Are There Any Chaotic Evil Disney Villains In The Disney Universe?

[Bartmanhomer]

I know most of the Disney Villains are Lawful Evil And Neutral Evil (most lean toward Lawful Evil) but I just want to know is there any Chaotic Evil Disney Villains exist in the Disney Universe? :confused:

[Dire_Flumph]

Off the top of my head, I'd argue:

Mother Gothel
Madam Mim
Pete
Shere Khan
The Beagle Boys
Oogie Boogie

[Bartmanhomer]

Off the top of my head, I'd argue:

Mother Gothel
Madam Mim
Pete
Shere Khan
The Beagle Boys
Oogie Boogie

Cool! So there's a few Chaotic Evil Disney Villains in their universe. Thank you :smile:

[CharonsHelper]

I'd argue that Captain Hook would be pretty much the epitome of Chaotic Evil. He has a crew - but they're loyal to him as an individual force rather than loyal to the crew generally, and he certainly isn't loyal to them since he killed one of them for his annoying singing.

Sure - he got Tink to sign a contract - but it was a total lie.


Gaston, Cruella De Vil, Madam Medusa, and the Queen of Hearts are all CE as well in my estimation.

[Peelee]

I'd argue that Captain Hook would be pretty much the epitome of Chaotic Evil. He has a crew - but they're loyal to him as an individual force rather than loyal to the crew generally, and he certainly isn't loyal to them since he killed one of them for his annoying singing.

Sure - he got Tink to sign a contract - but it was a total lie.


Gaston, Cruella De Vil, Madam Medusa, and the Queen of Hearts are all CE as well in my estimation.

I was gonna say Gaston.

Also, Donald Duck. And Daffy Duck. Possibly Scrooge McDuck. All the ducks, really.

[Bartmanhomer]

I was gonna say, Gaston.

Also, Donald Duck. And Daffy Duck. Possibly Scrooge McDuck. All the ducks.

Daffy Duck is a Warner Bros. character. Donald Duck might be considered Chaotic Neutral. And as for Scrooge McDuck, he might be considered Lawful Neutral.

[Peelee]

Daffy Duck is a Warner Bros. character.
Eh, give it a couple of years.

Donald Duck might be considered Chaotic Neutral.
Nope. Chaotic Evil.

And as for Scrooge McDuck, he might be considered Lawful Neutral.
Nope. Chaotic Evil.

[Bartmanhomer]

Eh, give it a couple of years.

Nope. Chaotic Evil.

Nope. Chaotic Evil.

Ok, how is Donald and Scrooge Chaotic Evil? Explain yourself, please?

[CharonsHelper]

Daffy Duck is a Warner Bros. character. Donald Duck might be considered Chaotic Neutral. And as for Scrooge McDuck, he might be considered Lawful Neutral.

Donald and Scrooge have each had several incarnations, so it's like trying to figure out what alignment Batman is. It depends which incanation.

But yeah, I wouldn't see either as evil, or at least not capital E EVIL. Sure, Scrooge is a greedy bastard, but he also adopted his three nephews and is generally pretty good to them. Or maybe Donald adopted them sometimes? It's never been 100% clear to me.

And have either really played the villain in a Disney movie? (Not that I'm an expert on all of the Mickey Mouse style movies/shows.)

[Peelee]

Ok, how is Donald and Scrooge Chaotic Evil? Explain yourself, please?

http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/donald.jpg

http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/wdcomsto1057nz.jpg

[Dire_Flumph]

Daffy Duck is a Warner Bros. character.

Daffy Duck has a notable role in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which despite its complicated production chart is a Disney movie. I'd opine he counts. Or I'm just feeling Contrary Evil ;)

[Bartmanhomer]

Daffy Duck has a notable role in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which despite its complicated production chart is a Disney movie. I'd opine he counts. Or I'm just feeling Contrary Evil ;)

That's true. I do remember Daffy Duck in that one particular movie which is considered to be a Disney movie.

[Tvtyrant]

Gaston's not even evil, he's just in the wrong story.

[Rodin]

Gaston's not even evil, he's just in the wrong story.

I disagree. Gaston makes it very clear why he goes after the Beast. It's not because the Beast is a threat to the village.

Gaston organizes the mob in a jealous rage after Belle has rejected him. He uses the Beast's monstrous appearance as a pretext to dispose of a romantic rival.

When Gaston meets the Beast, the Beast is entirely passive. Gaston is entirely comfortable with murdering an innocent creature in cold blood, first shooting him in the back before pummeling him with no response. He even taunts the Beast's pacifism! When the Beast does fight back, saving the village is never mentioned. It's all jealous ranting about Belle's choice of suitor, and he declares Belle will be his once the Beast is dead.

Oh, and as a kicker he stabs the Beast in the back after the Beast spares his life.

Gaston isn't as bad as many villains. He was likely limited to "town braggart and bully" status before the events of the movie. But he does a cannonball into the deep end of the alignment pool by the end of the movie.

[hamishspence]

Gaston organizes the mob in a jealous rage after Belle has rejected him. He uses the Beast's monstrous appearance as a pretext to dispose of a romantic rival.

When Gaston meets the Beast, the Beast is entirely passive. Gaston is entirely comfortable with murdering an innocent creature in cold blood, first shooting him in the back before pummeling him with no response. He even taunts the Beast's pacifism! When the Beast does fight back, saving the village is never mentioned. It's all jealous ranting about Belle's choice of suitor, and he declares Belle will be his once the Beast is dead.

Oh, and as a kicker he stabs the Beast in the back after the Beast spares his life.

And before he does any of that, he's arranging for the harmless Maurice to be thrown into an asylum. Think of how horrible asylums were a couple of centuries ago. And the asylum keeper, also kind of evil, says Maurice is harmless, before saying:


So, you want me to throw her father into the asylum unless she agrees to marry you? Oh, that is despicable. [Evil laugh] I LOVE IT!



he does a cannonball into the deep end of the alignment pool by the end of the movie.

He was always evil from the very start of the story - it's just that by the end of the story, he's been given a chance to show it fully.

[Rodin]

And before he does any of that, he's arranging for the harmless Maurice to be thrown into an asylum. Think of how horrible asylums were a couple of centuries ago. And the asylum keeper, also kind of evil, says Maurice is harmless, before saying:


So, you want me to throw her father into the asylum unless she agrees to marry you? Oh, that is despicable. [Evil laugh] I LOVE IT!

Came back to the thread because I remembered this.


He was always evil from the very start of the story - it's just that by the end of the story, he's been given a chance to show it fully.

Fair enough.

[Sholos]

It's a crime that Maleficent hasn't been mentioned yet.

[hamishspence]

Being Chaotic generally tends to come with a certain enjoyment of chaos and disdain for order. Possibly a whimsical, unpredictable streak might come with it as well. Does Maleficent exhibit much in the way of these traits? If not, NE may fit better.

[Willie the Duck]

Also, Donald Duck. And Daffy Duck. Possibly Scrooge McDuck. All the ducks, really.

Hey! I resemble that remark! :smalltongue:

[Bartmanhomer]

Being Chaotic generally tends to come with a certain enjoyment of chaos and disdain for the order. Possibly a whimsical, unpredictable streak might come with it as well. Does Maleficent exhibit much in the way of these traits? If not, NE may fit better.

I always see Maleficent as Lawful Evil.

[Kitten Champion]

I accept Gaston is Evil, I don't accept he's Chaotic. He's clearly interested in rising in social standings and is abusing this privileged place he has in the world to coerce others into submitting to his will, he's Evil in the way those involved in organized crime or corrupt nobles are. The closest to him in Disney canon would be Claude Frollo, except Gaston's a Chad... or people around him think he is at any rate.

As opposed to, say, Cruella de Vil. She's equally a vain and unscrupulous person of wealth and privilege, but her goals don't really further an intelligible agenda in any way and only serve to ostracize her from her society. She's a mentally unhinged sociopath with a weird desire to skin puppies to make a coat, there's no clever endgame to which a puppy coat is a stepping stone.

[Tvtyrant]

And before he does any of that, he's arranging for the harmless Maurice to be thrown into an asylum. Think of how horrible asylums were a couple of centuries ago. And the asylum keeper, also kind of evil, says Maurice is harmless, before saying:


So, you want me to throw her father into the asylum unless she agrees to marry you? Oh, that is despicable. [Evil laugh] I LOVE IT!




He was always evil from the very start of the story - it's just that by the end of the story, he's been given a chance to show it fully.

I forgot about throwing the Dad in jail part and using it as leverage.

I don' t think "kills evil werewolf in possessed house who is probably bewitching someone" is particularly evil, especially since the Prince is a literal kidnapping monster and he is the town hero.

[CharonsHelper]

I accept Gaston is Evil, I don't accept he's Chaotic. He's clearly interested in rising in social standings and is abusing this privileged place he has in the world to coerce others into submitting to his will, he's Evil in the way those involved in organized crime or corrupt nobles are. The closest to him in Disney canon would be Claude Frollo, except Gaston's a Chad... or people around him think he is at any rate.

As opposed to, say, Cruella de Vil. She's equally a vain and unscrupulous person of wealth and privilege, but her goals don't really further an intelligible agenda in any way and only serve to ostracize her from her society. She's a mentally unhinged sociopath with a weird desire to skin puppies to make a coat, there's no clever endgame to which a puppy coat is a stepping stone.

I disagree, as I don't think that chaotic needs to be crazy. Usually crazy is chaotic, but that doesn't mean that all chaotic is crazy.

Gaston doesn't have any rules of note. He lies and cheats to get Maurice locked up, and he convinces the town to attack the castle through force of will and basically a picture of The Beast; not through any logic or appealing to the town mayor etc.

[hamishspence]

I don' t think "kills evil werewolf in possessed house who is probably bewitching someone" is particularly evil, especially since the Prince is a literal kidnapping monster and he is the town hero.

It was more restraint of trespassers, than kidnapping.

You can argue that he started out with good reason to believe the Beast was evil, but by the middle of the fight it was clear that his attack on the Beast had nothing to do with protection of the village or Belle, and everything to do with jealousy.

[Dienekes]

I accept Gaston is Evil, I don't accept he's Chaotic. He's clearly interested in rising in social standings and is abusing this privileged place he has in the world to coerce others into submitting to his will, he's Evil in the way those involved in organized crime or corrupt nobles are. The closest to him in Disney canon would be Claude Frollo, except Gaston's a Chad... or people around him think he is at any rate.

As opposed to, say, Cruella de Vil. She's equally a vain and unscrupulous person of wealth and privilege, but her goals don't really further an intelligible agenda in any way and only serve to ostracize her from her society. She's a mentally unhinged sociopath with a weird desire to skin puppies to make a coat, there's no clever endgame to which a puppy coat is a stepping stone.

As always I'd ask which edition's definitions of the alignments are we using? Because they change.

But just using a vague conglomerate of ideas that sort of make up the alignment chart, I'd place Gaston as NE. While yes, he certainly does love his social standing, he shows no interest in laws, governance, or rules. Not because he believes in them or as a means of controlling others, he instead relies on pure charisma for that.

But he is also willing to live with society and follow their laws when they don't interfere with him. He has no moral or spoken stance against them. They're just something in life he occasionally deals with.

Contrast with say Maleficient who purposely lives outside of societies laws, living either alone or with people who will follow her out of fear. Acts with complete malice toward a minor breach of etiquette and uses it as a means of taking down the lawful society completely. She's pretty much the non-stupid, non-random pinnacle of a CE villain.

Or Frollo who is obsessed with following society and warping the laws to his own means and perversions. I don't think I need to explain him for a LE of the group.

[Xyril]

Ok, how is Donald and Scrooge Chaotic Evil? Explain yourself, please?

Did I just walk into Bizarro world?



As always I'd ask which edition's definitions of the alignments are we using? Because they change.

The common thread I see across most editions is that lawfuls generally have some greater purpose beyond themselves (even if that greater purpose is to create or reinforce an ordered world that puts themselves at the top, or oppresses their enemies.) Chaotics are more capricious--beyond slavish devotion to their own whims (or those of someone close to them), they're not trying to have any sort of lasting impact on the world. Like Gaston, they might try to impose some sort of hierarchy, or exploit one that already exist, but that's generally only a means to an immediate end (i.e., harming some specific people, right now.)

I wouldn't call it part of the criteria of "lawful" per se, but there's definitely a trend that lawful characters of all stripes tend to have a capacity for foresight and long-term thinking that Gaston lacks. Darth Vader, despite propensity for impulsive underlying murder that probably probably undermined his goals, was still pretty solidly Lawful Evil to me because he genuinely backed the idea of a Sith Empire as a goal in and of itself. This was arguably positive character growth from his Jedi days, where "Good" was essentially defined as "whatever the hell Anakin feels like doing today" and rationalized after the fact. He followed it very imperfectly, but Darth Vader at least acknowledged that there was some standard of conduct for a good Sith that was arguably more valid than his own impulses.

That's why Gaston falls solidly into EC for me--he really has no deeper motivations beyond satisfying his own id. Even within the movie he's pretty inconsistent--his first song is pretty much about how traditional notions of masculinity define social status, and beyond fawning deference to higher social status doesn't really saw much about rules of courtesy or morality. However, the Beast is in many ways even more hypermasculine by Gaston's own standards--he certainly fights like Gaston, if not better, and could probably polish off six or seven dozen eggs if he really wanted to. Then all of a sudden Gaston suddenly cares about the people and tries to style himself as their protector.

[Bartmanhomer]

Did I just walk into Bizarro world?

No, you did not. :annoyed:

[No brains]

I guess we're not into those alternate interpretations of Beauty and the Beast where the banishment of the beast is meant to be the fall of the nobility and Belle is willing to sacrifice the independence of the common folk to satisfy the superiority she feels toward them? :smalltongue:

You could also argue that Elsa is Chaotic Evil. She wants the screw the rules and plunge her land into eternal winter just to express herself. That she didn't kill anyone doesn't mean she's not evil, she's just also a failure.

I apologise if I'm making talkings of the wibbly-wobbly of alignment even worse.:smallbiggrin:

[Xyril]

No, you did not. :annoyed:

{{scrubbed}}

[Dienekes]

The common thread I see across most editions is that lawfuls generally have some greater purpose beyond themselves (even if that greater purpose is to create or reinforce an ordered world that puts themselves at the top, or oppresses their enemies.) Chaotics are more capricious--beyond slavish devotion to their own whims (or those of someone close to them), they're not trying to have any sort of lasting impact on the world. Like Gaston, they might try to impose some sort of hierarchy, or exploit one that already exist, but that's generally only a means to an immediate end (i.e., harming some specific people, right now.)

And yet Robin Hood is constantly referenced as a paragon of Chaotic good. And yet he clearly had a goal larger than himself. At least in most modern interpretations of the character. That and the whole concept of an anarchism is listed as a chaotic philosophy and anarchists clearly have a desire to cause lasting impact on the world. Or to use D&D specifically, Drow society is listed as strongly chaotic evil as is Lolth herself and she clearly has goals she is working toward while Drow society is built around serving a greater purpose just doing so in an underhanded (and frankly poorly thought out) way.


I wouldn't call it part of the criteria of "lawful" per se, but there's definitely a trend that lawful characters of all stripes tend to have a capacity for foresight and long-term thinking that Gaston lacks. Darth Vader, despite propensity for impulsive underlying murder that probably probably undermined his goals, was still pretty solidly Lawful Evil to me because he genuinely backed the idea of a Sith Empire as a goal in and of itself. This was arguably positive character growth from his Jedi days, where "Good" was essentially defined as "whatever the hell Anakin feels like doing today" and rationalized after the fact. He followed it very imperfectly, but Darth Vader at least acknowledged that there was some standard of conduct for a good Sith that was arguably more valid than his own impulses.

That's why Gaston falls solidly into EC for me--he really has no deeper motivations beyond satisfying his own id. Even within the movie he's pretty inconsistent--his first song is pretty much about how traditional notions of masculinity define social status, and beyond fawning deference to higher social status doesn't really saw much about rules of courtesy or morality. However, the Beast is in many ways even more hypermasculine by Gaston's own standards--he certainly fights like Gaston, if not better, and could probably polish off six or seven dozen eggs if he really wanted to. Then all of a sudden Gaston suddenly cares about the people and tries to style himself as their protector.

For me it is that lack of deeper motivations that keeps him from being Chaotic Evil. He is not rebelling against social status or the right of kings or the way society works in the township. He is completely and perfectly willing to live in them and be restricted by them as long as his merry way of living his life by pure machiasmo is fulfilled. And though he lies to get what he wants, he still frames his actions under -if not law exactly- the betterment of society and the protection of others.

But again I would say even this interpretation depends on the edition. 5e gives very brief definitions of the alignments and of them I do think that NE fits him best. Lawful Evil mentions that they must be methodical which he is not he has one "complicated" plan in the whole movie. Chaotic Evil is defined by being arbitrarily violent which I don't think he is. He does limit his violence when it would be frowned upon by society. He doesn't just kill Maurice for annoying him, he stops, thinks, and uses the socially acceptable way of getting rid of his opponent. While Neutral Evil is just does what they can get away with without qualms or morals. Which I think that's him.

But of course other editions have more layered and nuanced interpretations. Hell 3.5 I think gave four different definitions in the various books over the course of its run some of which are contradictory to each other.

[Xyril]

And yet Robin Hood is constantly referenced as a paragon of Chaotic good. And yet he clearly had a goal larger than himself. At least in most modern interpretations of the character. That and the whole concept of an anarchism is listed as a chaotic philosophy and anarchists clearly have a desire to cause lasting impact on the world. Or to use D&D specifically, Drow society is listed as strongly chaotic evil as is Lolth herself and she clearly has goals she is working toward while Drow society is built around serving a greater purpose just doing so in an underhanded (and frankly poorly thought out) way.


That's a good point. I guess my way of looking at it starts to break down when you start thinking of "breaking down existing order/institutions (without necessarily having a specific idea to replace it)" as its own long term goal, and not a reflection of more short-term impulses



For me it is that lack of deeper motivations that keeps him from being Chaotic Evil. He is not rebelling against social status or the right of kings or the way society works in the township. He is completely and perfectly willing to live in them and be restricted by them as long as his merry way of living his life by pure machiasmo is fulfilled. And though he lies to get what he wants, he still frames his actions under -if not law exactly- the betterment of society and the protection of others.

I guess I'm more willing to throw him under the chaotic bus because he clearly has no attachment to those norms for their own sake, and by his arbitrary and selective way of applying them he's inherently undermining them.

Then again, I'm also the guy who once argued that Palpatine was evil neutral, bordering on evil chaotic, because the Sith and the vision of a greater Sith Empire were all transient (though very, very long lasting) means to a particular selfish end (his own power and immortality.) Although the end of the last trilogy of which we shall not speak The fact that he seemed legitimately resigned to let himself die in order to pass on the Empire and the mantle of Sith Master to his successor seriously undermined my argument on this one. has led me to reconsider some of my evidence, Palpatine didn't really seem to buy into the Sith as wholeheartedly as he could have. He arguably followed the Rule of Two to the letter, but he sure bent the hell out of it. As for the Empire itself, he obviously didn't buy into a lot of what the Empire was selling (given his history, it seems like the whole xenophobic ideology was a means to an end, and not indicative of his personal feelings... which is about the nicest thing we can say about Palpatine.) That part of the evidence isn't too strong though, since the Empire was born out of deception, and you could easily argue that a legitimately lawful character could be loyal to a true cause (the Sith) while hiding behind one or more facade regimes that they're willing to prop up or discard as they need to.



But again I would say even this interpretation depends on the edition.


Oh, I agree completely. My general sense of greater good and long-term versus short-term thinking has mostly been from my reading of source books and non-D&D fiction where the authors have mentioned (either in or out of source) how they envisioned alignment when making a character, and then trying to find some sort of common ground that has lasted the ages. Admittedly though, I was probably most influenced by stuff from the latter half of DragonLance at its peak, which was pretty influential, so maybe the things I've looked at would have been disproportionately influenced by, I guess 3.5 or so?

[Rodin]

Gaston could have gotten the "hero of the wrong story" role if he wanted it. When Maurice comes back to town he goes straight to Gaston's hunting lodge. He's raving about a monster, but Gaston doesn't have to take that part seriously. All he needs to do is go with Maurice to check on Belle. If Maurice is crazy, he gets kudos for bringing Maurice safely home. If Belle is really in danger it would become quickly apparent. She isn't in town and has no friends other than the bookshop owner. Every result is a win for Gaston, as he is acting out of concern for Belle's safety no matter what is actually happening.

If he does this, he shows up at the Beast's castle with a legitimate reason to fight.

Instead, he chucks Maurice out in the cold and doesn't bother to go check on Belle. It's only when his "trophy" is being taken from him that he acts.

[Wraith]

The Titans from Hercules qualify. They are literally born of Chaos, and their only goal is Evil - to kill the Gods (particularly Zeus) and then raze the world back into formlessness.

Hades from the same film might be close, but his goals are more selfish than purely destructive so he's probably closer to Neutral Evil.

Also there's Satan from Fantasia, Shan Yu the Hun from Mulan and I'd also argue William 'Bill' Sykes from Oliver & Company since murder, kidnapping, actively corrupting other people to commit evil acts, and setting his rottweilers on people for fun are all in a day's work.

Madam Medusa from The Rescuers. Definitely Evil, and they don't come much more Chaotic either.

And then it depends on what you consider to be the Disney "Universe". Can we include video games? Because that gives us the Darkness from Kingdom Hearts. the Shadow Blot from Epic Mickey and - technically, due to cross-over shenanigans - Sephiroth.

[Liquor Box]

I can buy Gaston as being the hero rather than evil in the Beauty and the beast story.

We are using DnD alignment here, and it is a staple of DnD alignment that killing apparently evil monsters is good. And the beast was evil - he was a beast, he was made a beast because of selfishness and unkindness (although Gaston doesn't know this), he kidnapped the old fellow, then he kidnapped the girl. In DnD slaying such monsters was a good act. Even in modern DnD interpretations is probably is, given the beast would appear clearly evil to Gaston.

Gaston risks his own life to confront the Beast. He storms the castle with the villagers, but goes on to fight the Beast on his own.

I see someone in the thread suggested he did this for selfish reasons - but from memory he even stated his reason as being because the Beast was a threat to the town.

I don't quite remember the film well enough to recall whether Gaston did anything evil (maybe he did), but I think he got quite a lot of good credits in his heroic death. At least as much as the Beast earned when fighting the wolves (which seemed to be presented as his heel to face turn).

For more evidence of Gaston's heroism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJTqmpBnI0

[paddyfool]

Yzma, from the Emperor's New Groove, arguably. Yes, she wants political power, which is classically lawful evil ... But she's unmethodical and thoroughly eccentric about it. So her motivations are LE but her character and actions are CE.

[hamishspence]

I don't quite remember the film well enough to recall whether Gaston did anything evil (maybe he did), but I think he got quite a lot of good credits in his heroic death. At least as much as the Beast earned when fighting the wolves (which seemed to be presented as his heel to face turn).

