Alignments via examples.

[atomicwaffle]

So, i want to explain the concept of alignments to people newer to the hobby, and i had the idea of taking famous historical people and/or recognizable film characters and associating them with alignments so i can easily give them an example of what each alignment means.

And preferably not a motivational 3x3 with pictures.

I think Bruce Lee would be Lawful Good. He never compromised his integrity and followed a strict code of discipline as well as doing the right thing. Stuff like that

[Nightcanon]

Robin Hood: CG: rob from rich, give to poor, recognise that if the law is unjust, doing good can necessitate breaking the law. Opposes:
Sherif of Nottingham: LE: Acts within law to obtain power; abuses power within the letter of law to incease his own wealth and power.
Judge Dredd: LN: Applies the Law as written, without fear or favour. Will arrest Robin Hood for banditry, or Paladin of Pelor for letting his horse foul the streets if such a law exists.
Patrician of Ankh Morpork: Lawful Neutral: realises that on a utilitarian level, an ordered society is what matters to give the most benefit to the most people. Like Sheriff of Nottingham will sometimes break the rules to suit his own ends, but since his word is law this is still lawful.

[Silvanoshei]

And preferably not a motivational 3x3 with pictures.

Uhhh... you can pretty much find any alignment meme that you can relate to... why would you ignore this? If they're playing D&D then they know this.

http://isthisreallifeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/lawfull.jpg

[Sewercop]

So, i want to explain the concept of alignments to people newer to the hobby, and i had the idea of taking famous historical people and/or recognizable film characters and associating them with alignments so i can easily give them an example of what each alignment means.

And preferably not a motivational 3x3 with pictures.

I think Bruce Lee would be Lawful Good. He never compromised his integrity and followed a strict code of discipline as well as doing the right thing. Stuff like that

Damn dude, you made my day :D ty ty

Bruce Lee
-Adulterer
-Huge amounts of weed and other assorted pills
-Verbally abusive
-Greedy
-etc

there is even a note where he vows to become the best paid, most famous oriental superstar in the world.
He wants 10 millions to live the life he wants.

god damn this made me laugh, ty dude.

[Gildedragon]

Chaotic Neutral is a toughie in general. It can be an individual that aspires to be good but is too wrapped up in their wants or problems to actually be selfless; or a fellow with utter disregard for the law, but not for others, but not above their own self interest: "look out for no. 1, don't screw over the rest of folks (too bad or often"
As to the chart: J. Sparrow ain't CN; but CE. Too willing and ready to screw folk over for his amusement and benefit.

Mal Reynolds might be a better CN with CG tendencies. Explicit outlaw, values freedom over all. Personal code is malleable and only ascribes to a vague notion of "honor" he doesn't really have. Values law only if he is the law...
Has a conscience but it isn't there all the time. He tends to come around and do good, but only after a fair amount of thought. Good is a practiced thing with him, not his nature.
Still fireflying: River is CN as well, played different

[da_chicken]

Uhhh... you can pretty much find any alignment meme that you can relate to... why would you ignore this? If they're playing D&D then they know this.

http://isthisreallifeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/lawfull.jpg

3x3s are bad because most of them are arguable.

Picard is LN because of the Prime Directive? In spite of the fact that essentially every time the PD comes up in the series, they choose to break it? Roddenberry even said the PD exists in the Star Trek universe to be broken. Are you really that lawful if every time you have to enforce the law, you don't?

Xenomorphs are NE? How do we know that? They might have animal intelligence, or near animal intelligence. Either way, humans to them are merely a means to reproduce. The queen doesn't produce xenomorphs, she produces face huggers. The face huggers have to plant an egg in a live creature for a xenomorph to be created. The xenomorphs defend the hive and locate more live creatures to impregnate. Why isn't this TN? Is it that different than an termite colony with carnivorous larvae?

V is Chaotic Good? That is pretty hard to reconcile, particularly with his portrayal in the comics. Personally, I think his imprisonment and torture of Evey, which is portrayed in both the comic and the movie, pretty much exempts him from any Good label. Nevermind that his bombings almost certainly harm innocents. His actions might be rationalized, sure, but that doesn't make them any less horrific.

As for Neutral Good... I never saw Firefly or Serenity. I refuse to watch it since the series is universally mourned as aborted and incomplete. This is a general problem with these sorts of things, because if I don't already know the character, then I've learned nothing.

3x3s just cause arguments.

The real problem is that character alignments only matter in two senses:

1. What the character's outlook is.
2. What actions have explicit alignment consequences (casting aligned spells, some interactions with aligned outsiders, etc.).

The core problem with alignment is that it's ostensible deterministic, but it's supposed to cover both the non-deterministic and the deterministic and remain internally consistent. You can argue that Batman is Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, or Lawful Neutral, for example. When we say "Batman is Chaotic Good" what we're really saying is "Batman's outlook on the world and himself most closely aligns with Chaotic Good". If Batman ever ceases to be Chaotic Good, he is still Batman. Even then, however, his outlook -- his morals and ethics -- are at least partially driven by the values he holds, and those values will vary from person to person.

However, a Ghaele is Chaotic Good. This isn't a matter of outlook, but one of material composition. If a Ghaele ever ceases to be Chaotic Good, it ceases to be a Ghaele. Maybe it turns into an Archon or Inevitable or maybe it ceases to exist, but it's not a Ghaele any longer.

So, alignment has to be fluid enough to allow all creatures to fit somewhere on the axis, but also concrete enough to allow for sentient beings which literally define intangible ideals. The complexity of morals and ethics, however, makes alignment essentially unable to satisfy it's own requirements.

[J-H]

Zoe: LN
Wash: NG
River: CN
Jayne: NE (only out for himself) trending towards TN
Simon: LG changing to some odd blend of NG and LN (still very ordered and lawful, but LG doesn't plan a drug heist)
Inara: TN
Kaylee: NG
Book: LG

Parliamentary agent: LE
Reavers: CE
Mr. Universe: CN
Badger: NE to LE (yes, you can have lawful evil mafia)

[Cruiser1]

Zoe: LN
Wash: NG
River: CN
Jayne: NE (only out for himself) trending towards TN
Simon: LG changing to some odd blend of NG and LN (still very ordered and lawful, but LG doesn't plan a drug heist)
Inara: TN
Kaylee: NG
Book: LG

Parliamentary agent: LE
Reavers: CE
Mr. Universe: CN
Badger: NE to LE (yes, you can have lawful evil mafia)

Here's another Firefly version:

http://www.chartgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/firefly-characters-chart.jpg

[pwykersotz]

3x3s are bad because most of them are arguable.

Something being arguable does not mean that it's a bad example. Alignment is already nebulous, an example that has room to stretch can allow for players to ask those same questions as their understanding grows. The point of these grids and others is to give a basic framework to house ideas in.

To the OP though, historical figures are difficult because real people tend toward neutrality. It's easier in general to use caricatures. Other than softballs (which are still debatable) like Abe Lincoln and Hitler, it's tough to nail down.

[Callista]

Put Javert in as Lawful Neutral. In my mind, he's the archetype of LN.

Stay far, far away from Batman. You'll only start arguments. For that matter avoid any character with multiple writers. Peter Pan, for example: He ranges from CG to CE, depending on the source!

[Silvanoshei]

3x3s are bad because most of them are arguable.

You're over analyzing the general idea of the alignment concepts. In your view, you're saying a paladin can never be a paladin because being Lawful Good is at its very best is a Ying/Yang concoction of good and evil from a case by case scrutinization of how everyone is a blurred grey conception of alignments.

Batman was a symbol, he was justice, but not in a typical lawful way of society standards, but as his own rule book. That symbol, not the people under the mask, was Neutral Good because that symbol worked outside of the obedience to authority to serve justice and make evil suffer. I'm not trying to say D&D is super specific on alignment, but you must understand it is very over simplified, to cover the broad spectrum of each individuals idea of what law/chaos and good/evil is supposed to be.

It only leads to arguments when you start belittling the idea of D&D... for example, "Dude, that can't happen, physics says it'll fall first!!" "Um.. I can cast magic to make me fly, hows physics explaining that?" D&D is what it is, and can't be viewed with a magnifying lens.

[Svata]

Chaotic Neutral is a toughie in general. It can be an individual that aspires to be good but is too wrapped up in their wants or problems to actually be selfless; or a fellow with utter disregard for the law, but not for others, but not above their own self interest: "look out for no. 1, don't screw over the rest of folks (too bad or often"

See, I view the three Chaotic alignments as follows-

CG: Breaks the law, but for a cause. To help others, make the world a better place, or some other "Greater Good" with minimal or no gain for themselves. Fights for freedom from injustice and persecution.

CN: Doesn't care about laws, willing to do almost anything to help themselves and those they care about. Anyone else can go to The Hells, for all they care, but hurt those important to them, and your life expectancy will drop sharply.

CE: Out to sow chaos and destruction in the world. Will destroy anything and everything standing between them and their goals. Will burn the world to cinders for a laugh. Cares for no one but themselves.

[JusticeZero]

They're all arguable. Don't obsess over the sort, because it's an arbitrary classification system that is by necessity overly simplistic. Any of those 3x3's will give you a good idea. Arguments are to be expected. That's fine. Don't read too much into them.

[Zanos]

CN: Doesn't care about laws, willing to do almost anything to help themselves and those they care about. Anyone else can go to The Hells, for all they care, but hurt those important to them, and your life expectancy will drop sharply.
That sounds like NE to me.

[Svata]

That sounds like NE to me.

NE to me is somewhat similar, but has no permanent allies, and will use laws to their advantage if it is convenient at the time. They also have a higher tendency to be a bit more literal on the "to the hells with anyone else" bit, rather than just not caring about them, and destroy pepole because they can gain some matter of benefit from it, rather than those obstructing their goals.

[jaydubs]

Lawful Good - Superman. Follows a strict personal code, does good deeds for purely altruistic reasons. A lot of plot drama tends to revolve around trying to both obey the law and stop evil (a trademark of lawful good characters).

Neutral Good - Princess Leia. Fights as part of the rebellion against the tyrannical empire, and then afterward helps to organize the new republic. Mostly motivated by altruism, and works both in and against the system depending on what would help the most people.

Chaotic Good - Indiana Jones. Chafes at authority, can't stand his boring work as a professor. Really only happy when he's out on adventure, saving people and recovering priceless artifacts. Happy to lie, cheat, steal, sneak around, and fight dirty.

Lawful Neutral - Worf (ST:TNG). Honor and duty are the most important things, even more so than personal advancement or helping people.

Neutral - animals, assorted self-interested characters. It's hard to give stirring examples of neutral characters, but they tend to be motivated by personal desires, without a real inclination toward altruism of hurting things for fun. Selfishness without sadism, I would describe it. Donald Draper (Mad Men), Watto (Star Wars), Quark (DS9).

Chaotic Neutral - Tyler Durden (Fight Club). Takes steps not to kill anyone, while extolling the virtues of disorder and living without structure. Blows up a bunch of banks to try to take down the system, but when no employees are there.

Lawful Evil - The Necromongers (Chronicles of Riddick). Destroy entire civilizations, bent on wiping out life in the universe, enslave and forcibly convert those they don't kill. But, have a strict code of honor and an organized hierarchy.

Neutral Evil - Hannibal Lector. Enjoys hurting people for his own amusement. Functions well both inside structured organizations and completely outside the law.

Chaotic Evil - Reavers (Firefly). Kill people purely for their own enjoyment, often in gruesome and tortuous ways. No structure, laws, or code.

[Dienekes]

Alignment is always tricky, if you over analyze any character they often won't perfectly fit into where you've pigeon holed them.

For example Robing Hood, often viewed as the pinnacle of chaotic good, was in most of the versions I remember fighting against the illegitimate leadership for the sake of the legitimate kings off captured or fighting in the Crusades when John took over. That doesn't seem particularly chaotic to me, and he definitely has his personal code that he sticks to throughout the stories. I would place him as Neutral Good all things considered. But nevertheless, simply saying rob from the rich and give to the poor and you can see paint him with a chaotic brush.

So it's hard to get these characters that completely follow one alignment. But I'll try.

Most incarnations of Superman have him as Lawful Good. He believes in order and goodness, tries to help out people whether they have their cat stuck in a tree or are defending themselves from an alien invasion. Is selfless, self-sacrificing, and tries his best to uphold his personal code and live within the realm of earthly laws (except laws on vigilantism).

Javert from Les Miserable is pretty Lawful Neutral, following the letter of the law as best he can. Now he thinks himself as lawful good, and arguably his presence for the majority of the book has a positive effect on society, but he has let the problems France has faced in the past alter his perception of what is right and wrong, and for the majority of the work chose law over good when put to the test. Until the very end where he realizes his numerous mistakes.

Vito Corleone from the Godfather is Lawful Evil. The mafia is depicted as a very lawful organization where there are customs and rules that need to be followed. These rules are ultimately designed to maintain the power and prominence of the heads of the families. So in Vito we have a man of his word, who I don't believe tells a single lie in the movie, always follows the proper channels within his organization and uses them to uncover who has betrayed him and attempted to murder him and his family. But in the end, his goal is power and wealth and he is willing to murder anyone who gets in his way.

The Doctor from Doctor Who is a lot of times Neutral Good (though there is variance in his depictions). He largely attempts to help others as best he can and has saved the universe more times than I can count. He has a code, but has broken it a fair few times. In addition he never seems really bothered by laws nor does he purposely try to break them (unless he sees them as evil). He is perfectly willing to ally with a governing military body, or fight them all in the name of what he thinks is right at that given time.

