I always liked these debates, except at the gaming table. This is a great place for them.
Punisher: Always thought more of a Chaotic Good. He has a morale compass and tries to only kill bad guys. I always pictured the Punisher as a very extreme definition of Chaotic Good.
I must respectfully disagree sir. I am not familliar with the earlier Punisher Volumes but in the Ennis version he was certainly not good.
He killed primarily for the pleasure of killing mobsters and settling his own personal vendetta. I would suggest that his motivation for killing was more selfish than anything. He merely saw bettering society as a residual benefit.
There was one comic where a woman asked him why he killed people and his answer was simple. "Because I hate them."
There was another comic where he saw a man mugging a woman and strangled him to death. When she thanked him he turned to her as if he had just noticed her and said "Oh ... sure whatever."
I would also argue that anyone who ties and gags someone and then throws them off of a building head first is not a good person :)
But that is why I LOVE The Punisher!
Chewie - ??
Chewie is BBB - Big Braying Brawler
j/k... must be NG I think
Captain America - LG (in fact, I opften use Cap to explain to new players what a paladin should act like)
Including fighting by throwing their only shield ?
Although Cap must be LL instead. Lawful Lawful.
Harry Potter - NG (he tries to obey rules, except when it's important to ignore them)
Personally, I find him to be more UR - uninformed reluctant
Or rather True Neutral as defined in AD&D2: he must do things opposite to what everybody thinks.
;-)
|
Actually, I think their fighting actually SHOWS how they are both Lawful Good.
They both do what they do for the GOOD of their cities, and the people around them.
They Both follow a very strict personal moral code.
However, those moral codes are VERY different from one another, and the environments they work in are wildly different as well (at least if you compare Metropolis and Gotham City).
Both Good, Both Lawful, Both Lawful Good... just not the SAME Lawful Good.
Look @ Order of the Stick... Miko VS OChul. Both Paladins. Both Lawful Good. Not the same at all.
Ok, Batman's only moral schtick is he won't kill. His big thing that makes him not good is he has no issue with torture, which in D&D is considered a major evil, just shy of cold blooded murder. Further what makes him not lawful is he's constantly going about stopping crime using the best means to get there, and is constantly at odds with the local law because of his methods.
"The means do not always equal the end"
To Batman, short of murder they always equal the end.
Superman has none of these issues. He does what he does because it's right and it's for the overall good. If you can't do it the right way, you find a way to do it the right way, and he always does.
As for miko vs ochul. I do believe Miko fell because she was a whackjob that went WAY over the edge... so not a great example of paladins.
Actually, I think their fighting actually SHOWS how they are both Lawful Good.
They both do what they do for the GOOD of their cities, and the people around them.
They Both follow a very strict personal moral code.
However, those moral codes are VERY different from one another, and the environments they work in are wildly different as well (at least if you compare Metropolis and Gotham City).
Both Good, Both Lawful, Both Lawful Good... just not the SAME Lawful Good.
Look @ Order of the Stick... Miko VS OChul. Both Paladins. Both Lawful Good. Not the same at all.
Ok, Batman's only moral schtick is he won't kill. His big thing that makes him not good is he has no issue with torture, which in D&D is considered a major evil, just shy of cold blooded murder. Further what makes him not lawful is he's constantly going about stopping crime using the best means to get there, and is constantly at odds with the local law because of his methods.
"The means do not always equal the end"
To Batman, short of murder they always equal the end.Superman has none of these issues. He does what he does because it's right and it's for the overall good. If you can't do it the right way, you find a way to do it the right way, and he always does.
As for miko vs ochul. I do believe Miko fell because she was a whackjob that went WAY over the edge... so not a great example of paladins.
I see your point, but I still do not think Batman is anyting but good. I dont know if he "tortures," people. When I think torture my mind summons images of precise exacting infliction of pain like an iron maden or the rack. I woul say that batman "works people over," more than anyting.
Granted there are some more brutal depictions of the Dark Kinght in certian comics but the image that our society has internalized one where Batman is benevolent but pragmatic.