He did lots of evil things.

And his last act was to sneak up and stab Beast in the side after Beast had spared his life - before losing his balance from Beast's agonised flailing.

That's no "heroic death".

If I was DM-ing using Fiendish Codex 2 rules - I'd give Gaston 6 Corruption Points for Cold Blooded Murder for that act alone.

And rule that Beast had been subjected to a True Resurrection spell (and a Remove Curse) from the forces of the divine.

[Murk]

Off the top of my head, I'd argue:

Mother Gothel
Madam Mim
Pete
Shere Khan
The Beagle Boys
Oogie Boogie

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.
At least in both Disney movies he seems very consistent and orderly. In fact, most of his motivation in killing Mowgli comes from a strong belief in the natural order of things, the way "things should be", the natural hierarchy of animals (with him on top) - which he feels humans upset.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, it's been some time.

[GeoffWatson]

Peter Pan.

[Wraith]

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.
At least in both Disney movies he seems very consistent and orderly. In fact, most of his motivation in killing Mowgli comes from a strong belief in the natural order of things, the way "things should be", the natural hierarchy of animals (with him on top) - which he feels humans upset.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, it's been some time.

Arguably as they are animals, all of the non-Mowgli creatures in The Jungle Book are True Neutral as their entry in the Monster Manual depicts. :smalltongue:
Shere Khan specifically so - 'protecting the balance' is archetypal Druid talk, and given that the movie ends with Mowgli burning down the entire forest and putting the lives of all of his friends at risk just to also get at Shere Khan pretty much proves him right.

So it's very much a case that he is Neutral, but just happens to be an A**hole about it.

In the live action version it's closer to Evil - it's more clear that he just likes hunting and killing humans, the rhetoric about 'the greater good' is just that, and he kills a number of other sentient creatures like Akala along the way with no pretence of it being 'for the good of the forest'. It's just what he wants to happen, and he'll kill and maim until he gets his way.

[CharonsHelper]

Peter Pan.

Lol - an argument could be made that he's CN, but he's not really evil. Just thoughtless at times - mostly due to being a child.

[Dire_Flumph]

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.

Fair enough, and it was an off the cuff list. It's been awhile since I've watched the animated, only saw the live-action once, and been even longer since I read the book, but I remembered him being "The only order you need to worry about is DO WHAT I SAY!". Even Scar had a hierarchy around him. I'm also taking cues from the Disney animated sequel, which I remember upping the evil factor of the character quite a bit.

[Eldan]

Lol - an argument could be made that he's CN, but he's not really evil. Just thoughtless at times - mostly due to being a child.

In the movie at least. The book, I'd say, adds a lot more evidence for evil, though he probably still edges out as CN, just barely.

[InvisibleBison]

Shan Yu the Hun from Mulan

I see Shan Yu as more NE than CE. His invasion of China is motivated by a desire to prove that he is stronger than the Chinese and their wall, which doesn't seem particularly Lawful or Chaotic. He certainly doesn't seem to have any ideological objection to the hierarchical, bureaucratic nature of the Chinese government.

[Xyril]

I see someone in the thread suggested he did this for selfish reasons - but from memory he even stated his reason as being because the Beast was a threat to the town.


Go back and read Rodin's post, (slightly before yours), it's pretty on point.


Gaston could have gotten the "hero of the wrong story" role if he wanted it. When Maurice comes back to town he goes straight to Gaston's hunting lodge. He's raving about a monster, but Gaston doesn't have to take that part seriously. All he needs to do is go with Maurice to check on Belle. If Maurice is crazy, he gets kudos for bringing Maurice safely home. If Belle is really in danger it would become quickly apparent. She isn't in town and has no friends other than the bookshop owner. Every result is a win for Gaston, as he is acting out of concern for Belle's safety no matter what is actually happening.

The reason so many folks see Gaston as the villain is because his conduct implies a complete lack of a noble motive. He doesn't care about the villagers--if he did, he could have protected Maurice from real, immediate danger: Taking things at face value, Maurice was a hysterical, possibly crazy old man running around frantically in the cold, in real danger of dying from hypothermia or harming himself. For far less effort than forming a lynch mob, he could have protected Maurice by seeing him safely to town, or even just letting the old man in to his home to warm up and calm down.

As a general rule for reading subtext in Beauty and the Beast, every time Gaston sings about something, it's a pretty big lampshade telling you that you should look to his actions to show how it's largely BS. Kill the Beast couches his motivation in terms of riding the town of an immediate threat, but for the entire movie up until then, it was obvious Gaston didn't care about the town except as a source of praise and support. The same goes for the Toxic Masculinity song (I don't remember it's real name.) If you look at Gaston's boasts and compare to his actual behavior, it becomes clear that his assertions about ability are arguably true (in terms of physical strength, appetite, and looks), but in terms of character (stuff you may think of as traditional chivalric notions of masculinity, such as courage), his boasts are proven empty over the course of both movies.

Usually, when someone tries to stab someone in the back--even if, unlike Gaston, all of his other actions have testified to his good character--he's generally relegated to anti-hero, morally ambiguous protagonist, or some other part of the off-white palette to the Superman's heroic pure-white. I can't think of a single work of fiction where the "villain" showed the alleged hero mercy, and said "good guy" immediately repaid him with a backstab.

Also, in the musical Gaston (played by Hugh Jackman) once peed himself on stage. That gives him chaotic points to me.

[understatement]

Do the hyenas from The Lion King count?

[Rodin]

Do the hyenas from The Lion King count?

As villains, certainly.

As Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure.

Scar scans as Lawful Evil to me. He twists the inheritance rules by killing Mufasa and thinks he has killed Simba as well. He then launches a despotic rule.

So how do we define his underlings? The hyenas give off a very chaotic vibe, but they don't actually do much. When they try to kill Simba the first time, he's on their turf and is fair game. The second time they're acting on Scar's behalf. They form up under him as an evil army, complete with goose-stepping.

Then again, they turn on Scar at the end of the movie. There's no loyalty there and turning on your master doesn't seem very Lawful to me.

I could be persuaded either way on this one. It doesn't feel right to just peg them as Neutral Evil.

[CharonsHelper]

As villains, certainly.

As Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure.

Scar scans as Lawful Evil to me. He twists the inheritance rules by killing Mufasa and thinks he has killed Simba as well. He then launches a despotic rule.

So how do we define his underlings? The hyenas give off a very chaotic vibe, but they don't actually do much. When they try to kill Simba the first time, he's on their turf and is fair game. The second time they're acting on Scar's behalf. They form up under him as an evil army, complete with goose-stepping.

Then again, they turn on Scar at the end of the movie. There's no loyalty there and turning on your master doesn't seem very Lawful to me.

I could be persuaded either way on this one. It doesn't feel right to just peg them as Neutral Evil.

Yeah, that's a good summary. I'd probably peg them as CE, but hardly hardcore chaotic. Plenty willing to fall in line to strength for a steady supply of food. But that's sort of the epitome of chaotic alignments in an organization - they rely upon the power/charisma of a singular individual rather than the organizational structure itself.

While I definitely see the hyenas as CE, Scar himself could be argued as either either LE or NE; I'd lean NE (he uses the rules to his benefit - but he's hardly bound to them since he had no loyalty to his brother - who was the rightful ruler).

In this context though, I was thinking that we were picking out CE villains, and I'd say that the hyenas are solidly in henchman territory rather then being full-fledged villains in their own right.

[GrayDeath]

Its clear as they that they fit.

They are, after all, Sith Laughs.
















ill show myself out.

[Liquor Box]

He did lots of evil things.

And his last act was to sneak up and stab Beast in the side after Beast had spared his life - before losing his balance from Beast's agonised flailing.

That's no "heroic death".

If I was DM-ing using Fiendish Codex 2 rules - I'd give Gaston 6 Corruption Points for Cold Blooded Murder for that act alone.

And rule that Beast had been subjected to a True Resurrection spell (and a Remove Curse) from the forces of the divine.

What is it that you think is the evil act there? The backstab, or trying to kill someone who had decided not to kill you?

Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.


Go back and read Rodin's post, (slightly before yours), it's pretty on point.

As near as I can tell Rodin says that Gaston could have done better by checking out Maurice's story instead of dismissing it as not true. Rodin is right he could have. And we know as viewers that would have been the correct choice to make (because Maurice wasn't crazy), but was it a more moral choice? Either way, failing to choose the most morally optimal choice available does not make one evil. Gaston could have come across as more selfless if he did what Rodin said, but not acting that way doesn't make him evil.


The reason so many folks see Gaston as the villain is because his conduct implies a complete lack of a noble motive. He doesn't care about the villagers--if he did, he could have protected Maurice from real, immediate danger: Taking things at face value, Maurice was a hysterical, possibly crazy old man running around frantically in the cold, in real danger of dying from hypothermia or harming himself. For far less effort than forming a lynch mob, he could have protected Maurice by seeing him safely to town, or even just letting the old man in to his home to warm up and calm down.

Didn't he have him locked in some asylum, which was standard practice for dealing with people who were crazy at the time (and now, but with more process)?

Again, I appreciate that we know that Maurice was not crazy and there really was a dangerous Beast out there, so Gaston was ultimately incorrect.


As a general rule for reading subtext in Beauty and the Beast, every time Gaston sings about something, it's a pretty big lampshade telling you that you should look to his actions to show how it's largely BS. Kill the Beast couches his motivation in terms of riding the town of an immediate threat, but for the entire movie up until then, it was obvious Gaston didn't care about the town except as a source of praise and support. The same goes for the Toxic Masculinity song (I don't remember it's real name.) If you look at Gaston's boasts and compare to his actual behavior, it becomes clear that his assertions about ability are arguably true (in terms of physical strength, appetite, and looks), but in terms of character (stuff you may think of as traditional chivalric notions of masculinity, such as courage), his boasts are proven empty over the course of both movies.

So it comes down to an interpretation that we should look past Gaston's stated reasons because we don't find him likeable. I do understand why most people would find him unlikeable (he's clearly arrogant even if deservedly so and his fondness for Belle seems superficial), but that doesn't equate to evil (although maybe it does in a disney plot? maybe it's a simply as that?).

Not sure what you mean be the toxic masculinity song (doesn't the show predate that term?), I only recall kill the beast, and the song I linked from him. What boasts does Gaston make about his character that you think indicate the opposite?


Usually, when someone tries to stab someone in the back--even if, unlike Gaston, all of his other actions have testified to his good character--he's generally relegated to anti-hero, morally ambiguous protagonist, or some other part of the off-white palette to the Superman's heroic pure-white.

Well, since the alignment framework we are using is from DnD it is worth noting that backstab is a game move widely accepted as not being evil.

But, I agree that Gaston s not a hero of pure morality, and is more ambiguous.


I can't think of a single work of fiction where the "villain" showed the alleged hero mercy, and said "good guy" immediately repaid him with a backstab.

Here's an example that you should be well familiar with as a frequenter of this forum
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

There are lots of examples and an entire TV tropes page dedicated to this trope.

[Gallowglass]

Hmmm... thinking back to the very beginning, why wouldn't the Evil Stepmother, Evil Queen and Maleficent be Chaotic Evil?

Evil is unquestionable. So let's look at Chaotic.

The Evil Stepmother capriciously tortures and abuses Cinderella because she resents her even though it's arguably a poor long term decision.

The Evil Queen is told that Snow White is prettier than her and responds by ordering her horrific execution. Even after that fails and Snow white is beyond any threat to her, she doggedly pursues her driven by pure hate.

Maleficient is annoyed at being left off a party invite and proceeds to curse a BABY.

They seem pretty Chaotic Evil to me.

[Rodin]

Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.

Because Gaston believes no such thing. When he states his reason, he is LYING.

Again, per my earlier post:

1) Gaston does not whip the villagers into a riot when Belle reveals the Beast in the mirror. He does so when he realizes Belle is in love with the Beast. His motive isn't "protect the village", it's jealousy.

2) When Gaston arrives at the Beast's chambers, the Beast is entirely passive. When the Beast refuses to fight back, Gaston mocks him for being too kind. Gaston then prepares to murder the Beast in cold blood.

3) When the Beast does fight back, Gaston utters not one word about removing a threat to the village. He doesn't declare the Beast evil. Instead, he goes on one long rant about how inconceivable it is that Belle would pick the Beast over Gaston. His final line in the fight is "BELLE IS MINE!!!!"

If that doesn't convince you of Gaston's motives, I don't know what will.


Didn't he have him locked in some asylum, which was standard practice for dealing with people who were crazy at the time (and now, but with more process)?

Again, I appreciate that we know that Maurice was not crazy and there really was a dangerous Beast out there, so Gaston was ultimately incorrect.


No, he didn't. He had his men throw Maurice out into a blizzard. He didn't give a crap about Maurice, he just thought of him as a harmless loon.

Gaston then has a light bulb moment. Gaston doesn't care what happens to Maurice, but Belle does. So he bribes the asylum keeper with a sack of gold to lock Maurice up, with the explicitly stated goal of forcing Belle to marry him. Again, see the earlier quote from the asylum keeper in the thread.

Gaston's arc in the story moves from "won't take no for an answer" to "blackmail the woman into marrying him" to "try to murder the woman's lover in a jealous rage".

He's Evil. We can debate what type according to narrow and often contradictory D&D rules, but that doesn't change his character. Gaston does nothing in the movie for anyone but Gaston, and every action he does take is aimed at forcing an unwilling woman to bear his children.

[GrayDeath]

Hmmm... thinking back to the very beginning, why wouldn't the Evil Stepmother, Evil Queen and Maleficent be Chaotic Evil?

Evil is unquestionable. So let's look at Chaotic.

The Evil Stepmother capriciously tortures and abuses Cinderella because she resents her even though it's arguably a poor long term decision.

The Evil Queen is told that Snow White is prettier than her and responds by ordering her horrific execution. Even after that fails and Snow white is beyond any threat to her, she doggedly pursues her driven by pure hate.

Maleficient is annoyed at being left off a party invite and proceeds to curse a BABY.

They seem pretty Chaotic Evil to me.

1: But she uses the Law to gain, and keep, her cushy "job", and aims to do the same to get one of her daughters to marry the prince. Aside from her randomly cruel treatment of Cinderella, I simply see no Chaops there at all.
neutral Evil tending Lawful Evil if you ask me.

The Evil Queen reacts normally for any Despot wanting to kep their pwoer. using her Kingdom and "laws" in it to destroy a "potential Rival".
Again nothing remotely chaotic, and by "virtue" of being an Evil Queen, she almost perfectly fits the Lawful Evil bill (and might be I am misremembering, but I dont remember her being anything more chaotic than being capricious in her punishments).

Maleficent, Ill give you, without a doubt.

Unlike of course we are talking the Angelina Jolie one.^^

[Xyril]

What is it that you think is the evil act there? The backstab, or trying to kill someone who had decided not to kill you?


The combination of the two, in specific circumstances, and the immediacy of the follow up. There is plenty of fiction where two rivals fight, one has the chance to kill the other, but does not--perhaps out of mercy or other purely altruistic reasons, perhaps out of fear of greater consequences, or maybe just a desire to preserve a worthy opponent for a later fight. For example, the man in black in The Princess Bride spared Inigo Montoya because he didn't want to kill such a worthy opponent. "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window than an artist like yourself." This doesn't mean that Inigo Montoya was obligated to never attack his opponent again, nor does it mean he's necessarily obligated to show mercy in return if the roles were ever reversed.

Likewise, it's not inherently evil to stab someone in the back, or to otherwise exploit the element of surprise--particularly if the killing is justified or necessary to begin with, and the heroes would have a minimal chance of success if they just walked in front of their target and challenged him to a duel. However, the manner in which you achieve surprise has a huge impact on the morality of the act. If you're a rogue sneaking past a bunch of guards to assassinate a target in his bedroom, that feels more morally neutral to me. In contrast, many cultures--fictitious or otherwise--hold hospitality to be sacred, and exploiting these rules to attack or capture someone is generally reviled. In Game of Thrones and ASOFAI, numerous characters all along the hero to villain scale use tricky tactics, plan ambushes, betray their employers or their lords, or otherwise do sneaky, deceptive things to kill enemies who might not even know they're your enemies. However, the Red Wedding was singularly reviled by pretty much everyone because it violated hospitality--even the perpetrators' allies weren't shy about condemning them as morally bankrupt (when out of earshot.)

In war or warlike cultures particularly, there are often rules or norms that serve to make the horrors of war less horrible, or to facilitate certain necessary functions that often serve to do the same--for example, safe passage for messengers or envoys. People who violate these norms undermine something that benefits everyone, and if we were to condone those who violated them in order to murder someone, then these norm would quickly become unusable.

Surrender is another such example. If you surrender, that doesn't mean you never fight again. However, if it was widely considered acceptable or morally good for surrendered combats to try to surprise on their captors as they're being secured, or while their enemy is treating their wounds, then nobody would ever except a surrender except when they have such an absolute advantage that there is minimal risk--and even then, they might not bother. War would be even bloodier than it was now.

While Gaston didn't explicitly surrender, he also didn't try to keep up the fight when Beast spared him. He didn't run off to get stronger before seeking an entirely new fight. He didn't stand up five minutes later and challenge the Beast, proudly boasting that he wasn't dead yet. Instead, he mere minutes after the Beast let him live, Gaston snuck up on him as his guard was down and he was distracted by trying to help Belle, who Gaston allegedly loves.



Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.

This whole line of reasoning makes me wonder who the villain is, to be honest. Let's break it down.
1) You conclude someone is evil and a threat.
2) You attack someone without provocation.
3) You lose.
4) Despite your attack, that person lets you go, not using more force or causing more harm than is necessary to defend himself and his friend.
5) You refuse to acknowledge this new information that might prompt you to revisit your initial conclusion (really, more of an assumption) that your target is evil and a threat.
6) Instead, you put the burden of proof on other people to convince you not to attack again.

Here's a harsh truth about life: The world is full of people who are stronger, better trained, better armed, charismatic leaders, clever tacticians, or otherwise have the ability to kill you and everyone you love, even if you try to the best of your ability to defend yourself. You're only alive because most people are inherently decent and don't want to go around murdering folks for trivial reasons, or they don't want you dead enough for it to be worth dealing with the consequences, or they simply don't even know you exist, or if they do, don't care about you either way. The capacity to harm you isn't, by itself, a threat--at least not one that you have a legal or moral right to preemptively neutralize using lethal force.

What then is a threat you can and should act on? From a legal standpoint, the requirements are stringent, and vary by jurisdiction. From an ethical perspective, it's a bit more expansive, and generally hinges in the likelihood that this person who can harm you will harm you, perhaps through malice, recklessness, greed, or something else entirely. If the Beast were a mindless animal, totally driven by instinct, then perhaps you could argue that proximity is the immediate danger--like a hungry wolf or an overprotective mother bear, if they live close enough to regularly encounter large numbers of humans, there might invariably be an attack. However, the Beast wasn't that close--until the movie, nobody in the village even realized he existed. Also, the Beast isn't a mindless animal--anybody who was paying attention during the attack on his castle would clearly realize it. More importantly, Gaston at that point absolutely knew that Beast was intelligent--the fact that Belle cared about Beast largely motivated the whole murder attempt.

So then, when dealing with a human, capable of reasoning, when does someone who can hurt you become a threat that should be dealt with? I pose that question to you: You're the one arguing that it's morally right to preemptively kill a threat, so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like."



Either way, failing to choose the most morally optimal choice available does not make one evil.


No, but it does provide evidence with which to infer motives, which you can then used to evaluate the credibility of previous statements. It's not evil of me to wear leather shoes and leather jackets. However, if I go around stating that I'm a vegetarian and that other people should be as well because I believe that the exploitation of animals in any form is immoral, the whole wearing leather thing is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't take my stated motives at face value.

I am under no obligation to help my neighbor if he comes to my door on a cold night. However, if I keep styling myself as "the guy who loves his neighbors and would do anything to help them," and I don't even do the minimum amount to help, then people will start to question my sincerity.


So it comes down to an interpretation that we should look past Gaston's stated reasons because we don't find him likeable.


No, it doesn't. It's not about likeability, it's about comparing specific stated motives to specific depicted actions, and seeing if they are consistent.


Not sure what you mean be the toxic masculinity song (doesn't the show predate that term?), I only recall kill the beast, and the song I linked from him.


*sigh*

I literally state in the my post that it wasn't called "The Toxic Masculinity Song," and that it was term I applied as a joke because I couldn't remember the proper name.

I suspect that this statement might have more nuance than you're willing to appreciate, but I'm one of those people who believes simultaneously that 1) "toxic masculinity," meaning the phenomenon of people imposing certain expectations of "manly" behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual males or to society as a whole, but also that 2) sometimes people go too far in dismissing more stereotypical and traditional masculine traits as part of "toxic masculinity." Specifically, I think it's negative that when we tell boys that being athletic, brave, and aggressive is the only way you can be manly, but I think it's also bad that some folks go too far the other way and dismiss being athletic, brave, and aggressive as being inherently negative. So I was trying to make a joke for folks who have similar sentiments and also can recognize nuance. Clearly you didn't get the joke, and that's fine.



Here's an example that you should be well familiar with as a frequenter of this forum
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

This example isn't really on point for many reasons. Technically, it wasn't a backstab. I used the term broadly, to include sneak attacks that take advantage of the element of surprise, but even under that expansive definition, your example doesn't count. Xykon didn't let his guard down, and Roy only "surprised" him in the sense that it would be surprising he would bother to try again.

From a moral standpoint, there are other key distinctions. First, Gaston had already lost. There was a struggle that either could have theoretically won, but Beast did. By all rights, he could have killed Gaston, but chose not to. In OOTS, they were technically in the middle of a fight still. Roy did not surrender, submit, or get beaten into helplessness. Xykon was arguably showing mercy only in the sense that Roy walked into that fight with such weak abilities that he had a negligible chance of winning to begin with.

Instead, the exchange was more of a parlay. Roy realized his best shot had no effect, but he was still up and fighting. Xykon just wanted to get rid of an annoyance, so he tried offering a negotiated settlement that would save him the trouble of dealing with the Order. Naturally, Xykon being Xykon, he did it in a (probably) unintentionally patronizing way that only guaranteed Roy would want to fight. When he struck Xykon again, he wasn't attacking an opponent who he let believe that the fight was over--both of them knew very well that they were just talking as a free action.

More importantly, while this whole exchange didn't paint Roy as a villain, it did however undermine our image of the sort of hero he is, which kind of supports my whole point. Roy generally thought of himself as the only sane man of the group, who makes logical, tactically sound short-term decisions but also keeps the team pointed out their long-term goal--and for the most part, the audience was led to agree. His death was the culmination of many cracks in this facade, in which we realize that Roy also has his blind spots, particularly in terms of the Blood Oath, and his willingness to allow his focus to override logic and morality. As I've outline, hitting Xykon wasn't a sneak attack or a backstab, but it was stupid and self-defeating--something inconsistent with Roy's self-image. At that point, he knew he had no way of succeeding. In terms of Azure City, this was the last chance to help in the defense, but in terms of the Blood Oath and stopping Xykon once and for all, Xykon was actually kind of right: The only way the Order could have won was to get stronger and try again.