True Neutral is largely the "meh" alignment as far as I've seen. They're normal people, mostly, nothing too bad, nothing really good about them outside of donating some money to some charities sometimes, you know, if it's not too much. Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen is probably the best fit I can think of. He helps out, sometimes, when it takes no effort on his part (and really nothing ever takes any effort on his part). But mostly he doesn't care if people die or who's good, or who's bad. He might help if someone he cares for is in danger, maybe. Mostly he just wants to be left alone. Though a lot of people can fit into this one.

Walter White from Breaking Bad would qualify for Neutral Evil. By the end of the series he will do anything for his wealth and power. He has his code but is wiling to break it when push comes to shove. He doesn't care about the laws and organizations of the drug trade, nor does he really desire to take them down. He's willing to work with anything and anyone to increase his wealth.

I've already said why I think Robin Hood doesn't really work as an example of Chaotic Good, I'd promote a character like Dirty Harry instead. He continuously tries to benefit people and society, often despite the fact that he seems to hate everyone. He doesn't seem to have any particular code except to try and catch bad guys any way he can. Despite being a cop he is frequently critical and seems to almost enjoy breaking the laws in whatever way he feels he can get away with in his quest to do whatever odd brand of good he feels like doing.

Despite what the movie portrays, I will always see V from V for Vendetta as Chaotic Neutral, at best. He is trying to bring about what he thinks is best for the world (though amusingly the last we see of his new world is one filled with more violence than the government he took down). But beyond that is against laws and government themselves. You might say he's good, but just unsuccessful and wrong, however, he is not above petty murder and revenge. He takes vindictive pleasure in the lives he destroys, many (but not all) deserving of it, admittedly. He's not a good guy, but he has decent enough motivation to not be buried down with evil.

The Joker is Chaotic Evil. This should not need to be explained. He is an abusive, vindictive, murderer, so evil. Seems to love destruction and chaos and the concept of either destroying the system for fun, or making characters he perceives as lawful as breaking their personal codes in outrageous fashion.

[Svata]

My best example for CG is Harry Dresden. Except the crap he pulls in Changes/Ghost Story. That's CN at BEST.

[RavynsLand]

Lawful Good:

Superman: Works alongside the law and sets out to always do what's right. Is so much of a good guy that he'll accept punishments for wrong things he does, even if it means sitting in a jail he could easily escape.

Neutral Good:

Power Girl: She's a hero. She fights for what's good and what's right and what's true. But she isn't beholden to it -- if you push her buttons wrong she'll rip your arms off and she'll never sacrifice what's reasonable for what the letter of the law says. "Well, unfortunately, you're not dealing with Superman -- you're dealing with me."

Chaotic Good:

Catwoman: Steals from the rich, primarily gives to charities. Doesn't want to be a bad person and doesn't consider herself one. Can be morally conflicted but tries to steer towards good when she gets the choice -- but doesn't like restriction. "Life would be so much easier if I didn't have this conscience!"

Lawful Neutral:

General Zod: Does what he does for the good of Krypton. If Krypton requires him to kill millions, he shall. Morals do not enter the equation. All that matters is his own world, what's best for it, and what his job is.

True Neutral:

Poison Ivy: Acts according to her own whims at all times, with absolutely no concern about what happens in the world around her. Will fight for what immediately affects her and her immediate family (plant life) but has no concern for heroics or the human race. "I don't do that, Harley. I don't save people. I'm poison, remember?"

Chaotic Neutral:

Harley Quinn: Follows her whims, wherever they lead her. Under bad influence she turns towards evil, but is usually not that bad. Without influence she can range anywhere between a life of petty crime to trying to be an offbeat hero. Will kill if it suits her, doesn't even realize it's all that bad. "Yeesh, ya make one mistake and they nevah letcha forget!"

Lawful Evil:

Ra's al-Ghul: "On it's own, humanity is a destructive force. It needs a master." Acts to dominate and crush, isn't afraid to kill his own kind in untold amounts.

Neutral Evil

Norman Osborn: Is evil because it just damn well comes naturally. He hates, kills, destroys, perverts -- balanced by the lawfulness of his organizational skills, and the chaos of his lack of true motivation.

Chaotic Evil:

Carnage: Kills and slaughters purely for the fun, and to prove that he's the most evil and brutal thing out there. I chose Carnage rather than Joker because Joker's more cerebral, more complicated, and therefore more difficult to pigeonhole.

[Ansem]

Álignments are REALLY simple to understand actually (I never understood the people complaining).
Just see the Law vs Chaos as the 'means' and Good vs Evil as 'end'.

[Kamin_Majere]

Alignment is always tricky, if you over analyze any character they often won't perfectly fit into where you've pigeon holed them.

For example Robing Hood, often viewed as the pinnacle of chaotic good, was in most of the versions I remember fighting against the illegitimate leadership for the sake of the legitimate kings off captured or fighting in the Crusades when John took over. That doesn't seem particularly chaotic to me, and he definitely has his personal code that he sticks to throughout the stories. I would place him as Neutral Good all things considered. But nevertheless, simply saying rob from the rich and give to the poor and you can see paint him with a chaotic brush.

So it's hard to get these characters that completely follow one alignment. But I'll try.

Most incarnations of Superman have him as Lawful Good. He believes in order and goodness, tries to help out people whether they have their cat stuck in a tree or are defending themselves from an alien invasion. Is selfless, self-sacrificing, and tries his best to uphold his personal code and live within the realm of earthly laws (except laws on vigilantism).

Javert from Les Miserable is pretty Lawful Neutral, following the letter of the law as best he can. Now he thinks himself as lawful good, and arguably his presence for the majority of the book has a positive effect on society, but he has let the problems France has faced in the past alter his perception of what is right and wrong, and for the majority of the work chose law over good when put to the test. Until the very end where he realizes his numerous mistakes.

Vito Corleone from the Godfather is Lawful Evil. The mafia is depicted as a very lawful organization where there are customs and rules that need to be followed. These rules are ultimately designed to maintain the power and prominence of the heads of the families. So in Vito we have a man of his word, who I don't believe tells a single lie in the movie, always follows the proper channels within his organization and uses them to uncover who has betrayed him and attempted to murder him and his family. But in the end, his goal is power and wealth and he is willing to murder anyone who gets in his way.

The Doctor from Doctor Who is a lot of times Neutral Good (though there is variance in his depictions). He largely attempts to help others as best he can and has saved the universe more times than I can count. He has a code, but has broken it a fair few times. In addition he never seems really bothered by laws nor does he purposely try to break them (unless he sees them as evil). He is perfectly willing to ally with a governing military body, or fight them all in the name of what he thinks is right at that given time.

True Neutral is largely the "meh" alignment as far as I've seen. They're normal people, mostly, nothing too bad, nothing really good about them outside of donating some money to some charities sometimes, you know, if it's not too much. Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen is probably the best fit I can think of. He helps out, sometimes, when it takes no effort on his part (and really nothing ever takes any effort on his part). But mostly he doesn't care if people die or who's good, or who's bad. He might help if someone he cares for is in danger, maybe. Mostly he just wants to be left alone. Though a lot of people can fit into this one.

Walter White from Breaking Bad would qualify for Neutral Evil. By the end of the series he will do anything for his wealth and power. He has his code but is wiling to break it when push comes to shove. He doesn't care about the laws and organizations of the drug trade, nor does he really desire to take them down. He's willing to work with anything and anyone to increase his wealth.

I've already said why I think Robin Hood doesn't really work as an example of Chaotic Good, I'd promote a character like Dirty Harry instead. He continuously tries to benefit people and society, often despite the fact that he seems to hate everyone. He doesn't seem to have any particular code except to try and catch bad guys any way he can. Despite being a cop he is frequently critical and seems to almost enjoy breaking the laws in whatever way he feels he can get away with in his quest to do whatever odd brand of good he feels like doing.

Despite what the movie portrays, I will always see V from V for Vendetta as Chaotic Neutral, at best. He is trying to bring about what he thinks is best for the world (though amusingly the last we see of his new world is one filled with more violence than the government he took down). But beyond that is against laws and government themselves. You might say he's good, but just unsuccessful and wrong, however, he is not above petty murder and revenge. He takes vindictive pleasure in the lives he destroys, many (but not all) deserving of it, admittedly. He's not a good guy, but he has decent enough motivation to not be buried down with evil.

The Joker is Chaotic Evil. This should not need to be explained. He is an abusive, vindictive, murderer, so evil. Seems to love destruction and chaos and the concept of either destroying the system for fun, or making characters he perceives as lawful as breaking their personal codes in outrageous fashion.

About the best list I've seen. Especially the bolded part. Its hard to conceptualize alignment as a human because mostly we are all N with one small tick in any of the moralities directions at any one time (and that changes constantly with us).

[jedipotter]

They're all arguable. Don't obsess over the sort, because it's an arbitrary classification system that is by necessity overly simplistic. Any of those 3x3's will give you a good idea. Arguments are to be expected. That's fine. Don't read too much into them.


To point out the problems:

1. Any character that has been around for years and had stories told about them for years has a lot of different interpretations. A character like Batman has been around for decades, and that means that hundreds of people have wrote stories about him over the years. And each writer has a different view, and so Batman has a different view for each writer.

2. Each character comes from a setting, and the setting determines the cosmic alignments. Furthermore, each setting has local alignments. Judge Dread IS the law and allowed to judge and even kill criminals on sight, whenever and however he sees fit too. In most places a ''cop'' can't do that, but Judge Dread can. Put Judge Dread on CSI:Anything and they would call him evil. The same way a klingon can kill anyone who insults his honor, and that is all good and legal under klingon law, but again that would be a evil crime on CSI:Anything.

3. Alignment often only comes out in extremes. Lots of good or evil people just live day to day and don't do much ''good'' or ''evil'', per say, day to day. This can make it fuzzy at best to say a person is say ''good'', all the time when they don't do much ''good''.

4. Not every decision or every action a person takes will always be 100% on the straight and narrow of their alignment. You can't really say that ''on Monday Thor did this, so he is good'' because you can't count just one day out of a lifetime. You need to look at them in the long run. And this brings the problems of number one, number three and number five.

5. The vast majority of stories about a character are about the times they question, wrestle with or violate their alignment, beliefs, morals, laws or rules. Conflict makes a good story. Again like number three, it is boring to watch a character just sit around. Captain Picard follows the rules, like the Prime Directive, almost all the time...as he will no doubt(and has many, many, many times) tell you in a Picard Speech that he believes in it 100%. Of course, it is a good story when he violates it....as if he was to just ''follow orders'' it would be a boring story.

[Grayson01]

The complete Scoundral has a pretty nice list of Finctional charcters in the Alighnment section.

[toapat]

Despite what the movie portrays, I will always see V from V for Vendetta as Chaotic Neutral, at best. He is trying to bring about what he thinks is best for the world (though amusingly the last we see of his new world is one filled with more violence than the government he took down). But beyond that is against laws and government themselves. You might say he's good, but just unsuccessful and wrong, however, he is not above petty murder and revenge. He takes vindictive pleasure in the lives he destroys, many (but not all) deserving of it, admittedly. He's not a good guy, but he has decent enough motivation to not be buried down with evil.

Movie V is definitely CG. the only people he actually kills are horrible people (barring the doctor who he offs with poison). Evey also asked to be rendered without fear. Hes very much "The Ends justify the means".

As far as the comic is concerned, V is a CE anarchist against a LE Dictator. Hes not really in it for the people.

[Telonius]

Lawful Good: Gandalf, Sam, Gimli
Neutral Good: Frodo, Aragorn, Legolas, Merry
Chaotic Good: Pippin
Lawful Neutral: Boromir, Denethor (book, not movie)
True Neutral: Treebeard
Chaotic Neutral: Beorn
Lawful Evil: Sauron, Saruman
Neutral Evil: Gollum
Chaotic Evil: Any random orc

[Dienekes]

Movie V is definitely CG. the only people he actually kills are horrible people (barring the doctor who he offs with poison). Evey also asked to be rendered without fear. Hes very much "The Ends justify the means".

As far as the comic is concerned, V is a CE anarchist against a LE Dictator. Hes not really in it for the people.

I should have been clearer, I was talking about the comic.

But, I'm not sure I agree with you on your assessment. If he really didn't care about the people, he could have taken down the government without his showy displays, probably much easier. He also saved and then attempted to educate Evey, which only makes sense if he believed his anarchic savior propaganda on some level. That said, though I give him CN, I think he's a border case who is a bit close to CE. I probably could have picked a better example, I didn't want to fall into the CN is a random crazy person trap.

Hmm, who would be better for chaotic neutral? How about Yossarian from Catch-22? Hates the military organization, and attempts to leave it or disrupt it as best he can. He's an ok guy, nothing terribly good or bad about him but is ultimately out for his own survival above anything else.

[toapat]

Hmm, who would be better for chaotic neutral? How about Yossarian from Catch-22? Hates the military organization, and attempts to leave it or disrupt it as best he can. He's an ok guy, nothing terribly good or bad about him but is ultimately out for his own survival above anything else.

I knew you were talking about the book version. You also cant just assassinate a government, you have to publically execute it both in idea and actuality. If V just killed everyone with power currently running Norsefire, then there would just be another Not-Hitler up there in a week.

going by the strict definitions, Robinhood is the only really CN character.

As far as otherwise, Drew Carey is also CN

but personally i dont like the definitions of Law/Chaos. Authoritarian/Libertarian isnt really that good. Its political views, not really the cosmic absolutes of order/disorder, and the good-evil axis is typically extended to Altruistic > Self Interested > Mysanthropic. At least by that, we would consider most Americans to be TN with CN leanings.

[atomicwaffle]

(haven't got a chance to reply till now)

the whole point of this is to help introduce Dungeons and Dragons to new players that may not have much knowledge of D&D. I want a quick reference of people, preferably from movies or history (as new players may not understand all of our references) to give them an idea of what alignment means.

