Fictional Characters as Examples of Alignments

[Stik]

I was trying to explain the alignment system to a new player, and that got us started in providing fictional characters as examples. I've since posted this as a thread on a few different boards. I ask that folks here reply to this thread and provide more examples to help populate the list (particularly in the more evil alignments, which are kind of short).

And if you disagree with where someone is slotted on this list, say so. I love a good debate. Convince me and I'll move the character to a different slot.

The list so far:


Lawful Good
Superman (The LG Poster-Boy)
Yoda
Mr. Spock
Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Obi Wan Kenobi
Gandalf
Sam Gamgee
King Theoden of Rohan
Cpt. Carrot Ironfounderson (Discworld)
Ellen Ripley (Alien films)
Det. Roger Murtaugh (Lethal Weapon) (possibly NG)
Simon Tam (Firefly)
Inarra (Firefly)
Shepherd Book (Firefly)
Admiral William Adama (Battlestar Galactica)


Neutral Good
Spiderman
Luke Skywalker
Captain Kirk
John Crichton (Farscape)
Will Turner (PotC)
Aragorn
Frodo
Cmdr Samuel Vimes (Discworld)
Sgt. Fred Colon (Discworld)
Wash (Firefly)
Kaylee Frey (Firefly)
Cpt. Lee "Apollo" Adama (Battlestar Galactica)


Chaotic Good
Robin Hood
Batman
Han Solo
Chiana (Farscape)
Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry)
Zorro
Indiana Jones
Stephen of Ireland (Braveheart)
Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took
Vic Mackey (The Shield)
Cpl. "Nobby" Nobbs (Discworld)
Nanny Ogg (Discworld)
Wolverine (X-Men) (possibly CN at times)
Det. Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon)
Malcom Reynolds (Firefly)
The Doctor (Doctor Who)
Rose Tyler (Doctor Who)
Lt. Kara "Starbuck" Thrace (Battlestar Galactica)


Lawful Neutral
Peacekeepers (Farscape)
Aeryn Sun (Farscape)
The Auditors (Discworld)
Death (the Grim Reaper, particularly as depicted by Terry Pratchett)
The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork (Discworld)
The Borg (questionable-possibly LE)
Grissom (from CSI)
Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
Granny Weatherwax (Discworld)
Zoe (Firefly)
Col. Saul Tighe (Battlestar Galactica)


True Neutral
Quark (actually, all the Firengi) (Star Trek DS:9)
Boba Fett
Captain Jack Sparrow (PotC) (possibly CN)
James Bond
Tyrion Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)
'Snake' Plissken (Escape from New York/Escape from LA) (CN tendencies)
Jayne Cobb (Firefly)


Chaotic Neutral
Conan
Merv (Sin City) (a.k.a. Conan in a Trenchcoat)
Elric of Melnibone
Q (of ST:TNG)
Stark (Farscape)
Gollum (questionable-possibly CE)
Captain Jack Sparrow (PotC) (possibly TN)
Rincewind (Discworld)
C.M.O.T. Dibbler (Discworld)
Cohen the Barbarian (Discworld)
Venom (Spiderman comics)
River Tam (Firefly)


Lawful Evil
Lex Luthor
Darth Vader
Scorpius (Farscape)
The Borg (if not LN)
Saruman
Grima Wormtongue
Cersei Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)
Emperor Palpatine (possibly NE)
Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) (Jules later becomes LG)
The Bride (Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2)


Neutral Evil
Hannibal Lechter
Emperor Palpatine (if not LE)
Sauron
Dr Gaius Baltar (Battlestar Galactica) (debatable, possible CN or TN)


Chaotic Evil
The Joker
The Crimson King (The Dark Tower series by Stephen King)
Freddy Kreuger
Chucky (Child’s Play)
Gollum (if not CN)
Smaug
Carnage (Spiderman comics)

[Yo! Master]

Lawful Good
Simon Tam (Firefly)

Tough one (and in general it is for Firefly)... But Simon's behaviour never striked me as 100% Lawfull. Good, a great deal of Good ("i may not like you but while in this table you're my patient" to Jayne), for sure, but while trying to rescue River after a point he was willing to break all sorts of laws & proper behaviour to do so, even dealing with shady individuals. I'd put him more towards Neutral.


Chaotic Good
Cpl. "Nobby" Nobbs (Discworld)

Nobby (in the first 'Watch' books, which i have re-read recently & hence remember better) was more of a cirmustantial good guy, i.e. someone who ended up on the side of the good guys due to being pushed & pulled & dragged along with those around him, like Carrot & Vimes, where he himself is much more on the self-serving side, even if just petty & mean, instead of actively evil.


Lawful Neutral
Death (the Grim Reaper, particularly as depicted by Terry Pratchett)

And Death always came off to me as a good guy, doing his (really vital even if distasteful for what it is & entails for the world at large) job.

Reaperman is a good example of this.


Also, the epitome of LN for me is Stannis Baratheon from A Song of Ice & Fire. The Law (tm) & the proper-ness of everything is of maximum importance for him. No compromise, ever. The law, for instance, said to punish Davos for being a smuggler so he did even as he made him a knight at the same time.


Lawful Evil
Cersei Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)

And Cersei (which i'm having trouble also describing as Evil, with a capital "E", even if certainly a bad, bad person) was more than willing to repeatadly break the law to get what she wanted & at other times shield herself behind it when she could manipulate the law to her advantage. Thus a good example of Neutral.

[Kiero]

This will not end well...

[Yo! Master]

This will not end well...

Quick, someone post one of those Ambassador Kosh pics! :D

[Kiero]

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/1489/G_itb/itb_kosh.jpg

Yes

[Dr. Tran]

And Death always came off to me as a good guy, doing his (really vital even if distasteful for what it is & entails of the world in large) job.

Reaperman is a good example of this.

Exactly. Death seems pretty cold sometimes, but that is mostly a function of his job. He really does want things to be better for everybody and knows that he can do this by doing his job right, but still his compassion gets in the way and every once in a while he tries to do something different. Bits from the Wiki that are particularly apt are "Death is efficient but not cruel, and sees his job as a necessary public service. His task is not to kill, but to collect" and "This fascination with humanity extends to the point of sympathy towards them, and he will often side with humans against greater threats." The main quote from Reaperman that drives his charity and compassion home is "What can the harvest hope for if not the care of the reaperman?"

Aside from the wicked Death in Colour of Magic, I've seen the character very much as good hearted.. erm... good... empty ribcaged personification who is just alien enough to not understand how to be good efficiently.

This bit from the wiki I found particularly interesting. "Terry Pratchett even says in The Art of Discworld that he has received a number of letters from terminally ill fans in which they hope that Death will resemble the Discworld incarnation (he also says that those particular letters usually cause him to spend some time staring at the wall)."

[Dr. Tran]

Quick, someone post one of those Ambassador Kosh pics! :D

Or a picture of Teal'c saying "Indeed."

[Perfect Organism]

I think you seem to show a general tendency to push likable or heroic characters a step towards 'good' relative to where I would put them.

To pick a few examples I disagree with:

Gandalf strikes me as 'Neutral Good'. He doesn't seem to have much respect for authority (although this may just be because he considers himself above anyone else's authority) or social conventions (he's a wandering vagabond after all).

Ellen Ripley isn't 'Lawful' (at least not by the second film) and probably doesn't qualify as 'Good' either. She does act from non-selfish motives, but I don't consider 'destroy the enemy, save my species' to be an objective unique to 'Good' characters.

Inarra and Book probably aren't 'Lawful'. They don't show much regard for authority and social conventions except when it suits their purposes and both are perfectly happy to hang around with and even help criminals.

Will Turner doesn't strike me as especially 'Good'. He acts to protect the people he cares about, but doesn't show much consideration for people he doesn't. He seems more 'True Neutral' to me.

Wash strikes me as more 'Chaotic Good', possibly even 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'True Neutral'. I don't recall him going out of his way to help people other than his loved ones.

I'm not convinced that Batman is 'Chaotic'. He tries to uphold the law after all, even though he seems to have a totally psychotic way of going about it.

Vic Mackey isn't really 'Good' from what I recall (I only saw the first season of The Shield though, so I may have missed some character development). He's selfish and brutal, both hallmarks of 'evil'. Although he has some redeeming qualities, so I'd say he's probably Neutral on balance.

I seem to recall Nanny Ogg specifically stating that she wasn't a good person, except in comparison to Granny Weatherwax.

Jack Sparrow is certainly some form of 'Chaotic'. Possibly Chaotic Evil (he is, after all, a treacherous criminal bastard who only seems to act from selfish motives).

The Patrician could well be 'Lawful' and/or 'Evil'. He is supposed to be a sensible and sympathetic take on the standard fantasy evil overlord, isn't he?

I'd say that Jayne Cobb is Chaotic Evil. He is utterly selfish, vicious and has no respect for any authority except for Malcolm's, which seems to be more from Mal's charisma and strength of will than the fact that he is the captain. He is also willing to betray his friends for money, which strikes me as an archetypal 'chaotic evil' action.

River Tam doesn't strike me as being Chaotic; she's mentally ill, which isn't the same thing. It's hard to say what she would be like if she wasn't crazy, so I wouldn't really use her as an example for this kind of thing.

[Kiero]

http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/images1/tealcs8.jpg

Indeed.

[Yo! Master]

Yes

You forgot the "In flames" bit. ;)


The main quote from Reaperman that drives his charity and compassion home is "What can the harvest hope for if not the care of the reaperman?"

Yes! One of Diskworld's most touching pieces that paragraph is & exactly what i had in mind when i was writting what i did.