There are lots of examples and an entire TV tropes page dedicated to this trope.

Also, you're going to have to cite the specific TVtropes page. I can think of many that you could be referring to, but all of them are about ways in which such an act changes how you see the hero. The only page I can think of where trope doesn't make the hero less heroic is "Good is Not Nice," and that one doesn't contain any examples.

[Xihirli]

I'll step in with Maleficent and disagree here:

1. Anger at lack of decorum (not being invited despite considering yourself a member of the nobility that OUGHT BE invited) is a Lawful motivation.
2. Considering punishing a child a suitable reaction to being slighted by their parents, unfortunately, has a long tradition in law, and comes from the lawful tradition of considering children the property of parents.

Maleficent's actions were Evil, and her motivations were Lawful. She is Lawful Evil.

EDIT: Also why in the hells are people justifying Gaston's actions? The "hero of another story" narrative is present in Beauty and the Beast as a criticism of those other stories, not as an endorsement of Gaston.

I'll also toss my hat in to say that Scar is at least not Lawful Evil. He exploited the Laws present to enact his evil, but the reason his kingship goes so poorly is his violation of the most important law of the land: the "circle of life." Technically, his greatest crime was tainting the lion ethnostate* we are presented with as the good kingdom. That's not a criticism of the movie, that is the reality we have to adopt in order to follow the narrative. Scar's failings, aside from killing his brother and trying to have a child assassinated, are all in his disregard for the laws of the land he is exploiting. Scar is either Neutral or Chaotic. But Zira is Lawful.

I think a clearly Chaotic Evil disney villain is easy to find in N'Jadaka, though. He exploits the chaotic portions of Wakandan Law to take power, and once he does he immediately begins removing the systems of law that allowed another person to usurp the throne. Once he's done using them, he sees the laws and traditions of Wakanda as his enemy, because those laws and traditions are there to create a peaceful(ish) exchange of power, which he cannot allow now that he holds the power. N'Jadaka has the fruit that confers the next king burned, and he attempts to throw out the rules of the duel that made him king technically before it's even completed. Once he has used the rules of how to choose a king, he removes those rules, leaving only "I am the King."

*More of an Apartheid state, really.

[Liquor Box]

Because Gaston believes no such thing. When he states his reason, he is LYING.

Again, per my earlier post:

1) Gaston does not whip the villagers into a riot when Belle reveals the Beast in the mirror. He does so when he realizes Belle is in love with the Beast. His motive isn't "protect the village", it's jealousy.

2) When Gaston arrives at the Beast's chambers, the Beast is entirely passive. When the Beast refuses to fight back, Gaston mocks him for being too kind. Gaston then prepares to murder the Beast in cold blood.

3) When the Beast does fight back, Gaston utters not one word about removing a threat to the village. He doesn't declare the Beast evil. Instead, he goes on one long rant about how inconceivable it is that Belle would pick the Beast over Gaston. His final line in the fight is "BELLE IS MINE!!!!"

If that doesn't convince you of Gaston's motives, I don't know what will.

As to your first point, isn't this where Belle shows Gaston the beast in the mirror (which Gaston snatches from her at the beginning of the scene)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh98Kscctw4
Are we possibly thinking of different versions of the story?

As to your second and third point, I agree that it is not very kind to mock your rival when fighting him by saying you are going to have your way with the girl he likes. But in the context of a fight to the death, it's kind of by the by. I don't think it is a particularly firm guide to his motives either - he is taunting the Beast (perhaps to gain advantage in the fight, perhaps just to be mean), not giving him a lesson in morality or hashing out their differences.


No, he didn't. He had his men throw Maurice out into a blizzard. He didn't give a crap about Maurice, he just thought of him as a harmless loon.

Gaston then has a light bulb moment. Gaston doesn't care what happens to Maurice, but Belle does. So he bribes the asylum keeper with a sack of gold to lock Maurice up, with the explicitly stated goal of forcing Belle to marry him. Again, see the earlier quote from the asylum keeper in the thread.


Is that clear, or is that an interpretation where you draw some inferences to suggest that Gaston's stated reasons are not his real ones?


The combination of the two, in specific circumstances, and the immediacy of the follow up. There is plenty of fiction where two rivals fight, one has the chance to kill the other, but does not--perhaps out of mercy or other purely altruistic reasons, perhaps out of fear of greater consequences, or maybe just a desire to preserve a worthy opponent for a later fight. For example, the man in black in The Princess Bride spared Inigo Montoya because he didn't want to kill such a worthy opponent. "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window than an artist like yourself." This doesn't mean that Inigo Montoya was obligated to never attack his opponent again, nor does it mean he's necessarily obligated to show mercy in return if the roles were ever reversed.

Likewise, it's not inherently evil to stab someone in the back, or to otherwise exploit the element of surprise--particularly if the killing is justified or necessary to begin with, and the heroes would have a minimal chance of success if they just walked in front of their target and challenged him to a duel. However, the manner in which you achieve surprise has a huge impact on the morality of the act. If you're a rogue sneaking past a bunch of guards to assassinate a target in his bedroom, that feels more morally neutral to me. In contrast, many cultures--fictitious or otherwise--hold hospitality to be sacred, and exploiting these rules to attack or capture someone is generally reviled. In Game of Thrones and ASOFAI, numerous characters all along the hero to villain scale use tricky tactics, plan ambushes, betray their employers or their lords, or otherwise do sneaky, deceptive things to kill enemies who might not even know they're your enemies. However, the Red Wedding was singularly reviled by pretty much everyone because it violated hospitality--even the perpetrators' allies weren't shy about condemning them as morally bankrupt (when out of earshot.)

In war or warlike cultures particularly, there are often rules or norms that serve to make the horrors of war less horrible, or to facilitate certain necessary functions that often serve to do the same--for example, safe passage for messengers or envoys. People who violate these norms undermine something that benefits everyone, and if we were to condone those who violated them in order to murder someone, then these norm would quickly become unusable.

Surrender is another such example. If you surrender, that doesn't mean you never fight again. However, if it was widely considered acceptable or morally good for surrendered combats to try to surprise on their captors as they're being secured, or while their enemy is treating their wounds, then nobody would ever except a surrender except when they have such an absolute advantage that there is minimal risk--and even then, they might not bother. War would be even bloodier than it was now.

While Gaston didn't explicitly surrender, he also didn't try to keep up the fight when Beast spared him. He didn't run off to get stronger before seeking an entirely new fight. He didn't stand up five minutes later and challenge the Beast, proudly boasting that he wasn't dead yet. Instead, he mere minutes after the Beast let him live, Gaston snuck up on him as his guard was down and he was distracted by trying to help Belle, who Gaston allegedly loves.

I agree with most of what you say here. A person who is spared is under no obligation to not attack the person who spared them if the circumstances justify it. Also nothing wrong with a 'backstab' or attacking with surprise unless you adhere to some specific code that prohibits it.

The bit I find hard to follow if your brief conclusion that doing these two things in combination raises them to being something that overrides any previous good acts.

In Troy, the defeated greeks leave, and leave the Trojans a gift, which implies surrender. The gift is of course hides a sneak attack. Not depicted as an evil act. In Vikings Ragnar negotiates a peace with the Parisians which includes him converting. Then he claims to have died, and his subordinates ask to escort his coffin into the city for a burial in accordance with his new found beliefs - but he's not dead and him an his followers attack by surprise. Again not depicted as evil.


This whole line of reasoning makes me wonder who the villain is, to be honest. Let's break it down.
1) You conclude someone is evil and a threat.
2) You attack someone without provocation.
3) You lose.
4) Despite your attack, that person lets you go, not using more force or causing more harm than is necessary to defend himself and his friend.
5) You refuse to acknowledge this new information that might prompt you to revisit your initial conclusion (really, more of an assumption) that your target is evil and a threat.
6) Instead, you put the burden of proof on other people to convince you not to attack again.

Here's a harsh truth about life: The world is full of people who are stronger, better trained, better armed, charismatic leaders, clever tacticians, or otherwise have the ability to kill you and everyone you love, even if you try to the best of your ability to defend yourself. You're only alive because most people are inherently decent and don't want to go around murdering folks for trivial reasons, or they don't want you dead enough for it to be worth dealing with the consequences, or they simply don't even know you exist, or if they do, don't care about you either way. The capacity to harm you isn't, by itself, a threat--at least not one that you have a legal or moral right to preemptively neutralize using lethal force.

What then is a threat you can and should act on? From a legal standpoint, the requirements are stringent, and vary by jurisdiction. From an ethical perspective, it's a bit more expansive, and generally hinges in the likelihood that this person who can harm you will harm you, perhaps through malice, recklessness, greed, or something else entirely. If the Beast were a mindless animal, totally driven by instinct, then perhaps you could argue that proximity is the immediate danger--like a hungry wolf or an overprotective mother bear, if they live close enough to regularly encounter large numbers of humans, there might invariably be an attack. However, the Beast wasn't that close--until the movie, nobody in the village even realized he existed. Also, the Beast isn't a mindless animal--anybody who was paying attention during the attack on his castle would clearly realize it. More importantly, Gaston at that point absolutely knew that Beast was intelligent--the fact that Belle cared about Beast largely motivated the whole murder attempt.

So then, when dealing with a human, capable of reasoning, when does someone who can hurt you become a threat that should be dealt with? I pose that question to you: You're the one arguing that it's morally right to preemptively kill a threat, so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like."

I don't think there's much doubt that the Beast was villainous, even through the show didn't frame his actions that way. After all he was a beast as punishment, he did imprison first the father then the daughter. The question here is whether Gaston was also evil.

I'm not sure I agree that its common decency that limits murdering - perhaps instead societies where we band together, and punish murderers. Maybe a mixture.

I agree with the rest of what you say. I think the virtue or evil in Gaston's quest to kill the beast should largely be framed by whether Gaston did believe the Beast a real and imminent danger to himself and others. In my opinion that is the question that best guides the morality of his actions, rather than discussing his competing motives.

It seems to me that the a beast in this story would be seen in a similar way to an orc in DnD of the time (although probably not anymore)- something that is always evil and exists to be killed by heroes. On that basis alone Gaston may have believed the beast evil, even if wrongly so - but if he was wrong his attack would not have been justified. But Gaston had further evidence of the beast's danger, he had recently kidnapped and imprisoned two villagers (whether Gaston cared about those two or not, that still presented the beast as dangerous). I also don't think that the fact that a dangerous beast who does not finish off something it was fighting is necessarily no longer dangerous.


No, but it does provide evidence with which to infer motives, which you can then used to evaluate the credibility of previous statements. It's not evil of me to wear leather shoes and leather jackets. However, if I go around stating that I'm a vegetarian and that other people should be as well because I believe that the exploitation of animals in any form is immoral, the whole wearing leather thing is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't take my stated motives at face value.

I am under no obligation to help my neighbor if he comes to my door on a cold night. However, if I keep styling myself as "the guy who loves his neighbors and would do anything to help them," and I don't even do the minimum amount to help, then people will start to question my sincerity.

Sure, fair enough. But does Gaston say (or imply that)? You mentioned a song where he extolled his virtues, but I'm not sure which you mean.

I certainly don't think the fact that he didn't believe Maurice and told him to go away implies that he wouldn't defend the village from a threat. I mean Maurice was acting crazy, so Gaston threw him out of his lodge and Maurice had to go home - publicans do that to poorly behaved patrons all the time. It doesn't imply that anything nice they do for their fellows in insincere.


No, it doesn't. It's not about likeability, it's about comparing specific stated motives to specific depicted actions, and seeing if they are consistent.

Great. What is the specific action that is inconsistent with Gaston wanting to take up arms in defence of the town?


*sigh*

I literally state in the my post that it wasn't called "The Toxic Masculinity Song," and that it was term I applied as a joke because I couldn't remember the proper name.

I suspect that this statement might have more nuance than you're willing to appreciate, but I'm one of those people who believes simultaneously that 1) "toxic masculinity," meaning the phenomenon of people imposing certain expectations of "manly" behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual males or to society as a whole, but also that 2) sometimes people go too far in dismissing more stereotypical and traditional masculine traits as part of "toxic masculinity." Specifically, I think it's negative that when we tell boys that being athletic, brave, and aggressive is the only way you can be manly, but I think it's also bad that some folks go too far the other way and dismiss being athletic, brave, and aggressive as being inherently negative. So I was trying to make a joke for folks who have similar sentiments and also can recognize nuance. Clearly you didn't get the joke, and that's fine.

Yes, I was just wondering which song you meant.



This example isn't really on point for many reasons. Technically, it wasn't a backstab. I used the term broadly, to include sneak attacks that take advantage of the element of surprise, but even under that expansive definition, your example doesn't count. Xykon didn't let his guard down, and Roy only "surprised" him in the sense that it would be surprising he would bother to try again.

From a moral standpoint, there are other key distinctions. First, Gaston had already lost. There was a struggle that either could have theoretically won, but Beast did. By all rights, he could have killed Gaston, but chose not to. In OOTS, they were technically in the middle of a fight still. Roy did not surrender, submit, or get beaten into helplessness. Xykon was arguably showing mercy only in the sense that Roy walked into that fight with such weak abilities that he had a negligible chance of winning to begin with.

Instead, the exchange was more of a parlay. Roy realized his best shot had no effect, but he was still up and fighting. Xykon just wanted to get rid of an annoyance, so he tried offering a negotiated settlement that would save him the trouble of dealing with the Order. Naturally, Xykon being Xykon, he did it in a (probably) unintentionally patronizing way that only guaranteed Roy would want to fight. When he struck Xykon again, he wasn't attacking an opponent who he let believe that the fight was over--both of them knew very well that they were just talking as a free action.

More importantly, while this whole exchange didn't paint Roy as a villain, it did however undermine our image of the sort of hero he is, which kind of supports my whole point. Roy generally thought of himself as the only sane man of the group, who makes logical, tactically sound short-term decisions but also keeps the team pointed out their long-term goal--and for the most part, the audience was led to agree. His death was the culmination of many cracks in this facade, in which we realize that Roy also has his blind spots, particularly in terms of the Blood Oath, and his willingness to allow his focus to override logic and morality. As I've outline, hitting Xykon wasn't a sneak attack or a backstab, but it was stupid and self-defeating--something inconsistent with Roy's self-image. At that point, he knew he had no way of succeeding. In terms of Azure City, this was the last chance to help in the defense, but in terms of the Blood Oath and stopping Xykon once and for all, Xykon was actually kind of right: The only way the Order could have won was to get stronger and try again.

I'm not sure I buy your distinctions here. In neither case did Gaston or Roy surrender. In both cases it appeared that they were beaten. One might have inferred from the Beast's actions that he was not so evil. Xykon went further and actually reassured Roy that he was not seeking to end the world. I think Roy's attack was a sneak attack, his attack surprised Xykon, who was parlaying, cutting him off mid-sentence. Xykon even gave Roy several more chances to stop.

As to your last paragraph, that may be reasonable Roy character analysis, but it doesn't go to his morality generally or at that moment - moreso to his tactical ability.


Also, you're going to have to cite the specific TVtropes page. I can think of many that you could be referring to, but all of them are about ways in which such an act changes how you see the hero. The only page I can think of where trope doesn't make the hero less heroic is "Good is Not Nice," and that one doesn't contain any examples.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FairPlayVillain

This was the one I was referring to. Given your response to Roy, I'm sure you'll note several distinctions. The question is whether those distinctions are meaningful. So far I haven't thought so.

[Xyril]

Is that clear, or is that an interpretation where you draw some inferences to suggest that Gaston's stated reasons are not his real ones?

Per the original animated movie script:

(GASTON pulls out a sack of gold and tosses it in front of
him. He takes out a piece, scrapes it on his chin and continues.)

Aah, I'm listening.

GASTON: It's like this. I've got my heart set on marrying Belle, but she needs a little persuasion.

I mean, technically you have to make a minor inference or two, since he doesn't outright say, "This money is for you to wrongfully imprison Maurice, which I want you to do so that I can coerce Belle to marry me, and to possibly release him at a later date if, and only if I ask you to. You see, I will tell Belle that I am the only one with the power to have Maurice freed, and that I will only do so if she agrees to marry me. I will do so in explicit words, because apparently nobody in this world understands subtext."

[Liquor Box]

Per the original animated movie script:

(GASTON pulls out a sack of gold and tosses it in front of
him. He takes out a piece, scrapes it on his chin and continues.)

Aah, I'm listening.

GASTON: It's like this. I've got my heart set on marrying Belle, but she needs a little persuasion.

I mean, technically you have to make a minor inference or two, since he doesn't outright say, "This money is for you to wrongfully imprison Maurice, which I want you to do so that I can coerce Belle to marry me, and to possibly release him at a later date if, and only if I ask you to. You see, I will tell Belle that I am the only one with the power to have Maurice freed, and that I will only do so if she agrees to marry me. I will do so in explicit words, because apparently nobody in this world understands subtext."
Sorry, I was finishing my reply to your previous post before I saw this one.

I do understand subtext, but you'll have to accept that people may differ on what the subtext is. Your inference here seems fair. I'd also have to accept that arranging someone's false imprisonment, to coerce an attractive girl into sex is not especially heroic. How do you think it compares to the Beast imprisoning Belle for similar reasons?

You all have got me watching youtube clips from the cartoon.

[Peelee]

I'd also have to accept that arranging someone's false imprisonment, to coerce an attractive girl into sex is not especially heroic.
That is....quite an understatement.

How do you think it compares to the Beast imprisoning Belle for similar reasons?
How is that relevant? Is there a one-Evil-character-per-story limit?

[Xihirli]

No, don't you see? If the beast did something bad, that means Gaston was good.

[Liquor Box]

How is that relevant? Is there a one-Evil-character-per-story limit?

Because there is an argument over whether it was evil for Gaston to attack the Beast. One limb of that argument seems to be that Gaston should have been able to ascertain that the Beast was not evil and dangerous, and therefore should not have attacked.

[Dire_Flumph]

How is that relevant? Is there a one-Evil-character-per-story limit?

If there is, I'd say it's the Enchantress anyway.

[Peelee]

Because there is an argument over whether it was evil for Gaston to attack the Beast. One limb of that argument seems to be that Gaston should have been able to ascertain that the Beast was not evil and dangerous, and therefore should not have attacked.

Evil can attack Evil. Gaston can be hypocritical and condemn the Beast for the same actions that Gaston committed. The Beast's evilness has no bearing on Gaston's evilness in acts that are entirely unrelated to the Beast, such as paying to lock up someone to coerce her into marrying him.

[Liquor Box]

Evil can attack Evil. Gaston can be hypocritical and condemn the Beast for the same actions that Gaston committed. The Beast's evilness has no bearing on Gaston's evilness in acts that are entirely unrelated to the Beast, such as paying to lock up someone to coerce her into marrying him.

True. Is there anyone suggesting otherwise?

The argument has been made that it was an evil act for Gaston to attack the Beast, or it was an evil act for Gaston to attack the Beast again after the Beast refrained from killing him. One such justification for Gaston doing so is that the Beast was (or would have seemed to Gaston) to be evil and dangerous.

I largely make the point you are now labouring on the previous page. I say:

I don't think there's much doubt that the Beast was villainous, even through the show didn't frame his actions that way. After all he was a beast as punishment, he did imprison first the father then the daughter. The question here is whether Gaston was also evil.

[Xyril]

If there is, I'd say it's the Enchantress anyway.
OH! That is a nice twist. I'd say that the Beast's punishment was simply karmic justice, but given modern norms imposing the curse on his entire household (and possibly a supporting serf/peasant population?) is pretty evil. I wonder if this is a case of morality dissonance, where commoners in the time the folktale originated weren't really thought of as individuals with rights and moral agency separate from their lords?



I do understand subtext, but you'll have to accept that people may differ on what the subtext is. Your inference here seems fair.


As a general rule, I do. However, in specific instances, I think the subtext can be so clear that most reasonable people wouldn't disagree on what the subtext is. And in this particular case, it seemed in your response to Rodin that people would have to try very, very hard to not notice the subtext based on the script of that scene as written.



I'd also have to accept that arranging someone's false imprisonment, to coerce an attractive girl into sex is not especially heroic. How do you think it compares to the Beast imprisoning Belle for similar reasons?


Unfavorably, if only to the extent that the Beast seems mildly more self-aware of the fact that he was being the bad guy. That was the point. As a human, the Beast was straddling the line between Neutral Jerk and straight up Evil. After the curse, without even the slightest moderating influence of human contact outside of his castle, he got worse. And this is just me reading subtext, but the fact that let Maurice go in exchange for Belle seems to imply that there might have been other lost travelers, without the benefit of a beautiful, adventurous daughter, who died in the Beasts dungeons. At the very least, Beast seems more than willing to impose such disproportionate retribution given the provocation. That is enough to speak to his character, which was more or less Tragic Villain before Belle came along. The story is his redemption arc, which worked because deep down, he wanted redemption, and he had multiple people in his life who wanted that for him as well.

In an alternate movie where Gaston lived, I wouldn't consider him any more or less capable of redemption than the Beast. The important distinction is that the Beast began talking small, halting steps along the path early in the movie, whereas Gaston never indicated any sort of self-awareness or the desire to better than he was.



Because there is an argument over whether it was evil for Gaston to attack the Beast. One limb of that argument seems to be that Gaston should have been able to ascertain that the Beast was not evil and dangerous, and therefore should not have attacked.

As the guy making that argument, I will say that my focus is more on the "dangerous" because I'm very leery of the idea of slaying things that are Evil purely because they are abstractly "Evil." To me, persecuting/prosecuting/executing someone isn't about exterminating evil--it's about containing, controlling, punishing, or preventing certain actions--or the willingness to make certain actions--that are harmful, morally or otherwise.

Another important factor is how Gaston concluded Beast was evil in the first place. Gaston isn't privy to Beast's backstory--he only knows bits of it. Of those bits he knows, those who show the Beast's villainous side also happen to be actions that Gaston condones, i.e. imprisoning someone in order to get Belle. Other than the fact that the Beast did evil things that Gaston actually condones, the only evidence that the Beast is evil is the fact that he doesn't look human. That is all. Everything that Gaston claims--i.e., that the Beast will attack the town--comes from zero specific evidence. Actually, it's worse than that--it specifically goes against the only evidence he has, Belle's testimony. To me, that's already a huge black mark against Gaston. Add in what Rodin and others have added--that Gaston has no reason to believe that Beast is dangerous, but has one very obvious reason to pretend to believe that he is, and your whole "Gaston is good/neutral because he's slaying Evil" argument already starts to crumble.