It was not my intent to start the alignment debate, again. I just need simple examples that people would understand as being this or that.

The best ones i have heard are
LG - ?
NG - ?
TN - ?
LN - Judge Dredd
CG - Dirty Harry
CN - Tyler Durden
CE - Joker
LE - Darth Vader
NE - ?

But i want more than one of each, several examples in case they don't get one. I'm trying to introduce the hobby to new people.

edit: Dirty Harry is a better CG example

[toapat]

(haven't got a chance to reply till now)

the whole point of this is to help introduce Dungeons and Dragons to new players that may not have much knowledge of D&D. I want a quick reference of people, preferably from movies or history (as new players may not understand all of our references) to give them an idea of what alignment means.

It was not my intent to start the alignment debate, again. I just need simple examples that people would understand as being this or that.

The best ones i have heard are
LG - ?
NG - ?
TN - ?
LN - Judge Dredd
CG - Robin Hood
CN - Tyler Durden
CE - Joker
LE - Darth Vader
NE - ?

But i want more than one of each, several examples in case they don't get one. I'm trying to introduce the hobby to new people.

Superman is absolutely LG. not as much as Captain Marvel but he is LG. Captain America is also. Also note these are all the same character.

The best LEs i can think of are Tony Stark, Raymond Reddington, and Tywin Lannister

[geekintheground]

Superman is absolutely LG. not as much as Captain Marvel but he is LG. Captain America is also. Also note these are all the same character.

The best LEs i can think of are Tony Stark, Raymond Reddington, and Tywin Lannister

i cant even... how is TONY STARK LE? i cant see him as either LAWFUL nor EVIL. in avengers he literally SACRIFICES HIMSELF to save the entire planet (sure he didnt die, but he didnt know he wouldnt). i see him as a better example of CG than robin hood. ok, i dont know details of the comics but i know the general picture and from what i hear the movies are pretty good at capturing tony. unless that was another GoT character.

[Angelalex242]

Tony Stark as LE? Maybe in Civil War, but he regrets that IMMENSELY later. He's an Avenger, and he's after more then profit in life.

Magneto, on the other hand, is usually LE. With some LN tendencies, as he's been known to heel face turn.

NG...Thor, maybe? Clearly willing to ignore his dad when he thinks his dad his wrong, but equally willing to uphold Asgard or even Earth any way he can.

TN: 'Random NPC'.

NE: I'll nominate Lex Luthor. While he appears to be LE, much of the time, he also does many Chaotic deeds in his mad hunt to kill Superman dead. That's all he cares about, and he'll use any means, Lawful, Chaotic, or otherwise to see the Kryptonian brought down.

[jedipotter]

Too add a couple:


LG - Superman, Captain America, Daredevil, Daniel Jackson(SG-1), Captain John Sheradin(Babylon 5), Optimus Prime, Hermione Granger
Cpt. Lee "Apollo" Adama (Battlestar Galactica)
NG - Spider-Man, Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Arwen, Boromir Son of Denethor, Saltheart Foamfollower, Yoda, Qui-Gon Jin, R2-D2, Leia Organa/Skywalker, Spock, Admiral William Adama (Battlestar Galactica), Harry Potter
TN - Thomas Covenant, C-3PO, Quark (actually, all the Firengi) (Star Trek DS:9)
LN - Judge Dredd
CG - Dirty Harry, Doctor Who, Wolverine, Indiana Jones , Gimli Son of Gloin, Legolas Greenleaf, Meriadoc Brandybuck, Peregrin Took, Buffy the Slayer, Lt. Kara "Starbuck" Thrace (Battlestar Galactica)
CN - Tyler Durden, Conan the Barbarian, Q (of ST:TNG), Dr Gregory House(House)
CE - Joker, Carnage, Dark Phoenix, Sabertooth, Chucky (Child’s Play)
LE - Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Dr. Doom, Megatron, Apocalypse, Magento
NE - Thanos, Venom, Starscream

[toapat]

i cant even... how is TONY STARK LE? i cant see him as either LAWFUL nor EVIL. in avengers he literally SACRIFICES HIMSELF to save the entire planet (sure he didnt die, but he didnt know he wouldnt). i see him as a better example of CG than robin hood. ok, i dont know details of the comics but i know the general picture and from what i hear the movies are pretty good at capturing tony. unless that was another GoT character.

Alignment is supposed to be as much Ideas and intentions as it is actions. Just because you are the hero doesnt mean you are the good guy. Neither Evil or Good are one big happy family. Ivan in Iron Man 2 sumarizes Tony Stark pretty well in most versions except for the movie universe.

Tony Stark has caused alot of suffering, Hes not really doing a lot to stop it despite saying he would. He may have shut down the weapons division but the people in manufacturing? who knows how many of them suffer the backlash. He designed fully functional low profile powered equipment but did not release modified versions for prosthesis for years to the rest of Stark Industries to help people. The same technology took only a year longer in universe time to be developed by Cybertech.

He did ride the JSOW into the wormhole, which when it comes down to just raw Karmatic Score on the G-E axis outweighs everything else he has done, but he forgets to do good outside of the movies.

[atomicwaffle]

would jason voorhees and freddy krueger be good examples of NE?

I also think John Taffer (from Bar Rescue/Hungry Investor$) would make a perfect LN alongside dredd.

Would Simon Phoenix (from demolition man) be NE or CE?

[geekintheground]

Alignment is supposed to be as much Ideas and intentions as it is actions. Just because you are the hero doesnt mean you are the good guy. Neither Evil or Good are one big happy family. Ivan in Iron Man 2 sumarizes Tony Stark pretty well in most versions except for the movie universe.

Tony Stark has caused alot of suffering, Hes not really doing a lot to stop it despite saying he would. He may have shut down the weapons division but the people in manufacturing? who knows how many of them suffer the backlash. He designed fully functional low profile powered equipment but did not release modified versions for prosthesis for years to the rest of Stark Industries to help people. The same technology took only a year longer in universe time to be developed by Cybertech.

He did ride the JSOW into the wormhole, which when it comes down to just raw Karmatic Score on the G-E axis outweighs everything else he has done, but he forgets to do good outside of the movies.

"gosh, taking out that chromatic dragon would be good, but think of all the kobolds that rely on it for protection!" said no good person ever. alignment doesnt have anything to do with intent, only action. and its not subjective. it looks at each act in a vaccum and decides. (at least the way its written). and while you dont have to be Good to be the hero NO hero (outside of D&D) is Evil (anti-hero's are an entirely separate matter). and yes, tony has caused a lot of suffering, but he's done so much more good. again, there is no WAY tony is evil. and youd be even harder pressed to say he's Lawful.

edit: to add to the actual discussion, Sherlock Holmes is imho a good example of NG or TN (closer to NG). he solves puzzles using his own means but never straying TOO far from the "straight and narrow".

[TuggyNE]

Alignment is supposed to be as much Ideas and intentions as it is actions. Just because you are the hero doesnt mean you are the good guy. Neither Evil or Good are one big happy family. Ivan in Iron Man 2 sumarizes Tony Stark pretty well in most versions except for the movie universe.

Tony Stark has caused alot of suffering, Hes not really doing a lot to stop it despite saying he would. He may have shut down the weapons division but the people in manufacturing? who knows how many of them suffer the backlash. He designed fully functional low profile powered equipment but did not release modified versions for prosthesis for years to the rest of Stark Industries to help people. The same technology took only a year longer in universe time to be developed by Cybertech.

He did ride the JSOW into the wormhole, which when it comes down to just raw Karmatic Score on the G-E axis outweighs everything else he has done, but he forgets to do good outside of the movies.

OK, you can argue he's not Good, but Evil? Ummmmm. Where's the evil acts? I'm not seeing them.

[Dienekes]

I knew you were talking about the book version. You also cant just assassinate a government, you have to publically execute it both in idea and actuality. If V just killed everyone with power currently running Norsefire, then there would just be another Not-Hitler up there in a week.

Bombing all the means the government has of control along with the leadership is shown to be completely in his abilities and would leave them unable to rule. He still attempts to convert people and save lives, admittedly it's not his number one priority for most of the book, but it's there.


going by the strict definitions, Robinhood is the only really CN character.

Explain. I can't really see Hood as not qualifying as good, and I have already expressed my doubts on his chaotic qualifications.


As far as otherwise, Drew Carey is also CN

I do not know enough about this actor to comment.


but personally i dont like the definitions of Law/Chaos. Authoritarian/Libertarian isnt really that good. Its political views, not really the cosmic absolutes of order/disorder, and the good-evil axis is typically extended to Altruistic > Self Interested > Mysanthropic. At least by that, we would consider most Americans to be TN with CN leanings.

I do consider most to be TN, I'd argue on the CN leanings though, I've seen arguments for everything chaotic and lawful and in between somewhere in the US.


Superman is absolutely LG. not as much as Captain Marvel but he is LG. Captain America is also. Also note these are all the same character.

The best LEs i can think of are Tony Stark, Raymond Reddington, and Tywin Lannister

Well first, they are not all the same character. Really all they have in common is they try to follow their moral code and be inspirational to others. How they go about it is pretty different, as is there general personalities. Steve is a pretty rigid soldier, Marvel is a child trying to be what he thinks Superman is, and Clark is a stuttering farm boy who deals with also being a god.

I agree on Tywin, but I'm curious how you got Stark as LE. Admittedly, he bounces around through his character arc being TN, to CN, to NG, to CG. Maybe during Civil War you can get LE out of him, but I think that's been pretty universally pointed out as being strange and out of character for every other version of him, and ignores his motivations entirely.

Ok, enough of this. More of what the OP actually wanted.

LG: Superman, Captain America, Captain Marvel, Galahad, Eddard Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Nicholas Angel, Spock
NG: Spiderman, The Doctor, Robin Hood (I'd argue), Sherlock Holmes, Captain Kirk
CG: Dirty Harry, Harry Dresden, Green Arrow, Han Solo (from Empire Strikes Back on), Conan the Barbarian (after he becomes king), Dr. "Bones" McCoy
LN: Javert, Stannis Baratheon (probably more evil in the tv show), Vogons (in general, some are clearly evil), Lucius Vorenus, Judge Dredd
TN: Doctor Manhattan, most random schmucks, The Neutral Planet from Futurama, the entire cast of Shawn of the Dead, Sandor Clegane
CN: Yossarian, Conan the Barbarian (pre-kingship), Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes), Arya Stark, The Janitor (from Scrubs)
LE: Vito Corleone, Tywin Lannister, Darkseid, The Daleks, the Cybermen,
NE: Walter White, Norman Osborn, Yuri Orlav, Bronn, Umbridge, Smaug,
CE: Joker, Carnage, Alex Delarge, Marlo Stanfield, Littlefinger, Kerrigan, Iago (from Othello), Kratos

[toapat]

Explain. I can't really see Hood as not qualifying as good, and I have already expressed my doubts on his chaotic qualifications.

I do not know enough about this actor to comment.

I do consider most to be TN, I'd argue on the CN leanings though, I've seen arguments for everything chaotic and lawful and in between somewhere in the US.

Robin Hood not being CG is based on the base definitions of the good-evil axis: while Benevolent/Altruistic always covers Good, Self interest by the standard definitions is Evil, as opposed to Neutral. splitting the difference gets us something closer to the normal Robin Hood.

Drew is a public figure for Libertarians. and he identifies with the political outlook. by standard definitions, Chaos is really, really badly defined as the opposition to Law, as opposed to the Opposite of law. Libertarians are opposite Authoritarians, aka the people who believe in strong political entities. Now the absolutes on both ends of that spectrum do correlate directly to the Law/Chaos axis, because a Perfectly Libertarian state is Chaos (Anarchy is not, by correct definition, Chaotic), while a perfectly Authoritarian state is a Fascist Dictatorship like the Modrons exist under. The problem with using Libertarian view on government as the basis of Chaos is that Anti-Government is not the opposite of order.

The reality of the matter is, most people in the US want the Federal government to get itself together, get the enforcement agencies working together, and for the CIA and NSA to stop being the actual BBEGs. at least by definition thats lightly CN.

[Angelalex242]

How is rob from the rich, give to the poor not altruistic? It's pretty much CG personified.

CN Robin Hood wouldn't give the poor, he'd give to himself.

CE Robin Hood would murder the rich, give to himself, then laugh at poor people.

[Leviting]

I still fail to understand why people treat theft (even if from the rich) as a non-evil action. That is, unless they stole it. Then it would be neutral. Otherwise, you are taking what is rightfully theirs, what either they or their ancestors worked for.

[toapat]

How is rob from the rich, give to the poor not altruistic? It's pretty much CG personified.

CN Robin Hood wouldn't give the poor, he'd give to himself.

CE Robin Hood would murder the rich, give to himself, then laugh at poor people.

you are conflating houserules with the actual rules. In the actual rules the axis of Good-Evil is "Perfectly Good"/"Good"/"Neutral or evil". Coin, which is what Robin is typically depicted as stealing, was largely worthless. Stealing the grain taxes creates a circular problem untill you murder the ******* who is killing the peasents, and trade goods are a whole other area of problems. also, RAW theft even for a good cause is still a minorly evil action.

Assuming the game had defined the Law/Chaos axis as non-political outlooks, Most everyone we are placing under chaotic would be lawful.

[jedipotter]

I still fail to understand why people treat theft (even if from the rich) as a non-evil action. That is, unless they stole it. Then it would be neutral. Otherwise, you are taking what is rightfully theirs, what either they or their ancestors worked for.

Theft itself is always kind of evil....maybe, sort of, sometimes. And this is why you get the gray.

Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor.....so he is good? So it is ok, to steal from rich people if you give it to poor people? Or is it the idea that Robin Hood is stealing the high taxes a greedy king demanded? So Robin is just taking back money that the king should have not taken in the first place? Robin, himself, gets to decide if the tax is too high? And that makes Robin good? Where do you draw the line? Can Robin not like and oppose anything the king does and still be good? Does it matter if the king is good or evil? Does it matter what the king uses the tax money for? If the king and Robin disagree on the best way to spend tax money, who is right?


And remember, in D&D (much like the world before the 20 th century) it is OK to steal.....sometimes. If you kill goblin bandits, you can loot(steal from) the dead bodies and still be good. You won't get arrested for doing that.

[Leviting]

Theft itself is always kind of evil....maybe, sort of, sometimes. And this is why you get the gray.

Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor.....so he is good? So it is ok, to steal from rich people if you give it to poor people? Or is it the idea that Robin Hood is stealing the high taxes a greedy king demanded? So Robin is just taking back money that the king should have not taken in the first place? Robin, himself, gets to decide if the tax is too high? And that makes Robin good? Where do you draw the line? Can Robin not like and oppose anything the king does and still be good? Does it matter if the king is good or evil? Does it matter what the king uses the tax money for? If the king and Robin disagree on the best way to spend tax money, who is right?


And remember, in D&D (much like the world before the 20 th century) it is OK to steal.....sometimes. If you kill goblin bandits, you can loot(steal from) the dead bodies and still be good. You won't get arrested for doing that.

With the goblin bandits example, they are bandits, so they likely stole or pillaged the goods you stole from them, and are inevitably reaping the penalties of attempting to fight adventurers capable of and willing to kill them. In this example, the adventurers would have committed a neutral act, as they transferred illegally captured goods from one party (the goblin bandits) to another (themselves). If they returned said goods to whomever they were stolen from (by the bandits), that would be good, as they would be voluntarily helping victims of a crime.

On the disagreement of how the tax money is spent, it is the king's decision, as he is the one heading the government and in authority. If Robin were to unlawfully refuse to pay the (high) taxes, he would in turn reap the consequences of tax evasion, and would either be subject to (lawful) punishment or be forced to oppose the guards (potentially violently). If it did turn violent, Robin would be the guilty, potentially evil one, as the guards are simply doing their (lawful) job.

[Angelalex242]

Well, the point is, It's NOT the Lawful King (Richard) in charge, It's Prince John and the Sherriff of Nottingham (LE, both.) Since these two bozos are not ruling well in King Richard's absence, Robin is essentially trying to guess what King Richard would want based on his policies before he left for the Crusades, and then attempting to redistribute at least as much wealth back to the people based on what their taxes used to be.

See, it's the fact that the guys in charge are evil that gives Robin Hood the right to act. Note, when King Richard returns, Robin Hood immediately STOPS being an outlaw, because the real king is back. You might even see him as King Richard's enforcer. King Richard appreciates his efforts too, usually Knighting him and granting him Marian besides.

[Leviting]

Yeah, your probably right when it comes to Robin Hood, so would that leave him as TN? He obeys one authority, disobeys another, steals from some, and gives to others.

[jedipotter]

With the goblin bandits example,

Though unles you know the bandits robbed the bank in Lowtown yesterday or robbed Konta Rollbon on his way to work, it is just about impossible to return all the stolen stuff




On the disagreement of how the tax money is spent, it is the king's decision, as he is the one heading the government and in authority. If Robin were to unlawfully refuse to pay the (high) taxes, he would in turn reap the consequences of tax evasion, and would either be subject to (lawful) punishment or be forced to oppose the guards (potentially violently). If it did turn violent, Robin would be the guilty, potentially evil one, as the guards are simply doing their (lawful) job.

So you'd say the king is always right? He can set the tax level at whatever he wants and do whatever he wants with the money? And it would be evil to oppose the king? Even if the king was evil too? A good person must follow and evil king or be evil themselves? So this makes Robin Hood evil? What if it is a good king who simply does not know the tax is too high? Or a good king that knows that the tax is high, but needs the money for something of good importance? Is Robin chaotic good to oppose that king? And who gets to decide what is good and evil? The king says the new bridge will help everyone and the high taxes are needed to do it, but Robin says the poor people have no food to eat and that is wrong. So who is right?

[Angelalex242]

That's not TN. TN is 'I flip a coin on which authority to serve.'

Robin Hood is definitely picking the LG Richard, and supporting his cause, and trying to keep LE John and Sherriff from doing too much harm, which their policies verifiably DO a lot of harm.

So, there's nothing evil or even neutral about supporting the rightful king at great risk to yourself, defending the peasants from such tyranny, and making sure the Tyranny is blunted every step of the way.

This is on top of Robin Hood treating his own people well, treating Marian well whenever he can sneak her out of the castle, and he's pretty much a nice guy to anyone not directly in service of the evil powers temporarily running the place. I mean, he isn't any more evil then the Rebellion (Star Wars) is for opposing Palpatine/Vader. The guys in charge may be in charge, but that doesn't make opposing them evil.

So he's definitively supporting Good every step of the way, both with stealing from the (Evil) rich, and giving to the oppressed poor (poor might be neutral, might be good, ultimately doesn't matter, because the government was 'stealing' from them in the first place with excessive taxation), and then supporting the rightful ruler every step of the way.

Robin being King Richard's new enforcer, things get a lot better for the country, because King Richard kicks the tax rates back down to his level, Robin himself is now Richard's #2, more or less, and the merry men that served Robin are now his enforcers in turn. And they're all actually protecting the people pretty much as Richard would want them to.

[TuggyNE]

In the actual rules the axis of Good-Evil is "Perfectly Good"/"Good"/"Neutral or evil". Coin, which is what Robin is typically depicted as stealing, was largely worthless.

What. What is this I don't even.


I still fail to understand why people treat theft (even if from the rich) as a non-evil action. That is, unless they stole it. Then it would be neutral. Otherwise, you are taking what is rightfully theirs, what either they or their ancestors worked for.

The usual explanation for Robin Hood specifically is that he was stealing mostly either unjust taxes or otherwise ill-gotten gains.

In other cases, no, you're right. Theft is not always evil, but it often or usually is. (And it's essentially always chaotic.)

[Angelalex242]

That's essentially it.

In D&D there are 'acceptable targets' for theft.

Notably:
Any temple of an evil deity (diabolic and demonic cults included)
Any slaver guild
Any group found in the Book of Vile Darkness
Anyone actively trying to enslave or destroy the world (or a country, or a country, or a village, or even a town.)
Tyrants and their troops. (This is the relevant one for Robin Hood.)
Undead of any sort.
Chromatic Dragons
Evil Outsiders
Most 'Always Evil' races, including Mindflayers and Beholders and Medusas and whatnot.
Beware of stealing from 'Usually Evil' races...Kobolds, Orcs, Goblins and the like can be provoked to war, and in general, the forces of good don't want to start a long bloody war because some dumb rogue couldn't keep his hands to himself. In general, you want to confine this sort of thing to 'loot the bodies.'

Those are the kind of people the party rogue can rob blind and have the Paladin be okay with it. Mostly on the basis of 'I was going to smite their face off anyway, so knock yourself out.'

[Hurnn]

Joker is NOT CE. HE has had innumerable intricate and well laid out plans and schemes, a bevy of allies and has show he can lead and organize groups. He is NE, he revels in the destruction for it's own sake there is always a goal the chaos is a side effect. That said several of the D&D demon princes don't really fit into the CE mold either. Graz'zt I'm looking at you......

[RedMage125]

Joker is NOT CE. HE has had innumerable intricate and well laid out plans and schemes, a bevy of allies and has show he can lead and organize groups. He is NE, he revels in the destruction for it's own sake there is always a goal the chaos is a side effect. That said several of the D&D demon princes don't really fit into the CE mold either. Graz'zt I'm looking at you......

Christopher Nolan's Joker, you could maybe make an argument like that for, although I'd still say CE. Joker in the comics is pretty solidly CE.

Chaotic alignment does not preclude the ability or willingness to have well-laid plans.

It's not "chaotic stupid".

[hamishspence]

How is rob from the rich, give to the poor not altruistic?

If the motive for giving to the poor is "get them on my side - as informants, allies, etc" it's less altruistic.

There's also the question of how much of the stolen loot ends up in the hands of the "poor victims of the rich".

Haley's father gave "40%, after reasonable expenses":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0619.html

And is CN:



Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.

[Dienekes]

Joker is NOT CE. HE has had innumerable intricate and well laid out plans and schemes, a bevy of allies and has show he can lead and organize groups. He is NE, he revels in the destruction for it's own sake there is always a goal the chaos is a side effect. That said several of the D&D demon princes don't really fit into the CE mold either. Graz'zt I'm looking at you......

Ok, listen. There is nothing about CE that says you can't be intelligent and make plans. They often don't, but there's nothing that says they can't. The chaotic alignment is, admittedly, poorly defined (same with Lawful really). But what it gets down to is, a chaotic person does not follow proper authorities, does not stand true to a personal code, and commits various acts that are regarded as chaotic.

The Joker fulfills all that criteria. It doesn't matter that he makes plans, his goals are almost always within the purview of sowing chaos and committing evil, therefore he's chaotic evil. You're thinking of Chaotic Stupid, which admittedly is one way to play Chaotic Evil. The best example I can think for that would be Joffrey Baratheon. Does whatever he wants, with no regard for the laws of his own kingdom, and often his only desire is to torture people physically and emotionally.

[Nightcanon]

I still fail to understand why people treat theft (even if from the rich) as a non-evil action. That is, unless they stole it. Then it would be neutral. Otherwise, you are taking what is rightfully theirs, what either they or their ancestors worked for.
The context of Robin Hood is that 'the rich' in his situation are the the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and his cronies. Following the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the invaders established feudal law in the country. The king gives land to his knights, from which they can (and indeed must) raise an income and if needs be a contribution to his army. The peasantry living on the land belong to the local lord. Robin's father was one such knight who is depicted as a just man who dealt fairly with his serfs; the usurping Sheriff (and indeed Prince John) are greedy and keep the peasantry in abject poverty. Can't pay your taxes because you are dirt poor and the harvest failed? Thrown in prison to rot. Flee from your abusive master? That makes you an outlaw. Live off the land? That's poaching and will cost you a hand if caught. For the evil sheriff, this is a feature not a bug: it keeps him nicely supplied with serfs to abuse. You could argue that the Sheriff is CE or NE, on the grounds that does as he wishes and regards the law as a tool to be used when convenient, and to an extent I'd agree with you. Then again, the concept of Law as something that everyone has to obey, even the biggest gang who get to make the rules, is a relatively modern concept anyway.

[Nightcanon]

As an aside, I remember an article in Dragon from 20-odd years ago (about the time of the beginnings of 2nd ed) that played around with the idea of having characters rank various loyalties and priorities rather than pick one of 9 alignments. So a character who declared his loyalties to church and king the good of all in the country over family and companions and self-gratification would be the equivalent of LG (and would be expected to do what the church or king asked of him over going adventuring in the wilds with his friends). This then opens up possiblities for character development: what if the king is pursuing an unjust war, or the church is squandering wealth on finery as the poor starve and are ridden with disease? Rather than being punished by alignment change for shuffling these priorities, it opens up possibilities for roleplaying (do you defy your king, or obey? Which takes your Paladin closest to his ideals?)
As a suggestion, what about asking what characters your players want to play (not class/race/feat combos, but personalities)? Why are they doing what they are doing? What is their motivation? How might that change as circumstances alter? For game mechanics purposes (who uses that fancy sword most optimally, who gets to be a bard/ monk/ paladin) a 3x3 grid might be necessary, but I'd ask new players about the sort of people their PCs are and suggest compatible alignments rather than have them select alignments then pick a personality.

[Metahuman1]

Tony Stark as LE? Maybe in Civil War, but he regrets that IMMENSELY later. He's an Avenger, and he's after more then profit in life.



Yes, he regretted it so much that he sent Bruce Banner to an alien hell hole cause he couldn't control him with help of a couple of other "hero's".

Then when he found out it was the wrong planet he killed banners wife after banner had started making real head way on fixing the hell hole he'd been sent too by Stark to try and get him sent to a different planet before he could fully fix the hell hole, cause it wasn't going according to Starks plan.

He regretted it so much he threatened children in both Runaways and at the Xaiver Institute.

And refused to save May Parkers life even though by his own admission he could do it cause it might jeopardize him keeping it illegal to have superpowers and not work directly for the US government no exceptions and if you don't like it the government knows were your family is and can send armed sociopaths with super powers to torture and kill them. BTW, that resulted in Peter making a deal with the devil.

And let us not for get that after making a lose canon clone of Thor while Thor was gone, a clone that killed one of Thor's other friends while pretending to be him, he had the balls to tell Thor "Oh, and you have to answer to me and register with me now."



And ALL of that is still canon. It's in continuity. Marvel Comics refuse to fix it. Until they do, Stark, even though he was Chaotic Good before hand, is Lawful Evil.

[geekintheground]

Yes, he regretted it so much that he sent Bruce Banner to an alien hell hole cause he couldn't control him with help of a couple of other "hero's".

Then when he found out it was the wrong planet he killed banners wife after banner had started making real head way on fixing the hell hole he'd been sent too by Stark to try and get him sent to a different planet before he could fully fix the hell hole, cause it wasn't going according to Starks plan.

He regretted it so much he threatened children in both Runaways and at the Xaiver Institute.

And refused to save May Parkers life even though by his own admission he could do it cause it might jeopardize him keeping it illegal to have superpowers and not work directly for the US government no exceptions and if you don't like it the government knows were your family is and can send armed sociopaths with super powers to torture and kill them. BTW, that resulted in Peter making a deal with the devil.

