Alignments of characters on various TV shows.

[bbgenderless100]

I haven't seen one done yet on this new revamped site so i thought i would do my own version of the old thread i noticed and was intrigued by.


Unlike the last one, i'm gonna post a few shows first and then match the alignments i think fit best to the characters. Feel free to do the same with shows you know or discuss my choices if you want!

Okay:
This one not many may know 1 billion points to those who do
The Elephant Princess:
Alex Wilson: NG
Kuru:LG
Amanda: NG
JB:NG
Taylor:NG
Marcus:TN
Caleb:CN
Zamira:CN
Vashon:LE
Diva:NE
Not sure about the others.

The Big Bang Theory:

Leonard:TN

Sheldon:LE.

Howard:CN then moved to TN after hooking up with Bernadette.

Raj:TN

Penny:CN with a slant towards CG.
Amy:CG, to me amy screams this.


Bernadette:NG

Kripke:CE

Will Wheaton:NE.

Howard's mom:LN

Sheldon's mom:LG

Friends:

Ross:LN with LG tendencies

Chandler:CN early on but became LN later on

Monica:Same as Ross accept reversed.

Rachel:NG

Phoebe:CG

Joey:TN

[QuintonBeck]

Firefly
Mal-CG (Help people to help themselves. People don't need no nosy government they'll take care of themselves just fine and doesn't mind working against the law. CG if ever there was one)
Zoe-NG (Maybe chaotic good but I don't really get the feeling she's as gung ho about it as Mal.)
Wash-NG (Maybe TN but he seems to have a certain respect for doing the right thing)
Jayne-CN (The ultimate mercenary, if people have seen Firefly and I'm explaining alignments, I use Jayne for explaining Chaotic Neutral)
Simon-NG (I think he was LG before the Alliance royally screwed him, now he's less inclined to follow the law but still believes in decency and doing what's right)
Book-LG (A perfect example of how a LG can work within a group of non LG party members. Respect the law and what's right but be willing to flex a bit. Offer your input but don't lash out and attack if someone doesn't listen.)
River- ?? (Her brain got so screwy it's hard to put an alignment to her I think)

[Tengu_temp]

Jayne-CN (The ultimate mercenary, if people have seen Firefly and I'm explaining alignments, I use Jayne for explaining Chaotic Neutral)


Funny, for me Jayne is a perfect example of a Neutral Evil character working together (mostly) well with an otherwise good/neutral party.

And here's why fiction character alignment threads show their main issue. Nobody ever agrees on anything.

[Kyberwulf]

I agree.Jayne is neutral evil. Disproves your theory.

[Razanir]

Actually a musical made movie, but I'll post anyway. Les Misérables!

Valjean– NG
Javert– LN, but NOT Evil
M. et Mme. Thérnadier– CE
Éponine– CG
Marius– NG
Enjorlas– CN, but with CG tendencies
Cosette–NG

[TheCountAlucard]

And here's why fiction character alignment threads show their main issue. Nobody ever agrees on anything.This!

So the REAL question is, what castes of Solar Exalted would the crew of Serenity be? :smallwink:

[Kyberwulf]

Firefly
Mal- TN if there ever was a poster child. Never outright Evil. He doesn't go out of his way to do good. He also doesn't like being told what to do, and believes others shouldn't either. However he does believe that outright chaos isn't the way. He believes people should keep their words and he goes to great lengths to keep his.
Zoe- LN. Again, she doesn't go out of her way to do evil or good. I agree she has strong inclinations towards good. She believes in the chain of command.
Wash- NG
Simon- LG While normally he would be following laws and Doing his doctorly things to help out people. I believe his extreme desire to save his sister is making him out of character. Which is where his character's conflict comes from.
Book- LG Again, he tried to steer the captain to the path of good. When that didn't work he went to the one planet.
River- CG. While her mind is borked. She does tend to go out of her way to help people.

You forgot two.
Kaylee- NG
Inara- NG

Jayne- LE. He is always out for himself, and the group. He respects Mals rule, and doesn't really challenge his rules(usually the main point of contention is the Tams being on board.) To me Jayne was the hardest one to Place. In the past he has shown himself to be out for himself. I think the time with Mel and the crew has shown him what it is to have people you like and can trust. He has shown on many occasions that he is willing to stay with the group, despite them almost dying on every episode. He has no compelling reason to stay. He does though.

[QuintonBeck]

Not only is it a disagreement on character's alignments but on alignments themselves of course. Such is the nature of D&D alignments though I find the assigning of them quite fun despite it. :smallbiggrin:

I suppose I don't see Jayne cast as Neutral Evil cause Evil alignments, in my mind anyway, like to see people suffer/punished/kept down and generally mistreated because they enjoy it or simply see it as the correct way of things. Chaotic Neutrals are out for themselves and in it for the money or the power or whatever. Sure, they don't care if people suffer necessarily, but they don't try to encourage it either. They want to look out for yours truly and thus, in my mind anyway, CN is the definition of a pure straight-up mercenary which is what Jayne is. He's with Mal cause it's the best job offer, he would have sold the Tams out cause it would have profited him. Not necessarily evil for the sake of evil, but evil for the sake of profit, which is allowable in CN I think.

As for Mal being TN, eh, I don't think so. He went out of his way to return those supplies to the suffering town when he found out their predicament.

"Sheriff Bourne: You were truthful back in town. These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.

Mal: I don't believe he does."

A good statement if ever there was one. Plus, chaotics are those, in my mind of course, who believe people are inherently able to take care of themselves and as such don't see much need for laws or following precedents. Mal wants freedom, a chaotics main motivator I believe.

Ah, yes, I did forget Kaylee and Inara, though I agree with your assessments. Maybe LN for Inara but I can see NG too.

[hamishspence]

I suppose I don't see Jayne cast as Neutral Evil cause Evil alignments, in my mind anyway, like to see people suffer/punished/kept down and generally mistreated because they enjoy it or simply see it as the correct way of things. Chaotic Neutrals are out for themselves and in it for the money or the power or whatever. Sure, they don't care if people suffer necessarily, but they don't try to encourage it either. They want to look out for yours truly and thus, in my mind anyway, CN is the definition of a pure straight-up mercenary which is what Jayne is. He's with Mal cause it's the best job offer, he would have sold the Tams out cause it would have profited him. Not necessarily evil for the sake of evil, but evil for the sake of profit, which is allowable in CN I think.

Relevant SRD statements:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.

Jayne might have a bit more of a conscience than the average Evil character- but he's still willing to do evil things for his own profit, which fits.

[Vaern]

Javert– LN, but NOT Evil
Why not Lawful Good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxk4mveLCw)?
Javert eventually begins to accept that Valjean is a genuinely good person. He realizes that he has spent the past 20 years hunting someone who does not deserve to be punished, and begins doubting that the law he has devoted himself to is an infallible system. It seems to me that his death was the result of a paladin's classic alignment conflict.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Jayne is Evil, or at least was in the very beginning, because he was willing to betray the whole crew in the first episode (that not everyone watched).

I also think he's chaotic because his atittude to authority is the same as Belkar's: he despises it but will obey if it's convinient. He isn't "chaotic stupid" because flexible. He understand hierarchy because it's based on power, and he thinks as soon he has power enough he'll be the alpha dog. He doesn't have a balanced opinion about law: his comment show that he doesn't understands what it's about.

Surely since Firefly isn't a D&D game, everyone is a step more "realistic" than in our game sessions, then everyone feels one step closer to Neutral. But I'd say Jayne is Chaotic Evil; he just isn't militant about it.

By Serenity, maybe he isn't Evil anymore since his loyalty for the rest of the crew apparently got so much more significant. But I wouldn't bet he got neutral. After all, Evil characters can put their own lives in danger for recklessness, vengeance and loyalty to their loved ones. Risking his life for Mal's mission was ambiguous, but not necessarily redeeming.

I'm pretty sure Mal's CG: but just real life "good aligned" people can't act as super heroes and save lives because they have gorram day jobs, Mal has a job he must do for a living. And that job's sometimes about robbing stuff from other people...

He also completely despises authority, and he'll put his own life at risk just to prove it. He has his own flexible moral code and abides to it because he's a cowboy, he belives in individual concience rather than in society. As QuintonBeck said, a CG if there ever was one.


What do you think about House MD?