In that context, you get to the Beast sparing Gaston. At that point, I find it difficult to believe that Gaston ever truly thought Beast was a threat to begin with, but if you interpret the evidence as favorably to Gaston as possible, we can argue that Gaston was a well-meaning extremist acting on fear and bad information. At that point, the Beast shows him mercy--this is towards the end of a protracted battle where Beast and his household were consistently allowing the mob to retreat, even when lethal force would arguably be more effective. At this point, even a misguided, well-intentioned extreme would have to--at the very least--stop trying to murder the guy who spared him in order to take a beat and reconsider his conclusions.

Because to me, any person--fictitious, or otherwise--who decides on flimsy evidence that a certain person or group of people is dangerous and needs to die, and then refuses to entertain any evidence to the contrary--well, he's basically indistinguishable from a dangerous, evil murderer, isn't he? As a general rule, I am a firm believer that motive is relevant to morality. However, if you've got someone who convinces himself that you need to die and refuses to consider his conclusions, well, at that point is there even a reason to split hairs? At some point, Willfully Stupid becomes indistinguishable from Evil.

[Peelee]

True. Is there anyone suggesting otherwise?
Yes. You.

You are not claiming it, or stating it, but since you asked if anyone was suggesting it, well, your arguments and questions were primed to elicit that suggestion.

I largely make the point you are now labouring on the previous page. I say:
I don't think there's much doubt that the Beast was villainous, even through the show didn't frame his actions that way. After all he was a beast as punishment
The punishment was for not letting a stranger in their home during a storm. On the scale of Evilness, that hardly ranks at all. And the punishment is wildly disproportional.

[Liquor Box]

As a general rule, I do. However, in specific instances, I think the subtext can be so clear that most reasonable people wouldn't disagree on what the subtext is. And in this particular case, it seemed in your response to Rodin that people would have to try very, very hard to not notice the subtext based on the script of that scene as written.

We'll have to agree or disagree on that them. I suppose if we were to look at it through a real life lens, his motivation was probably multi-factorial.


Unfavorably, if only to the extent that the Beast seems mildly more self-aware of the fact that he was being the bad guy. That was the point. As a human, the Beast was straddling the line between Neutral Jerk and straight up Evil. After the curse, without even the slightest moderating influence of human contact outside of his castle, he got worse. And this is just me reading subtext, but the fact that let Maurice go in exchange for Belle seems to imply that there might have been other lost travelers, without the benefit of a beautiful, adventurous daughter, who died in the Beasts dungeons. At the very least, Beast seems more than willing to impose such disproportionate retribution given the provocation. That is enough to speak to his character, which was more or less Tragic Villain before Belle came along. The story is his redemption arc, which worked because deep down, he wanted redemption, and he had multiple people in his life who wanted that for him as well.

In an alternate movie where Gaston lived, I wouldn't consider him any more or less capable of redemption than the Beast. The important distinction is that the Beast began talking small, halting steps along the path early in the movie, whereas Gaston never indicated any sort of self-awareness or the desire to better than he was.

If you are right that several previous travellers died in the Beast's dnugeon prior to the events of the story, then I have to disagree and think the Beast was significantly worse - essentially guilty of multiple murders, rather than a brief period of false imprisonment. Although, again I think you may be reading too much into the subtext and I'm not sure we can make such assumptions about the beast.Not saying that the beast being evil necessarily means Gaston was not.

I did reply to your earlier post. You may have missed it because I edited it into another post, which you had already replied to. No obligation to read or reply, just thought I'd let you know it was there.


Yes. You.

You are not claiming it, or stating it, but since you asked if anyone was suggesting it, well, your arguments and questions were primed to elicit that suggestion.

What question was primed to suggest that because (or if) the beast was evil, then Gaston could not be (except for the Beast's evil being a possible justification for Gaston attacking it)? Is it possible that because you joined a conversation midway you are taking something out of context.


The punishment was for not letting a stranger in their home during a storm. On the scale of Evilness, that hardly ranks at all. And the punishment is wildly disproportional.

I didn't know why he was made a beast. I see someone else said that the enchantress was the true villain (not to imply that this means Gaston is not evil :smallwink:). Maybe they were right?

[Peelee]

Apropos of nothing, but it would greatly amuse me if more things had a Peelee disclaimer.

[Liquor Box]

Apropos of nothing, but it would greatly amuse me if more things had a Peelee disclaimer.

That being the case, I now see your angle in this strange line of conversation. Well played.

[Peelee]

What question was primed to suggest that because (or if) the beast was evil, then Gaston could not be (except for the Beast's evil being a possible justification for Gaston attacking it)? Is it possible that because you joined a conversation midway you are taking something out of context.
Just because I did not engage in the conversation until I did does not mean that I was not reading the conversation the entire time.

I didn't know why he was made a beast. I see someone else said that the enchantress was the true villain (not to imply that this means Gaston is not evil :smallwink:). Maybe they were right?
Enchantress comes to his castle in a storm and asks for refuge. He refuses. She places the curse upon the entire castle, which will become permanent on his 21st birthday. She curses an entire staff because of the (very annoying to the enchantress, but fairly mild overall) action of a single person.

Who, it should be noted, was all of ten years old at the time.

[Xyril]

What question was primed to suggest that because (or if) the beast was evil, then Gaston could not be (except for the Beast's evil being a possible justification for Gaston attacking it)? Is it possible that because you joined a conversation midway you are taking something out of context.


Not speaking for Pelee, but as the main guy in conversation with you. To answer your question, yes, being fully aware of the context, I absolutely saw your comments as being primed to suggest precisely what Pelee was saying.

[Peelee]

Not speaking for Pelee, but as the main guy in conversation with you. To answer your question, yes, being fully aware of the context, I absolutely saw your comments as being primed to suggest precisely what Pelee was saying.

Eh, feel free to speak for me. Just make sure you work the vocal chords right. People have said on numerous occasions I have a voice for radio. Pleasantly sonorous.

[Liquor Box]

Just because I did not engage in the conversation until I did does not mean that I was not reading the conversation the entire time.

Not speaking for Pelee, but as the main guy in conversation with you. To answer your question, yes, being fully aware of the context, I absolutely saw your comments as being primed to suggest precisely what Pelee was saying.

Righto, well to clear up any interpretation of subtext to the contrary, I only see or saw the Beast's evilness as relevant to whether Gaston had any justification to attack him for being an evil threat to the village.

First came up in post 34 where I said "We are using DnD alignment here, and it is a staple of DnD alignment that killing apparently evil monsters is good.".

Xyril, I took your reference in post 53 to "so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like" to suggest that Gaston had no more reason to be worried about the Beast than him being strong and unlikeable". To be clear the Beast's evil actions up to that point are an additional factor to be taken into account when assessing its threat.

I probably could've linked it together better, but my posts already tend to be on the long side and I didn't realise that wasn't very clear.


Enchantress comes to his castle in a storm and asks for refuge. He refuses. She places the curse upon the entire castle, which will become permanent on his 21st birthday. She curses an entire staff because of the (very annoying to the enchantress, but fairly mild overall) action of a single person.

Who, it should be noted, was all of ten years old at the time.

Interesting symmetry to the argument on the previous page that it was evil of Gaston to turn away Maurice in a blizzard (again not suggesting that because the enchantress is evil, Gaston cannot be). I agree, it does seem a bit harsh.

[Peelee]

Righto, well to clear up any interpretation of subtext to the contrary, I only see or saw the Beast's evilness as relevant to whether Gaston had any justification to attack him for being an evil threat to the village.

First came up in post 34 where I said "We are using DnD alignment here, and it is a staple of DnD alignment that killing apparently evil monsters is good.".
That is incredibly edition-dependent, though, and has not been a staple of D&D alignment in updated editions for nearly two decades now.

Interesting symmetry to the argument on the previous page that it was evil of Gaston to turn away Maurice in a blizzard (again not suggesting that because the enchantress is evil, Gaston cannot be). I agree, it does seem a bit harsh.
Indeed, though there are the differences of a grown man with a person he knows in a much more potentially deadly weather condition.

Regardless, though, Enchantress was a huge jerk.

[Xyril]

Xyril, I took your reference in post 53 to "so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like" to suggest that Gaston had no more reason to be worried about the Beast than him being strong and unlikeable". To be clear the Beast's evil actions up to that point are an additional factor to be taken into account when assessing its threat.


Ah, fair point. In my defense, this was your response


I don't think there's much doubt that the Beast was villainous, even through the show didn't frame his actions that way. After all he was a beast as punishment, he did imprison first the father then the daughter.

Half of the evidence was something Gaston didn't actually know--I am 99% sure that Gaston didn't know that Beast was cursed, and almost 100% certain that he wasn't aware that Beast did something evil to "deserve it." The other half is literally stuff that Gaston did/condoned. As I mentioned earlier, I am a firm believer that motive is relevant to morality. While there is ample evidence to us, the omniscient-ish audience, that Beast was the villain, there was at best flimsy evidence known to Gaston to show that Beast was a villain, let alone a specific threat to the village.

Talking about Gaston's justifications for killing Beast, I was expecting you to cite only evidence that Gaston had access to. The fact that you cited evidence not known to him threw me for a loop, so I thought you were trying to make a different point.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

And the beast was evil - he was a beast, he was made a beast because of selfishness and unkindness (although Gaston doesn't know this), ...

Actually, if you crunch the numbers the prince was eleven when he was cursed.

Thus, I think it's very fair to call that fairy/sorceress Chaotic Evil. She goes up to a castle, and the eleven-year-old with no parents in sight refuses to let her in (more than reasonable, IMHO). Keep in mind, she was in disguise, so there's no way he could have recognized her as a trustworthy person even if she was. Then she doffs her disguise, and he apologizes... at which point she curses him and every single servant in the castle, plus all their kids. And not just any curse, a curse that will automatically kill him after a few years.

That's not just chaotic evil, that's extremely chaotic evil.

[CharonsHelper]

Actually, if you crunch the numbers the prince was eleven when he was cursed.

Thus, I think it's very fair to call that fairy/sorceress Chaotic Evil. She goes up to a castle, and the eleven-year-old with no parents in sight refuses to let her in (more than reasonable, IMHO). Keep in mind, she was in disguise, so there's no way he could have recognized her as a trustworthy person even if she was. Then she doffs her disguise, and he apologizes... at which point she curses him and every single servant in the castle, plus all their kids. And not just any curse, a curse that will automatically kill him after a few years.

That's not just chaotic evil, that's extremely chaotic evil.

Yeah - that was one of the things which the live-action version kinda fixed. They made him quite a bit older - plus they had a magical memory wipe to explain why the town didn't remember a castle being there.

Enchantress was still CN at best in the live-action (chip's transformation probably still pushes it to CE), but at least the beast wasn't a kid when transformed.

[GeoffWatson]

Refusing her shelter during a storm would be considered a very bad act, not something minor.

[hamishspence]

The argument has been made that it was an evil act for Gaston to attack the Beast, or it was an evil act for Gaston to attack the Beast again after the Beast refrained from killing him. One such justification for Gaston doing so is that the Beast was (or would have seemed to Gaston) to be evil and dangerous. :

It was pretty obvious that Gaston didn't see the Beast as evil:

"What's the matter, Beast? Too kind and gentle to fight back?"

only as a rival.

And the sparing of Gaston's life would have hammered that in.

[Liquor Box]

That is incredibly edition-dependent, though, and has not been a staple of D&D alignment in updated editions for nearly two decades now.

Is it? So those editions were contemporaneous with the movie?

Surely in modern editions it is good to at least oppose an apparently evil monster (note I am not talking about assuming its evil because it is a monster - as I think you've agreed he is evil on his merits)?


Indeed, though there are the differences of a grown man with a person he knows in a much more potentially deadly weather condition.

Regardless, though, Enchantress was a huge jerk.
Don't know its productive to go down this rabbit hole, but wasn't the enchantress a traveler and the Beasts castle remote, while Gaston's tavern was in the same small village and Maurice's house?


Ah, fair point. In my defense, this was your response

Half of the evidence was something Gaston didn't actually know--I am 99% sure that Gaston didn't know that Beast was cursed, and almost 100% certain that he wasn't aware that Beast did something evil to "deserve it." The other half is literally stuff that Gaston did/condoned. As I mentioned earlier, I am a firm believer that motive is relevant to morality. While there is ample evidence to us, the omniscient-ish audience, that Beast was the villain, there was at best flimsy evidence known to Gaston to show that Beast was a villain, let alone a specific threat to the village.

Talking about Gaston's justifications for killing Beast, I was expecting you to cite only evidence that Gaston had access to. The fact that you cited evidence not known to him threw me for a loop, so I thought you were trying to make a different point.

I agree he wouldn't have known about the curse. There would be two reasons why Gaston might thing the Beast evil - an assumption because he's a monster, and knowing he kidnaped Belle and Maurice.

Whether an assumption based on him being a beast is a good reason depends on the universe - see my earlier comments on this being a fair assumption on early DnD editions, but not later. But the Beast's kidnapping seems a reasonable basis either way.



I can't speak to that, as I'm not a DnD expert.
To be fair, the idea of chaotic evil is a DnD construct, so it is fair to analyse through that lens.


Yet when Gaston was informed of this, he had the old man thrown out into the snow and made no attempt to rescue the girl. Indeed, by the time he did decide to move against the beast, the girl had been released and had told Gaston that the beast was not a threat.
Yes, but that was because he didn't believe the old man. He didn't believe it until he saw the beast in that magic mirror.


This exchange takes place immediately after Gaston has attempted to blackmail Belle into marrying him by having her father wrongfully imprisoned, an act even the corrupt asylum warden called despicable. It's only after realizing that the Beast is a rival for Belle's affections that he begins to stir up the villagers with a false narrative about the threat the Beast poses.

I agree it's hard to defend Gaston committing the old fellow to the asylum if he did it after he knew he wasn't crazy.

But I think it's reasonable to not take Belle's word for it that he would never hurt anyone. That Belle happened to become fond of the Beast (whether it's stockholm syndrome or not) doesn't change the fact that he'd kidnapped her and one other person - and so would appear a threat.


See the above exchange between Gaston and Belle

If I understand the argument, it is that Gaston only said the Beast was a threat after he found Belle liked it. Presumably he learned that after she didn't deny his comment that "If I didn't know better, I'd think you had feelings for this monster."?

Can I ask though, from your quoting of the exchange, what did Gaston say before learning about Belle's feelings that prompted Belle to respond "Oh, no, no. He'd never hurt anyone."?


Others in this thread have given examples to refresh your memory.

Indeed. We have the locking Maurice in the asylum, which I accept.

[hamishspence]

There would be two reasons why Gaston might thing the Beast evil - an assumption because he's a monster, and knowing he kidnaped Belle and Maurice.

Whether an assumption based on him being a beast is a good reason depends on the universe - see my earlier comments on this being a fair assumption on early DnD editions, but not later. But the Beast's kidnapping seems a reasonable basis either way.Gaston's "concern for Belle & Maurice" wasn't a factor when Maurice came to him, begging for help to get Belle free.

Indeed, Gaston tried to have Maurice imprisoned, illegitimately, himself - by the asylum keeper.


It's blatant in the movie that Gaston is a textbook narcissist.

[Liquor Box]

Gaston's "concern for Belle & Maurice" wasn't a factor when Maurice came to him, begging for help to get Belle free.

Indeed, Gaston tried to have Maurice imprisoned, illegitimately, himself - by the asylum keeper.


It's blatant in the movie that Gaston is a textbook narcissist.

I think this has been largely covered.

Gaston didn't believe Maurice - that is not a question of good or evil.

Yes, he did arrange for Maurice to be imprisoned

I agree he's narcissistic, but I don't think that's relevant to his evilness.

[Forum Explorer]

As villains, certainly.

As Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure.

Scar scans as Lawful Evil to me. He twists the inheritance rules by killing Mufasa and thinks he has killed Simba as well. He then launches a despotic rule.

So how do we define his underlings? The hyenas give off a very chaotic vibe, but they don't actually do much. When they try to kill Simba the first time, he's on their turf and is fair game. The second time they're acting on Scar's behalf. They form up under him as an evil army, complete with goose-stepping.

Then again, they turn on Scar at the end of the movie. There's no loyalty there and turning on your master doesn't seem very Lawful to me.

I could be persuaded either way on this one. It doesn't feel right to just peg them as Neutral Evil.

They turn on Scar after Scar verbally tries to throw them under the bus in exchange for his life. So really, he turned on them first.




The punishment was for not letting a stranger in their home during a storm. On the scale of Evilness, that hardly ranks at all. And the punishment is wildly disproportional.

That's a modernism. The Laws of Hospitality used to be sacred, and being punished for violating them by divine or supernatural beings is a really common thing in mythology. Beauty and the Beast is a really really old story, so it is not surprising that somethings don't match up to more modern sensibilities.

[hamishspence]

I agree he's narcissistic, but I don't think that's relevant to his evilness.

Sure it is. All the traits covered under Narcissistic Personality Disorder tend to correlate to evil alignment in D&D - extreme selfishness, extreme lack of empathy, and so on and so forth.


The Laws of Hospitality used to be sacred, and being punished for violating them by divine or supernatural beings is a really common thing in mythology. Beauty and the Beast is a really really old story, so it is not surprising that somethings don't match up to more modern sensibilities.

The "violation of sacred hospitality" bit wasn't in the classic Villeneuve story, and was a change that later adaptations made.

Even then, the main reason it's portrayed as so bad, is usually "turning someone away into a storm puts them in danger" not just "hospitality is always sacred".


I think this has been largely covered.

Gaston didn't believe Maurice - that is not a question of good or evil.

Yes, he did arrange for Maurice to be imprisoned
The point is that any "The beast is a threat because he imprisons people unjustly" thoughts on Gaston's part would be epic hypocrisy when he tried to do exactly the same thing, for much more nefarious motives - the desire to coerce Belle into marrying him and having his children.

Morally speaking, Gaston is a would-be rapist. If you've coerced someone into having sex with you, it's rape.

[Liquor Box]

Sure it is. All the traits covered under Narcissistic Personality Disorder tend to correlate to evil alignment in D&D - extreme selfishness, extreme lack of empathy, and so on and so forth.

I thought you were using 'narcissism' colloquially. I'm not sure about the idea of a disorder making someone evil.

Anyway, i don't believe that "all the traits covered... correlate to evil". According to Mayo clinic, heres the traits:

Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerate achievements and talents
Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
Take advantage of others to get what they want
Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Be envious of others and believe others envy them
Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

While those are largely unlikeable traits, I don't agree that all (or even most) are evil. There's maybe a couple that seem pretty close to what one might describe as evil.


The point is that any "The beast is a threat because he imprisons people unjustly" thoughts on Gaston's part would be epic hypocrisy when he tried to do exactly the same thing, for much more nefarious motives - the desire to coerce Belle into marrying him and having his children.

Morally speaking, Gaston is a would-be rapist. If you've coerced someone into having sex with you, it's rape.

I do accept that arranging for Maurice to be imprisoned was evil, and I've said so several times. I didn't remember that part right when this conversation started out. He may or may not also be a hypocrite, and although that is usually seen as a flaw, it is not evil.

But I don't accept that this somehow renders his good acts evil as well. Fair enough if it is your opinion that Gaston's locking up of Maurice outweighed any good he did (or sought to do) such that he still comes out as evil. But, in my opinion, it is not fair to say that Gaston's attempt to stave off a danger to the village (and I recognise that some people don't think this was his true intent) was not a good thing of itself because he had done evil earlier in the movie.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Besides, sacred hospitality doesn't even come into things unless the person is a guest. There's an argument to be made that the sorceress was a guest just by being in his kingdom, but I think think the situation better falls under "it was his duty to help her because she was (to the best of his knowledge) his subject" (there's probably a snappier name for that).

And had the prince been an adult or even a teenager, I would say that refusing her hospitality is thus an evil act. But he was a child. Firstly, it's not really fair to hold a child to the same standards of duty. And secondly, being a child makes for a different dynamic between the two. It's one thing for a prince to refuse hospitality to a mysterious stranger. It's another thing entirely for a kid to not let a creepy stranger offering strange deals into his home when his parents aren't around. One of those is foolish, short-sighted, and a breech of duty. The other should be standard operating procedure. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

Imprisoning Belle's dad was an evil act, by my reckoning. However, I'm unwilling to condemn the beast as evil for a single evil act, especially since there are a lot of mitigating circumstances (not least, what happened the last time a mysterious stranger sought shelter from him probably left an emotional impact crater). We can infer from the servants' good cheer even after being stuck with him for 10 years that he's not a bad boss, and his behavior through the rest of the film (saving Belle, letting her leave when she asks, working on being a better host, sparing Gaston) is at the least not evil either. I'd be comfortable labelling him as Neutral on the morality axis; plenty of good traits, and some bad ones, though he seems to have mostly gotten over those by the end of the film.

[hamishspence]

in my opinion, it is not fair to say that Gaston's attempt to stave off a danger to the village (and I recognise that some people don't think this was his true intent) was not a good thing of itself because he had done evil earlier in the movie.
The point is that his motive invalidates the whole "attacking The Beast's castle qualifies as a Good Act" theory. His previous behaviour disproves the theory that he had any altruistic reasons for the attack.

[Liquor Box]

Imprisoning Belle's dad was an evil act, by my reckoning. However, I'm unwilling to condemn the beast as evil for a single evil act, especially since there are a lot of mitigating circumstances (not least, what happened the last time a mysterious stranger sought shelter from him probably left an emotional impact crater). We can infer from the servants' good cheer even after being stuck with him for 10 years that he's not a bad boss, and his behavior through the rest of the film (saving Belle, letting her leave when she asks, working on being a better host, sparing Gaston) is at the least not evil either. I'd be comfortable labelling him as Neutral on the morality axis; plenty of good traits, and some bad ones, though he seems to have mostly gotten over those by the end of the film.

If you applied the same lens to Gaston would you also come up neutral? If not, how would you distinguish between the two?

As Hamisphance pointed out, the main evil act of both the Beast and Gaston was similar - to kidnap Maurice/Belle because they wanted Belle.


The point is that his motive invalidates the whole "attacking The Beast's castle qualifies as a Good Act" theory. His previous behaviour disproves the theory that he had any altruistic reasons for the attack.

No it doesn't

If a person has assaulted someone, it doesn't mean they should never stop another person from being assaulted. If they've stolen something, it doesn't mean they should never try and stop another theft.

[hamishspence]

As Hamisphance pointed out, the main evil act of both the Beast and Gaston was similar - to kidnap Maurice/Belle because they wanted Belle.
Nope - that's not quite what I said.


Beast didn't "kidnap Maurice because he wanted Belle."

He imprisoned him for trespassing because he was grumpy and hated trespassers. Slightly disproportionate, but only slightly.



The, when Belle offered a trade, he accepted, but that's not the same thing as "he imprisoned Maurice because he wanted Belle"

[Liquor Box]

Beast didn't "kidnap Maurice because he wanted Belle."

He imprisoned him for trespassing because he was grumpy and hated trespassers. Slightly disproportionate, but only slightly.



The, when Belle offered a trade, he accepted, but that's not the same thing as "he imprisoned Maurice because he wanted Belle"

No, Gaston imprisoned Maurice because he wanted Belle. The Beast imprisoned Belle for that reason

I may be misremembering, but didn't the Beast say he was unwilling to let Belle go because he desired her.


