Popular culture alignments

[JaronK]

Precisely. And Tyler is a manifestation of insanity itself. That pegs him very clearly as Chaotic Neutral. He has no moral compass, he simply acts out of his sole drive: to create chaos and lash out. He's just a hallucination and a manifestation, not a cogent human being.

JaronK

[hamishspence]

I thought the Heroes of Horrors book said that a person who was actually completely insane and not really in control of their actions could be argued as chaotic neutral?".

It says "An argument can be made that they're not really evil at all, in the strictest sense of the term".

Champions of Ruin also mentioned as an "Evil Archetype"- Mad, I tell You which is a character driven by madness to do truly horrific things, that would "horrify a demon"

So it might depend just how mad they are and just how evil the things they do, are.

[Burner28]

Precisely. And Tyler is a manifestation of insanity itself. That pegs him very clearly as Chaotic Neutral. He has no moral compass, he simply acts out of his sole drive: to create chaos and lash out. He's just a hallucination and a manifestation, not a cogent human being.

JaronK
That would make him true neutral, not chaotic neutral as (if you are correct), he is only following his instincts like an animal. Cats aren't Chaotic Neutrals they are True Neutral

Anyways from Final Fantasy 6
Lawful Good: Cyan
Neutral Good: Terra
True Neutral: Umaro
Chaotic Neutral: Setzer
Lawful Evil: Emperor Gestahl
Neutral Evil: Ultros
Chaotic Evil: Kefka after the world has been ruined as before that he still played along with Gestahl's rules

[Morithias]

That would make him true neutral, not chaotic neutral as (if you are correct), he is only following his instincts like an animal. Cats aren't Chaotic Neutrals they are True Neutral

Anyways from Final Fantasy 6
Lawful Good: Cyan
Neutral Good: Terra
True Neutral: Umaro
Chaotic Neutral: Setzer
Lawful Evil: Emperor Gestahl
Neutral Evil: Ultros
Chaotic Evil: Kefka after the world has been ruined as before that he still played along with Gestahl's rules

A cat is true neutral because it lakes sapient. I thought that was basically the way it worked. Natural Int score less than 3 = TN character.

[Zonugal]

Precisely. And Tyler is a manifestation of insanity itself. That pegs him very clearly as Chaotic Neutral. He has no moral compass, he simply acts out of his sole drive: to create chaos and lash out. He's just a hallucination and a manifestation, not a cogent human being.

JaronK

But Tyler isn't insanity, he is very much an idealogy of freedom through anarchy. You want insanity, turn on the Dark Knight. Tyler simply wishes for the social entropy to bring society back to a more bestial time.

But I feel we are perhaps moving far too much into literature/film theory and not discussions on alignment. My point still stands that it is not reasonable to compare Tyler to that of an animal.

[Half-Orc Rage]

Thank you to the guy who did Vlad Taltos & Co. I secretly wonder if they are all really evil, but they seem like such a nice group.

If the Punisher is evil for killing a lot of bad guys, so are a lot of D&D characters that are played as the good guys. I think lawful neutral works better for him, he doesn't kill innocent people. I certainly can't call him a good guy.

"One More Day" is an abomination. Spider-man is neutral good. One terrible story doesn't change 40 years of the character. I would say Captain America is neutral good as well, maybe lawful good depending on the writer. Iron Man is harder, I want to put Tony on the side of good but he has done some questionable things, maybe chaotic good? Thor is lawful good. Wolverine I feel is very much chaotic good, doesn't listen to authority, does things his own way, but is definitely a good guy. Cyclops is lawful good. Deadpool I think is chaotic neutral, he's done both good and evil things.

Ozymandias is lawful evil, he committed an atrocity for a reason. Rorschach obeys his rules and nothing else, lawful neutral. Nite Owl is NG, Dr. Manhattan is detached from humanity and essentially neutral, Silk Spectre is probably neutral good.

Tyler Durden is chaotic evil. He wants to destroy society, to tear the world down. He's not building things into a utopia, he's a violent anarchist cult leader.

