is more than happy to work independently of them when he feels they are dragging their heels. When the Keene Act was passed (outlawing masked vigilanteism) he openly defies it to continue his agenda against the criminal element in the city. He has a strong individualistic streak and uses any means at his disposal to take down his target. And unlike Batman (and even the Punisher), he uses lethal force against police when they get in his way.

Yes I know that Lawful does not just mean "obeys the Law" but his actions just ring very strongly Chaotic to me.


Well, Rorshach has his own (deranged) moral code, that he would never break. That's why he refuses to go along with the mass murder of millions. I believe it's explained (vaguely) in the comic book (or graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it). He sees the police getting in his way as an obstacle that keeps him from helping people, so in his mind its okay to use lethal force, because he believes evil should be punished, regardless of any consequences. Isn't it a lawful trait to not break their personal codes?

Brendan
2009-12-26, 09:19 AM
About vimes, he reminds me of :roy: in that he accomplishes lawful acts in a chaotic manner, aggrivating as many authorities as possible and "forgetting" the laws or his appointments. Then there is the glorious revolution which was definately chaotic.
Also, is he really good? He certainly tries to be, but with the beast, and his dishonorable tactics and his prejudices, he has done some decidedly neutral acts. However, his loyalty and love for the city keeps him on the right path, so i would say NG or TN, with strong awesome tendancies.

Deme
2009-12-26, 09:58 AM
I can't remember Vimes doing any particularly questionable acts, except maybe that time he was possesed, and leaving that guy in the fire; he may fear the darkness in him, but he does a pretty good job of beating it down. He's LG, if only because Law is the only thing that keeps him Good, in his own thinking... But yeah, he's a good bit like Roy, I'll grant.

I had an excellent, long post discussing Moist, Ozymandias, and Rorshach, but it was eaten. I shall summarize.

Moist - CN. Never thought of himself as actually hurting people and tried not to (the fractions of killings withstanding), is disgusted by people who do, but isn't entirely willing to help people, either. The C speaks for itself.

Ozymandias - LE or NE. Even shying away from the issue of the big nuking, I remind you of the absolutely random deaths of all those scientists. That, and the whole black freighter metaphor says "hey, y'all, he's become exactly what he was so horrified and terrified of," which is not something that you can say about people who remain on the good side of the alignment pool.

Rorshach - I'd say TN. He goes about good goals (DnD good, certainly) through questionable means, is simultaniously willing to punish evil wherever it lurks but also willing to take someone out if and only if they're in his way, going about his lawful goals (upholding a strict moral code) in chaotic ways (everything). I could still see an argument for an evil, because this feels like a "depends on the DM" scenario, in which case I'd say NE. I would also argue that the moment of his death was in no way a turning point -- it instead was a culmination of everything he was.

Oh, and as for Teatime... LE, I'd say. Maybe NE, but he's actually not all that chaotic, and he seems to respect the guild's rules. The evil comes to the fact that for him, there doesn't seem to sincerely be a difference between taking a human life and, oh say, having tea, though both seem to be easy and pleasant enough activities. That lack of value for life almost defines DnD evil. Also, the poker says he's a monster, and you can always trust household supplies to be able to solve alignment debates.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-26, 11:38 AM
LN would be my vote for Rorschach. You could make a good case for LE, but in my book his actions in the final chapter (where he's the only one not willing to become an accessory after the fact to the murder of several million innocent people) put him up to LN.
(...)
I agree. Rorscharch is good, that he cares for the "greater good", and cares for the common people, but he is evil, for he has no qalms(sp?) about breaking people up and violating human rights "because they deserve it". He's pretty much in the middle. And it works for him. Why people have so much trouble with D&D's alignment?