House: CG - hates authority, and despite his narcisism and skepticism has a sense of justice. Even so, if I needed an example of a CN character it could still be him

Cameron: LG

Foreman: LN

Chase: NG or N

Wilson: NG - he embodies the self-concious Neutral character, seeing benefits both in Law and Chaos and actively pursuing both.

Cuddy: LG

Thirteen: CN or N - she's empathethic, but is too worried about self-destruction to care about self-sacrifice

Taub: NG - he has a soft heart, while he wish he didn't. He's almost Wilson't opposite about Neutrality, too, because he's a comformist, afraid of comitting either to Law or Chaos

Kutner: CN

I know all of them could be Good because they're doctors and they constantly caring about patients... but it's their job. Only some of them think ethical dilemmas beyond legalism VS adrenaline, or show interest in patient's personal lives regardless of how much they relate to them.

[Razanir]

Why not Lawful Good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxk4mveLCw)?
Javert eventually begins to accept that Valjean is a genuinely good person. He realizes that he has spent the past 20 years hunting someone who does not deserve to be punished, and begins doubting that the law he has devoted himself to is an infallible system. It seems to me that his death was the result of a paladin's classic alignment conflict.

I won't go too much into my source here (religious youtube channel), but in short, Javert is justice without grace. He is the epitomy of the law and values it above a concept of good or evil. He knows that Valjean broke the law and thusly hunts him down mercilessly. So when he finally caves and realizes that Valjean is actually a good person, he's torn between unjustly punishing Valjean (Law) and forgiving him for breaking parole (Good). He picked a third option. Point is, though, he's only truly LG at the very end. Until then, he's Lawful Stupid, to be honest.

[Ravian]

Why not Lawful Good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxk4mveLCw)?
Javert eventually begins to accept that Valjean is a genuinely good person. He realizes that he has spent the past 20 years hunting someone who does not deserve to be punished, and begins doubting that the law he has devoted himself to is an infallible system. It seems to me that his death was the result of a paladin's classic alignment conflict.

The problem is that for Javert the law is Good, for so long there is no other morality than simply the law. It is all he can cling to so much to the point where when he begins to wonder that there might be something more, he commits suicide rather than live in such a world. He might have become lawful good if he had decided against it, but law is too important for him to accept anything besides it.

[Kyberwulf]

Yeah, he also didn't ask questions about who he was stealing from. He accepted a job from a known murder, who also murdered his wife's brother in front of him. He didn't even bat an eyelash.

Mal also kicked one of the dudes henchmen into his engines, without so much as a second thought. The henchmen was also tied up and otherwise his prisoner. Mal walks the fine line between good and evil. All the good he does, is weighed out by all the bad stuff he does.

As for Jayne. He does not leave the ship ever. Despite the fact he could leave anytime he wants to. Nothing, and I stress Nothing is compelling him to stay. He has a clear sense of place. He is willing to take over and lead, but he is also clearly okay with being told what to do. He listens to Mal time time again. He consistently puts the group's needs above his own.

[Razanir]

Relevant SRD statements:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.

Jayne might have a bit more of a conscience than the average Evil character- but he's still willing to do evil things for his own profit, which fits.

Borrowing this for the parallel Les Mis discussion. After reading the LE description, part of me wants to reassign the Thérnadiers as LE

[Ducklord]

Sheldon:NE? A case could be made for TN but for some reason when i see him this alignment comes to mind.


How can Sheldon not be lawful? He wrote a detailed binding contract for his roommate and always follows his quirky rules.

[inuyasha]

how are raj and howard not evil? Raj is always whispering (and from what we can tell it isnt nice), and howard is...howard

[bbgenderless100]

How can Sheldon not be lawful? He wrote a detailed binding contract for his roommate and always follows his quirky rules.

Interesting, he could cross over to LE based on what you pointed out.

[bbgenderless100]

how are raj and howard not evil? Raj is always whispering (and from what we can tell it isnt nice), and howard is...howard

Because raj doesn't seem to do alot of evil things based on what you pointed out i suppose he could be moved to TN and howard not being CE? well he doesn't really go out of his way to hurt or oppress people but he's not mister nice guy so i went with CN early on but after he met Bernadette he shifted to TN.

[Stake A Vamp]

Doctor Who:
The Doctor: the friggin definition of chaotic good (actively works to respect and uphold personal liberty and maintain the well-being of people i use him th explain chaotic good)
Rose: neutral good (is benign without siding against authority automatically, like the doctor seems to)
Martha: lawful good (works for unit, follows orders, is a benevolent force)
Donna: i honestly hated her so much i cannot accurately judge her alignment.
Amy: neutral good (see rose)
Rory: lawful good (is loyal and benign)
River: Chaotic neutral/Chaotic Good (unpredictable, and seems to look out mainly for herself and her family)
the cybermen: lawful evil (try to impose thier rule upon all people)
the Daleks: neutral evil (malign and bigoted, but orderly enough not to be chaotic)
The Master: chaotic evil (malign, unpredictable, destructive, and insane)

[Fighter1000]

The Big Bang Theory:
Leonard: NG
Penny: TN
Howard: TN
Raj: TN
Sheldon: LN
Amy: LN
Bernadette: NG
Kripke: NE
Leonard's Mother: LN

Firefly:
Mal: CN
Jayne: NE
Kaylee: NG
Inara: TN
Book: LG
Wash: NG
Zoe: TN
River: CN
Simon: NG
Niska: NE
Saffron: NE
Badger: CE

Game of Thrones (IDK the names of a lot of the characters):
Tywin Lannister: LE
Tyrion Lannister: CG
John Snow: LG
Robert Beratheon: TN
Ned Stark: LG
Jaime Lannister: NE
Geoffrey Beratheon: NE
Stanys Beratheon: LN
Khal Drogo: CN
Sansa Stark: TN
Aria Stark: NG
Lord Balish a.k.a. Little Finger: LE
The Spider (the eunuch spymaster): LN
The Hound: LE
Sir Clegaine a.k.a. The Mountain: LE
The Knight of Roses: LN
The Dragon Queen (blonde-haired targaryan lady): NG

[Stake A Vamp]

The Big Bang Theory:
Leonard: NG
Penny: TN
Howard: TN
Raj: TN
Sheldon: LN
Amy: LN
Bernadette: NG
Kripke: NE
Leonard's Mother: LN

Firefly:
Mal: CN
Jayne: NE
Kaylee: NG
Inara: TN
Book: LG
Wash: NG
Zoe: TN
River: CN
Simon: NG
Niska: NE
Saffron: NE
Badger: CE Chaotic neutral maybe, he doesn't seem actively malevolent, he is a criminal, that is a chaotic act, not evil, smuggling is not evil

Game of Thrones (IDK the names of a lot of the characters):
Tywin Lannister: LE
Tyrion Lannister: CG
John Snow: LG neutral good, more like
Robert Beratheon: TN
Ned Stark: LG
Jaime Lannister: NE after the most recent season, i feel like he is TN
Geoffrey Beratheon: NE
Stanys Beratheon: LN
Khal Drogo: CN
Sansa Stark: TN
Aria Stark: NG
Lord Balish a.k.a. Little Finger: LE
The Spider (the eunuch spymaster): LN
The Hound: LE
Sir Clegaine a.k.a. The Mountain: LE
The Knight of Roses: LN
The Dragon Queen (blonde-haired targaryan lady) daenerys: NG
just some comments

[Exediron]

Okay, I'll play - I got attracted by the Firefly discussion, but I'll post something for all the TV series I watch(ed) that feel at all applicable:

(Character inclusion is based on who I remember as a major player-type character)