Are you saying that imprisoning Maurice was worse than imprisoning Belle? Why, because he's a third party?

One could say the Beast was worse because he imprisoned Belle because he desired her AND imprisoned Maurice to avenge the trespass.

[hamishspence]

One could say the Beast was worse because he imprisoned Belle because he desired her AND imprisoned Maurice to avenge the trespass.Maurice didn't "volunteer to be imprisoned". Belle did. That made what was done to Belle somewhat less bad than what was done to Maurice.

"desiring Belle" didn't really enter into The Beast's motives for agreeing to the trade, either. Breaking the spell did. When she made the offer, Beast had no real interest in her, just in getting the spell broken.

Over time - he fell in love with her - and that was what convinced him that he'd have to free her - no relationship can function viably with any element of coercion in it.

If they've stolen something, it doesn't mean they should never try and stop another theft.


But if a thief claims that they are "attempting to stop a theft because theft is morally wrong" then they are, self-evidently, lying.

[Liquor Box]

Maurice didn't "volunteer to be imprisoned". Belle did. That made what was done to Belle somewhat less bad than what was done to Maurice.

So if belle was coerced into being imprisoned by the beast to release her father from captivity we call in volunteering. But if she was coerced into marriage with Gaston to release her father it's not voluntary? I disagree with you, I think you're applying a double standard. It's not voluntary either way.


"desiring Belle" didn't really enter into The Beast's motives for agreeing to the trade, either. Breaking the spell did. When she made the offer, Beast had no real interest in her, just in getting the spell broken.

Over time - he fell in love with her - and that was what convinced him that he'd have to free her - no relationship can function viably with any element of coercion in it.

So the beast didn't really want Belle for her when he imprisoned her, he only wanted to break the curse? And Gaston didn't really want her for her either. But both tried to coerce the love/marriage from her by imprisoning either her or her father. Sounds pretty comparable to me.


But if a thief claims that they are "attempting to stop a theft because theft is morally wrong" then they are, self-evidently, lying.

No, they are not obviously lying. That's an oversimplfication. They may think they made a mistake, they may not think of what they did as theft, they may just be a hypocrite (your theory).

There are heaps of examples in media where someone carried out some naughty action, and redeemed themself by turning and stopping others from doing similar sorts of naughtiness. There are examples in real life too (although maybe not within such a short timeframe).

[hamishspence]

There are heaps of examples in media where someone carried out some naughty action, and redeemed themself by turning and stopping others from doing similar sorts of naughtiness. There are examples in real life too (although maybe not within such a short timeframe).

But that's nothing like what Gaston is doing. It is 100% clear that he has not repented what he was going to do to Maurice.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

If you applied the same lens to Gaston would you also come up neutral? If not, how would you distinguish between the two?

As Hamisphance pointed out, the main evil act of both the Beast and Gaston was similar - to kidnap Maurice/Belle because they wanted Belle.

Not really, though. The intentions are totally different. In both cases Maurice seeks aid from someone in a position of power who is arguably duty-bound to give it to them. However, things diverge there. The beast imprisons Maurice because he's traumatized by, well, by his entire backstory and lashing out. Which is still wrong, but understandable, a crime of passion if you will. Gaston laughs in his face and throws him out into the cold, leaving him arguably worse off than the Beast did. Then Gaston arranges for him to be imprisoned as a hostage in a deliberate and malicious scheme. It's like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder; both are wrong, but the second one is worse. As for Belle herself, the Beast lets her go, and I think it's fair to say that Gaston never would, so Gaston comes off looking worse there as well.

Finally, while we see that the Beast is (most of the time) not a bad person, we never get such moments with Gaston, so the time he spends kicking proverbial puppies is the time we have to judge him by. He has one skeevy but relatively neutral scene insisting that Belle become his wife while she tries to politely turn him down, one scene spent talking himself up and then throwing Maurice out into the cold (evil), one scene wrongfully imprisoning Maurice (evil), one scene whipping the town into a murderous mob (I think this is due to jealousy and thus evil, but there is an argument to be made that he had the town's best interests at heart and was just dumb), and then one scene trying to kill someone who refuses to fight back and then trying to kill them again once they show mercy. You argued upthread that that isn't very evil, and is the kind of thing you might see from a hero in a morally grey work, but the fact that he immediately suffers a karmic death (a Self-Disposing Villain (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfDisposingVillain) death, no less) shows that this was intended to be viewed as an evil act.

There's definitely an argument to be made that Gaston is not evil (merely neutral-leaning-evil), especially compared to some of the other villains in the Disney canon. I do, however, think it's clear that on the balance, based on what we're shown in the film, he is more evil than the Beast.

[Liquor Box]

Even if so, Gaston doesn't respond with honest skepticism, he allows his men to taunt the old man and then mockingly says "Alright old man, we'll help you out" before having him thrown out into the snow and moving on to contemplating how to use the man's craziness to blackmail Belle. Here is the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ_SaryharI).


Whether he thought Belle's father was crazy or not, Gaston knew he was harmless, had to bribe the asylum warden to take him into custody, and explicitly states that his motive for doing so is to blackmail Belle into marrying him against her wishes. Here is the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P4WEjQuBRQ).

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQgXutyMa3Q) is the audio from the scene where Gaston's motives in committing Maurice to the asylum are established.

Yes, I agree. I conceded some time ago that that was not particularly good behaviour by Gaston.


From Gaston's perspective the only information he has about the beast is that Maurice (who according to you Gaston does not consider credible) said the Beast was holding Belle captive, while Belle, who turns up at her house clearly not a captive, reports that the beast is in fact harmless. Gaston hasn't actually heard the kidnapping claim from any source that he believes.

Oh I am sure that Gaston believes Maurice after seeing the beast in the mirror. He just didn't believe it until he saw it with his own eyes.


That is correct.

He didn't say anything that prompted that, she said that in response to a villager. The sequence of events was:

-Warden shows up to take Maurice into custody, as Gaston bribed him to do.
-Belle protests that her father is not crazy
-Gaston's followers goad Maurice into describing the beast, mocking him and calling him crazy
-Gaston moves in "Poor Belle. ItÂ’s a shame about your father." "You know heÂ’s not crazy, Gaston."
-Gaston offers to "clear up this little misunderstanding" if and only if Belle agrees to marry him
-Belle refuses. Gaston says "Have it your way" and walks off as Maurice is thrown into the asylum wagon.
-Belle brings out the magic mirror and yells to the crowd "My fatherÂ’s not crazy and I can prove it!", showing them the Beast in the mirror.
-The crowd gasps in astonishment, and a woman bystander asks "Is it dangerous?"
-Belle replies "Oh, no, no. He'd never hurt anyone. Please, I know he looks vicious, but he's really kind and gentle. He's my friend.", leading to the exchange I already quoted.

Gaston never suggests that he actually believes that Maurice deserves to be locked up, and only starts building up the beast as a horrible threat after realizing that Belle prefers the Beast to him.

Gaston confirms that his motive is jealousy during the fight:

I understand the interpretation of the narrative you are putting forward, and it is credible.

There are two potential reasons for Gaston's assault on the Beast. That he is jealous, or that he thinks it dangerous. Either is credible.

Gaston's decision to attack the Beast comes close in time to both realisations (that there's a potentially dangerous beast out there, and that Belle likes it). We are then left with the statement you quote ("Belle is mine") which could be read as his true motive, or could be just a taunt at an enemy. Against this we have Gaston's stated intention (that the Beast is dangerous), which could be read as his true motive, or as a lie.

I am not particularly persuaded by the argument some people are advancing that because Gaston is unlikeable to does other dastardly things his motive for this thing must have been evil.

Could I trouble you for a link to a video of the scene you describe? I just wonder if the timing of Gaston's decision comes through more in the video than the simple text.


Not really, though. The intentions are totally different. In both cases Maurice seeks aid from someone in a position of power who is arguably duty-bound to give it to them. However, things diverge there. The beast imprisons Maurice because he's traumatized by, well, by his entire backstory and lashing out. Which is still wrong, but understandable, a crime of passion if you will. Gaston laughs in his face and throws him out into the cold, leaving him arguably worse off than the Beast did. Then Gaston arranges for him to be imprisoned as a hostage in a deliberate and malicious scheme. It's like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder; both are wrong, but the second one is worse. As for Belle herself, the Beast lets her go, and I think it's fair to say that Gaston never would, so Gaston comes off looking worse there as well.

Finally, while we see that the Beast is (most of the time) not a bad person, we never get such moments with Gaston, so the time he spends kicking proverbial puppies is the time we have to judge him by. He has one skeevy but relatively neutral scene insisting that Belle become his wife while she tries to politely turn him down, one scene spent talking himself up and then throwing Maurice out into the cold (evil), one scene wrongfully imprisoning Maurice (evil), one scene whipping the town into a murderous mob (I think this is due to jealousy and thus evil, but there is an argument to be made that he had the town's best interests at heart and was just dumb), and then one scene trying to kill someone who refuses to fight back and then trying to kill them again once they show mercy. You argued upthread that that isn't very evil, and is the kind of thing you might see from a hero in a morally grey work, but the fact that he immediately suffers a karmic death (a Self-Disposing Villain (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfDisposingVillain) death, no less) shows that this was intended to be viewed as an evil act.

There's definitely an argument to be made that Gaston is not evil (merely neutral-leaning-evil), especially compared to some of the other villains in the Disney canon. I do, however, think it's clear that on the balance, based on what we're shown in the film, he is more evil than the Beast.

Thanks for answering. Am I right that you see two key reasons for distinguishing the Beast and Gaston? That the Beast's bad actions result from Trauma and the Beasts do not. And because Gaston otherwise seems to be an unlikable guy (proverbial puppies)?


There are various ways to interpret the Beast's actions and motives, but yes, they all boil down to evil, progressing slowly to still morally-grey admiration of Belle, and he doesn't fully cross the line to good until he releases Belle (without her asking him to) because he has learned from Belle's example that if you really love someone you will put their interests ahead of your own.

But as I pointed out, Gaston doesn't know anything about this: all he has heard about the Beast is Maurice's description (that he didn't believe) and Belle's description (which describes the Beast as he now is - a reformed character that is gentle and kind).

Yeah, there seem to be some who think that Gaston was evil and the Beast not, when their main evil act seems to me to be very similar (both the act and the motivation). I just wanted to explore why some people seemed to me to be judging Gaston by tougher standards.

[hamishspence]

Yes, I agree. I conceded some time ago that that was not particularly good behaviour by Gaston.



It is vastly worse than "not particularly good".

[Liquor Box]

It is vastly worse than "not particularly good".

Perhaps a cultural preference for understatement, that gets lost in translation with Americans.

If you prefer, the way I labelled it on the previous page "I do accept that arranging for Maurice to be imprisoned was evil,"

[Liquor Box]

I haven't been able to find the clip where he blackmails Belle and then realizes that she likes the Beast, but in this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCENkwPiuU0) that follows immediately after that you can see the clear switch back and forth between the real Gaston (who is coldly pleased to see his propaganda taking effect) and the fake Gaston (who is playing to the crowd with heroic rhetoric).

Thanks for looking, I couldn't find it either (or the text for that matter). I had seen the video of his song. I preferred his other one - it's probably the best song in the film.

[hamishspence]

Perhaps a cultural preference for understatement, that gets lost in translation with Americans.

I'm not American either.

For me, the act is so evil, so selfish that it casts a darker shadow on all acts Gaston does in the movie both before and after it. It makes me unwilling to assume the best about his motives being unselfish anywhere in it.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not American either.

For me, the act is so evil, so selfish that it casts a darker shadow on all acts Gaston does in the movie both before and after it. It makes me unwilling to assume the best about his motives being unselfish anywhere in it.

Maybe lost in translation to lots of people then.

Can I ask a question? Do you think it possible that you find the type of person Gaston is so unlikeable that it is his personality that cast a shadow over his other acts for you. I don't mean because of any objective evil committed by him, but how he is - does his arrogance and narcissism (to use your word) rub you the wrong say that you look at his actual actions through a darker lens? Perhaps it reminds you of a person or type of person you know?

I ask because it does appear to me that you are taking a harsher line on Gaston than on the Beast for what do seem to be similar acts with similar motives (imprisoning someone to get affection from Belle).


I'm in the camp of "they are both evil, but Belle, who owes neither of them anything, graciously decides to help the Beast find redemption, and does not extend the same grace to Gaston". With that said, here are a few reasons to judge Gaston more harshly than the Beast:

- If the Beast doesn't win Belle's heart, he and all his servants are doomed to a horrible fate. If Gaston doesn't win Belle's hand, he literally has a line of beautiful women who would love to be his wife.
-The Beast notices and admires Belle's positive character qualities even before he stops being evil. Gaston considers those qualities to be a nuisance and only wants her body.
-The Beast eventually recognizes his wrongdoing and tries to make it right, even at terrible cost to himself. Gaston never even considers that he might be in the wrong.
-The Beast doesn't ever try to sexually harass or assault Belle. Gaston does.

I can accept the first. I don't agree with the second, I don't think it makes much difference whether the suitor is attracted to her for her looks or some other aspect, although I get that some people think being attracted to looks is bad and being attracted to wits is good.

On the final point, I don't recall any sexual harrasment. Do you happen to have a link. I do have a vague recollection of the Beast flying into a violent rage and threatening Belle with violence. But i wonder if both these things pale next to the imprisonment.

[hamishspence]

Narcissism is strongly tied to selfishness. So, to me, it makes sense for his proving himself narcissistic, to mean that all his acts should be assumed to be "selfish unless proven otherwise".

The Beast's acts throughout the movie - demonstrate a growing lack of selfishness. His freeing Belle, knowing that if she doesn't come back and be "in love" in a very short time, he will be a beast forever, really hammers it home.

[Liquor Box]

Narcissism is strongly tied to selfishness. So, to me, it makes sense for his proving himself narcissistic, to mean that all his acts should be assumed to be "selfish unless proven otherwise".


Thank you, that answers my question.

[hamishspence]

The act Gaston committed (his Scarpia Ultimatum (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScarpiaUltimatum)), not the personality traits he displayed, was the deciding factor though.


Beast committed no Scarpia Ultimatum, and instead, Belle made a Please, I Will Do Anything (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PleaseIWillDoAnything) request, to which the Beast's response was "Stay here, forever".


The two are fundamentally different in nature, especially as portrayed in the movie.

Some things push people across the Moral Event Horizon for me, and issuing a Scarpia Ultimatum is one of them.

[Forum Explorer]

I do accept that arranging for Maurice to be imprisoned was evil, and I've said so several times. I didn't remember that part right when this conversation started out. He may or may not also be a hypocrite, and although that is usually seen as a flaw, it is not evil.

But I don't accept that this somehow renders his good acts evil as well. Fair enough if it is your opinion that Gaston's locking up of Maurice outweighed any good he did (or sought to do) such that he still comes out as evil. But, in my opinion, it is not fair to say that Gaston's attempt to stave off a danger to the village (and I recognise that some people don't think this was his true intent) was not a good thing of itself because he had done evil earlier in the movie.

What good acts? The Beast isn't a danger to the village at all as he hasn't killed anyone, and released everyone he imprisoned. The only proof that he's a threat is that he's furry and big. Also there is no proof that Gaston thought the Beast was a threat to begin with.


Maybe lost in translation to lots of people then.

Can I ask a question? Do you think it possible that you find the type of person Gaston is so unlikeable that it is his personality that cast a shadow over his other acts for you. I don't mean because of any objective evil committed by him, but how he is - does his arrogance and narcissism (to use your word) rub you the wrong say that you look at his actual actions through a darker lens? Perhaps it reminds you of a person or type of person you know?

I ask because it does appear to me that you are taking a harsher line on Gaston than on the Beast for what do seem to be similar acts with similar motives (imprisoning someone to get affection from Belle).


Personally I find his actions paint him as a villain rather than any problems with his ego.

[Liquor Box]

The act Gaston committed (his Scarpia Ultimatum (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScarpiaUltimatum)), not the personality traits he displayed, was the deciding factor though.


Beast committed no Scarpia Ultimatum, and instead, Belle made a Please, I Will Do Anything (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PleaseIWillDoAnything) request, to which the Beast's response was "Stay here, forever".


The two are fundamentally different in nature, especially as portrayed in the movie.

Some things push people across the Moral Event Horizon for me, and issuing a Scarpia Ultimatum is one of them.

Did Gaston ever give any such ultimatum? Perhaps he was angling for Belle to say "please I will do anything" to him.

To me it doesn't matter, the two are not really morally distinguishable. You have a gun to someone's head and you either make the demand explicitly, or imply it and wait for them to offer.


What good acts? The Beast isn't a danger to the village at all as he hasn't killed anyone, and released everyone he imprisoned. The only proof that he's a threat is that he's furry and big. Also there is no proof that Gaston thought the Beast was a threat to begin with.
Well Gaston does say that he thinks the Beast is a threat. Although some have argued that Gaston's word is not proof of what he thought.

He hadn't murdered anyone, but he'd kidnapped two people. Makes him seem dangerous.


Personally I find his actions paint him as a villain rather than any problems with his ego.
Yes, it was just one poster who I got the feeling was coming from the perspective of really not liking him so seeing his actions through a negative lens (which he confirmed). Although to be honest, we probably all subconsciously do that to a greater or lessor degree.

[hamishspence]

I've never met anyone like Gaston - but I've read enough novels and watched enough TV to know what tropes I'm looking at when I see them.



Did Gaston ever give any such ultimatum?

YES!!

He admits that is the ultimatum he's going to make when he's talking to the asylum keeper, the asylum keeper verbalises the whole thing, and Gaston doesn't deny it.

And later:

Poor Belle, it's a shame about your father.
(Belle: You know he's not crazy, Gaston.)
I think I might be able to clear up this little misunderstanding.... if.....
(Belle: If what?) ..... if you marry me.
(Belle: What?)
One little world, Belle. That's all it takes.
(Belle: Never.)
Have it your way.

[Liquor Box]

YES!!

He admits that is the ultimatum he's going to make when he's talking to the asylum keeper, the asylum keeper verbalises the whole thing, and Gaston doesn't deny it.

And later:

“Poor Belle, it's a shame about your father.
(Belle: You know he's not crazy, Gaston.)
I think I might be able to clear up this little misunderstanding.... if.....
(Belle: If what?) ..... if you marry me.
(Belle: What?)
One little world, Belle. That's all it takes.
(Belle: Never.)
Have it your way.

Fair enough.

We may have to agree to disagree here, but I don't see that as any different than if he had said "I locked your father up and will never let him out" and Belle had said "I beg you, please, I'll do anything", and he said to marry him then.


It's not just that one likes her wits and the other likes her body - it's that the Beast from the outset sees in Belle the unselfishness that the Beast lacks, while Gaston criticizes Belle for reading and laughs at her father even before the first time she rejects him, because the only value he sees in Belle is the way she can fulfill his self-centered goals.
So your point is that Beast is more moral because he truly wants Belle for her (at the end), while Gaston doesn't really like the inner her, and sees her as an ideal trophy. So Gaston is more superficial?


This clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoLGL_fz1TM) has some non-consensual touching and this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5kWyKUe2Io) has some very pushy advances that are obviously unwelcome (though Gaston is too self-centered to see it). Not horrible villainy but still an unfavorable comparison to the Beast. And as others have mentioned, blackmailing someone into marrying you by threatening their family is about as close as a kids cartoon will get to sexual assault.

Also as I recall the beast never actually threatened Belle with physical harm. He definitely raged, but his rage was limited to verbal abuse and breaking furniture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa8PR8W7cLI).
Yeah, I guess for me the pushy advances (and the raging from the beast) are both overshadowed by a long way by each character coercing Belle into marriage/love, so don't really distinguish between the two.

[hamishspence]

Except that he never made any request of that sort.

"Stay here forever" is not "Marry me".


Do you think it possible that you find the type of person Gaston is so unlikeable that it is his personality that cast a shadow over his other acts for you.
Do you think it's possible that you find the type of person Gaston is so likeable that you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it isn't called for?



To me it doesn't matter, the two are not really morally distinguishable. You have a gun to someone's head and you either make the demand explicitly, or imply it and wait for them to offer.

The Beast was visibly surprised when Belle made the offer. It was clear he wasn't expecting it.

"You would ... take his place?!"

I guess for me the pushy advances (and the raging from the beast) are both overshadowed by a long way by each character coercing Belle into marriage/love, so don't really distinguish between the two.

The Beast didn't coerce Belle into love. That's completely counter to what the movie actually shows.

[Liquor Box]

Except that he never made any request of that sort.

"Stay here forever" is not "Marry me".

But didn't you say earlier that what the Beast was after was not just "stay here for ever", but also "fall in love with me". Which doesn't strike me as any better than marriage. Both imply captivity in a intimate relationship.


Do you think it's possible that you find the type of person Gaston is so likeable that you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it isn't called for?
I found him an entertaining character, so I like him in that respect, although I doubt I would like him in real life. I do think that because of that I may be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (although I don't think that is any less "called for" than the opposite). If I am doing that, it provides a useful counterbalance to those whose biases swing the other way.

As noted above, I think we are probably all susceptible to letting things like liking a character influence our perception of their action in irrelevant ways, to a greater or lessor degree.


But the Beast's demand wasn't "marry me", it was "promise to never leave the castle" after which Belle was moved into a nice room and taken care of, given free reign of the castle, and the Beast never so much as touches her, but attempts clumsily to win her affections. It's only Belle's promise that keeps her there, and after the Beast chases her out in the scene I linked to she ends up going back of her own accord out of compassion for the Beast.

How is that different to marriage to Gaston? She would free reign of the town, probably a nice room, and it would be her marriage vows rather than chains that keep her there? I suppose Gaston might expect sex, but the Beast forcing her to stay until she falls in love with him implies that as an endgame as well.

[hamishspence]

Plus the Beast doesn't issue any "You have to fall in love with me" demands (because genuine love is not something that can be coerced, and only genuine love will break the spell).

[Rodin]

The discussion about the Beast is interesting, but it's irrelevant to the discussion about whether Gaston is evil. Let's try looking at the start of the story from Gaston's point of view.

1) He asks Belle out on a date. She demures, but politely enough that Gaston can be forgiven for not recognizing she isn't interested.

2) He goes straight from that to arranging a wedding and ambushing Belle with a proposal. Belle makes her feelings very clear by tossing him out of the house.

3) He's in a depression being cheered up by his pals when Maurice comes in. Maurice says Belle is in danger from a monster. Gaston considers the idea ridiculous and has him thrown out of the tavern.

4) Light bulb moment - Maurice is known to be a bit crazy. He arranges the meeting with the asylum keeper, and bribes him to lock up Maurice if Belle won't marry him.

5) Belle and Maurice aren't home, so he waits. He stations a lookout on the door so he can enact his plan whenever they do come home.

6) They come home, and Gaston brings the asylum keeper and a crowd to Belle's house to lock up Maurice. He offers to clear Maurice's name if she promises to marry him.

