Examples of LG heroes

[Thealtruistorc]

Following extended exposure to OotS, many people in my groups seemed to have developed aversions to the Lawful Good alignment as a whole, for fear of winding up having to act like Miko. This is gotten to a point where anyone who has LG written on their character sheet is pressured into changing to Neutral Good. This is kinda getting annoysome, so I've decided to compile a list of genuine likeable LG protagonists to prove my mates wrong. Here is what I can think of off the top of my head:

Roy
Durkon
Ned Stark
Jon Snow
Most any Bruce Lee character
Sean Connery as James Bond
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Shikamaru

If you guys think of any, please post them.

[Angelalex242]

Hinjo
O Chul
Lord Soon
Superman
Captain Marvel
Captain America

As for Miko...remind them that even OTHER PALADINS didn't like Miko. There's no reason why they should act like the only unlikeable Lawful Good character of the bunch. Hinjo and O Chul are pretty cool guys.

[grarrrg]

Batman!...sort of...
you've seen the alignment chart picture...you know what I'm talking about.

[Alleran]

- Optimus Prime
- Sam Vimes
- Michael Carpenter (Paladin. Straight-up.)

[Turion]

- Michael Carpenter (Paladin. Straight-up.)

Absolutely. :smallbiggrin:


- Sam Vimes

I disagree on this one; I think Vimes is closer to LN, especially in the earlier books. He will straight-up arrest you if he feels the law requires it, although I guess you could argue that he looks for more reasons to do so if he's dealing with someone especially nasty like Carcer or Rust, and will likewise go blind if he feels the need. Carrot would definitely be a good match, though, especially since he almost fits the Stupid Good/Lawful Stupid stereotype, then routinely turns it on its head, along with whoever he's talking to at the time.

[Xalos]

Darth Vader
Sauron
Voldemort
The Joker
Magneto
Doctor Doom
Lex Luthor
Loki
Hades
Satan
Shredder
The Prophets of Truth, Mercy, and Regret
The Terminator
Death
Tightanus
Arthas
Alduin
The Enderdragon
Kerrigan
Diablo
Everyone who wears an eyepatch

+5 to int for people who get ALL references

[JHShadon]

Doraleous from the web-series Doraleous and Associates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg1mxlzEP3Q&list=PL68FD0D7F63715384).

[Alleran]

Absolutely. :smallbiggrin:
Of course, I'd also say that Sanya and Shiro feel a bit closer to NG than Michael. Ain't nobody who does a LG paladin better than Michael Carpenter. Textbook paladin, the good-hearted and humble knight in shining (kevlar-reinforced) armour wielding a great sword ablaze with holy fire.

Murphy is probably LG as well, just not as good at it as Michael.

Harry feels CG, but NG works as well.


I disagree on this one; I think Vimes is closer to LN, especially in the earlier books. He will straight-up arrest you if he feels the law requires it, although I guess you could argue that he looks for more reasons to do so if he's dealing with someone especially nasty like Carcer or Rust, and will likewise go blind if he feels the need. Carrot would definitely be a good match, though, especially since he almost fits the Stupid Good/Lawful Stupid stereotype, then routinely turns it on its head, along with whoever he's talking to at the time.
In the earlier books, I see Vimes as LN, but just barely and on the verge of dropping to TN. As they progress, he climbs his way back up to LG again. Like a paladin falling, except in reverse. Though he'll still be more Lawful than he is Good for the most part. Carrot strikes me as NG with very strong Lawful tendencies (I go back and forth on Carrot a bit).

Who else:

- Aang feels LG.
- Black Lagoon... bwahahahaha. Rock is TN on a downhill slope, and that's as close as they get to good.
- John Carter (books).
- Josiah Bartlet.
- Leia Organa.
- Yugo (from Wakfu) is NG, but Tristepin is probably Stupid Good.
- Jack (from Samurai Jack) is LG. Another knight on a white horse wielding a holy sword that can slay evil.
- Davos Seaworth, the Onion Knight. LG nowadays, I think, and tries to keep his LN king from sliding down the morality slope.
- John Sheridan.
- Gideon from MtG.
- Paragon Shepard, depending on choices.
- Aokiji. Arguably.

[AslanCross]

-Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin (often sharply contrasted with the LN Hajime Saito)
-Erwin Smith from Attack on Titan is a good example of an LG interacting with an oppressive government.
-Dot Pixis, also from Attack on Titan
-Aragorn

[HammeredWharf]

Capatin Picard (Star Trek)
Dale Cooper (Twin Peaks)
Jet Black (Cowboy Bebop)
Jin (Samurai Champloo)
RoboCop
Jim Gordon (Batman)

[Jeff the Green]

Of course, I'd also say that Sanya and Shiro feel a bit closer to NG than Michael. Ain't nobody who does a LG paladin better than Michael Carpenter. Textbook paladin, the good-hearted and humble knight in shining (kevlar-reinforced) armour wielding a great sword ablaze with holy fire.

Murphy is probably LG as well, just not as good at it as Michael.

Don't forget Uriel. All the angels we've seen, actually.

From David and Leigh Eddings' work, UL, Mandorallen, and Durnik (Belgariad), and Vanion and Bevier (Elenium) are solidly Lawful Good. In the alignments via examples thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349520-Alignments-via-examples&p=17506006#post17506006) RedMage125 said that Belgarion and Sparhawk are also LG. I peg them as NG, though if so they're still lawful-leaning.

[RedMage125]

From video games:
Leon Belmont (Castlevania: Lament of Innocence)
Gabriel Belmont (Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 1...until the end, anyways)
Trevor Belmont (Castlevania: LoS Mirror of Fate)
Mario and Luigi
Miles "Tails" Powers (Sonic the Hedgehog)
Mega Man (not familiar enough with X)
Ryu and Chun Li (Street Fighter)
Liu Kang, Raiden, Sonya Blade, Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat series)
Janos Audron (Legacy of Kain series)
Link (in most Legend of Zelda games)
Yuna (Final Fantasy X, less so in X-2)
Squall (Final Fantasy VIII, seems more LN at the beginning)


From novels:
Belgarion, Durnik, and Mandorallen(David Edding's Belgariad)
Sparhawk and Vanion(David Edding's Elenium)
Paul Atredies (before joining the Fremen)
Bink (Piers Anthony's Xanth), as well as Trent (after book 1)
Annabeth (Percy Jackson series)
Hermione Granger (Harry Potter series)

From TV/Movies/Anime:
Agents Phil Coulson, Fitz and Simmons (Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
Hale Zamora (Lost Girl)
Charles Xavier (X-Men, explicitly included under movies, because the comic Xavier is shadier)
Reed Richards and Ben Grimm (Fantastic Four)
Vash the Stampede (Trigun)
Tenchi Masaki and Aeka Masaki Jurai (Tenchi Muyo)
Krillin, Gohan, and Android 16 (Dragonball Z), and I would say Vegeta's growth by the very end of the series results in a LG alignment.

That's what I've got for now.

EDIT: Jeff the Green beat me to a few, lol. Even called me out. Right on.

[Angelalex242]

Squall is still LN at the end of FF8, the only thing that changes is his priorities go from 'rules/complete mission' to 'Rinoa>rules/complete mission.' Rinoa being his new top priority doesn't make him suddenly good. Even as late as disc 3, his friends still need to talk him in to rescuing her. Even as late as disc 3, he still lets Esthar take her.

[atomicwaffle]

You don't get much more Lawful Good than (1980's) Robocop.