[true_shinken]

If the Punisher is evil for killing a lot of bad guys, so are a lot of D&D characters that are played as the good guys. I think lawful neutral works better for him, he doesn't kill innocent people. I certainly can't call him a good guy.
The Punisher's definition of 'innocent' depends on the story. Sometimes he kills drug addicts or prostitutes that just happened to be there.

[MightyTim]

I don't think this one's been mentioned yet..

Hannibal Lector: Lawful Evil

[hamishspence]

The Punisher's definition of 'innocent' depends on the story. Sometimes he kills drug addicts or prostitutes that just happened to be there.

And even outside of that- given that by FC2 and BoED, "torture" is an Evil act, and by Champions of Ruin, routinely committing Evil acts leads to an Evil alignment- I'd say somebody who tortures, to death, the "not innocent", for their own personal pleasure, as well as to satisfy their desire for "justice", might qualify as Evil.

Even if they never harm "the innocent"- because, say, they have a moral compunction against it.

Dexter from Darkly Dreaming Dexter might qualify- might the Punisher qualify as well?

[Jota]

This might go somewhat against established premises, but it seems most have already dismissed with said assumptions and moved on, so here goes: while discussing alignment with Cidolfas, we came up with the idea of defining alignment by Freudian constructs, that is to say the id, ego, and superego. In something of a simplification, the id represents instinctual needs, which are tempered by both the ego (adherence to societal law) and the superego (adherence to moral values).

What I like about this representation is the fact that lawfulness becomes very strictly a matter of following the laws of society, and a personal code defines alignment on the good-evil axis, rather than the law-chaos one. Basically, the id and superego combined represent the character's position on the good-evil access, and only the ego determines position on the law-chaos axis. In this way, I can point to Rohrschach and quite readily tell you he is not a lawful character. Whether he is neutral or chaotic depends on whether he acts within the law only when it is favorable to do so (neutral), or acts entirely without regard for the law (chaotic). In his particular case, I would say he starts out as neutral, transitioning toward chaotic in either the lead up to or due to the Blair Roche incident.

As far as good or evil is concerned, we look at the strength and extent of the baser drives (id) and to what degree they are tempered by moral values (superego). Again, Rohrschach transitions here, as he goes from leaving lawbreakers to the police to killing them over the course of the story. What needs to be determined is why he switches from one to the other, and as someone who isn't that keen a follower and doesn't know why he did the former, I can't really make a judgment here as to whether this is a shift in the id, a shift in the superego, or neither and he would have freely killed people before but for his relationships with other superheroes (and thus perhaps already explained by his shift to chaos).

This system becomes a little convoluted when the character exists in a society where corruption is rampant (e.g. Batman), but I still think I'd place someone such as Batman as a neutral character on the law-chaos axis, following the laws for the most part, but ignoring them when it suits his purpose. As far as neutral versus good (at least in the Batman's case), that depends on whether you believe Bruce Wayne is always in control, or, as some writers have suggested, that Batman is something of his own persona and he and Bruce Wayne fight for control, with Batman being much more savage, tempered only by Wayne's strong will. To this end, when dealing with shades of gray (as with actions not taken discussed below), intent takes primary significance. If Batman wants to run around at night beating people up and fighting crime is the externality, that can be passed off as neutral because he's not killing anyone and what he's doing isn't really so bad, even if it isn't really good either. If Batman wants to help people and beating up crooks is the externality, that is much more of a good action, provided Batman takes steps to limit his collateral damage.

Other interpretations using this system might include:

Dexter Morgan - Neutral Evil - First things first, Dexter has a pathological need to kill people. That's evil, no wiggle room. The fact that he limits himself to only other killers makes him less evil (represented by his somewhat developed superego), but still undoubtedly evil (the original draft for the system called for each construct to be rated on a scale of three, three being high, with the id and the superego, being something in direct opposition, not totaling to more than five, thus creating multiple levels of evil, neutrality, and good).

