PDA

View Full Version : The Alignment Check Thread --- What's the Alignment of X



Charles Phipps
2008-02-08, 07:20 PM
This is a thread to handle those funny alignment questions we always have. Basically, name a character then let someone else give their opinion on why they think that person has the alignment they suggest. Everyone has slightly different views on what Alignment means but this thread will hopefully generate lots of discussion.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 07:22 PM
Thog. I love flamewars.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-08, 07:27 PM
GOOD- Devotion to others, concern for others/society/the greater good over concern for the self.

EVIL- Concern for self-benefit over all else, without regard to the greater good or what may be good for others.

LAWFUL- Dedication to order, to justice*, and predictability.

CHAOTIC- Rejection of order of any sort, promotion of free will over all else.

NEUTRAL- Neutral on one axis means an accentuation of the opposite axis. For instance, a NE character thinks only for himself and behaves however is appropriate to further his own ends in whatever situation he is currently. This character is evil to the very core, with few or no motivations other than self-preservation and getting ahead in the world.

EvilElitest
2008-02-08, 07:39 PM
Thog. I love flamewars.

CE. He is chaotic and does evil things. Still a nice bloke
from
EE

osyluth
2008-02-08, 08:07 PM
Sabine.

So most of this thread will be discussing the alignment of OotS characters?

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-08, 08:10 PM
Sabine.

So most of this thread will be discussing the alignment of OotS characters?

Lawful Evil.
Shes ordered, consitent and clearly part of a clear heirarchy.
Oh, and shes Evil. By benefit of being an Evil Outsider.

Also: check Sam Fisher - because hes NOT a OotS charecter. :amused:

Fax Celestis
2008-02-08, 08:26 PM
This is my standard alignment argument answer:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/305421478_32a754b69e.jpg

Tengu
2008-02-08, 08:39 PM
You can be nice and evil, or a good prick. Yeah, I know that this poster is supposed to be tongue-in-the-cheek.

Ascension
2008-02-08, 08:55 PM
I had a hard time deciding how to describe the alignment of my current character. I'll give you a brief background for him (as brief as I can make it, that is), tell you what I chose, and explain my reasoning, but then I'd like to hear your opinions.

Velkin grew up in a very poor section of the capital of a very corrupt and oppressive kingdom. His father left shortly after finding out his mother was pregnant, and she was generally pretty susceptible to disease, making it very hard for her to provide even the basic needs of life for her son. As soon as he grew old enough, he fell in with a gang of thieves, stealing out of sheer necessity and using every bit of profit he made to give some semblance of comfort to his ailing mother. She naively assumed that he had gotten an "honest" job, and he didn't think it necessary to correct her.

After some time he got caught by the city guard and imprisoned in a Newgate-esque facility. His mother was absolutely devastated by the news that her son had been stealing the things she thought he had earned. After a few unhappy visits, she stopped coming to visit him. He, distressed by her reaction and not wanting to worry her any more, refrained from attempting to escape.

Eventually he was offered the chance to work towards his release by joining the military. Hoping to patch up his relationship with his mother by taking on "honest" work, he jumped at the opportunity despite his intense hatred of the very government he would soon be working for. Due to his skill at stealth he was chosen to become a scout, and was placed in the care of a veteran scout both for training purposes and so the trusted veteran could keep a close eye on the criminal.

For his mother's sake, he campaigned with the army for a while, but eventually he received the fateful news... his mother had succumbed to her illness and died. With no more motivation for sticking around, he deserted at the next possible opportunity.

On the run and in need of a quick ticket out of his homeland he joined up with a passing group of adventurers under an assumed name. He traveled with them for a while until they ventured into a dungeon far deadlier than any of them had expected. With his companions dropping like flies around him, he decided it was the proper time to beat a hasty retreat and headed for the exit, leaving them to their fate. In a rare moment of clumsiness he took a tumble into an open portal on his way back through the labyrinth and found himself dumped unceremoniously into the midst of Sigil.

Uncertain of where he was or indeed what in the world had happened to him, he did at least recognize it as a very important city, and if there's one thing a street-smart rogue knows how to handle, it's a city. He lurked in the taverns until he could pick up a smattering of the cant and at least a vague understanding of the culture of the city itself.

Armed with this knowledge and a set of new clothes in a fashionable style, he bluffed his way into the home of an elderly but wealthy widow. At first he intended simply to use her for her money and get out, but he saw something of his mother in her feebleness, and decided to do what he could to make her life comfortable. At one of her parties he met a certain old man, an ex-Doomguard member who had left after the chaos of the Faction War. He was telling wildly exaggerated stories of the good old days, and Velkin hung on every word. While at the time he thought the old man more than a little crazy, the memory stayed with him.

After several years, the old woman died. Velkin spared no expense in making sure that she spent her last few months as painlessly as possible. He was able to give her what he couldn't give his mother... a peaceful death... and he took great joy in it. After her funeral he spent several days in bittersweet reflection. During this time he thought back to the old man's stories of the Doomguard. He reflected on the inevitable deaths of his wife and mother, and realized that the Doomguard was right. It is the nature of the universe to decay and gradually die. He fully accepted this, but he did not view the inevitable end in a nihilistic fashion, nor did he conclude that the end must be hastened. He dedicated himself instead to doing whatever he possibly could to ensure that the dying multiverse had a peaceful end, devoid of suffering.

Velkin thought that he might help achieve this end by working with the more liberal factions of the Doomguard, and, after some searching, contacted the old man to see if he could tell him where to find the remnants of the Doomguard. The old man explained several times that he had broken all his ties with them after the destruction of the Armory, but Velkin continued to press him for information. Eventually the old man got fed up with all the questions and gave him a false lead, telling him that it was a test of his worthiness to join the faction. This false lead is what led him to join up with the rest of our party. He thinks he's adventuring with them as part of a complex initiation ritual, but really he's just been deceived.

His not-really-affiliation with the Doomguard gives him something of their grudge against clerics. He isn't fully opposed to magical healing, as it can help to soothe the pain of a suffering individual, but any sort of resurrection or even healing from the very brink of death upsets him. He's even more upset by undead (although his dependence on precision-based damage for his class abilities means he can't really do much against them :smallannoyed:).

Most of what he has seen of law has been either in the form of his homeland's ruthless adherence to order or Her Serenity's harsh judgments. He has a strong streak of individualism and a general distrust of strong governments in general.

His grander motives are altruistic, but he has a bit of a larcenous streak and a certain degree of amorality when it comes to achieving his goals. He can be somewhat cowardly at times, and is not above abandoning a cause or quest if it looks like it's a hopeless endeavor. He wants to do good, at least in theory, but aside from a high degree of respect and concern for the elderly, diseased, and/or dying, he holds to no strong moral code.

I ended up calling him chaotic neutral, but that was before I really started becoming active on this forum and hearing how CN players are often associated with the "I can do whatever I want! Heehee!" attitude. I don't ever want him to fall into that particular stereotype. Chaotic and neutral he may be, but he certainly has standards. I almost went with CG, but he's abandoned both an army and a party of adventurers in the past, and desertion isn't exactly a good trait.

Anyway, what would you call him?

puppyavenger
2008-02-08, 09:05 PM
I had a hard time deciding how to describe the alignment of my current character. I'll give you a brief background for him (as brief as I can make it, that is), tell you what I chose, and explain my reasoning, but then I'd like to hear your opinions.

Velkin grew up in a very poor section of the capital of a very corrupt and oppressive kingdom. His father left shortly after finding out his mother was pregnant, and she was generally pretty susceptible to disease, making it very hard for her to provide even the basic needs of life for her son. As soon as he grew old enough, he fell in with a gang of thieves, stealing out of sheer necessity and using every bit of profit he made to give some semblance of comfort to his ailing mother. She naively assumed that he had gotten an "honest" job, and he didn't think it necessary to correct her.

After some time he got caught by the city guard and imprisoned in a Newgate-esque facility. His mother was absolutely devastated by the news that her son had been stealing the things she thought he had earned. After a few unhappy visits, she stopped coming to visit him. He, distressed by her reaction and not wanting to worry her any more, refrained from attempting to escape.

Eventually he was offered the chance to work towards his release by joining the military. Hoping to patch up his relationship with his mother by taking on "honest" work, he jumped at the opportunity despite his intense hatred of the very government he would soon be working for. Due to his skill at stealth he was chosen to become a scout, and was placed in the care of a veteran scout both for training purposes and so the trusted veteran could keep a close eye on the criminal.

For his mother's sake, he campaigned with the army for a while, but eventually he received the fateful news... his mother had succumbed to her illness and died. With no more motivation for sticking around, he deserted at the next possible opportunity.

On the run and in need of a quick ticket out of his homeland he joined up with a passing group of adventurers under an assumed name. He traveled with them for a while until they ventured into a dungeon far deadlier than any of them had expected. With his companions dropping like flies around him, he decided it was the proper time to beat a hasty retreat and headed for the exit, leaving them to their fate. In a rare moment of clumsiness he took a tumble into an open portal on his way back through the labyrinth and found himself dumped unceremoniously into the midst of Sigil.