Brendan
2009-12-26, 11:46 AM
Vimes certainly has his prejudices, but he follows his own moral code to the letter, always returning home at 6:00 NO MATTER WHAT and things like that, which makes a strong case for lawful, but he does not hesitate to ignore the direct orders of his superiors and then he revolts against the gov't in Night Watch. He is Lawful with chaotic tendencies, I think.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 01:40 PM
Lawful with a few atypical traits, rather than Chaotic or Neutral with a lot of atypical traits, I think makes the most sense for Vimes. Similarly with Good- he exerts enough control over his more dangerous traits, to be more Good than Neutral.

Complete Scoundrel cites Riddick (as of Pitch Black) as a typical CE scoundrel- as mentioned earlier.

I'd say Moist qualifies as CN, maybe with mild evil tendencies, in Going Postal, but by Making Money, he may just about qualify for CG.

Optimystik
2009-12-26, 01:52 PM
Well, Rorshach has his own (deranged) moral code, that he would never break. That's why he refuses to go along with the mass murder of millions. I believe it's explained (vaguely) in the comic book (or graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it). He sees the police getting in his way as an obstacle that keeps him from helping people, so in his mind its okay to use lethal force, because he believes evil should be punished, regardless of any consequences. Isn't it a lawful trait to not break their personal codes?

It's not necessary to have a special "moral code" to see murdering millions of people as wrong. By that logic, everyone who dislikes slaughtering innocent people would be Lawful. Even a CN or TN would disagree with Ozymandias' idea, especially if they knew people in the blast radius.

hamishspence
2009-12-26, 01:58 PM
yes- Ozymandias has a hypothesis that murdering millions now will lead to world peace later. And the arrogance to think this hypothesis about the future is certain to be right.

Which is not to say Rorschach is a good person- but it would not be hard to imagine a character who is evil by D&D standards, who would baulk massivesly at an act on the scale of Ozymandias's. Such as someone who, as mentioned, knows people in the balst area.

Or even a mildly CE person who's view is "who died and gave you the right to decide who should be sacrificed to build this "better world" of yours?"

On thievery, it might be interesting to go back to old pre-Moldvay Basic D&D, with its 5 alignments (LG, CG, N, LE, CE)

It said- "Thieves cannot be good" so, a career thief, couldn't even be CG.

Later on, (AD&D) with the alignment system expanded, all alignments except LG could have thieves. Still, the point is, that thievery is associated with non-good alignments, and it is a rare thief that can steal and still maintain a Good alignment.

Most common justification is something along the lines of "stealing from those who deserve to be robbed- because they obtained their wealth illegitmately- is excusable"

But rarely if ever "stealing is only Chaotic, not Evil"

Tackyhillbillu
2009-12-26, 08:14 PM
But rarely if ever "stealing is only Chaotic, not Evil"

I've always failed to see why this is the case. If I steal from someone rich when I'm starving, how is that evil? I am doing it to benefit myself, but I am harming someone only minimally in order to give myself a huge benefit.

Stealing can be evil, can be neutral, can even be good (in the world of D&D.) It depends on the nature of the society, the victim, and the thief.

Gamerlord
2009-12-26, 08:16 PM
C'Boath of outbound flight
Lawful stupid.

All in agreement?

Angry Bob
2009-12-26, 08:29 PM
Jorus C'Baoth is/was lawful good the same way Miko was Lawful good.

Joruus C'Baoth starts lawful evil and degenerates towards chaotic evil until his death.

Thrawn is Lawful Awesome.

JonestheSpy
2009-12-26, 09:08 PM
Rorschach is totally chaotic neutral - he's the ultimate individualist. I think it's a too-common fallacy (helped along by some bad writing in the rulebooks) that chaotic characters don't have codes they stick too; the point is it's their own code, and they don't give a dang what anybody else thinks. But thoerwise he's pretty unpredictable. He thinks he's doing right - i.e.- good - but he's so lost perspective that he often brutalizes criminals far more than their crimes warrant and would rather risk restarting the run-up to nuclear war than violate his own code. But he's not a sociopath - we see him showing compassion toward Moloch, and reacting to the terror of his bitchy landlady's children.