:)

[Rainfall]

Chaotic Good
Robin Hood
Batman

True Neutral
Tyrion Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)


I mostly agree with you, but the first two are a bit tricky. Robin Hood depends on the version, he seems to mostly oppose illegitimiate goverment, so that may push him towards Netral Good. Both work I guess.

And Batman isn't really against the law, he's mostly there to protect it, the police even has a signal to call him. I'd make him Lawfull Good, he may look scary but in the end he's doing what he does because normal law-enforcement doesn't work in Gotham anymore;)

Tyrion is a great example of true neutral, leaning on neutral good when his family leaves him to his own devices. His brother Jaime began Neutral Evil but he's been sliding towards Lawfull Good. Not a comfy alignment for a Lanister...

[Belphanior]

Chaotic Good
Robin Hood



How come everybody remembers the stealing from the rich routine, but nobody remembers the part where Robin is a nobleman who returns weary from a crusade to fight for crown and church?

The notion of Robin Hood being chaotic is understandable but misguided. Robin was driven out of desperation and had to resort to drastic measures - a condition that is not meant to be reflected in alignment, which measures consistent morals instead.

Robin was probably lawful, as most feudal noblemen would've been.

[cglasgow]

I could make the case for Baron Klaus von Wulfenbach of "Girl Genius" being almost the perfect Lawful Neutral, but it's already been made much better than I could, on Usenet several months ago.

Quotin...

My old gaming group instantly and without hesitation identified Klaus as Lawful Neutral. And I agree.

(N.B., it's quite striking how many of the GG characters map neatly onto the classic Gygaxian morality matrix. Do you have any trouble identifying Dupree's alignment, or the Jaegermonsters? Nope, me neither. But then, Phil's connection with D&D is old, broad, and deep.)

But Klaus. The thing about Klaus is, it's all rules. Follow them and you'll live. Break them and he'll crush you, and recycle the remains for his research. But coolly and without malice. (Well, except maybe in the case of Othar Tryggvason. But I think he can be forgiven that.)

Notice how Klaus allows Heterodyne shows and books that depict him as a buffoon. We know he doesn't like this -- cf. Gilgamesh telling Agatha "I'd appreciate if you didn't mention those" -- but he does nothing to restrict people. Why? Because he doesn't care what people read or watch or say, as long as they Follow The Rules.

What's his whole raison d'etre? Imposing order. Even though he's not profiting from it personally, and is frankly sick to death of the whole thing... there must be /order/.

http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/cgi-bin/gg101.cgi?date=20060503

One thing about GG that works for me: the cartoony art, bright colors, deliberate cliches and general silliness don't completely mask what a *dark* world it is. It's a world that's been dominated for centuries by Sparks, who may be superior but who tend to act like perpetual adolescents. One where anarchy and war are the norm, and most people are still peasants trying to scrape a living from the soil while the war machines lumber past. And it's a world that's still recovering from the attentions of the Other.

Phil doesn't belabor the point, but he at least alludes to it: the GG world would be a Way Cool place for a role-playing game, but it's kind of sucky for most of the people who live there.

Klaus is a tyrant, but he seems to be a tolerably benevolent one. Strict but fair, and not at all given to random violence. Even when raging mad (as when he discovers the false Agatha) he's still under control.

And check out his words at the end of that scene. Not "NOW I have her!" or "She'll RUE the day she..."

No, it's "If I act quickly, I may just be able to prevent another war."

Lawful neutral, dude.

Note: 'Othar Tryggvason' is a charismatic lunatic whom the common people believe is a savior reborn, come to put down evil Sparks (think wizards, if you dunno GG, and you'll be somewhere in the functional neighborhood)... but they don't know that he's a homicidal maniac who believes that /all/ Sparks are evil, and kills them with abandon down to the women and children, and is hideously careless with collateral damage to boot. After all, Othar doesn't leave any Spark witnesses to tell the true tale, and whenever a city blows up in a fight he's having, its obviously the fault of the evil Spark he was combatting...

What's worse, Othar isn't even a hypocrite... that would make him merely another selfish lying bastard, and the Baron's long since grown inured to those. Othar is crazy enough to *genuinely believe* he's the hero.

... why yes, Othar's pretty much *is* custom-designed to stomp hard on every exposed nerve ending the Baron has. Hence his front-and-center place as a subject in the Baron's ongoing research project of 'How can I neutralize the Spark centers of the human brain /without/ having to just shoot the Spark in question in the head?' Step one of the project -- selectively destroy portions of the brain of condemned Spark prisoners until he hits the right one. :)

Note 2: Neither Othar nor the Baron are the primary antagonist or protagonist for 'Girl Genius'... which only goes to show you how much work the Foglios put into developing the supporting cast.

[Dr. Tran]

Inarra and Book probably aren't 'Lawful'. They don't show much regard for authority and social conventions except when it suits their purposes and both are perfectly happy to hang around with and even help criminals. They aren't paladins or anything, but Innara at least very much supports living by the rules (aside from the episode Trash, but deveation from alignment once in a while is perfectly aceptable by the RAW) and book seems to be at least honorable, trustworthy and reliable. That is three out of four implications of Lawful right there.

Will Turner doesn't strike me as especially 'Good'. He acts to protect the people he cares about, but doesn't show much consideration for people he doesn't. He seems more 'True Neutral' to me.I'll back this one. Will is a decent sort of guy, but I just don't see that he has a philosophy of altruism and personal sacrifice to people he doesn't have a direct connection to.

Wash strikes me as more 'Chaotic Good', possibly even 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'True Neutral'. I don't recall him going out of his way to help people other than his loved ones.He isn't often in a position to do that because of plot, but I always get the impression that he actually is a Good person regardless. He seems to have an aversion to hurting people that goes to the point of trying to stop it to his limited ability so without more experience with the character I'll give him the benifit of the doubt and call him Good.

I'm not convinced that Batman is 'Chaotic'. He tries to uphold the law after all, even though he seems to have a totally psychotic way of going about it. Batman is honorable, trustworthy and reliable, even if he might believe himself to be his own authority. He is also close-minded, judgementaland while his tactics and stratagies are VERY adaptable I don't think that his core personality actually is. He is also not ethically flexible (will never intentionally kill a human even when it is the best idea), reckless, irresponsible and seems to not resent legitimate (read as not corrupt) authority. He might look at himself as outside the law, but is always on the SIDE of the law. The Bat is easily Lawful in my book.

I seem to recall Nanny Ogg specifically stating that she wasn't a good person, except in comparison to Granny Weatherwax.Alan Quatermain describes himself as a coward when he is really very very brave so I wouldn't go entirely on a character's description of themselves, Operative aside.

Jack Sparrow is certainly some form of 'Chaotic'. Possibly Chaotic Evil (he is, after all, a treacherous criminal bastard who only seems to act from selfish motives).Neutral I'd say. treacherous and criminal is already covered by Chaotic and while he is selfish he doesn't seem to actively seek to oppress or hurt other's for his own benifit. He is in no way compassionate enough to be Good, but he also isn't quite cruel or callous enough to be Evil

The Patrician could well be 'Lawful' and/or 'Evil'. He is supposed to be a sensible and sympathetic take on the standard fantasy evil overlord, isn't he?Oh yeah. Lawful to be sure (aside from the mime thing) and very possibly Evil (no compassion for anything but Anhk-Morpork and Wuffles). I might go for neutral since he doesn't seem to care if anybody is oppressed or hurt or helped or cared for so long as the city itself runs as best as a city can. But then there is that mime thing... ;)

I'd say that Jayne Cobb is Chaotic Evil. No question. he is Belkar of the ship. He enjoys hurting, has no problems with killing, grins when people he doesn't like are dead, turns his back on comrades, is only held back by the party leader and I am fully convinced that if anybody else brought grenades on a run that Mal would let them. Jayne doesn't want to bring grenades to be practical he brings them because he wants to use them! Still, there are a few moments in the series where he seems to start learning so he might be working his way up to neutral in a steady slow thinking pace.

River Tam doesn't strike me as being Chaotic; she's mentally ill, which isn't the same thing. It's hard to say what she would be like if she wasn't crazy, so I wouldn't really use her as an example for this kind of thing. But she IS crazy and not in a reliable way. who knows what she is like before the series or after Serenity, but she is certainly Chaotic even if it is because of what was done to her and not her own choices. Covert psycho surgery might make somebody Chaotic just as easily as a Helm of Alignment Change.

[Dr. Tran]

Robin Hood depends on the version, he seems to mostly oppose illegitimiate goverment. I'd point out that while Robin Hood does depend mostly on who you are listening to, in general Prince John is generally not a good example of legitimate government. At least, he may be legitimately in a position of authority, but is generally concerned to be using that authority in an illigitimate manner while Robin is fighting the good fight in the name of the True King.

[The Wyzard]

I've read pretty much all the discworld books, and I'd have to vote for the Patrician being LN. His methods can be a little extreme, but actual Evil would for me require some egregious torture and repression. Night Watch and the book about the post office really give you some examples of how much worse he could be if he were genuinely malicious.

Also, on the subject of Lex Luthor: There's no way I'd argue what his aligment "really" is, because it depends a lot on which source you're operating from. LE is a decent average, I suppose. I will say that I find the character exponentially more compelling as his portrayal becomes less evil. Working with the Joker, he's just another criminal mastermind. The recent film? Boring. Lex Luthor: Man of Steel? Now there is a fascinating take.

His actions are in many ways arguably evil, but they are also in a very real sense kind of selfless.