[jedipotter]

LG - Superman, Captain America, Daredevil, Daniel Jackson(SG-1), Captain John Sheradin(Babylon 5), Optimus Prime, Hermione Granger, Cpt. Lee "Apollo" Adama (Battlestar Galactica), Spock, Albus Dumbledore, Rick Grimes(Walking Dead), Dale(Walking Dead), Hank(Breaking Bad), Sara Walker(Chuck), Odo(DS9), Tvock(Voyager), Earl(My name is Earl), and Lenoard(Big Bang Theory).

[Melayl]

Most any Bruce Lee character
Sean Connery as James Bond


I don't think I'd say these are LG. Good, yes, but not really Lawful. I'd go NG, myself.

[ArqArturo]

Balian from the Kingdom of Heaven movie. If he's not the most LG paladin, he's at least a LG knight.

Also, The Spirit, but I guess that's just traversing into NG.

[Chronos]

Vimes and Carrot are both definitely Lawful Good. Yes, Vimes talks about everything he does in terms of the law... But he's very definitely concerned with The Law as it Should Be, not The Law as it Is. For instance, in Snuff, killing goblins isn't actually against any law that's written in the books... but Vimes still goes after the killers, because murder is murder, no matter what the law says. He says that he serves the law above all else, but when he says "the law", he implicitly means "good".

Carrot is even less ambiguous. Remember, he's the one who was quoting the arcane minutiae of the regulations to the rest of the force, right from the day he joined, and he follows all of the dwarven traditions scrupulously.

Vimes and Carrot are also excellent examples because, despite being the same alignment, working in the same context, and being written by the same author, they still have very different personalities. Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket, and there are a great many valid ways to play each alignment.

[Yogibear41]

Darth Vader
Sauron
Voldemort
The Joker
Magneto
Doctor Doom
Lex Luthor
Loki
Hades
Satan
Shredder
The Prophets of Truth, Mercy, and Regret
The Terminator
Death
Tightanus
Arthas
Alduin
The Enderdragon
Kerrigan
Diablo
Everyone who wears an eyepatch

+5 to int for people who get ALL references

He said LG not LE, even then I would have to disagree with several of these being LE, the joker is most definitely CE.

[russdm]

Paul Atredies (before joining the Fremen)

Vash the Stampede (Trigun)


Paul is actually Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He wasn't one for following the rules, demonstrated in his fight with Gurney Halleck, and I would say his father Leto fit into LG more than Paul ever did.

Vash always came across as being Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He shows a strong dislike or ignorance of the law and following it. I don't think of any real time that I recall he followed the Law, instead of what he felt was right. That's definitely a Chaotic Attitude.


LG Odo(DS9)

Tvock or Tyvock should be Tuvok.

Odo was more LN to me than LG. He was far more interested in the proper carrying out of the law than about helping those around him. Sisko and Kira might have rubbed off on him some, but more of Garak rubbed off onto him then them.

I would suggest that Worf is LG, with a smattering of NG in there and LN as well. He was always a stand up decent guy with generally honorable conduct.



Jet Black (Cowboy Bebop)


Curious, I always thought that Jet was more LN than LG. He accepts living with Spike and Faye quickly, both of whom are Neutral along one line. Spike is Neutral good at best, mostly Neutral Evil or more likely Chaotic Neutral. Faye was strongly Chaotic Neutral with a mix of Chaotic good and Chaotic evil/Neutral Evil at times.

[HammeredWharf]

Vash always came across as being Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He shows a strong dislike or ignorance of the law and following it. I don't think of any real time that I recall he followed the Law, instead of what he felt was right. That's definitely a Chaotic Attitude.

Vash lives in the sci-fi equivalent of the Wild West, where law is absent in most places and inefficient in others. In his case, following the law would be stupid. However, he has a very strict moral code that he follows no matter what. He's also extremely loyal even to acquaintances and has a clear goal in his life. I could see him being LG, although NG is quite reasonable, too.


Curious, I always thought that Jet was more LN than LG. He accepts living with Spike and Faye quickly, both of whom are Neutral along one line. Spike is Neutral good at best, mostly Neutral Evil or more likely Chaotic Neutral. Faye was strongly Chaotic Neutral with a mix of Chaotic good and Chaotic evil/Neutral Evil at times.

Being good is pretty hard in the Bebop universe, but Jet at least comes pretty close to it. He's genuinely interested in helping people and used to be an exceptionally good cop. I don't see how him being friends with a bunch of non-good people would change things, considering they're not that bad and he usually tries to steer them towards doing the right things.

[russdm]

Vash lives in the sci-fi equivalent of the Wild West, where law is absent in most places and inefficient in others. In his case, following the law would be stupid. However, he has a very strict moral code that he follows no matter what. He's also extremely loyal even to acquaintances and has a clear goal in his life. I could see him being LG, although NG is quite reasonable, too.

Yeah, but I feel more like he is NG or CG with Meryl and Millie being LG. They follow him around and follow the orders of their boss and do what they do because of it. Vash does a lot of what he does because he either wants to or because of his personal code of conduct.

Chaotic types can have their own codes they follow, they just don't pay attention to others authority at all or always follow their own code. At least that is something I have thought.

[RedMage125]

Paul is actually Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He wasn't one for following the rules, demonstrated in his fight with Gurney Halleck, and I would say his father Leto fit into LG more than Paul ever did.

Vash always came across as being Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He shows a strong dislike or ignorance of the law and following it. I don't think of any real time that I recall he followed the Law, instead of what he felt was right. That's definitely a Chaotic Attitude.

I did specify BEFORE joining the Fremen, when yes, Paul's attitudes and beliefs were largely shaped by his father. I didn't mention his father because he was practically an NPC.

And Vash has been responded to nicely. Vash sticks to his code (really Rem's code) strictly, and tries to spread the message of love and peace wherever he goes. He's very unwavering on his code, and when Legato forces his hand, he falls into a deep depression. CG types may follow a code, but they also tend to be more flexible as the situation demands.

[Jeff the Green]

Balian from the Kingdom of Heaven movie. If he's not the most LG paladin, he's at least a LG knight.

Balian's a good example of how to play a paladin when the governing forces are corrupt. I'd argue that Sallahudin in the movie is likely LG too, though it's a bit ambiguous since he doesn't get much screen time.

[sideswipe]

Batman!...sort of...
you've seen the alignment chart picture...you know what I'm talking about.

batman is not LG

[RedMage125]

batman is not LG

The only official WotC sourcebook that mentions examples like this explicitly disagrees with you.

Citing characters from non-D&D sources as belonging to D&D alignments has a flaw in it from the get-go. And that is, that D&D alignment only works in a D&D world with absolute values of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as objective, universe-shaping cosmic forces.

That said, any attempt to categorize ANY non-D&D character in a D&D alignment sort of assumes "if this person were in an objective alignment universe, like D&D". That should be a given.

And the Complete Scoundrel EXPLICITLY says Batman, were he to exist in a D&D world, would be LG.

So...not to be rude, but printed official sources say you are incorrect, sir.

[sideswipe]

The only official WotC sourcebook that mentions examples like this explicitly disagrees with you.

Citing characters from non-D&D sources as belonging to D&D alignments has a flaw in it from the get-go. And that is, that D&D alignment only works in a D&D world with absolute values of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as objective, universe-shaping cosmic forces.

That said, any attempt to categorize ANY non-D&D character in a D&D alignment sort of assumes "if this person were in an objective alignment universe, like D&D". That should be a given.

And the Complete Scoundrel EXPLICITLY says Batman, were he to exist in a D&D world, would be LG.