Veidt is probably the type of evil that thinks it's doing good and doesn't see its own fall - his penchant for hyperorganization makes me think lawful evil.

To throw in another name: the epic hero Roland is usually called a paladin, but really he's nowhere near lawful good. He's a historical paladin - the French equivalent of a knight - but is nothing like a DnD paladin. Very individualistic, proud, often disobediant to his superiors, and trusting his own strength to overcome every danger. In Song of Roland, probably the best known epic he stars in, he dies when he and the reargaurd of the French army are ambushed and he refuses to blow his horn for help, only doing so after everyone has been killed and he calls on Charlemagne to avenge him (interestingly Charlegmagne and the character of Thierry do both exemplify DnD style paladins, as they are both devout knights aided by god to defeat stronger enemies). Roland is probably chaotic good, but if you read the various epics he spends enough time causing trouble one could argue toward serious CN leanings.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-26, 09:27 PM
Stealing is like killing, in that you can get almost everyone to agree that it's wrong to do to a random person for fun, but beyond that things get murky.

(Alternately, you can get a bunch of people to agree that "theft" and "murder" are wrong, while in no way getting them to agree on which cases of killing or taking others' stuff is wrong. Loaded terms simply provide additional ways for people to express their disagreement.)


Why people have so much trouble with D&D's alignment?
(1) It's unclear what even distinguishes the alignments from each other. They're described in vague terms, and when the official material actually gets specific it often either contradicts itself, says something exceedingly stupid, or both.
(2) It's unclear on whether alignment is supposed to be about what you want as an end in itself, what you want as a means or an end, what you try to do as an end in itself, what you try to do as a means to an end, what effects you expect your actions to have, or what effects your actions actually have. (Or whether the alignment system was just thrown together by people who didn't realize or just didn't care that these are all different things.)
(3) Whichever of the potential standards one uses for what each alignment is, many acts and almost all human beings will be each of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil in some ways. How one is supposed to determine something's alignment based on this is left as an exercise for the reader, because we aren't told what we're supposed to be generalizing across in anything like quantitative terms.

Does that answer your question?

The Tygre
2009-12-27, 02:06 AM
Oh merciful sons of black Arioch...

http://theducks.org/pictures/this-will-not-end-well-cat.jpg

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 10:43 AM
(3) Whichever of the potential standards one uses for what each alignment is, many acts and almost all human beings will be each of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil in some ways. How one is supposed to determine something's alignment based on this is left as an exercise for the reader, because we aren't told what we're supposed to be generalizing across in anything like quantitative terms.

We get a rough idea for Evil, at least (lots of sources, none of which contradict each other quite as much as has been suggested):

BoVD, Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror, Exemplars of Evil.

Good, Law, and Chaos are described in less detail, but still some detail.

Sure, a person will have traits of all, but its their "dominant traits" so to speak, that determine their alignment.

David Gemmell is one of the better fantasy authors to typify this- he has good people who sometimes do evil, and evil people who sometimes do good.

You can tell which is which- but you can also tell that there are subtleties- persons who could be called "evil- but not wholly evil"

Zaydos
2009-12-27, 01:57 PM
Personally I'd like to know Elric of Melnibone's. He's a servant of chaos, that betrays it, fights against it with a definitely Chaotic Evil super-sword, and just... well he's defined as part of "chaos" several times in the books (Micheal Moorcock all about Law vs Chaos and seems a likely source for the original 3 alignment system; almost always Law = Good and Chaos = Evil like in the really old D&D books) but in the D&D sense his alignment is odd and he helps illustrate just how odd the Law vs Chaos spectrum can be (yay anti-heroes).

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 02:02 PM
According to BoVD, he's

"evil, but mostly because of the society he was brought up in. He does good deeds, but uses evil methods, especially that terribly evil artifact sword he wields"

Elric would be evil, but "heroic evil" so to speak- more like something out of Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror, etc.

a Chaotic Evil anti-hero, more than a Villain.