And let us not for get that after making a lose canon clone of Thor while Thor was gone, a clone that killed one of Thor's other friends while pretending to be him, he had the balls to tell Thor "Oh, and you have to answer to me and register with me now."



And ALL of that is still canon. It's in continuity. Marvel Comics refuse to fix it. Until they do, Stark, even though he was Chaotic Good before hand, is Lawful Evil.

... and then he saved the world a couple times and beat up evil and was redeemed.

[KorbeltheReader]

I think the alignment system runs aground pretty quickly once you start analyzing characters' bodies of work closely. You have to remember that the D&D alignment system is Cold War era fantasy. It's for picking out the good guys, the Evil Empire, and the neutrals on the fringes as they get dragged into The War. It's not for in depth character analysis beyond distinguishing the IT SHALL BE MINE bad guys (Emperor Palpatine) from the WATCH IT ALL BURN bad guys (The Joker).

It's meant to identify Han Solo (chaotic good) as Rebel Alliance (i.e., "the good guys") but with a touch of anti-authority sexiness. Everything goes to crap if you spend a lot of time litigating the ramifications of Han Shot First and remapping him in the exact proper place vis-a-vis expanded universe Boba Fett and blah blah blah.

With that in mind, just using impressions and archetypes, I'd say for the strong alignments:
LG (the crusader): Superman, knight in shining armor, Brienne of Tarth, Princess Leia, Obi Wan Kenobi, Daenerys Targaryen, Albus Dumbledore
CG (the rebel): Han Solo, Malcolm Reynolds, James T. Kirk, most Clint Eastwood roles, Tyrion Lannister, William Turner (Pirates of the Caribbean)
LE (the dominator): Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Tywin Lannister, Dr. Evil (Austin Powers), Magneto, Khan, Saruman the White, most Bond arch-villains, Syndrome (The Incredibles), Voldemort
CE (the destroyer): The Joker, The Mountain That Rides, Kefka (example of the rare master plotting CE), the arch-villain's enforcer type, Bellatrix, the Reavers (Firefly)

This helps distinguish NE from CN, which is often surprisingly difficult. NE is on the bad guys' side without being obviously a dominator or destroyer type, while CN is a rogue agent, an unaligned outlaw, or an X factor. In addition, CN tend to avoid highly evil acts when possible (e.g., murder, rape), unlike the NE character.
CN (free spirit): Lando Calrissian (moves to CG once he commits to the Rebel cause), gun for hire, Q, Catwoman, Sandor Clegane, Captain Jack Sparrow, Jayne Cobb, Mance Raydar
NE (malefactor): Mystique, Darth Maul, Two Face, General Grievous, Lucius Malfoy, Ser Amory Lorch

The other alignments can similarly be disentangled by considering broader allegiances and archetypes. NG are good guys who are on the good side for personal reasons rather than "the cause" but aren't rebel types:
NG (the benefactor): Luke Skywalker, Bran Stark, Spiderman, Ron Weasley,

LN are the "judge" characters that esteem justice over compassion, and are generally not on the good guy side.
LN (the judge): Judge Dredd, Robocop, that cop who arrests the good guys along with the bad guys, Commodore Norrington, Stannis Baratheon, The Operative (Firefly -- in fact the Alliance in general falls here)

Last are the neutrals. They haven't picked a side, usually don't like either one, and just want to be left alone. If they become significant characters, they usually end up sliding over to one of the stronger alignments.
TN (the undecided): Doctor Manhattan, Luke Skywalker before meeting Ben Kenobi, Quark, Mr. Universe (Serenity), Gaius Baltar, Beric Dondarrion, the Jawas

[Angelalex242]

Joker is most certainly CE, Ledger describes himself as 'an agent of Chaos.' He is not less Chaotic because he's good at it.

On Stark: That's one, deeply regretted part of his life that was violently out of character with every other Tony Stark. And as noted, he's been redeeming himself ever since. That's what I meant by deeply regretted his actions during Civil War. Even during Civil War, when Cap 'dies', Stark asks himself if it was worth it, and quickly concludes 'no, it wasn't.'

[jedipotter]

(haven't got a chance to reply till now)

the whole point of this is to help introduce Dungeons and Dragons to new players that may not have much knowledge of D&D. I want a quick reference of people, preferably from movies or history (as new players may not understand all of our references) to give them an idea of what alignment means.



Just be careful. If you say ''Wolverine is CG'', lots of them might fanatically want to be that alignment based on what they don't know about Wolverine. Like "Way cool I'll be CG and cut up and kill anyone who looks at me the wrong way..woo hoo''. Even though Wolverine does not do that......

[Angelalex242]

Selina Kyle is CN with LOTS of Good tendencies, however. I guess there's only so long you can keep dating Batman before his thirst for justice runs off on you a little. Her Outer Plane isn't Limbo, it's Ysgard, heading for Arborea.

In fact, the closer Selina gets to Bruce, the more legit CG she becomes. She'll never follow the law, really, but she will start aiding abused women and protecting east end and stuff like that.

[Metahuman1]

Joker is most certainly CE, Ledger describes himself as 'an agent of Chaos.' He is not less Chaotic because he's good at it.

On Stark: That's one, deeply regretted part of his life that was violently out of character with every other Tony Stark. And as noted, he's been redeeming himself ever since. That's what I meant by deeply regretted his actions during Civil War. Even during Civil War, when Cap 'dies', Stark asks himself if it was worth it, and quickly concludes 'no, it wasn't.'

Except at least half if not more like 3/4ths of that was after civil war was over and he'd won. Physically attacking the Runaway's with a shield team using guns, telling peter "No, I will not save your aunt's life, but I will attack you with my suit and try to take you in so you can't try to get someone else to help you save her.", telling Thor "Yeah hey you have to register and work for me cause I had this great idea while you were dead.", deciding that the literal force of creation of the universe was too dangerous cause it wasn't controlled as part of his avengers and that he'd kill any X-men that got in the way of him destroying it, including the one's it was host body too, Sending Hulk off world against his will to a hell hole and then going "opps, that didn't go according to plan, can't have anything not go according to my plans. Better force him to the originally intended planet." which resulted in the whole planet and world war hulk incidents, that all happened AFTER civil war and AFTER Cap got killed.

[Angelalex242]

It's still out of character with everything he does in every other story arc.

You'd have to show me an example of LE behavior in an arc after Civil War to prove your point. Otherwise, it's like he donned a helm of opposite alignment, took it off, now he's himself again.

[RedMage125]

Korbel, you made a pretty good analysis, just one nitpick:


TN (the undecided): Doctor Manhattan, Luke Skywalker before meeting Ben Kenobi, Quark, Mr. Universe (Serenity), Gaius Baltar, Beric Dondarrion, the Jawas

Luke possesed a great desire to leave Tatooine and join the Rebel Alliance against the Empire like his friend Biggs Darklighter. His motivations, ideals and goals were already NG, he just wasn't in a situation to act on them.

Uncle Owen, however, would be TN.

One thing I liked about what you pointed out was the "fine line" between CN and NE. It's funny, because I always maintain that NG and LN have very similar characteristics, because it's a narrow border between someone who prioritizes what is "right" vis someone who prioritizes what is "just".


One thing that's important to remember about all alignments in general is that they only really work in the moral/ethical framework of a world like the default setting of D&D. That is, a universe with objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Anything based off any other type of multiverse is bound to cause dissent among observers, because we tend to use our own real-world perceptions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, which can be very subjective. Hell, even in a D&D world, an individual might perceive himself to be a "good guy", but actually have a Neutral, or even Evil alignment, because the objective nature of those cosmic forces does not care one whit about the perceptions of an individual.

Take, for example, the oft-debated Batman alignment. The 9x9 chart that claims he is ALL alignments is not meant to be taken seriously. Using the definitions of 3.5e (the last complete D&D edition to use the 9 alignment system), we can see that the game explicitly says that individuals are not 100% compliant with their alignment 100% of the time. Alignment is a wide brush with which to paint someone. One cannot attempt to force EACH AND EVERY action that individual takes into their alignment. The Complete Scoundrel, however, explicitly states, that if he were judged according to the D&D system, Batman would be Lawful Good. His methods are sneaky and underhanded, yes, but that's because he's a "scoundrel" type character.

My method of explaining alignment can be summed up with this:

Alignment is a broad generalization of an individual's overall outlook, beliefs, and ideals, as shown through their actions. Alignment is NOT an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation.

I think if everyone took that little blurb to heart, there'd be a lot less misunderstanding about alignment.

[Angelalex242]

The Star Wars has only half those ethics in place...

There's objective Good: (Light Side of the Force) and objective Evil: (Dark Side of the Force), but there's no cosmic Law or Chaos entities.

Since there's basically a binary choice...light side or dark side...things are much simpler then D&D.

[hamishspence]

The Bedlam Spirits were pretty Chaotic, in the Devilworlds comics. Abeloth's background was also heavy on the "chaos as a source of destruction and renewal" in theme - she might qualify as an Entity Of Chaos (and Evil).

Not much in the way of "Law as a force" though. Light side is sometimes characterised as, in excess, representing Law at its worst - stagnation.

In Crucible:


The Force was life, and life was growth, and nothing grew that did not change.

And change was destruction.

That was why the dark side existed. Life bore death, death nourished life, destruction came before rejuvenation. And pain came before healing. The dark side was as necessary to life as the light side was. Without it, verdant worlds would stagnate, galactic empires would rule forever.

Luke saw all that and more, saw that conflict was as necessary to progress as harmony, that suffering was as essential to wisdom as was joy. Perhaps there was no pure good, no absolute evil. There was only life, only change and growth, suffering and joy ... death and rebirth.

[toapat]

OK, you can argue he's not Good, but Evil? Ummmmm. Where's the evil acts? I'm not seeing them.

1: Up Until Ironman 3's ending (and we dont have Avengers 2 to see where it goes from there) Tony is motivated by the fact he was a jerkass, his legacy is that he was a jerkass, and his image is that hes a jerkass. At least upto the end of Iron Man 2 he definitely is motivated mostly by not exactly good morals.

2: at least as far as the movies are concerned, the only tech he has made to any degree to be publically available was the Arc Reactor (which is implied that hes going to be building electric cars around). the suit designs could be modified into prosthetic limbs but he didnt give those to SI. He fixed the coding error in extremis but never released the patch, and at least several months after the end of Ironman 3 people are still exploding from Extremis because Thor 2 happened in the middle of Agents of Shield.


It's still out of character with everything he does in every other story arc.

You'd have to show me an example of LE behavior in an arc after Civil War to prove your point. Otherwise, it's like he donned a helm of opposite alignment, took it off, now he's himself again.

Actually, no. Assuming we use a functional Ethics version of the alignment with corrected G-E axis, Stark only qualifies in rare circumstances as Good. to quote Tolkien, Gandalf with the ring would Use Good to commit evil. Tony Stark primarily does Good for the sake of Himself. the possitive PR for being a good guy is better then the PR for being a villain. His actions are evil, committed against evil, for himself. The movie version is more along the lines of Lawful Neutral with a good bias hurt by the fact he forgets to actually do good sometimes.

[dascarletm]

The light/dark side of the force are more along the lines of discipline versus emotion.

The Jedi Order, the light side are like stoics whereas the sith embrace emotions, usually fear and anger as they are strong emotions.


Tony Stark, while I am only going off the movies would be CN imo. He is the jump first look later kind of guy, and is very eccentric, which leads me to chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. I say neutral because for the majority of the film series he seems to be doing what he does for his own sake. He likes the adventure, etc.


I must say, Dienekes, that was a great breakdown.

[toapat]

The light/dark side of the force are more along the lines of discipline versus emotion.

The Jedi Order, the light side are like stoics whereas the sith embrace emotions, usually fear and anger as they are strong emotions.


Tony Stark, while I am only going off the movies would be CN imo. He is the jump first look later kind of guy, and is very eccentric, which leads me to chaotic on the Law/Chaos axis. I say neutral because for the majority of the film series he seems to be doing what he does for his own sake. He likes the adventure, etc.


I must say, Dienekes, that was a great breakdown.

Movie Stark is an accurate, but significantly different instance of the character. This is because as far as movies are concerned, his status on the avengers as "The Villain who fights evil" isnt really that important. The movies want to depict basically Stark becoming a hero, so hes almost definitely there CN/G but hes typically The evil who fights evil.

[malonkey1]

I tried to go for less obvious examples.

Lawful Good: Detective Stabler (Law and Order: SVU). He's a pretty straightforward guy when it comes to the rules, and usually tries to follow them as best he can. The only times he willingly breaks the rules are for the sake of doing what's right.

Neutral Good: Phillip J. Fry (Futurama). He's a nice guy, and looks out for people. He's an ass sometimes, but when you get down to it, he's willing to do what's right. He can break rules, but he doesn't go out of his way to do so.

Chaotic Good: Dean Winchester (Supernatural). Screw the rules, Dean kills monsters. He's got one goal, and that's exterminating threats to mankind, rule of law be damned. He keeps promises, but he also fights dirty, lies, steals and cheats to win.

Lawful Neutral: Uatu the Watcher (Marvel Comics). He can not intercede. He may want to intercede, but the rule is that he can't.

True Neutral: Deadpool (Marvel Comics). He cares not for good, or evil, or law or chaos. He knows he's fictional, and is out for the cash and the lulz.

Chaotic Neutral: Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock). He only takes cases because they interest him, and he obviously has zero respect for authority. His behavior borders on an antisocial personality.

Lawful Evil: Ed Wuncler (Boondocks). A shrewd businessman with no concern for his workers and no racial sensitivity. He destroyed a community with fast food once, just so he could purchase a nearby park on the cheap.

