WHY are they Good?

[Runolfr]

The OotS/Firefly comparison thread got me thinking on this topic.

Some people argue that Jayne is Chaotic Neutral or some other non-Evil alignment because they like him, and they don't want to be caught liking an evil character. Never mind that he's a professional criminal, thug, and killer who does it for nothing but money. Indeed, he has openly said that he would turn on Mal if the money were right, and he has already betrayed Mal at least once by turning in Simon and River to the Feds (not that it did him any good). Yes, he has limits. The reverence the Mudders of Jaynestown feel for him actually affects him, and he is willing to risk his life for some of the other crewmembers (especially if he thinks his own chances of survival improve by keeping them alive). All the same, he is driven almost exclusively by ruthless self-interest, and he'll hurt or kill people who stand in his way if he thinks he can get away with it. You may like Jayne, but he's evil.

I think the same mentality underlies those people who continue to deny that Belkar is evil, despite the mountains of evidence of his evilness. Heck, it says right on his Order of the Stick: The Adventure Game character card that he's evil.

This was a theme in Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion series, too. It took Paks a long time to learn that just because she liked someone, it didn't mean they were good.

[FruitOfTheShroom]

I definitely agree with you here.

I also hate tying D&D alignments onto characters as complex as those used in literature or television or what have you. Real characters fall into far more categories than just Law vs. Chaos/Good vs. Evil.

But according to D&D standards, Jayne is definitely Evil. I'd argue NE.

[chibibar]

the problem is that "evil" in a sense draws negativity in general (as it should) and people like to be good. If someone label you as Evil in a society it is harder to live/prosper under that title.

some people associate "being evil" for "liking evil" which are not even related but you know that it is easier to connect that way. So general public tend not to like evil.

You can respect it, but not liking it.

[Darkspear]

Jaynestown

[evileeyore]

This was a theme in Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion series, too. It took Paks a long time to learn that just because she liked someone, it didn't mean they were good.You could be on to something there.

But Jayne isn't Evil. :wink:

And as I consider myself to be Lawful Evil, trust me when I say it isn't because I'm squemish about cozying up with a little Evil now and then.

[Runolfr]

Jaynestown

Already accounted for. Being evil doesn't mean having no feelings.

[Jari Kafghan]

Jayne is Chaotic, no doubt, but he is not evil.

Yes he is a professional criminal.

So was Robin Hood.

Yes he is a thug.

So is Steve Austin.

Yes he is a killer.

As are most military men.

Yes he only does it for the money.

Because he is sending it home to his mum.

He didn't consciously betray Mal. He turned in Simon and River to protect his own hide and make a little profit off it.

He is driven by self interest but that does not make one evil. Malice, malice makes one evil. Jayne is without malice in most things he does.

And Belkar is evil.

[Doon teh Loon]

Nah, see Jayne is nuetral because he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people. He looks out for himself at all times, making him not good but not evil. He never goes out of his way to hurt people and he even helps people if he likes the benefits eg Heart of Gold.
Belkar= evil
pure and simple.

[Runolfr]

Yes he is a professional criminal.

So was Robin Hood.

Yes. "Steal from the rich and keep it" has always been a good motive.


Yes he is a thug.

So is Steve Austin.

Steve Austin is an actor, not a thug.


Yes he is a killer.

As are most military men.

Do military men usually fight for the money? Or are they primarily motivated to do violence by the desire to protect their families and their country?


Yes he only does it for the money.

Because he is sending it home to his mum.

I'm sure she gets every penny of his share of the crew's ill-gotten loot. Besides, he could get a job that doesn't involve killing people and still send money to mum, or he could join a legitimate military or security organization that pays a salary, if he thinks he has no other skills.


He didn't consciously betray Mal. He turned in Simon and River to protect his own hide and make a little profit off it.

Oh, come on! He knew he was betraying Mal; he just didn't think he would get caught.


He is driven by self interest but that does not make one evil. Malice, malice makes one evil. Jayne is without malice in most things he does.

Reckless disregard for the well-being of other people makes one pretty evil. He will admittedly kill someone for no other reason than that someone is paying him to do it.


And Belkar is evil.

At least we can agree on that.

[Runolfr]

Nah, see Jayne is nuetral because he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people.

Sure he does. He just doesn't do it unless there's profit involved. He won't take the risk unless there's a suitable reward.


He looks out for himself at all times, making him not good but not evil.

He's a hired killer, and he doesn't even care why he's killing as long as he gets paid. That's evil.