So...not to be rude, but printed official sources say you are incorrect, sir.

well the view of batman is very different if you analyse him. he disregards all rules and consequences for any of his actions upon anything. he always breaks laws to do what is correct and usually destroys 100's of thousands of property paid for by the tax payers to do so.
in most cases although he catches a criminal he causes more damage in net loss to the taxpayers then he saves.

if you fully analyse most fictional characters you don't always end up with the bright and shining paragon of good they are supposed to be.

i will agree with the game designers that the idea of batman himself is LG but
1. a vigilante is explicitly chaotic
2. he has no regard for any law or restrictions on what he can do in the pursuit of good.
3. if the law enforcements are doing anything that could inhibit his progress of the pursuit of the criminal he can and will neutralise them so that he himself can bring the criminal to justice. this is stopping the people who have been appointed to the crime from doing their job and sometimes even hurting them. doing anything to pursue justice himself for the disregard of others.

these reasons are why batman is chaotic good. but since he has his own laws this balances it out as NG

[grarrrg]

Alright, for the umpteenth time:
LAWFUL ALIGNMENT DOES NOT STRICTLY MEAN FOLLOWING ACTUAL LAWS

3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) and Pathfinder: (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules)

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.

Lawful should have been named "Order" or something similar.
"Lawful" is more following a personal code of conduct. Things that you might do, and things that you will never do.
Yes, following 'actual laws' is more in line with "lawful" people than "chaotic" people, but that does NOT mean "Lawful" _always_ obey the law, and chaotic _always_ disobey.


Paul is actually Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. He wasn't one for following the rules...
Paul, or anyone with Bene Gesserit training is much more likely to fall in line with "Law" then they are chaotic. This is due to the VERY strict training/code/etc...that they follow.

Batman is "lawful" because he has his own strict personal code and honor. One example is that he _never_ kills. This is NOT negotiable.

Heck, I've said it before and I'll say it again, freaking RORSCHACH from freaking Watchman has a decent argument for Lawful.
Let's pull up the description again, and I'll underline the important bits:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.



Batman!...sort of...
you've seen the alignment chart picture...you know what I'm talking about.batman is not LG

You will note that I did say "Batman!...sort of..."
And in case you completely missed the ninja text, here is a link (http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/batman-alignment.jpg) to what I am referring, it should clear up any remaining misunderstandings.
(in case the link should not work, just google "batman alignment" in images)

[firebrandtoluc]

My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.

[TrueJordan]

Richard from the Sword of Truth series (only read the first book, but in Wizard's First Rule he was).

Kvothe definitely isn't lawful good, but only because the laws in that universe are particularly crappy. Probably CG, then.

Will Smith (and the others, I guess) from Men in Black.

Most characters from Fire Emblem.

Hm. Pokemon Trainers that aren't team Rocket? I don't really know much about their 'verse, but it seems like they're all good kids.

[RedMage125]

1. a vigilante is explicitly chaotic
Explicitly Untrue.


2. he has no regard for any law or restrictions on what he can do in the pursuit of good.
See grarrg's post regarding lawful alignment and civil laws.


3. if the law enforcements are doing anything that could inhibit his progress of the pursuit of the criminal he can and will neutralise them so that he himself can bring the criminal to justice. this is stopping the people who have been appointed to the crime from doing their job and sometimes even hurting them. doing anything to pursue justice himself for the disregard of others.
I challenge you to find an example of that that is not "neutralizing them so they are out of harm's way and do not get hurt by the super-powered criminal, whom Batman will then face, taking all the risk and endangerment on himself". Most cops would not last long if Killer Croc came after them, but they're obliged to try. Batman gets them out of the way so they'll be okay and able to return to their families.

[Spore]

My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.

I wonder how Kermit got onto the list here. That said I was never an avid viewer of muppets (and if I was easily more amused by CN drifting into CE Ms. Piggie).

[Xalos]

He said LG not LE, even then I would have to disagree with several of these being LE, the joker is most definitely CE.

No these are the most LG people i can think of... the rest of you are naming CE ppl

[Chronos]

Batman is tricky mostly because he's been written by many different authors, who all have very different ideas about his personality. In the works of any given author, he'll fit fairly well into some alignment or another, or maybe be on the fence between a couple of adjacent ones, or develop from one to another. As written by some authors, he is LG, and apparently those are the authors favored by whoever wrote Complete Scoundrel. By other authors, though, he's definitely not.

[grarrrg]

I wonder how Kermit got onto the list here. That said I was never an avid viewer of muppets (and if I was easily more amused by CN drifting into CE Ms. Piggie).

Kermit is one of the most Ordered/Lawful ones, and there is no denying the Good.
By design though, the majority of Muppets are Chaotic by nature, with Kermit being the 'eye of the storm' as it were.

Short list of what I know to be Order/Lawful Muppets (with everyone else Neutral at best):
Kermit
Scooter
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew (mainly cause of the SCIENCE! thing)
Sam Eagle

[RedMage125]

Kermit is one of the most Ordered/Lawful ones, and there is no denying the Good.
By design though, the majority of Muppets are Chaotic by nature, with Kermit being the 'eye of the storm' as it were.

Short list of what I know to be Order/Lawful Muppets (with everyone else Neutral at best):
Kermit
Scooter
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew (mainly cause of the SCIENCE! thing)
Sam Eagle

No Rowlf? He's like...Muppet Jesus (http://pvponline.com/comic/2008/12/10/its-time-to-light-the-lights/).

[Asteron]

Daniel Jackson(SG-1)

Gonna disagree here. Daniel is definitely NG. He shows a strong willingness to break the rules (think about when he was Ascended... He got kicked out because he couldn't follow the one rule that they had) and never really expresses a strong personal code.

Teal'c is the LG one in that group.

[Blackhawk748]

I second Richard in Wizards First Rule, that man is a perfect example of how to be a badass paladin

Also i second Worf, a very decent stand up guy.

Also, second Balian. Thats how you be the Paladain

[ArqArturo]

Balian's a good example of how to play a paladin when the governing forces are corrupt. I'd argue that Sallahudin in the movie is likely LG too, though it's a bit ambiguous since he doesn't get much screen time.

I see him more la LN, but his willingness to negotiate with the King of Jerusalem even with the off chance of crushing his army, as well as his willingness to not hurt those that fled Jerusalem, and his respect to the other holy symbols and avoid sacking does make him LG.

[Vogonjeltz]

Following extended exposure to OotS, many people in my groups seemed to have developed aversions to the Lawful Good alignment as a whole, for fear of winding up having to act like Miko. This is gotten to a point where anyone who has LG written on their character sheet is pressured into changing to Neutral Good. This is kinda getting annoysome, so I've decided to compile a list of genuine likeable LG protagonists to prove my mates wrong. Here is what I can think of off the top of my head:

Roy
Durkon
Ned Stark
Jon Snow
Most any Bruce Lee character
Sean Connery as James Bond
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Shikamaru

If you guys think of any, please post them.

I'd have to disagree on some of these, including the assertion that Miko is Lawful Good. She's Lawful Neutral, as the Law is what is important to her, not being good. She is utterly lacking in compassion, a requirement for Lawful Good.

Ned Stark is Neutral Good. Reason spoilered for non book-readers Willing to lie extensively to protect his nephew. By pretending that Jon Snow is his bastard, and not his sister's son, he protects Jon from Robert Baratheon, his friend and King who would have probably killed Jon out of anger.
Jon Snow is Neutral Good, he's more than willing to break the rules, but he still has some respect for those rules, which keeps him a step over from Chaotic Good.
James Bond is Lawful Evil. He's heartless, using anyone he has to to achieve the win for crown and country and lacks any compassion.