[Stik]

As I stated earlier, I started this thread to populate a list. But I've been spreading it around from board to board because the debates it generates are interesting to read. Everyone has an opinion, and nobody's opinion is 100% right or wrong.

It should also be noted, and I should have mentioned this up front, that the alignment of any fictional character will vary greatly depending upon the particular portrayal of that character and in the case of some characters, upon the particular point in their story. Characters grow and change, and sometimes their alignment changes too. And one last thing: the alignment system is not nearly complicated enough to fully incorporate every character. Many characters are too complicated to assign them a single alignment.

Now, on to the debate (in no particular order):

Batman: CG - I love ethical/alignment discussions concerning Batman.
For the record, I subscribe to the Frank Miller version of Batman, as presented in The Dark Knight Returns (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1563893428/103-3133506-6078244?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) and later in The Dark Knight Strikes Again (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1563898446/103-3133506-6078244?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) (if you have not read these yet, get up and go to the store and buy them. Now. You will be very glad you did. The Dark Knight Returns is available as a trade paperback, and The Dark Knight Strikes Again is available either as three paperback issues or as one hardcover collection, at most well-stocked big name bookstores and most comic stores).

The earliest depictions of Batman, and pretty much through the course of DC Comics run, show him as a man fueled by anger and retribution. He is not looking to save the world. He is looking to punish the guilty. This theme is carried strongly through the Dark Knight series, as an aging Bruce Wayne again dons the cape and mask he had put aside ten years before, because he cannot stand watching the world slide into darkness. This Batman has a hard edge and a bit of darkness to him.

Batman is not concerned with the law. He is concerned with justice. Justice and law are sometimes very far from one another. Miller's Batman prefers not to kill, but will do so if necessary (although he does hold back. At the last second, he stays his hand and allows a badly wounded Joker to live).


The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork: LN - The author of the Wikipedia entry on him sums it up much better than I can:
Despite being technically a dictator, Lord Vetinari does not exercise the despotic rule that characterised some of his predecessors. He is, in fact, the archetype of a benevolent dictator....(he) is broadly tolerant of individual rights, but highly intolerant of people who place their own interests above those of the city.
His desire to maintain order says Lawful to me, and his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal says Neutral, particularly because he does not oppress the populace or live a selfish, extravagant lifestyle.

Ripley (from the Alien films): LG - Remember, in the first film, she was the one willing to leave Kane outside the Nostromo when he first became infected, for the good of the entire crew, which says a lot for her lawful tendencies and her good tendencies, plus she chose not to abandon the Nostromo until there were only three survivors (there being only three sleep pods on the Narcissus). In Aliens, she went back for Newt rather than escaping to safety, and even bargained with the alien queen (sparing the eggs in exchange for her and Newt's freedom), and would have kept her end up had the queen not dispatched an egg to attack her.

Vic Mackey: CG - Although a criminal, and a corrupt cop, Mackey loves and cares for his people, and genuinely cares for protecting the public and doing justice, even if that justice places him outside the confines of the law.

With regard to the Serenity crew:

Simon Tam: LG - Despite being on the run from the law, and having had to break the law and deal with unsavory characters to rescue his sister, Simon himself is LG. This is made blatantly obvious by the conversation he has with Jayne after learning that Jayne had tried to sell him out on Ariel:
Simon: No matter what you do, or say or plot, no matter how you come down on us… I will never, ever harm you. You're on this table, you're safe. 'Cause I'm your medic, and however little we may like or trust each other, we're on the same crew. Got the same troubles, same enemies, and more than enough of both. Now, we could circle each other and growl, [or] sleep with one eye open, but that thought wearies me. I don't care what you've done, I don't know what you're planning on doing, but I'm trusting you. I think you should do the same. 'Cause I don't see this working any other way.

River Tam: CN - Being mentally truamatized and more than a little bit crazy, River defies fitting into an alignment. I assigned CN merely because she is entirely unpredictable. She wants to be LG, or maybe NG, but she's not able to.

Zoe: LN - I'm surprised that nobody has challenged my assessment of Zoe. Zoe was difficult to classify, but the single most essential element of the character is her loyalty to Malcolm, so I had to say LN

[Axiomatic]

Since you added the Crimson King...what do you think Roland's alignment is?

[DocTheWeasel]

Darth Vader - OK, this guy is Chaotic Evil. He talks a lot about order in the Galaxy, but look at how he acts. He has no respect for the chain of command. He makes deals and then breaks them ("Pray I don't alter it further"). Blowing up the peaceful planet to show off the new toy. Other than his rhetoric, he doesn't care a lick about order, law or society. He just does what he wants when he wants. That's chaotic.

[Stik]

Roland is tough. I want to say Lawful Good, but he abandoned the kid to certain death in order to maintain his pursuit of Walter.
Anybody else want to chime in?

[Allandaros]

Simon Tam is definitely a NG in my book. Doesn't bat an eye when plotting to loot a hospital.

Kirk I must reluctantly place in Chaotic Good, just because of how freakin' many times he breaks the Prime Directive. Stupid Kirk.

Jayne Cobbis the epitome of a NE alignment for me. Doesn't care about morals, just the Cold Hard Cash.

The Bride is definitely not LE, though. Revenge is a time-honored motivation for heroes :) I strongly suggest a CG or CN position for Ms. Kiddo.

Darth Vader is LE, I think. He has respect for the chain of command - it's just that he tends to forcibly remove some of the links. Also, Vader didn't destroy Alderaan - that was Tarkin. Vader just stood back and watched. Why? Because Tarkin was the boss. Also, I think he altered the deal with Lando because he considered Lando a criminal, just like Solo 'n Co. Altering a deal with a criminal is no biggie.

Zoe I can see as a LN, no quibbles there. But a LN with personality!

Also: Ambassador Kosh is Lawful Enigmatic.

[Axiomatic]

Keep in mind that before the movies, Kiddo was just as ruthless and cold as any of the people she is killing in the movies.

Kosh is Lawful Affirmative.

[Lukas Sjöström]

I'd say the Patrician is well situated in True Neutral. His desire is for order, not capital-O Order -- he is above all a pragmatist, and understands that the city needs to be kept in a careful balance between law and anarchy, as well as between benevolence and ruthlessness.

Jaime Lannister strikes me as Chaotic Neutral above all -- he is a person who doesn't really think in moral terms until he's forced to rethink his role (no more said because of spoilers). He probably began as Lawful Good (desirous of being nothing more than a pure, good knight) and was desillusioned when he realized that the only moral thing he could do was to kill the king he had sworn to give his life to protect. The things he did for love where probably his lowest point, and the scales might at that point have weighed over on the evil side, but he never seems to have been actively malevolent (different from his sister, who I'd characterize as NE -- I don't see what is especially Lawful about her behaviour).

Other people from that series that serve as epitomes of alignments in an otherwise extremely gray world is the aforementioned Stannis Baratheon (LN), as well as Eddard Stark (LG) and Beric Dondarrion (CG). Tywin would be clearcut LE as well, I think.

[Axiomatic]

I'd call Jamie Chaotic Neutral, too - at one point he says to himself he'll honor a promise he made just because everyone will expect him to break it, and even though honoring it would actually be stupid.

[Dr. Tran]

Miller's Batman I put this bastard into Evil straight and true. Doesn't mean that he isn't fighting the good fight or isn't sympathetic, but god is he a mean bastard about what he is doing. Stik is right about one thing on him though. He is more interested in punishing the wicked than he is interested in saving people. I just can't shake the feeling that if a villain set up a bus load of orphans to blow up and cover his escape the Miller Bat wouldn't be distracted at all. He'd just chase the villain down and punish him harder for the murders.
There was an Alex Ross (I think) batman book... War on Crime. In this Batman had a young boy confronting him with a gun. Batman showed the child that compassion is more powerful then the gun by connecting with him. I think Miller's Batman would have backhanded the kid after kicking the gun out of his hand and yelled at him for being stupid.
While Miller's Batman is interesting and fun to read about, I can't see putting him as anything CLOSE to good and I like to think of him as a cruel minded evil person who happens to be fighting the good fight.

Roland I just don't know enough about him. He seems to be a force of nature more than a complete person. An archetype of a man on a crusade, but to what purpose? From what little I know he cares nothing for anything but his Ka-Tet and the quest for the Tower. He won't help people, but he won't hurt them unless they are in his way or are directly connected to him. However, once they are in his way he hurts them hard and doesn't look back. He cleaves to his honor, but "remembering the face of your father" is pretty vague in the books I've read. I'd put the guy as a very driven Neutral, but reading more books might push him over to Lawful or Chaotic.

Kirk is a Good guy, no question in my mind. Concerned with respect for life, the dignity of sentients and all that. I'd put him as Neutral Good though because while he seems to show honor and respect for the authority of Starfleet he knows that there are times when you really do have to go outside the boundries of tradition to do the right thing, but tends to fall back to the party line when there isn't an emergency. Most of the time he is a Starfleet Captain, but at key moments he is Kirk the Awesome and fully believes in the rightness of both. If he was chaotic I'd like to think he would have repainted the Bounty and become a free trader/adventurer, but that is just me.

[Law Dog]

Things we learned from this thread - Complex personalities cannot be pigeon-holed by a simplistic alignment system.

[BASHMAN]

I would like to object to Lawful Neutral being displayed as either people from a hive mind, robots, or both. You can have a lawful neutral character with a soul, not mearly the faceless "good soldier who never questions orders", or a race of robot things.