7) She rejects him a third time, so he starts following through on his threat.

--------

That's all you need to know about Gaston's morality. From his perspective, the Beast doesn't even exist. It's only after he's made the ultimatum that Belle retrieves the magic mirror to show Maurice isn't lying. If the Beast didn't exist either Maurice would have been locked up or Belle would have been forced into marriage. There is no lens through which you can view Gaston as a good person. Even protecting the village from the Beast isn't necessarily a "good" motive. The village is where Gaston keeps his stuff. He also expresses a desire for a trophy - to mount the Beast's head on his wall. If his motive isn't jealousy* then his motive is bagging the biggest hunting prize ever.


*it is

[CharonsHelper]

Good summary of why Gaston was evil.

I agree 100%.

Actually - that was one of the interesting bits in the live-action that they tweaked. Gaston was probably still evil, but not AS evil. Plus, they definitely implied that he had PTSD from a war he'd been in. They definitely went for more shades of gray all-around. (Though - I still prefer the cartoon.)

[hamishspence]

Actually - that was one of the interesting bits in the live-action that they tweaked. Gaston was probably still evil, but not AS evil. Plus, they definitely implied that he had PTSD from a war he'd been in. They definitely went for more shades of gray all-around. (Though - I still prefer the cartoon.)Are you sure? I got the impression that the live-action one made Gaston worse, not better, by having him leave Maurice to the wolves after tying him up before finding out that the Beast really existed.

Basically, attempted murder of Maurice - far worse than just "throwing him out of the tavern".

He was so vile, that live-action Lefou eventually defected, ceasing to follow Gaston - whereas cartoon Lefou remained loyal.



Still, given how much of the thread has been spent on Gaston - how about other "romantic rival to one of the protagonists" characters like Clayton from Tarzan?

Jane is very Belle-ish - and even has an extremely eccentric father.


I think Jafar from Aladdin, while he fits too, has been discussed already - though maybe it's not clear where he falls on the Law/Chaos axis.

[hamishspence]

I feel like most Disney classics don't have a romantic rival - usually the villain is out for power or wealth and the love story just gets in their way.

True. Clayton doesn't seem all that interested in marrying Jane. Jafar fits a little closer, but not much.


Ronno in Bambi is very much a romantic rival, but not really evil - just doing what deer do.

[Peelee]

Is it? So those editions were contemporaneous with the movie?
Yes (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771200/).

Surely in modern editions it is good to at least oppose an apparently evil monster (note I am not talking about assuming its evil because it is a monster - as I think you've agreed he is evil on his merits)?
A.) With that being the only criteria? No. And that's ignoring that Gaston did not believe the Beast was evil.

That's a modernism. The Laws of Hospitality used to be sacred, and being punished for violating them by divine or supernatural beings is a really common thing in mythology. Beauty and the Beast is a really really old story, so it is not surprising that somethings don't match up to more modern sensibilities.
Disney famously alters their fairy tale movies to be more acceptable to modern audiences and child-friendly.

Also, Beauty and the Beast takes places sometime in the early-to-mid 1700s. Not all that long ago.

[Forum Explorer]

Did Gaston ever give any such ultimatum? Perhaps he was angling for Belle to say "please I will do anything" to him.

To me it doesn't matter, the two are not really morally distinguishable. You have a gun to someone's head and you either make the demand explicitly, or imply it and wait for them to offer.


Well Gaston does say that he thinks the Beast is a threat. Although some have argued that Gaston's word is not proof of what he thought.

He hadn't murdered anyone, but he'd kidnapped two people. Makes him seem dangerous.


The difference is that in the first case, the Beast actually had a right to imprison Maurice. After all, Maurice had broken into his house.

On the contrary, at the time he's kidnapped no one. The two people he kidnapped had both been released by that point. And really, had only been kidnapped for such a short time that Gaston hadn't even noticed they were gone. And neither of them had been taken randomly, one offered and the other was trespassing.

As others have said, Gaston's words contradict themselves, and his actions point to him being a liar and corrupt. There is no reason to take him at his word.



Yes (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771200/).

A.) With that being the only criteria? No. And that's ignoring that Gaston did not believe the Beast was evil.

Disney famously alters their fairy tale movies to be more acceptable to modern audiences and child-friendly.

Also, Beauty and the Beast takes places sometime in the early-to-mid 1700s. Not all that long ago.

Three hundred years was pretty bloody long ago. But beauty and the beast is an adaptation of even older myths about having some mysterious perfect partner who has some odd condition to their marriage and by breaking it they lose their partner and everything else to boot.

[hamishspence]

The difference is that in the first case, the Beast actually had a right to imprison Maurice. After all, Maurice had broken into his house.


More "trespass" than "broken in" - the door was unlocked and there was no intent to burgle, after all.

Live action Maurice did make the decision to take something (a rose) just like in the pre-animated versions of the story though.


"Right to imprison" would come from the fact that The Beast is still a prince - it's not like some senior figure declared him "No Longer A Prince" after the transformation, after all.

[Peelee]

Three hundred years was pretty bloody long ago.
Its relative, of course, but in terms of the Laws of Hospitality? Not that long ago.

But beauty and the beast is an adaptation of even older myths about having some mysterious perfect partner who has some odd condition to their marriage and by breaking it they lose their partner and everything else to boot.
And if it was set in that time period you would have had an excellent point. It ain't. It's set in 18th century France, where 10-year-old Adam can certainly refuse a stranger asking to get into his home.

[Forum Explorer]

Its relative, of course, but in terms of the Laws of Hospitality? Not that long ago.

And if it was set in that time period you would have had an excellent point. It ain't. It's set in 18th century France, where 10-year-old Adam can certainly refuse a stranger asking to get into his home.

I'm not actually sure when the Laws of Hospitality fell out of practice but I believe it was during/after the Industrial Revolution which happened after the setting Beauty and the Beast took place in.

[Peelee]

I'm not actually sure when the Laws of Hospitality fell out of practice but I believe it was during/after the Industrial Revolution which happened after the setting Beauty and the Beast took place in.

Would you then like to contend that if, in, say, AD 1720, while visiting England, if it rained (unlikely as that may be), I could reasonably expect to be housed at Buckingham Palace?

Further, a quick googling shows that it was basically an ancient Greek/ancient Roman practice, with some adherence in medieval Europe. Pretty sure that by the time colonial America existed, it had been gone for a bit. You are free to present evidence that 18th century French royalty practiced it, of course.

[Forum Explorer]

Would you then like to contend that if, in, say, AD 1720, while visiting England, if it rained (unlikely as that may be), I could reasonably expect to be housed at Buckingham Palace?

Further, a quick googling shows that it was basically an ancient Greek/ancient Roman practice, with some adherence in medieval Europe. Pretty sure that by the time colonial America existed, it had been gone for a bit. You are free to present evidence that 18th century French royalty practiced it, of course.

A bad example, as Buckingham Palace is in a city, where things are much different. The city itself has facilities for travelers. An even worse example because the rich have never been obligated to follow the rules of everyone else. It's why the rich getting punished for being bad hosts is very popular when they are forced to follow the rules by someone even more powerful. To make the example the absolute worst, royalty is what? 0.001% of a population? The royalty participating in a system or not isn't really proof of a widespread belief in hospitality.


But I feel like we're getting off topic here. Going way back to my original point, the idea of being punished for being a bad host (or more rarely guest), is an ancient trope. That being seen as disproportionate is a relatively modern idea. Even today the expectation of being a good host is still very prevalent, though it is not extended to complete strangers.

[No brains]

An aside: How evil is Maurice? I may be misremembering a different scene in the movie, but doesn't his wood-chopping invention endanger some people? How justifiable is the case that Maurice is a legitimate public menace with his contraptions?

[The Glyphstone]

Since we've discussed, to some degree, most of Disney's lead villains, what about Ursula and Dr. Facilier, two names I haven't seen discussed yet?


Ursula's probably a solid candidate for Lawful Evil with her penchant for dealing, though if she sets up everyone she bargains with to fail like Ariel instead of just charging a harsh price, it's a far more Chaotic sort of approach since the "deals" were made in false faith to begin with.


Facilier feels like a better candidate for being Lawful, or Neutral at best. He also makes deals, but is more up-front about the dark costs and seems to prefer 'twisting' the wishes into Technical Genie territory rather than outright sabotaging their success.

[Peelee]

A bad example, as Buckingham Palace is in a city, where things are much different. The city itself has facilities for travelers. An even worse example because the rich have never been obligated to follow the rules of everyone else. It's why the rich getting punished for being bad hosts is very popular when they are forced to follow the rules by someone even more powerful. To make the example the absolute worst, royalty is what? 0.001% of a population? The royalty participating in a system or not isn't really proof of a widespread belief in hospitality.


But I feel like we're getting off topic here. Going way back to my original point, the idea of being punished for being a bad host (or more rarely guest), is an ancient trope. That being seen as disproportionate is a relatively modern idea. Even today the expectation of being a good host is still very prevalent, though it is not extended to complete strangers.
So it's different for the rich, and Adam was rich, but he was still beholden to it and issues with it are modernism despite it being a modernized tale.

Im not so sure that's a terribly strong argument.

[hamishspence]

An aside: How evil is Maurice? I may be misremembering a different scene in the movie, but doesn't his wood-chopping invention endanger some people? How justifiable is the case that Maurice is a legitimate public menace with his contraptions?

The only times the woodchopper is seen in use, are at his house (when only him and Belle are there) and during Chip's rescue of them.

As far as I can tell, no townsfolk are seen being menaced by one of Maurice's contraptions.

[Rodin]

The only times the woodchopper is seen in use, are at his house (when only him and Belle are there) and during Chip's rescue of them.

As far as I can tell, no townsfolk are seen being menaced by one of Maurice's contraptions.

I watched it a couple nights ago (because of this thread and because it's the best Disney movie ever made) and can confirm this. There's no indication the townsfolk feel threatened by him either - even the asylum keeper describes him as harmless. Maurice is just the kooky old dude who lives at the edge of town and occasionally blows up his own basement.

[Xyril]

I think Jafar from Aladdin, while he fits too, has been discussed already - though maybe it's not clear where he falls on the Law/Chaos axis.

Honestly, Jafar seems like a straight up villain regardless of Jasmine. It's been a while since I've seen the animated version, but in the Will Smith remake it seemed like his interest in Jasmine was almost entirely as a means of legitimizing his takeover, without any real romantic/sexual component. Above all, Jafar's goal was to have nominal to match the practical power he was already wielding, as well as the recognition and legitimacy that would bring. The most obvious means to achieve that goal was to manipulate the Sultan into letting him marry Jasmine forcing Jasmine to marry him, while keeping in place the laws/norms that prevent a woman from becoming a queen regent--then, by default, her husband would be the next sultan regent, with all the status and respect that confers.

I'm still largely on Gaston being evil, but after talking with liquorbox I think there might be room to interpret him as being possibly neutral/jerk. More importantly, in the arc of the movie, he's set up primarily as an (unattractive) romantic rival first, while slowly revealing his more villainous aspects. Both aspects of his character are indispensable to the plot. In contrast, if you removed the whole "marrying Jasmine" part, and had Jafar instead try to take (overt) power by manipulating the Sultan into naming him Jasmine's regent, or abdicating the throne and naming Jafar his heir in spite of tradition, or any of a number of other options, and the rest of the plot could have continued as it was with no other alterations.

[Tvtyrant]

Since we've discussed, to some degree, most of Disney's lead villains, what about Ursula and Dr. Facilier, two names I haven't seen discussed yet?


Ursula's probably a solid candidate for Lawful Evil with her penchant for dealing, though if she sets up everyone she bargains with to fail like Ariel instead of just charging a harsh price, it's a far more Chaotic sort of approach since the "deals" were made in false faith to begin with.


Facilier feels like a better candidate for being Lawful, or Neutral at best. He also makes deals, but is more up-front about the dark costs and seems to prefer 'twisting' the wishes into Technical Genie territory rather than outright sabotaging their success.

Ursula seems Lawful or neutral to me. Engages in bargains, wants to be Queen, embraces hierarchy. I think she is Evil, and just lawful.

Facilier's name is a pun on facilitate, he's like an evil genie who gets his in the end. I would put him at very Lawful.

[Xyril]

There are heaps of examples in media where someone carried out some naughty action, and redeemed themself by turning and stopping others from doing similar sorts of naughtiness. There are examples in real life too (although maybe not within such a short timeframe).

What's missing in Gaston's case is any clear indication of self-awareness, remorse, the desire to make amends, or a situational where his newly found morality is applied in a non-self-serving way.

I love a good redemption story. One of my favorite semi-obscure comics was Human Target, about an assassin who reforms and becomes a highly capable bodyguard. I find his redemption arc believable--unlike Gaston's--largely because of those elements.

Self-awareness:
Chance, the hero of Human Target, was essentially raised by assassins, who made killing seem normalized. As he gained exposure to the rest of the world, and especially after he reformed, he never denied that what used to be normal for him was morally wrong. Instead of using his upbringing (without which, he arguably never would have become a cold-blooded killer) to somehow justify or excuse his past actions, he never tries to deny that his past acts were evil.

In contrast, Gaston is the poster child for lack of self-awareness.

Remorse:
Chance clearly feels remorse. He's encountered the damage left by his past sins on a few occasions, and it clearly haunts him. The whole reason he turned was because he fell in love with one of his targets--until that point, he tried really hard to be willfully blind to the fact that his targets were people, with hopes and dreams, who loved others and were loved in return. Without this event shattering his wall of denial, he never would have reformed--and even if he did, I would find it hard to think he was sincere.

Meanwhile, Gaston doesn't say or do anything that indicate any sort of internal moral conflict or regret.

Amends:
Chance's entire life becomes about saving lives to make up for the ones he took, knowing that no matter how many he saved he could never truly balance the scales. On top of that, he often tries (with little success) to reform other assassins who were once like him.

Meanwhile, Gaston does nothing to address his evil acts. Even if--for the sake of argument--we assume that Gaston had pure motives for locking Maurice up, the minute he saw the Beast in the mirror, he knew Maurice wasn't crazy. So did he immediately run to have him freed? No. Did he, at the very least, say "Oh my God, I've locked up an innocent man!" Nope. Instead, he immediately moves on to Plan B for getting Belle.

Selfless Change in Morality:
Chance becomes an elite bodyguard who does his job by inserting himself into the target's life (even impersonating him sometimes) to draw the assassin out. It's very dangerous work. Also, because he doesn't believe that wealth should determine whether you deserve to live, he charges a straight-up percentage of your wealth for his services--and he takes on enough poor or working class clients that he's not exactly getting rich off his calling. In contrast, if Chance had never decided that "murder is wrong," and stayed in his old job, he'd be much safer and wealthier. Heck, if he decided on a more neutral stance, and decided to be an elite bodyguard to the rich, he'd also be wealthier. Instead, his newly realigned moral compass extracts a real personal cost, rather than benefiting him.

In contrast, as I've already discussed, Gaston's alleged "change of heart" is entirely self-serving. Condemning the Beasts as evil serves to rally his lynch mob, and gives him moral cover for eliminating a romantic rival. If he had really reached some sort of moral epiphany, it would also apply to reexamining his own actions, no matter how inconvenient they may be.

If the writers had intended a Gaston redemption arc, it would have taken no more than 30 seconds to add a brief scene where he frees Maurice and apologizes, maybe turns out the asylum guard who took the bribe, and offers to surrender himself for trial after the "threat" of the Beast is dealt with. Or they could have peppered varying existing scenes with subtle hints about his internal conflictedness. Such elements are conspicuously absent.

[Peelee]

I watched it a couple nights ago (because of this thread and because it's the best Disney movie ever made)

*ahem (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/)*

If you want to get all technical on "made by Disney", then I'd link you to Rogue One instead. If you insist on one made under the direct Disney banner, then Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (the rest of the series beating it into the ground doesn't kill how good that first one was). And if you want to go all-in and insist on traditional "Disney princess"-type movie, then Moana takes the crown.

Though my wife would agree with you, so there's that.

[Forum Explorer]

So it's different for the rich, and Adam was rich, but he was still beholden to it and issues with it are modernism despite it being a modernized tale.

Im not so sure that's a terribly strong argument.

My argument that issues with Adam's punishment are from modernism and that the trope of a rich/powerful person being cursed by a supernatural being for being rude in some way is a classic idea that has existed for a lot longer than beauty and the beast has.

It has nothing to do with how wealthy aristocrats didn't have to follow the Law of Hospitality or how wide spread the Law of Hospitality actually was back than.

The tale was modernized (everything involving Gaston for example was added in), but just because parts of it were added in or changed doesn't mean the story's roots suddenly change. There will still be parts of it that are more aligned with older values than modern ones.

If you are going to prove my argument wrong, than I suppose you should look to proving that the Beast's punishment was always seen as disproportionate and that he was unfairly cursed.

[Peelee]

My argument that issues with Adam's punishment are from modernism

And my rebuttal is that Disneyfied movies are explicitly modernized takes. To quote the great Jack McCoy, if you play stickball in Canarsie, you better learn Brooklyn rules. Modernized versions mean modernized criticisms are valid. There's a reason Sleeping Beauty isn't pregnant when she wakes up on the silver screen.

[Vinyadan]

The punishment was for not letting a stranger in their home during a storm. On the scale of Evilness, that hardly ranks at all. And the punishment is wildly disproportional.

Actually, I think he completely deserved it.

If there was a storm, as the lightning and the clouds suggest, then the stranger could have been crushed by a tree, drowned while trying to pass a stream, suffocated by a mudslide, killed by a rockslide, she could have fallen down a hillside to her death, lost the trail, contracted pneumonia, lost or ruined her possessions, among which food, and be forced to walk for maybe days without eating...

The narrator says that it was in winter, so the prince was likely sending her to freeze to death in the night, or to be devoured by wolves, or to lose her toes to the cold. He literally was a prince, and could have had someone guard her, if need be. And she was an old woman, alone and poor, while he was a young and rich prince with a house full of men at his orders, so, in practice, the strong refusing the responsibility to protect the weak (while being a prince, so on his way to be a ruler, too!).

Plus, law of hospitality.

Pity for his household, however. But I suspect that the lesson wasn't "household people don't count as their own", more like "if the ruler screws up, all of his men will be toast with him". And there might have been an element of wishful thinking in this, that the peasants wouldn't be the only one to suffer and the ruler would also suffer with them if he screwed up. Or maybe it was a story to show young princes how the ideal prince acts and what his opposite is. Or, it could be an overlong story to inculcate the fact that hospitality is sacred.

More importantly, the cursed household is a representative of a typical Disney trope: that the king (or the hero) must come and mend his broken kingdom. The kingdom was cursed (or is dying) because of an unjust ruler. In the Lion King, the unjust ruler is Scar, the king is Simba. In B&B, it's the same person with and without moral compass: the unjust ruler is Unjust Prince, the healer king is Just Prince.

[Peelee]

Actually, I think he completely deserved it.

If there was a storm, as the lightning and the clouds suggest, then the stranger could have been crushed by a tree, drowned while trying to pass a stream, suffocated by a mudslide, killed by a rockslide, she could have fallen down a hillside to her death, lost the trail, contracted pneumonia, lost or ruined her possessions, among which food, and be forced to walk for maybe days without eating...

Similarly, any hitchhiker on the road could be run over by a car whose driver is not paying attention, trip and fall into the road and be run over by someone who cannot stop in time, trip and fall over into the road and be safe but cause a major pileup when the driver swerves to avoid them, be caught in a storm in which any of your things may happen, .... So everyone who does not pick up any hitchhiker is deserves to be cursed as the Adam was. By that logic.

[Vinyadan]

Similarly, any hitchhiker on the road could be run over by a car whose driver is not paying attention, trip and fall into the road and be run over by someone who cannot stop in time, trip and fall over into the road and be safe but cause a major pileup when the driver swerves to avoid them, be caught in a storm in which any of your things may happen, .... So everyone who does not pick up any hitchhiker is deserves to be cursed as the Adam was. By that logic.
That's not really comparable, because we live in very different times today. It was normal to band together with others when you were travelling, because it made you safer. Not everyone could afford a horse, which made travel times were way longer, so asking for hospitality along the way was normal. Instead, a hitchhiker is doing something often illegal and generally unusual, and you can easily call the cops on him to get him to safety, whether you believe that he chose to hitchhik or not.

Add that you could be afraid of an hitchhiker. You are alone, or with few people, or with your family, and the hitchhiker could be armed. The Beast, instead, had no reason to fear for his safety, since he had ample space and many men at his service.

I have made a short research, and it appears that the US do not have a duty to rescue law, and that there are very limited cases where a state requires you to help, so there might be a huge cultural difference when it comes to this matter.

[Peelee]

That's not really comparable, because we live in very different times today. It was normal to band together with others when you were travelling, because it made you safer. Not everyone could afford a horse, which made travel times were way longer, so asking for hospitality along the way was normal. Instead, a hitchhiker is doing something often illegal and generally unusual, and you can easily call the cops on him to get him to safety, whether you believe that he chose to hitchhik or not.

Add that you could be afraid of an hitchhiker. You are alone, or with few people, or with your family, and the hitchhiker could be armed. The Beast, instead, had no reason to fear for his safety, since he had ample space and many men at his service.

I have made a short research, and it appears that the US do not have a duty to rescue law, and that there are very limited cases where a state requires you to help, so there might be a huge cultural difference when it comes to this matter.

Again, the cultural "law of hospitality" was an ancient Greek/ancient Roman invention, and had some semblances still in place in medieval Europe (at the absolute latest 15th century), with no indication it was still around 300 years later.

Even if the "law of hospitality" was a thing (which there has been no evidence of), he was still a prince, and thus not subject to it.

Even if he was, he still had ample reason to fear for his safety - that ample reason being he was 10 years old.

The punishment did not fit the crime. That may have been seen differently two thousand years ago when the "law of hospitality" was actually in full effect, but 18th century France is not 1st century Greece and a prince in a castle is not a commoner in a cottage.

[Sholos]

Gaston vs Beast

Just look at their responses to rejection. Gaston thinks there's something wrong with her and she should change to fit his desires. Beast figures out there's something wrong with him and changes to be a better person.

[Peelee]

Gaston vs Beast

Just look at their responses to rejection. Gaston thinks there's something wrong with her and she should change to fit his desires. Beast figures out there's something wrong with him and changes to be a better person.

Apropos of nothing, but I saw your signature mention an avatar and wanted to let you know it's not showing. Just in case it's cached and is showing on your end and you don't know.

[Forum Explorer]

And my rebuttal is that Disneyfied movies are explicitly modernized takes. To quote the great Jack McCoy, if you play stickball in Canarsie, you better learn Brooklyn rules. Modernized versions mean modernized criticisms are valid. There's a reason Sleeping Beauty isn't pregnant when she wakes up on the silver screen.

That's true, but I suppose my response to that criticism is that they didn't do a perfect job of modernizing it. There are still hold outs from older times when the story was first told and its own inspirations.

Basically the curse is meant to be justified. And judged by older standards, it was.