Lawful Good fictional characters:
Captain America
Superman
Carrot
Aragorn

And according to the Complete Scoundrel at least:
Batman, **** Tracy, and Indiana Jones.

[Asteron]

GoT book spoilerWilling to lie extensively to protect his nephew. By pretending that Jon Snow is his bastard, and not his sister's son, he protects Jon from Robert Baratheon, his friend and King who would have probably killed Jon out of anger.

Whoa... Totally missed that. Could you message me the page reference for that?

[Pex]

Obligatory mention: Superman, Captain America, Optimus Prime

Hermione Granger, Minerva McGonagall, Aslan, Reepicheep, Peter Pevensie, King Arthur, Samwise Gamgee, Beast, Harold Finch, John Reese, Joss Carter, Joan Watson, Buzz Lightyear, Yoda, Mace Windu, Phil Coulson

[russdm]

Whoa... Totally missed that. Could you message me the page reference for that?

I can't recall a reference off the top of my head, but in the first book in his chapters, it is heavily implied that Lyanna demanded that he do something for her. Its very likely that Jon is Rhaeger's son as it would add a nice "take that" to Robert who happens to be the main villain of the books. If Robert had died or Ned had killed him at some point, things would have gone a lot better. To be honest, It should have been Stark as king, not Robert. That's one of the most dumbest things Stark ever did, giving Robert the crown.

[grarrrg]

No Rowlf? He's like...Muppet Jesus (http://pvponline.com/comic/2008/12/10/its-time-to-light-the-lights/).

I considered Rowlf, but decided not to, mainly on the basis that there isn't a lot of actual characterization to go off of.
Rowlf shows up, plays the piano, maybe says a 1-liner, then leaves. He just doesn't get enough screen-time to really peg him. I will say definitely not Evil, and most likely not Chaotic.


I'd have to disagree on some of these, including the assertion that Miko is Lawful Good. She's Lawful Neutral, as the Law is what is important to her, not being good. She is utterly lacking in compassion, a requirement for Lawful Good.

Umm...are you forgetting the whole "was a Paladin" part? She is kind of required to be LG to exist as a Paladin. Yes, she cares MUCH more about the Lawful than the Good, and this is what led to her falling/alignment change/whatever.
"Miko in her heyday" > Lawful Good
"Miko currently" > Lawful Not-Good

[Vogonjeltz]

Whoa... Totally missed that. Could you message me the page reference for that?

It's heavily inferred from a series of events. Sorry I don't have the page numbers or books handy.

Spoilers for those who don't want to see the chain of reasoning:

1. Repeated mentions of how taken Ned's sister was with Rhaegar.
2. Rhaegar and Lyanns were incommunicado for basically the entire war, Rhaegar only surfacing after Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower, and Oswell Whent were sent to find him, and promised to stay at the tower guarding Lyanna.
3. Robert is too wounded to continue on after Rhaegar is killed, and he and Ned have a falling out when Robert approves of the murder of the royal family (princess Elia and her children) because they were Targaryens too.
4. Ned and his 6 vassals and friends reach the tower of joy in their search for Lyanna. They fight the three kings guard killing all three, all but Ned and the crannogman are killed.
5. Ned makes Lyanna a promise and she dies covered in blood.

The inference here is that Lyanna dies in childbirth, and the child was Rhaegars. Further that Ned promises to raise his nephew as his own, because as the only living firstborn son of the prince, Jon would be the legitimate heir to the throne, so Robert would want to kill him.

6. Ned journeys to Starfall to inform the sister of Arthur Dayne of his death (Ned was also in love with her). In one of the books the (nephew?) of Arthur Dayne states that he and Jon Snow were milk brothers. Meaning they had the same wet nurse. Chronologically this fits the time line.
7. The Dayne sister reportedly kills herself sometime after learning of her brothers death at her loves hands.
8. Ned Stark returns north with the baby Jon Snow.

In summary, Ned Stark promised his sister to protect his nephew, maybe killed Arthur Daynes sister to cover it up, and sent Jon north to keep him alive and away from Kings Landing.

[Jeff the Green]

Ned Stark is Neutral Good. Reason spoilered for non book-readers Willing to lie extensively to protect his nephew. By pretending that Jon Snow is his bastard, and not his sister's son, he protects Jon from Robert Baratheon, his friend and King who would have probably killed Jon out of anger.

That's fully within LG's bailiwick. Yes, it was probably against the law, but law =/= Law. It's fully fitting within Ned's code, which is effectively chivalry. It's also one act balanced against an entire life of duty. There's a reason Ned's a poster boy for Lawful Stupid.

[Thealtruistorc]

It's heavily inferred from a series of events. Sorry I don't have the page numbers or books handy.

Spoilers for those who don't want to see the chain of reasoning:

1. Repeated mentions of how taken Ned's sister was with Rhaegar.
2. Rhaegar and Lyanns were incommunicado for basically the entire war, Rhaegar only surfacing after Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower, and Oswell Whent were sent to find him, and promised to stay at the tower guarding Lyanna.
3. Robert is too wounded to continue on after Rhaegar is killed, and he and Ned have a falling out when Robert approves of the murder of the royal family (princess Elia and her children) because they were Targaryens too.
4. Ned and his 6 vassals and friends reach the tower of joy in their search for Lyanna. They fight the three kings guard killing all three, all but Ned and the crannogman are killed.
5. Ned makes Lyanna a promise and she dies covered in blood.

The inference here is that Lyanna dies in childbirth, and the child was Rhaegars. Further that Ned promises to raise his nephew as his own, because as the only living firstborn son of the prince, Jon would be the legitimate heir to the throne, so Robert would want to kill him.

6. Ned journeys to Starfall to inform the sister of Arthur Dayne of his death (Ned was also in love with her). In one of the books the (nephew?) of Arthur Dayne states that he and Jon Snow were milk brothers. Meaning they had the same wet nurse. Chronologically this fits the time line.
7. The Dayne sister reportedly kills herself sometime after learning of her brothers death at her loves hands.
8. Ned Stark returns north with the baby Jon Snow.

In summary, Ned Stark promised his sister to protect his nephew, maybe killed Arthur Daynes sister to cover it up, and sent Jon north to keep him alive and away from Kings Landing.

This is heavily implied, but never truly confirmed. In fact, I doubt that we'll see cannonical confirmation unless George states it (like Syrio's death)

[Ravens_cry]

Sam Vimes. While he is willing to play with people's assumptions, bother by the book, and off the book, and generally be a cynic by all accounts, he is still willing to follow his own rules even when it costs him, when the alternative would just make things so much easier.

[Amaril]

Of course, I'd also say that Sanya and Shiro feel a bit closer to NG than Michael. Ain't nobody who does a LG paladin better than Michael Carpenter. Textbook paladin, the good-hearted and humble knight in shining (kevlar-reinforced) armour wielding a great sword ablaze with holy fire.

Murphy is probably LG as well, just not as good at it as Michael.

Harry feels CG, but NG works as well.

Shiro comes across as pretty LG to me--I sort of get the sense that he's the exemplar Michael modeled his behavior on as a Knight, but that might just be my intuition. Sanya I can agree with as NG. Michael himself is the standard to which I hold all LG paladin characters in the game.

Murphy is most definitely LG. I don't see her being any "worse" at it than Michael, either--she may not be a paladin, but that doesn't make her any less devoted to Law or Good. And besides...
we have confirmation that she could be a Knight if she wanted to.

Its very likely that Jon is Rhaeger's son as it would add a nice "take that" to Robert who happens to be the main villain of the books.