Lawful Neutral is one of my favorite alignments to play. Good examples of a Lawful Neutral Character is:

Maximus from Gladiator (after the first scene, where they are slaughtering germans, you cannot make much argument for good alignment, but he is definatly lawful, he believes in order of the roman empire.

Also, realisticly, LN should be the most common alignment in civilization. Most people are lawful neutral-- they try to obey the law, and don't stick their necks out for others. This is important for survival. If the human commoner decided to be a hero when villains ran off with his daughter, he'd be lawful good, but he'd be dead. Only people with better hit dice can afford to be LG! The Human commoner, is more likely LN, and waits till he sees a party of brave adventurers to tell about the terrible kidnapping.

Also, for Neutral, I think that Bobafett belongs more in the Neutral evil category. Neutral Evil reflects a more calloused view towards the suffering of others (and clearly, Fett cares NOTHING for the suffering of others) than Neutral does. Neutral is selfish, but Neutral Evil is selfish without caring what happens to others.

I do appreciate that you did not list Chaotic Neutral as only people in insane assylums the way it did in 2nd Ed D&D (where in the mixed alignment party, the CN character was dead because he charged a gorgon). CN people are merely people with no respect for authority. A lot of criminals could be characterized as Chaotic Neutral but so could a lot of heroes, like Conan (who you mentioned).

[Dr. Tran]

I'd say the Patrician is well situated in True Neutral. His desire is for order, not capital-O Order -- he is above all a pragmatist, and understands that the city needs to be kept in a careful balance between law and anarchy, as well as between benevolence and ruthlessness. That is a very good point, actually. I'd tend to respond that the balance of Anhk-Morpork is an illusion that he has carefully set up to disguise the fact that everything actually is precisely where he wants it to be and he can shift power around to suit his needs. He wants the city to be structured and sound, but doesn't particularly care if anybody else can see the big picture or not. Also I'd look to the fact that Vetinari takes uncivilized threats to his city and deals with them by making them part of civilization.

If Vetinari knew about the nine alignment grid I think he would see Chaos as being a useful tool to keep Order if properly pruned to exactly the right shape. He has crafted a city where criminals police themselves and thieves keep reciepts and have limits to how much they can steal. The Watch seems like a Chaotic Good force to me, but Vimes is very much under the Patrician's thumb even when he thinks he is rebelling.

Heck, the man reads music instead of listening to it because when it is played it is too different from what the composer put on paper!

I can see TN as being a very good argument for Vetinari, but I'm alot more fond of the idea that what might be seen as Balance is really the Patrician being In Control without letting anybody on the secret that his "balancing act" really involves alot of hidden glue and invisible wires.

[Lukas Sjöström]

Also, realisticly, LN should be the most common alignment in civilization. Most people are lawful neutral-- they try to obey the law, and don't stick their necks out for others.

I think LN requires a greater dedication to the principle of the law than most people try to muster. Sure, they consider an ordered society better than anarchy, but given the chance to do it without getting away and some justification, most of them would cheat a bit on their taxes, dodge work they have an obligation to do, download music illegaly and so on. Of those who wouldn't, I think there's an equal amount of people who wouldn't do it because it's against the rules (Lawful) and people who do it because they don't want to hurt others in some way by their negligence (Good -- provided their actions really would hurt others).

[Vargo Teras]

I think LN requires a greater dedication to the principle of the law than most people try to muster. Sure, they consider an ordered society better than anarchy, but given the chance to do it without getting away and some justification, most of them would cheat a bit on their taxes, dodge work they have an obligation to do, download music illegaly and so on. Of those who wouldn't, I think there's an equal amount of people who wouldn't do it because it's against the rules (Lawful) and people who do it because they don't want to hurt others in some way by their negligence (Good -- provided their actions really would hurt others).
I agree. For a truly Lawful Neutral character, see Inspector Javer of Les Miserables. That's what it means to be Lawful Neutral to the hilt: a fundamental inflexibility so great that it requires that he turn himself in for falsely denouncing Valjean, simply because that's the rule. The average person who accidentally commits a crime doesn't rush to the police to report it and not merely accept but demand that they be punished; a Lawful Neutral person does.

[Lukas Sjöström]

I can see TN as being a very good argument for Vetinari, but I'm alot more fond of the idea that what might be seen as Balance is really the Patrician being In Control without letting anybody on the secret that his "balancing act" really involves alot of hidden glue and invisible wires.

Nothing says you can't be TN and still completely in control. :) The fact remains, the Patrician has not used his control (which may or may not be complete, but is at least considerable) to make Ankh-Morpork anything resembling a Lawful society. The Law is a tool among others to achieve stability. Sometimes, he uses the Law to achieve his objectives, while otherwise, he uses chaotic, destabilizing forces (William de Worde, Moist von Lipwig) to further the prosperiety of the city. He is not True Neutral in the "undecided" sense -- he's old-school, first edition True Neutral, conciously and actively balancing the different alignments.

[Dr. Tran]

Also, realisticly, LN should be the most common alignment in civilization. Most people are lawful neutral-- they try to obey the law, and don't stick their necks out for others. I certainly agree with most of what you said, but I'd put the most common alignment as being true neutral. People who believe that good is better than evil, but don't take anything more personal or encompassing than that as well as believing that laws are all well and good when they keep people safe, but aren't too fond of them when they impune on their personal freedoms.

[Yo! Master]

I certainly agree with most of what you said, but I'd put the most common alignment as being true neutral. People who believe that good is better than evil, but don't take anything more personal or encompassing than that as well as believing that laws are all well and good when they keep people safe, but aren't too fond of them when they impune on their personal freedoms.

Yeah, that is pretty much what i'd say, too. :)

[Stik]

Since I spent all of Friday night watching the SciFi Channel, I'll throw some more characters out for people to comment on:

From Doctor Who:

The Doctor (feel free to pick which actor/series you are classifying)

Rose Tyler


From Battlestar Galactica:

Admiral William Adama

Cpt. Lee 'Apollo' Adama

Lt. Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace

President Dr. Gaius Baltar

Former President Laura Roslin

Col. Saul Tigh

CPO Galen Tyrol ("Chief")

[Dr. Tran]

Nothing says you can't be TN and still completely in control. :) Completely true!The fact remains, the Patrician has not used his control (which may or may not be complete, but is at least considerable) to make Ankh-Morpork anything resembling a Lawful society. Well, no traditionally lawful city anyway. I continue to believe that any man who can get murderers and thieves to fill out paperwork and follow procudure as well as train his dungeon rats to have a rudimentary parlement has a personal lawful mindset. Sometimes, he uses the Law to achieve his objectives, while otherwise, he uses chaotic, destabilizing forces (William de Worde, Moist von Lipwig) to further the prosperiety of the city. Destabilizing forces that are eminitly manipulatable and pretty well contained. There are the Shades of course and the new press serves usefull as a pressure release, but I see any chaotic elements in the city as being tightly and subtly controlled and pruned to a managable level instead of balanced. I really don't believe that the freedoms that the city enjoys are anywhere close in prevalence to the burocracy and order that he has tricked everybody into happily living with as if it was normal. He is not True Neutral in the "undecided" sense -- he's old-school, first edition True Neutral, conciously and actively balancing the different alignments.

I think that we are looking at a character who Pterry is saying is green and wondering if he is supposed to be teal or lime. Like Law Dog says, you can't pigeon hole a complex personality into a simplistic alignment, but personally I think that it isn't simplistic at all, but a gradient of four different colors blending together. You have to give characters a place in the nine areas that depending on what place they have in the story.

An old school philisophical TN character would be interested in balance as an end to itself and that balance itself is the best thing possible. Vetinari (only in my view, understand) is interested in the illusion of balance as a means for order and stability and that pushes him over the edge into Lawfulness.

He is dancing that line though and I think as he gets older and realizes his city will fall apart without him he may cross the line and work to achieve balance for the sake of balance so that he can die knowing that he has given the city the best chance it has without him at the helm!

[Grantanz]

I recall the old "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" book (published in the early 80s) gave the following alignment suggestions:
Doctor Who: CG
Daleks: LE

I think that's pretty accurate.

[Penny D]

I've always thought Pirates of the Caribbean was a great movie for explaining alignment, as the basic conflict is Lawful Good (Norrington) vs. Chaotic Good (Jack - heavy emphasis on the Chaotic, could maybe call him CN, but he's certainly not TN) vs. Chaotic Evil (Barbossa). Will starts out as Lawful Good and moves to Neutral Good over the course of the movie. Norrington also moves a notch closer to Neutral, hence his willingness to give Jack a day's head start by the end of the film.

Seeing it this way is probably easiest if you accept, as I do, that piracy symbolizes freedom in the story, and thus pirate = chaotic alignment.

[Kilgs]

Lawful Evil
Grima Wormtongue
Cersei Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)


Maybe my understanding of LE is off but I don't think either of these characters are remotely LE. My understanding of LE is that the character is honorable and driven but still evil.

These two are the sleaziest, most selfish people around. They serve no cause and have no code which binds them.

I would throw Jaime Lannister in this instead. He may be a nasty guy but there is a purpose to what he does.

To be honest, I haven't played DnD in years but that was my impression of LE.

[Stik]

Grima Wormtongue is the servant of his master, Saruman, and has no agenda of his own. He works within the lawful structure around him to forward his master's goals, hence the LE

Cersei behaves similarly, using the power of the throne to further her own agenda, and plotting and scheming endlessly. There is no doubt that she is evil, but she lacks the randomness of CE and the complete inhumanity of NE.