He never goes out of his way to hurt people and he even helps people if he likes the benefits eg Heart of Gold.

Again, he's killing and risking his life for what he considers to be a suitable reward. I don't see why this is difficult to analyze.

His behavior is restricted far more by perceived risk than by moral compunctions.

[Alfryd]

All the same, he is driven almost exclusively by ruthless self-interest, and he'll hurt or kill people who stand in his way if he thinks he can get away with it. You may like Jayne, but he's evil.
I would agree that Jayne's initial behaviour could only reasonably be considered more or less evil, but he risked his life in Serenity when there was no personal benefit whatsoever to doing so. He must have at least the rudiments of a conscience.

I always found Jayne kind of endearing, even when he was obviously malevolent. But the only people we'll actually seen him attempt to hurt or kill for his own private convenience were his former employers, and Stitch (which was quite some time ago,) and the Tams.

He is driven by self interest but that does not make one evil.

Again, he's killing and risking his life for what he considers to be a suitable reward. I don't see why this is difficult to analyze.
"Some evil characters simply have no conscience and kill without qualms if doing so is conveneient."
"Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
That's the thing with Jayne. He does a little bit of both. Yes, technically, helping out personal acquaintances is usually considered neutral behaviour, but that's most of the behaviour we see of him. It seems uncharitable to dismiss this entirely offhand.


Oh, come on! He knew he was betraying Mal; he just didn't think he would get caught.
In fairness, Mal seems to have had to explain the notion to him.

Jaynestown
Jayne didn't actually do anything good there. He felt bad about it, but that's not the same thing.

[Runolfr]

I would agree that Jayne's initial behaviour could only reasonably be considered more or less evil, but he risked his life in Serenity when there was no personal benefit whatsoever to doing so. He must have at least the rudiments of a conscience.

Before we go any further, do we agree that being predominantly evil does not mean that the person will never perform a good act? Any more than being good mean the person will never perform an evil act?

Jayne's behavior is by-and-large evil. That doesn't mean he never does anything good or decent.

[evileeyore]

There is an alignement for people like that....

Its called Neutral.

[Jefepato]

Although I agree that Jayne is probably evil in D&D terms, you could at least form an argument to the contrary without being confused about alignments or just plain delusional. This is not the case for Belkar.

[Recursive]

Although I agree that Jayne is probably evil in D&D terms, you could at least form an argument to the contrary without being confused about alignments or just plain delusional.
Hey! You take that back right now! Jayne is exalted, and I'm confused, and I'm delusional!

[Alfryd]

Before we go any further, do we agree that being predominantly evil does not mean that the person will never perform a good act? Any more than being good mean the person will never perform an evil act?

Jayne's behavior is by-and-large evil. That doesn't mean he never does anything good or decent.
Jayne Cobb, the rap sheet, and extenuating circumstances:

Evil- Shot his former employer in the kneecaps. EC: employer was an ass.
Evil- Ejected his former partner to gain altitude during an escape. EC: none, really. He could have ditched the credits first.
Evil- Betrayed River and Simon to the Feds. EC: River was arguably a threat to him and the crew as a whole.
Evil- Intended to torture Agent Dobson in retibution for shooting Kayley. EC: very fond of Kayley.
Evil- Threatened Wash with physical violence when Mal and Zoe were MIA. EC: Niska was not noted for his patience and forbearance.
Good- used nonlethal force against snipers during Patience's ambush. EC: orders from Mal.
Good- Bought crew apples. Contributed cash to free Mal and Wash from Niska, risked his life to rescue Mal. EC: personal acquaintance, possible marginal self-interest.
Good- Risked his life to deliver message during Serenity. EC: none, really. He was free to opt out if so desired.

There's an underlying pattern here- the Good deeds are more recent, the Evil relative bygones. To me, over a significant time period, that argues for alignment shift.


Strictly speaking, Belkar has performed one or two marginally good acts. In Dungeon Crawling Fools he apparently shared his rations, and he did opt to rescue Elan.

While we're considering morally questionable antiheroes, what about Marv from Sin City?

[BisectedBrioche]

Don't forget Futurama either:

Fry: The Bender I liked turned out to be evil, and the Bender I hated was good. How can I live my life when I can't tell good from evil?

Bender: They're both fine choices, whatever floats your boat.

[Selv]

I don't much like Jayne. To properly express my opinion of him would fall foul of the profanity filters, not to mention the illusion of effortless sang-froid I try to maintain.