Um, what? :smallconfused: Robert might have been a terrible king, but by the standards of Westeros at least, he is by no means a terrible person.

[Mirakk]

-Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin (often sharply contrasted with the LN Hajime Saito)


I would argue that Saito was also LG, actually.

Yes, he became a police officer in order to continue killing (which could be perceived as lawful neutral or evil), BUT, he only kills people he perceives as evil (which would be perceived as good). His code of Aku Soku Zan is very specific about only killing the wicked. There is no evidence of him killing innocent men according to the prevailing law of the land at any given time, and even while fighting the Ishin Shishi he believed himself to be killing evildoers. He gains nothing himself by killing these people (which would be a requirement for neutral alignment), save for the knowledge that he's rid the world of their evil presence.

So he selflessly kills evil people to make the world a better place while upholding the law of the land and living by his own moral code within the guidelines of the law. Sounds lawful good to me.

[RedMage125]

I would argue that Saito was also LG, actually.

Yes, he became a police officer in order to continue killing (which could be perceived as lawful neutral or evil), BUT, he only kills people he perceives as evil (which would be perceived as good). His code of Aku Soku Zan is very specific about only killing the wicked. There is no evidence of him killing innocent men according to the prevailing law of the land at any given time, and even while fighting the Ishin Shishi he believed himself to be killing evildoers. He gains nothing himself by killing these people (which would be a requirement for neutral alignment), save for the knowledge that he's rid the world of their evil presence.

So he selflessly kills evil people to make the world a better place while upholding the law of the land and living by his own moral code within the guidelines of the law. Sounds lawful good to me.
Sounds pretty textbook Lawful Neutral to me.

D&D alignment works because regardless of an individual's perceptions of their actions, their actions are judged by an objective scale. Saito displays almost none of the traits that D&D defines as "Good". There is no "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", and no "respect for life" in Saito's credo.

You bringing this up reminds me of how similar he is to a character I have created, who is also Lawful Neutral.

Just because someone is on the same side as the Good Guys, or opposes the Bad Guys, or even strives to fight Evil in general, does not automatically make that person Good in alignment. Evil is not the absence of Good, and neither is the reverse true. There is a gulf in the middle. And Saito does not elevate himself into Good, although he would likely never, EVER slip into an Evil alignment.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I would argue that Saito was also LG, actually.

Yes, he became a police officer in order to continue killing (which could be perceived as lawful neutral or evil), BUT, he only kills people he perceives as evil (which would be perceived as good). His code of Aku Soku Zan is very specific about only killing the wicked. There is no evidence of him killing innocent men according to the prevailing law of the land at any given time, and even while fighting the Ishin Shishi he believed himself to be killing evildoers. He gains nothing himself by killing these people (which would be a requirement for neutral alignment), save for the knowledge that he's rid the world of their evil presence.

So he selflessly kills evil people to make the world a better place while upholding the law of the land and living by his own moral code within the guidelines of the law. Sounds lawful good to me.


Sounds pretty textbook Lawful Neutral to me.

D&D alignment works because regardless of an individual's perceptions of their actions, their actions are judged by an objective scale. Saito displays almost none of the traits that D&D defines as "Good". There is no "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", and no "respect for life" in Saito's credo.

You bringing this up reminds me of how similar he is to a character I have created, who is also Lawful Neutral.

Just because someone is on the same side as the Good Guys, or opposes the Bad Guys, or even strives to fight Evil in general, does not automatically make that person Good in alignment. Evil is not the absence of Good, and neither is the reverse true. There is a gulf in the middle. And Saito does not elevate himself into Good, although he would likely never, EVER slip into an Evil alignment.Actually, I was going to parallel to Dexter. Just because he only kills "bad guys" doesn't mean that he's Good.

[ddude987]

This is heavily implied, but never truly confirmed. In fact, I doubt that we'll see cannonical confirmation unless George states it (like Syrio's death)

I'd like to think he isn't dead and is just changed his identity but unfortunately I doubt it. Iirc unlike the show, the books stated he killed some guards and escaped, in the show though someone mentions some knight killed him.

[Dienekes]

Richard from the Sword of Truth series (only read the first book, but in Wizard's First Rule he was).

Ehh, maybe in the first book. By the time I stopped reading he definitely wasn't lawful and looking at some of the crap he pulled I'd argue strongly against calling him good. What with him ignoring the law when it benefited him, riding and attacking unarmed peaceful protestors, endorsing the use of strangely erotic torturers, and so on.

Anyway, some more LG.

Galahad (Arthur legends)
Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird)
Shepard Book (though implied his past my muddy up his LG name) (Firefly)
Aveline (Dragon Age)
Brienne of Tarth (A Song of Ice and Fire)
Bigby Wolf (Fables)
Nicholas Angel (Hot Fuzz)
Ajax (the Illiad though there are some versions of his death that throw this in question, but other versions he remains pretty LG throughout. Greek myths are fun that way)

Ned Stark
is most definitely good. Telling one lie to potentially save an innocent life is perfectly within the realm of LG. We don't demand perfection, and Ned tries to always stay within the realm of honor and law while doing good. Admittedly his desire to save his family ends up being more important to him than his personal honor, but even then I'd seriously question someone in his position picking a different option to fulfill the good part of LG.

Batman is tricky. He can be LG, Adam West most definitely is, as is the one from Brave and the Bold. However, different writers tend to put more emphasis on different parts of the character. He normally ranges from LG to TN, but I'd put his "regular" modern interpretation as probably just closer to NG than LG.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

A few individuals from Star Trek have been mentioned, but I feel like the majority of the main casts of all series are Lawful Good which shouldn't be surprising on a show about an inceredibly benevolent organization with a military like structure.

Exceptions
Kirk-CG cowboy
Spock-Debatable position on the LN/LG line, his detached rationality can seem to hold him back from good, but it's always serving the greater good. His "cold hearted" acts are always refusals to risk the lives of crew members on futile rescue attempts.
McCoy, Pulaski, Crusher and Depending on Season The Doctor- NG Typical white hat doctors
Troy- CG concerned with individuals and with feelings over rules.
Data- LN trying to be LG, arguably becoming the most Good eventually, beyond all temptation.
Odo- LN also working on gtting his G.
Tuvok- Honestly it's hard to tell the difference between LN enforcing a LG government's laws and a LG with a stick up their ass.
The Marquis characters in Voyager are difficult to label in the first two seasons, but after that they mostly seem to have reassimilated into Starfleet's LG society.

[RedMage125]

A few individuals from Star Trek have been mentioned, but I feel like the majority of the main casts of all series are Lawful Good which shouldn't be surprising on a show about an inceredibly benevolent organization with a military like structure.

Exceptions
Kirk-CG cowboy
Spock-Debatable position on the LN/LG line, his detached rationality can seem to hold him back from good, but it's always serving the greater good. His "cold hearted" acts are always refusals to risk the lives of crew members on futile rescue attempts.
McCoy, Pulaski, Crusher and Depending on Season The Doctor- NG Typical white hat doctors
Troy- CG concerned with individuals and with feelings over rules.
Data- LN trying to be LG, arguably becoming the most Good eventually, beyond all temptation.
Odo- LN also working on gtting his G.
Tuvok- Honestly it's hard to tell the difference between LN enforcing a LG government's laws and a LG with a stick up their ass.
The Marquis characters in Voyager are difficult to label in the first two seasons, but after that they mostly seem to have reassimilated into Starfleet's LG society.

I'd say Spock from the original series was LN. In some of the movies he moved towards LG, and maybe some of that same motion through the show, but not as much.