Neutral Evil: Darla Dimple (Cats Don't Dance): Sadistic, selfish, and perfectly fine with siccing her lackey on a dancing cat just to keep the limelight to herself.

Chaotic Evil: Evil Entity/Nibiru (Scooby-Doo Mystery Incorporated). Vile, destructive, and wishing nothing but to gleefully feast upon the agony of mankind.

[Gildedragon]

I tried to go for less obvious examples.

Lawful Good: Detective Stabler (Law and Order: SVU). He's a pretty straightforward guy when it comes to the rules, and usually tries to follow them as best he can. The only times he willingly breaks the rules are for the sake of doing what's right.

Neutral Good: Phillip J. Fry (Futurama). He's a nice guy, and looks out for people. He's an ass sometimes, but when you get down to it, he's willing to do what's right. He can break rules, but he doesn't go out of his way to do so.

Chaotic Good: Dean Winchester (Supernatural). Screw the rules, Dean kills monsters. He's got one goal, and that's exterminating threats to mankind, rule of law be damned. He keeps promises, but he also fights dirty, lies, steals and cheats to win.

Lawful Neutral: Uatu the Watcher (Marvel Comics). He can not intercede. He may want to intercede, but the rule is that he can't.

True Neutral: Deadpool (Marvel Comics). He cares not for good, or evil, or law or chaos. He knows he's fictional, and is out for the cash and the lulz.

Chaotic Neutral: Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock). He only takes cases because they interest him, and he obviously has zero respect for authority. His behavior borders on an antisocial personality.

Lawful Evil: Ed Wuncler (Boondocks). A shrewd businessman with no concern for his workers and no racial sensitivity. He destroyed a community with fast food once, just so he could purchase a nearby park on the cheap.

Neutral Evil: Darla Dimple (Cats Don't Dance): Sadistic, selfish, and perfectly fine with siccing her lackey on a dancing cat just to keep the limelight to herself.

Chaotic Evil: Evil Entity/Nibiru (Scooby-Doo Mystery Incorporated). Vile, destructive, and wishing nothing but to gleefully feast upon the agony of mankind.

I would say that your assesment of Chaos-Neutrality is backwards in the Deadpool and Sherlock Holmes
Mr. Holmes, though irreverent, prefers stability to lawlessness. His very profession, though borne for his amusement, is indicative of a not entirely or predominantly chaotic personality.
Whereas Deadpool's deadpooliness is firmly rooted in chaos. Being out for the "lulz" is a very strong chaotic tendency

[Segev]

It is interesting and, I think, important to note that the majority of the "CG" examples seem to be freedom fighters/revolutionaries to one degree or another. CG is the alignment of the heroic warrior against oppressive government. Not because all warriors fight for the right reasons, and not because all governments are oppressive, but because it is easiest to conceive of the "Chaotic" good person as being chaotic because they oppose the law of the land. And that is not entirely incorrect.

In particular, I would like to note, however, that it wasn't just that Robin Hood robbed from "the rich" and gave to "the poor." Robin Hood robbed from the government that was actively abusing the serfs and returned to the serfs enough of what was taken from them (legally) so they could survive.

One could make a case that just about every superhero that isn't in a setting where special laws have been introduced that make costumed crime-fighting have legal protections is CG, in that they value goodness and doing the right thing and helping others far and away above valuing obedience to the law. The law - particularly in America - provides all sorts of protections to alleged criminals which superheroes often blatantly ignore. It is even a common plot point and justification for why the superhero is needed: he can do what the police can't (or won't), and a good chunk of the "why" tends to revolve around the fact that the mob boss types hide behind armies of lawyers who use the law to keep the police stymied.

That's what CG is: it is a value of what is right and moral above what is traditional or legal. CG types care about freedom on a personal level, and, because Good recognizes others as having value and rights similar to one's own, they value freedom of others. CG will tend to lean towards expecting laws to be abused, and preferring it if everybody just tries to get along. They also are the first to think their own judgment of right is all that matters, and to resort to force to thwart evil and protect the innocent. They respect talking, negotiation, and agreements only insofar as those methods are achieving results that protect the rights of all involved. They find little value in "rights" that exist because they're spelled out on paper somewhere, and instead believe in a few inherent ones. Most commonly, CG-types live by the golden rule. They do unto others as they would have done unto them, and they only impose their will when it seems that those upon whom they would impose said will are actively harming others who don't deserve it.

CN will veer away from the golden rule, but not completely. Neutral characters are willing to act with more selfishness, and CN ones willingly take advantage of situations with no regard for ethics, so long as they don't think they're hurting somebody else TOO much.

The CG "thief" type might steal food to survive or to feed his family, but he will likely do so only after pursuing means that don't involve wronging the guy from whom he steals. The CN "thief" type will likely avoid stealing from those whom the theft would hurt, but would see NO problem with stealing $1000 from a multimillionaire. He'll not even feel the pinch, right? The CG person would need some justification for why the multimillionaire deserves to lose that wealth, even if he wouldn't notice it missing. The CN person needs no more justification than "it doesn't really hurt anybody."

The CE person would take the stuff even if it was a man's life savings he was planning to use to try to keep his daughter from having to drop out of college due to lack of funds.

In truth, the NE person would do exactly the same. The differences between NE and CE tend to lie in how they interact with others and with organizations. CE types make bad team players. They obey nothing but their own id. They might plan, scheme, and even ally with people, but they WILL backstab their allies the moment it would be beneficial to do so. Even the most savvy of them will do this, eventually, when the prize is high enough and the risk of being punished by those they betray low enough.

NE people may not be the most loyal around, but they will at least hold to agreements for no reason other than protecting their reputation for doing so. They will honor rules and traditions as long as it's not too inconvenient. Like the CE and LE types, they have no compunction against hurting others for their own profit or amusement, but they likely won't backstab you unless the reward is SO high and the risk SO low that they can't see continuing their association with you as being equally beneficial. (CE types are more likely to go for the betrayal just out of perverse desire to be free of the obligation to adhere to the alliance.)

This is'nt to say CE types are stupid. They may not even be impulsive. But they actively chafe at being beholden to any rules or strictures other than their own desires, and will ignore any whose consequences they do not fear. Thus, they can only be found in organizations where the strong lead the weak, and then only because they fear the consequences of getting out of line more than they want whatever perceived reward breaking that organization's rules would get them. NE types would not chafe necessarily at being held back by rules for the rules' sake; they would instead break the rules only when it had significant perceived benefit, rather than merely seeming like an opportunity that costs little.

[jedipotter]

It is interesting and, I think, important to note that the majority of the "CG" examples seem to be freedom fighters/revolutionaries to one degree or another.

Do Han Solo, Malcolm Reynolds, Indiana Jones, MacGyver, Harry Dresden, Doctor Who, and Wolverine are not ''freedom fighters/revolutionaries'', but guess you could call them all ''rebels''.


More:

Lawful Evil-Dexter
Chaotic Evil-The Red Skull, Simon Phoenix (from Demolition Man), Sylar(Heroes), Bender(Futurama)
Chaotic Neutral-Fox Mulder
Neutral Good-Flash Gordon, John Carter
Chaotic Good-Dr. Cox(Scrubs), Kyle(Southpark)

[Jeff the Green]

The problem I have with assigning comic book characters alignments is that so many of them have been written by different authors, sometimes with wildly varying personalities and outlooks.

I've mentioned this in other alignment discussions, but I tend to treat the Law-Chaos axis as being how you decide what to do: law is rules-based, and chaos is whim-based. Looking at the exemplars, modrons and inevitables are machines that always follow their programming. The more powerful they are, the more comprehensive and complex their programming, but their behavior is predictable and consistent. Slaads, on the other hand, are literally as likely to jump of a bridge as to cross it, but they're also equally likely to mate with it, try to destroy it, or compose an epic poem comparing it to the piece of dried snot it found in its nose. I think this fits well with the described fluff, but rather than merely listing attributes provides a metric with which you can measure any character.

So, based on that, and choosing from my own favorite series, here are my suggestions.

LG: Sam Vimes, Carrot (Discworld), UL and Durnik (Belgariad), Bevier (Elenium), Michael, Murphy, Uriel (Dresden Files)
NG: Belgarion, Polgara, and Eriond (Belgariad), Harry (Dresden Files), Sephrenia, Sparhawk, Tynian, and Ulath (Elenium), Granny Weatherwax (Discworld)
CG: Ce'nedra, Belgarath, and Beldin—though with CN tendencies (Belgariad), Molly (Dresden Files), Aphrael, Kalten, Ehlana (Elenium), Nanny Ogg (Discworld)
LN: Vetinari (Diskworld), Titania (Dresden Files), Mirtai, Kurik, and the Bhelliom (Elenium), Zakath—though starting LE (Belgariad)
TN: The Gatekeeper, the Mothers, the Archive, Demonreach (Dresden Files)
CN: Bob, Thomas, and the 'Za Lord's Guard (Dresden Files), Talen (Elenium), Barak, Silk, and Velvet (Belgariad) Nobby and Rincewind (Discworld)
LE: Mab, Leannansidhe, Marcone, Kincaid, Lara, (Dresden Files), Torak and most Grolims (Belgariad), Annias and Cyrgon (Elenium)
NE: Martel and Zalasta (Elenium), Corpsetaker, Nicodemus, and Lasciel (Dresden Files)
CE: Azash, the troll gods, Krager, and Adus (Elenium), Maeve, the Red Cap, Lartessa, and the Naaglooshii (Dresden Files)

[SowZ]

Put Javert in as Lawful Neutral. In my mind, he's the archetype of LN.

Stay far, far away from Batman. You'll only start arguments. For that matter avoid any character with multiple writers. Peter Pan, for example: He ranges from CG to CE, depending on the source!

A clear CE in JM Barrie's works, though. He kills innocents for fun, betrays his friends on a whim, forgets those who he once loved with no remorse, nearly kills his own friends for minor slights but is stopped and by Wendy, and the books pretty much state that since the Lost Boys continue to age he murders them all every few years and starts over. If he isn't CE, I don't know who is.


Do Han Solo, Malcolm Reynolds, Indiana Jones, MacGyver, Harry Dresden, Doctor Who, and Wolverine are not ''freedom fighters/revolutionaries'', but guess you could call them all ''rebels''.

I would peg those as Good leaning CNs. Though for some it can veer into CG territory depending on the writer/incarnation of the character. The two more recent Doctors, for instance, are probably CG. At various points in the EU Han Solo is Good.


Tony Stark as LE? Maybe in Civil War, but he regrets that IMMENSELY later. He's an Avenger, and he's after more then profit in life.

Magneto, on the other hand, is usually LE. With some LN tendencies, as he's been known to heel face turn.

NG...Thor, maybe? Clearly willing to ignore his dad when he thinks his dad his wrong, but equally willing to uphold Asgard or even Earth any way he can.

TN: 'Random NPC'.

NE: I'll nominate Lex Luthor. While he appears to be LE, much of the time, he also does many Chaotic deeds in his mad hunt to kill Superman dead. That's all he cares about, and he'll use any means, Lawful, Chaotic, or otherwise to see the Kryptonian brought down.

In Civil War he murders and locks up heroes indefinitely without a trial in a place that makes G-Bay look like a minimum security spa-prison because they didn't immediately agree with him, yeah, I'd say he was LE there. A shame, there were interesting moral points on both sides but the registration just went so bat-guano crazy almost immediately and lost almost all sympathy.


Just be careful. If you say ''Wolverine is CG'', lots of them might fanatically want to be that alignment based on what they don't know about Wolverine. Like "Way cool I'll be CG and cut up and kill anyone who looks at me the wrong way..woo hoo''. Even though Wolverine does not do that......

Wolverine can't be Good for the same reason Marv can't be Good. They both enjoy killing way too much and both indulge torture of those they think deserve it, (and enjoy torturing said individuals,) too often.


Here's another Firefly version:

http://www.chartgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/firefly-characters-chart.jpg

The Operative would also be Lawful Evil. He even admits he is Evil, using that exact word to describe himself. Just because he thinks Evil men are necessary, doesn't mean he is Neutral. To quote Rust Cohle, "The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door." Inara would be a better choice for LN.

[Metahuman1]

It's still out of character with everything he does in every other story arc.

You'd have to show me an example of LE behavior in an arc after Civil War to prove your point. Otherwise, it's like he donned a helm of opposite alignment, took it off, now he's himself again.

So an even that happen almost 8 years after the end of Civil War was part of Civil War and not an example of a behavior pattern?

Civil War Ended in 05. Spiderman: One More Day happened in 07. Planet Hulk was in 05 or 06 if I remember right, and World War Hulk was in 06 or 07. The Runaway's Issue I was talking about was somewhere between 05-07, and the bit with Thor was between 06-09 if I recall right. And Avengers vs. X-men was in 2012.

Pretty much ALL of them were after Civil War was officially over, and Cap was Officially dead, and Stark was officially the victor in Civil War and running the show.


Yes, in order to make ANY of this happen Marvel had to disregard 50+ years of canon characterization, but Joe Quesada is by no means above doing it. Just like he's not above criticizing DC for doing actual Reboots every 30-50 years or so to at least attempt to fix canon problems or make fundamental canon changes to characters by making all new canon. And he STILL hasn't fixed at least half those incidents, so, yeah, he doesn't get to say "I got better." Cap coming back happened in spite of him, not because of it. The X-men canon is still in tatters from that event, and don't even get me started on the state of Spiderman's Canon form the end of One More Day going forward.

That said, I will offer up this much defense for Tony and Only this much Defense, he may be a LE bastard, but more and more of the marvel hero's are going that route right along with him, and the few that arn't are becoming NE or CE.

