Some good discussion, so I thought I would copy it here rather than have it hide in the Comment section. The article is located HERE.
I take issue with some of the examples, which I see as just plain wrong, but here are the comments so far, which goes to the discussion as a whole:
Sir Xaris wrote:
Very good, Dark-Lord-Galen.
I was concerned that you listed Batman as LG at first, but see you listed his modern version as CG. I do agree that his earlier tv version was much more goodie-two-shoes, but that largely reflected the cultural attitude of the day. I think he is much better as the penultimate vigilante - doing good as he sees it without worrying too much about whether he's breaking the law or not to see justice done.
Superman might be the ultimate representative for LG, I think.
I notice that you left out Neutral Good. I think the Lone Ranger or Zorro might be good examples of the NG alignment. Both men were determined to uphold just laws, but fought against unjust laws from underground positions rather than from within the legal establishment.
I'd also like to comment on your interpretation of Neutral Evil. I agree that such neutrality may be the result of a lack of concern for whether or not an action is legal, but I think that many times neutrality is a more purposefully chosen path. I've mentioned elsewhere how the US Constitution purposefully balances the greater good (lawfulness) with the rights of individuals (chaos). The same goes for its evil counterpart. Neutral Evil characters can work within the legal system to prevent that system from curbing their illegal activities. The Mob might be a good example of NE in that respect. In some respects, their organization is quite rigid, but they use the established system to protect themselves from their lawbreaking.
Thanks for posting the article. It was very thought-provoking.
Dark_Lord_Galan wrote:
Sir Xaris>"I was concerned that you listed Batman as LG at first, but see you listed his modern version as CG. I do agree that his earlier tv version was much more goodie-two-shoes, but that largely reflected the cultural attitude of the day."
I agree with your assessment of the batman character as well ( hence the Lawful Puke comment Hehe) I submitted the list pretty much verbatum from one I had generated in the eighties.. I had originally put the Adam West character in their as an example of extremes ( and over acting)
I agree with your assesment of Zorro and the Lone Ranger as well.
However my intent with this posting was to inspire feedback from all to incorporate a more 21st century list of compariables based on known character types ( possibly not historically accurate ones ie William Wallace {MelGibson Version} not LG historically but case could be made for the holliwood role )..... I have challenged my players with the task as well when I was asked "who Dirty Harry was?".... I realized my "dinosaur had risen"
I do thank you for your review and feedback.
DLG,
Argon wrote:
Surprisingly good! Your analogy of alignments is quite spot on. I've would of liked more info on the Neutral good and Evil aspects. Otherwise spot on.
Cebrion wrote:
Unless the early TV Batman was officially deputized, he's not Lawful Good at all. But, he is not Chaotic Good either, which puts him at Neutral Good- he brings evil doers to justice, but nearly always not usually by lawful means. Neutral Good is all about upholding good, where by lawful or unlawful means, which pretty much describes the TV Batman perfectly. Without a doubt he has strongly Lawful tendencies though.
The Dark Knight Batman is Chaotic Good with Neutral tendencies. He is fully outside of the law and knows it, though will allow the law to do its thing most of time. However, this is not his major concern- solving problems for people who can't resolve them themselves is. If helping people means letting villains die, then that is an option on the table.
Neutral Evil. Your definition is way, way off. This is not the alignment of the casual crook. Neutral evil is PURE evil. It is evil for evil's sake. Law and chaos are irrelevant- they are tools to be used to achieve only one goal- EVIL. This is the alignment of Tharizdun, Nerull, Incabulos, daemons, etc. Not exactly a list of your average criminal ne're do wells there. Petty thieves fall into the realm of the True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral alignment; perhaps with Chaotic and/or Evil tendencies depending on the nature of their crimes and base alignment).
True Neutral alignment can be about two things. The first is about upholding balance in one form or another, such as the purposeful neutrality of those seeking to live in balance with nature, or to uphold a moral/ethical balance in the world. The "purposeful" bit is the key in this first interpretation. The second is about a a lack of concern(apathy would be too strong a word, though ti could be that too) with regards to Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are concerned. Animals practice this in its most basic form, and concepts such as Good, Evil, Law and Chaos do not even apply to them. Higher thinking races can practice a lack of commitment to moral and ethical extremes as well, and without the reason for doing so being a cause or belief. Admittedly, this will be very, very rare.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
Big C.
Have read alot of your threads and enjoyed many of your perspectives, however, I have to disagree with you on most of this one.
First, seems most have not fully read / understood the intent of this listing. The intent (and maybe it was better as a forum instead of an article (but as I was not the vet of the site..... I leaned on others and their expertise as to the best place to post it)) was to take an old bulletin board posting I did years ago on providing simple examples of alignments and bring it forward with current examples for new players to "understand" the differences.