Uncertain of where he was or indeed what in the world had happened to him, he did at least recognize it as a very important city, and if there's one thing a street-smart rogue knows how to handle, it's a city. He lurked in the taverns until he could pick up a smattering of the cant and at least a vague understanding of the culture of the city itself.

Armed with this knowledge and a set of new clothes in a fashionable style, he bluffed his way into the home of an elderly but wealthy widow. At first he intended simply to use her for her money and get out, but he saw something of his mother in her feebleness, and decided to do what he could to make her life comfortable. At one of her parties he met a certain old man, an ex-Doomguard member who had left after the chaos of the Faction War. He was telling wildly exaggerated stories of the good old days, and Velkin hung on every word. While at the time he thought the old man more than a little crazy, the memory stayed with him.

After several years, the old woman died. Velkin spared no expense in making sure that she spent her last few months as painlessly as possible. He was able to give her what he couldn't give his mother... a peaceful death... and he took great joy in it. After her funeral he spent several days in bittersweet reflection. During this time he thought back to the old man's stories of the Doomguard. He reflected on the inevitable deaths of his wife and mother, and realized that the Doomguard was right. It is the nature of the universe to decay and gradually die. He fully accepted this, but he did not view the inevitable end in a nihilistic fashion, nor did he conclude that the end must be hastened. He dedicated himself instead to doing whatever he possibly could to ensure that the dying multiverse had a peaceful end, devoid of suffering.

Velkin thought that he might help achieve this end by working with the more liberal factions of the Doomguard, and, after some searching, contacted the old man to see if he could tell him where to find the remnants of the Doomguard. The old man explained several times that he had broken all his ties with them after the destruction of the Armory, but Velkin continued to press him for information. Eventually the old man got fed up with all the questions and gave him a false lead, telling him that it was a test of his worthiness to join the faction. This false lead is what led him to join up with the rest of our party. He thinks he's adventuring with them as part of a complex initiation ritual, but really he's just been deceived.

His not-really-affiliation with the Doomguard gives him something of their grudge against clerics. He isn't fully opposed to magical healing, as it can help to soothe the pain of a suffering individual, but any sort of resurrection or even healing from the very brink of death upsets him. He's even more upset by undead (although his dependence on precision-based damage for his class abilities means he can't really do much against them :smallannoyed:).

Most of what he has seen of law has been either in the form of his homeland's ruthless adherence to order or Her Serenity's harsh judgments. He has a strong streak of individualism and a general distrust of strong governments in general.

His grander motives are altruistic, but he has a bit of a larcenous streak and a certain degree of amorality when it comes to achieving his goals. He can be somewhat cowardly at times, and is not above abandoning a cause or quest if it looks like it's a hopeless endeavor. He wants to do good, at least in theory, but aside from a high degree of respect and concern for the elderly, diseased, and/or dying, he holds to no strong moral code.

I ended up calling him chaotic neutral, but that was before I really started becoming active on this forum and hearing how CN players are often associated with the "I can do whatever I want! Heehee!" attitude. I don't ever want him to fall into that particular stereotype. Chaotic and neutral he may be, but he certainly has standards. I almost went with CG, but he's abandoned both an army and a party of adventurers in the past, and desertion isn't exactly a good trait.

Anyway, what would you call him?

chaotic neutrel, congratulations, you did it right.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 01:09 AM
You're welcome to post any being you want to test the alignment for, OOTS or otherwise.

For example, Darth Vader

LE.

Emperor Palpatine, NE

and so on.

with an explanation why.

Jayngfet
2008-02-09, 02:23 AM
what alignment, is mario, he does rescue princesses and such but he does kill anything in his way, motive for being there or not

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 02:29 AM
what alignment, is mario, he does rescue princesses and such but he does kill anything in his way, motive for being there or not

I tend to think that Mario is this bizarre Davinchi like savant. Despite his overweight and tubby appearance, the man is a Renaissance Man. The guy is a race car drive, airplane pilot, champion swimmer, champion jumper, Doctor, pro-golf player, Boxing Referee, and able to fix his own toilet. Mario is clearly dedicated to rescuing the Princess and slaying the Dragon which would imply LG but his absent mindedness about his profession, constant wanderings, numerous romantic adventures (he's got like what? 5 Princesses?), and addiction to hallucinogenic flowers/stars/mushrooms say to me Chaotic Good.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-09, 04:40 AM
what alignment, is mario, he does rescue princesses and such but he does kill anything in his way, motive for being there or not

Lawful evil, then.

What about Sonic, though? He has a thing for Chaos emeralds, and he doesn't actually kill anything, he just, er, breaks the robotic exterior shell to let the cute fuzzy animal inside escape. Or something.

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-09, 04:47 AM
I'd say Chaotic Good being as Sonic likes to help people, and he doesn't seem to like following orders. How about Albert Wesker from the Residant Evil games?

Zincorium
2008-02-09, 04:59 AM
You can be nice and evil, or a good prick. Yeah, I know that this poster is supposed to be tongue-in-the-cheek.

It's tongue and cheek, BUT really being nice or being a prick is all anybody else should care about.

Are you a good friend? Do you hold up your end of the bargain? Then aren't people going to treat you well in return and back you up? Even if you secretly sacrifice kittens to the elder gods?

On the other side, notice how the other paladins didn't even like Miko? Despite her being good?

Learnedguy
2008-02-09, 05:02 AM
Blah blah:smallwink:

Velkin the rogue.

I'd say Chaotic neutral as well. The character shows very strong individualism, and he doesn't really obey authority (if it does, it's out of love for a close person and necessity).

Neutral because even if he certainly have a very good streak, he lacks the conviction to always do it properly. Velkin lacks the dedication to do good properly.

Characters evolve though, and I would be surprised if Velkin would more and more start to lean towards lawful good-ish actions, of all things:smallamused: .

All in all, a very good, multi-dimensional character:smallbiggrin: .

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 06:09 AM
I'd say Chaotic Good being as Sonic likes to help people, and he doesn't seem to like following orders. How about Albert Wesker from the Residant Evil games?

Wesker, NE.

He balances the fact he's capable of long term cunning with the fact that he's chronically prone to betraying the people around him. Also, the irony is that it seems he couldn't keep a promise to save his life despite all his scheming.

Here's a tough one,

Emperor Palpatine. Entire career.

Tengu
2008-02-09, 06:21 AM
It's tongue and cheek, BUT really being nice or being a prick is all anybody else should care about.

Are you a good friend? Do you hold up your end of the bargain? Then aren't people going to treat you well in return and back you up? Even if you secretly sacrifice kittens to the elder gods?

On the other side, notice how the other paladins didn't even like Miko? Despite her being good?

That's what you think. If I found out that my best friend worked as a hitman, or even was simply cruel to animals, we wouldn't be friends anymore.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-09, 06:37 AM
That's what you think. If I found out that my best friend worked as a hitman, or even was simply cruel to animals, we wouldn't be friends anymore.

It strikes me as very slightly ironic that people are arguing about the "but people love to argue" Alignment poster.

I think the point the poster is making is that Alignment only makes sense in the *first place* if you assume a fairly black and white universe, so all good people *will* be nice and all evil people *will* be pricks. It's about organising your archetypes.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-09, 07:18 AM
Emperor Palpatine. Entire career.

Lawful Evil, I'd say.

I don't think anybody really disputes the idea that he's evil. As for lawful, he's a traditionalist, highly disciplined, capable leader and consummate politician. Plus he's opposed mainly by jedi, who tend towards the chaotic good.

Learnedguy
2008-02-09, 07:42 AM
Lawful Evil, I'd say.

I don't think anybody really disputes the idea that he's evil. As for lawful, he's a traditionalist, highly disciplined, capable leader and consummate politician. Plus he's opposed mainly by jedi, who tend towards the chaotic good.

I thought the jedis as an organization tended towards lawful good.
They are self-controlled, locality towards the republic is their goal, and they obey certain ethics, right?

Lack of seven feet pole does not imply lack of lawful tendencies. I believe <.<;;

Corinthus
2008-02-09, 08:11 AM
Yeah, the jedi are a LG organisation, keeping to a strict code of morals and self-discipline. Certain members of said order have displayed CG and NG tendencies tho.

Palpatine is definiately LE. He's the head of a galaxy-wide oppressive, conformist, totalitarian regime. It might as well have the motto "Do as we say, or we blow your whole planet up."

Kurald Galain
2008-02-09, 08:49 AM
Okay, I agree that the jedi as a whole are probably intended to be lawful good - however, just about every single jedi who got more than half a minute of screen time in the movies pretty much behaves chaotic good.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-09, 09:31 AM
Okay, I agree that the jedi as a whole are probably intended to be lawful good - however, just about every single jedi who got more than half a minute of screen time in the movies pretty much behaves chaotic good.

The order as a *whole*, mind you, tends a lot more towards Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil (there's a bit in the EU where they order the extermination of an entire race because their presence destabilizes the galaxy).

Original series Jedi are pretty much LG, Prequel Jedi are a lot closer to LN - look at Yoda telling Anakin that he's not only not allowed to care for Amidala, but that he's not even allowed to feel bad about the possibility of her dying.

Thane of Fife
2008-02-09, 09:50 AM
What alignment would you give Hamlet, from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-09, 09:58 AM
What alignment would you give Hamlet, from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark?

True Neutral, clearly.