To put it another way, I use to like marvel's comics as a whole. At this point, I'm down too

Captain Marvel,
Ms. Marvel,
Guardians of the Galaxy,
Occasional Cosmic Marvel events,
Deadpool.

That's it. They've utterly destroyed too many of there characters on editorial mandates like One More Day and Civil War for me to like these people any more. And they refuse to go back and fix it or to just do a freaking Reboot and apologize for making it necessary. It's why they basically don't see any actual money form me any more for there comics when at one time they had a LOT of my entertainment budget.

[RedMage125]

The problem I have with assigning comic book characters alignments is that so many of them have been written by different authors, sometimes with wildly varying personalities and outlooks.
This. This is a great point.


I've mentioned this in other alignment discussions, but I tend to treat the Law-Chaos axis as being how you decide what to do: law is rules-based, and chaos is whim-based. Looking at the exemplars, modrons and inevitables are machines that always follow their programming. The more powerful they are, the more comprehensive and complex their programming, but their behavior is predictable and consistent. Slaads, on the other hand, are literally as likely to jump of a bridge as to cross it, but they're also equally likely to mate with it, try to destroy it, or compose an epic poem comparing it to the piece of dried snot it found in its nose. I think this fits well with the described fluff, but rather than merely listing attributes provides a metric with which you can measure any character.
Lol. Btw, the plural of "slaad" is "slaadi".


So, based on that, and choosing from my own favorite series, here are my suggestions.

*trimmed for space*
Man, another David Eddings fan. Haven't met on in awhile.

I'd like to disagree with a few of your suggestions on those books, though. Belgarion I'd say is Lawful Good, just like Durnik. Namely because he generally "acts as a good person is expected to". He enjoys fighting a bit more than the average person (that would be the Alorn in him), and occasionally displays a temper, but none of those are alignment-defining traits.
On that note, I'm surprised you mentioned some of the pantheon, but left out Mandorallen. He's pretty much the paragon of Lawful Good. You also omitted Hettar, who I'd say is TN, Relg, who's LG, and Sadi, who I think fits as LN. I never cared much for Lelldorin, but I guess I'd have to call him CG, but only because "Chaotic Airhead with a Heart of Gold" isn't an alignment.

Beldin as CG? Chaotic, certainly, but where's the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? Just because he's a disciple of Aldur doesn't automatically make him Good (see Belzedar). I think Beldin's straight-up CN, he's just on the good guys' side.

You know, I was initially going to contest making Barak and Silk CN, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized you're probably right on the money there. In kind of an inverse of the Wreck-It-Ralph quote...Barak and Silk are good men, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're "Good" men. They're loyal, patriotic, and even Silk has ethical boundaries he won't cross, but neither one shows much selflessness (outside those immediately closest to them).

Sorry, but I must have read those books 15 times MINIMUM since I was about 12 (so...over the last 19 years or so), and I remember most nitpicky details.

The Elenium and Tamuli I've probably only read like 5 times in that same time span, and I think you got a lot of them right. Except Sparhawk. Sparhawk, too is Lawful Good. In fact, I tend to use Sparhawk when explaining alignment to people familiar with the setting, as an example of how one can be LG, and still be a total bad***.

Vanion got left out (had to look up his name, almost forgot it). He's pretty clearly LG. It's hard to make any of the church knights not Lawful, but I think you're right about Tynian, Ulath, and Kalten.

[Gildedragon]

Lol. Btw, the plural of "slaad" is "slaadi".
I thought it was Crazynuttersquadlegoland... learn something new every day

[Angelalex242]

I'm not sure Ehlana is CG. Though it is amusing to remember her wandering around with a prince consort's crown in her pocket. "Gonna get him! Sparhawk is MINE!" She does reluctantly submit to the church's authority when she has to, however, so she might be NG.

I thought Martel was LE and Annias was NE. Martel seems like a lot more honorable a dude then Annias ever was.

Aphrael deciding to make herself Sparhawk's daughter just cause 'why not?' is certainly CG of her though. Ehlana was rendered infertile by the darestim superpoison, but divine override still overrides. Picking Talen out as a boyfriend 'just because' is also pretty CG. And then, "I'm gonna have to grow up, aren't I?" "Yeeeeah, Elenes are a little pickier about things like that..."

[RedMage125]

I'm not sure Ehlana is CG. Though it is amusing to remember her wandering around with a prince consort's crown in her pocket. "Gonna get him! Sparhawk is MINE!" She does reluctantly submit to the church's authority when she has to, however, so she might be NG.

I thought Martel was LE and Annias was NE. Martel seems like a lot more honorable a dude then Annias ever was.

Aphrael deciding to make herself Sparhawk's daughter just cause 'why not?' is certainly CG of her though. Ehlana was rendered infertile by the darestim superpoison, but divine override still overrides. Picking Talen out as a boyfriend 'just because' is also pretty CG. And then, "I'm gonna have to grow up, aren't I?" "Yeeeeah, Elenes are a little pickier about things like that..."
Just because she "submitted to a higher authority" doesn't make her not Chaotic. She's a sovereign ruler, yes, that makes her pat of a legal system, but keep in mind, her method of ruling is along the lines of "screw the rules, we're doing it this way". And while she did submit to the Church's authority, she only did so through bargaining with the Archprelate, something most rulers would not even think of doing. It wasn't a meek "Yes, Sarabi, as you say". It was more along the lines of "I'll go along with it, if and only if you marry me and Sparhawk", something that Sparhawk was extremely reluctant about, and she knew that a direct order from the Archprelate would quell any objections he could try and muster.

Martel honorable? Yes, his death came in a honorable duel with Sparhawk, but did you forget what a sick SOB he could be? He admits to working "only for money", he "believes in nothing", and commits numerous atrocities including all the unrest in the southern nation (I forget the name), murdering the old man there, he set fire to an nunnery, making sure all died within, just because Arissa was bitter about being sent there. Even during the siege the "white flag" he used for parlay was the cape of a dead Cyrinic knight. Not to mention, he was exiled to begin with after being caught participating in dark Styric rituals to Azash. Martel is a character who was once honorable, and occasionally shows regret at his lost nobility. But ultimately, he's a heartless monster. His death scene, in the arms of "the only two people he's ever loved", was sort of a final farewell to the once-honorable Pandion, and saw him express a modicrum of humility and humanity, which is about the only examples of those he ever evokes through the whole series.

Totally Neutral Evil.

[Chronos]

The Lego Movie provided a few good examples. Emmett, who lives his life by following the directions, is Lawful Neutral. Wyldstyle and Morgan Freedman are both Chaotic Good, looking to protect people from oppression, and encourage individuality. Unikitty is Chaotic Neutral: Also no consistency!. Lord Business is Lawful Evil, and seeks to force people to conform to his vision even it means effectively destroying them.

[da_chicken]

3x3s are bad because most of them are arguable.

[...]

3x3s just cause arguments.

I want to thank you all for proving my point.

[toapat]

I want to thank you all for proving my point.

Firefly is not a point. None of the characters saw the kind of development intended.

[Jeff the Green]

I'd like to disagree with a few of your suggestions on those books, though. Belgarion I'd say is Lawful Good, just like Durnik. Namely because he generally "acts as a good person is expected to". He enjoys fighting a bit more than the average person (that would be the Alorn in him), and occasionally displays a temper, but none of those are alignment-defining traits.

...

The Elenium and Tamuli I've probably only read like 5 times in that same time span, and I think you got a lot of them right. Except Sparhawk. Sparhawk, too is Lawful Good. In fact, I tend to use Sparhawk when explaining alignment to people familiar with the setting, as an example of how one can be LG, and still be a total bad***.

I think both Sparhawk and Belgarion have lawful tendencies, but they're both too willing to say "screw the rules; I'm doing what's right" to truly be LG. In particular, they're both quite happy to step outside of their authority, delay their quests, use dishonorable combat techniques, and lie, cheat, and steal to help the oppressed and accomplish their missions. Note how well Sparhawk goes along with Kalten's underhanded suggestions of how to deal with Ehlana, his comfort and talent for deception that very much isn't within the Church Knights' bailiwick, and his relationship with Lilah, and Belgarion's general disregard for tradition and honor (e.g. forcing Mandorallen and whatsherface to marry or cheating at the joust). While Sparhawk did make vows and generally follows them, what he chooses to do is just as often driven by a sudden desire to kill Krager, inconvenience someone who offends his morality, or please his wife as by any rules. Belgarion equally has a diligence instilled in him by his Sendarian upbringing, but what he chooses to do is as much about what he wants to do as what's expected.


On that note, I'm surprised you mentioned some of the pantheon, but left out Mandorallen. He's pretty much the paragon of Lawful Good. You also omitted Hettar, who I'd say is TN, Relg, who's LG, and Sadi, who I think fits as LN. I never cared much for Lelldorin, but I guess I'd have to call him CG, but only because "Chaotic Airhead with a Heart of Gold" isn't an alignment.

Beldin as CG? Chaotic, certainly, but where's the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? Just because he's a disciple of Aldur doesn't automatically make him Good (see Belzedar). I think Beldin's straight-up CN, he's just on the good guys' side.

I thought I included Mandorallen, actually. Sadi I thought I put in CN because he really has no credo he adheres to but instead does what's convenient, necessary, or pleasant, much like Silk. The others I left out because I wasn't sure where to categorize them.

Beldin I put in CG mostly on Polgara's testimony and the degree to which The Grolims' perversions offend him—far more than they do Belgarath. According to Polgara, and as evidenced somewhat in the prequels, he's by nature quite caring and gentle, but deliberately suppresses that when necessary. His fascination with red hot hooks may push him further into CN, though Urvon probably deserves it.

[Angelalex242]

Not necessarily.

Is there anything Sparhawk did that a Paladin could've fallen for? Is there anything Belgarion did that a Paladin could've fallen for?

Also remember the trial of Roy here in OOTS. The Deva basically told him he was Lawful Good because he tried to be, and though he made mistakes, he qualified for Mt. Celestia based on trying and succeeding at least most of the time.

[ryu]

Not necessarily.

Is there anything Sparhawk did that a Paladin could've fallen for? Is there anything Belgarion did that a Paladin could've fallen for?

Also remember the trial of Roy here in OOTS. The Deva basically told him he was Lawful Good because he tried to be, and though he made mistakes, he qualified for Mt. Celestia based on trying and succeeding at least most of the time.

Completely ignoring his uncle's advice about screwing with the weather in such a way that life as we knew it would've been in danger without people puts months of work into cleaning up the mess? Are non-good acts still non-good when necessity later admits to having made him do it subtly?

[Jeff the Green]

Not necessarily.

Is there anything Sparhawk did that a Paladin could've fallen for? Is there anything Belgarion did that a Paladin could've fallen for?

Also remember the trial of Roy here in OOTS. The Deva basically told him he was Lawful Good because he tried to be, and though he made mistakes, he qualified for Mt. Celestia based on trying and succeeding at least most of the time.

Of course they don't. Paladins don't fall for individual chaotic acts or incidences of chaotic outlook, only for a consistent failure to adhere to lawful principles and outlook.

And I'd argue Belgarion and Sparhawk dont try to be LG. Good, sure, but both are openly skeptical, even irritated by others' lawfulness and value ingenuity, spontaneity, and individual freedom to be truly LG even if they do take their duties seriously. Think about how well they get along with Talen and Silk and accompany them on their "adventures".

Edit:

Completely ignoring his uncle's advice about screwing with the weather in such a way that life as we knew it would've been in danger without people puts months of work into cleaning up the mess? Are non-good acts still non-good when necessity later admits to having made him do it subtly?

I didn't think he had his grandfather's advice about messing with the weather before he did it, and once Belgarath told him what a mess he made he didn't do it again.

[Angelalex242]

A paladin doesn't fall for non good acts.

He falls for flat out EVIL acts. The situation in question doesn't quite rate as evil. So he's fine.

And at any rate, Bhellion's performance review when the darn thing disappears suggests he chose wisely.

[ryu]

Of course they don't. Paladins don't fall for individual chaotic acts or incidences of chaotic outlook, only for a consistent failure to adhere to lawful principles and outlook.

And I'd argue Belgarion and Sparhawk dont try to be LG. Good, sure, but both are openly skeptical, even irritated by others' lawfulness and value ingenuity, spontaneity, and individual freedom to be truly LG even if they do take their duties seriously. Think about how well they get along with Talen and Silk and accompany them on their "adventures".

Edit:


I didn't think he had his grandfather's advice about messing with the weather before he did it, and once Belgarath told him what a mess he made he didn't do it again.

Oh he most certainly did. If there is one thing about that sequence it's that belgarath said quite explicitly that you don't screw around with the weather without at LEAST a millennium of study beforehand. It was on the big list of no presented when the whole will and word thing was still a pretty fresh development story-wise. Other most important things involved no unmaking things, no taking off the locket, and no attempting to bring back the de... Actually garion is totally chaotic. The boy screwed most of the rules.

[RedMage125]

I thought I included Mandorallen, actually. Sadi I thought I put in CN because he really has no credo he adheres to but instead does what's convenient, necessary, or pleasant, much like Silk. The others I left out because I wasn't sure where to categorize them.

Beldin I put in CG mostly on Polgara's testimony and the degree to which The Grolims' perversions offend him—far more than they do Belgarath. According to Polgara, and as evidenced somewhat in the prequels, he's by nature quite caring and gentle, but deliberately suppresses that when necessary. His fascination with red hot hooks may push him further into CN, though Urvon probably deserves it.
Sadi seems to do what's convenient and pleasant, but he's also extremely methodical and practical. His methodology is very lawful. His lifestyle in Nyissa (although it involved heavy drug use, such drug use was a cultural idiosyncrasy of all Nyissans) was only possible because of that discipline, which allowed him to survive all the intrigue and plotting of his fellow eunuchs.