J.J. Abrams' Spock, on the other hand (played by Zachary Quinto), was almost certainly LG the whole time.

[Broken Crown]

I was going to nominate Atticus Finch, but I see Dienekes has beaten me to the punch. Also agree about Ajax; it's remarkable how few classical heroes meet D&D, or generally modern, standards of "Good," but I think Ajax is one of them.

Instead, I'll nominate Horatio Hornblower, from C.S. Forester's novels. Definitely Lawful, both in his obedience to Royal Navy regulations (which he bends from time to time, to serve the greater needs of the mission, but never breaks), and in his personal sense of honour and duty. Also Good, being more concerned with doing the right thing and protecting people from unnecessary harm than with the strict interpretation of the rules. He's a ruthless, cold-blooded bastard, but I'll file that under "Good is not Nice."


A few individuals from Star Trek have been mentioned, but I feel like the majority of the main casts of all series are Lawful Good which shouldn't be surprising on a show about an inceredibly benevolent organization with a military like structure.

I would personally call Star Fleet "benign," rather than "benevolent," since the Prime Directive, their "highest law," essentially amounts to "Don't Get Involved." "Seek out new life and new civilizations, but you're not allowed to help them if they're in trouble" sounds more like a Neutral attitude than a Good one, to me.

On the other hand, the Prime Directive seems to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and no one seems to get in much trouble for it, so Star Fleet may unofficially expect its officers to break the rules when the need arises. In which case, it's more Good, but less Lawful.

[Baroncognito]

It feels like most of the main characters in Vime's Watch are Lawful Good.

Detritus might not always be cold enough to understand the laws exactly, but he does have people read the riot act before he shoots them. He tries to follow the law as well as he knows it at all times.

Angua edges on Neutral Good, she doesn't always get a warrant before searching a place, but I wouldn't accuse her of breaking and entering.

Cheery... despite the fact that she wears skirts and breaks with centuries of dwarven tradition, I'd say she follows all the actual laws of the city, and is keen to preserve them. And she's still tied to her culture despite wearing make-up. She's still a dwarf, even if she's decided to be a noticeably female dwarf.

No questions about Visit or Reg Shoe.

The two real exceptions that come to mind are Fred and Nobby, who I can't really place at all.

[Grayson01]

I was going to nominate Atticus Finch, but I see Dienekes has beaten me to the punch. Also agree about Ajax; it's remarkable how few classical heroes meet D&D, or generally modern, standards of "Good," but I think Ajax is one of them.

Instead, I'll nominate Horatio Hornblower, from C.S. Forester's novels. Definitely Lawful, both in his obedience to Royal Navy regulations (which he bends from time to time, to serve the greater needs of the mission, but never breaks), and in his personal sense of honour and duty. Also Good, being more concerned with doing the right thing and protecting people from unnecessary harm than with the strict interpretation of the rules. He's a ruthless, cold-blooded bastard, but I'll file that under "Good is not Nice."



I would personally call Star Fleet "benign," rather than "benevolent," since the Prime Directive, their "highest law," essentially amounts to "Don't Get Involved." "Seek out new life and new civilizations, but you're not allowed to help them if they're in trouble" sounds more like a Neutral attitude than a Good one, to me.

On the other hand, the Prime Directive seems to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and no one seems to get in much trouble for it, so Star Fleet may unofficially expect its officers to break the rules when the need arises. In which case, it's more Good, but less Lawful.

The Prime Directive does not say "Do not get involved" It say's Do not get involved with civilizations who have not developed FTL speed travel and have not advanced far enough in there development. They do all of this for, in their view, the greater good. So to not give civilizations this power until they were ready. That's still Good.

[RedMage125]

The Prime Directive does not say "Do not get involved" It say's Do not get involved with civilizations who have not developed FTL speed travel and have not advanced far enough in there development. They do all of this for, in their view, the greater good. So to not give civilizations this power until they were ready. That's still Good.

What about Kirk's "Prime Directive"? Which is "Seek out new life and new civilizations...and have sex with them".

Wait...I think we already established that, while Good, Kirk is not Lawful.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Without getting too deep;

The Prime Directive is a perfectly fine law for a LG society to have. They believe that contacting civilizations that haven't reached a certain level of development to be harmful. The law is for the good of these other civilizations. You can disagree with the policy, but the motivation behind it is morally sound.

Also the Federation does help some of these societies in cases where the alternative is standing by and allowing planetary anihilation and yes I mean the Federation as in Picard has been ordered to go do something. Additionally the fact that the main cast is generally not punished for breaking rules under extreme circumstances to achieve the greatest good possible in that scenario is further evidence for the organization to be Good.

[Coidzor]

Ned Stark is Neutral Good. Reason spoilered for non book-readers Willing to lie extensively to protect his nephew. By pretending that Jon Snow is his bastard, and not his sister's son, he protects Jon from Robert Baratheon, his friend and King who would have probably killed Jon out of anger.

So a Lawful Good person would allow an innocent child to be murdered, eh? :smallamused:

[Broken Crown]

Without getting too deep;

The Prime Directive is a perfectly fine law for a LG society to have. They believe that contacting civilizations that haven't reached a certain level of development to be harmful. The law is for the good of these other civilizations. You can disagree with the policy, but the motivation behind it is morally sound.

Also the Federation does help some of these societies in cases where the alternative is standing by and allowing planetary anihilation and yes I mean the Federation as in Picard has been ordered to go do something. Additionally the fact that the main cast is generally not punished for breaking rules under extreme circumstances to achieve the greatest good possible in that scenario is further evidence for the organization to be Good.

I don't disagree with you here: The Prime Directive is a fine law for a LG society to have, and avoiding doing anything that might accidentally hurt people is certainly morally sound. But it's essentially a passive attitude that defaults to "don't do anything, just in case," which avoids doing harm, but does not actively promote Good, or require any sacrifice or even action on Star Fleet's part. Therefore it strikes me as being fundamentally a Neutral principle, rather than a Good one.

If the principle of doing nothing, because taking action might potentially result in harm, were upheld to the point where it resulted in doing nothing, even though not taking action would definitely result in harm, then the Prime Directive would put Star Fleet firmly in LN territory. The fact that the PD is repeatedly referred to as Star Fleet's "highest law" suggests that this ought to be the case.

However, the fact that Star Fleet officers repeatedly violate the PD and are not punished for it (or are ordered to do so, as you say; I don't remember any episodes where this happened, but it's been years since I've watched Star Trek, and I haven't seen all the episodes), then that suggests a fairly casual approach to their "highest law." Which, as I previously posted, in turn suggests a Star Fleet which is more Good, but less Lawful.

To sum up, I don't think a truly Lawful Good society would set itself up in such a way that it had to repeatedly break its own most cherished law in order to do good.


The Prime Directive does not say "Do not get involved" It say's Do not get involved with civilizations who have not developed FTL speed travel and have not advanced far enough in there development. They do all of this for, in their view, the greater good. So to not give civilizations this power until they were ready. That's still Good.

With this, I disagree, for a few reasons:

1) There are lots of ways to help people that do not involve giving them power for which they are not ready. Preventing a pre-space-flight civilization from getting smacked by an extinction-level asteroid impact doesn't give anyone any power they didn't already have, for example.

2) Doing nothing to help, when you have the ability to help, isn't Good, it's Neutral. Even if the people you aren't helping don't meet your arbitrary standards of technological development.

3) Basing decisions like whether or not to help people on whether or not they have developed a particular piece of technology is a highly dubious moral stance. Is there anything inherent to warp drive that makes its possessors more able to handle power in a responsible or moral fashion? The existence of the Cardassians, Romulans, and Ferengi suggests not.