On the other hand, if you hit him with a Detect Evil... honestly, I don't know. It's been said before, but Jayne Cobb very definietely does not live in a world where there is a Team Evil and a Team Good and your position on that scale has measurable consequences. Frankly, that's the way I like it.

ANyway, I do think your viewpoint has merit. I would hazard a guess that the number of Good people is dwarfed by the number of people who think of themselves as Good, and I have to put my hand up as probably occupying the less desirable part of that Venn diagram.

I also have a big problem with the way many Paladins are played (well, who doesn't?). Good is a cause, not a tribe. Most of the time, killing an Evil creature is an Evil act.

Honestly, the more I think about alignment, the more I want to do away with it.

[evileeyore]

Honestly, the more I think about alignment, the more I want to do away with it.Join us... join us... (http://www.sjgames.com/)

No seriously, we've a really good "Non-Alignment" Plan.:smallsmile:

[Jefepato]

While we're considering morally questionable antiheroes, what about Marv from Sin City?

Marv was pretty awful, and his scenes from the movie left me with the impression that he was even worse before he met that woman.

I'm pretty sure Hartigan was the only adult with a good alignment in the entire city.

[factotum]

Marv was pretty awful, and his scenes from the movie left me with the impression that he was even worse before he met that woman.


However, Marv was actually insane--he had to take large quantities of pills just to stay in vague touch with reality--and I don't believe alignments apply to the mad, do they? And even with that caveat, everything he did was done for a good and pure reason (finding the killer), even if his methods were not exactly Paladin grade material...

[Nerd-o-rama]

Marv was pretty awful, and his scenes from the movie left me with the impression that he was even worse before he met that woman.

I'm pretty sure Hartigan was the only adult with a good alignment in the entire city.
That was sort of the point of Hartigan's character in that particular setting, yes. I'm not going to comment on Marv, as I'm aware that he's got a whole lot more characterization in the comics, and the story in the movie was just the last arc involving him.

As for the Hero of Canton...honestly, I hate it when people try to apply D&D alignments to literary characters, particularly ones created by a man whose work thrives on moral grey areas, antiheroes, and heel/face and face/heel turns. Jayne is Jayne. Mal is Mal, Zoe is Zoe, and Niska...okay, Niska's an evil sociopath.

[Poppatomus]

The real question here, and in all threads like this, is what is meant by evil. If we are using the D&D defintion then Jayne is neutral.

This is the D&D definition:

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

and here is neutral:

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. "

If that latter paragraph doesn't describe Jayne (I am watching serenity right now, by cooincedence) then i don't know what does.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans, even human criminals, aren't evil enough to be "evil" in the D&D world. It's the reason why paladins can't just detect evil all the criminals out of the city. most criminals, while they might be on the evil side of the meridian, are still neutral. Only the true sociopaths are meant to be "evil" in the D&D universe, and Jayne does not fall into that catagory. [note however, that belkar does not. he has no compunction against killing the innocent, and while he is committed to others by personal relationships, making sacrafices for them is alien. He makes sacrafices for himself, the greater belkar, not for others.]

[Jefepato]

However, Marv was actually insane--he had to take large quantities of pills just to stay in vague touch with reality--and I don't believe alignments apply to the mad, do they? And even with that caveat, everything he did was done for a good and pure reason (finding the killer), even if his methods were not exactly Paladin grade material...

Alignments do apply to the mad. How could they not? Lots of villains are at least a little crazy.

And "the ends justify the means" doesn't fly under D&D's alignment system...although most of the people Marv hurt/killed probably had it coming anyway, Sin City being what it is, so those means might not need much justification. I may need to read/watch it again.

[Talyn]

The real question here, and in all threads like this, is what is meant by evil. If we are using the D&D defintion then Jayne is neutral.

This is the D&D definition:

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

and here is neutral:

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. "

If that latter paragraph doesn't describe Jayne (I am watching serenity right now, by cooincedence) then i don't know what does.



Ah, but your problem here is that YOU are watching Serenity and the OP was referring to the TV show Firefly, where Jayne is SIGNIFICANTLY more self-interested. I'd say that Jayne started the series solidly in the Neutral Evil-but-he's-OUR-Neutral-Evil and ended the movie solidly in Neutral. People can change, after all.

Also - huzzah for a Firefly post! I'm a ridiculous fan of the show, even though I love the Alliance bad guys and am therefore more of a "purplebelly" than a browncoat.

