Was Samurai Jack Lawful Good or Chaotic Good?

[BlueWitch]

I guess we could cheat and say he was Neutral Good, but if you had to pic one extreme, which would it be?

On one hand we know Jack was Honorable and played by the rules when he could. Bushido and all that.
But on the other, if Aku was Law and Jack went against that, doesn't that make him Chaotic?

Thoughts?

[Morty]

It really doesn't count as law if it can be summed up as "do as I say or I'll destroy you and everything you love". Jack is as straightforward a Lawful Good protagonist as they make 'em.

[Kelb_Panthera]

He was NG and a -terrible- samurai. Fun character, decent fighter, absolute failure at being an exemplar of bushido.

He held law as something of value but was willing to set it aside without hesitation to do what he thought was right. He never even accurately described bushido much less clung to it with the force of a properly lawful character. If he's not NG it's beccause he's CG. He had too much of a sense of duty for me to really call him chaotic though so I'm gonna stick with NG.

And TBF to the writers, had he actually clung tightly to bushido, him being a good character could well have been called into question. The ideology has strong elements of being forthright and forceful and doesn't place a whole lot of value on the sanctity of life, as I understand it, particularly the samurai's life.

Hilariously, Guts from Berserk would actually have made a really solid example of what it is to be an exemplary samurai if he weren't a western fantasy character. Discalimer: if you're at all squeamish, don't look into that. It ain't pretty.

[ngilop]

He was NG and a -terrible- samurai. Fun character, decent fighter, absolute failure at being an exemplar of bushido.

He held law as something of value but was willing to set it aside without hesitation to do what he thought was right. He never even accurately described bushido much less clung to it with the force of a properly lawful character. If he's not NG it's beccause he's CG. He had too much of a sense of duty for me to really call him chaotic though so I'm gonna stick with NG.

And TBF to the writers, had he actually clung tightly to bushido, him being a good character could well have been called into question. The ideology has strong elements of being forthright and forceful and doesn't place a whole lot of value on the sanctity of life, as I understand it, particularly the samurai's life.

Hilariously, Guts from Berserk would actually have made a really solid example of what it is to be an exemplary samurai if he weren't a western fantasy character. Discalimer: if you're at all squeamish, don't look into that. It ain't pretty.


I think you give a very very good argument on why Samurai Jack is Lawful Good.

Because contrary to what you think ( and TONS of people who fall into the bad paladin trope)
lawful good isn't lawful and only lawful. it lawful good (the latter bolded for emphasis) Lawful good does their best to stay true to the law and such, but will drop law if it ends up NOT being good. I have never understood why so many people look at the lawful good alignment and go 'that's not lawful fall from grace for da paladin!' Sorry if I ranted there.. just have a issue with people who full on ignore important parts of alignment and therefore ruin it for others.

If all he dd was care abou law and no way regarded any morality to his actions that is what Lawful Neutral is. When you let law slide for personal gain and other's suffering that is lawful Evil just because lawful is in an alignment doesn't mean that they blindingly follow all law and all beings of law. To actually suggest that is so beyond ludicrous that I can't even as they say these days.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think you give a very very good argument on why Samurai Jack is Lawful Good.

Because contrary to what you think ( and TONS of people who fall into the bad paladin trope)
lawful good isn't lawful and only lawful. it lawful good (the latter bolded for emphasis) Lawful good does their best to stay true to the law and such, but will drop law if it ends up NOT being good. I have never understood why so many people look at the lawful good alignment and go 'that's not lawful fall from grace for da paladin!' Sorry if I ranted there.. just have a issue with people who full on ignore important parts of alignment and therefore ruin it for others.

If all he dd was care abou law and no way regarded any morality to his actions that is what Lawful Neutral is. When you let law slide for personal gain and other's suffering that is lawful Evil just because lawful is in an alignment doesn't mean that they blindingly follow all law and all beings of law. To actually suggest that is so beyond ludicrous that I can't even as they say these days.

You misunderstand.

That he has respect for the law is the -only- lawful behavior he regularly displayed. He doesn't hold to an external code. He doesn't put himself into any organization much less put one ahead of himself. There's just nothing there other than a loose idea that codified law is a good an necessary thing. Bushido was -right there- as a thing even if the writers would've had to be selective about which portions of it they put forward but they didn't even try to go there, that I can recall.

There's not much that pushes him toward chaos either except, again, his willingness to put his own judgement above the law in order to seek his goals. He never puts forward any particular commitment toward individualism. He never decries rules for rules' sake. There's just nothing there either.

Jack just isn't strongly aligned on the ethical axis. Since he doesn't swing clearly one way or the other, what else can you call him but neutral?

About the best argument you -could- make for him being lawful is that he's the first son of a feudal lord and that his relationship with his father wasn't particularly strained nor was his father's relationship to the emperor or shogun. Or at least no such issues were -ever- mentioned in the show, again that I can recall after all these years. That would suggest that they are at least some degree of lawful that was never really supported or refuted by the show.