"Oh I should avenge my father, but perhaps I shouldn't, I should kill my uncle, but I can't, I might-or-might-not have a thing for my mother"

Prevaricating twerp.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-09, 10:46 AM
True Neutral, clearly.

"Oh I should avenge my father, but perhaps I shouldn't, I should kill my uncle, but I can't, I might-or-might-not have a thing for my mother"

Prevaricating twerp.

I agree, Hamlet fits TN.
How about:
Prince Humperdink in Princess Bride.

Sucrose
2008-02-09, 11:01 AM
I agree, Hamlet fits TN.
How about:
Prince Humperdink in Princess Bride.

LE to the tee. He's highly organized, makes somewhat elaborate plans to attack Gildur, and tries to get his fiancee and Wesley killed to further said plans. He also tries to marry Buttercup against her will, and yet demands that some semblance of proper ceremony be performed.

Lighturtle
2008-02-09, 11:08 AM
What about Kirby? He eats pretty much anything in his path and doesn't follow any rule whatsoever?

Yet he works for the greater good.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 05:36 PM
Actually, Palpatine seems more Chaotic Evil by the time of Return of the Jedi. Especially during the novelization. The guy cackles insanely, orders them to blow up the moon so they'll get the Rebels down there, and fully will allow the Rebellion to get away at the battle if it means they'll corrupt Skywalker. Also, he REALLY relished killing Luke Skywalker.

And the Prequel Jedi Knights are Paladins. They're still LG but they seem to have their blinders on, stupid doesn't make one closer to Neutral.

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-09, 06:21 PM
I would place palpatine at NE, actually. He definitely has his lawful aspects (he's running the galaxy...) and his chaotic aspects (totruring luke, disregarding all else to corrupt him...), but they have little to no relation to each other. He's just evil to the core (enjoyed the torture etc) and doesn't care about anything else either way.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 06:56 PM
Link of the Legend of Zelda series?

VanBuren
2008-02-09, 07:23 PM
I would place palpatine at NE, actually. He definitely has his lawful aspects (he's running the galaxy...) and his chaotic aspects (totruring luke, disregarding all else to corrupt him...), but they have little to no relation to each other. He's just evil to the core (enjoyed the torture etc) and doesn't care about anything else either way.

I'm not sure I'd call torture Chaotic, though it is certainly Evil.

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-09, 07:44 PM
I would place palpatine at NE, actually. He definitely has his lawful aspects (he's running the galaxy...) and his chaotic aspects (totruring luke, disregarding all else to corrupt him...), but they have little to no relation to each other. He's just evil to the core (enjoyed the torture etc) and doesn't care about anything else either way.

I don't knw, both your "Cahotic" points hit the "Lawful" scale to me. Torture is a precise, methodical process of applying pian. And lots of it. Disregarding all else to corrupt Skywalker? Thats simply a Sith Lord with his eye on the Prize. The Prize in this case just happens to be some blonde-haired prettyboy/farmboy with magic powers and a glowy sword.

He shows a complete dsregard for all life that is not useful ("Oh, the Death Star got blown up? Build a new one, with new clones! Yay! And lets put a BIGGER hole in the side of this one, one that entire SMUGGLING SHIPS can fly through, complete with a squadren of Fighters.").

Evil. Lawful. Lovin' it.

<Hrm, it seems no one is biting my Sam Fisher bait.>

Demented
2008-02-09, 08:04 PM
His torture didn't seem very methodical.
"I'm going to taser you until you submit! And if you don't, I'll up the voltage until you DIE! Hahahaha!"

Though, adhering to the Sith's one-apprentice rule might be Lawful.
Then again, having more than one apprentice capable of backstabbing you is just not worth the trouble.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-09, 08:56 PM
His torture didn't seem very methodical.
"I'm going to taser you until you submit! And if you don't, I'll up the voltage until you DIE! Hahahaha!"

However, "chaotic" is very much a misnomer, in that having a disorganized personality has nothing at all to do with one's sense of ethics. An addled bureaucrat who keeps mixing up the proper forms does create a big chaos everywhere he goes, but nevertheless remains lawful.

Tren
2008-02-09, 09:57 PM
If you look at the Jedi lifestyle in general as being one of self-deprivation and aimed towards protecting others and bettering existence, I'd say in general they trend towards LG. The sith on the other hand are all about indulging themselves-- I have power and I will use it to take what I want, when I want, which I'd call fairly chaotic evil. Now obviously different Jedi and Sith have more complex personalities and motivations, but I think it's a fair generalization to call Jedi LG and Sith CE.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 10:56 PM
Evil. Lawful. Lovin' it

Actually, I'm referring to the fact he shows a complete disregard for any rules or inhibitions on his own behavior along with his own self-gain solely for the emotional and mental satisfaction of corrupting his enemies. He'd probably blow up Coruscant by Return of the Jedi just for the kick of it.

Mewtarthio
2008-02-09, 11:14 PM
I <Hrm, it seems no one is biting my Sam Fisher bait.>

I never played Double Agent, which I presume is the game with the moral ambiguity. In Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory, he's just a regular LN Spec Ops agent.

Okay, my turn to throw someone out!

Adrian "Ozymandias" Veidt from Watchmen!

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-09, 11:29 PM
Actually, I'm referring to the fact he shows a complete disregard for any rules or inhibitions on his own behavior along with his own self-gain solely for the emotional and mental satisfaction of corrupting his enemies. He'd probably blow up Coruscant by Return of the Jedi just for the kick of it.


You forget that hes also the head of an Empire. Why destroy Coruscant? ITs too useful.

Not least of all, its his seat of power. Otherwise, you get a single, planet-wide city. You get a city that big - especially under a tyranical ruler, you get multiple neat resources.
Like criminals.
Criminals make excellent cannon-fodder, especially if you don't plan on actually paying them anyway. Assassians, spies, guys-you-execute-to-instill-fear-in0your-followers.

Drug addicts.
Even seen pre-Empire in AotC, arguably the same as criminals.
(Deathsticks guy-while he may jsut be a dealer, an not an addict, there is no product without a customer. The way Qui-Gon reacts to the deathsticks, it seems they're more like a mild narcotic other than an cigarette equivilent. Yes, tobacco is a narcotic, but its legal - I digress),
Seriously, when you run the Empire, and some guys will do anything for a fix, give 'im their fix, and have him attack your infastrure. Convice your people they need you. Yay.

Infastructure.
A city means factories, factories mean synthetics. The raw resources of millions of world mean little if you can't manufacture that plasteel becuase you blew up all your factories.

Economy.
Think about, all those people working there have to eat, and you get a good cash-flow based on that. I pay you to make Plasteel, you pay Bob for food, Bob pays me to get some Plasteel for his air-car. Empire takes everyone's Plasteel for the War Effort. Rebels are dangerous, and the Empire is right to do so.

And, if all else fails: Conscripts.

Bob is now a Stormtrooper.

More likely Palpatine would nuke Naboo.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-09, 11:45 PM
I dunno.

Not everyone has to think beyond "It feels good."

Palpatine rules the galaxy. So he takes a hit to his powerbase? So what. Wipe out a planet, just like that. It's not going to be a problem.

He probably does this in his spare time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcw0uwisXe0

Icewalker
2008-02-09, 11:51 PM
I never played Double Agent, which I presume is the game with the moral ambiguity. In Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory, he's just a regular LN Spec Ops agent.

Okay, my turn to throw someone out!

Adrian "Ozymandias" Veidt from Watchmen!

Ooooh...Ozymandias...that is hard.

So...he kills a huge number of people, but in doing so brings about world peace, and the whole thing is intentional. Damn...it's the 'death of some for good of all' idea, and I have no idea where that'd fall on the alignment scale.

For the first part...I'm not sure. He seems like a lawful guy to me though.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 12:23 AM
Just as they pop into my head

Ganondorf- CE
Leonidas- LG
Rorschach- CG
Jon Snow- LG
Eddard Stark- LG
Tyrion Lannister- TN
Cersei Lannister- CE
Jaime Lannister- CE
Johnny the Homicidal Maniac- CE
Vince Vega- CE
Jules Winnfield- LN
Paul Atreides- NG
Baron Harkonnen- NE
Mugen- CN
Jin- LG
Spike- TN
Faye- CN
Vicious- NE
Vash- NG
Nicholas Wolfwood- CG
Knives- NE
Dan Evans- LG
Ben Wade- CN
Kikuchiyo- CG
The rest of the Seven Samurai- LG
Spider Jerusalem- CN
Deadpool- C Awesome
Mr. Blue- CE
The Dude- LN
V- CG
Chigure- LE
Shinji- NG
Gendo- CN
Sweeney Todd- NE

That should give you some fat to chew.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-02-10, 01:14 AM
Ozymandias? I'd give him the alignment of CG.

Why? The man dedicates his entire life to solving humanity's problems. Can't get much more working for a higher goal then that. As to the Chaotic part, Ozymandias does things his way. He forfeits his entire fortune and travels to the middle east in search of an answer to man kinds problems. He is the only masked super hero to give up the life before the Keen Act takes effect. He betrays his old friends even going so far as to arrange a murder to have one framed and another killed. Even hires a hitman to go after himself. All of this screams chaotic to me, because they're all examples of Ozymandias laughing in the face of tradition/loyalty/etc to do his own thing. If his goal were anything short of salvation for all mankind, I'd peg him as CE.