[Poppatomus]

From what I know of him, madness aside, Marv might be the epitome of chaotic good. As far as I know he never hurts anyone that doesn't deserve it and never fails to come to the aid of someone that needs it. He's dulled by alcohol and drugs, but they call him a, "washed up, doo goooder, son of a b-" because that's what he is. He's willing to suffer, even lose his life, to get at those that prey on the weak. (admittedly, he enjoys killing, but in the D*D 'verse, that's permissable. The torture not as much, maybe, but that might just be the DM playing with the intimidate check. )

[Poppatomus]

Ah, but your problem here is that YOU are watching Serenity and the OP was referring to the TV show Firefly, where Jayne is SIGNIFICANTLY more self-interested. I'd say that Jayne started the series solidly in the Neutral Evil-but-he's-OUR-Neutral-Evil and ended the movie solidly in Neutral. People can change, after all.

Also - huzzah for a Firefly post! I'm a ridiculous fan of the show, even though I love the Alliance bad guys and am therefore more of a "purplebelly" than a browncoat.

Mostly just wanted to rectify the words, so i'll defer to your expertise on the conclusion, despite your questionable choice in sides.

[Yakk]

Jayne Cobb, the rap sheet, and extenuating circumstances:

Evil- Shot his former employer in the kneecaps. EC: employer was an ass.

That's chaotic, not evil. For the chaotic perspective, remove the contract part of the relationship."

"Shot someone in the kneecap because he was being threatened if he didn't do what the other person said, he no longer wanted to do what the other person said."


Evil- Ejected his former partner to gain altitude during an escape. EC: none, really. He could have ditched the credits first.

Evil.


Evil- Threatened Wash with physical violence when Mal and Zoe were MIA. EC: Niska was not noted for his patience and forbearance.

/shrug -- someone wants to commit suicide and take you with them. Seems like self-defense to me.


Good- used nonlethal force against snipers during Patience's ambush. EC: orders from Mal.

Heh. The nonlethal force, due to the orders, didn't make his life harder on the balance. So it was a neutral act.


Good- Bought crew apples. Contributed cash to free Mal and Wash from Niska, risked his life to rescue Mal. EC: personal acquaintance, possible marginal self-interest.

Ayep, a neutral act.


Good- Risked his life to deliver message during Serenity. EC: none, really. He was free to opt out if so desired.

A good act!


There's an underlying pattern here- the Good deeds are more recent, the Evil relative bygones. To me, over a significant time period, that argues for alignment shift.

I'd hold him as pretty Chaotic Neutral, with evil tendencies, over most of the series. Possibly he was Chaotic Evil at the start when Mal hired him, and evolved to Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies by the end.

[Alfryd]

As for the Hero of Canton...honestly, I hate it when people try to apply D&D alignments to literary characters...
Bwahahaha! Prepare to be smote!

CG: Starbuck, River
NG: Mal, Roslyn, Boomer
LG: Book, Simon, Adama, Apollo
CN: Jayne, Zarek
TN: Baltar, Wash, Caprica
LN: Inara, Tigh, Operative
CE: Saffron, Leoben
NE: Cavil, Badger, Ellen
LE: Niska, Early, Cain

Ah... We'll be here 'til doomsday! Glorious chaos.
Actually, I'm not sure about half of these.
Bwahahaha!

I'm not going to comment on Marv, as I'm aware that he's got a whole lot more characterization in the comics, and the story in the movie was just the last arc involving him.
A character such as Marv does tend to stretch the alignment system well past it's breaking point, alright.

He protects the innocent with his life, but the extremes he goes to to punish the wicked are so grotesque, and his motives for doing so often so dubious- is it out of a sense of justice, desire for vengeance, or solely because he enjoys it?- that I can't reliably place him on the G/E axis at all. It may be the case that he uses damage witnessed to the weak and helpless as a rationalisation to get off of on violence and butchery.
"It's beautiful, Goldie. It's just like I promised, only better- and when his eyes go dead the Hell I sent him to must seem like Heaven after what I've done to him."
"I dunno about you, but I'm havin' a ball..."
"I've been having so much fun I forgot to take my medicine. When you've got a condition, it's bad to forget your medicine."
He's genuinely wracked by guilt and self-loathing over what and who he is, but he does it anyway, and as far as we can tell by conscious consent during his lucid intervals.
"Then it hit me like a kick in the nuts. What if I've imagined all of this? What if I've finally turned into what they always said I'd turn into: A maniac. A psycho killer.
Can't kill a man without knowing for sure you ought to. I gotta be sure."
He even has one or two faint Lawful aspects- not hurting girls, and so forth.
I wonder how he'd react to Miho.
Anyways. Screw those wussy paladins. Next time the demonic overlord rears his ugly appendage, I want Marv on the case, making him crap his pants.