(I recall a Conan+Elric comic book, where the two fought, then worked together against a villain).

On D&D books, some versions of Basic D&D had 5 alignments (LG, LE, N CE, CG)- and others have only three, though mention exceptions to the "Lawful tends to be good, Chaotic tends to be evil) general principle.

Mikeavelli
2009-12-27, 02:16 PM
Batman.




Discuss.

http://i47.tinypic.com/1pcj76.jpg


In other news, Ozymandius is absolutely some flavor of evil (Whether Lawful or Neutral I can't call). Dude willfully executed a plan that involved the murder of millions of innocent people. He's the best kind of evil in a story, evil with a coherent goal and a damn good reason WHY they're doing evil, but he is nevertheless evil.

If Veidt had gone the old fashioned route, gathered up his own private army to take control of the world militarily, enforce his will, and achieve world peace, somehow killing the exact same number of people in the process, ya'll wouldn't hesitate to call him evil. Sure, his goal was world peace, and he may have even achieved it, any the way he went about doing it might have even been necessary, he's still evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 02:17 PM
While Complete Scoundrel cites Batman as LG, it may be the Adam West version- as the chart above suggests.

Amphetryon
2009-12-27, 05:12 PM
Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever.

Anyone?

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-28, 12:55 AM
If Veidt had gone the old fashioned route, gathered up his own private army to take control of the world militarily, enforce his will, and achieve world peace, somehow killing the exact same number of people in the process, ya'll wouldn't hesitate to call him evil.
Is there actually a consensus that launching military invasions -- which do have a tendency to kill large numbers of people -- necessarily indicates Evil alignment?

JonestheSpy
2009-12-28, 01:54 AM
Is there actually a consensus that launching military invasions -- which do have a tendency to kill large numbers of people -- necessarily indicates Evil alignment?

In the modern era, I think yes. Sort of like slavery - for centuries, it was just something everyone did, and one could engage in such activity and still qualify as "neutral". But Veidt is an hyperintelligent modern mind fully aware of the morality of individual rights, the value of life, etc, and still chose to kill millions for the sake of his plan. Whether by war or a single incident doesn't matter all that much.

Sewblon
2009-12-28, 02:31 AM
Batman.




Discuss. http://lounge.moviecodec.com/literature/batmans-dd-alignment-53139/ Done. He is a mainstream comic book character so his alignment depends entirely on the writer.

sombrastewart
2009-12-28, 01:01 PM
Thrawn is Lawful Awesome.

So, so true. Honestly, though, if I were to give him an alignment, it'd be LN, but Lawful Awesome is much more appropriate.

Friend Computer
2009-12-28, 03:24 PM
Sort of like slavery - for centuries, it was just something everyone did, and one could engage in such activity and still qualify as "neutral".This is so unbelievably wrong I almost shot milk out of my nose. Milk I drank an hour ago!

D&D has an objective morality. As such, slavery would still be evil when it was the economic basis for the whole of society. The thing is, the society which allows it and justifies it would be correspondingly more evil.

And Thrawn's alignment is Awesome Awesome.
I wonder if there is a trope for something like 'Awesome Sue'? Because Thrawn is a Sue character, but the kind that... is too epic for that to matter.

hamishspence
2009-12-28, 03:31 PM
The following D&D books suggest slavery is Evil:

BoED "even if slavery is accepted by society, it is evil"

Cityscape "The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign"

Some characters might call it a "necessary evil" or "something that should be phased out slowly, with law amendments rather than revolution"

but seeing it as "not an inherently evil institution" would be somewhat atypical.

Thrawn is a character who varies depending on the period. He may be an example of someone who has undergone alignment slippage,

from borderline Good in Outbound Flight (with his determination to protect others from the Vagaari despite Chiss law forbidding such interference)

to borderline Evil in the original novel trilogy, with his willing collusion in the fraud perpetrated on the Noghri, among other things.