Also, Lord of the Ducks I don't think I'd peg Shinji as NG. Their are points in the series when Shinji only gets back into his Eva to save all human life. He is almost incapable of working for the betterment of others through-out much of the series, and even less capable of working things out for himself. Yes, when push comes to shove, he saves all of humanity (until he's given a third option in the End of Evangelion/Episode 25 and sentences all of humanity to none existence). That's not a very NG act.

I'd have to say he's chaotic neutral. Sure most of the time he's following orders and acting on the behalf of others, but he effectively feels forced into it. He hates his life at Tokyo-3, but ultimately sees no other option. When other options present themselves no matter how fake those options may really be, he jumps at them. No, it's his guardian (can't remember her name) that is NG (and who is directly responsible for most of his NG acts).

Worira
2008-02-10, 01:48 AM
My nitpick-fu is stronger than yours.



(Deathsticks guy-while he may jsut be a dealer, an not an addict, there is no product without a customer. The way Qui-Gon reacts to the deathsticks, it seems they're more like a mild narcotic other than an cigarette equivilent. Yes, tobacco is a narcotic, but its legal - I digress),

Tobacco's not a narcotic, it's a stimulant. Or, more accurately, contains a stimulant.

Demented
2008-02-10, 02:03 AM
However, "chaotic" is very much a misnomer, in that having a disorganized personality has nothing at all to do with one's sense of ethics. An addled bureaucrat who keeps mixing up the proper forms does create a big chaos everywhere he goes, but nevertheless remains lawful.

My argument wasn't that torture is chaotic or lawful, it was that thanatos' perception of torture didn't match with Palpatine's application of torture.

EvilElitest
2008-02-10, 02:04 AM
What alignment would you give Hamlet, from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark?

LN maybe TN


Link of the Legend of Zelda series?

No alignment, he is too cool

from
EE

Thanatos 51-50
2008-02-10, 02:30 AM
Tobacco's not a narcotic, it's a stimulant. Or, more accurately, contains a stimulant.

Heh. White text. Caffiene is a stimulant, and is likewise categorised as a narcotic, albeit a legal one. I'm not exactly sure on the categorisation of tobacco, myself (being a non-smoker and all). I'll look it up.

Sorry for the deception.
EDIT:
I wiki'd Tobacco, and a quick ctrl+F of both its, and Nicotine's article revealed no use of the word Narcotic. I concede the point.

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 03:04 AM
Leonidas- LG

He was totally Chaotic Neutral. Maybe Chaotic Good 'cuz he loved his people, but still Chaotic.


Spike- TN

I really want to put him as Chaotic Good. I know I probably can't make a case, and you're probably much closer, but I've got a soft spot for the guy.


Vash- NG

He was touted earlier as being the perfect Paladin. Wouldn't that make him LG?


That should give you some fat to chew.

Here's some more.

Jack Bauer is TN, as is Jason Bourne. Why Jack Bauer? Well... I say Neutral because he does Good and Evil things pretty frequently, and since I'm used to NWN's numerical shifting, that'd put him in Neutral. He also swears alliegience to a higher existence than himself (Amerca) but often breaks the rules to destroy her enemies (terrists) with great justice.

Jason Bourne just wants his memory back. Although maybe I'd put him as good since IIRC, he tends to like to knock people out instead of kill them. But maybe I just haven't watched in a while.

Duke Malagigi
2008-02-10, 03:18 AM
Ozymandias, in my opinion, would be a particularly self-righteous Vile Lawful Evil. He would be Lawful due to his strong belief that the needs and rights of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. Ozymandias is Vilely Evil because of the fact he murdered 2 million New Yorkers, his own assistants in the plan and Doctor Manhattan's fellow lab workers.

TheOOB
2008-02-10, 04:51 AM
Keep in mind these are trends people follow. A good person who commits an evil act isn't evil(usually), and a lawful person who acts chaotic for a while is likely still lawful.

Moral Axis

Note:By "innocent" I mean a stranger(or someone of whom you know very little about) who to your knowledge has done nothing wrong, ie they are not a criminal, murderer, despot, ect. When dealing with friends and family, you can be nice without turning good, and when dealing with enemies and villians you can hostile without being evil.

Good: A good person is someone who is willing to take significant risks and/or make significant personal sacrifices to help an innocent. They tend to help people, unless the risk is too unreasonable(saving a single person from an army of dragons), though their self sacrificing nature can be a large weakness.

Neutral: A neutral person is someone who is opposed to harming innocents, but is not willing to take significant risks and/or make significant personal sacrifices to help innocents. They usually will help innocents if little to no risk or sacrifice is required on their part (ie: a level 10 fighter protecting a peasant from a few common bandits.). Most neutral people are fundamentally good people, and will help others if they can, but they realize their needs and safety outweighs others(save friends and family, whom they may have a sacrificing relationship with).

Evil: An evil person is willing to significantly harm innocents to reach their goals. Harm doesn't need to be physical damage/murder, harming someone socially, economically, ect can be grounds for evil. Evil people belive that their needs superceed the needs of others, they are not all midless murderers(most have a limit as to what they will and will not do), but they usually believe that if they have to power to take what they need from others, they rightfully deserve it. Their self serving biased gives evil people few weaknesses to exploit, though many evil people find it difficult to get trustworthy allies.

Ethical Axis

Lawful: A lawful person has a set of rules/traditions they follow, for better or worse, and tend to think on the long term and on a large scale when planning their actions. On the plus side they tend to be well prepared and have strong convictions, on the down side they're unwillingness to err from their ideals can cause many problems, and they can lose sight of the here and now.

Neutral: A neutral person has a set of rules/traditions they usually follow, but they understand that they sometimes need to be broken. They also tend think about whats best at the moment, but don't lose sight of the long term.

Chaotic: A chaotic person typically does not follow rules/traditions if they do not see a good reason to(being arrested is a good reason), and they tend to keep their mind in the here and now. On the plus side they are adaptable, and willing to do things they wouldn't normally do if the situation demands it, on the down side they oftentimes don't fully consider consequences of their actions as fully as they should.

Most people would obvious fit as true neutral, though all alignments can be productive members of society.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-10, 04:56 AM
Actually, I'd argue Shinji Ikari is Lawful Good. Shinji Ikari asks for very human and honest requests for emotional validation along with some human compassion to his state of traumatic isolation. Bizarrely, no one seems to be able to recognize that Shinji has none of the typicasl Shounen boy dreams of being a hero and sees probably clearer that NERV is a bunch of truly horrible people.

Conversely, his emotional isolation leads to a natural empathy. It's this empathy that allows him to sympathize with the Angels that Misato and others are horrified by. He attempts to do what he's told but frequently finds himself at odds with the self-righteousness of others around him that he easilly sees through.

Fundamentally, it's Shinji's natural empathy that allows him to redeem the world from Instrumentality as Rei and Karou are both able to connect with Shinji in a manner that's impossible for others to do so.

I always felt that a large amount of problem people have with Shinji is that he rejects that he's the protagionist because he already sees past the typical anime stages of "Serve the Military, then get betrayed. Shinji starts well aware his father and the typical Gundam employers are evil *****."

Tengu
2008-02-10, 05:43 AM
Shinji, like most of Evangelion, is a deconstruction - he shows what a completely normal kid would feel and do if he was put through all the personal trauma that usually come with a kid mecha hero in one package. When you see that, he stops being an extreme emo (just a bit emo) and starts being more likable.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 01:33 PM
He was totally Chaotic Neutral. Maybe Chaotic Good 'cuz he loved his people, but still Chaotic.

Yeah, I guess since he totally blew off the senate and the old laws he'd be chaotic. But he's too dedicated to a just cause to be neutral.



He was touted earlier as being the perfect Paladin. Wouldn't that make him LG?

For the most part yeah but By the end of the series, after he's killed Legato and Knives he declares he's going to respect and honor Rem, but had realized the need to break rules sometimes



Here's some more.

Jack Bauer is TN, as is Jason Bourne. Why Jack Bauer? Well... I say Neutral because he does Good and Evil things pretty frequently, and since I'm used to NWN's numerical shifting, that'd put him in Neutral. He also swears alliegience to a higher existence than himself (Amerca) but often breaks the rules to destroy her enemies (terrists) with great justice.

Jason Bourne just wants his memory back. Although maybe I'd put him as good since IIRC, he tends to like to knock people out instead of kill them. But maybe I just haven't watched in a while.

Jason Bourne pissed me off as a character. I wanted him to err, I wanted him to die, I wanted him to be human. He's turned into some higher paragon of good and redemption and what's more is he lives. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH PEOPLE, IT MAKES FOR A CHEESY ENDING. Unless it's in some less extreme, like childhood lessons. Chaotic good, but more like chaotic plot device.

Tempest Fennac
2008-02-10, 02:00 PM
In regards to Gene Hunt from Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes and Flower from Meerkat Moanor, what would you say their alignments are (for Flower, ignore WotC's "animals must be Neutral" rule).