"Shot someone in the kneecap because he was being threatened if he didn't do what the other person said, he no longer wanted to do what the other person said."
When did the guy threaten him with violent force? As far as I can tell he was just irritated, and possibly frightened. Jayne might have known or guessed he'd resort to direct threats, but we've no proof of that.

Ayep, a neutral act.
I dunno. Up to a point. But even personal acquaintance of family ties only neate so much moral credit. I always considered Simon LG since he went to such extraordinary lengths on River's behalf that he has to be given some credit.

I'd hold him as pretty Chaotic Neutral, with evil tendencies, over most of the series. Possibly he was Chaotic Evil at the start when Mal hired him, and evolved to Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies by the end.
Something like that.

[Yakk]

When did the guy threaten him with violent force? As far as I can tell he was just irritated, and possibly frightened. Jayne might have known or guessed he'd resort to direct threats, but we've no proof of that.

Jayne isn't that stupid -- that guy has a gun, is sticking up someone Jayne thinks he should work for instead, and that guy has multiple other helpers.

It was pretty clear that he wouldn't give up without a fight if Jayne swapped sides. So Jayne delt with the realities of the situation -- that doesn't make him evil, that makes him chaotic. :)

[AKA_Bait]

There is an alignement for people like that....

Its called Neutral.

Actually, the behaviour for people who do evil most of the time, don't care that they are so long as there is personal gain to be had, but will on occasion do a good thing is Neutral Evil not just Neutral.

[AKA_Bait]

Jayne isn't that stupid -- that guy has a gun, is sticking up someone Jayne thinks he should work for instead, and that guy has multiple other helpers.

It was pretty clear that he wouldn't give up without a fight if Jayne swapped sides. So Jayne delt with the realities of the situation -- that doesn't make him evil, that makes him chaotic. :)

Um, why does that make him chaotic? For that matter, what does, exactly? Every single time he has broken faith with someone about something (the above example included) it is because there is some OBVIOUS benefit for him involved. As far as I can tell Jayne does very few actually chaotic things. He plans out his actions, albeit not very well as he isn't very smart, and but has no problem following orders the vast vast majority of the time so long as someone he considers to be above him in rank (Mal or Zoe) are the ones giving them. He's perfectly happy following legitimate authority. Legitimate authority is just defined by who is paying him most.

Regarding Evil, let's go back to that definition earlier:
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Does Jayne really have a problem with killing innocent people if doing so is convenient? I can't think of a single peice of evidence indicating that he does. Consider this thought experiment: Had Jayne known about the medicine in the Train Job would he have taken it anyway? I think the answer is a pretty clear yes from the rest of his behaviour. Evil.

Now, I like Jayne. He is one of the most interesting and complex characters on the show. He has loyalties. Once he establishes loyalty to someone, as he understands it, he doesn't seem to break it. Those loyalties tend to be generated by other people being nice to him and treating him with some respect (Jaynestown is an example of this) but in the end he's an evil character. Not cackling in the darkness evil but evil nonetheless.

[Ing]

Jayne was clearly NE or CE.

But it is also clear that the rest of the crew slowly rubbed off on him.

There are hints of this in Firefly with his surprisingly friendly relationship with Book, and his sense of genuine concern for most of the crew.

This is expanded on in Serenity where his decision to work for the greater good at risk self sacrifice, is admittedly influenced by the memory of the late Shepard Book.

"Book always said if you can't do something smart do something right"

This does seem to imply a somewhat shift to N from the begining of the story, since at very least he seems to respect Book enough that Book's sacrifice and morals effect him.

[Sinsie]

I'm pretty sure taking the lives of others when it's not very much needed at times is considered being evil, and getting paid to do doesn't help the situation. In fact, I think it would be more evil to profit off such a thing when innocent lives could be taken. You can still do good things and be an evil being, like one of my older D&D characters.

Whenever he walked into towns he'd donate extra gold to charity and help people who needed it if he saw a problem, but would torture his enemies and if he wanted access into a place that was off-limits, the guards were history (and the guards were most likely good and just doing their job). He was a mercenary of sorts that just did what needed to be done, so if those same people he helped just happened to be an obstacle in his way later on and they opposed his actions, there wasn't a second thought. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you're allowed to kill and destroy but not be labeled evil. Evil is evil, and how you do it is more often than not still considered evil.