For instance. The Batman in the Animated Series is definitely good. I do not recall any scenes where he tortured anyone or even interrogated them roughly (of course it was made for kids though). The batman in the Christopher Nolan films is much darker and more violent but even so he does not go overboard. I would say the most brutal thing that he does is drop Maroni off of a fire escape (great scene BTW). I would not put this past a CG ranger.
I would have to say that he is chaotic simply because he does break a hell of a lot of laws. A common theme throughout his history is to put him at odds with the cops and to force him to go outside the law to exact justice.
The difference between Batman and say the Punisher apart from the killing is that Batman fights crime specifically for the greater good of Gotham city whereas traditional CN antiheroes do what they do for pleasure or personal gain.
|
Ok, Batman's only moral schtick is he won't kill. His big thing that makes him not good is he has no issue with torture, which in D&D is considered a major evil, just shy of cold blooded murder. Further what makes him not lawful is he's constantly going about stopping crime using the best means to get there, and is constantly at odds with the local law because of his methods.
"The means do not always equal the end"
To Batman, short of murder they always equal the end.
Batman doesn't kill? Ok, I haven't been reading them the past few years but... really? since when did dropping people off tall buildings not constitute killing? After the Death of Superman, during Funeral for a Friend, the only reason he DIDN'T drop the wanna-be suicide bomber at the funeral procession off the building is because it was Superman's town and he knew Superman wouldn't have approved.
He does have the No Gun rule though, and rarely breaks it.
Being lawful good does not mean one always follows the laws of a given city/country one is in. Lawful Neutral is more likely to do that, but put a Paladin into a Lawful Evil city. Is that paladin going to sit back and let someone be beheaded for not groveling low enough when the governor passed by?
If he does, that's being lawful stupid, and may violate her code.
Now, there IS the argument that ones alignment can BE one thing, while people perceive it to be something else, ie A few LG Paladins in a LE Society can seem a hugely destructive and disruptive force, causing chaos in their wake.
That's where I'm contending Batman is. He is lawful good, but the environment he's in isn't.
|
|
How do you explain beyond the superman influence his methods in other overall well adjusted cities like metropolis which is noted for not being corrupt. Heck Luthor was legitimately elected there. Batman when he visits still operates the same way he does in Gotham a city of vice. I think he's CG at best, CN at worst, but still very chaotic.
|
|
Batman doesn't kill? Ok, I haven't been reading them the past few years but... really? since when did dropping people off tall buildings not constitute killing? After the Death of Superman, during Funeral for a Friend, the only reason he DIDN'T drop the wanna-be suicide bomber at the funeral procession off the building is because it was Superman's town and he knew Superman wouldn't have approved.
He does have the No Gun rule though, and rarely breaks it.
Nope sorry. Ever since a 1930's adjustment Batman has had a "no killing" rule. It is a central tenet of the character. Without it he would be as bad as the Joker et al. Without this rule he would have killed the Joker a long time ago. Batman has a rigid code of ethics that even has him save the Joker from execution when Batman realises that the Joker is not responsible for the murders he has been convicted of. (Devil's Advocate)
The famous "gun wielding Batman" actually didn't last very long. Only a few of the early issues had him killing or shooting people
The movies have ignored this in the past which makes them quite jarring for many Batman comic fans (including me).
Personally I would put him as NG. And yes, he's DEFINITELY good.
Alright, enough Batman chat! :)
How about Monty Python!
Arthur, King of the Britans - LG
Sir Robin - CN
Sir Bedevere - LN
Brother Manard - N
Sir Lanceolt - CG
Killer Rabit - CE
Tim, The Enchanter - NE
The French - LE
The Knights Who say "Ni!" - CE
Roger the Shrubber - N
The Three Headed Giant - NG, LN, and CE respectively
Nightmare Before Christmas
Jack - NG (respectively speaking) Doesn't really conform to the 'Holiday rules' and isn't really random in his actions.
Oogie Boogie - CE Rolls dice to make decisions (Not to mention cheats while doing so.)
Ladyhawke
Phillipe - CG At heart a good person, just a little weak willed
Navarre - LN or LG Tough call. Definetly Lawful because he is set on his path and it took some persuasion to get him on another.
Isabeau - NG or CG Once again, tough call. Probably Chaotic, because she kind of runs into situations without thinking it through.