[Sholos]

Apropos of nothing, but I saw your signature mention an avatar and wanted to let you know it's not showing. Just in case it's cached and is showing on your end and you don't know.

Ohno, my Tali avatar...

[Rodin]

*ahem (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/)*

If you want to get all technical on "made by Disney", then I'd link you to Rogue One instead. If you insist on one made under the direct Disney banner, then Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (the rest of the series beating it into the ground doesn't kill how good that first one was). And if you want to go all-in and insist on traditional "Disney princess"-type movie, then Moana takes the crown.

Though my wife would agree with you, so there's that.

Yeah, the first definitely doesn't count as Disney had nothing to do with the making of Star Wars. If Disney went out of business tomorrow (or was broken up or whatever) then the old Disney animated movies would still be "Disney movies" no matter who ultimately wound up with the rights to them. I don't even consider it being technical - Disney had nothing to do with the movie for 40 odd years, ergo it is not a Disney movie. The only way there's Disney version of A New Hope is if they use the rights to author a remake.

Pirates of the Caribbean was a classic, but it's not in the same league. Rogue One has far too much wrong with it to even enter the discussion; it's half a good movie. It's "post-OT Star Wars good", which is a very low bar indeed.

Moana and possibly Lion King are the only real contenders in my book. Beauty and the Beast is probably winning on pure nostalgia since I was the right age to be deeply affected by it when it came out.

I've never seen Mulan, as I had aged out of Disney movies and was too young to say "screw demographics, I'll watch princess movies if I want to". I should correct that.

[Peelee]

Yeah, the first definitely doesn't count as Disney had nothing to do with the making of Star Wars. If Disney went out of business tomorrow (or was broken up or whatever) then the old Disney animated movies would still be "Disney movies" no matter who ultimately wound up with the rights to them. I don't even consider it being technical - Disney had nothing to do with the movie for 40 odd years, ergo it is not a Disney movie. The only way there's Disney version of A New Hope is if they use the rights to author a remake.
Well, here's the thing: I think I'm funny.

Although, there is a version that was solely done by Disney, where the Han Solo/Greedo scene is altered (https://twitter.com/i/status/1194280735357784069).:smalltongue:

Pirates of the Caribbean was a classic, but it's not in the same league.
They took a ride with no story and made it into a behemoth franchise. Even if only the first one was good, it's still damned impressive. And the first one was very, very good. I disagree about it not being in the same league. Though this was also mostly because I think I'm funny.

Rogue One has far too much wrong with it to even enter the discussion; it's half a good movie. It's "post-OT Star Wars good", which is a very low bar indeed.
Me like Star War.

Moana and possibly Lion King are the only real contenders in my book. Beauty and the Beast is probably winning on pure nostalgia since I was the right age to be deeply affected by it when it came out.
Moana is my favorite because there's no villain in the traditional sense. There's no overarching person Moana has to defeat. Her quest is entirely about herself, figuring out who she is, and gaining more confidence and personal strength. It's beautiful.

And the fact that I love beaches and oceans and water is just a cherry on top.

[Vinyadan]

Again, the cultural "law of hospitality" was an ancient Greek/ancient Roman invention, and had some semblances still in place in medieval Europe (at the absolute latest 15th century), with no indication it was still around 300 years later.

Even if the "law of hospitality" was a thing (which there has been no evidence of), he was still a prince, and thus not subject to it.

Even if he was, he still had ample reason to fear for his safety - that ample reason being he was 10 years old.

The punishment did not fit the crime. That may have been seen differently two thousand years ago when the "law of hospitality" was actually in full effect, but 18th century France is not 1st century Greece and a prince in a castle is not a commoner in a cottage.

First, I think you are wrong in pinpointing too precise a historical time to this tale. The opening scene is set hundreds of years earlier than the following ones: see the prince wearing leg armour, and, in the first image he's in, an overcoat from the late XV century. And yet, in the following scenes, he seems to live in the XVIII century. Time in general doesn't work as normal in this film. It's also why the prince isn't a child when he opens the door (he definitely doesn't look like one to me in the opening scene), in spite of what logic would require. So I wouldn't go beyond "post-Roman, pre-Industrial".

Second, if you choose a historical time and you want to follow historical laws, then the idea that a 10 year old prince had the power to choose who was allowed in his castle doesn't work, because a caretaker would have been taking decisions for him.

Third, hospitality law existed after the Classical age. You can check Charlemagne's Capitularies from 802, 2.27 (you can also check Arab and Bedouin cultures, if you have a general interest). I don't see why a prince wouldn't have been subjected to it. Beyond the law, the moral duty persisted in later times, too, for reasons that I cannot explain in this board, although the development of economical activities revolving around hospitality made the requests less frequent after the XIII century.

Fourth, sending the beggar away in a winter night when his castle was located in the middle of a forest was similar to a captain who screams "wow, you're ugly!" and doesn't let aboard someone in need on the high seas.

So, in my opinion, it was a very evil thing to do.

[Grim Portent]

It's also comparable to Frollo trying to drown Quasimodo as a baby in Hunchback of Notre Dame. An authority figure with a duty of care to those less fortunate than them rejecting that duty of care on superficial grounds.

Granted in Frollo's case his intention was to outright murder Quasi, while the prince merely didn't care if the enchantress froze to death or got eaten by wolves, but it still reflects very poorly on the prince as a person much like if his carriage had knocked a beggar down and he gave orders to just keep driving.

It's not as if the enchantress asked to sleep in his room or anything, he could have easily had his servants prepare a spare room, of which castles generally had many, and have them get her a bowl of soup and a seat in the kitchen. He could have housed her for weeks and barely interacted with her, the actual job of providing a room and food would have gone to the castle staff.

EDIT: That said, given the age the prince is given, a spur of the moment decision made on superficial grounds is more forgivable, though it still makes him a **** who's response to someone asking for help was to tell them to piss off.

[Peelee]

Third, hospitality law existed after the Classical age. You can check Charlemagne's Capitularies from 802, 2.27 (you can also check Arab and Bedouin cultures, if you have a general interest). I don't see why a prince wouldn't have been subjected to it. Beyond the law, the moral duty persisted in later times, too, for reasons that I cannot explain in this board, although the development of economical activities revolving around hospitality made the requests less frequent after the XIII century.
Indeed. You know, it'd be really lucky for me if I had specifically included "and medieval Europe" to all my arguments about that prior to this.

So, in my opinion, it was a very evil thing to do.
I may have been a bit too flippant earlier when I said that on the scale of Evilness, it doesn't really register. Sure, it was evil. Very evil? That I won't commit to. And I maintain that the punishment was not proportional to the crime.

It's also comparable to Frollo trying to drown Quasimodo as a baby in Hunchback of Notre Dame. An authority figure with a duty of care to those less fortunate than them
No duty to care.

EDIT: That said, given the age the prince is given, a spur of the moment decision made on superficial grounds is more forgivable, though it still makes him a **** who's response to someone asking for help was to tell them to piss off.
I wholly agree.

[Peelee]

As I pointed out before, in the ancient story theme being used here, the punishment is not for the one small crime, rather the person is judged for a pattern of crime or a broad heart issue, with the specific incident being simply a test or a last chance of redemption.
Numerous stories are based on the hero's journey, an ancient story theme, but we can still judge those stories based on modern critiques when those stories are modernized. I have zero reverence for ancient themes when those themes are bad when brought up to date.

The movie explicitly says that the enchantress punished him because she "saw that the prince had no love in his heart". It's not proportional to the crime of refusing hospitality once because that is not what he is being punished for.
Strange women lying in pondsknocking on castle doors distributing swordscursing the inhabitants is no basis for a system of governmentany sort of karmic justice system.

Arguably the damning thing even in that one incident isn't that he refused hospitality to the beggar woman, but that he immediately reversed course when she revealed herself as a beautiful enchantress. All the reasons to refuse hospitality that aren't "I don't value old, ugly poor people because they are old, ugly, and poor" apply equally to the enchantress, so that incident reveals the prince as self-centered, prejudiced, and lacking in empathy. Those qualities are what the curse is punishing (and since the curse is what drives the prince to overcome those qualities it's arguable that the curse was not a punishment but a rehab program).
Again, I wholeheartedly agree that he was an *******.

[Peelee]

Hey, I don't make the millennia-old story tropes, I just enforce them :smallbiggrin:
And doing a damn fine job of it, at that!:smallsmile:

But even if you don't agree with the implementation of justice, it's still illogical to describe the punishment the prince received as disproportional to the crime if you aren't comparing the punishment with the crime that is actually being punished. The prince is being punished/sent on a redemption quest for the crime of having no love in his heart, not "refusing to give hospitality to this one old woman on this one stormy night".
That's fair, but it's hardly a redemption quest if the quest giver makes it exponentially harder to do. Like saying someone needs to find their passion for gymnastics, so you break their legs until they can do the uneven bars.

Incidentally:

The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my favorite moves (#10 on my top ten, but who's counting). I grew up near the Disney World parks in an era where being a "local" got you a lot of discounts/free entertainment there, so the ride was a big part of my childhood (to the extent that I was arguing with friends about POTC lore before they even made a movie). Rogue One is also on my top 10. But when people say "Disney Villain" my mind limits that to movies (and shorts) made by the main Walt Disney Animation Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios), plus the direct-to-video spinoffs made by Disneytoon Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneytoon_Studios).
Understandable.

And my hatred of crowds means I will only ever go to Disney World for my kid if he wants, though I'd still be super excited for Galaxy's Edge. Even with all the people.

[Peelee]

Also, a bit off-topic here, but i was re-reading and I am now super intrigued about non-movie POTC lore.

Also, from what I understand, that would probably be my favorite ride even without the movies.

[JNAProductions]

Moana is my favorite because there's no villain in the traditional sense. There's no overarching person Moana has to defeat. Her quest is entirely about herself, figuring out who she is, and gaining more confidence and personal strength. It's beautiful.

And the fact that I love beaches and oceans and water is just a cherry on top.

Did you like Onward? That movie ALSO had no villain. The closest thing to it was more akin to a bad storm than a bad person-a force of nature to be overcome, not an antagonist.

[Peelee]

Did you like Onward? That movie ALSO had no villain. The closest thing to it was more akin to a bad storm than a bad person-a force of nature to be overcome, not an antagonist.

Had to Google it, which made me realize that I wanted to see that but never got around to it.

I should also add that in addition to beaches and water, I also love Jemaine Clement and Dwayne Johnson, so Moana fires on like all possible cylinders for me. The only way it could have been better would be if Albert Brooks had a part in it, and frankly, I don't think something that perfect cab even exist.

Albert Brooks needs more movies.

[JNAProductions]

I liked Onward. Would recommend.

Nothing SPECTACULAR, but very fun!

[Liquor Box]

Yes (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771200/).
You may have been talking about the 2017 movie, but I think you are the only one. Every script reference and youtube clip posted in the thread has been to the earlier movie.


A.) With that being the only criteria? No. And that's ignoring that Gaston did not believe the Beast was evil.
OK, I'm not that familiar with 5ed, so I'll take you word for it. I don't know why you think Gaston did not believe the Beast to be evil though. That point has been well canvassed in this thread.


The difference is that in the first case, the Beast actually had a right to imprison Maurice. After all, Maurice had broken into his house.

On the contrary, at the time he's kidnapped no one. The two people he kidnapped had both been released by that point. And really, had only been kidnapped for such a short time that Gaston hadn't even noticed they were gone. And neither of them had been taken randomly, one offered and the other was trespassing.

As others have said, Gaston's words contradict themselves, and his actions point to him being a liar and corrupt. There is no reason to take him at his word.

While Maurice did trespass, locking him away for perpetuity seems to have been a grossly disproportionate response. I don't think that is a credible justification for the Beast imprisoning him (or Belle).

Also, if you kidnap someone and the escape or you release them, they were still kidnapped. You could say that they were no longer imprisoned because they had been released, but the Beast had still imprisoned them for a period (perhaps short).


What's missing in Gaston's case is any clear indication of self-awareness, remorse, the desire to make amends, or a situational where his newly found morality is applied in a non-self-serving way.

I love a good redemption story. One of my favorite semi-obscure comics was Human Target, about an assassin who reforms and becomes a highly capable bodyguard. I find his redemption arc believable--unlike Gaston's--largely because of those elements.

Self-awareness:
Chance, the hero of Human Target, was essentially raised by assassins, who made killing seem normalized. As he gained exposure to the rest of the world, and especially after he reformed, he never denied that what used to be normal for him was morally wrong. Instead of using his upbringing (without which, he arguably never would have become a cold-blooded killer) to somehow justify or excuse his past actions, he never tries to deny that his past acts were evil.

In contrast, Gaston is the poster child for lack of self-awareness.

Remorse:
Chance clearly feels remorse. He's encountered the damage left by his past sins on a few occasions, and it clearly haunts him. The whole reason he turned was because he fell in love with one of his targets--until that point, he tried really hard to be willfully blind to the fact that his targets were people, with hopes and dreams, who loved others and were loved in return. Without this event shattering his wall of denial, he never would have reformed--and even if he did, I would find it hard to think he was sincere.

Meanwhile, Gaston doesn't say or do anything that indicate any sort of internal moral conflict or regret.

Amends:
Chance's entire life becomes about saving lives to make up for the ones he took, knowing that no matter how many he saved he could never truly balance the scales. On top of that, he often tries (with little success) to reform other assassins who were once like him.

Meanwhile, Gaston does nothing to address his evil acts. Even if--for the sake of argument--we assume that Gaston had pure motives for locking Maurice up, the minute he saw the Beast in the mirror, he knew Maurice wasn't crazy. So did he immediately run to have him freed? No. Did he, at the very least, say "Oh my God, I've locked up an innocent man!" Nope. Instead, he immediately moves on to Plan B for getting Belle.

Selfless Change in Morality:
Chance becomes an elite bodyguard who does his job by inserting himself into the target's life (even impersonating him sometimes) to draw the assassin out. It's very dangerous work. Also, because he doesn't believe that wealth should determine whether you deserve to live, he charges a straight-up percentage of your wealth for his services--and he takes on enough poor or working class clients that he's not exactly getting rich off his calling. In contrast, if Chance had never decided that "murder is wrong," and stayed in his old job, he'd be much safer and wealthier. Heck, if he decided on a more neutral stance, and decided to be an elite bodyguard to the rich, he'd also be wealthier. Instead, his newly realigned moral compass extracts a real personal cost, rather than benefiting him.

In contrast, as I've already discussed, Gaston's alleged "change of heart" is entirely self-serving. Condemning the Beasts as evil serves to rally his lynch mob, and gives him moral cover for eliminating a romantic rival. If he had really reached some sort of moral epiphany, it would also apply to reexamining his own actions, no matter how inconvenient they may be.

If the writers had intended a Gaston redemption arc, it would have taken no more than 30 seconds to add a brief scene where he frees Maurice and apologizes, maybe turns out the asylum guard who took the bribe, and offers to surrender himself for trial after the "threat" of the Beast is dealt with. Or they could have peppered varying existing scenes with subtle hints about his internal conflictedness. Such elements are conspicuously absent.

Are you still addressing the question we had been discussing of whether it is evil to appear to give up in a fight, and then if given respite take advantage of that to attack again? Or is this a more general 'Gaston is evil' post. You were replying to our discussion of the first, but the content seems to go to the second.

On the second, I agree. Gaston never had a redemption arc for imprisoning Maurice. When the conversation started I misremembered the film and thought Gaston had locked Maurice up because he thought him crazy. I have been enlightened on that point. It is reasonable (although perhaps not inevitable) to conclude that Gaston was evil.

Where I continue to disagree with others is on side arguments which sprang up:
- If we apply the same standards to the Beast's imprisonment of Maurice/Belle to get Belle to love him as we do to Gaston's imprisonment of Maurice to get Belle to marry him, whether the Beast's act fares any better than Gaston's. [Peelee disclaimer]
- Whether Gaston was justified in his crusade to the Beast's castle (which often boils down to discerning his motive).
- Whether Gaston proved himself evil be attacking the Beast after appearing to be beaten (what you and I had been discussing).

There is another side argument, which i have not been part of, concerning whether the young Beast was justified in turning away his guest and whether his failure to do so warranted his curse. I think he was justified, and the curse was not warranted.

[Peelee]

OK, I'm not that familiar with 5ed, so I'll take you word for it. I don't know why you think Gaston did not believe the Beast to be evil though. That point has been well canvassed in this thread.
Also true of 3.5, if you're more familiar with that.

Also, Gaston openly disbelieved the Beast to be Evil, through his own words. If you choose not to believe Gaston himself, then there's nothing I can really say to change your mind.

[Liquor Box]

Also true of 3.5, if you're more familiar with that.

Thank you, I am more familiar with that system. But I think you are mistaken.

"[A lawful good character] combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

So in a very brief description 'opposing evil' is listed as one of the few things required to be lawful good.

In case you think that the opposition to evil comes from the lawfulness part of the alignment instead of the good part, the Book of Exalted Deeds' description of the chaotic good says "Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it is evil". It also refers to good fighting evil in various other places (although there is a section saying that redeeming evil is even better than fighting it).


Also, Gaston openly disbelieved the Beast to be Evil, through his own words. If you choose not to believe Gaston himself, then there's nothing I can really say to change your mind.
Oh? Where did he say he thought the Beast was not evil? I remember him saying it would kill the villager's children, but not that it was not evil.

[Xyril]

Further evidence that Gaston doesn't really think the Beast is dangerous are his facial expressions in 0:10 to 0:20 in this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCENkwPiuU0), which I think pretty clearly depict his satisfaction at seeing the peasants begin to buy in to his false narrative. It's classic propaganda technique: sow fear, let the fear simmer a little, then present yourself as the solution.

He'd have to be twirling his moustache to be less subtle. Which, technically, someone could argue is also an ambiguous gesture.




Are you still addressing the question we had been discussing of whether it is evil to appear to give up in a fight, and then if given respite take advantage of that to attack again? Or is this a more general 'Gaston is evil' post. You were replying to our discussion of the first, but the content seems to go to the second.


I don't understand your confusion. I was addressing this specific argument, which I quoted prior to my reply.



There are heaps of examples in media where someone carried out some naughty action, and redeemed themself by turning and stopping others from doing similar sorts of naughtiness. There are examples in real life too (although maybe not within such a short timeframe).

You seemed to be confused about the distinction between redemption and hypocrisy. I was pointing that--in my eyes, the primary distinction is whether there was a sincere change in his moral viewpoint, or whether the person/character only (allegedly) changed his moral outlook as a matter of convenience. Because this is entirely internal, I gave an example that (I hoped) would illustrate how certain actions are used in fiction to imply the requisite state of mind for true redemption. This, in turn, strongly colors how I evaluate someone.

Beyond what I previously stated, there are other indicators that are not definitive, but tend to be evidence one way or another. For example, permanence of the shift in moral code: If someone keeps changing his mind about whether he condemns or condones kidnapping and extortion, repeatedly, over a short time span, I lean towards judging that as hypocrisy. If the periods where he condones those actions happen to coincide with times he engages in them, like Gaston...



Where I continue to disagree with others is on side arguments which sprang up:
- If we apply the same standards to the Beast's imprisonment of Maurice/Belle to get Belle to love him as we do to Gaston's imprisonment of Maurice to get Belle to marry him, whether the Beast's act fares any better than Gaston's. [Peelee disclaimer]


I didn't address this previously because you seemed to be conflating Beast/Gaston as a whole vs. Beast/Gaston for that particular act, and it was already too confusing for me to keep track.

In case it helps resolve anything for you, my view is that considering only the captivities (and the immediately precipitating context) in isolation, but not the characters' moral arcs as a whole, they're more or less a wash. Beast capturing Maurice leans towards being less evil because it was tenuously provoked/justified by Maurice's real transgressions. In contrast, Gaston didn't even have a fig leaf of sincere justification for what he did to Maurice. On the other hand, Beast gets a nudge towards more evil due to his disproportionate punishment, and the fact that in absolute terms his harm was arguably worse. He was more clearly willing to let Maurice serve a life sentence in that cell. In contrast, Gaston's endgame (if Belle never relented) is less explicitly clear. Ultimately, I think a reasonable person could come down either way for which act was more evil, depending on how they balance these particular motives and these particular levels of harm.

However, in your comments on this issue, you kept mixing in your arguments about those particular acts with a comparison of their morality as a whole. In that respect, I think Gaston compares less favorably.



- Whether Gaston proved himself evil be attacking the Beast after appearing to be beaten (what you and I had been discussing).

This is roughly true, but inaccurate with respect to the nuances of what I am saying. These are my assertions.
1) In most contexts, repaying mercy by immediately taking advantage of the vulnerable position your opponent put himself in by showing mercy is an evil act.
2) Independent of the morality of it, such an act is considered so vile and reprehensible by most people that it's become a bit of a trope or narrative shorthand. It's almost never used as just random flavor in the story of a pure hero--instead, creators will have their heroes do such a thing only when they want to make a deliberate point about their character or morality in general.
3) Gaston was telegraphing Evil more and more throughout the movies. Trying to kill Beast that last time did not, as an isolated act, make Gaston irredeemably evil. However, to me it was one of the acts that removed any shred of ambiguity regarding his character.

As I already stated, there are certainly situations where the hero can repay mercy with treachery and not be irredeemably evil. However, in a storytelling context, this almost never happens except in instances where it is deliberately used to provoke a specific reaction or debate. And if the author wants his audience to believe that the hero is still a Good guy at the end of the day, he'll generally set up a bunch of context so that, after that initial disapproval, everyone is forced to concede that the action might have been unavoidable, or that Good heroes can still do Evil things, or whatever the author's goal is.

Edit: Also, I realized that unlike what I had previously said, in (I think) thelive action movie Gaston explicitly surrendered and begged for his life. So any ambiguity one might argue on that point is pretty much gone.

GASTON: Put me down. Put me down. Please, don't hurt me! I'll do
anything! Anything!

[paddyfool]

One place in Disney's stables where there's a surprising lack of CE, rather than LE or NE antagonists is the MCU. Loki is pretty much all I can point at, and some would quibble that entry, given his strong motivation to rule over others. Maybe some of the lesser antagonists, such as the guy who takes over the Ravagers in GOTG2. Or the CN-leaning-CE antagonist that's the Russian scientist in Iron Man 2, I guess... EDIT: ok, Killmonger as well, as mentioned before. And the Vulture, possibly.

EDIT: otherwise those I can recall I'd peg at
Iron Man 1 guy: LE
Red Skull: LE
Hydra: LE
Malekith: LE
Chitari: ??
Hammer: NE
Yellow jacket: NE
Ronin LE
Ultron: NE
Ego: NE
Hel: LE
Thanos: NE leaning LE
Mysterio: [not sure, haven't finished the movie]

[The Glyphstone]

Vulture is LE. He makes deals - with his enemies - and keeps to them even when it puts him in potential danger, and he preferred crimes that didn't directly hurt people. Actually, considering his motives alongside that he could possibly be a LN villain entirely.