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

However, Marv was actually insane--he had to take large quantities of pills just to stay in vague touch with reality--and I don't believe alignments apply to the mad, do they? And even with that caveat, everything he did was done for a good and pure reason (finding the killer), even if his methods were not exactly Paladin grade material...


Well, if you want to experiment with alignments and how madness interacts with them-> WFRP, preferably 1st edition 'cause it has alignments.
If you use the random tables a lawfull character might posibly gain a disorder inconsolable with his alignment (like pyromania or kleptomania) but still compulsed to act on it or become even more deranged (failed cool/willpower checks might result in the accumulation of more insanity to the point of additional disorders). Either, your character keeps to his alignment and gets even more insane, or he acts on his mental state and might shift alignment if he does not take the measures to cure his disorder.

The madness is a real cool aspect of roleplaying, especially if you can come up with own variations and disorders that suit the player characters. It's also quite a nice thing to reflect all the horrors and violence an adventurers party meets and how they deal with it mentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, one who acts solely on his mental disorders does so with little consideration of alignment (i.e. my, although neutral, Nymphomanic priest might stoop to rape and seduction to avoid deteriorating his mental state by abstainance), the one who seeks cure or restraint has his reservations and takes care that alignment (actually his personal moral values) is still his motivator and moral limiter, like the guy taking pills, is still influenced by alignment because they surpress their disorder(s) to the point they are minor inconveniences and a possible exploitable weakness.

[Charles Phipps]

I think D&D good and evil is judged by a very specific system that tends to maximize the idea of individuals seeking violent solutions to problems being an act that is morally neutral and can serve the cause of good/evil/neutrality effectively. Given no real world moral system tends to view bloodshed as a righteous act AS WELL as a unrighteous act or views "fence sitting" as a valid path to pursue, it's pretty much its own little reality.

Rather than attempt to make a justifiable system of my own, I tend to put "evil" as a simple issue of Mythological Terminology as opposed to try and seperate it from it. Evil are people that we don't empathize with or like.

Jayne gets to be Chaotic Neutral because he's an animal. Eat, Sleep, Sex, Kill, repeat. He might have been evil in the past but he's moved away from it because we can look on his past and go "well he's no longer that now."

Contrarily, the Operative is Lawful Evil because we don't like him. This despite the fact that he's a man attempting to apprehend fugitives from the law. This would be the case even if he didn't display he's an evil bastard by blowing away entire innocent colonies.

However, in other circumstances, the noble Operative might be hunting mad dog crimminals down and they'd be Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.

[Alfryd]

Actually, the behaviour for people who do evil most of the time, don't care that they are so long as there is personal gain to be had, but will on occasion do a good thing is Neutral Evil not just Neutral.
Jayne doesn't do evil most of the time. He's rude and callous, insensitive and boorish, but that's not the same thing.
He's done at least 1 or 2 definitively evil things, at least 1 definitively good thing, a bunch of quasi-evil/quasi-good things, but he's neutral most of the time.

As far as I can tell Jayne does very few actually chaotic things.
He does tend to lie and cheat even in situations where it's not strictly neccesary (profitable, yes, neccesary, no,) and occasonally allows impulse to get the better of him. He also takes a general 'end justifies means' approach, (insofar as matters of justification bother him at all.) He has no discernible ethical restrictions and doesn't plan ahead much, if at all. So I peg him as marginally CN (Eventually, at least.)

He plans out his actions...
Once or twice. It's not a reliable pattern.

He's perfectly happy following legitimate authority... defined by who is paying him most.
That's self-interest, not ethics/lawful conduct.

I would suggest reading the preceeding thread. It's not that long.


Evil- Shot his former employer in the kneecaps. EC: employer was an ass.
Evil- Ejected his former partner to gain altitude during an escape. EC: none, really. He could have ditched the credits first.
Evil- Betrayed River and Simon to the Feds. EC: River was arguably a threat to him and the crew as a whole.
Evil- Intended to torture Agent Dobson in retibution for shooting Kayley. EC: very fond of Kayley.
Evil- Threatened Wash with physical violence when Mal and Zoe were MIA. EC: Niska was not noted for his patience and forbearance.
Good- used nonlethal force against snipers during Patience's ambush. EC: orders from Mal.
Good- Bought crew apples. Contributed cash to free Mal and Wash from Niska, risked his life to rescue Mal. EC: personal acquaintance, possible marginal self-interest.
Good- Risked his life to deliver message during Serenity. EC: none, really. He was free to opt out if so desired.