Bishop of Aquila - LE Main villain, of course he's Evil. Lawful because he's pretty disciplined (except when it comes to Isabeau)
Microsoft - LE
Microsoft - LE
Not fictional, but yes, most corporations would be lawful evil. I will avoid a lengthy rant about the state of economics in America and simply agree.
As for the Punisher post earlier, I guess he has changed a great deal. It has been about 15 years since I've read any comics. Still, the fact that he targets "bad guys" specifically leads me toward Chaotic Good. I won't fault him for enjoying his work. Maybe a 2nd Edition Compromise of Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies.
|
But that is what alignment is, a stereotype. I think it is widely agreed that Robin Hood is CG and he also has honor but he is more likely to lie than the LG Superman, for instance.
I used to agree with this, but the last time this kind of discussion came up, somebody really brought up a good argument about Robin Hood.
The Sheriff was not a legitimate authority figure. In fact, Robin Hood was directly fighting against him because he was usurping the control of the king while he was away on the crusades. Because Robin Hood was in fact, fighting for the system, rather than against the system, he is a better example of Lawful Good than Chaotic Good, it's just because most constitute the Sheriff of Nottingham as a legitimate leader, instead of the fraud he was, we often accidentally miscategorize Robin Hood in the process of naming his alignment.
And everybody's seen the Superman when he's all evil and fights his Clark Kent counterpart in the junkyard.
|
|
What exemplified Punisher as at best Chaotic Neutral for me was the "recent" civil war comics, the scene where the villians came over to the freedom of registration side with Captain America, and when Punisher saw past villains working with Captain America, whips out his uzi and mows them down without even second thought about why they were there. Cold blooded murder even in the face of redemption, is evil. Thus my logic says that while on the whole works towards a good end, his cold blooded methods put drag him down to neutral. His psychotic methods put him well in to the chaotic camp as well.
CN: Jack Sparrow
to me, Jack sparrow is the best example of CN
Cecily Cambell from the 1-12 anime shows: The Scared Blacksmith.
LG = One of the few characters who i would even classify as a Paladin. Partly due to one episode were she chose to do the Good action instead of the Lawful action.
Jane (from Firefly): CN
Mal (from same): CG
For Mal I would go to LG, he has his rules and stands to his word. Even if his actions aren't always "shiny", I think he's a good example for a bad ass LG character
Remember the entrance of the serenity film? Where Mal kicked the villager from the Mule?
Even if it's looked not LG, it was, he obeys to his rule to protect his crew and also he gave the guy a swift death, not letting him killed by the reaper.
Even if it's looking strange, I would say this act was LG.
Beside alignments aren't a fixed corsett, they are guidelines, so I think the "what would XY do?what would XY not do?" Question is always nice.
Beside this:
Richard Cypher, the Seeker - NG
Kaylen Amnel, Mother Confessor - LG
Zedekus Zul Zarander, First Wizard - CG
What exemplified Punisher as at best Chaotic Neutral for me was the "recent" civil war comics, the scene where the villians came over to the freedom of registration side with Captain America, and when Punisher saw past villains working with Captain America, whips out his uzi and mows them down without even second thought about why they were there. Cold blooded murder even in the face of redemption, is evil. Thus my logic says that while on the whole works towards a good end, his cold blooded methods put drag him down to neutral. His psychotic methods put him well in to the chaotic camp as well.
And yet, the Punisher in the (relatively recent) 'WarZone' movie is solidly CG because when he discovers that one of the mobsters he killed (Donatelli) was an undercover cop, he had a falldown and decided to end his personal 'crime-war'.
'I killed one of the good guys, Micro !'
He started again only when Donatelli's family were under menace from Jigsaw's men.
As usual, comic characters - especially when depicted by different writers - can be totally different from themselves.
So, yes, I can agree with:
The Punisher - Garth Ennis version: CN
But I also add:
The Punisher - early stories and WarZone movie: CG
And, just to point out:
Batman - Chris Nolan movies: LG (or NG at the very worst)
At the end of 'The Dark Knight', he decides to catch the blame for Harvey Dent's death, in order to martyr him and create an idol for the forces of order in Gotham for the future - otherwise they would have been crushed by the 'success' of Joker making him fall down.