Firefly


Mal: To me, Mal is a clear example of Lawful Good. He is strongly driven by his own internal code and his unbending internal definition of what is right. While he hates the Alliance, approving of the existing law (or any law) is by no means a requirement for being lawful, and much of his behavior - risking his life for his crew rather he likes them or not, the above quote about a man not having a choice - speaks to me of a lawful personality as well as a good one.
Zoe: Unfortunately, we never get to see very much of Zoe's personality when she isn't in her role as the captain's second. However, I would call Zoe Lawful Good as well, with a big emphasis on Lawful. She is incredibly loyal to Mal and places her duty above almost anything else. She disapproves (strongly, sometimes) of perceived evil actions from Mal, but still follows them if he gives the word.
Jayne: Jayne's a hard one to place. I think probably Chaotic Evil is the best fit; Chaotic is the obvious part (he possesses no real sense of loyalty, does not appear to have any sort of internal code, doesn't like authority but follows it out of fear), and I'm going with evil over neutral because he also has no moral compass to speak of either. It's not that Jayne tries to be evil - the pain of others just isn't a consideration for him. The good path never occurs to him, and he probably wouldn't see any reason to take it if it did.
Wash: Hard to say - I'm going to go with Neutral Good because he doesn't seem to have any clear lawful or chaotic tendencies, but is generally a good person. I was on the fence between Neutral and Chaotic, as he does seem to have problems with commitment and perhaps problems with authority.
Inara: Probably also Neutral Good. She clearly has a great deal of compassion and caring about others. She also supports the government, but I think she does so because she actually believes the Alliance improves the quality of life for most people rather than out of any particular lawful leanings.
Simon: Definitely Lawful Good. Duty and helping people are the two big things in his life, and those are lawful and good as clear as they come. Everything else we see from him confirms this alignment to me (agreeing to work as a doctor for the village - until they try to kill River, telling Jayne he's safe so long as he's under Simon's care).
River: Whatever her default personality might be, it's very hard to get a look under all the crazy piled on top of it. From the glimpses we get of her I'm going to tentatively go with Chaotic Good; she (was) very independent and free-spirited, and she also seems to have some desire to help people, also being proud of Simon when he's doing so. She might be Chaotic Neutral instead, however - I don't have a very strong case for her being good.
Kaylee: Kaylee just wants everyone to be happy and get along, and doesn't seem to really care much past that; she also does everything in her own off-the-book way and doesn't even seem to be bothered by their criminal ways. I would say clearly Chaotic Good.
Book: We see so little of him (and probably none of his true self) that it's hard to say, but I'd go with the obvious choice here and say Lawful Good. Lawful I think is clear (I don't give half a hump if you're innocent or not / it doesn't matter what you believe, just believe). Good seems likely, as he has more or less devoted his life to helping others. But really, we'd have to have seen more to be sure.


Gonna try to shorten them up a bit from here... I don't feel like writing all of this out at that length. :\

Buffy


Buffy: Lawful Good. Sometimes a lawful pain, but still the character closest to my own heart.
Willow: Probably somewhere around Neutral Good.
Xander: Lawful... Neutral?
Giles: Starts out Lawful Good, drifts somewhat more in the Neutral Good direction.
Dawn: Chaotic. Beyond that, probably Chaotic Good, although she'd want people to think she's chaotic neutral.
Angel: Probably Lawful Neutral.
Spike: Starts out Chaotic Evil, ends up Chaotic Neutral. A case could be made for neutral instead of chaotic in both cases.
Oz: Lawful Good.
Anya: Severely lacking in the moral compass, but let's call her True Neutral.
Faith: Starts out Chaotic Evil, ends up Chaotic Neutral, but the chaotic is the important part.
Tara: Lawful (or maybe just neutral) Good. Good is the operative part.
Riley: Lawful Neutral, probably.


Angel


Angel (Again): I think Lawful Neutral. I get this feeling from Angel that he isn't doing good so much because he actually cares, but because he thinks it's what he should do, and because he wants to atone by opposing evil.
Spike (Again): I'd still be inclined to go with Chaotic Neutral.
Cordelia: As a bit of background, I personally believe that Cordelia's character development in Angel was completely out of character and hated it. That said, starts out Chaotic Neutral and ends up Lawful Good. Then becomes evil, sort of.
Doyle: Chaotic Good, maybe?
Fred: Probably Chaotic Good. I'd like to say more here, because I like Fred, but I've got nothing.
Wesley: Starts out probably Neutral Good, ends up Chaotic Neutral, although not a very usual sort of chaotic neutral. Sometimes drifts towards Neutral or Evil or both.
Gunn: Probably Chaotic Good, maybe ending up Neutral Good.
Lorne: I'd say True Neutral.
Connor: Grr :smallfurious: Anyway, Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Good.
Illyria: Chaotic Evil all the way. The most dangerous alignment :smallwink:


Babylon 5


Sinclair: Lawful Good.
Ivanova: I'd say True Neutral, honestly. Maybe Neutral Good.
Sheridan: Hard to classify; in the end I'd say Neutral Good, but I could have seen TN or LN.
Delenn: Chaotic Good. Absolutely no respect for anyone's rules but her own, but does what she does for good reasons.
Franklin: Chaotic Good.
Garibaldi: True Neutral, but only because I wasn't sure what to call him.
Londo: Lawful Evil for most of the show, I think ends up Lawful Neutral.
G'Kar: Starts out somewhere around Lawful Neutral, but unquestionably ends up as Lawful Good.
Vir: Neutral Good.
Lennier: Lawful Good.
Kosh: Unsurprisingly Lawful, but I think much closer to Lawful Good than normal for a Vorlon.

---

No Dollhouse, because although I did watch it, I hated 90% of the characters and have no desire to evaluate them psychologically. Not commenting on Game of Thrones because although I've read the books, I have not watched the series and I understand it's rather different in places.

[Bastian Weaver]

Okay:
This one not many may know 1 billion points to those who do
The Elephant Princess:


1 billion points to me, mwahaha!
And yeah, I agree with the alignments on this one. Kuru is definitely LG.

[Sith_Happens]

So how about these two guys?

http://mybigbookhouse.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/champloo1.jpg
I can for sure say that Mugen is Chaotic, Jin is Lawful, and neither of them are Good, but any narrower than that and I'm less sure. Mugen is an almost definite Evil, but something I can't quite place keeps making me second-guess that. Jin seems more Neutral, but I'm going to withhold judgment until I've finished the series and know precisely what happened between him and his teacher.

(Fuu is so NG it's not even funny.)

[tomandtish]

OK, I normally stay out of alignment topics, but I'll take a stab at Firefly. Note: For the most part I'm analyzing alignments in the TV series only. Why? Because a lot of the relationships in Serenity appeared to reset. Watching the movie, you never really got the feeling that a lot of the development between characters that had occurred in the series had actually happened. Simon and the rest of the crew were esp. bad about this.

Mal: LN with slight good tendencies. He definitely has a code he tries to keep to. However, it's not necessarily all that nice. People point to the return of the medicine as an example of his being Good, but there's a big difference between being Good and not being Evil (which it would be hard to argue against if he'd kept the medicine after knowing about it). He's willing to steal cargo without questions (that is, he was OK stealing the cargo when he had no idea what it was), and is perfectly willing to make sure he's in a position to be in a brawl with Alliance supporters simply because they are Alliance supporters. He'll do what's best for his crew and his ship first, and others a distant second.

Inara: NG. A nice person who is somewhat willing to participate in crime, but gives more thought to the consequences.

Wash: NG. Loves Zoe, flying, and Serenity (in that order). Most willing to be the voice of reason of the actual crew. Willing to commit crime but one of least willing to hurt others while doing it.

Zoe: LN. Her devotion is to Mal, Wash, and the crew. You can debate the order of the first two (and many do). For the most part, the only times she's speak against Mal is if he appears to be violating his own code. Arguably the least feeling of the actual crew.

Book: LG. Definitely a good example of one who puts the wellbeing of others ahead of himself. Is a reluctant participant in crime, and usually only to help minimize potential harm.

Kaylee: CG. The free spirit of the group. Happiest when everyone gets along, and is OK with all the different personalities because she accepts that people are different. Often seen verbally supporting helping individuals when it would potentially be to the detriment of the group (for example, Simon and River).

Simon: LG, moving to NG. He probably started as a LG, and will maintain some of that in wanting to protect his sister. But a large part of his original code has changed and it would have been interesting to have seen how much of a new solid one he developed. That is, how far would he go to protect his sister?

River: If we are assigning an alignment, CN (NG with Simon). For most of the series, she's really too crazy to make any moral decisions, and we actually see very few where we can tell she made a conscious moral choice. Her interaction with Simon gives us an idea of who she might have been, but it's hard to judge how much of that is old behavior imprint and how much (if any) is current. Also hard to tell (since she feels everything) how much behavior is actually hers versus leakage from someone else.