Beleriphon
2009-12-28, 03:45 PM
And Thrawn's alignment is Awesome Awesome.
I wonder if there is a trope for something like 'Awesome Sue'? Because Thrawn is a Sue character, but the kind that... is too epic for that to matter.

Thrawn is a rather classic example of a character brought down by their own hubris. He's not a Sue type character, by and large, since he has to lose in the end.

That said LE is Thrawn through and through.

AtwasAwamps
2009-12-28, 03:47 PM
Vimes certainly has his prejudices, but he follows his own moral code to the letter, always returning home at 6:00 NO MATTER WHAT and things like that, which makes a strong case for lawful, but he does not hesitate to ignore the direct orders of his superiors and then he revolts against the gov't in Night Watch. He is Lawful with chaotic tendencies, I think.

Vimes is Lawful Good to the absolute T. He disobeys his superiors when he believes that they are acting in opposition to what he believes the laws should enforce. People have pointed to Night Watch as an example of when he acts chaotically (rebelling against the government) only to forget that the government in this case is a chaotic madman killing left and right, employing torture, and harming the innocent, which any Lawful Good person would oppose as a mockery of Law, regardless of how the chips of government play down. They are also forgetting some of the best Samuel Vime quotes ever:


(Paraphrased) "The system isn't broken, Carcer. The system is WAITING for you."
"Yes, I'm hurting. I'm hurting and I'm still doing it by the book."

hamishspence
2009-12-28, 03:53 PM
That said LE is Thrawn through and through.


Certainly "late Thrawn" timewise.

"early Thrawn" is a bit more idealistic and a bit less "ends justify means"

Though, even when he first joins the Empire for real (the short story at the end of the paperback edition of Outbound Flight) his sheer ruthlessness toward the Imperial soldiers, just to "get the interview" so to speak, is pretty dark.

In Tatooine Ghost by Troy Denning, he's leading the hunt in person, disguised as a stormtrooper commander, and his approach to "hearts and minds" is pretty interesting.

ericgrau
2009-12-28, 06:04 PM
Batman.




Discuss.

I thought everyone knew the answer was all of the above:
http://digitalculture-ed.net/tracys/files/2009/11/batman-alignment-1024x819.jpg

Friend Computer
2009-12-28, 10:18 PM
Certainly "late Thrawn" timewise.

"early Thrawn" is a bit more idealistic and a bit less "ends justify means"

Though, even when he first joins the Empire for real (the short story at the end of the paperback edition of Outbound Flight) his sheer ruthlessness toward the Imperial soldiers, just to "get the interview" so to speak, is pretty dark.

In Tatooine Ghost by Troy Denning, he's leading the hunt in person, disguised as a stormtrooper commander, and his approach to "hearts and minds" is pretty interesting.

I disagree that 'ends justify the means' is an evil trait. Without going into the nonsense about killing-one-to-save-the-many just yet, I will instead point out that to achieve any ends you must engage in a means. Of the choices offered, which accomplishes the given ends in the most efficient manner possible under the given circumstances? Ends justifying the means in fact means that the ends determines the means used.

People have warped this to go from 'if you want to do something hard, you'll have to use the right tools' to "IT MEANS YOU WANT TO RAPE MY BABY WHILE IT IS STILL IN MY WOMB 'FOR THE GREATER GOOD!' YOU PSYCHO!"

It doesn't mean that. It does however demand you take that course of action that will achieve your goal in the most solid manner possible, if you don't want to reject your goal.

/rant

Draz74
2009-12-28, 10:45 PM
I disagree that 'ends justify the means' is an evil trait.

In theory? You're right. "The ends justify the means" is a valid conclusion -- in fact it's the only way to evaluate those "means" -- if all of the ends are properly considered.