[Dr. Tran]

Grima Being a lacky doesn't mean you share the alignment of your boss and whispering poison into the ear of the king of the horse vikings isn't exactly working within the lawful structure. Is Grima honorable? Reliable? Respectful of proper authority? Trustworthy? Does he adhere to any tradition or indeed, anything but the orders of his boss?
Or instead is he resentful to anybody in authority, whether is is the king he is manipulating (even when forgiven and offered a place of redemtion) or his own master? Is he decietful and treacherous, spiteful and irresponsible even in Saruman's tower?
Granted, we don't see a whole lot of Grima in the books, but what I see doesn't lead me to believe that he is on the lawful side of the spectrum at all. The man is treacherous to his people and his king, obeys Saruman only out of fear and greed and acts with spite towards him when he can without any respect.

I think he is chaotic. sniviling and weak willed, able to be bullied and bribed, but in the end having all the worst traits of the chaotic mindset without any of the virtues of lawfulness needed to push him over into neutral. However he is around so very little it is hard to get a good grasp on the devious little worm.

[Ikselam]

I'm surprised no one's challenged Obi-Wan as Lawful Good yet, what with his "certain point of view."

[Fugitive Unknown]

(Notes: Haven't seen season 3 or the podcasts yet, or the last 3 episodes of season 2)

From Battlestar Galactica:

Admiral William Adama
LG (with alot of NG moments)

He's quite willing to throw his ship into the fight and die for duty, but he quickly changes his tune to become the protector of the fleet (and his crew in particular).
He certainly beleives in G over L, but has a bit too much respect for authority for me to consider him NG. I'd say he vastly prefers LG, but he's willing to shoulder L asside when it clashes with G.

Still, he vastly prefers L.



Cpt. Lee 'Apollo' Adama
Neutral Good at the start of the show... but CG by the end of the second season.

He rapidly has to chose between his sense of duty, his sense of what is right and his sense of familial loyalty. He always tries to pick "what is right" rather then what is lawful. However after the... incident which I won't reveal for spoilers, he seems to loose all faith in authority, and goes totally CG, willing to disobey every law in the fleet for the greater good of it.


Lt. Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace
Chatoic Good (ephasis on chaotic)
She's definately a crazy maverick. She does care about other people however, though she tries to hide it. However she is more or less incapable of controlling her own actions and emotions, and is about the most insubordinate officer on the show, which is saying ALOT.


President Dr. Gaius Baltar
Chatotic Evil (Neutral Evil until Kobol)
Utterly Selfish, willing to do mosterous things if it will make his life easier or strike at his enemies. The only reason he doesn't willingly betray humanity to the cylons right at the start is because he doesn't want to get killed, but he's about as unpredictable as they come. Towards the start of the series I was almost willing to say Neutral (Selfish) but his acts later on in the series convinced me that he is an utter monster, capable of doing damn near anything to further his own goals.

Former President Laura Roslin
Neutral Good
No, not quite lawful. She is quite willing to break her word and perform illegal acts to keep her fleet alive and heading towards earth.

Col. Saul Tigh
Lawful Neutral
Despie the chaotic crap in his own life, Saul isn't actively chaotic - he's just drunk a fair bit of the time. (Saul's got low single digit wisdom, for sure) When sober he always supports the traditional military view. He defers to the old man at every chance he gets, and early on (always arguing he's being too soft privately, and as befits a good XO), bemoans the lack of discipline amoungst the crew. He doesn't consider moral implications that often.


I think Rosylin and Adama are the most muddled alignment wise. I can see a case being made for Laura Rosylin being LG and William Adama being NG certainly.

[Thamilon]

[QUOTE=Stik;6400307]

My thoughts, for what they are worth;

The list so far:
Lawful Good

Obi Wan Kenobi - I think Ben's a little too loose with certain aspects of his powers to be totally Lawful. I know a lot of people equate Jedi with Paladin (and that's a whole other argument) but granting that is so - how is it lawful OR good, even in the name of a greater cause, to go about altering people's minds with The Force? (You don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids your looking for.) to say nothing of the fact that he witheld information, if not outright lied, to Luke about his father. I think Ben is NG if anything.

Simon Tam (Firefly) - classic example of alignment shift LG to a step away - he broke some major laws to rescue his sister - a good act - and did plan a major robbery without blinking - but he still holds to the Hippocratic oath, suggesting a Lawful tendency, albeit one mostly concerned with doing good. Let's call him NG

Inarra (Firefly) - I think she's LN if anything. She's more concerned about the rules of her profession than anything else (she leaves the ship rather than risk acknowledging love - a good act)


Shepherd Book (Firefly) - hard to say without knowing his past, but I believe the Shepherd to be LN. He's concerned for the welfare of those around him true, but it usually seems to be within the context of him following the rules of his religion regarding the treatment of others. And any acts that might be considered questionable, he justifies according to the rules For instance, when Zoe questions him about using a gun and the Bible having specific rules about killing, Book agrees but notes that the Bible is "somewhat fuzzy on the subject of shooting kneecaps. Like Inara, it depends on if you believe Lawful can equate to following a personal code but not necessarily ALL laws.

Neutral Good

Spiderman - Until recently, Peter has always been portrayed as an iconoclast barely tolerated by other superheroes and not tolerated much at all by mainstream society. He's CG, not by choice, but by neccesity. Since becoming a publically recognized hero or part of an organized team would require him having to submit to a higher authority (US Government, UN, other heroes who would want to boss him around) and that would risk exposing his real identity and endangering his loved ones, Peter has always been a man apart.


Chaotic Good

Batman - I'd call Bruce more Neutral Good than Chaotic. While he is willing to bend the law in regards to Justice (i.e. he'll break in and enter for the higher goal of saving lives), he acknowledges the importance of Law and fights to uphold authority so far as it does not hinder the common good.


Lawful Neutral

Zoe (Firefly) - Zoe's only Lawful tendency is a loyalty to her husband and her Captain. Apart from that, she's as much a rogue as Mal, hating the Alliance as much as he does, though she's much less vocal about it. I'd put her at CG.

And a suggestion for Lawful Neutral - The Guardians of the Universe (i.e. the aliens who created the Green Lanterns from DC Comics)




Chaotic Neutral

Rincewind (Discworld) - Rincewind is True Neutral or Possibly Neutral Good. He doesn't have any big ideals about order or chaos or good and evil, apart from wanting to avoid evil. Yes, chaos does seem to flourish around him, but that's hardly by choice. All Rincewind wants is a nice, dull safe job in a library somewhere and to not have to deal with saving the world. Sounds like TN to me, even if he CAN be guilted into doing the right thing fairly easily.

River Tam (Firefly) - Chaotic Good, simply because while her mind is jumbled, she does show SOME tendency to want to protect those around her, particularly in the final few episodes of Firefly.


Lawful Evil

Can't believe you forgot the best example there is. Doctor Doom from Marvel Comics.

[Thamilon]

And yes, I think The Doctor AND Rose are both text book examples of Chaotic Good.

The Doctor has been consitently Chaotic Good from his first incarnation - we know that he stole the TARDIS originally to save himself and his grand-daughter during some sort of political uprising (or so he said) and that he has been put on trial for breaking the Time Lord rules at least twice, but has always argued that all the times he broke the rules were negated by his "doing good". Sounds like CG to me!

Rose pretty much gives up her life to join The Doctor in traveling wherever chance and whim takes them and fighting whatever various menaces are there doing whatever is needed.

[cglasgow]

Maximus from Gladiator (after the first scene, where they are slaughtering germans, you cannot make much argument for good alignment, but he is definatly lawful, he believes in order of the roman empire.

The Germans he was slaughtering were combatants, armed and choosing to fight in a war. Furthermore, weren't they barbarians, of the looting-pillaging variety? LG kills those all the time.

Remember, LG doesn't have to be pacifistic, it just has to kill a) evil people and b) within the rules.

[TGryph]

Nice List! I applaud your effot and your choices!

But (and you KNEW there was a but...)


Elric of Melniboune, by Stormbringer's own admission...was Evil...

I would say probably Lawful Evil, as most Melnibouneans were decadant (Chaotic), and his Lawfulness, NOT Goodness, is what set him apart.

My 2 cents.

TGryph

[Dr. Tran]

Simon Tam (Firefly) - classic example of alignment shift LG to a step away - he broke some major laws to rescue his sister - a good act - and did plan a major robbery without blinking - but he still holds to the Hippocratic oath, suggesting a Lawful tendency, albeit one mostly concerned with doing good. Let's call him NG

I'm keeping him at lawful. I don't think that those two acts are enough to overwhelm his inherant philosophies about honor, trustworthiness and reliability. He would probably be perfectly happy to respect authority too if he wasn't too afraid that it would be under the influence of the people who wanted to hurt his family.

He still keeps his decorum and discipline stating that "it means more out here" where nobody can really care but him and I hold that the only reason that he scheduled the Ariel Heist was that it would help his sister immensely AND wouldn't hurt anybody in the process. It was a major hospital and would never miss the meds gone.

I hold that despite being increasingly at odds with an oppressive regime that wants to kill him and capture his sister it doesn't change that he himself behaves almost universally in the way the SRD and PHB define lawful good.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice.He opposes the evil actions of the state and Blue Sun, defends his sister without tiring, is honest and true to his word (even has trouble lying), helps people when it endangers himself (the dying heart patient) and speaks out when injustice is being commited (burning his sister as a witch).

I take the view that Simon's "general moral and personal attitudes" are Lawful Good and it shows all the more by how little he deviates from his personal codes and standards of living despite the conditions that he is constantly living in.