Jayne. Ahh, Jayne. NE (slowly moving to N after Ariel). Jayne is almost pure ID. People have discussed that he's never left the ship, but for most of the series, that simply seems to be because he's never gotten a better offer. He's never tried to seriously take over, but he'd have to kill both Mal and Zoe to do so, and he'd lose Kaylee and Wash at the first port if he did. He's quite upfront about it. He's got a good deal here, and until he gets a better one he'll stay. If someone offers him a better one though, he's more than willing to betray his current employer. After Ariel however, he seems to be realizing that there might be more to Serenity than just a good job, and maybe having people you can trust at your back would be worthwhile. I suspect he would have eventually finished as a N, but we'll never get to see.

[Tholomyes]

Borrowing this for the parallel Les Mis discussion. After reading the LE description, part of me wants to reassign the Thérnadiers as LE

I don't think I'd go with Lawful evil. He's more Neutral Evil to me. During the aftermath of the battle of Waterloo he stole whatever he could come by. When he ran the tavern in Montfermeil he cheated lodgers out of their money, either by outright theft, or by adding surcharges on his customers' bills. In addition, he constantly wears his army uniform, so he really seems to respect order and rank.

As M. Jondrett, he deliberately makes his living situation appear worse, so he could get money from philanthropists. Despite the fact that he was arrested after trying to kill Valjean, where his wife died in prison, he seems unphased by it. In addition, he frequently tries to extort people by making a deal, especially later in the book (Extorting from Valjean to get out of the sewers, Extorting Marius to prove that Valjean was evil [which backfired], ect)

Finally, is the fact that after the story proper, it is revealed that he becomes a wealthy slave-owner in America.

So, I notice many LE actions (Extortion, fees added onto the bill, Slave-owning, ect), and also a lot of CE actions (Petty theft, being more or less apathetic to the death of his wife and at least two of his children, ect), so I think it generally balances out; the only constant in his actions, is that he does whatever is best for him.

Also, I would label Marius as LG, since his respect for his father's last wish, to the point of even going out of his way to repay the Thenardiers, for "Saving" the elder Pontmercy. He was never a member of Les Amis d'ABC, and he only ever attended one meeting, in which he had a spirited argument with Enjolras, him being a Bonapartist, while the rest of the revolutionaries wanted a republican form of government. The only reason that he went to the Barricade, was that he didn't have enough money to travel to England after Cosette and Valjean, so he hoped to be killed on the barricade. In his reaction to learning Valjean was a criminal, he reacted with a harshness that borders on LN.

[Ravian]

Game of Thrones (IDK the names of a lot of the characters):
Tywin Lannister: LE
Tyrion Lannister: CG
John Snow: LG
Robert Beratheon: TN
Ned Stark: LG
Jaime Lannister: NE
Geoffrey Beratheon: NE
Stanys Beratheon: LN
Khal Drogo: CN
Sansa Stark: TN
Aria Stark: NG
Lord Balish a.k.a. Little Finger: LE
The Spider (the eunuch spymaster): LN
The Hound: LE
Sir Clegaine a.k.a. The Mountain: LE
The Knight of Roses: LN
The Dragon Queen (blonde-haired targaryan lady): NG

I don't think any alignment system can do Game of Thrones Justice really. They're all far too complex to justify so easily.

For example you don't even know how wrong you are about Arya...

[Ossian]

A quick foray into this thread.

Supernatural

Dean Winchester: Lawful Good (believes in authority, father figures, mentors, rules, duty, occasionally adds a set of sub rules to the ones accepted or enforced by society, but not to the extent of making him chaotic, especially because of the sense of guilt that ensues when he does break the rules)

Samuel Winchester: (wish soul) Neutral Good. A pre-law student, and a high and mighty paladin of good in his own right, he does find his own excuses when the rules are too tight. A somewhat weaker moral compass than his brother, he tends to see the different angles to a story, which gives him the moral "wiggle room" to improvise a few cool things here and there.

Bobbie Singer: Chaotic Good. Yeah, maybe chaotic is a bit of a stretch. Not a lot of evidence and more of a hunch, but I see him as a "whatever it takes" kind of guy. Can't be bothered to be civil or to explain himself too much, he does what he feels is right, and his loyal, yes, but only to a very small circle of people

Bella Talbot: true neutral. The selfish person par-excellence. Double and triple crossing people, demons and whatever else, as long as that gets her closer to her goals. A solo, a rogue, a self reliant person, would see anything like good, or evil, or loyal, or even the opposite, as a hindrance, as something diminishing her utter freedom to s***w you over and sideways (NB: a rare example of truly > 20 Charisma.)

[Burner28]

Bella Talbot: true neutral. The selfish person par-excellence. Double and triple crossing people, demons and whatever else, as long as that gets her closer to her goals. A solo, a rogue, a self reliant person, would see anything like good, or evil, or loyal, or even the opposite, as a hindrance, as something diminishing her utter freedom to s***w you over and sideways (NB: a rare example of truly > 20 Charisma.)

Doesn't sound very Neutral.

[Seharvepernfan]

I use Jayne for explaining Chaotic Neutral

Couldn't agree more. I think he is a textbook example of CN.

Just look at the PHB examples:

CN: "...who wanders the land living by his wits"
NE: "...who robs and murders to get what she wants"

When was the last time Jayne killed or robbed someone just because he wanted to/the money? Especially if it was good and/or regular people? Yes, he's a mercenary, and yes, he's a thief, but when does he ever kill somebody who doesn't deserve it? Does he rob regular people, or rich pricks?

When he's back in his hometown, what is the last thing he says to that crowd of people? Was it something a NE person would say?

I agree he's a jerk, and I don't particularly like him (I liked him more than the rest of the crew, but that's not saying much), but just because you don't like someone doesn't make them evil.

Also, the Phoebester is CN if not CE. I mean, seriously, she's fairly horrible.

[Stake A Vamp]

BUFFY: neutral good. she actively works for the betterment of others, with no particular respect or disdain for authority, therefore i dub her neutral good
xander: neutral good/whatever is dominating him this week's alignment, he is nice and friendly,until something takes over his mind
willow: neutral good, she is helpful and friendly and benevolent, though she is briefly chaotic evil
Giles: lawful good-goes to neutral good around 4th season, he is a benevolent force with respect for authority
riley: lawful good/annoying stupid (i didn't like riley) he is a benevolent force who works in a distinctly lawful organization\
spike goes through the chaotic s from evil to good. he has authority issues no matter his malevolence or benevolence
anya: neutral, she seems to only hold herself and her loved ones in any regard

[Tengu_temp]

When was the last time Jayne killed or robbed someone just because he wanted to/the money? Especially if it was good and/or regular people?


Let's see. Just off the top of my head:
Before he joined the crew, Jayne was a robber. When he tries to steal from Mal, he wouldn't hesitate to shoot him if the latter resisted.
He brutally killed at least one Alliance guard who was just doing his job and was already no longer a threat.
He tried to sell out Simon and River to the Alliance, something that'd have ended very badly for them.



When he's back in his hometown, what is the last thing he says to that crowd of people? Was it something a NE person would say?


Um, yes? Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're a completely selfish jerk who only cares about money and power. Evil people can have loyalties, friends, loved ones, they can still care about things other than themselves, and Jayne is a great example of this.

I'm not calling him evil because I don't like him. In fact, he's one of my favorite characters in Firefly.

[Seharvepernfan]

Before he joined the crew, Jayne was a robber. When he tries to steal from Mal, he wouldn't hesitate to shoot him if the latter resisted.

We don't know if he would have killed Mal.


...who was just doing his job

I never get tired of hearing this.

Biggest cop-out if the universe.


He tried to sell out Simon and River to the Alliance, something that'd have ended very badly for them.

That's not necessarily evil. How do you know he wasn't worried about himself and the crew, with the alliance chasing them? If they had been caught, Jayne and the whole crew would have been arrested or killed. He didn't consider them his friends, if that matters.


Um, yes? Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're a completely selfish jerk who only cares about money and power. Evil people can have loyalties, friends, loved ones, they can still care about things other than themselves, and Jayne is a great example of this.


Well, splatbooks talk about stuff like that, but core never gives any indication that NE or CE characters care about anything but themselves. It mentions that people can change alignment due to external influence, but that's about it. His speech screamed "CN" to me.

Anyway, my argument is that none of those things were evil (jerkish, absolutely, but within CN territory).

[hamishspence]

Well, splatbooks talk about stuff like that, but core never gives any indication that NE or CE characters care about anything but themselves.