He also worked constantly with Lieutenant->Commissioner James Gordon because he was sure he was a good man and an uncorrupted cop, and he wanted the POLICE to have the upper hand against criminals.
He was against the various 'Bat-Vigilantes' which were trying to emulate him (but with guns, killing mobsters). He wasn't a criminal-killer, he caught them when the police had no ways to do it (he even followed Lau to Hong Kong and brought him back in the USA because 'Batman has no jurisdiction restrictions' to allow Gordon to arrest him in Gotham).
Bruce Wayne wanted an uncorrupted Gotham, and halfway the second movie he was genuinely ready to retire because he tought that Harvey Dent would have been the new 'Shining Knight' of the city.
Moreover, he gave the keys of the 'Bat-FullGotham-Radar' to Lucius Fox in order not to be corrupted by so much power over the city and allowed him to destroy it after the crisis was over (giving him the self-destruct password).
Just my 2 CG cents :D .
|
|
Movies based on characters traditionally in comics are a bad representation, and are not the true character since they're changed to fit media desire in that era. Something that comics suffer less of, nerds love their comics no matter what the writers say. We may complain we don't like a shift, but yet we still buy them, and read them.
As far as Mal from Firefly. Following your own rules is a HUGE chaotic move. Being lawful means you follow legitimate rules, and you are most definitely not a thief. While he may disagree with the legitimate rule of the galaxy, that world was legitimately elected and put in place by the people. Thus, fighting against it is another huge chaotic move.
Reread Lawful Good, and think again what part of this is Mal.
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. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Mal does not act in a way society would expect a normal person to act, while opposed to evil, he lies, cheats, does help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. He's hitting only 2/5, and those are the staples of good, not law. Mal is in my opinion the best example of Chaotic Good.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. That screams Mal.
He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. Mal again. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. Oh wait, that's Mal there too. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. Yep, there's Mal again. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Isn't that how you defined a Lawful Good character? Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit. That's what Serenity was to Mal....Freedom.
As far as Mal from Firefly. Following your own rules is a HUGE chaotic move. Being lawful means you follow legitimate rules...
So this mean a Paladin who is within a LE country, where looking into the eyes of the king is punished with death, would do nothing? because its the "legitimate rule"?
Or a Monk? I think Monks are the best example that a lawful character haven't to follow "legitimate rules" but a fix codex of rules, if they're from the king, god or his moral principles.
But I also think the discussion about Lawfull good is as old as D&D :)
Mal follows this, his codex, but not the law of the "LE country" he's living in. I think how you stand toward mortal rules shouldn't impact your alignment, because they can change from country to country.
|
|
As far as Mal from Firefly. Following your own rules is a HUGE chaotic move. Being lawful means you follow legitimate rules...
So this mean a Paladin who is within a LE country, where looking into the eyes of the king is punished with death, would do nothing? because its the "legitimate rule"?
Or a Monk? I think Monks are the best example that a lawful character haven't to follow "legitimate rules" but a fix codex of rules, if they're from the king, god or his moral principles.
But I also think the discussion about Lawfull good is as old as D&D :)
Mal follows this, his codex, but not the law of the "LE country" he's living in. I think how you stand toward mortal rules shouldn't impact your alignment, because they can change from country to country.
Paladins balance 3 things when they make decisions; Law, Good, and Religion. In my campaigns, we look at each thing, if 2/3 of a paladins tenants say it's ok to do something, it's that paladins choice to follow through. I say his choice, because one major facet of being good is, "Doing charity is a good act, but not doing a charity is not evil" That's from the stanford university philosophical definition of morality.
Now, as far as law is concerned, yes, a knight a better representation of law would stand by and follow it to the letter. Also, show me where it says any personal code is a legitimate validation of lawful? Last I checked, Jack Sparrow had a code, and he followed it. So is he now lawful? That's the kind of stupidity you open up if you say any personal code makes you lawful.