Charles Phipps
2008-02-10, 03:55 PM
Actually, much like the Doctor and the Master, Vash is holding Knives permanent prisoner for presumably the rest of eternity since they're both immortal. In Knives' case, it's presumably a fate worse than death.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 04:53 PM
Aw poop, I haven't finished the manga. I only watched the anime where he killed him.

Also double poop 'cause I just started watching Doctor Who.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-10, 05:44 PM
Aw poop, I haven't finished the manga. I only watched the anime where he killed him.

Also double poop 'cause I just started watching Doctor Who.

Don't worry. No spoilers there.

And he was alive in the anime.

puppyavenger
2008-02-10, 05:56 PM
V from V for Vendetta, I'd say NN or CN.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-10, 05:59 PM
V from V for Vendetta, I'd say NN or CN.

Definitely chaotic, and probably good, even. He is effectively overthrowing an oppresive tyrannous regime.

Tren
2008-02-10, 06:19 PM
Definitely chaotic, and probably good, even. He is effectively overthrowing an oppresive tyrannous regime.

I'm led to understand that in the graphic novel(s?) he's much darker, and it's actually very ambiguous as to whether he's any better than the regime he's trying to overthrow. But in the movie, I think he's Neutral with maybe a handful of good acts-- after all he does go on a crusade of personal vengeance and tortures an innocent woman. I also you think you could make an argument for his being quite lawful-- all depending on whether you consider lawful to be "following the laws of the land" or being "consistent, pro-order". V is very methodical throughout the movie, and he seems to apply his vengeance/justice very consistently, even killing the repentant doctor (though he let her die peacefully). He believes in a strong set of ideals, that just happen to be opposed to the authority of the (illegitimate?) totalitarian state.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-10, 06:23 PM
I'm led to understand that in the graphic novel(s?) he's much darker,
Okay, I've been meaning to read those but I was basing this upon the movie.


V is very methodical throughout the movie,
That's the wrong definition again. Being methodical is a way of doing things, and has nothing to do with being lawful, which is a reason for doing things.

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 06:33 PM
I'm led to understand that in the graphic novel(s?) he's much darker, and it's actually very ambiguous as to whether he's any better than the regime he's trying to overthrow. But in the movie, I think he's Neutral with maybe a handful of good acts-- after all he does go on a crusade of personal vengeance and tortures an innocent woman. I also you think you could make an argument for his being quite lawful-- all depending on whether you consider lawful to be "following the laws of the land" or being "consistent, pro-order". V is very methodical throughout the movie, and he seems to apply his vengeance/justice very consistently, even killing the repentant doctor (though he let her die peacefully). He believes in a strong set of ideals, that just happen to be opposed to the authority of the (illegitimate?) totalitarian state.

Well, I'd actually argue that V is somewhat CE/CN. See,

He was OK with doing whatever he needed to do, because he felt that 'V' had two faces. He was the face of destruction, existing to bring down the existing world. The other face was the one that would help rebuild it. He fully intended to die and pass on the torch, and likewise was willing to embody the non-good aspects.

Tren
2008-02-10, 06:38 PM
That's the wrong definition again. Being methodical is a way of doing things, and has nothing to do with being lawful, which is a reason for doing things.

I don't believe lawfulness or chaos are ever defined in the rules as exclusively reasons for doing things. Alignment is a general classification of both motive and method. Even if "methodical" is not descriptive of lawful, what does it mean exactly for someone to be "lawful" in their reason for doing things?

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 06:54 PM
If the Wizards article is to be believed, then methods are quite significant for Lawful/Chaotic

Admiral Squish
2008-02-10, 07:05 PM
Petey from Schlock Mercenary. I want to see you guys take on that one.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 07:13 PM
Squish reminded me.

Arnold Rimmer- LG
Lister- CG
Holly- C bored
Cat- CN
Ford Prefect- CN, emphasis on chaotic
Arthur Dent- LN
Marvin- LN
Beeblebrox- CN
Trillian- TN
Vogons- LE

VanBuren
2008-02-10, 07:41 PM
If anyone is TN, it's Arthur Dent. He just wants to be left the hell alone and live his life.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-10, 07:45 PM
Petey from Schlock Mercenary. I want to see you guys take on that one.

Well... that's a hard one.

Good vs Evil:

Saved the Galaxy- decidedly neutral: that's where he keeps his stuff!
Killed off various politicians- Evil: even politicians are sentient beings (now, if they were lawyers... :smalltongue: )
Is fighting a war with other nigh-on-omnipotent beings, for the good of other species: good.


I'd say he's fairly good, in a divine sort of way- we just have to trust that he knows what he's doing.


Petey prefers to work within the established order, but isn't afraid to blow it up if it's past reforming. He waits, however, for a pretext. Probably neutral, ethics-wise.


So, I'd call Petey Neutral-Good (with funny tendencies).

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 07:57 PM
If anyone is TN, it's Arthur Dent. He just wants to be left the hell alone and live his life.

He does a good job of observing laws, a sense of duty when the universe is in threat, and a sense of downright longing for earthly customs. He's a traditionalist in the sense of the universe.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-10, 08:00 PM
GOOD- Devotion to others, concern for others/society/the greater good over concern for the self.

EVIL- Concern for self-benefit over all else, without regard to the greater good or what may be good for others.

LAWFUL- Dedication to order, to justice*, and predictability.

CHAOTIC- Rejection of order of any sort, promotion of free will over all else.

NEUTRAL- Neutral on one axis means an accentuation of the opposite axis. For instance, a NE character thinks only for himself and behaves however is appropriate to further his own ends in whatever situation he is currently. This character is evil to the very core, with few or no motivations other than self-preservation and getting ahead in the world.

Holy crap this a good explanation. *applause*

Dr Bwaa
2008-02-10, 08:04 PM
I think V is definitely CG, despite the could-be-interpreted-as-evil things he does. His motivation for the torture is not her pain, or getting information out of her. He doesn't want to hurt her; he wants her to be able to live without fear. He wants her to be strong and capable, and for better or worse, he succeeds. His methods aren't necessarily admirable, but they work, and they accomplish the (clearly good-aligned) goal he has in mind (this last sentence refers to everything, not just the torture).

BRC
2008-02-10, 08:08 PM
I think V is definitely CG, despite the could-be-interpreted-as-evil things he does. His motivation for the torture is not her pain, or getting information out of her. He doesn't want to hurt her; he wants her to be able to live without fear. He wants her to be strong and capable, and for better or worse, he succeeds. His methods aren't necessarily admirable, but they work, and they accomplish the (clearly good-aligned) goal he has in mind (this last sentence refers to everything, not just the torture).
Movie V is definetally CG, I havn't read the graphic novel, but from what Ive heard about it, he's CN in it.
Alright, here's one for you guys, Spider Jerusalem from Transmetropolitan.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-10, 08:40 PM
Alright, here's one for you guys, Spider Jerusalem from Transmetropolitan.

Already did, CN. Very C.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-10, 09:41 PM
My take on Lawful-Chaotic, Good-Evil is

"A rough description on how compassionate and decent you are vs. How cruel and malevolent."

"How inclined towards change and non-traditional thought."

"With most people who have a balance of this being squarely in the middle."

RebelRogue
2008-02-11, 03:36 PM
Leonidas- LG

The guy is the leader of a decidedly LE community, so definitely not LG, IMO. I say LE!

Admiral Squish
2008-02-11, 03:55 PM
The guy is the leader of a decidedly LE community, so definitely not LG, IMO. I say LE!

LE? How? LN, at worst. A bit draconian, yeah, but that's not evil, just really, really lawful.

Kioran
2008-02-11, 04:01 PM
LE? How? LN, at worst. A bit draconian, yeah, but that's not evil, just really, really lawful.

The Spartan system and regime are inherently evil. Leonidas is showboating and upstaging his allies all the way, even if he makes a big sacrifice. One can be a halfway decent fellow in some situations despite being evil. He definitely isn´t LG, and killing the Messenger isn´t too lawful either, or LE.

Mewtarthio
2008-02-11, 04:02 PM
Ozymandias, in my opinion, would be a particularly self-righteous Vile Lawful Evil. He would be Lawful due to his strong belief that the needs and rights of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. Ozymandias is Vilely Evil because of the fact he murdered 2 million New Yorkers, his own assistants in the plan and Doctor Manhattan's fellow lab workers.

I'm not sure I'd call him "Vilely Evil." After all, at the end he states that he's done his best to feel every death and that he wants to avoid numbing himself to his actions. Every death he caused, he caused because he believed it to be the only way to save humanity from extinction. He was even willing to let Rorschach go because he didn't think the crazy conspiracy theorist would be a serious threat to him. There are some valid arguments you could make for Veidt being Evil, but there's no way I'd consider him to be BoVD material.


LE? How? LN, at worst. A bit draconian, yeah, but that's not evil, just really, really lawful.

Contrary to what the movie implied, Spartans were not likely too concerned about freedom and justice for all of Greece. I've understood their society to be very Socially Darwinian, and it's presented as such in the movie.

Admiral Squish
2008-02-11, 04:13 PM
The Spartan system and regime are inherently evil. Leonidas is showboating and upstaging his allies all the way, even if he makes a big sacrifice. One can be a halfway decent fellow in some situations despite being evil. He definitely isn´t LG, and killing the Messenger isn´t too lawful either, or LE.

