What alignment is Shane? Major Walking Dead TV spoilers

[slade867]

He's not evil. Is he chaotic? Certainly not Lawful...

[Corrik]

Chaotic Neutral on the path to evil if he keeps it up.

[Mahorfeus]

I'd say... Chaotic Neutral.

Edit: Ninja'd!

[LazarX]

Shane has no alignment, because Good and Evil Law and Chaos are not forces that are present in the Earth of the Walkers. There is science and mundaneity, not magic.

Alignment is something that exists in a fantasy context, and Shane does not come from such a world.

[Chuck Wright]

Neutral Evil.

He's selfishness personified.

[J-Rokka]

NE, like Chuck Wright said. The only good things he does are to protect Lori and Carl, and now he's doing less and less of that

[Chuck Wright]

And even then he had ulterior motives. (Bedding Lori.)

[Wolfthulhu]

He is no alignment, because he exists outside of a world which has such restrictions.

[deusvult]

Wolfthulhu wrote:

He is no alignment, because he exists outside of a world which has such restrictions.

But if someone behaved as Shane does, in a setting where alignment IS used (such as Golarion).. I'm in the 'I call that Neutral Evil' camp.

Of cource a definitive feature of the zombie apocalypse genre is how people compromise their morals, so it's rougher to pin. The characters are all tempted by their dark sides... Watching alignments change for the worse is to be expected in such stories.

[Terquem]

He is a fictional character and does not "exist" anywhere except in the imagination of the writers, and therefore is certainly within the realm of discussion for alignment. Alignment is a story telling tool and I would not be surprised if the story tellers of "walking Dead" are aware, if not marginally influenced, by discussions of alignment, in role playing game terms, when developing their characters and plots. Consistency, for character, is often a tool to be exploited, or altered, for story telling purposes. Knowing where the character "comes from" in ideas of good and evil, law and chaos, are important to the process.

[Wolfthulhu]

It is a story telling tool, but only if the story teller chooses to use it, and there is really no reason to assume that they would choose to so limit themselves.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Neutral evil, and he sure is messed up.

[Balfic-graa]

I'd say Lawful Evil. He still follows a chain of command with regards to Rick, even though he is extremely vocal about his opinions/differences. He professes and shown loyalty to a very small core group, Rick, Lori, and Carl. Even going out of his way for the good of the group to to show Andrea how to shoot firearms, and the whole incident in the town to force her to fend for herself. Likewise he has no qualms of professing his love for Lori, and trying to get her to leave Rick, while having sack time with Andrea. He has also shown that anyone outside of this core group is expendable. Which was shown with poor Otis, and his threat to Dale.

[seekerofshadowlight]

I say he is Neutral evil as well.

[Asphere]

Chaotic neutral but leaning toward chaotic evil. He killed Otis but if he didn't, most likely both of them would have died. If he sacrificed himself, he wouldn't be able to ensure that Otis would succeed. In his mind he traded Otis for Carl which to him was fair because Otis shot Carl. For the most part he does what seems practical regardless of whether or not it is good or evil.

If you've read the comics, the mayor is what I would call chaotic evil in that universe.

[ShadowcatX]

Neutral evil gets my vote as well.

Its sad that such a thread has so many people wanting to pop in just to argue against the very point of the thread, if you don't like it why even come in?

[J-Rokka]

Asphere wrote:

Chaotic neutral but leaning toward chaotic evil. He killed Otis but if he didn't, most likely both of them would have died. If he sacrificed himself, he wouldn't be able to ensure that Otis would succeed. In his mind he traded Otis for Carl which to him was fair because Otis shot Carl. For the most part he does what seems practical regardless of whether or not it is good or evil.

If you've read the comics, the mayor is what I would call chaotic evil in that universe.

I haven't read the 14th book yet, so if this pretains to that I'm sorry, but do you mean the governor of Woodbury? or the mayor from later?

[Freehold DM]

I'm leaning toward CN. He's under a lot of stress and could lose it and go into CE if put under any more pressure. Still, I'm agreeing with everyone who says that this really isn't a situation or character that would fit well in a fantasy setting that uses alignment rules.

[seekerofshadowlight]

It fits, it just happens to make him evil by the alignment system is all.

[Freehold DM]

M

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

It fits, it just happens to make him evil by the alignment system is all.

I'm just not seeing the premeditated,careless or vicious aspects that would have him become evil in my book.

[seekerofshadowlight]

He is selfish, Vicious, cut throat and willing to kill/allow anyone just about to die if it ups his chances.

[Freehold DM]

I'm just not seeing that. I think he's just trying to survive. After all, it's not like he killed the main character the instant he showed up. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Kinda like on Mechwarrior. shines up Dark Age era Sphinx

[seekerofshadowlight]

Is confused about this"Dark age" Freehold rambles on about

[Asphere]

J-Rokka wrote:

Asphere wrote:

Chaotic neutral but leaning toward chaotic evil. He killed Otis but if he didn't, most likely both of them would have died. If he sacrificed himself, he wouldn't be able to ensure that Otis would succeed. In his mind he traded Otis for Carl which to him was fair because Otis shot Carl. For the most part he does what seems practical regardless of whether or not it is good or evil.

If you've read the comics, the mayor is what I would call chaotic evil in that universe.

I haven't read the 14th book yet, so if this pretains to that I'm sorry, but do you mean the governor of Woodbury? or the mayor from later?

Ahh yes sorry. I meant the governor of Woodbury.

[Aberrant Templar]

I totally agree with his theoretical alignment being Neutral Evil at this point in the TV series.

In the comics he came off closer to Chaotic Evil.

[Shifty]

NE from what I saw.

But also, I got the feeling he had become a bit mentally unhinged - maybe he was playing Call of Cthulhu, not Pathfinder :)