Now for your paladin in LE country. Does bringing him down actually do more good than harm? What happens when he dissapears, does it leave a power vacuum that sends his country into a hundred year civil war, where the warlords are probably more oppressive than it's one ruler? Yea easily, and that's just looking at good, then you need to check if your religion has issues with it. If you have abadar, you're messing with established rule and civilization. Another no no. So yea, a paladin could very easily be doing his job by leaving a LE tyrant in place.
Thus, further cementing my argument that Mal is very, very chaotic Good.
Elghinn Lightbringer - LG
Mao Yin Yan - LG
Alyriia Firehand - CG
Thalia Dark-Phoenix - LN
Raigen Kratle - N
Ankheneptu - LG
Reshepsyna - LG
Lelira Roac - LG
Shi'lao Yan - CG
Ebon Firehand - CG
Shard Dark-Phoenix - LE
Mace Kratle - LN
Lady Dire - LG
Derrobane - NG
King Nyar - LG
Quezacol - CG
Zorla Vekk - LG
Mei Lin Dai - LG
Korr Quenalthirr - LN
Sigyn Vithmarr - LE
Thristan Shandalas - LE
Kirval Darkfire - LE
Shakiss - LE
I know, NO ONE knows any of them.
Batman is not about law. He is about Justice, with a capital J. He feels it is his responsibility to bring the bad guys to Justice, to avenge society and victims for what the villain has done to them. In this struggle, he does not pull his punches, but since he sees murder as something that qualifies you as a villain, he himself does not do murder. He is willing to "get his hands dirty".
Punisher, however, does not share this view. He sees criminals as something not human, and does what he can to kill as many of them as he can. He has accepted that he is likely a villain as well, but his overriding goal is much more important than his own humanity. Note that it's still the idea of Justice, here. It's just that Punisher doesn't trust society to avenge the innocents at all, and sees a need for some eye-for-an-eye-justice.
|
why not,
here are some South Park alignments:
Stan = NG, mischevious but well-intentioned, generally follows rules that make sense and benefit the majority of society
Kyle = NG, as above
Kenny = N, content to follow along with the decisions of his friends, reactive personality, only seems to follow rules to avoid conflict
Cartman = NE, morally bankrupt, frequently commits heinous crimes with little or no fear of the law but quick to call on authority figures for protection and retribution
Butters = CG, good at heart with a dark side, attempts at super-villainy hardly qualify as particularly nefarious, will follow rules out of fear of punishment but often rebels.
Timmy and Jimmy = LG, not without an occasional slip but both characters frequently display nobility, compassion and even-mindedness
Satan = N (that's right, Cartman is more evil than Satan,) rarely actively seeks to harm or take advantage of others and usually only at the behest of his often more evil paramours, treats rulership of Hell like a tedious job rather than an active pursuit of corrupt power
Microsoft - LENot fictional, but yes, most corporations would be lawful evil. I will avoid a lengthy rant about the state of economics in America and simply agree.
As for the Punisher post earlier, I guess he has changed a great deal. It has been about 15 years since I've read any comics. Still, the fact that he targets "bad guys" specifically leads me toward Chaotic Good. I won't fault him for enjoying his work. Maybe a 2nd Edition Compromise of Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies.
I have not read the earlier punisher comics so it would be hard for me to judge but I see where you are coming from.
But that is what alignment is, a stereotype. I think it is widely agreed that Robin Hood is CG and he also has honor but he is more likely to lie than the LG Superman, for instance.I used to agree with this, but the last time this kind of discussion came up, somebody really brought up a good argument about Robin Hood.
The Sheriff was not a legitimate authority figure. In fact, Robin Hood was directly fighting against him because he was usurping the control of the king while he was away on the crusades. Because Robin Hood was in fact, fighting for the system, rather than against the system, he is a better example of Lawful Good than Chaotic Good, it's just because most constitute the Sheriff of Nottingham as a legitimate leader, instead of the fraud he was, we often accidentally miscategorize Robin Hood in the process of naming his alignment.
And everybody's seen the Superman when he's all evil and fights his Clark Kent counterpart in the junkyard.
Very good point.
Cant remember if we did Futurama yet.
Fry - NG
Leela - CG
Dr. Zoidberg - CN
Professor Farnsworth - CN
Hermes - LN
Amy - N
Bender - NE
Batmans alignment is based on which writer was writing him at the time... as such he is hard to pen down (same is true of superman).