They're militaristic. Rome was militaristic. They're militaristic because they have to survive somehow, and their homeland doesn't have any resources of it's own. They're very, very lawful. They don't necessarily enjoy their more evil-ish decisions, but they have to make them because they can't live any other way. Would an evil society tell the Athenians to go home and let them take the Persian hordes? The real story of thermopylae has them send the rest of the Athenian army home to prepare their homes against the Persians, knowing full well their three hundred men would die.

Ascension
2008-02-11, 04:24 PM
They're militaristic. Rome was militaristic. They're militaristic because they have to survive somehow, and their homeland doesn't have any resources of it's own. They're very, very lawful. They don't necessarily enjoy their more evil-ish decisions, but they have to make them because they can't live any other way. Would an evil society tell the Athenians to go home and let them take the Persian hordes? The real story of thermopylae has them send the rest of the Athenian army home to prepare their homes against the Persians, knowing full well their three hundred men would die.

I wouldn't necessarily call them an evil society, but if you've read anything about how they treated the Helots, the best they're going to score on the good-evil axis is neutral. They weren't just militaristic, they were militaristic to the exclusion of everything else. Sparta couldn't have lasted five minutes without Helot labor, and the Spartans knew that, so they made sure to keep a very tight grip on their semi-slaves.

As a society, I'd say Lawful Neutral. Lawful Neutral in the extreme. Now, the way the movie 300 portrayed Leonidas, I can see how somebody could get CG out of it, but in truth Sparta as a whole was pretty darn close to LN.

Charles Phipps
2008-02-11, 04:30 PM
I wouldn't necessarily call them an evil society, but if you've read anything about how they treated the Helots, the best they're going to score on the good-evil axis is neutral. They weren't just militaristic, they were militaristic to the exclusion of everything else. Sparta couldn't have lasted five minutes without Helot labor, and the Spartans knew that, so they made sure to keep a very tight grip on their semi-slaves.

As a society, I'd say Lawful Neutral. Lawful Neutral in the extreme. Now, the way the movie 300 portrayed Leonidas, I can see how somebody could get CG out of it, but in truth Sparta as a whole was pretty darn close to LN.

Actually, I'd argue it was NE. However, this is about fictionalized Sparta.

Kioran
2008-02-11, 04:45 PM
They're militaristic. Rome was militaristic. They're militaristic because they have to survive somehow, and their homeland doesn't have any resources of it's own. They're very, very lawful. They don't necessarily enjoy their more evil-ish decisions, but they have to make them because they can't live any other way. Would an evil society tell the Athenians to go home and let them take the Persian hordes? The real story of thermopylae has them send the rest of the Athenian army home to prepare their homes against the Persians, knowing full well their three hundred men would die.

The movie version might definitely put him in a better light, but historical fact is:

Spartan society knew three classes: Spartiates (warrior-nobles, 2%), Periokes (citizens with limited rights, 18%) and Helotes (disenfranchised serfs, 80%). Occasionally, the Spartiate allegedly killed Helots in their tests and training during their youth. They ruled with iron fist and were not known for kindness.
Sacrificing themselves was noble, no doubt, but they weren´t the only ones who died there - the Thespian contingent died with them as well, allegedly forced to stay there because they were considered politically unreliable. The Spartans died nobly, but quite possibly not out of the goodness of their hearts, but for their very own stubborn nature and pride.

Frosty
2008-02-11, 05:20 PM
What do you guys think of Illidan, Maiev, and Kael-Thas from Warcraft 3?

I'd ask about Arthas, but he went through too many alignments for this thread.

GrassyGnoll
2008-02-11, 06:01 PM
What do you guys think of Illidan, Maiev, and Kael-Thas from Warcraft 3?

I'd ask about Arthas, but he went through too many alignments for this thread.

Thanks for the fodder, I totally forgot warcraft.

Orgrim Doomhammer- LE (an amazingly honorable LE)
Gul'Dan- CE
Grom Hellscream- CE (original)-> CN (Thrall's lieutenant)-> CE (corrupted)-> CG (redeemed)
Thrall- CG
Cairne- CG (a bit too fond of genocide though, kind of pushed to it in the unforgiving barrens though)
Ner'zhul- LE (both orcish and undead)
Durotan- LG
Medivh- TN
Lothar- LG
Uther- LG
Malfurion- NG
Tyrande- CN
Illidan- CN (leaning to evil ,pre-imprisonment)-> NE (insane naga master)
Lady Vashj- LE
Kael'thas- NG-> CN (he knew naga were questionable/abandoned his fight to reclaim homeland)-> CE (summoning demons, etc.)
Akuma- CN
Arthas- Too shaky for me to get into, he's had entire threads devoted to him
Jaina- CG
Archimonde- LE
Kil'Jaeden- CE
Sargaeras- NE (I appreciate the trifecta of evil alignments for the Burning Legion)
Mannoroth- CE
Tichondrius and dreadlords in general- LE
Sylvanas- CG-> NE (mindless banshee)-> CN
Garithos- LN (LE attitude/means, but LG purpose)
Varimathras- LE (is he still considered a nathrezim after killing another nathrezim?)

Edit: Thanks Frosty
Maiev- LN, very L

Frosty
2008-02-11, 06:48 PM
You forgot to rate Maiev! :smallwink:

Saph
2008-02-11, 07:09 PM
Definitely LE for Ozymandias. "I'm going to drop an alien comet nuke on New York and kill a couple million completely innocent people, and this is obviously going to convince everyone else in the world to be nice to each other. Trust me. After all, there's no way I'd ever lie to anyone." If you can say that with a straight face . . .

Here are some for those of you who've read the book:

• Hazel
• Bigwig
• Fiver
• Campion
• Woundwort

- Saph

Tengu
2008-02-11, 09:36 PM
You forgot to rate Maiev! :smallwink:

Maiev is Warcraft's Miko - a stick so deep up her ass you can see it when she opens her mouth, and very popular for some reason.

Rutee
2008-02-11, 09:48 PM
Maiev is Warcraft's Miko - a stick so deep up her ass you can see it when she opens her mouth, and very popular for some reason.
Probably has to do with having a cup size.. I thought she was a good antagonist though, m'self.

Tengu
2008-02-11, 09:56 PM
Probably has to do with having a cup size.. I thought she was a good antagonist though, m'self.

Probably does. And I admit that both are good characters, but horrible people - while those people I have in mind literally drool over them and make up excuses for their behaviour, trying to show them in the light of, almost, saints.

Callista
2008-02-12, 12:01 AM
Definitely LE for Ozymandias. "I'm going to drop an alien comet nuke on New York and kill a couple million completely innocent people, and this is obviously going to convince everyone else in the world to be nice to each other. Trust me. After all, there's no way I'd ever lie to anyone." If you can say that with a straight face . . .

Here are some for those of you who've read the book:

• Hazel
• Bigwig
• Fiver
• Campion
• Woundwort

- Saph

Hazel is definitely NG. He'll basically do anything to help his friends. Typical high-CHA leader.

Bigwig is LG--his devotion to his leader is definitely Lawful, and he tends to be protective of the weak. His Good side won over Lawful side early in the story--but he definitely retains the Lawfulness when he switches loyalties to Hazel.

Fiver is true neutral. He's out for survival; he generally loves his friends, hates his enemies, and probably wishes he could just have a quiet life for a change!

Campion is LN. Duty, honor, loyalty. He may lean to G after a while of being away from Woundwort's influence.

Woundwort, LE. Was there ever any question? All about keeping order, ruling with an iron fist; I thought at first that he had some chaotic tendencies since he believes so much in personal strength, but said strength always seems to be exerted to control his environment--a very lawful tendency.

Mewtarthio
2008-02-12, 01:44 AM
Alright, how about Roland Deschain from The Dark Tower? Go ahead and throw the rest of the ka-tet in there as well, if you like.

I'd call Roland LN with Evil tendancies--He's pretty callous and horrifically obsessive, not to mention a walking Avatar of Death, but at least his obsession involves saving the multiverse, and he does go out of his way to help others in Wolves of the Calla. Granted, that may have been mostly a matter of honor, but I'd hesitate to call him Evil.

Oy the Billy-Bumbler is, of course, Chaotic Evil. I don't think that needs any explanation. In his own words: Oy! Ake! Aaaaaake!

Charles Phipps
2008-02-12, 02:20 AM
I think of Roland as a LN Fallen Paladin.

And at the beginning of the quest, is once more restored to LG.

No, I won't explain further what I mean.

Zenos
2008-02-12, 02:26 AM
What alignment would rincewind and Sam Vimes be? They're both from Discworld.

Tengu
2008-02-12, 02:48 AM
What alignment would rincewind and Sam Vimes be? They're both from Discworld.

Vimes - LG with NG tendencies.
Rincewind - CN with CG tendencies.

VanBuren
2008-02-12, 02:57 AM
Vimes - LG with NG tendencies.

I sort of always felt him as a borderline LG/LN. But maybe it's just his cynicism.


Rincewind - CN with CG tendencies.

Eh, he's firmly Neutral. He may have some good and heroic moments from time to time (Sourcery), but most of the time he saves the day by pure accident while trying to survive. At best he's Relucant Good.