The RAW allows for occasional lapses in the behavior of most characters (and even Paladins may Atone) and Simon doesn't have to be as constant as a Paladin in order to remain Lawful Good, just to keep his general moral and personal attitudes in line with the implications of the two philosophies.

[Owen E Oulton]

Vic Mackey? "Good?"

A renegade cop who robs and kills drug dealers and murders undercover officers assigned to surveill him doesn't qualify as any type of "good" for me...

[Stormraven]

In point of fact, the original Deities & Demigods listed Elric as LE, with the rest of the Melniboneans being CE...

[Stormraven]

Others that I don't recall seeing - maybe they're too obvious...

Harry Potter & Crew:

Harry & Ron: CG Towards the end, Harry's tending towards CN, but I doubt he'll really go there permanently.
Hermione: LG (Tending towards NG) Eventually, even towards CG, but she definitely starts LG.

Dumbledore: NG, Tending towards Lawful. He recognises the occasional need to violate rules, but prefers to balance it with following them, when he can.

McGonagall: Lawful Neutral with tendencies towards Good. She's very much a rules oriented person, but truly cares about her charges.

Voldemort: I'm tempted to say LE, but I have to go with CE. He really doesn't have any honor - he demands that his followers obey his word, but doesn't follow any code himself, other than 'Power at any cost - to others'.

Some others:

Honor Harrington: Definitely Lawful Good, IMO. She's been willing to break the rules if she has to, but very much prefers to work within the rules she's got.

And a couple of obscure ones from Liavek:

The Magician: True Neutral/Neutral Good. He doesn't worry overmuch about laws, he just does what he chooses - no one's going to say no to him.

Granny Cary - Definitely a TN. Her concern is for the city and its inhabitants, but aside from her family, she shows no particular empathy for anyone else.

Snake - Snake is LN. As a merchant, she prefers laws, since they make things predictable, but isn't a fan of altruism.

Dashif - NE, I'd say. He does what most would call evil acts because that's his job, but it's not because he respect law or anything like that. He's not chaotic, and he's only vaguely evil, but he's not a nice man.

[Rachel Cartacos]

I've always thought Pirates of the Caribbean was a great movie for explaining alignment, as the basic conflict is Lawful Good (Norrington) vs. Chaotic Good (Jack - heavy emphasis on the Chaotic, could maybe call him CN, but he's certainly not TN) vs. Chaotic Evil (Barbossa). Will starts out as Lawful Good and moves to Neutral Good over the course of the movie. Norrington also moves a notch closer to Neutral, hence his willingness to give Jack a day's head start by the end of the film.

Seeing it this way is probably easiest if you accept, as I do, that piracy symbolizes freedom in the story, and thus pirate = chaotic alignment.

I'd say Barbossa was the textbook example of Lawful Evil to me.

Yes, hes a pirate, but hes a pirate with a personal code that he allways sticks too.

A Chaotic evil Barbossa would have simply shot Jack and Elizibeth. But he made an agreement with Will not to harm them and to let them go, so he does.

That fact that he let them go on a deserted island is entirely Wills fault for not stateing in their agreement that they be let go in a safe place.

[Hunter]

I'd always thought of the Jeff Bridges character in THE VANISHING as an example of a True Neutral. He saves a life, so he then takes a life. It sounds horrible to us, but to him it makes perfect sense - by doing so he is maintaining the balance.

[Penny D]

I'd say Barbossa was the textbook example of Lawful Evil to me.

Yes, hes a pirate, but hes a pirate with a personal code that he allways sticks too.

A Chaotic evil Barbossa would have simply shot Jack and Elizibeth. But he made an agreement with Will not to harm them and to let them go, so he does.

"The code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

He let them go to the island, I suspect, because he thought it was funnier to screw them over within the terms of Will's agreement - Barbossa takes joy in his evil. He certainly doesn't have any problem breaking the code when it suits him; see above.

[MuscaDomestica]

[QUOTE=Stik;6400307]

Neutral Good

Spiderman - Until recently, Peter has always been portrayed as an iconoclast barely tolerated by other superheroes and not tolerated much at all by mainstream society. He's CG, not by choice, but by neccesity. Since becoming a publically recognized hero or part of an organized team would require him having to submit to a higher authority (US Government, UN, other heroes who would want to boss him around) and that would risk exposing his real identity and endangering his loved ones, Peter has always been a man apart.


good reading, makes a lot of sense... of course reading this makes the Civil War more annoying... I used to be a Spiderman fan at one point. But the Unmasking, two foot long spines coming out of the wirsts?, wtf is happening?

Civil war seems to be changing a lot of characters alignmets, Tony Stark is now completly Evil and Reed is very much true nutral now which is sad because he always was a good example of good.

[Thamilon]

"The code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

He let them go to the island, I suspect, because he thought it was funnier to screw them over within the terms of Will's agreement - Barbossa takes joy in his evil. He certainly doesn't have any problem breaking the code when it suits him; see above.

Yeah, I'd call Barbosa more of Neutral Evil than anything.

"Pirates" just shows why I favor the "Code of Honor" system used in the Conan RPG vs. alignments. Something that allows you to be "basically chaotic but having A basic set of rules for the group" is something that is realistic to how real pirates operated but is near impossible to work out in a literal reading of the Alignment rules for 3.0 or 3.5

[Thamilon]

good reading, makes a lot of sense... of course reading this makes the Civil War more annoying... I used to be a Spiderman fan at one point. But the Unmasking, two foot long spines coming out of the wirsts?, wtf is happening?

Civil war seems to be changing a lot of characters alignmets, Tony Stark is now completly Evil and Reed is very much true nutral now which is sad because he always was a good example of good.

Yeah, Tony has definitely shifted to Lawful Evil. Reed, I always thought of as being Lawful Good and now he's more Lawful Neutral.

Justify that? Well, Reed's belief in science as an ideal is fairly Lawful. Despite being an explorer, he does have some strict guidelines as to what he will and won't consider doing. And he does all his work to benefit mankind.

Right now though... it hasn't been shown (except in the most recent F4) that Reed has shown any doubts about their being a greater need for keeping Order and following the rules at this point. In short, Total Lawful without concern for whether the law is just or not, trusting that if it is unjust, it will be fixed eventually.

Peter though... he's showing his chaotic stripes though, at least in his own title.

*sighs* Lucky I review comic books otherwise I couldn't cope with all this as a fan having to pay for this stuff.

[Katsue]

Also, the epitome of LN for me is Stannis Baratheon from A Song of Ice & Fire. The Law (tm) & the proper-ness of everything is of maximum importance for him. No compromise, ever. The law, for instance, said to punish Davos for being a smuggler so he did even as he made him a knight at the same time.

I'm unsure whether to place Davos Seaworth himself in the Lawful Good or Neutral Good camp, but his determination to do the right thing regardless of the personal cost is highly impressive in any case.

[Lukas Sjöström]

I'm unsure whether to place Davos Seaworth himself in the Lawful Good or Neutral Good camp, but his determination to do the right thing regardless of the personal cost is highly impressive in any case.

Davos is probably Lawful Good at the beginning of A Clash of Kings, but clearly favoring "Good" over "Lawful" when they start conflicting with each other. His plotting against Melisandre shows that he is willing to operate outside of the law to save Stannis from himself. I'd say Neutral Good at the end of A Storm of Swords.

[Yo! Master]

I'm unsure whether to place Davos Seaworth himself in the Lawful Good or Neutral Good camp, but his determination to do the right thing regardless of the personal cost is highly impressive in any case.

Davos is probably Lawful Good at the beginning of A Clash of Kings, but clearly favoring "Good" over "Lawful" when they start conflicting with each other. His plotting against Melisandre shows that he is willing to operate outside of the law to save Stannis from himself. I'd say Neutral Good at the end of A Storm of Swords.


Davos is Good through & through, probably one of the very few characters in ASoI&F for whom this can be said (who would be others? Jon Snow? Daenerys?).

But as to whether he's Lawfull or Neutral, i'd put him more on Neurtral. He was a smuggler & never actually had remorse for it even after knighted. Davos never showed to be concerned about the law (even if he was truely loyal to Stannis) but what his heart, gut, and common feeling told him (that was why smuggling for him wasn't a crime, even if against the law, as i think he comments at some point).

hmm... This does make him sound even Chaotic, doesn't it?


As for other interesting mental exercises :D , what about Robb Stark, or Theon Greyjoy, or Melisandre?

[Lukas Sjöström]

Robb Stark: Lawful Good. His father's son through and through, even though he is among the forces responsible for the war. Otherwise, he never struck me as a very fleshed-out character, oddly enough, probably because we never really get his perspective on things.

Theon Greyjoy: True Neutral at first, pushed over to Neutral Evil by outside pressure. Like Jaime, not a person who considers moral quandaries, but this is combined with insecurity and unwillingness to take responsibility.

Melisandre: Hard to say, since we don't know if she's a deluded person who actually believes her actions to be necessary, or just an opportunistic fraud who takes advantage of Stannis, or (though it's very improbable) the real deal. I'd probably consider her Neutral Evil, since even if she is nothing but a well-meaning but misled fanatic, she has shown little compassion or sympathy for other people.

And I'd consider Davos more good than Jon or Dany, mostly because those two are still a bit emotionally immature. That's only to be expected, given their age.

And for the next challenge: Sandor Clegane.

[RPG_Wombat]

Kosh is Lawful Affirmative.

Babylon 5 Alignments:

John Sheridan: NG. He's got that Kirk-esque "I'll follow the rules when they don't get in the way" thing going on.

