Well, just what kind of people is he knocking off? I'm guessing because this is a tv show, he's not bothering with any petty types and focusing on the serial killer rapist megalamaniac types. If so, I'd say he's Good. Probably lawful, because of his habit of killing non criminals for the greater good.
However, if he becomes corrupt with power--deciding to knock off the guy who steals his girlfriend for example--he very quickly gets into Evil territory. I guess I'd have to watch it to make a concrete judgment.
|
I think this guy is Lawful Evil with Lawful Neutral goals. His actions are following structured reasoning if twisted in the extreme. He is not acting chaotically and in fact is aiming towrds a world where Law is in the ascendancy, though he has deluded himself that his actions are in the best interests of Good. He is in many ways the iconic bad guy. Believes he is LG actually is LE.
SW
I just saw a random episode that happened to be on cartoon network, and I must say that I'm impressed. I wish I could start the show from the beginning. To be sure, the show intentionally makes morality ambiguous using a purely hypothetical situation which is highly unlikely to occur even in a fantasy world like d&d.
After having actually seen an episode, I've changed my mind about the main character. He tries to kill L, despite a complete lack of clear and present danger to himself. I'd say that's pretty LE, maybe LN. I'm willing to bet that he was LG at the show's start, though with that demon thing hanging around you know his conscience is going down the drain quick. (he's the perfect example of a high Int, low Wis character)
Unconstrained good is evil.
Unconstrained good is evil.
A very good point. For those that don't know the backstory of the Dragonlance setting, the Kingpriest of Istar was so good, he committed all kinds of evil acts through proclaimations and other such, eventually causing the gods of Dragonlance to drop a fiery mountain on the continent.
Light is LE, I'd agree on the Neutral tendencies. I think he started as LN with evil tendencies. He was always selfish, never cared about anyone but himself...and society. He detests evil. He is willing to break the law, do whatever is necessary, in the name of creating a perfect utopia in which no one will ever do wrong for fear of paying the ultimate price. That pretty much epitomizes LE. Structure and Rule, regardless of the cost.
|
Unconstrained evil is evil.
Clear and present danger is not a primary factor in determining guilt and punishment in a justice system. It only serves as a regulation for a particular kind of positive defense.
Someone must be responsible for determining the laws. If the great majority of people abdicate, then bear responsibility for ceding the authority to an oligarchy or dictator.
Likewise someone must be responsible for enforcing the laws, managing the judicial process, and supervising the penal process. Abdication at any point likewise becomes responsible for ceding those powers to a limited authority.
In all such cases, the answer to "who died and made you king?" is "You did." Or at least you committed electoral suicide, and left it to that person or group by your refusal to accept responsibility.
Naturally the claim will be made that such abdication of personal responsibility does not mean acquiescence to those left who have not abdicated inheriting all the power. Unfortunately what is forgotten with such claims is that such a decision means voting for no laws, in effect voting to empower the criminals to decide if they should ever be subject to any laws, and what those laws should be. Protest all you want, but if you refuse to be responsible and refuse to let anyone else be responsible, then that is what you are doing.
So without more detailed information, this person could very well be Lawful Good. He is looking to do the greatest good for the greatest number. That means killing criminals, as there seems to be no other way to bring them to justice. It unfortunately also means killing those seeking to stop him. While they may not have committed any direct crime, by stopping him they would make criminals immune to any justice. That can hardly be construed as anything resembling good, or lawful.
If there is another system of justice available, then the person is more likely Lawful Neutral. He is serving a strict, unyielding, code of law. While he may have been chosen for that position by chance, the fact that the society he is a part of recognizes the various crimes he punishes is all the justification he needs to do so. As for the innocents he kills to keep himself secret, as above, they are threatening the fulfillment of the law, whether they intend to do so directly or not. While it would be good to find another way to do it, it would be more evil to allow them to enable criminals to break the law without fear of punishment.
Unconstrained good is evil.
Care to elaborate? From what I can tell you're saying "too much good is evil" which I have an immediate gut reaction against. I can't recall ever experiencing or reading about "too much good"; good is good and the more of it there is, the better. (the Kingpriest was smitten by the gods because of his pride, not because he was "too good")
I teach English lit in a Chinese university. On weekends I've got a couple of classes of high schoolers, and some of the students have "death note" books.
They look really creepy, and someone is making a mint off these. You can write someone's name and the vehicle of their demise on each morbidly decorated page.
Haven't seen the movie but I gotta agree with Sam, deciding the persons alignment depends on the portrayal of the legal system available in the movie, AND also that person's experience of said legal system. If it is ineffectual and protects the guilty, engaging in vigilante justice could be construed as LG, depending on the motivating elements in the vigilante's character.
Well, just what kind of people is he knocking off? I'm guessing because this is a tv show, he's not bothering with any petty types and focusing on the serial killer rapist megalamaniac types. If so, I'd say he's Good. Probably lawful, because of his habit of killing non criminals for the greater good.
However, if he becomes corrupt with power--deciding to knock off the guy who steals his girlfriend for example--he very quickly gets into Evil territory. I guess I'd have to watch it to make a concrete judgment.
I only read the first little bit of the manga, and he kills a guy who was keeping a group of daycare students hostage and then a motorcyclist punk guy who was just an a!@~~@!.
The first guy deserved it more or less, but the second guy didn't deserve to die necessarily. However, whathisface with the Death Note recognizes this fact while he's thinking about it afterwards.
I don't know, though. I think I'd have to read more to decide what I think on his alignment.
I watched the first episode of the anime. I would say based upon that and where he is evil.
---
Light: "I'll be a new world free of injustice and populated by people I've judged to be honest, kind and hardworking.
Shinigami: "But if you did that it would make you the only bad person left."
Light: "Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a hardworking honor student who's considered to be one of Japan's best and brightest. And I ... I will become the god of this new world!"
---
There are several phrases in there that are very dictator-ish. There are also other things like, I don't believe he killed the hostage taker to save the people; he just wanted to try out the Death Note on somebody that people wouldn't care if they dissapeared. The same for the second person. He considers in the first episode killing a bully in his class, but decides not to because it might draw attention to himself.
I'm not sure how I would count him on the Chaos/Law axis, but I would go more toward law since he is attempting to bring order to the world rather than send it into a frenzy.
I beleive the most important thing about this is that is trying to impose his sense of right and wrong on the world and murdering all those who would get in his way.
A lot of it depends on how you define evil.
Seriously, sit down and try it sometime, it’s more difficult than you think. My definition of evil is something close to, “infringing on the rights of others.” If you assume that good is the polar opposite of evil, then naturally any time two or more people interact, unavoidable evil will ensue, for “the greater good.”
...though with that demon thing hanging around you know his conscience is going down the drain quick.
Actually, IMO, it's all Light. The shinigami in Death Note are portrayed as the generally passive and neutral servants and guardians of death. (Bleach will provide you yet another look at shinigami. Still, roughly, the servants and guardians of death, they are much more varied in nature.) Ryuk, Light's shinigami patron(?), gives next to no guidance to Light. Any evil here is solidly in the hearts of the humans involved. I think that makes the series all the stronger.