Beldin may hate Grolims, but he never really shows any compassion, concern for others, selflessness, and all the other hallmarks of "Good". He's solidly on the same side as the white hats, but that doesn't make him Good.


I think both Sparhawk and Belgarion have lawful tendencies, but they're both too willing to say "screw the rules; I'm doing what's right" to truly be LG. In particular, they're both quite happy to step outside of their authority, delay their quests, use dishonorable combat techniques, and lie, cheat, and steal to help the oppressed and accomplish their missions. Note how well Sparhawk goes along with Kalten's underhanded suggestions of how to deal with Ehlana, his comfort and talent for deception that very much isn't within the Church Knights' bailiwick, and his relationship with Lilah, and Belgarion's general disregard for tradition and honor (e.g. forcing Mandorallen and whatsherface to marry or cheating at the joust). While Sparhawk did make vows and generally follows them, what he chooses to do is just as often driven by a sudden desire to kill Krager, inconvenience someone who offends his morality, or please his wife as by any rules. Belgarion equally has a diligence instilled in him by his Sendarian upbringing, but what he chooses to do is as much about what he wants to do as what's expected.




And I'd argue Belgarion and Sparhawk dont try to be LG. Good, sure, but both are openly skeptical, even irritated by others' lawfulness and value ingenuity, spontaneity, and individual freedom to be truly LG even if they do take their duties seriously. Think about how well they get along with Talen and Silk and accompany them on their "adventures".

Sparhawk and Belgarion's "divergences" from Lawful activity are exactly in the same vein as Roy's in OotS, especially as far as how Sparhawk behaves in regards to "acting outside the baliwick of a Church Knight". He still keeps his word of honor when given (allowing Krager to live in the Tamuli), he still refrains from truly immoral behavior. His relationship with Lilah is no exception. He was in exile from his homeland, and both of them fully understood what that relationship was and what it was not. It pains me to say this, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy, despite being mostly garbage, has some interesting treatises on how various races and alignments handle things like love and sex. Lawful Good alignment does not preclude sex outside of marriage. The book even has a scene where a paladin picks up a bard in a tavern for a one night stand. Sparhawk never deceived Lilah about their relationship, so I don't see how it in any way counts as "non-lawful behavior". Belgarion's "delays" of his quests were actually furthering the quest along, he began to trust in the Prophecy to guide them to where they needed to go. Although, yes, he does say that if he could get his son back sooner that he would, that's not something that really is a reflection of "non-lawfulness" in his alignment, but rather simply a father's devotion to his son. And forcing the marriage between Mandorallen and the woman he had loved for over a decade was to ensure peace and stability, as well as to force his friend to abandon the melancholy love tragedy he had been in the habit of living in for all that time. He made his friend happy, and ended a war in one stroke. And the "traditions he abandoned" was more in the nature of insurance that everything was done, as Arends being what they are, who knows what would have happened if he allowed any further delays.

I really don't know what you mean about "dishonorable fighting". Sparhawk is certainly an honorable warrior. And Belgarion's swordfighting techniques are a bit unorthodox (a blend of Cherek, Algar, and Arendish styles), but not "dishonorable". And of course, any swordfight he gets into is automatically "unfair" by virtue of Iron-Grip's sword being capable of slicing through just about anything. But I hardly think that constitutes "dishonorable".

What you need to understand is that people are not 100% true to their alignment 100% of the time. Few people are even consistent from day to day. That's straight from the RAW on alignment. Yes, both men occasionally do things outside their normal behavior patterns, but that's true of anyone. Belgarion's slaughter of the Mallorean deserters in King of the Murgos, for example. He lost his temper, and decided to dish out some vigilante justice. Not normally his MO, and cerainly not a Lawful or Good act, but even Durnik approved, and he's the one who admonished Polgara for all the sneaking around and deceit that they were engaging in on their quest.


Oh he most certainly did. If there is one thing about that sequence it's that belgarath said quite explicitly that you don't screw around with the weather without at LEAST a millennium of study beforehand. It was on the big list of no presented when the whole will and word thing was still a pretty fresh development story-wise. Other most important things involved no unmaking things, no taking off the locket, and no attempting to bring back the de... Actually garion is totally chaotic. The boy screwed most of the rules.
You should probably re-read your copy of Guardians of the West again, because Jeff is correct. Belgarath gave Garion the speech about the weather, calling him a blockhead and telling him he needed at least 1000 years of study was AFTER Garion started the storm in Aerendia. In fact, it was the cleanup FROM that event that led to that talking-to.

[ryu]

Sadi seems to do what's convenient and pleasant, but he's also extremely methodical and practical. His methodology is very lawful. His lifestyle in Nyissa (although it involved heavy drug use, such drug use was a cultural idiosyncrasy of all Nyissans) was only possible because of that discipline, which allowed him to survive all the intrigue and plotting of his fellow eunuchs.

Beldin may hate Grolims, but he never really shows any compassion, concern for others, selflessness, and all the other hallmarks of "Good". He's solidly on the same side as the white hats, but that doesn't make him Good.





Sparhawk and Belgarion's "divergences" from Lawful activity are exactly in the same vein as Roy's in OotS, especially as far as how Sparhawk behaves in regards to "acting outside the baliwick of a Church Knight". He still keeps his word of honor when given (allowing Krager to live in the Tamuli), he still refrains from truly immoral behavior. His relationship with Lilah is no exception. He was in exile from his homeland, and both of them fully understood what that relationship was and what it was not. It pains me to say this, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy, despite being mostly garbage, has some interesting treatises on how various races and alignments handle things like love and sex. Lawful Good alignment does not preclude sex outside of marriage. The book even has a scene where a paladin picks up a bard in a tavern for a one night stand. Sparhawk never deceived Lilah about their relationship, so I don't see how it in any way counts as "non-lawful behavior". Belgarion's "delays" of his quests were actually furthering the quest along, he began to trust in the Prophecy to guide them to where they needed to go. Although, yes, he does say that if he could get his son back sooner that he would, that's not something that really is a reflection of "non-lawfulness" in his alignment, but rather simply a father's devotion to his son. And forcing the marriage between Mandorallen and the woman he had loved for over a decade was to ensure peace and stability, as well as to force his friend to abandon the melancholy love tragedy he had been in the habit of living in for all that time. He made his friend happy, and ended a war in one stroke. And the "traditions he abandoned" was more in the nature of insurance that everything was done, as Arends being what they are, who knows what would have happened if he allowed any further delays.

I really don't know what you mean about "dishonorable fighting". Sparhawk is certainly an honorable warrior. And Belgarion's swordfighting techniques are a bit unorthodox (a blend of Cherek, Algar, and Arendish styles), but not "dishonorable". And of course, any swordfight he gets into is automatically "unfair" by virtue of Iron-Grip's sword being capable of slicing through just about anything. But I hardly think that constitutes "dishonorable".

What you need to understand is that people are not 100% true to their alignment 100% of the time. Few people are even consistent from day to day. That's straight from the RAW on alignment. Yes, both men occasionally do things outside their normal behavior patterns, but that's true of anyone. Belgarion's slaughter of the Mallorean deserters in King of the Murgos, for example. He lost his temper, and decided to dish out some vigilante justice. Not normally his MO, and cerainly not a Lawful or Good act, but even Durnik approved, and he's the one who admonished Polgara for all the sneaking around and deceit that they were engaging in on their quest.


You should probably re-read your copy of Guardians of the West again, because Jeff is correct. Belgarath gave Garion the speech about the weather, calling him a blockhead and telling him he needed at least 1000 years of study was AFTER Garion started the storm in Aerendia. In fact, it was the cleanup FROM that event that led to that talking-to.

He called him a blockhead specifically because he was briefly warned not to mess with weather before that book and before he was ever king of Riva. His response involved referencing the first use of weather alteration he saw in an attempt to frame the scolding as hypocritical. Only then did the talk of them knowing what they were doing and the need for extensive study get brought up. You should reread the middle parts of the belgariad.

[weckar]

To all people arguing Robin Hood, can I please point out that the whole "steal from the rich, give to the poor" thing was added to the myth RETROACTIVELY? No mention of this appears in the original tellings of the story.

That said, my group usually plays with a 25-alignment system to allow for greater flexibility. (Exalted and Vile are added on the G/E axis and Unwavering/Free added to the L/C axis.)
distilling this back down to the 9 alignments we all know and love use, here is my common interpretation:

LG: Yoda
NG: Bill & Ted
CG: Gambit
LN: The Judge
TN: Frankenstein (the monster, not the scientist)
CN: Zaphod Beeblebrox
LE: Dracula
NE: Sylar
CE: 'People who eat People'TM

[RedMage125]

He called him a blockhead specifically because he was briefly warned not to mess with weather before that book and before he was ever king of Riva. His response involved referencing the first use of weather alteration he saw in an attempt to frame the scolding as hypocritical. Only then did the talk of them knowing what they were doing and the need for extensive study get brought up. You should reread the middle parts of the belgariad.

I have read that series somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 times, the most recent being 5 months ago. And I am 100% POSITIVE that the "You need 1000 years of study before putting your hands on the weather" speech was in Guardians of the West. Belgarion, when he objected to Belgarath's berating, mentioned the rainstorm that he and Polgara had caused in the Wood of the Dryads (Queen of Sorcery), which was BEFORE the confrontation with Chamdar, and therefore BEFORE Garion had ever been given any kind of instruction in the use of the Will and the Word. Again, that conversation still takes place in King Belgarion's study in Riva in Guardians of the West.

The cautions he was given in the Belgariad were:
-Don't unmake anything.
-Don't attempt the impossible, you'll overcommit yourself
-Be aware of where you are drawing energy from and how/where you direct it (so you don't fling yourself backwards, etc.)
And this last is not so much a caution as a matter of etiquette
-Don't butt in and help when your help is not asked for (in Castle of Wizardry, as they were leaving Cthol Murgos)

No cautions regarding the weather being something to not tamper with. During the Battle of Thull Mardu, both sides tampered with the weather a LOT (but Belgarion wasn't there for that, and it wasn't explicitly mentioned to him). When Silk, Belgarath and Belgarion arrived in Mallorea, a snowstorm hit that the Necessity had (through Garion) started months before. At no point did Belgarath express any kind of reservation, let alone admonishment, for messing with the weather.

It is not until the Mallorean when it is mentioned how powerful a force it can be. And even then, other characters do minor things with the weather (Polgara and Durnik both affect a small raincloud during the first few years in the Cottage).

[hamishspence]

TN: Frankenstein (the monster, not the scientist)


Wasn't the monster prone to murdering innocent people because they were connected to the scientist, in order to hurt him?

First, a small child - and then, his wife.

[ryu]

I have read that series somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 times, the most recent being 5 months ago. And I am 100% POSITIVE that the "You need 1000 years of study before putting your hands on the weather" speech was in Guardians of the West. Belgarion, when he objected to Belgarath's berating, mentioned the rainstorm that he and Polgara had caused in the Wood of the Dryads (Queen of Sorcery), which was BEFORE the confrontation with Chamdar, and therefore BEFORE Garion had ever been given any kind of instruction in the use of the Will and the Word. Again, that conversation still takes place in King Belgarion's study in Riva in Guardians of the West.

The cautions he was given in the Belgariad were:
-Don't unmake anything.
-Don't attempt the impossible, you'll overcommit yourself
-Be aware of where you are drawing energy from and how/where you direct it (so you don't fling yourself backwards, etc.)
And this last is not so much a caution as a matter of etiquette
-Don't butt in and help when your help is not asked for (in Castle of Wizardry, as they were leaving Cthol Murgos)

No cautions regarding the weather being something to not tamper with. During the Battle of Thull Mardu, both sides tampered with the weather a LOT (but Belgarion wasn't there for that, and it wasn't explicitly mentioned to him). When Silk, Belgarath and Belgarion arrived in Mallorea, a snowstorm hit that the Necessity had (through Garion) started months before. At no point did Belgarath express any kind of reservation, let alone admonishment, for messing with the weather.

It is not until the Mallorean when it is mentioned how powerful a force it can be. And even then, other characters do minor things with the weather (Polgara and Durnik both affect a small raincloud during the first few years in the Cottage).

Yes I know full well that the long open speech specifying reasons didn't come until the guardians of the west. You aren't understanding me as that's not what I was referring to. That was a reference point framing the point I was talking about from well before the event. I too have read the series multiple times the last of finished last week. There was a very brief warning/forbidding of messing with weather in the belgariad.

[Seharvepernfan]

There are several things that cloud the issue of who has what alignment. Here's a few:

-alignments allow for leeway, even a rare contradictory action (good guy doing something bad and still being good)

-laws can be chaotic, lawful people can resist the "law" and still be lawful, chaotic people can and often do work in organizations

-chaotic people can make organized, well-laid plans and stick to them and still be chaotic

-a lawful character can be a pot-smoking, promiscuous, drinking, partying, etc, person and still be lawful (though those things may be against the "law"), and a chaotic person can avoid them and still be chaotic

-evil people often pretend to be good (and chaotics often pretend to be lawful) for various reasons; this does not make them so, even if they do good/lawful actions as part of their act. There's always tons of misinformation and deception going on, where people paint their enemies as things that they're not; try not to let it cloud your vision (real-life psychopaths often seem like the most upstanding and sane folk in society, until you see their masks slip)

-if a character has aspects of several alignments, they're neutral; it explicitly allows for "undecided" or "lack of conviction"

-fictional characters often have several writers over time, so really when you're talking about "batman" or whoever, you're talking about several different characters

[Sliver]

And preferably not a motivational 3x3 with pictures.

That's sad!

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/batman-alignment.jpg