That's simply because core simplifies things greatly.

Jayne's long "I'll kill a man in a fair fight- or if I think he's going to start a fair fight, or if there's a woman..." speech does suggest he's not exactly Neutral.

Betraying his own allies (when he first joins the crew, and throwing his fellow thief out of his plane in the backstory to the Mudders episode) also seems suggestive.

[Seharvepernfan]

I wonder if Joss Whedon would reply to an email about Jayne's D&D alignment?

[Sith_Happens]

I wonder if Joss Whedon would reply to an email about Jayne's D&D alignment?

...You tell us how that goes.:smalltongue:

[tomandtish]

We don't know if he would have killed Mal.



I never get tired of hearing this.

Biggest cop-out if the universe.

.

Note: I'm not getting into whether I think any of the characters were justified in their actions. Because of relevance, I may make references where characters indicate directly whether THEY think they were justified.

Actually, in this universe it may be relevant. There's no indication that the majority of the Alliance is evil. Just like the Empire in Star Wars, it seems obvious that those in charge certainly have their own agenda, but most of those going through their day to day lives are probably ordinary citizens (yes, even soldiers). For your average Alliance citizen, we don't know what they were told about the Browncoat uprising. Pretty much everything we hear is from the perspective of Mal and Zoe, and they definitely bear a grudge.

Following orders may be valid reasoning IF the orders aren't inherently immoral or indefensible. For these poor guards, all they appear to have been told were "Here are some wanted fugitives. Go pick them up". They don't know who/what she really is, and we don't know how they'd react if they did know.

The operative is an example of someone on the other side of the scale. He knows that his orders would be seen as indefensible by any reasonable person, and acknowledges that he himself is a monster by carrying them out. He believes that the evil he does is necessary for "the greater good". Needless to say, that doesn't carry much weight with our heroes.

But there's a big difference between him and normal troops who simply believe they are pursuing wanted criminals (and are using stun weapons no less).

People get upset at the "Following Orders" defense because it is often used as a defense for horrendous acts. But let's not rush to judgment on characters who may simply be following orders that of themselves aren't bad (even if the end result may be bad). To clarify again, there's nothing bad about them following an order to bring in a wanted fugitive. Only we (as the audience) know that River isn't really a wanted fugitive but something much more, and that it will be very bad if she is brought in. Those soldiers have no way of knowing this.

In fact, this is something in movies and TV that all too often bothers me. "Good guys" bust into a building, killing large numbers of security guards. Very seldom does the movie actually clarify whether the guards are actually in on the bad guy's plans, or are just a security company hired to protect the building. In short, normal innocent people hired to do what appears to be a perfectly legal job. "Arrow" seems bad about this in particular.

[QuintonBeck]

Regardless of character alignment I do agree with tomandtish regarding soldiers following orders. I assume evil empires are usually Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil people at the top with a lot of Lawful Neutral soldiers and even officers filling up it's bulk. Maybe there's some LEs and NEs sprinkled in throughout but your average Joe signed up to do a tour, get some cash, and uphold the society that protects them. Now, if you're getting shot at by these folks killing em back doesn't make you evil, but you're no holy avenger if you just start blowing up military bases of an even objectively evil empire.

[Seharvepernfan]

Man, did I really say "if" the universe?

Damn.

[Bulhakov]

I always understood lawful vs chaotic - as placing the society's perspective on morals above one's own, and vice versa (so chaotic characters can have a strong moral code of their own)

As for good vs evil - it's a simple axis of selflessness vs selfishness.

So among the controversial characters in the thread I'd definitely vote for:

Mal - chaotic good (dislike of laws, strong morals and sacrifice for others)
Jane - neutral evil (typical selfish guy that can obey orders if it benefits him)

Sheldon - lawful evil (strict adherence to rules and very selfish)

[North_Ranger]

Okay, let's take a look back... into the future.

Star Trek TNG:
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - Lawful Good
Cmdr. William Riker - Chaotic Good
Geordi La Forge - Lawful Neutral
Tasha Yar - Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies
Worf - Lawful Good
Beverly Crusher - True Neutral, as befits a doctor - but with Good tendencies
Katherine Pulaski - True Neutral
Deanna Troi - Neutral Good
Data - I would say he started as Lawful Neutral, but grew towards Lawful Good
Wesley - Neutral Annoying :smalltongue:

Recurring characters:
Lwaxana Troi - a poster child for Chaotic Neutral
Q - Chaotic Crazy
Guinan - Lawful Neutral
Lore - Neutral Evil. I would have originally said Chaotic Evil, but the Borg cult of personality he built around himself seems at least decently regimented.
The Borg - Lawful Evil

[Ossian]

If I may start a parallel track t the very interesting star-trek one, anyone feels like saying a word or two on Hokuto no Ken?

I personally find the alignments there quite interesting.

Kenshiro: even though he is a solid example of manly paladine-ness, I would go as far as to place him into the chaotic-good. Fits the wandering solitary hero, who goes places and gets into adventures and does unexpected things. He still abides to the code of law of the martial arts, but not in a Samurai-fanatic way. That he is good, there is no question. Since he walks in Ken's footsteps, I would give Bart too a CG alignment (the golden hearted scoundrel).

Raoh: big brother, on the other hand, is a man who fits the "cruel judge" type. He is driven by ambition, and only because he does not relish carnage or does not rape women, it does not mean he is not evil. I would say LE for him, as he IS the the law, to dominate the XXI century.

Toki: lawful good. Respects traditions, assumes good faith, compassionate and loyal, he is a plainly positive character. In the same vein, Lynn and Julia are LG.

[Mordar]

Why not Lawful Good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxk4mveLCw)?
Javert eventually begins to accept that Valjean is a genuinely good person. He realizes that he has spent the past 20 years hunting someone who does not deserve to be punished, and begins doubting that the law he has devoted himself to is an infallible system. It seems to me that his death was the result of a paladin's classic alignment conflict.


I won't go too much into my source here (religious youtube channel), but in short, Javert is justice without grace. He is the epitomy of the law and values it above a concept of good or evil. He knows that Valjean broke the law and thusly hunts him down mercilessly. So when he finally caves and realizes that Valjean is actually a good person, he's torn between unjustly punishing Valjean (Law) and forgiving him for breaking parole (Good). He picked a third option. Point is, though, he's only truly LG at the very end. Until then, he's Lawful Stupid, to be honest.

I have to say Javert (my favoritest character from anything ever...on stage) is Lawful Lawful (intentional duplication, now imagine the other 33 iterations) Neutral, from beginning to end. All that matters is the law. When he reaches the point where he questions the very core fundamentals of his belief, he does what he does because he cannot reconcile his actions. There's not good there, just his resolution. (Though I suppose there's the paradigm that says "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" and could be expanded to say "If provided the opportunity to do a purely lawful thing and you do not do so for the greater good, you might be good".)

Under no circumstance is he Lawful Stupid. He has a calling and he cleaves to it, no matter what...for reasons that are easy to understand based on his backstory. We, who do not share it, find it easy to root for Valjean and condem Javert, but he never acts stupidly (exception: YMMV regarding his final act).


how are raj and howard not evil? Raj is always whispering (and from what we can tell it isnt nice), and howard is...howard

Now come on...there's no way anyone on the show is evil. Heck, the only potential non-goods among the main cast are Sheldon and...well, Sheldon.

Howard talks a big game about working the ladies...but we know he faking it, and that he cares very much for his friends and family (and even acquaintances). There's not a lick of evil there.

Raj and Penny are the most uniformly "good" characters in the show, despite some of Raj's intoxicated highjinx.

If ribbing your pals is evil...well, there's a lot more evil in the world than good!


Okay, let's take a look back... into the future.

Star Trek TNG:
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - Lawful Good
Cmdr. William Riker - Chaotic Good
Geordi La Forge - Lawful Neutral
Tasha Yar - Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies
Worf - Lawful Good
Beverly Crusher - True Neutral, as befits a doctor - but with Good tendencies
Katherine Pulaski - True Neutral
Deanna Troi - Neutral Good
Data - I would say he started as Lawful Neutral, but grew towards Lawful Good
Wesley - Neutral Annoying :smalltongue:

I'm not sure any Starfleet Officer is anything but LG. There may be some shades within that spectrum, but the crew of the Enterprise is as close to uniformly LG as possible. I know, it isn't as fun to do this with other shows, but when Riker, the least "by the book" of the bunch would still follow the book 99 times out of 100, and every single one of them would die to save their crewmates, passengers, or random strange aliens, it's kind of comparing the relative wetness of different cups of water.