Jayne gets to be Chaotic Neutral because he's an animal. Eat, Sleep, Sex, Kill, repeat.
"Sex, humour, muscle, thuggery: Jayne."
Adam Baldwin's exact words.
Still, there's that comment of his in Serenity:
"How's a guy get to be so wrong? Rapin' and murderin'- eating people alive? When does that get fun?"
It kind of implies that Jayne doesn't consider his acts to be murder... for whatever that's worth.

Contrarily, the Operative is Lawful Evil because we don't like him. This despite the fact that he's a man attempting to apprehend fugitives from the law.
He's a man that butchers children for no reason other than to eliminate potential witnesses to his actions, something you cannot remotely justify merely to apprehend fugitives. He's been called in because River threatens to disclose state secrets, and he has no interest in even knowing what those secrets are and thus no way to tell if his actions are justified, save through blind faith in the benevolence of his masters' intent.
I incline to peg him as LN because of his final redeeming actions in Serenity, which clears up his system of moral values for us, (maybe by alignment shift,) but you could plausibly argue for LE based on what you see beforehand.

[Wyborn]

The OotS/Firefly comparison thread got me thinking on this topic.

Some people argue that Jayne is Chaotic Neutral or some other non-Evil alignment because they like him, and they don't want to be caught liking an evil character. Never mind that he's a professional criminal, thug, and killer who does it for nothing but money. Indeed, he has openly said that he would turn on Mal if the money were right, and he has already betrayed Mal at least once by turning in Simon and River to the Feds (not that it did him any good). Yes, he has limits. The reverence the Mudders of Jaynestown feel for him actually affects him, and he is willing to risk his life for some of the other crewmembers (especially if he thinks his own chances of survival improve by keeping them alive). All the same, he is driven almost exclusively by ruthless self-interest, and he'll hurt or kill people who stand in his way if he thinks he can get away with it. You may like Jayne, but he's evil.

I think the same mentality underlies those people who continue to deny that Belkar is evil, despite the mountains of evidence of his evilness. Heck, it says right on his Order of the Stick: The Adventure Game character card that he's evil.

This was a theme in Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion series, too. It took Paks a long time to learn that just because she liked someone, it didn't mean they were good.

This is going to sound silly of me to ask, but why would you try to apply the D&D system of morality to a character coming from a universe where moral ambiguity is the norm? Good and evil aren't subjective in Whedon's world, the comparison is pointless.

[Alfryd]

This is going to sound silly of me to ask, but why would you try to apply the D&D system of morality to a character coming from a universe where moral ambiguity is the norm?
Some people juggle geese.

Good and evil aren't subjective in Whedon's world, the comparison is pointless.
I believe you mean 'objective'. And actually, Good and Evil can be treated as objective concepts, they're just not fundamental. Gravity is fundamental to the universe. Polo games are not. You can still objectively verify the presence of Polo games, if you're so inclined.

[Runolfr]

Some people juggle geese.

:biggrin:

That really did make me chuckle.

[Meshakhad]

Jayne is odd - he's certainly amoral, but at the same time, he's a little predictable to be chaotic. And I also think that Jayne is actually loyal to Mal - in the first episode, he refuses to betray Mal even for a large sum of money (I think the whole dialogue about an 'interesting day' was a ploy to ensure that Mal keeps paying Jayne even when Jayne would stay with him regardless).

Jayne is probably neutral evil, but not totally selfish. He certainly believes that he needs Mal and the rest of the crew (minus Simon and River) for his own well-being. And I imagine that after Serenity, he'd consider them allies as well.

[Jops]

i think Jayne's a character too complex to have a such a set alignment.
Not to mention that there was going to be some character's development there... if only the series wasn't cut (*shakes fist at fox*)

Anyway, consider the event of "Ariel":
He sells out Simon and River. But that was also 'cause River slashed him with a knife, so he wanted to get rid of them as he felt the girl was dangerous for the crew (and even to take some sort of personal revenge on them), so not just for the sake of the money. Then, when he finally learns what they did to River at the Academy (the scene with Simon explaining that they cut into her brain several times) he changes his mind and decides to rush them out of the hospital before the feds would come. Then, yeah, he's quite an opportunist and when they get caught he still tries to negotiate the money with the fed.

While I'd have no doubts in considering him Chaotic, the moral compass is not always pointing in the same direction.