Delenn: LG to NG by series end, though an argument could be made for her being LN at the start of the story (not the series), what with being the deciding vote to almost extinctify another sentient race.

Michael Garibaldi: hmm, let's call it NG for the most part. He's not quite "lawful", he tends to follow the spirit instead of the letter, and actually has a bit of a chaotic streak, but he at least pays lip service to...gah, let's just split the difference and call it NG.

Dr. Stephen Franklin: CG, he's been shown to violate rules that he believed prevented him from saving lives, and there is a certain amount of self-centeredness in the character.

Susan Ivanova: is god! Hmm, hard one to peg, I'd go with LN for the most part.

Lennier: LG, until he hits his limit break at the end of the series. Possibly CG after that.

Vir: Definetly good, though work for Londo isn't always exactly legit, so probably NG.

Marcus: NG for the most part; he's shown to not exactly be the best disciplined person at times which probably rules out LG.

Lyta Alexander: LN at the beginning to CN at the end of the series (perhaps CG in the post-series novels, but I've never bothered with those).

Zach: LN, possibly LG. He's not fleshed out quite as well as most of the others.

G'kar. Hmm, hard one. LN or CN to start, I'm leaning toward CN. By the end of the series, he's transformed into NG.

Londo: Ouch. True Neutral or LN to start, then LE, then NE when he hits rock bottom. Post Shadow-war he's back to LN, and finally, Lawful Martyr.

Kosh: Fish.


But really, whomever it was that pointed out that the one-dimensional, rigid alignment system of D&D is unsuited to describe complex characters was correct.

[Tait Ransom]

I agree. For a truly Lawful Neutral character, see Inspector Javer of Les Miserables. That's what it means to be Lawful Neutral to the hilt: a fundamental inflexibility so great that it requires that he turn himself in for falsely denouncing Valjean, simply because that's the rule. The average person who accidentally commits a crime doesn't rush to the police to report it and not merely accept but demand that they be punished; a Lawful Neutral person does.

Bingo. Inspector Javert's picture should be in the PHB next to Lawful Neutral.

[dogstar]

I think theres a tendency to decide that the alignments should have more flexiblity. For example CN Elric (see below) - I'd say he is evil, just not as evil as his kin, sword or gods...


Chaotic Good
Vic Mackey (The Shield)

Vic Mackey is not good, or chaotic in his outlook. At best he upholds the law when forced to, when its in his interest or when there is nothing to profit from. However he has also broken the law, sold drugs, murdered a policeman who was investigating him. Neutral Evil (with a Tendency to true Neutral) - he is selfishly motivated, using the law when convientant as both a justification. That which angers him gains his attention, but he is not above criminal activity to achieve an end - including torture and premediatated murder.

Mackey remembers that once he was a 'good cop', and honest - which motivates him to reign himself in occassional, unlike Shane. But at the end of the day its all about Vick, even when it comes to his wife or kids.


Lawful Neutral
Vito Corleone (The Godfather)

How can the man be Neutral, when by its nature it is exploititive and abusive in it influence. Both Corleones are vengeful, but tempered. However don't forget that Vito employes Luca Brasia (a man who murdered his own child), murder, violence and intimidation to achieve his ends. Loyality and obeidence are expected, and failure to accept the rules means death. Vito Corleones empire is built on murder, violence, prostitution, fraud, exploitation, extortion, blackmail and corruption. Whilst he's more measured than the other familys in his response. Vito might not get his hands dirty (anymore), but he is mearly less evil than those around him.

And its this calculating restrained evil of course that keeps him on top. You can trust Vito to keep his word, and not to go too far, and to protect those who protect him, but also not to cross (its why he employes Luca Brasia, is by his own admition he is the only man he fears, and if he was in the employ of another he'd be in a weaker position).


Chaotic Neutral
Elric of Melnibone

He's a half demon, who feeds on souls that are sent to hell, destroys his own people, kills his friends and lovers, utilises torture (before feeding their soul) and although somewhat repentant.... does also manage to destroy the world, leaving evil as the only power. I'd say Elric is the epitimoe of the anti-hero, probably Chaotic Evil but trying to be better than his Neutral Evil kin, and eventually breaking into the Lawful Evil market further down the road.

I don't ever remember Elric taking a balanced stance in any of the Moorecock I read. Sure he's not as bad as the sword he weilds, but then remember nor are the lords of Chaos (and hell) combined.....

Let face it he is everyones image of what Chaos Champion look like probably involves Elric.

If you charge into battle shouting 'Blood and Souls for Arioch' weilding a sword that can condem even the brightest souls of good men into hell.... You're evil. Its just a question of how evil.

[dogstar]

Kosh: Fish



Lawful and Good, in the extreme - like a LG god might be. Even dying because it is required for the greater good, and to ensure success. Whilst Kosh might not make sense, and might seem to manipulate, it is working on a high Universal goal than those around him.

Most of the crew are lawful and good. Remember being lawful doesn't necessairly mean obeying the law regardless, a lawful good in a chaotic society will still maintain their beliefs personally, and the Lawful Good may rebel against society, even his own.

A cleric who is Law Good their 'law' is their Religeons, even if it conflicts with the lands. The Lawful Good Rogue is one who maybe manipulates the law to provide for others (rather than breaking it...).

[Allandaros]

Susan Ivanova: is god! Hmm, hard one to peg, I'd go with LN for the most part.


I dunno. Ivanova seems LG if not NG. She's certainly by-the-book, but she's got her rogue streak too (she used Gold Channel to talk extensively with her dad before his death; sneaked coffee into the hydroponics gardens...).

I would have more examples, but my brain needs sleep. Sleeeep, I say.

(Well, that, and I've only seen the first two seasons.)

[RPG_Wombat]

Lawful and Good, in the extreme - like a LG god might be. Even dying because it is required for the greater good, and to ensure success. Whilst Kosh might not make sense, and might seem to manipulate, it is working on a high Universal goal than those around him.

Nope. Fish.

Actually, in no way could the Vorlons be considered lawful good. They are not benevolent. They manipulate societies not for the greater good, but simply to adhere to their side of a philisophical debate. They deliberately curtail any natural positive growth in the younger species that does not comply with Vorlon dogma. Hell, by the end of the Shadow-war story arc, they are destroying entire planets, entire sentient species, without any signs of remorse or compassion.

I also tend to think that Kosh died, not for any greater good- I doubt he had significantly more compassion for the younger species than the other Vorlons did - but because his continual interaction with the younger species led to a certain fondness for individuals, Sheridan in particular.

Likewise the Shadows, for all their sinister appearance, can't quite be considered chaotic evil. They do, after all, give their client species what they want. And, from the Shadow point of view, the destruction they cause results in the betterment of the survivors.

Actually, one thing that JMS always said he found amusing was that people automatically assumed that the Vorlons were good, and the Shadows were evil. Despite the fact that the Vorlons were very harsh to the younger species, while the Shadows were eager to please...

Really, like I said, the problem is that things simply don't break down cleanly into alignments, and the entire alignment system, as it appears in D&D is really a poor way to attempt to classify characters who aren't just broad stereotypes.

[RPG_Wombat]

I dunno. Ivanova seems LG if not NG. She's certainly by-the-book, but she's got her rogue streak too (she used Gold Channel to talk extensively with her dad before his death; sneaked coffee into the hydroponics gardens...).


Like I said, she's a hard one to peg. Lawful good is probably about as appropriate as LN, but there's just some unnamable something about the character that always struck me as being just a bit sinister.

[committed hero]

I think the Jedi order strives for Neutral Good, if only in contrast to the things the Dark Side strives for.

Robin Hood has been the ideal of Chaotic Good since the inception of the aligmnent system, regardless of the individual quirks of various portrayals. Hard to go against three decades of tradition.

I tried to get a LE character from the Harry Potter series, perhaps Snape. Certainly not above using dark magic, but if he didn't play by the rules Sirius wouldn't have made it out of Book 3. Black himself, I would keep Chaotic Neutral.

[Lukas Sjöström]

Really, like I said, the problem is that things simply don't break down cleanly into alignments, and the entire alignment system, as it appears in D&D is really a poor way to attempt to classify characters who aren't just broad stereotypes.

I agree, and wouldn't personally use an alignment system in any other game than D&D, but if where would the fun be if we thought like that in this thread? ;)

I think the Jedi order strives for Neutral Good, if only in contrast to the things the Dark Side strives for.

I'd peg the Jedi order as Lawful Good -- they follow customs that are not necessarily good in themselves (celibate, etc), but which they consider necessary for the mental discipline and lack of attachments required of a jedi. Individual jedi may be Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, but the order as a whole is Lawful Good.

[nargun]

Nope. Fish.

No. Plain-and-simple embodiment of unadulterated Law, as the Shadows are Chaos. This is pretty explicit; in fact, I'm pretty sure it was stated in dialogue in exactly those words. There's really no point even debating it; authorial intent is clear.

[Ikselam]

So, is Jack Bauer Chaotic Neutral? Or does the fact that he frequently saves the world make him Chaotic Good?

[RPG_Wombat]

No. Plain-and-simple embodiment of unadulterated Law, as the Shadows are Chaos. This is pretty explicit; in fact, I'm pretty sure it was stated in dialogue in exactly those words. There's really no point even debating it; authorial intent is clear.

Well, ask a Vorlon what it's alignment is, and it'll probably answer something along the lines of "Fish" or "The Frog that sings knows no pomegranate" or something like that.

*sigh*
Yeesh, it's a joke.

You know, like: Q: "How many Vorlons does it take to change a lightbulb?"