Admiral Squish
2008-02-12, 03:08 AM
I once saw a bit of fanart that proclaimed rincewind "Reluctant Hero Frustrated Coward".

I'd say CN, with a vague tendency towards CG.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 11:23 AM
I can't decide whether Sam Vimes is LG, NG, or CG. He's not above breaking the law if something important has got to be done. Hey, he fully supported old Stoneface Vimes's execution of the king. Stoneface certainly didn't have legal authority to commit regicide, but it had tobe gone for the greater good. Sam Vimes sees that. On the other hand, Sam prefers to stay within the law and use the law as an instrument to keep peace. After all, he does represent the law as the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the city.

So umm...neutral good?

Learnedguy
2008-02-12, 11:42 AM
Sam Vimes is lawful good. Very strongly so in fact.

1, He's a nice guy. A cynical jackass for sure, but let's face it, behinds rough exterior, he's as wolly good as they get. Vimes likes people, and he wants to protect people.

2, Very, very, very strongly lawful. I want to stress this part. Maybe not in the actual law part (although, yes, there to), where he might look a bit to the sides, in the minor matters, not to mention that he has a tendency to interpret legal matters as it suits him best.
But let's face it. Samuel J Vimes is a man of principles above all. Principles set to stone.

Project_Mayhem
2008-02-12, 11:56 AM
I second (or third or whatever) Vimes as LG. I don't really think you can argue he's neutral on the morality axis - off the top of my head, remember how he supported all of the widows and daughters of dead watchmen out of his own pocket - back in one of the earlier ones.

OK, for a difficult one, how about the cast of Sin City?

John Hartigan: Easily the most obviously good character. Lawful too I think

Dwight McCarthy: Harder - I'd say CG with neutral tendancies.

Marv: Breaks the scale - probably TN because he exhibits extremes of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. His motives are predominantly good, but he enjoys torture and killing. Also, he has no respect for authority or rules, yet follows a strong moral code

Kevin: NE or CE - not sure about the ethical axis

Yellow Bastard: CE, easily

Gail: CN most likely

Nancy: probably CG - she's a nice person, again not sure about the ethical axis

Cardinal Roark: LE

Darzil
2008-02-12, 12:47 PM
Watchmen



Rorschach- CG


Definitely disagree here.

Rorschach is definitely Lawful - He follows a very, very strict definition of it. As he says at the end of the story (may be paraphrased, it's not in front of me now) - "Even in the face of apocalypse, never compromise". He's so lawful that extermination of the human race is preferable to saving it by a lie.

I think I'd argue that he is Neutral. He wants desperately to be Good, but is so uncompromising on the Law thing that he'll not think twice about harming people he doesn't consider Lawful Good themselves.

So, LN, with strong L.


Ozymandius is a tough one. His aim is to bring world peace, saving a world that is on the bring of nuclear destruction. He is using all his resources to bring this about, and not doing it for his own gain. The only way he has thought of with a reasonable chance of success involves conning the world and killing a few million people. He is very rigourous about achieving this (to the end that pretty much the only loose thread, assuming he kills Rorschach, is Rorschach's diary).

A pretty good case could be made for any alignment, really.

Darzil

Callista
2008-02-16, 03:10 AM
I agree with LN for Roland. I think he's been slowly working his way from LE to NG, but he's definitely LN throughout the series.

Eddie goes from CN to CG. Beating a heroin addiction, falling in love, and figuring out the meaning of selflessness can do that to you.

Susannah... Hmm. Complicated. Well, at first she's got two personalities--LN and CN--which join, leaving Susannah at TN--though not for long, since she's soon forced to fight the CE Mia, something which certainly forces her to pick a side. She develops into firmly NG by the end of the series.

Jake starts out true neutral, but he's had Good tendencies all along; those come out fully as he's "adopted" by Roland, to the point that I would say, easily, Exalted NG by the end. His storyline is very coming-of-age, anyhow; and that sort of story usually means picking an alignment for yourself.

Oy probably has an INT of 3 (just barely sentient); but I think his loyalty gives him a LN alignment. The low INT won't give him much room to play with the Lawful part of it, though; so he's pretty close to True Neutral.

Okay, so how about The Lord of the Rings?

Admiral Squish
2008-02-16, 03:58 AM
Assign alignments to the Animorphs characters. Go!

Tam_OConnor
2008-02-16, 05:49 AM
Keep in mind, it's been a long long time for me, and I never read the last handful. That aside:
Jake: Neutral Good. If he wasn't the leader of a band of rebels, I'd say Lawful Good. But his crusade requires so much lawbreaking I don't see how he could stay Lawful.
Rachel: Chaotic Good, with bouts of Chaotic Neutral. This is Rachel, after all, bloodlust and all.
Tobias: Chaotic Good, slipping into Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral when the hawk takes over.
Cassie: Probably Neutral Good. Doesn't seem to be as interested in defeating the Yeerks as defending the humans.
Marco: Despite his role as a clown, I hesitate to peg him as Chaotic Good. It's probably just all the stuff that happens in the last few books breaks the joker. So, Neutral Good, with Strong Chaotic tendencies.
Ax: Lawful Good, slipping towards CG as he spends more time away from Andalite culture.

And, just because I'm curious, Mara Jade.

Saph
2008-02-16, 07:22 AM
And, just because I'm curious, Mara Jade.

Hmm, that's a hard one.

Definitely LE while she's the Emperor's Hand - she's loyal to the Empire, but also kills anyone she's ordered to without question. She'd probably think of herself as LN, but I think the total lack of a conscience puts her into LE territory. I mean, she's Palpatine's personal assistant, what else could she be?

After the Emperor's killed, without his influence on her, she drifts to Neutral. Probably Lawful Neutral, though, as she's still very self-disciplined and organised. She stays like that while she's in Karrde's employ.

By the end of the Heir to the Empire trilogy, there's some evidence that she's leaning slightly towards Good, but I'd still put her as LN, even though her loyalty to the Emperor and the Empire's gone. I haven't read any other books with her in after Timothy Zahn's trilogy, so can't say beyond that.

My turn:

• Ender
• Peter
• Valentine
• Bean

- Saph

Duke Malagigi
2008-02-16, 04:37 PM
What alignment would rincewind and Sam Vimes be? They're both from Discworld.

Sam Vimes: Highly princepled, strident individualist and both capable of mercy ensuring punishment for the wicked. Chaotic Good as it should be.

Rincewind: True Neutral.

Havelock Vetinari: Lawful Neutral.

Callista
2008-02-17, 05:56 AM
• Ender
As a child, LN with neutral tendencies--he pretty much goes along with what people want of him. His flexible thinking (a chaotic trait) is probably more a by-product of his intelligence. Ender's a very capable leader, able to give orders and be obeyed.
As an adult, influenced both by his sister and his own reputation, Ender turns towards NG with chaotic tendencies. Maturity causes him to turn his back on war, and instead focus on individual people and their cultures.

• Peter
LE. A capable ruler--but willing to do what needs to be done, including some very ruthless things. Proof that a sociopath can be very successful.

• Valentine
NG throughout.

• Bean
CN at first, with a bit of an Evil streak as he fights for survival; firmly CN through the Ender's Game years, as he constantly questions authority. Bean never takes anything for granted, needing to prove everything for himself. Later on, Bean "settles down" (or tries to... he never quite succeeds) and becomes essentially true neutral, wanting little more than a family.

Admiral Squish
2008-02-17, 06:03 AM
Oooh! Someone do the hulk!

The Faceless
2008-02-17, 06:35 AM
Chaotic Neutral, or maybe Chaotic Angry?

He doesn't go out to hurt people just because. He only engages in conflicts for a reason, the vast majority of the time provided by someone else's actions, and he doesn't go out of his way to help others either. No moral code, he just calls things as he sees them.

Mewtarthio
2008-02-17, 01:30 PM
I'd say the Hulk is Neutral. He's little more than an animal, really.

Callista
2008-02-18, 01:17 PM
Nah, he's got an INT of at least 3. Not much more than that, but he's smarter than the average dog (INT 2).

Anyway, considering he pretty much comes into existence when Banner gets angry; and because uncontrolled anger is inherently chaotic; and because Barbarian rages get deactivated if you turn Lawful... I'd agree with the CN. But only for the Hulk--not for his calmer alter-ego. Obviously.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 02:57 PM
Sam Vimes: Neutral Good. He has strong principles and believes in the law but will break or bend the law as needed to get justice. He repects the law though.

Rincewind: Neutral. Just plan neutral. He doesn't want to hurt anyone. Once in a while he will help someone, if he has to. Generally though, he'll just run like heck.

Havelock Vetinari: Lawful Evil. Emphasis on the Lawful. Vetinari knows the rules, knows most of them don't apply to him anymore, and does everything possible (including having people murdered) to keep everything stable.

Carrot: LG oh the LG.

Frosty
2008-02-18, 03:08 PM
To be honest, I don't see Havelock as too much worse than our current administration sometimes...I guess Lawful Evil is ok at times if Havelock is LE. Life under Havelock has been much better than under any other recent Patricians.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 03:15 PM
To be honest, I don't see Havelock as too much worse than our current administration sometimes...

Disagree. I'd much rather have Havelock but lets stay within board rules...