[Alfryd]

...he changes his mind and decides to rush them out of the hospital before the feds would come.
I'd like to think that's the case, but as far as I can tell, that was simply where he'd arranged to meet up with the Feds in the first place. Mal's plan was to meet up front- the fact they didn't was what tipped him off to Jayne's rambunctious antics in the first place.

That really did make me chuckle.
We aim to please.

[Krytha]

Im going to say Jayne is NE who is attached (er... maybe in the most literal of senses) to a bunch of decent people. NG people, LG people, maybe one or two CGs. Most recently, he started doing things for other people FOR other people, but prior to that, it was all Jayne, all the time. The reason he functioned with the rest of the crew was because they were all outlaws. That's where the neutral bit comes in. He can work with these people because they all have the common goal of living and having money. But on a more personal level, it's clear Jayne has no problem with killing people who have stuff that he wants or that get in his way (innocent or not). Mal yes, Zoe yes, everyone else yes, but Jayne will pull that trigger and ask questions later (if any) without remorse.

I wonder if I can make a case for my friend's alignment being LE... hmmm...

[Hushdawg]

Already accounted for. Being evil doesn't mean having no feelings.

Exactly, everyone knows that Vulcans are true neutral. :smallbiggrin:

[Oberon]

Exactly, everyone knows that Vulcans are true neutral. :smallbiggrin:

I'd say Vulcans are NG. Sure, they're cold and logical, but they are selfless and seem to be concerned with the greater good. Spock sacrificed himself for the crew in "Wrath of Kahn," with no knowlage that he'd eventually come back in the next movie, his rationalization being "the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one."

If that's not goodly, what is?

[kpenguin]

I'd actually say that they're LG (LN tendencies). They follow the teachings of Surak pretty closely.

[Jops]

I'd like to think that's the case, but as far as I can tell, that was simply where he'd arranged to meet up with the Feds in the first place.
I don't think so. Why the rush then? And why telling Simon only at that point that the plan changed? The Neuroimager Lab would have been a good enough place for the feds to get them, probably even better: only one door out, so less chances to escape and less chances to find a bystander there.
I know it's not particularly obvious but, look at the episode again and keep an eye on Jayne's face when he hears what Simon says about River's brain: he got the "Oh crap! What have i done?" expression.

[the mysterian]

who the hell thinks belkar isnt evil? you have to be thick to think that.


edit: ahem whoops

[Alfryd]

I don't think so. Why the rush then? And why telling Simon only at that point that the plan changed? The Neuroimager Lab would have been a good enough place for the feds to get them, probably even better: only one door out, so less chances to escape and less chances to find a bystander there.
I know it's not particularly obvious but, look at the episode again and keep an eye on Jayne's face when he hears what Simon says about River's brain: he got the "Oh crap! What have i done?" expression.
You make a surprisingly cogent argument, but if Jayne's object was to get Simon and River out, why not just meet out front, as was Mal's original plan?

I'd actually say that they're LG (LN tendencies). They follow the teachings of Surak pretty closely.
Vulcans are exceptionally Lawful, simply by virtue of the fact that their every action is, in theory, predetermined by logical analysis. Random or incosistent behaviour is simply anathema to them, and they aspire to not having a chaotic bone in their bodies. Passion, caprice and instinct are what they strive to suppress and master.

[Jops]

You make a surprisingly cogent argument, but if Jayne's object was to get Simon and River out, why not just meet out front, as was Mal's original plan?
They were heading there, but the feds showed up on the way. Simon is also familiar with hospitals and is not stupid, so if Jayne was taking him some place else other than the way out he could have figured it out.

[Alfryd]

They were heading there, but the feds showed up on the way.
I don't recall that happening. As far as I remember, Jayne didn't meet any feds or note their arrival until he ran into them outside the back entrance. Did I miss something?


As for why certain people don't think Belkar is evil- for roughly the same reason certain people think Miko is. Belkar's a protagonist. so we're supposed to sympathise, and it's difficult to believe he can both be that malevolent AND that obvious about it. Heck, I looked for a shred of redeeming merit in his character for longer than I'd care to admit.
Miko's an antagonist, and while much more psychologically nuanced has been specifically tailored to be as unlikeable as it is humanly possible to be while remaining Lawful Good. She has to be, in order to alienate the Order, after one of them swoons for her just long enough for her to warm to the company and thus, have a real solid foundation for her slow-burning septic grudge.
(What I don't, in retrospect, understand is why Rich expected the fora to react to Miko's presence much more positively than the Order. Eh.)