So as to not be a complete stinker, here's one:

The X-Files
Mulder: NG
Scully: LG
Skinner: LN(G) or LG?
CSM: LN(E) or LE(N)?
Deep Throat: LN
The Lone Gunmen: N(C)G or C(N)G?

(Parentheticals indicate "leaning")

- M

[bbgenderless100]

I have to say Javert (my favoritest character from anything ever...on stage) is Lawful Lawful (intentional duplication, now imagine the other 33 iterations) Neutral, from beginning to end. All that matters is the law. When he reaches the point where he questions the very core fundamentals of his belief, he does what he does because he cannot reconcile his actions. There's not good there, just his resolution. (Though I suppose there's the paradigm that says "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" and could be expanded to say "If provided the opportunity to do a purely lawful thing and you do not do so for the greater good, you might be good".)

Under no circumstance is he Lawful Stupid. He has a calling and he cleaves to it, no matter what...for reasons that are easy to understand based on his backstory. We, who do not share it, find it easy to root for Valjean and condem Javert, but he never acts stupidly (exception: YMMV regarding his final act).



Now come on...there's no way anyone on the show is evil. Heck, the only potential non-goods among the main cast are Sheldon and...well, Sheldon.

Howard talks a big game about working the ladies...but we know he faking it, and that he cares very much for his friends and family (and even acquaintances). There's not a lick of evil there.

Raj and Penny are the most uniformly "good" characters in the show, despite some of Raj's intoxicated highjinx.

If ribbing your pals is evil...well, there's a lot more evil in the world than good!



I'm not sure any Starfleet Officer is anything but LG. There may be some shades within that spectrum, but the crew of the Enterprise is as close to uniformly LG as possible. I know, it isn't as fun to do this with other shows, but when Riker, the least "by the book" of the bunch would still follow the book 99 times out of 100, and every single one of them would die to save their crewmates, passengers, or random strange aliens, it's kind of comparing the relative wetness of different cups of water.

So as to not be a complete stinker, here's one:

The X-Files
Mulder: NG
Scully: LG
Skinner: LN(G) or LG?
CSM: LN(E) or LE(N)?
Deep Throat: LN
The Lone Gunmen: N(C)G or C(N)G?
(Parentheticals indicate "leaning")

- M
The X-Files
Mulder: NG
Scully: LG
Skinner: LN(G) or LG?
CSM: LN(E) or LE(N)?
Deep Throat: LN
The Lone Gunmen: N(C)G or C(N)G?




Definitely all accurate.


Now come on...there's no way anyone on the show is evil. Heck, the only potential non-goods among the main cast are Sheldon and...well, Sheldon.
What about Barry Kripke? Penny's ex Kurt?
Leslie Winkle?
um Will Wheaton?
Howard talks a big game about working the ladies...but we know he faking it, and that he cares very much for his friends and family (and even acquaintances). There's not a lick of evil there.
Agreed, he is suited for neutrality.
Raj and Penny are the most uniformly "good" characters in the show, despite some of Raj's intoxicated highjinx.
I agree with Penny, Raj on the other hand seems to have slipped more towards Neutral with the whole "no girlfriend" storyline however.
If ribbing your pals is evil...well, there's a lot more evil in the world than good!
It depends on what the intent of the ribbing is.

[tomandtish]

Raj and Penny are the most uniformly "good" characters in the show, despite some of Raj's intoxicated highjinx.
I agree with Penny, Raj on the other hand seems to have slipped more towards Neutral with the whole "no girlfriend" storyline however.
If ribbing your pals is evil...well, there's a lot more evil in the world than good!
It depends on what the intent of the ribbing is.

If you believe that what a person really believes and thinks is more likely to show when you are intoxicated, then Raj seems the most neutral of the bunch. He's actually seems like he's a bit of a d&*k who normally keeps it supressed.

Disclaimer: I finally stopped watching earlier this spring. Became too much like a stereotypical sitcom for me.

[bbgenderless100]

If you believe that what a person really believes and thinks is more likely to show when you are intoxicated, then Raj seems the most neutral of the bunch. He's actually seems like he's a bit of a d&*k who normally keeps it supressed.
Disclaimer: I finally stopped watching earlier this spring. Became too much like a stereotypical sitcom for me.

Um i think Raj,Howard and Leonard all tie with the whole "most neutral of the bunch" . Yes i said Leonard is neutral. Go back and watch the show again, then come back and tell me that leonard isn't neutral, yea he's probably more good then evil at times but he still has alot of non good moments so he remains neutral.

I haven't watched consistently in a while.

[Kyberwulf]

I always have to laugh whenever people try hold buffy up as some strong leader of morals or something. She is NE hands down.

She never does anything because it's the right thing to do.
Ever.

It's always because someone threatens something, and I stress THING, she that is hers. Not something she has a particular value for, is just that it's hers.

Every instance that happens, in every episode. She is literally forced to do something because, Giles makes her do something. Or the evil guy takes away her toys. i.e The scooby gang. Invariably if she would have taken a more proactive stance with killing the evil guy of the week, and focused more on killing the Evil of the season. She would have more time to do what she wants. Instead she just selfishly tries do what she wants, and fit in the demon slaying in her scheduled. Which always leads to more casualties then there should have been. I know, people will say she deserves her life. I disagree. I fail to see how she, or anyone, can justify her putting herself above everyone else on a weekly basis.

Don't give me that crap about how much it sucks to be her.

She has a free pass to haven. ... think about that. A free pass to heaven. And that is when she does her job ineptly. I even think Faith and that crazy Slayer from Angel will get a free pass to heaven. Instead of doing something for the betterment, I mean WILLINGLY, of mankind. She is always trying to be "Normal." That is what gets me the most about Buffy. The whole show is basically saying, don't be who you are. Don't do what you're naturally good at. Strive to be like all the other cheerleaders. Strive to do what society tells you.

IF she was good at all, in the D&D sense, she would fight so hard to be something she's not. She would go out and kick ass and save the world willingly. Not act like it is a job. She makes it seem like she is just deilvering pizzas or something.

Also, I know people will say something about how it is a destiny forced on her by a council of men, and all that stuff. you know what. That doesn't matter. Destiny is always forced on the hero by some other force. I like the fact she turned on the council(giggity) and departed from the way's they tried to enforce on her. The whole no friends, one watcher crap. I like that she actually got a posse to help her. It is the only reason why she survived. The WHOLE thing I have against buffy. Is that she just tries to be normal. the whole friggen series.

[Exediron]

I always have to laugh whenever people try hold buffy up as some strong leader of morals or something. She is NE hands down...

A strong leader, yes - although I wouldn't say a very good one. However, I can think of very few actions Buffy ever did that I would acknowledge as evil. I'm not going to say she's perfect or anything, but I disagree with your conclusion and much of the methodology that seems to have gone into it.

In my analysis, Buffy clearly sees doing the right thing as her duty, and while it's certainly a duty that she occasionally gets very tired of, I don't see that as any grounds to call her evil. I find calling her anything but lawful even harder to justify; yes, she views herself as the highest authority there is, but her mindset is still extremely lawful.

Just because you know what you're doing is right doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. I don't see how being good equals being happy with having no free time, always being in danger and having your friends killed. If you put an evil person in Buffy's position they'd probably be a lot happier, because they wouldn't feel any need to do what is right and they could just ignore what's going on and have fun. Like Faith, for example.

Out of all Buffy's actions, the only one I consider to actually veer over the line into evil instead of just questionable ends-justify-the-means style neutrality is when, at the end of season 5, she claims that if the portal opens she will kill her friends to stop them from closing it by killing Dawn. Now, we never see it put to the test rather she would actually have done that, but if she did then that sort of putting one person above literally everyone else is clearly over the line in my opinion.