4) Potential unforeseen consequences are no excuse. Any action can have unforeseen consequences; so can the lack of any action. And unforeseen consequences can be good as well as bad. You have to make decisions based on the best information you have. Refusing to help people who have a real problem now because it might result in a potential problem later is a cop-out.

There's nothing wrong with the Prime Directive, in itself. But as the primary guiding principle of a Good society, it falls short of the mark.

[grarrrg]

Before this Prime Directive stuff gets (more) out of control, here is what it basically boils down to:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive
It's main goal is to prevent _social_ interference: Don't give/show them technology they don't already have, don't manipulate politics, don't beam down into the White House, phaser the president and declare yourself God-Emperor.

It (mainly) applies to societies that have no space travel, or ideas/knowledge that other life may even exist (this is the 'warp drive' clause, as once they have that, they'll find out soon enough).

Going by the "but an asteroid will destroy the planet" example someone mentioned: If the species is aware of the impending doom, and has the ability to do something about it on their own, then no interference. If the species is completely unaware they are about to be wiped out, then destroying the asteroid-of-doom is 'OK' (so long as it's done in a way the species won't notice > big flashy starship).


It is a hands-off approach, but they ARE allowed to intervene in certain cases. So while it may not be perfectly LG, it is definitely not Evil, nor Chaotic.

[Baroncognito]

I'd say that the biggest problem that comes to evaluating the Prime Directive (and Batman) comes from inconsistency between writers.

[Coidzor]

I'd say that the biggest problem that comes to evaluating the Prime Directive (and Batman) comes from inconsistency between writers.

They are a killer, alright.

[Zaydos]

In Kirk's defense he actually followed the Prime Directive as presented in the Original Series (which talked about not interfering with their natural development). Actually he is very obedient to the rules of Star Fleet in the original series, putting them before his own personal needs/desires, only circumventing them when the choice is between doing evil or breaking them, making Kirk a good example of LG in TOS (Spock being maybe LN and McCoy falling under NG as the voice of "break the rules -censored-" in the group), of course by the original movies his alignment seems to have become CG as he becomes a ***** the rules maverick.

[RedMage125]

In Kirk's defense he actually followed the Prime Directive as presented in the Original Series (which talked about not interfering with their natural development). Actually he is very obedient to the rules of Star Fleet in the original series, putting them before his own personal needs/desires, only circumventing them when the choice is between doing evil or breaking them, making Kirk a good example of LG in TOS (Spock being maybe LN and McCoy falling under NG as the voice of "break the rules -censored-" in the group), of course by the original movies his alignment seems to have become CG as he becomes a ***** the rules maverick.

I was just making a joke...

But seriously, in TOS, Kirk still sleeps with any female alien. A vagina and a pulse are apparently his 2 biggest turn-ons.

[Coidzor]

I was just making a joke...

But seriously, in TOS, Kirk still sleeps with any female alien. A vagina and a pulse are apparently his 2 biggest turn-ons.

Seduction is a very useful tool, after all. :smallwink: And when female aliens are basically green-skinned space babes or part of some silly progenitor race's cosmic joke (see: the ability of so many humanoid species to interbreed and create viable, fertile offspring), it's not like there's any aesthetic reason why a human couldn't be sexually attracted to them.

[russdm]

So a Lawful Good person would allow an innocent child to be murdered, eh? :smallamused:

He didn't. He went to Cersei to tell her to skip town with her kids, but doing so, when she had already planned or was implementing her plan of killing Robert was in motion and she, being "Tywin with Tits" (in her severely mentally disturbed mind), took steps to kill her husband's bastards and him too.

Stark told her to leave town before Renly or Stannis killed her and her kids. She repaid Stark's kindness by killing his men and taking him prisoner through Jaime and then letting Joff behead him. To be honest, Cersei never wanted him to take the black and thought he should die instead as she does absolutely nothing to hinder Joff in any way. She isn't "Tywin with Tits" as she believes herself to be, in reality she is an idiot doing completely stupid things.

Stark was trying to avoid harming Joff despite the fact that Cersei wanted him dead. Jaime might have acted more decently, but then he isn't his nutjob sister.

[Dienekes]

He didn't. He went to Cersei to tell her to skip town with her kids, but doing so, when she had already planned or was implementing her plan of killing Robert was in motion and she, being "Tywin with Tits" (in her severely mentally disturbed mind), took steps to kill her husband's bastards and him too.

Stark told her to leave town before Renly or Stannis killed her and her kids. She repaid Stark's kindness by killing his men and taking him prisoner through Jaime and then letting Joff behead him. To be honest, Cersei never wanted him to take the black and thought he should die instead as she does absolutely nothing to hinder Joff in any way. She isn't "Tywin with Tits" as she believes herself to be, in reality she is an idiot doing completely stupid things.

Stark was trying to avoid harming Joff despite the fact that Cersei wanted him dead. Jaime might have acted more decently, but then he isn't his nutjob sister.

I think Coidzor is being a bit facetious, pointing out that the action Vogonjeltz says makes Ned lose his lawful status is within the realm of acceptable actions taken by a lawful good character.

Though I would question your assessment of Cersei. Not that she's deranged, or really an idiot. That's all true. But even Joffrey says that Cersei advised him to send Ned to the Night's Watch, the stunt he pulled was either his own idea, or possibly from the influence of Baelish. Because if there's ever a problem with someone dying or near dying it's Baelish's fault.

[T.G. Oskar]

My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.

Permission to sig? There's very few things I quote, and I find this between the odd combination of hilarious and dead-on to merit sigging. It will require a bit of tweaking, but for the most part it'll remain the same.


From video games:
Leon Belmont (Castlevania: Lament of Innocence)
Gabriel Belmont (Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 1...until the end, anyways)
Trevor Belmont (Castlevania: LoS Mirror of Fate)
Mario and Luigi
Miles "Tails" Powers (Sonic the Hedgehog)
Mega Man (not familiar enough with X)
Ryu and Chun Li (Street Fighter)
Liu Kang, Raiden, Sonya Blade, Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat series)
Janos Audron (Legacy of Kain series)
Link (in most Legend of Zelda games)
Yuna (Final Fantasy X, less so in X-2)
Squall (Final Fantasy VIII, seems more LN at the beginning)


From novels:
Belgarion, Durnik, and Mandorallen(David Edding's Belgariad)
Sparhawk and Vanion(David Edding's Elenium)
Paul Atredies (before joining the Fremen)
Bink (Piers Anthony's Xanth), as well as Trent (after book 1)
Annabeth (Percy Jackson series)
Hermione Granger (Harry Potter series)

Odd that you mention Final Fantasy and speak nothing of Cecil post-Mysidia (and turning into a Paladin, actually). Pre-Mysidia (as a Dark Knight) he was probably LN, but the change of class also brought a change of heart. I'd also add Agrias Oaks (Final Fantasy Tactics, yet another Paladin) and MAAAAAAAYBE Adelbert Steiner (FFIX; he's loyal to Princess Garnet, has the obligatory Lawful/Chaotic bit with CG Zidane, and for the most part is brave yet bumbling). Hard to peg Beatrix, though (FFIX; she's either Miko-like LG or LN, but she's the game's Paladin for the most part, abilities and everything).

As for literature...why no Pak from Deeds of Paksenarrion? Wasn't she supposed to be the representation of how a LG Paladin should be represented?