Kuchiki Byakuya - Lawful Neutral - Lawful is more or less indisputable here, so unless someone calls me on it I don't think I'll explain that. As far as neutral is concerned, Byakuya was something of a rare example of what we determined as a 1-1 (id-superego) in that he has no strong base desires, but there isn't really a moral code that governs his actions -- it is entirely about what the law says is correct (or perhaps it is that his moral code says to follow the law regardless of the circumstances, either way the result is the same).

Robin Hood - Chaotic Good/Neutral - Admittedly he's robbing people. It's hardly something people tend to write thank you cards for. They're could be an attribution to the id here, but Robin tends not to kill his victims, so Batman and the shades of gray (robbery being what it is, and his victims being what they are) are again called to the fore. In Robin's case, probably more so than in Batman's, the actions he takes are the only recourse for good he has left. Other options are non-existent or ineffectual, which suggests a good character whose hand has been forced, and who is still restrained in his actions. Different interpretations of the legend might permit for a more neutral character, however.

I originally wrote what's in the spoiler for Jack Bauer, but I think if there's ever a case for situational alignment it's got to be in this one. You have a twenty-four hour glimpse into someone's life and you're trying to make a judgment based on that, and that judgment simply can't hold up in both a normal setting (if you're going to call him Neutral Evil or some such) and in the observed setting (if you're going to call him Good, and even Neutrality is a stretch in my mind giving what he ends up doing).

Jack Bauer - Neutral Evil - Not one I have too much personal experience with, but here's my take. Generally a law-abiding citizen but for the crazy events of the show, he sometimes has a need to work outside the law to accomplish his goals. Now, I don't see Bauer as someone with a need to kill or torture people, no matter how frequently he engages in such activities. At the same time, he has shown little moral compunction over completing some of these actions, which suggests a character who is capable of awful things, but not one who feels a need to partake in such activities. The difference between Batman, Robin Hood, and Bauer, is that the former two don't go to the same lengths as Bauer. I feel that there's something of an 'ends justifies the means' place within the neutral alignment, but only when the means are not so heinous. Bauer's actions, however, tend to cross that line.

A few other things I like about this system: the fact that it clusters alignments around neutrality on both axes. This is in part because being good is difficult. You have to actively try to be good. Doing nothing bad is not good enough, which is as it should be. It also follows because being chaotic evil amounts to being a serial killer waiting to happen, and last I checked there weren't too many of those. On the same line of thought, being chaotic is somewhat rare. Being able to act in complete disregard for the law for any period of reasonable duration (assuming the law would otherwise come after you) implies either sufficient strength such that the law has no significance to you (perhaps Zaraki Kenpachi), or a total insignificance to the law, perhaps due to the scale of one's transgressions (?).

That's not to say there aren't issues. I'm not sure how well this idea stands up against individuals or groups who have no governmental regulation, as a lack of laws is not particular conducive to being lawful. I also think being lawful evil tends to be a bit more petty in this light, in that serious evils are usually against the law. This brings me to another point that I like, however, in that actions take priority in categorizing individuals, but in their absence, the reason for the absence assumes significance (or when the action has shades of gray). For example, if you kill someone for ****s and giggles, that's rather evil. If you would kill someone but for fear of reprisal from the law, you might still be a bad person, just one who won't break the law to get what he wants. Motivations are useful in determining whether a character is merely just lawful, or whether they are actually good or neutral in alignment.

tl;dr: **** you, live in ignorance.

[Zonugal]

Jack Bauer - Neutral Evil - Not one I have too much personal experience with, but here's my take. Generally a law-abiding citizen but for the crazy events of the show, he sometimes has a need to work outside the law to accomplish his goals. Now, I don't see Bauer as someone with a need to kill or torture people, no matter how frequently he engages in such activities. At the same time, he has shown little moral compunction over completing some of these actions, which suggests a character who is capable of awful things, but not one who feels a need to partake in such activities. The difference between Batman, Robin Hood, and Bauer, is that the former two don't go to the same lengths as Bauer. I feel that there's something of an 'ends justifies the means' place within the neutral alignment, but only when the means are not so heinous. Bauer's actions, however, tend to cross that line.