Now if you watch Angel and compare the two, there's a big difference; Angel is doing arguably evil actions left and right, and despite having the same sort of duty-oriented mentality doesn't really seem to care all that much about other people. He does good because he doesn't have anything better to do, in a lot of cases, or because of his hopes for atonement. The one thing you can say for Angel is that he isn't so selfish - in the same situation, I believe he would have killed Dawn himself, though not without a great deal of angst. :smallwink:

[razorback]

The "reports" on Dateline (what is on TV right now): NE

[Kyberwulf]

How can you say she is lawful? When one her her good traits, is her unpredictability. IF she played anything by any sort of rules, that would be her downfall. That's one of the things I find awesome about her character. She doesn't play by any rules. She makes things up as she goes along.

[hamishspence]

Out of all Buffy's actions, the only one I consider to actually veer over the line into evil instead of just questionable ends-justify-the-means style neutrality is when, at the end of season 5, she claims that if the portal opens she will kill her friends to stop them from closing it by killing Dawn. Now, we never see it put to the test rather she would actually have done that, but if she did then that sort of putting one person above literally everyone else is clearly over the line in my opinion.

According to BoED though, an Evil deed "done to save the world" is still evil- thus, a case could be made that killing Dawn "to save the world" would still have qualified as Murder of an innocent (since Necessity is not usually considered a valid defence against a murder charge) - and thus- that Buffy is only reacting the way any Exalted character, or paladin, would.

[killem2]

I'm curious what you guys think of these characters:


Patrick Jane from the Mentalist (NG)

Michael Weston from Burn Notice (CG)

Boss Hogg from Dukes of Hazzard (LE)

Bandit from Smokey and the Bandit (CN)

Jigsaw from Saw I (CE)

Randall Flagg from The Stand (NE)

Optimus Prime from the Transformers (LG?)

Destro from G.I. Joes (LE)

Frodo from Lord of the Rings (NG)

Michael Knight from Knight Rider (CG)

Dexter Morgan from Dexter (NE)

[Narren]

According to BoED though, an Evil deed "done to save the world" is still evil- thus, a case could be made that killing Dawn "to save the world" would still have qualified as Murder of an innocent (since Necessity is not usually considered a valid defence against a murder charge) - and thus- that Buffy is only reacting the way any Exalted character, or paladin, would.


I can't agree with that. When it's that cut and dry (as in, kill one innocent to save the world) there's no choice. I can't believe that it would be considered "good" to allow all of those other innocent people to die.

I guess it comes down to what's more important....your own sense of honor and righteousness, or the lives of innocents. That's why I disagree with many aspects of a paladin's code, it places emphasis on the wrong things.

[hamishspence]

I can't agree with that. When it's that cut and dry (as in, kill one innocent to save the world) there's no choice. I can't believe that it would be considered "good" to allow all of those other innocent people to die.

I guess it comes down to what's more important....your own sense of honor and righteousness, or the lives of innocents. That's why I disagree with many aspects of a paladin's code, it places emphasis on the wrong things.

It's more a "Some acts are Always Evil no matter how much good results from them" perspective. Even consequentialists like Machiavelli admitted that just because Evil acts may be the only way for a ruler to govern successfully (from his perspective), doesn't mean these acts cease to be Evil.

[Valwyn]

The Big Bang Theory: (Haven't watched it in a while)

Leonard: Neutral Good
Sheldon: Lawful Evil => Lawful Neutral (still has Evil tendencies)
Penny: Chaotic Neutral
Howard: Chaotic Neutral => True Neutral
Raj: True Neutral
Amy: Chaotic Good
Bernadette: Neutral Good

Once Upon a Time:

Emma: Chaotic Good (tries to be Lawful around Henry)
Snow: Lawful Good/Stupid ("Hey, there's this person who keeps trying to kill us. Let's give her yet another chance.")
Charming: Lawful Good
Henry: Neutral Good
Regina: Neutral Good => Chaotic Stupid/Evil => Chaotic Neutral (Not really sure here. She needs to settle for an alignment.)
Cora: Neutral Evil (Lawful goal, Chaotic means)
Rumpel: Lawful Evil (possibly Lawful Neutral when Belle is around)
Belle: Neutral Good

[Narren]

It's more a "Some acts are Always Evil no matter how much good results from them" perspective. Even consequentialists like Machiavelli admitted that just because Evil acts may be the only way for a ruler to govern successfully (from his perspective), doesn't mean these acts cease to be Evil.

I can see that. The idea is a lot more palatable when it's presented as a morally grey issue, and not some DM saying "oh noes! you're evil now!" or making a paladin fall when he literally had no Good choice.

[hamishspence]

Complete Scoundrel lists a few characters from various sources (TV shows, books, etc) and gives alignments for them:

LG: Batman, Indiana Jones, a yellow-suited detective whose surname is Tracy.
LN: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjiro from Yojimbo
LE: Boba Fett, Magneto from X-Men

NG: Zorro, Spider-Man
N: Han Solo (early appearances), Lara Croft, Lucy Westerna from Dracula.
NE: Mystique from X-Men, Sawyer from Lost

CG: Mal Reynolds from Firefly, Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, Robin Hood
CN: Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean, Al Swearengen from Deadwood, Snake Plissken from Escape from New York
CE: Riddick from Pitch Black, Carl Denham from King Kong

[Teflonknight]

[QUOTE=hamishspence;15343079]Complete Scoundrel lists a few characters from various sources (TV shows, books, etc) and gives alignments for them:

LG: BatmanQUOTE]

Unless I misunderstand the definition of LG, I definately wouldn't put Batman here. He breaks laws just by being a vigilante.

[killem2]

[QUOTE=hamishspence;15343079]Complete Scoundrel lists a few characters from various sources (TV shows, books, etc) and gives alignments for them:

LG: BatmanQUOTE]

Unless I misunderstand the definition of LG, I definately wouldn't put Batman here. He breaks laws just by being a vigilante.

I agree, but on one hand, reading over what lawful is, it doesn't say that being accountable to societies laws is what makes you lawful. According to SRD:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

He is the authority. (or he thinks he is)

That is a really fine line between chaotic and lawful. I don't think he should be listed as lawful though.

[hamishspence]

Unless I misunderstand the definition of LG, I definately wouldn't put Batman here. He breaks laws just by being a vigilante.

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.
...
The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.
...
Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration.




He is the authority. (or he thinks he is)

That is a really fine line between chaotic and lawful. I don't think he should be listed as lawful though.

Given his myriad portrayals (illustrated by a motivational poster showing a Batman quote for every alignment) it may depend which version the writer of Complete Scoundrel had in mind.

[russdm]

I that i would throw something in (I copied it from someone else's post and thought/felt it needed clarification):

Based on my interpretations of the show plus books)
Game of Thrones (IDK the names of a lot of the characters):
Tywin Lannister: LE/Stupid
Tyrion Lannister: CG
John Snow: LG, more LN than good frankly
Robert Beratheon: Stupid everything
Ned Stark: LG, Actually LS=Lawful Stupid
Jaime Lannister: NE, nope, he is chaotic Neutral more than NE
Geoffrey Beratheon: Evil Stupid Baby
Stanys Beratheon: Knight Templar Lawful Stupid
Khal Drogo: CN
Sansa Stark: Nope, Stupid everthing
Aria Stark: NG, who is currently slipping into an Assasin...
Lord Balish a.k.a. Little Finger: LE
The Spider (the eunuch spymaster): LN
The Hound: NG, seriously man, he is one of the most decent people in the entire series, you fool!!!
Sir Clegaine a.k.a. The Mountain: LE, Actually not, he happens to be CE and proud of it
The Knight of Roses: LN
The Dragon Queen (blonde-haired targaryan lady): NG, more crazy neutral good

as for firefly, it has already been said along with big bang theory. Also, i don't like howard at all, and still am confused why he has not been written out yet.

[Narren]

Khal Drogo: CN




I'd put Khal Drogo in CE. He's definitely chaotic, and doesn't have too many problems with random raping and killing.



The Hound: NG, seriously man, he is one of the most decent people in the entire series, you fool!!!



He may not be as utterly evil as some of the people he works for, but he will ride down and murder innocent children on command. I don't think having a soft spot for the Stark girls really mitigates that.

Bear in mind, I watch the show but I've only read the first book.

[Wardog]

I can't agree with that. When it's that cut and dry (as in, kill one innocent to save the world) there's no choice. I can't believe that it would be considered "good" to allow all of those other innocent people to die.

I guess it comes down to what's more important....your own sense of honor and righteousness, or the lives of innocents. That's why I disagree with many aspects of a paladin's code, it places emphasis on the wrong things.