In practice? "The ends justify the means" usually is a justification to do evil. The Prince by Machiavelli, for example ... pretty much the epitome of Lawful Evil philosophy, and full of "the ends justifies the means."

dragonfan6490
2009-12-29, 12:06 AM
Since Roland was mentioned, how about Arthur Pendragon? He is thought of as a just and good king, but when Mordred was born, in some legends, he has all the babies born during that period of time drowned, with Mordred surviving. Would he be qualified as LG w/ CE tendencies?

Friend Computer
2009-12-29, 01:51 AM
Since Roland was mentioned, how about Arthur Pendragon? He is thought of as a just and good king, but when Mordred was born, in some legends, he has all the babies born during that period of time drowned, with Mordred surviving. Would he be qualified as LG w/ CE tendencies?

That would be [something] Evil... The whole 'innocent life' thing comes into play there.

@Draz: I only see that given as an excuse in badly written works, or as strawmen with someone bringing up Hitler or something. Where it actually applies, it is frequently to evil deeds, but is rarely invoked, ime.

As for The Prince, I see it as a sober, materialist look at what happens in politics, rather than a philosophy. /nitpick.

As for the validity of The Prince, it is important to note that the ends desired are evil (the ability to hold sovereignty over an area, tax it's inhabitants, and live off the fruit of another's labour is usually condemned as at least 'really not nice') as such, the means correspond. Though we could always talk about war being evil in that it will always have an impact on 'innocent life' but that it is sometimes necessary, if only in self defence, and even desirable, when advancing a progressive social ideal or society against something backward (French Revolution or the US Civil War come to mind).

So there is no denial that evil means can be justified, or said to be justified by good ends, but the principle, when applied correctly, is only saying "pick the right tools for the job at hand."

Draz74
2009-12-29, 02:06 AM
As for the validity of The Prince, it is important to note that the ends desired are evil (the ability to hold sovereignty over an area, tax it's inhabitants, and live off the fruit of another's labour is usually condemned as at least 'really not nice') as such, the means correspond.

Ah, but take it to another level. The tyranny you describe is not what The Prince claims is its end goal; rather, it (tyranny) is the Means to a "greater" End, namely the prevention of chaos and anarchy. The Prince claims that such anarchy is the ultimate evil, and thus, preventing it by any means is justifiable.


Though we could always talk about war being evil in that it will always have an impact on 'innocent life' but that it is sometimes necessary, if only in self defence, and even desirable, when advancing a progressive social ideal or society against something backward
I'm not quite sure how this followed from the earlier half of the same paragraph. Are you saying The Prince justifies its evil means by claiming they prevent war, which is the ultimate evil? If so, that's not far off from what I was saying above. In any case, I more or less agree with what you've stated in this paragraph ...

And if you're saying "tyranny isn't actually justified by 'the ends justify the means,' because you have to look at all of the 'ends,' including the possibility that war/anarchy could actually have some good/necessary consequences," then I agree with you. Like I said before, "the ends justify the means" really does work in theory, if all the "ends" are considered.


So there is no denial that evil means can be justified, or said to be justified by good ends, but the principle, when applied correctly, is only saying "pick the right tools for the job at hand."
Right. I just don't think that fiction ("poorly written" or otherwise) is all that far away from reality when it depicts villains frequently misusing "the ends justify the means" to rationalize their actions. Unfortunately.

hamishspence
2009-12-29, 04:52 AM
While discussions of Machiaveli are not likely to end well...

it is worth remembering, he wrote both The Prince and The Discourses- a treatise on republics and how to ensure they survive, without devolving into tyrannies, and the classic quote, in language closer to the actual translation:

"It is a sound maxim that, when an action is reprehensible, the result may excuse it, and when the result is good, always excuses it"

appears in The Discourses.

It was given as a justification for Romulus's murder of Remus, among other things- the argument that when a man commits murder "for the common good" it is OK:

"For it is the man who uses violence to spoil things, not the man who uses it to mend them, that is blameworthy"