As to the Adam West version of Batman, I think discounting him from lawful good due to "being deputized" is not a premise for being LG. if that were the case Wyatt Earp and many "border line deputies"(such as Sheriff Johnny Behan) would be LG? I don’t think so. Again, as was noted, not trying to develop this into a Hollywood vs history debate.
Based on the Original DMG (issued 1979 by GG and which the original list is based on) LG is " Creatures of lawful Good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or a desire to do good. They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number....."
As for your assessment of the "current Dark Knight" I agree, and would add that "tendencies" can be defined in nearly all examples and would defer back to the origin of the intent of the article, to provide those that have no exposure to the game or alignments with a framework.
As for being "way off" on neutral evil, again you rely on tendencies. If that is the platform, then I would respectfully say, that those that are neutral evil lean toward the "NEUTRAL first" and evil second. Otherwise would they not call it EVIL NEUTRAL? If the evil acts outweigh then I would say they have darker tendencies toward Chaos. again, I would base this on the original DMG "NEUTRAL EVIL: Similar to neutral good alignment, NE holds that neither groups nor individuals have meaning. This ethos seeks to promote weal for actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces are meant to cull out the weak and the stupid. this is not to say that Big T, Nerull and others don’t have those "tendencies" in both extremes, is still doesn’t address the intent of the message.
I do appreciate your feedback and views.
And with that recap, we may continue.... _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:51 am; edited 2 times in total
DLG> You misunderstand the significance of Batman not being deputized. He being deputized actually gives him legal authority to do most everything that he does. Without it, he is not fully within the law to do much of what he does in the old tv show. Because of that, and because he surely knows that what he does is not withing the law, even though he does it to help society(which is surely Good thing), he is not purely lawful good. But, he does favor Law strongly over Chaos, ergo his alignment is best described as Neutral Good, with Lawful Good tendencies. you may be correct in stating that EGG may have allowed for some wiggle room in his description though, but then again he is talking about the world of D&D and its laws and not the laws that governs the tv Batman's 1960's America. The dude would simply get arrested, simply from taking the law into his own hands, but in tv land, he doesn't. So, tv land laws are apparently different, so under tv land laws, yes, Batman could fit into the broader scope of the Lawful Good alignment.
As to Wyatt Erap and his badge, having a badge does not make one Lawful Good, which is not what I said. A badge gives one legal authority to do certain things under the law. Study Earp's history and you will see that he anything but pure as the driven snow, and certainly willing to outright flout the law in order to fulfill his own personal desires(namely whoring and vengeance). With a badge, Batman would actually then have the legal authority to investigate crimes, pursue the perpetrators, and bring them to justice under real world law and not tv land Batmand law, and; if at all possible without busting everyone's heads open every time with a WHAM! BIFF! OOF!, etc.
1E DMG: "NEUTRAL GOOD: Creatures of this alignment see the cosmos as a place where law and chaos are merely tools to use in bringing life, happiness, and prosperity to all deserving creatures. Order is not good unless it brings this to all; neither is randomness and total freedom desirable if it does not bring such good."
It is not legal to break and enter, and then punch out the people he finds therein, yet even tv Batman likes to do this on an episodic basis. TV Batman can ignore those things though, as he is Neutral Good in at least some sense. Definitely strongly Lawful Good tendencies though.
As to Neutral Evil, you are very much mistaken if you think that the "Neutral" part of that alignment has anything to do with the Good-Neutral-Evil aspect of alignment. It has to do with Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic aspect of alignment. Alignments are listed in the order of Law-Neutral-Chaos affiliation first, and Good-Neutral-Evil affiliation second. That the term "Neutral" appears in both categories confuses many people. The term "True Neutral" is more specifically an alignment of "Neutral Neutral", as a True Neutral Character is Neutral both in regard to Law-Chaos and Good-Evil. But, as "Neutral Neutral" is a term that might confuse some people, the term "True Neutral" is used instead. Being Neutral with regard to Law and Chaos means that an individual will follow neither and both, as it suits their goals, and in the case of Neutral Evil individuals, the goal is achieving Evil/serving themselves. That 's why all of the gods I listed are Neutral Evil, and why petty criminals are not usually Neutral Evil. Here is what Neutral Evil is:
1E PHB: "Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world."