On the other hand, even if killing an innocent child to save the world was necessary, and even if necesity made it good, then I don't think it would make someone ''evil'' if they tried to stop it. Especially if that person was your little sister.

(I think that this is comparable to the "Trolley Problem" varient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man), where pushing someone infront of a train in order to save a greater number of people may be technically justifiable from a numerical utilitarian perspective, but is so at odds with normal concepts of morality (and such an implausible scenario) that it's not surprising that people instinctivly feel it is the wrong choice).

[Kyberwulf]

I don't know about CE.

Drago and his people have a clear sense of order. They follow it to the letter. Have clear established rules and Hierarchy. Chaotic people wouldn't be able to function as well as they do.

[russdm]

I disagree with you on the moral issues. Killing one person to save five makes sense to me. It may not have been a good choice, but having only one person's death on my conscience is better than five. Unless that one person happened to be someone extremely personal to me, then i would gladly sacrifice that person. What is one life compared to many? How many have suffered and continue to suffer because of what Hitler did? Are you going to balance his life against six miliion jews and choose him? Isn't that what our system of justice says; that we will throw him in prison to rot instead of ending his life?

Drogo acts personally in a way that sounds Chaotic to me. Also, i don't recall anything in the rules saying you can't live and function in a society with a different alignment than you. You could be a lawful elf living among your chaotic friends, and you might not be able to be a chaotic good orc living among regular orcs but...people are willing to do horrible things to survive and so betrying your own morals to stay alive is understandable.

Also, if you haven't noticed, everybody that acts honorably or decently in Game of Thrones series/books have allowed died very quickly and the other people have remained alive.

As for the alignment system itself, it suffers from Progantist centered morality. You can't use it to explain anything.

[Kyberwulf]

Then you are a hypocrite. You claim that killing one to save five is acceptable. Yet you also say you couldn't do it, if it's someone you know. Moralities are black and white. How can you have to sets of rules for morals. What if someone else kills someone you have strong feelings for, to save five strangers? Does that make their actions right? Unless you can subject the people in your lives with your views, you shouldn't put that on other people.

[Man on Fire]

If I may start a parallel track t the very interesting star-trek one, anyone feels like saying a word or two on Hokuto no Ken?

I personally find the alignments there quite interesting.

Kenshiro: even though he is a solid example of manly paladine-ness, I would go as far as to place him into the chaotic-good. Fits the wandering solitary hero, who goes places and gets into adventures and does unexpected things. He still abides to the code of law of the martial arts, but not in a Samurai-fanatic way. That he is good, there is no question. Since he walks in Ken's footsteps, I would give Bart too a CG alignment (the golden hearted scoundrel).

Raoh: big brother, on the other hand, is a man who fits the "cruel judge" type. He is driven by ambition, and only because he does not relish carnage or does not rape women, it does not mean he is not evil. I would say LE for him, as he IS the the law, to dominate the XXI century.

Toki: lawful good. Respects traditions, assumes good faith, compassionate and loyal, he is a plainly positive character. In the same vein, Lynn and Julia are LG.

Raoh is definietely LE and Toki is LG, but I don't know about Kenshiro, for me he seems more like guy who is good first and don't care about the other axist. He acts lawful when it's good thing to do, he acts chaotic when it's good thing to do. I would say he's Neutral Good.

I think Rei would be CG, or at least NG leaning closer to CG that Ken.
Jagi - CE
Souther - NE
I forgot his name, but Star of Syrius could be CN, he commits good and evil acts alike in his short appearance i nthe manga.

[OverdrivePrime]

Moralities are black and white.

I suspect this is only true for folks with a very strong L in their alignment. Much of the rest of the word experiences morality on a situational basis.

Killing one person to save five only makes sense if you 1) are prepared to kill through direct action (allowing others to die through inaction is not the same as intentionally causing their deaths), and 2) you are emotionally detached from all subjects involved.

That's pretty unlikely for most of the population. If the one is a child, and the five are all loan sharks, I doubt that the child will be in danger.

[dps]

I'm not sure any Starfleet Officer is anything but LG. There may be some shades within that spectrum, but the crew of the Enterprise is as close to uniformly LG as possible. I know, it isn't as fun to do this with other shows, but when Riker, the least "by the book" of the bunch would still follow the book 99 times out of 100, and every single one of them would die to save their crewmates, passengers, or random strange aliens, it's kind of comparing the relative wetness of different cups of water.



I would have to agree that all the regular crewmembers on TOS, TAS, and TNG are LG (TOS characters tend to put more emphasis on the G, while TNG characters tend to put more emphasis on the L), but when you get to VOY and DSN that's no longer necessarily true (never watched ENT to say anything about its crew), and it's not true of some Starfleet officers who we see as guest stars (though even then, most of the time, a Starfleet officer who isn't LG is seriously deranged).

I'd also question North Ranger's contention that a TN alignment befits a doctor. I'd think a good alignment of some sort would be the norm.

[russdm]

Seriously deranged?? Sisko was made of more win than Picard. C'mon, the black dude punched out Q!!!

[Mr Beer]

I'm curious what you guys think of these characters:

Randall Flagg from The Stand (NE)

Dexter Morgan from Dexter (NE)

Flagg has distinctly Chaotic tendencies. I think he's actually Chaotic Evil or at least NE with an almost uncontrollable temper.

Dexter Morgan is the most Lawful Evil TV character I can think of, off the top of my head. He is literally all about the rules.

[Narren]

Then you are a hypocrite. You claim that killing one to save five is acceptable. Yet you also say you couldn't do it, if it's someone you know. .Moralities are black and white How can you have to sets of rules for morals. What if someone else kills someone you have strong feelings for, to save five strangers? Does that make their actions right? Unless you can subject the people in your lives with your views, you shouldn't put that on other people.


I don't think anyone claimed to be a paragon of morality. I agree that killing one to save five (if a scenario were to be that cut and dry) is the right choice. That doesn't mean I could always do it. If it were my child, I'd let any five people die in his place. That doesn't mean I'm making the right choice, but I am making the choice that most any father would.



Moralities are black and white

Yet we all live in those shades of gray. No one is perfect, we can't live up to our ideals 100% of the time.

[Man on Fire]

Flagg has distinctly Chaotic tendencies. I think he's actually Chaotic Evil or at least NE with an almost uncontrollable temper.


Flagg is CE in Eyes of the Dragon, that's made quite clear in the book. Probably in Dark tTower too, as he's basically Nyarlatothep the Crawling Chaos in all but name.

[dps]

Seriously deranged?? Sisko was made of more win than Picard. C'mon, the black dude punched out Q!!!

I'd say Sisko was LG, too. Yes, like Roy, he sometimes used Chaotic methods to acheive Lawful ends, but he didn't like doing it--if anything, he was more concerned about it than Roy.

[hamishspence]

I thought that it was closer to using/endorsing evil means to good ends in at least one case:

(various things in In The Pale Moonlight- the murder of a senior political figure of a neutral power spring to mind).

[russdm]

Its especially clear since you could never film that episode with picard doing what sisko did. Picard is more lawful than good, but strongly lawful good. He is less likely to bend or break the rules than Sisko is. Besides Avery brooks with a shaved head and beard looks awesome and bad@$$.

In my opinion, Picard was always about the letter and the spirit of the law and folllowed that whole "The Federation is always right and better" deal in the series. Sisko's show, Deep Space Nine, opened up the idea that the Federation could be wrong at times and that the council doesn't understand people as well as they thought. Their decision making regarding the DMZ turned out to be a direct cause of the dominion war, or atleast one of several with the others being: The Cardassians were invaded by the klingons, Dukat got shafted so he was in a position to speak to the dominion without his government knowing.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Unless I misunderstand the definition of LG, I definately wouldn't put Batman here. He breaks laws just by being a vigilante.

Law and Chaos ended up kind of gibberishy as supposedly oppositional pillars, as time went on, given that they aren't really opposites. Initially, the only alignments were Law and Chaos, basically representing "Community and Civilization" and "Things That Try to Destroy Those," respectively. After the introduction of a more complex alignment system, the old names were retained out of a sense of tradition, though "Law" now means something more along the lines of "Order" and "Chaos" has increasingly lost its most blatantly negative connotations.

[russdm]

That still doesn't stop people from playing stupid versions of the alignments.