I guess Lawful Evil is ok at times if Havelock is LE. Life under Havelock has been much better than under any other recent Patricians.

Well yeah. I think that part of the point is that one of the ideas with the character is that Evil and Competent are not mutually exclusive. It benefits Vetinari for the city to run well so he makes it run well or as well as it can given that it's Ankh-Morpork.

Jayngfet
2008-02-18, 09:17 PM
Keep in mind, it's been a long long time for me, and I never read the last handful. That aside:
Jake: Neutral Good. If he wasn't the leader of a band of rebels, I'd say Lawful Good. But his crusade requires so much lawbreaking I don't see how he could stay Lawful.
Rachel: Chaotic Good, with bouts of Chaotic Neutral. This is Rachel, after all, bloodlust and all.
Tobias: Chaotic Good, slipping into Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral when the hawk takes over.
Cassie: Probably Neutral Good. Doesn't seem to be as interested in defeating the Yeerks as defending the humans.
Marco: Despite his role as a clown, I hesitate to peg him as Chaotic Good. It's probably just all the stuff that happens in the last few books breaks the joker. So, Neutral Good, with Strong Chaotic tendencies.
Ax: Lawful Good, slipping towards CG as he spends more time away from Andalite culture.
.

disagree

Jake is Chaotic Neutral, he'd be good but he did do that thing to david, y'know the thing where roumer has it you can still hear his mind scream in desperation

Rachel is Chaotic Neutral, we're talking about the girl that lost an arm mid fight, and then beat the offender to death with it

Cassie is chaotic good, she brakes laws and team rules to do what she feels is right, calling them as she sees them

Marco is Neutral, he starts out CG, but you can see him acting like cassie, doing what he thinks he should, human race be damned

Tobias is neutral good, being a hawk kinda dulled the law/chaos axis but he still does all he can to beat the yeerks

Ax is Neutral good, all the underhanded tactics and adiction drove him out of Lawful pretty quick


but thats just my opinion

Frosty
2008-02-18, 09:32 PM
Disagree. I'd much rather have Havelock but lets stay within board rules...



Well yeah. I think that part of the point is that one of the ideas with the character is that Evil and Competent are not mutually exclusive. It benefits Vetinari for the city to run well so he makes it run well or as well as it can given that it's Ankh-Morpork.

I'd really need to know more about Havelock before I'd vote for him of course. Yes, he has done a lot of shady things, and I guess due to his assassin background he would be evil. But based solely on his governance, I'm very much on the edge about whether he's LE or LN.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-18, 09:40 PM
I'd really need to know more about Havelock before I'd vote for him of course.

First of all, is he for change?

BRC
2008-02-18, 09:53 PM
Where are you getting "E" for vetenari, He's proably LN in my opinion. Remember, he's only a tyrant in the technical sense EG one who rises to power through unusual means ( some of the greatest greek reformers were technically Tyrants). The only thing I think that could possibly be classified as an evil act was when he legalized the theives guild, but that actually had the effect of Reducing crime in the city and everybody preety much decided it was a good idea. Then you can't forget his stance on Mimes, which, considering that as a tyrant he is preety much obligated to irrationally outlaw SOMTHING, it might as well be somthing nobody likes anyway. Most of the groups that have formed against him have either been because they are dissilussioned people who think that King=good times, or because they wanted more power for themselves.

Dervag
2008-02-18, 09:59 PM
First of all, is he for change?Actually, yes. He also believes that it is effectively impossible for a government to control change or prevent it; at most it can facilitate it.

Also, he advocates execution by scorpion pit for mimes.

BRC
2008-02-18, 10:05 PM
Also, he advocates execution by scorpion pit for mimes.
It should be noted, that policy is approved of by most of the population.

In terms of change, his motto is "If it's not broken don't fix it", and this has served the city well. For Example, Ahnk Morpork has no fire department, because having a group who gets paid when there is a fire tends to lead to them hanging around peoples houses commenting on how flammable everything looks and rubbing their palms. However, because the city is so dense, any fire is quickly put out by local citizens who don't want their house burned down as well. However, if things change of their own accord and work out, he lets them stay. For example, after the theives guild was legalized the Night Watch consisted of three people. However, when the watch began to grow, Vetinari saw positive results and encouraged it.He however did take measures to fix the postal system, and in the end fixed the Clacks system (well, he set up a chain of events that ended in it being fixed anyway), kept the city out of a war it couldn't win, and ensured freedom of the press.

bibliophile
2008-02-18, 10:16 PM
I have to say Ventanari is either neutral good, or true neutral. On one hand he punishes mimes for no real reason, but works for the good of the city. Perhaps it's more accurate to say he's made the city a better place, wether this is to keep himself in power, or because he really cares is not clear, but I consider him good. On the law/chaos axis he is clearly neutral. He works within the law or above it, as it suits his purposes.

BRC
2008-02-18, 10:19 PM
I have to say Ventanari is either true neutral, or true neutral. On one hand he punishes mimes for no real reason, but works for the good of the city. Perhaps it's more accurate to say he's made the city a better place, wether this is to keep himself in power, or because he really cares is not clear, but I consider him good. On the law/chaos axis he is clearly neutral. He works within the law or above it, as it suits his purposes.
Well actually, he rarely works above the law, most of the limits on his power are not written down and are self-imposed. He just dosn't do most tyrannical things so that people assume he can't, then when he Does need to do them, people are taken off guard. for example, the bankers in Going postal
Corrupt Corporate Executive Banker: You Can't do that!
Vetinari: Actually, I can, I'm a Tyrant, we do this sort of thing all the time.

Admiral Squish
2008-02-19, 01:24 AM
Aha! A new use for an old tale! I want the playgrounders present to align the characters from this short tale.

Sue and Sam are boyfriend and girlfriend. They live across a river from one-another. Recently, the bridge across the river was struck by lightning, and can't be repaired. Ever. So, the only way across is on Sinbad's ferry. Sue goes to Sinbad and asks him to take her across. He says he'll take her across if she sleeps with him, and won't charge her again, no matter how many times she has to cross. Sue says she'll think about it and goes to ask her friend Ivan if she should do it, and Ivan says 'no, I'm not getting involved. Leave me out of this'. Sue goes back to Sinbad, and tells him she'll do it. When she gets to Sam, and tells him what happened, he throws her out, furious. She meets Slug, tells him her problems, and Slug goes and beats the tar out of Sam.

So: Sue, Sam, Sinbad, Ivan, and Slug. Go!

Mewtarthio
2008-02-19, 01:42 AM
Sinbad is Evil for leveraging his monopoly to commit rape (the monopolistic exploitation's a little on the dark side, but the rape seals it). Nobody else has enough information given to determine alignment: Slug, for instance, could be LG if he believes Sam has comitted a crime and deserves retribution, LE if he's outraged that a couple would dare try to break up under his watch, CG if he's trying to make some sort of statement about the repressive patriarchical society that mandates that a man abandon his love if she is raped, or CE if he's attempting to prove to Sue that you should strike back against those who wrong you, and make them suffer for your pain a hundredfold.

Learnedguy
2008-02-19, 06:04 AM
Aha! A new use for an old tale! I want the playgrounders present to align the characters from this short tale.

Sue and Sam are boyfriend and girlfriend. They live across a river from one-another. Recently, the bridge across the river was struck by lightning, and can't be repaired. Ever. So, the only way across is on Sinbad's ferry. Sue goes to Sinbad and asks him to take her across. He says he'll take her across if she sleeps with him, and won't charge her again, no matter how many times she has to cross. Sue says she'll think about it and goes to ask her friend Ivan if she should do it, and Ivan says 'no, I'm not getting involved. Leave me out of this'. Sue goes back to Sinbad, and tells him she'll do it. When she gets to Sam, and tells him what happened, he throws her out, furious. She meets Slug, tells him her problems, and Slug goes and beats the tar out of Sam.

So: Sue, Sam, Sinbad, Ivan, and Slug. Go!

We know to little about their personalities to judge. As far as I know they could all be neutral. Although Sinbad is a bastard.

---

Anyway, I don't think anyone has mentioned the cast of Berserk yet. So, how about:

Guts: Pre-eclipse, post-eclipse, Current storyline.
Casca: Pre-eclipse, post-eclipse, Current storyline.
Griffith: Pre-eclipse, post-eclipse, Current storyline.
Farnese: Youth ,Pre-Guts, post-Guts
Serpicio: Youth, Pre-Guts, Post Guts
Schirke
Isidori
Puck
Evarella
Immortal Zodd
Skull Knight
Former Band of the Hawks: Griffith, post-Griffith
Current Band of the Hawks
God's Hand

Frosty
2008-02-19, 01:28 PM
I have to say Ventanari is either neutral good, or true neutral. On one hand he punishes mimes for no real reason, but works for the good of the city. Perhaps it's more accurate to say he's made the city a better place, wether this is to keep himself in power, or because he really cares is not clear, but I consider him good. On the law/chaos axis he is clearly neutral. He works within the law or above it, as it suits his purposes.

I can't see him as Neutral good or true neutral. He is definitely Lawful. He is a tyrant, yet he follows self-imposed restraints. Just because there aren't a lot of official rules governing a tyrant doesn't mean he's not lawful.