You are correct in saying that looking at Jack Bauer is highly complex but I feel if you haven't watched a great deal of the show than you may not see the greater effects of the characters actions, primarily torture. Now you state that perhaps the character shows little moral compunction over performing such vile actions and I feel this is wrong. Throughout the show it is shown, vividly, that Jack Bauer suffers an immense erosion of his soul because of his actions. There are several scenes where he will perform a torture to only leave in completely agony over what he has just performed. You simply have to watch the character as he progresses throughout the series and see that he is truly broken down into a tragic human being.

Now that isn't to excuse his actions but it is important to remember that such a character is working under extreme pressure. In addition it may be difficult to say that Jack Bauer desires to perform such tactics. What is perhaps more likely is that he feels compelled out of a confused duty to his country to attempt to protect it. Either way he is a tough character to just give a brief look into.

[Burner28]

Robin Hood - Chaotic Good/Neutral - Admittedly he's robbing people. It's hardly something people tend to write thank you cards for.

It would be funny if people did thank you for robbing them


Different interpretations of the legend might permit for a more neutral character, however.
Why would he be Chaotic Neutral?


lawful evil tends to be a bit more petty in this light, in that serious evils are usually against the law.

Depends on whether the law in question itself allows for truly evil acts such as slavery and murder of those that are of different race


If you would kill someone but for fear of reprisal from the law, you might still be a bad person, just one who won't break the law to get what he wants.

you are definetly still a bad person regardless of what the law says.

[hamishspence]

Why would he be Chaotic Neutral?


If he (Robin Hood) despite an overall Good attitude, commits Evil acts regularly (though nothing Evil enough to warrant an alignment change to Chaotic Evil) he might be Chaotic Neutral.


Throughout the show it is shown, vividly, that Jack Bauer suffers an immense erosion of his soul because of his actions. There are several scenes where he will perform a torture to only leave in completely agony over what he has just performed. You simply have to watch the character as he progresses throughout the series and see that he is truly broken down into a tragic human being.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way most alignment changes from Good to Evil (or Neutral to Evil) work- not every Evildoer likes doing evil acts- some really, really hate doing them.

[Burner28]

Nah he would be Chaotic Evil

[hamishspence]

How evil the act is, can vary- a character who does mild Evil acts, might be able to maintain a Neutral alignment if the acts are done with good intentions.

If they're not so mild, maybe the character will be Evil regardless of good intentions.

Chaotic Neutral occupies the middle ground between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil- so it can have people in it that are part way along a progression from one to the other- maybe Well Intentioned Extremists.

[Jayabalard]

Please don't try to compare the moral qualities of an animal to that of a human being. They are too distinctly different subjects that any comparison is void.This is just an assertion with no reasoning to back it up.

[Aux-Ash]

Hmmm... a few suggestions from me. Various songs capturing alignments, or at least core themes of them:

Good (law/chaos-axis undeterminable)
Praying for the benefit of someone else rather than the self (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEEpavnk7Uw)

Lawful evil
About a lawful evil individual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBthi_An5qQ&feature=related)

Post Mortem "regrets" about a lawful evil life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsiKOJOXMJU&feature=related)

To plan a coup d'etat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AiN8vrn9Y&feature=related)

To purge sin... by destroying someone else (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO-M4XyAbM&feature=related)

Chaotic Evil
Both the chaotic evil of pirates as a whole but also about cptn. Flint himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSXciBh8KoY&feature=related)

Chaotic evil self-deception and justification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvUbbYX9BMs&feature=related)

[Zonugal]

This is just an assertion with no reasoning to back it up.

You can't project moral qualities or conundrums onto animals as they lake the cognitive ability to even understand or perform moral actions. This is a pretty accepted stance in most moral theories.