[Lord Raziere]

This question actually have more issues here than you think.

first, Jack started out in a time period where the definitions of lawful and chaotic don't match our own in a culture that has a different view of what that means than our own.

and second Jack was then sent forward in time to an entirely different context and world where the social structures are completely different than the one he was used to.

he can't exactly reasonably "obey his lord" when he is so far in the future none of the laws or customs that he holds valuable even exist. it would be one thing if he could be judged in the context of his own time period and values. but when time travel gets involved, well you can't reasonably hold someone to a morality and code that is based in one time period when they are in another time period that does not allow you to follow the values in a sane manner. thats like expecting you guys to hold to our modern civilization laws if you were all teleported back to the stone age, thats simply not going work out.

so its two different contexts interacting with one another, neither of which are our own. so there is three different contexts at play here: Jack context, our context and the future's context, so by which of these three contexts do we judge Jack by?

[Kelb_Panthera]

This question actually have more issues here than you think.

first, Jack started out in a time period where the definitions of lawful and chaotic don't match our own in a culture that has a different view of what that means than our own.

and second Jack was then sent forward in time to an entirely different context and world where the social structures are completely different than the one he was used to.

he can't exactly reasonably "obey his lord" when he is so far in the future none of the laws or customs that he holds valuable even exist. it would be one thing if he could be judged in the context of his own time period and values. but when time travel gets involved, well you can't reasonably hold someone to a morality and code that is based in one time period when they are in another time period that does not allow you to follow the values in a sane manner. thats like expecting you guys to hold to our modern civilization laws if you were all teleported back to the stone age, thats simply not going work out.

so its two different contexts interacting with one another, neither of which are our own. so there is three different contexts at play here: Jack context, our context and the future's context, so by which of these three contexts do we judge Jack by?

Literally none of that matters. 3e has an objective alignment system. Chaos and Law are fundamental cosmic forces that attach themselves to certain behavioral patterns. Law, more properly Order, associates itself with collectivism and an external locus of morality and ethics, among other things, while chaos is more associated with individualism and an internal locus of ethics and morality.

Look at the exemplars of each alignment: modrons (official stats in the MotP web enhancement) and slaadi.

The incredibly regimented, orderly society and utter lack of any individuality in 99.99999% of modrons is the pure essence of Law in the form of a creature.

Slaadi barely organize into a society at all and that society has virtually no rules beyond might makes right. You do what you want and to hell with what anyone else thinks. This is the essence of chaotic behavior.

Note that -neither- has any concern one way or the other for doing right or wrong by others. That's a good/evil concern.

[Eladrinblade]

Lawful good, no question.

[grarrrg]

Law, more properly Order

This. SO MUCH this.
"Lawful" is hideously misnamed.

From episode to episode (and season to season to an extent) his alignment may drift a bit, but I'd say he generally errs towards Neutral+Good, and rarely (if ever) touches Evil.
And he's definitely some form of Good, as THE SWORD is a holy/mystical/magical artifact of some kind.

[Lord Raziere]

Literally none of that matters. 3e has an objective alignment system. Chaos and Law are fundamental cosmic forces that attach themselves to certain behavioral patterns. Law, more properly Order, associates itself with collectivism and an external locus of morality and ethics, among other things, while chaos is more associated with individualism and an internal locus of ethics and morality.

Look at the exemplars of each alignment: modrons (official stats in the MotP web enhancement) and slaadi.

The incredibly regimented, orderly society and utter lack of any individuality in 99.99999% of modrons is the pure essence of Law in the form of a creature.

Slaadi barely organize into a society at all and that society has virtually no rules beyond might makes right. You do what you want and to hell with what anyone else thinks. This is the essence of chaotic behavior.

Note that -neither- has any concern one way or the other for doing right or wrong by others. That's a good/evil concern.

So your talking about a fourth context. for morality/ethics whatever the heck you want to call it.

a context, that does not exist in the context of Samurai Jack. its like applying the ethics of aliens in another galaxy to the ethics of a caveman who unfroze and found himself in the roman empire, your still talking about so many different points of view wildly diverging from another, it doesn't matter if one of those viewpoints is objectively correct, because the objective viewpoint must then take into account the lack of objectivity of the other two in their judgment.

[Psychoalpha]

Everything Kelb_Panthera has said is the most complete and correct, and everyone else should lower their heads in shame under the weight of how wrong they are.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So your talking about a fourth context. for morality/ethics whatever the heck you want to call it.

a context, that does not exist in the context of Samurai Jack. its like applying the ethics of aliens in another galaxy to the ethics of a caveman who unfroze and found himself in the roman empire, your still talking about so many different points of view wildly diverging from another, it doesn't matter if one of those viewpoints is objectively correct, because the objective viewpoint must then take into account the lack of objectivity of the other two in their judgment.

This is the 3e subforum. If the question was not intended to be in the context of the alignment system defined by the rule texts of this edition of this game, then it should've been asked in the media subforum of the general discussion forum.

You want to discuss moral philosophy, this is the wrong place. There are guidelines that give a correct answer here and I have applied them to the best of my ability.


Everything Kelb_Panthera has said is the most complete and correct, and everyone else should lower their heads in shame under the weight of how wrong they are.

Not sure if this is genuine praise or a sarcastic jab but either way it's a bit over the top. If someone wants to argue that I've misinterpreted how alignment is handled in the game and am thus wrong about Jack's, I'm certainly willing to have that discussion.

[Psychoalpha]

Not sure if this is genuine praise or a sarcastic jab but either way it's a bit over the top. If someone wants to argue that I've misinterpreted how alignment is handled in the game and am thus wrong about Jack's, I'm certainly willing to have that discussion.

Genuine praise, though 'sarcastic jab' is close enough to my default setting that I can understand why it might have seemed that way. 'Over the top' is just added value. <3