Based on the Animated Series by WB ... I would say he was LG.
Based on the 70'80' comic books about Bruse Wayne.. would say LN would be better fit.
Movies are one shot deals (ever 5 years they put out another one by different director).. so very by movie.
--------------------------------------------------
Now Oliver McShade alignment = Well i tend to be True Neutral when at home, but favor NG in that i want a better world for tomorrow. When i am at world i tend to be LG due to following all the dumb rules, but once i leave work, i just want to chill out and detox so tend to be CG and not care.
Guessing Oliver McShade is = Neutral Good over all.
Batman is not about law. He is about Justice, with a capital J. He feels it is his responsibility to bring the bad guys to Justice, to avenge society and victims for what the villain has done to them. In this struggle, he does not pull his punches, but since he sees murder as something that qualifies you as a villain, he himself does not do murder. He is willing to "get his hands dirty".
Punisher, however, does not share this view. He sees criminals as something not human, and does what he can to kill as many of them as he can. He has accepted that he is likely a villain as well, but his overriding goal is much more important than his own humanity. Note that it's still the idea of Justice, here. It's just that Punisher doesn't trust society to avenge the innocents at all, and sees a need for some eye-for-an-eye-justice.
There is a manslaughter angle here. You can say that you don't believe in killing, but when you inflict bodily harm on someone you are aware that it could result in death. The human body is fragile. You can't turn yourself into the ultimate weapon and run around martial artsing every bad guy in sight without realizing that you will very likely eventually kill someone, even if you don't intend to. Death is a possibility which you necessarily accept.
Batman probably considers that acceptable risks. It's manslaughter, not murder, and that is probably all the difference he needs. It's not a hard case to make: By choosing their lives, they were aware of the risks.
Vlad the Impaler - LE
Bela Lugosi Dracula - CE
Christopher Lee Dracula - CE
Gary Oldman Dracula - NE?
Nosferatu (1922) - LE?
|
Macbeth-NE, maybe closer to CE as he spins out of control. His motivations are basically selfish: his personal ambition and probably his intoxication with his wife drive him to commit evil acts. Claudius in Hamlet probably also NE. He certainly has a conscience and believes in political organization. He isn't quite monstrous enough to be CE, but he didn't have a personal code of honor strong enough to deter him from murdering his brother and taking his widow, or from trying to have Hamlet murdered.
A question which has produced some great debates: Who bears greatest responsibility for the tragedy which unfolds in Shakespeare's Macbeth? Macbeth, Lady Macbeth or The Three Witches?
Last time I ran this debate Lady M ended up with the blame.
What time is it?
ALIGNMENT TIME! (with Finn and Jake)
Lawful Good: Finn the Human
Chaotic Good: Jake the Dog
Neutral Good: Lady Raincorn
Lawful Neutral: BUFO
True Neutral: Princess Bubblegum
Chaotic Neutral: The Magic Man
Lawful Evil: Gunter the Penguin
Neutral Evil: Ice King
Chaotic Evil: Marceline the Vampire QueenAdventure Time is such a great show for illustrating that you can have a D&D alignment and still be a complex character! I intend to do some livejournal posts about that in the near future.
How the heck did I miss this post!?
examples of complete scoundrel:
LG = Batman/Indiana Jones
LN = James Bond
LE = Boba Fett / MagnetoNG = Zorro / Spiderman
N = Lara Croft
NE = Mystique from X-menCG = Malcolm Reynolds / Robin hood
CN = Jack Sparrow / Snake Plissken
CE = Riddick (Pitch black)I agree with those choices, and for Darth Vader, I would put him along LE, he's not the best example, but that would be my category of choice.
Richard, I have to disagree with both Magneto and Riddick. Riddick is probably CN with high survival instincts. In both movies, he did not kill any more than necessary and was willing to leave innocents alone. Of course threaten him or those he cared about and he becomes death incarnate. Magneto is a little harder to classify and like Batman it depends on the author. I can see him as a LN with some serious anger issues and the power to make his whims reality.
What time is it?