The average petty criminal simply does not represent that definition. Tharizdun, Nerull, Incabulos, and Anthraxus do. The average petty criminal.... that is willing to do literally anything and everything to help themselves, including mass murder and any of of a number of many other more up-close-and-personal crimes of heinous nature, would represent Neutral Evil too. Neutral Evil mortals would be among the most foul of mortals, having no boundaries of any kind with regard to what they would do to achieve their goals. The average petty criminal would be either Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral(the ambivalent version, not the obsessed with Balance/preserving Nature version), with Evil tendencies. We can, of course, have varying degrees of everything, which is why "alignment tendencies" are also sometimes listed for gods/NPCs.
As to the Lone Ranger being Neutral Good, he could be said to be that, but he has more in common with Lawful good than tv Batman does. He is apparently a Texas Ranger(nobody knows which one though, so lawmen still go after him as they aren't sure of that), follows a strict code, and, while he does have a gun, he never actually shoots anyone dead with it. He just has an Intimidate skill of 40 when armed; with a +40 bonus to that after he shoots the bad guy's gun out of his hand! The Lone Ranger seems much closer to what Lawful Good is than the tv Batman. Maybe it is just the Lone Ranger's Creed code of conduct bit that gives him the edge over tv Batman for me though. If the Lone Ranger isn't Lawful Good, then tv Batman surely isn't either.
While I won't start it off, everyone jump in and put up a list of tv/movie characters that, to you, exemplify each of the 9 alignments. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
While I won't start it off, everyone jump in and put up a list of tv/movie characters that, to you, exemplify each of the 9 alignments.
I'll give it a try and see if others agree with my assessments.
Superman/Clark Kent in Lois and Clark: Lawful Good leaning just slightly toward Neutral Good.
Lois Lane in Lois and Clark: Neutral Good with strong Chaotic Good tendancies.
Brisco County Jr.: Lawful Good with strong Neutral Good tendencies.
Zorro (Antonio Banderras): Neutral Good with strong Chaotic Good tendencies.
Robin Hood (most modern movie versions): Neutral Good. He is very supportive of laws that free men and provide for their safety, but has no problem fighting outside of unjust laws.
House: Chaotic Good. He obeys the rules/laws only so far as is necessary to avoid being thrown in jail. Otherwise, he does whatever he thinks is best for his patients.
Hydra from Captain America: Lawful Evil. He perpetuates his own evil and power via a highly structured organization dedicated to his goals.
The Kurgen from Highlander: Chaotic Evil. He's all about personal power and freedom to do anything that pleases himself at everyone else's expense.
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. Michael Cane's character respects culture and does have a desire to enrich society, but feels quite comfortable seeking his own benefit first and foremost at the expense of those he believes can afford to suffer a bit. Steve Martin's character is less concerned with anyone's well-being but his own, but isn't specifically out to do others harm for its own sake.
Darth Vader and Emporer Palpatine: Lawful Evil. Of course.
Hancock (Will Smith): Chaotic Good initially, then Neutral Good when he learns to act more within the law for everyone's benefit.
Wolverine from X-Men: Chaotic Good.
Professor X from X-Men: Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendancies.
Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribbean: Chaotic Neutral with Good tendancies.
Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) in The Patriot: Neutral Good. He's initially a member of the S.C. Congress and opposes rebellion, but is pushed past his level of tolerance and rebels against corrupt authority.
Tavington (based upon the real Tarelton) in The Patriot: Neutral Evil. He uses his authority in the English army for personal gain, but abuses it and even ignores his superior's instructions when it suits his purposes.
While putting together this list a couple of things have interested me. First, it seems that our media provides an overabundance of lawfully tending heroes, but few that tend toward a chaotic mentality. There also seem to be more evil organizations than individuals (though that may be because I watch action-adventure movies, not horror movies).
I also notice that it is quite difficult for me to come up with many examples of neutrally aligned characters with respect to good and evil. Hopefully others can provide better examples than I can think of.
And I was thinking that it might be hard to think of a mortal, Neutral Evil tv/movie character. I think you've got that one nailed with Tavington. He's a pretty unsavory character to say the least. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
While I won't start it off, everyone jump in and put up a list of tv/movie characters that, to you, exemplify each of the 9 alignments.
Thanks Big C
This was the real intent of the original posting, to generate a current list agreed by the masses that can be utilized as a sample for all new players to have a guideline.
Thanks SirXaris for also blazing the trail with examples of your own. My session plays tomorrow, will re-chair it before we start and post my groups' to follow.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Petty thieves fall into the realm of the True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral alignment; perhaps with Chaotic and/or Evil tendencies depending on the nature of their crimes and base alignment).
The Lone Ranger seems much closer to what Lawful Good is than the tv Batman. Maybe it is just the Lone Ranger's Creed code of conduct bit that gives him the edge over tv Batman for me though. If the Lone Ranger isn't Lawful Good, then tv Batman surely isn't either.