Regarding Kirk: I don't really see him as purely LG; probably NG or even CG. Mostly because he's willing to cheat, but he has a tool that some LG people (especially Paladins) should apply, and that is looking for the third option, which is essential to Kirk's character. The way Kirk approaches that third option is what makes his standing upon the Law-Chaos axis shaky.

And yes, as grarrg mentions: the "Lawful" alignment in D&D is best represented as someone who follows Order. Order is often codified into Law, but isn't adherence to Law; it is discipline, it is adherence to rules (which involves eventually laws) and a fixed form of thinking, rather than the more fluid form of thinking and the penchant for improvisation and nonconformity of Chaos.

[RedMage125]

*questions regarding people missing from the list*
I apologize, T.G., but I have played none of those games. At least not all the way through. I started FF IX, but I was borrowing it from a friend, and she decided she wanted it back after a week (who beats that game in a week?).

Haven't read the books you mentioned, either.

So all of those characters were omitted out of ignorance, not and intentional absence from the "LG list".


Regarding Kirk: I don't really see him as purely LG; probably NG or even CG. Mostly because he's willing to cheat, but he has a tool that some LG people (especially Paladins) should apply, and that is looking for the third option, which is essential to Kirk's character. The way Kirk approaches that third option is what makes his standing upon the Law-Chaos axis shaky.

And yes, as grarrg mentions: the "Lawful" alignment in D&D is best represented as someone who follows Order. Order is often codified into Law, but isn't adherence to Law; it is discipline, it is adherence to rules (which involves eventually laws) and a fixed form of thinking, rather than the more fluid form of thinking and the penchant for improvisation and nonconformity of Chaos.
I would say Kirk is CG.

An argument could be made for NG because he "follows the rules when it's convenient, but is willing to step outside them". But I maintain that a CG person could occasionally follow the rules, too. When he feels like it, which is about how/when Kirk follows rules. The Federation is an EXTREMELY Lawful society*, as is Starfleet. As a part of Starfleet's system of authority, rank, and structure, some people have a hard time seeing Kirk as truly Chaotic, thinking he must be NG. I would say that it makes his Chaotic alignment even more certain because of how he chafes under the regulations and flaunts them whenever possible.

TOS Kirk: Maybe NG, becoming more CG as the series progressed.
Movies Kirk: Chaotic Good
J.J. Abrams Kirk Absolutely CG.

*Buncha Communists, too.

[Afgncaap5]

Kirk, like Batman, changes depending upon the writer. I think the same thing about Picard, actually. (And I would argue that Kirk is a good example of a LG character who appears neutral or chaotic, while Picard is a good example of a Neutral Good character who appears Lawful. But, again, that's looking at the entire character arcs more than looking at individual episodes.)

Ultimately, though, this conversation just makes me think of this chart (http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/batman-alignment-chart.jpg).

[Coidzor]

He didn't. He went to Cersei to tell her to skip town with her kids, but doing so, when she had already planned or was implementing her plan of killing Robert was in motion and she, being "Tywin with Tits" (in her severely mentally disturbed mind), took steps to kill her husband's bastards and him too.

Stark told her to leave town before Renly or Stannis killed her and her kids. She repaid Stark's kindness by killing his men and taking him prisoner through Jaime and then letting Joff behead him. To be honest, Cersei never wanted him to take the black and thought he should die instead as she does absolutely nothing to hinder Joff in any way. She isn't "Tywin with Tits" as she believes herself to be, in reality she is an idiot doing completely stupid things.

Stark was trying to avoid harming Joff despite the fact that Cersei wanted him dead. Jaime might have acted more decently, but then he isn't his nutjob sister.

That has nothing to do with the spoiler I replied to which stated that Ned Stark was Neutral Good instead of Lawful Good because he didn't allow an innocent to be murdered. :smallconfused:


I think Coidzor is being a bit facetious, pointing out that the action Vogonjeltz says makes Ned lose his lawful status is within the realm of acceptable actions taken by a lawful good character.

Pretty much. Though I suppose a defense of why child murder of innocents would be within the purview of LG would be interesting, to say the least.


Odd that you mention Final Fantasy and speak nothing of Cecil post-Mysidia (and turning into a Paladin, actually). Pre-Mysidia (as a Dark Knight) he was probably LN, but the change of class also brought a change of heart. I'd also add Agrias Oaks (Final Fantasy Tactics, yet another Paladin) and MAAAAAAAYBE Adelbert Steiner (FFIX; he's loyal to Princess Garnet, has the obligatory Lawful/Chaotic bit with CG Zidane, and for the most part is brave yet bumbling). Hard to peg Beatrix, though (FFIX; she's either Miko-like LG or LN, but she's the game's Paladin for the most part, abilities and everything).

As for literature...why no Pak from Deeds of Paksenarrion? Wasn't she supposed to be the representation of how a LG Paladin should be represented?

Regarding Kirk: I don't really see him as purely LG; probably NG or even CG. Mostly because he's willing to cheat, but he has a tool that some LG people (especially Paladins) should apply, and that is looking for the third option, which is essential to Kirk's character. The way Kirk approaches that third option is what makes his standing upon the Law-Chaos axis shaky.

And yes, as grarrg mentions: the "Lawful" alignment in D&D is best represented as someone who follows Order. Order is often codified into Law, but isn't adherence to Law; it is discipline, it is adherence to rules (which involves eventually laws) and a fixed form of thinking, rather than the more fluid form of thinking and the penchant for improvisation and nonconformity of Chaos.

I think there must have been an implied "without having to rely upon Paladins" in the premise or something.

[firebrandtoluc]

Permission to sig?

Sure.

The DnD alignment system is simply a shallow abstract mechanic for determining certain spell effects and item compatibility. Picard doesn't fit very well into the system because Star Trek was intended to explore morality in a deep way. In DnD it's okay to cast Sanctify the Wicked. In DnD it's okay to attack some things on sight. It's really nothing like real life ethics. The whole Next Generation crew are good examples of LG. They are also good examples of NG. The real sticking point is that the code they follow is basically "do good" for the most part.

In DnD the question becomes "which of these people are unable to enter the Magic Circle Against Law," or "Against Good." Who can pick up the Gouda of Truth and glow with Holy radiance? Who can take the Saint template? Who pings the evil priest's Detect Good radar? Who gets to ride the Unicorn? And, of course, who qualifies for Paladin? I would definitely let Picard be a Paladin.

[Eaglejarl]

Darth Vader
Sauron
Voldemort
The Joker
Magneto
Doctor Doom
Lex Luthor
Loki
Hades
Satan
Shredder
The Prophets of Truth, Mercy, and Regret
The Terminator
Death
Tightanus
Arthas
Alduin
The Enderdragon
Kerrigan
Diablo
Everyone who wears an eyepatch

+5 to int for people who get ALL references



He said LG not LE, even then I would have to disagree with several of these being LE, the joker is most definitely CE.

Also, he said "heroes."

[Coidzor]

In DnD the question becomes "which of these people are unable to enter the Magic Circle Against Law," or "Against Good." Who can pick up the Gouda of Truth and glow with Holy radiance? Who can take the Saint template? Who pings the evil priest's Detect Good radar? Who gets to ride the Unicorn? And, of course, who qualifies for Paladin? I would definitely let Picard be a Paladin.

I wouldn't Friends don't let friends be Paladins. And he really should be a Telepath instead. :smallamused:

[Wardog]

No these are the most LG people i can think of... the rest of you are naming CE ppl

I don't get it.

[ArqArturo]

Also, Detective Hartigan (http://youtu.be/KrL7su3LMsg) from Sin City is the epitome of LG in a corrupt society.