A: "To get to the other side."

But you're missing the point that I was saying exactly what you did. Good and evil don't enter into it, the Vorlons are Law, the Shadows are Chaos.

[nargun]

But you're missing the point that I was saying exactly what you did. Good and evil don't enter into it, the Vorlons are Law, the Shadows are Chaos.

Ah, well, that's OK then.

[Hack-n-slash]

Nope. Fish.

Actually, in no way could the Vorlons be considered lawful good.

True, but he was speaking about Kosh, who was not your average Vorlon by any stretch.

[RPG_Wombat]

So, is Jack Bauer Chaotic Neutral? Or does the fact that he frequently saves the world make him Chaotic Good?


Ooh, hard one. I'd say he starts out as LN, leaning towards LG, at the beginning of Day One. However, the stress of so many "Longest day of my life"s corrupts him, and by the end of Day Four, he's probably closer to CN than anything else. By the end of Day Five, he may be closer to CG, but we'll have to see what Day Six brings.

Actually something I wish they'd explore more in the show is how Jack is becoming a dark reflection of himself. He's a hero, but he ain't a good guy.

[RPG_Wombat]

True, but he was speaking about Kosh, who was not your average Vorlon by any stretch.


Well, to be fair, I can see the argument for Kosh alone being LG, but personally I think he was motivated more by his fondness for certain vorlon pawns (Sheridan, Delenn, etc.), or maybe awareness of how the vorlons had corrupted their own original intent, than by a general concern for the welfare of the younger races.

[Black Dragon]

From the Timothy Zahn Star Wars novels:

Grand Admiral Thrawn

Lawful Evil. He sees an ordered, militarised state as being the only viable galactic goverment strong enough to resist internal/external threats (Lawful). Thrawn dedicated to restoring the Empire and is willing to use both sheer force and highly unscrupulous methods to realise this: tricking the Noghri into becoming willing slaves, allowing the attempted kidnapping of children, employing known criminals and so on (Evil).

Talon Karrde

Originally Neutral (with Lawful tendencies), eventually ending up Neutral Good. A 'clean', selfish uninvolved smuggler with a code of ethics (Neutral) who finds himself dragged quite against his will into the New Republic eventually deciding to make a stand against Thrawn for more noble reasons (Good).

Gilad Pellaeon

Originally Lawful Evil, eventually moving towards Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Good. A lifelong career soldier who seems to exist only to give and accept orders and ferociously loyal to the navy and goverment (Lawful), gradually begins to see the futility and cost of war and so begins to work towards a peace to protect his men (Neutral) before finally siding with the old enemy for the good of the galaxy (Good).

[dogstar]

Nope. Fish.

Actually, in no way could the Vorlons be considered lawful good. They are not benevolent. They manipulate societies not for the greater good, but simply to adhere to their side of a philisophical debate. They deliberately curtail any natural positive growth in the younger species that does not comply with Vorlon dogma. Hell, by the end of the Shadow-war story arc, they are destroying entire planets, entire sentient species, without any signs of remorse or compassion.

I also tend to think that Kosh died, not for any greater good- I doubt he had significantly more compassion for the younger species than the other Vorlons did - but because his continual interaction with the younger species led to a certain fondness for individuals, Sheridan in particular.

Likewise the Shadows, for all their sinister appearance, can't quite be considered chaotic evil. They do, after all, give their client species what they want. And, from the Shadow point of view, the destruction they cause results in the betterment of the survivors.

Actually, one thing that JMS always said he found amusing was that people automatically assumed that the Vorlons were good, and the Shadows were evil. Despite the fact that the Vorlons were very harsh to the younger species, while the Shadows were eager to please...

Really, like I said, the problem is that things simply don't break down cleanly into alignments, and the entire alignment system, as it appears in D&D is really a poor way to attempt to classify characters who aren't just broad stereotypes.

JMS portrays the Shadows as being evil, or at least malign. So he shouldn't be suprised. Kosh saves lifes, sacrifices himself and pursues endevours that are almost certainly in the favour of the races. Where as the JMS shadows side with assassins, manipulate, mutate, torture and control. I'd say that maybe JMS amusement is much more to do with how he portrays them, rather than how people perceive them..... Although when Kosh is replaced we see a very different side to the Vorlons.

The shadows deal is akin to a deal with the devil, and serves only their purpose - where as it appears the Vorlons are somewhat more accepting and nurturing during their reign from winning the last shadow war. The price of a deal with the Shadows is paid in spades. I'd say they are Chaotic and predominately Evil by any human standard, and we see little variance.

The Vorlons seem to have won the last Shadow war quite effectively (Vorlons about, shadows making a return) and the universe seems to have developed quite well without too much rampant destruction.... Certainly the Minbari have a very high regard for the Vorlons - and have benefited from their technology.

Kosh is good, the other Vorlons are Lawful - and presumably vary along the scale of Good to Evil. However you also have to bear in mind that they are as Gods to men which kind of gives a different level of perception.

Kosh knows that if he does what Sherridan asks he will die, and how this will affect the future. Kosh seems to have an affection for the Younger races, that generally is lacking in his fellow vorlons (presumably why he was the ideal candidate).

In regards to alignment I presume that the average human is still considered Neutral as In AD&D. Alignment is supposed to be a bit flexible, rather than all defining, and describe a characters tendency, rather than their every decision....

Elric - Is Evil beyond the pale, but he still is capable of acts of kindess and good. Its just his general natural tends to end up cruel and malicious. Its different for certain entitys, Devils for example are Lawful Evil as an absolute - they just vary within the scope of Lawful Evil.

[RPG_Wombat]

Where as the JMS shadows side with assassins, manipulate, mutate, torture and control.

And the Vorlons are shown to do the same exact thing when it suits them - testing races to the point of death, denying life-extension technologies, torturing individuals, and genetic and psychological manipulation of the younger races. Plus the whole *destroying entire worlds where the shadows have shown even the least amount of influence, even if the native populations couldn't do anything to resist the Shadows* thing they were doing by the end of the war.

The shadows deal is akin to a deal with the devil, and serves only their purpose - where as it appears the Vorlons are somewhat more accepting and nurturing during their reign from winning the last shadow war.

An appearance that is shown to be dreadfully wrong at the end of the Shadow war arc. The truth is, both the Vorlons and the Shadows had long ago stopped caring about the younger races, and were only concerned in proving their point. (Heh, kind of like the ultimate long-running flame war)

As far as appearances go, also keep in mind that the viewpoint characters are human (well, many of them are). Perhaps if they were Drakh, we would see a benevolent Kosh-equivalent Shadow, and our initial impression of the Vorlons would be that they are a heavy-handed race hell-bent on enslavement of the entire galaxy....

However you also have to bear in mind that they are as Gods to men which kind of gives a different level of perception.

Actually that is depicted as one of their fatal flaws in Thirdspace. They were arrogant enough at one point to believe they were gods at one point, and paid the price. It's also implied that they were guilty of many other sins as well.

Kosh knows that if he does what Sherridan asks he will die, and how this will affect the future. Kosh seems to have an affection for the Younger races, that generally is lacking in his fellow vorlons (presumably why he was the ideal candidate).

The question I have, that is never really answered to my knowledge, is whether Kosh's knowledge of his fate is genuine precognition, or simply the result of being possibly millions of years old, and therefore having been around the block for a while (ie, in D&D terms, having a REALLY high WIS score). I'm not aware of it being officially stated that it was precog (though I could be wrong), so I suspect it's just that Kosh was able to put 2+2 together and realize the consequences of his action ("If we directly attack the Shadows, they will directly attack us, and I'm a damned convenient target") I honestly don't think Kosh was so much fond of the younger races as he was fond of particular individuals of those races, but yeah, while the Vorlons are LN, I could see calling Kosh himself Lawful Good. Actually, I think it'd be interesting to see that the Vorlons consider him a debased, possibly even corrupt individual, because of it. I think that's actually implied a bit by Ulkesh, but again he's a Vorlon so who knows what he was actually saying...

[Madrigal9]

I'm going to go with Deadwood references.
===============================

Al Swearengen: Lawful Evil

Cy Tolliver: Neutral Evil

George Hurst: Chaotic Evil

Seth Bulloch: Lawful Neutral

Doc Cochrane: Neutral Good

Calamity Jane: Chaotic Neutral

Trixie: Chaotic Good

Charlie Utter: Lawful Good

Sol Starr: Neutral

[Stik]

I'd very much like to update/expand the list, but I'm having a problem with editing. Seems the Edit button has been misplaced. I open the thread, but can't edit it.
Soon as I solve the problem, I'll be making some changes to the first post of the thread.


Even stranger, the Edit button appears on this post, but not on page 1. Does anyone here know whether posts can only be edited for a limited time?

[Goblinardo]

And for the next challenge: Sandor Clegane.

Neutral Evil sliding towards True Neutral: He's a cruel brute that only cares for himself, but he still has a (very rough and underdeveloped) sense of decency.

[Rainfall]

Neutral Evil sliding towards True Neutral: He's a cruel brute that only cares for himself, but he still has a (very rough and underdeveloped) sense of decency.

I'd say he's Neutral Evil starting to remember he was neutral good as a kid. The good side burned with half of his face though.

Hmmm... Maybe more like Lawfull evil, as he mentions when Beric Dondarion gets him on trial, he never has shown cruelty unless he was ordered to. Might explain why he never tried to murder his brother too, even when he had the occasion to do so. He's still damn unpleasant about it, his 5 CHA makes it hard to see him as anything but a bad guy.