ALIGNMENT TIME! (with Finn and Jake)
Lawful Good: Finn the Human
Chaotic Good: Jake the Dog
Neutral Good: Lady Raincorn
Lawful Neutral: BUFO
True Neutral: Princess Bubblegum
Chaotic Neutral: The Magic Man
Lawful Evil: Gunter the Penguin
Neutral Evil: Ice King
Chaotic Evil: Marceline the Vampire QueenAdventure Time is such a great show for illustrating that you can have a D&D alignment and still be a complex character! I intend to do some livejournal posts about that in the near future.
I gotta disagre on Marceline there cappa, i feel like shes more Chaotic neutral then evil.... but now the question is whats their classes?
batman does kill. BOOM there are clearly people in that building and it was a massive explosion. but as stated above depends on the writer.
best live action batman btw
He also (fairly) recently, in a fit of author fanboy wankery, killed Darkseid.
He SHOT Darkseid the black racer took him
|
I have a hard time believing LG for batman since superman is an epitomy of LG and Batman and him clash so badly on the "right" way to take care of criminals. Batman is strong in the chaos department. Chaos does not mean stupid, or ignorant of information. It's operating outside what's considered the "right" way to do something.
Mmnope. Time for a Batfan-rant. Batman and Superman are both absolutely Lawful Good (unless Adam West's Batman is on the table, in which case, I concede). You are confusing alignment with method, or perhaps with personality.
Two Lawful Good characters can clash just as easily and as often as two Chaotic Evil characters can.
Batman adheres to a strict personal code, and rigidly trains his mind and body to serve his crimefighting needs. He protects the innocent, even when he has nothing to gain. He shows mercy to his enemies even when he would like nothing more than to destroy them. He rarely lies (believe it or not), and Bruce specializes in areas like investigation, preparedness, technology and the sciences, and stone-faced immutability.
Being Lawful does not mean obeying "the law". Written law and the concept of "Lawfulness" as an alignment are two seperate ideas. You can absolutely adopt a set of written laws as a "Bible" for your behaviour, but a self-imposed code, an attitude of disciplined behaviour, a reliability of character - all of these are also absolutely-valid indicators of a Lawful alignment.
Some of the confusion regading Batman's "Lawful" alignment stems from the fact that one of Bruce's signature weapons is his ability to seem very "Chaotic." It doesn't seem very Lawful to dangle someone out of a tenth-story window and terrify them until they break down and tell you what you want to know.
When a grown man in a batsuit is screaming into your battered face and all you can think about is "oh god, oh god; I think my jaw is broken; oh god, please I just want to make it home tonight," you're going to attribute traits like "insane and dangerously unpredictable" to the costumed nutjob screaming at you; and that's just what Batman wants.
It might seem like Batman is loosing his mind, and within a moment of beating the life out of you... but he isn't. It's a tactic, and it's a well-practiced one. The inside of Bruce's mind at that moment is as ordered and vigilant as ever. Deception and intimidation are perfectly valid weapons for Lawful types.
Similarly, being Good does not mean being nice. You can be the biggest, meanest, jerkiest jerk that ever jerked... and if, when push comes to shove, you throw yourself into a burning building to save an innocent person when you have nothing to gain by doing so - you're Good-aligned. No matter how much of a jerk you are.
Batman is Lawful Good. He just doesn't advertise himself as such.
examples of complete scoundrel:
LG = Batman/Indiana Jones
LN = James Bond
LE = Boba Fett / MagnetoNG = Zorro / Spiderman
N = Lara Croft
NE = Mystique from X-menCG = Malcolm Reynolds / Robin hood
CN = Jack Sparrow / Snake Plissken
CE = Riddick (Pitch black)I agree with those choices, and for Darth Vader, I would put him along LE, he's not the best example, but that would be my category of choice.
I never saw Riddick as Evil. He had a code and he stuck to it. He didn't go looking for people to hurt and he even tried to help from time to time. If you got in his way, he'd kill you, but I'd say more CN, with a slight leaning towards G.
And Mogre...Flagg is evil? Which Flagg is that?
I'd think of Reuben Flagg as more Ng or LN (g)
How about Jigsaw (from the Saw movie series)?
Punisher?
Mario?
Solid Snake?
Selene (from Underworld).