[Kitten Champion]

Vulture is LE. He makes deals - with his enemies - and keeps to them even when it puts him in potential danger, and he preferred crimes that didn't directly hurt people. Actually, considering his motives alongside that he could possibly be a LN villain entirely.

Yeah, a Chaotic Evil villain would never keep his enemies' secret out of an unspoken sense of moral obligation. He's also a villain who isn't chiefly interested in harming anyone. That still happens of course, and is largely why he's Evil at the end of the day, but it's not his goal or preference.

I would say he's equivalent to the stereotypical fantasy Thieves Guild ringleader, in that he's not traditional organized crime nor the top-down crime of corrupt nobility but a commoner group of skilled thieves with a chip on their shoulder against the elite of the world.

If we're including MCU villains, I think Malekith qualifies as Chaotic Evil. Not in his behaviour, certainly, but aiming for the literal annihilation of the universe is nihilistic to the point where I don't think that matters. No villain or villainous group in the MCU could conceivably share such a goal, it's beyond the pale.

The other two I can think of are Mister Hyde from Agents of SHIELD and Abomination from The Incredible Hulk -- which isn't technically Disney but whatever. Hyde does have a character arc where he gets some degree of pathos and redemption but he's very much a violent berserker-type character and Abomination is the Hulk but purely villainous by the conclusion of the movie.

[Forum Explorer]

While Maurice did trespass, locking him away for perpetuity seems to have been a grossly disproportionate response. I don't think that is a credible justification for the Beast imprisoning him (or Belle).

Also, if you kidnap someone and the escape or you release them, they were still kidnapped. You could say that they were no longer imprisoned because they had been released, but the Beast had still imprisoned them for a period (perhaps short).



I would agree that it's a disproportionate response, but it's more that it isn't a random response. Maurice wasn't walking down the street, minding his own business, he went directly into the Beast's domain, wronged him, and that's why Maurice was 'kidnapped'.

That's not the point though. The question is, 'is the Beast a threat?' And while sure, being kidnapped isn't good, it certainly isn't dangerous. And looking at the Beast's record, odds are that you'd be released after a relatively short period of time, and you'd only be kidnapped in the first place if you willingly put yourself into his power by entering his home.

Creating a lynch mob to murder the Beast is a disproportionate response to his crimes, and cannot be honestly said to happen because he was a threat.


One place in Disney's stables where there's a surprising lack of CE, rather than LE or NE antagonists is the MCU. Loki is pretty much all I can point at, and some would quibble that entry, given his strong motivation to rule over others. Maybe some of the lesser antagonists, such as the guy who takes over the Ravagers in GOTG2. Or the CN-leaning-CE antagonist that's the Russian scientist in Iron Man 2, I guess... EDIT: ok, Killmonger as well, as mentioned before. And the Vulture, possibly.

EDIT: otherwise those I can recall I'd peg at
Iron Man 1 guy: LE
Red Skull: LE
Hydra: LE
Malekith: LE
Chitari: ??
Hammer: NE
Yellow jacket: NE
Ronin LE
Ultron: NE
Ego: NE
Hel: LE
Thanos: NE leaning LE
Mysterio: [not sure, haven't finished the movie]

I'd argue that Ultron is CE. His grand plan was to kill basically everyone. And he seems to be highly emotional and relatively unstable to boot.

[hamishspence]

On the CE animated villains front, Tamatoa seems like a good candidate.

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Tamatoa

Tamatoa is unpredictable and possibly insane. His mood tends to shift at the drop of a hat, going from cheeky and comedic, to murderous and menacing in a mere matter of seconds.

[Sholos]

Although Good people fight evil, that doesn't mean that coming into conflict with evil people makes you good.
"If you are good, then you fight evil," does not equate to, "If you fight evil, then you are good." Evil people can have their own reasons for fighting other evil people.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I'd actually peg Vulture as Chaotic Evil, leaning CN. His whole thing is essentially rebelling against the laws that abandoned him, and he remains devoted to not killing or even hurting anyone (other than corporations) throughout the movie, only making an exception for the hero who keeps getting in his way (and even then, he leaves Spidey alive under the rubble rather than finishing him off). I think he still crosses the line into Evil, though, because the devices he uses and sells are truly dangerous, even to innocent bystanders that happen to be nearby.

It's still a relatively light shade of evil, especially compared to most of the other MCU villains. Honestly, I really like what they did with his character.

[Ravens_cry]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

[Xyril]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

I think it's arguably ambiguous as written. Like I previously argued, I think you can be lawful while trying to exploit or subvert existing laws or institutions, so long as you have some new order you serve and/or want to have supplant the old. You make a pretty good argument for EC (and the fact that he any dedication to "gentlemanly" crime is just a pretext), but I think the movie was ambiguous enough to read it the other way too. I might be biased though since he's a Moriarty expy, and he's always felt more EL to me.

[Forum Explorer]

How about Ratigan? His men fear him more than any authority, terrified of offending him with a single, misspoken word, his plan to take over all Mousedom is motivated by greed, a desire for control, and a need to hurt others (children, the elderly, and the infirm are the least able to pay a sudden, heavy tax burden, yet he singles them out specifically for his first 'act' as supposed consort), and, when you strip away that thinnest veneer of civility, you are left with a murderous creature, of almost mindless rage who will attempt to murder with his bare claws.

Nah, still LE in my books. Incredibly Evil, and I'd say he isn't inherently lawful, rather being orderly is more an ideal he aims to, but just because he goes berserk doesn't mean he's not trying to be Lawful. He doesn't murder his men randomly, they have to break a rule first. He does honor his deal with the toymaker with no apparent intent to break it. And his plan was to rule over Mousedom as a tyrant. His laws may be unfair, but if you could follow them, he wouldn't punish you.

[Sholos]

The only "law" that Ratigan respects is "don't get in my way". You could maybe make an argument for Neutral Evil, but considering his operation is a literal coup amd his only loyalty is to himself, I'm gonna go with Chaotic.

[The Glyphstone]

Ursula seems Lawful or neutral to me. Engages in bargains, wants to be Queen, embraces hierarchy. I think she is Evil, and just lawful.

Facilier's name is a pun on facilitate, he's like an evil genie who gets his in the end. I would put him at very Lawful.

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

Facilier, yeah, seems very Lawful. His Friends On The Other Side have a definite Chaotic vibe to them, but the man himself plays by his rules.

Now, how about McLeach from Rescuers Down Under? He's a poacher - by definition, breaking the law - and perfectly willing to murder a small child by feeding him to crocodiles while laughing hysterically. The Evil is without question, but is his behavior Chaotic enough to qualify and drop him below Neutral?

[Razade]

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

So do the Baatezu and they're the exemplars of Lawful Evil.

[Forum Explorer]

The only "law" that Ratigan respects is "don't get in my way". You could maybe make an argument for Neutral Evil, but considering his operation is a literal coup amd his only loyalty is to himself, I'm gonna go with Chaotic.

Sure, because he's evil. Most LE villains break the law in one regard or another. And most villains are ultimately only loyal to themselves. Because they are evil and caring about others is typically a good quality.

His end goal was to rule, his coup exploited the law rather than overthrew everything with force, and he never randomly killed or attacked anyone. That all screams lawful to me.

[Tvtyrant]

Ursula's shown a willingness to sabotage her own bargains, though, at least in the case of Ariel. She makes the deal, then goes around and tries to make Ariel fulfilling her end of the bargain impossible. Would dealing in bad faith like that be a non-Lawful act, especially if she does it to all her 'poor unfortunate souls' instead of just the princess?

Facilier, yeah, seems very Lawful. His Friends On The Other Side have a definite Chaotic vibe to them, but the man himself plays by his rules.

Now, how about McLeach from Rescuers Down Under? He's a poacher - by definition, breaking the law - and perfectly willing to murder a small child by feeding him to crocodiles while laughing hysterically. The Evil is without question, but is his behavior Chaotic enough to qualify and drop him below Neutral?

That feels like a "letter of the deal" statement to me. Like in Wheel of Time when Mat wishes to go back to reality but doesn't cover "safely" so they hang him by a noose so he is just barely alive when he gets back. If you don't ensure the contract covers the other party sabotaging your efforts, you messed up. Like Hades sending the "titan" after Hercules in the movie, Hercules was the one dumb enough not to write in a "don't murder me" proviso.

Oh that's interesting. Why is he a poacher? If it is for money than probably neutral (accepts implicit assumption of societal definition of value) but if it is because he likes to kill rare animals than chaotic (deliberate rejection of value of life.)

[The Glyphstone]

IIRC, McLeach poached for profit, he sells rare animal hides/taxidermied bodies to collectors. Getting to kill animals in the process is just a bonus for his sadism.

[Tvtyrant]

IIRC, McLeach poached for profit, he sells rare animal hides/taxidermied bodies to collectors. Getting to kill animals in the process is just a bonus for his sadism.

That suggests neutral evil to me. Money is a social construct based on allocation of resources, I can't fathom a chaotic character embracing it.

[Sholos]

Sure, because he's evil. Most LE villains break the law in one regard or another. And most villains are ultimately only loyal to themselves. Because they are evil and caring about others is typically a good quality.

His end goal was to rule, his coup exploited the law rather than overthrew everything with force, and he never randomly killed or attacked anyone. That all screams lawful to me.

He kidnapped the Queen. He didn't exploit a loophole in the law, he replaced the Queen with an imposter and illegally declared himself king. And villains can be loyal to a system or higher power. Like an order of knights devoted to furthering an evil agenda. One of the parts of being Lawful is believing in an order imposed from an outward source.


That suggests neutral evil to me. Money is a social construct based on allocation of resources, I can't fathom a chaotic character embracing it.

Nothing about being chaotic means you don't want money. After all, many thieves have an explicit goal of taking money through chaotic means.

[Tvtyrant]

Nothing about being chaotic means you don't want money. After all, many thieves have an explicit goal of taking money through chaotic means.

Hard disagree. Stealing money isn't chaotic, it's neutral. It's the use of chaotic means to cheat your way up a lawful hierarchy. The Wire has a scene where Omar decides to rob a store for breakfast instead of paying them with stolen money because it irritates him that he is complying with any social standards, that's chaotic IMO. Belkar doesn't obsess over money, he takes what he wants unless it is more convenient to do otherwise.

Imagine if we switched money for rigging the mayoral election in Hobbit Town. Rigging the election is chaotic, but we are using and enforcing existing power structures to do so.

[Pex]

The Siamese Cats from Lady and the Tramp?

[Forum Explorer]

He kidnapped the Queen. He didn't exploit a loophole in the law, he replaced the Queen with an imposter and illegally declared himself king. And villains can be loyal to a system or higher power. Like an order of knights devoted to furthering an evil agenda. One of the parts of being Lawful is believing in an order imposed from an outward source.


Sure. The loophole was that the queen can declare whatever law she wants. Control the queen (by replacing her with an imposter) and you are basically king.

Yes, but those are more rare.

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

[Sholos]

Hard disagree. Stealing money isn't chaotic, it's neutral. It's the use of chaotic means to cheat your way up a lawful hierarchy. The Wire has a scene where Omar decides to rob a store for breakfast instead of paying them with stolen money because it irritates him that he is complying with any social standards, that's chaotic IMO. Belkar doesn't obsess over money, he takes what he wants unless it is more convenient to do otherwise.

Imagine if we switched money for rigging the mayoral election in Hobbit Town. Rigging the election is chaotic, but we are using and enforcing existing power structures to do so.

So in your opinion, any character that deals with money in any way is by definition not chaotic?

Your example of Belkar is demonstrably wrong. He likes money and wealth and uses them to afford creature comforts, like food and prostitutes. Are you arguing that he is not Chaotic?

And if you are digging an election, you are again breaking the rules.


Sure. The loophole was that the queen can declare whatever law she wants. Control the queen (by replacing her with an imposter) and you are basically king.

No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.


Yes, but those are more rare.

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

[Xyril]

Part of being Lawful is believing that order should be imposed. It doesn't need to be from an outward source. In Ratigen's case, he's imposing the order on others. Both on his minions, and later everyone in his coup attempt.

To me, to be really lawful your need to impose order needs to go beyond a desire to command direct, personal obedience from those in your orbit. The Empire as it shifted from the original trilogy to the post-trilogy Legends continuity illustrates this: Palpatine and his Empire struck me as more lawful because the emperor didn't simply command blind compliance to himself and his lieutenants. Instead, he built of a system that kept his domain largely working in concert, and nominally serving some doctrinal orthodoxy. Even when he personally broke with his stated ideology (putting aliens into power, pitting Vader against Tarkin), he was usually circumspect enough not to subvert that ideology and the unifying effect it had.

In contrast, the Legends continuity Empire post-Endor (the X-wing series, Zahn's Thrawn trilogy, etc) often swung hard into EC territory. The people who tried to continue or reunite the Empire were often warlords who tried to consolidate their own power by getting the nominal loyalty of other Imperial successor warlords, but (perhaps by necessity) they didn't seem to have any ideological goals beyond the loyalty. Whereas Palpatine expected his governors to play nice with each other (beyond the usual political maneuvering), many new Imperial warlords didn't seem to care that their subordinates consorted with pirates or open made war on one another, so long as the winners fell in line.

Great Mouse Detective was a bit thin on this particular motive. In most incarnations, Moriarty seems to genuinely believe that a more gentlemanly and ordered criminal underworld would be better for everyone--beyond the fact that it would benefit him to be at the top. For Ratigan, I don't think we really see enough to be sure either way.

[Tvtyrant]

So in your opinion, any character that deals with money in any way is by definition not chaotic?

Your example of Belkar is demonstrably wrong. He likes money and wealth and uses them to afford creature comforts, like food and prostitutes. Are you arguing that he is not Chaotic?

And if you are digging an election, you are again breaking the rules.



No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.



So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

No, if your goal is money you are accepting the underlying structure of society. Belkar doesn't go out looking to get rich, he goes out to get partied. He gets it via whatever means are available.
The thieves guild are a neutral organization, as would be stealing the Hobbit election. You are using a chaotic means to acquire hierarchical power.

Chaotic implies a disregard or antipathy for power structures, lawful is concerned with their legitimacy, neutral is basically everyone else.

Edit: Another way of looking at it is we have a bad monarch. The chaotic person ignores his rulings because he doesn't care about the will of any monarch, the neutral person ignores his rulings because he is a bad monarch, the lawful person ignores his ruling because he is an illegitimate monarch. Carrot in Diskworld for instance is a good person and a legitimate king, the Patrician is an evil and illegitimate but effective ruler. Which reason a person would side with one or the other is what defines the alignments.

[Forum Explorer]

No, because you're bypassing the law, not using it. The imposter queen had no more legal standing to make laws than Ratigan did.



So chaotic characters cannot have any kind of code or operate on any scale but the individual, is that you argument?

Replace the imposter with a hypno-ray. Is there really any difference in the methology and morals of Ratigen in that case?


One or two lawful traits won't make a Chaotic character lawful and vice versa. I would argue that large scale plots and organizations are inherently lawful. Like an army. If an army isn't lawful, it isn't an actual army, but a horde.

[dancrilis]

Thinking about it the witch who curses the beast in Beauty and the Beast likely counts.

This is a woman who shows up at a house unannounced and in disguise and when told to leave curses every member of the household trapping the master of the house (who is a child) in the form of a monster and the rest in the form of furniture until some arbitrary goal is meet which none of the victims have any real control over except to attempt to stockholm syndrome some unfortunate.

[No brains]

Thinking about it the witch who curses the beast in Beauty and the Beast likely counts.

This is a woman who shows up at a house unannounced and in disguise and when told to leave curses every member of the household trapping the master of the house (who is a child) in the form of a monster and the rest in the form of furniture until some arbitrary goal is meet which none of the victims have any real control over except to attempt to stockholm syndrome some unfortunate.

I know we've talked about B+B a lot in this thread, but in the case of the Enchantress, if she had the magic to curse an entire castle, she probably also had the magic to just keep herself warm and not be morality police.

Although the story never addresses her again, so it's entirely possible she didn't have the magic to stay warm and there's a frozen vindictive witch corpse somewhere out there.

[Xyril]

No, if your goal is money you are accepting the underlying structure of society.


I don't know if I agree with this premise, but it's certainly a novel and interesting way to look at the chaotic-lawful evil axis. How would you rate counterfeiting? On one hand, it's inherently subversive of the currency system, and probably implies an ideological disapproval of that system. On the other hand, it's a crime that pretty much only pays off while that existing system is in place--the more that system is undermined, the less you personally stand to gain by counterfeiting.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't know if I agree with this premise, but it's certainly a novel and interesting way to look at the chaotic-lawful evil axis. How would you rate counterfeiting? On one hand, it's inherently subversive of the currency system, and probably implies an ideological disapproval of that system. On the other hand, it's a crime that pretty much only pays off while that existing system is in place--the more that system is undermined, the less you personally stand to gain by counterfeiting.

I'd rate counterfeiting as Lawful. It's a crime that works in the system. It might leech off and damage the system, but it only works within it.

EDIT: That's also why I feel Ratigen's plan is Lawful. His plan only works if people obey the laws that the Queen makes.

[Scarlet Knight]

Is Ferngully considered Disney? If so, I nominate Hexxus.

[Bohandas]

I think Norton Nimnul might be chaotic evil, or at the very least chaotic neutral with chaotic evil tendencies. His plans are so random that they're basically not plans at all, and many would realistically be so difficult and expensive that he's basically just doing them to do them. It doesn't make sense to spend 49000 dollars on a scheme to steal 50000. That's not a good return, especially when it's not guaranteed to work.

EDIT:
Though in retrospect, most of that is true of the majority of mad scientist villains

[Rodin]

The Siamese Cats from Lady and the Tramp?

Chaotic Evil. Because cats.


I know we've talked about B+B a lot in this thread, but in the case of the Enchantress, if she had the magic to curse an entire castle, she probably also had the magic to just keep herself warm and not be morality police.

Although the story never addresses her again, so it's entirely possible she didn't have the magic to stay warm and there's a frozen vindictive witch corpse somewhere out there.

The enchantress likely falls under the Black Alice category from Discworld. Not evil, but "so powerful it's difficult to tell the difference." In other words, extremely powerful without a rule against using that power to meddle. Working for what they perceive to be the greater good, and if a few normies get squashed in the process? Pffft.

[Silfir]

At the core of Ratigan's personality is a deep-seated self-hatred - he's come to hate being a rat and the stereotypes associated with being a rat so much that he's built a gentlemanly persona that loves art, uses his brilliant mind to commit crimes rather than base violence. He has disciplined himself to suppress his rage and express his sadistic impulses through trickery, commanding henchmen to do the dirty work, or constructing elaborate deathtraps. Only a barbaric, uncultured rat would do something as uncouth as murder someone with their bare hands, even if they're clearly capable of doing so.

Having a strict code and set of standards that guide your actions is more or less what being Lawful entails. He chooses an elaborate, in his mind technically legal scheme to crown himself King - it's the culmination of his personal quest to prove that he is not a rat. Rats are unthinking brutes. He is cultured. He has standards. He is not just part of mouse society, he is the very best of mouse society - their lawful and exalted king.

By the end of the movie your guess is as good as mine if he's still Lawful Evil but has gone completely insane, or if he finally decided not to bother with the facade anymore and embrace his uninhibited murderous impulses, in which case he might very well be Chaotic Evil by the end.

[Mystic Muse]

Is Ferngully considered Disney? If so, I nominate Hexxus.

Ferngully is not Disney, no.

[The Glyphstone]

Chaotic Evil. Because cats.



The enchantress likely falls under the Black Alice category from Discworld. Not evil, but "so powerful it's difficult to tell the difference." In other words, extremely powerful without a rule against using that power to meddle. Working for what they perceive to be the greater good, and if a few normies get squashed in the process? Pffft.

Considering the roots of the myth, it might be more appropriate to say the Enchantress obeys Blue and Orange Morality. Many myths feature supernatural or mythological creatures who will 'test' someone's hospitality, as in B+tB. A powerful sorceress might as well be a faerie as far as French peasants are concerned.

[No brains]

Is Ferngully considered Disney? If so, I nominate Hexxus.


Ferngully is not Disney, no.

That's an interesting philosophical question because as of the Fox buyout, technically yes. However though it may be considered Disney-imitative, it was no created with a true Disney mindset. What is the measure of a Disney?

[dancrilis]

Considering the roots of the myth, it might be more appropriate to say the Enchantress obeys Blue and Orange Morality. Many myths feature supernatural or mythological creatures who will 'test' someone's hospitality, as in B+tB. A powerful sorceress might as well be a faerie as far as French peasants are concerned.

But as everything fits on the nine point alignment system (where such a system is used) that raises the question of what would she be - and based on our limited knowledge of her actions CE does not seem unreasonable.


That's an interesting philosophical question because as of the Fox buyout, technically yes. However though it may be considered Disney-imitative, it was no created with a true Disney mindset. What is the measure of a Disney?

So what your asking is does Darth Vader count as Disney and was he Chaotic Evil?

[Forum Explorer]

But as everything fits on the nine point alignment system (where such a system is used) that raises the question of what would she be - and based on our limited knowledge of her actions CE does not seem unreasonable.


But equally it could be LE or even LN. LE, because she follows a strict code of who gets cursed and why. LN, because she could be acting as an agent of judgement, and more represents a 'last chance' than as someone randomly showing up and cursing you.

[The Glyphstone]

Or like how most Fae are presented, as CN, because while their rules make sense to them internally, they seem utterly arbitrary and often disproportionate to mortals seeing them from the outside.

[No brains]

I'm tempted to believe the Enchantress was CE because her only act of consequence was to curse these people and then [blank] off entirely. There was no oversight. No regulation. Nothing done to actually teach the beast or make sure he was learning how to be a good host/ true love (symbiotic ideals?), just a pox on his entire household that turns terminal in 10 years.

If I tore the legs off someone who mugged me and said they could plausibly get those legs back if they learned to be a good dad within 10 years or they die, all I've done is tear the legs off a mugger and threaten him with worse unless he does something his legs really would have helped him with. Eldritch magic autopay non-withstanding, I've still brought a lot of trauma down on someone and only vaguely connected it with some act of 'good' that I honestly had nothing to do with.

Also I'm not asking if Vader is a CE villain, I'm asking if Ripley 8 counts as a Disney Princess. :smalltongue:

[Ajustusdaniel]

I have a pet theory that the Enchantress in Beauty and the Beast was Maleficient, who, as the prince's godmother, having gifted him with a magical mirror at the occasion of his christening, had specific reason to claim the right of his hospitality, which would tilt things in the direction of Lawful Evil.

There is very little textual support for this theory.

[Iruka]

Considering the roots of the myth, it might be more appropriate to say the Enchantress obeys Blue and Orange Morality. Many myths feature supernatural or mythological creatures who will 'test' someone's hospitality, as in B+tB. A powerful sorceress might as well be a faerie as far as French peasants are concerned.

Despite the context and the missing "t", I cannot help myself but to read "B+tB" as "The Brave and the Bold".