I'd say Lawful Neutral: he's not particularly merciful or cruel, but he's definitely lawful, as you note.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It becomes less stupid when you don't try conform characters to one of nine vaguely written boxes open to enough personal interpretation for people to still be arguing about which alignment means what and which people fit into which decades after it was created.
I mean seriously. What alignment is the Doctor and why? And after you tell me what alignment he is I'll tell you why he can fit into another alignment just as easily. And none of them will matter or be more correct than another because three dimensional characters can totally have "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him", "live by a code or standard", "follows his whims", and "is devoted to helping others. ...works with [authority figures] but does not feel beholden to them" as qualities all at the same time.
|
Javiert primarily exhibits traits of Lawful Neutral. He isn't interested in reforming criminals or helping prostitutes. He insists criminals be punished (even himself, when he believes he made a mistake) and their influence removed from society to preserve order. He values duty, procedure (orderliness), and valor.
IMHO. Interpretations will vary.
|
It becomes less stupid when you don't try conform characters to one of nine vaguely written boxes open to enough personal interpretation for people to still be arguing about which alignment means what and which people fit into which decades after it was created.
Maybe, but then it also becomes less useful to creating a character using the rules for alignment and not what Wind Chime asked. So what if nine different people have nine different, viable reasons why Batman or Jesus should have Alignment-X? That doesn't make it stupid to debate the topic.
Real life doesn't have an alignment system. Pathfinder does. Players of this game sometimes like to make characters based on real or fictional people, and it can be helpful to have an idea of where those people stand on the game's moral and ethical compass. If you like to color outside the lines of alignment in your game, that's cool, but don't harsh on another player for wanting to keep things tidy, savvy?
In my opinion, Javert fits most firmly in the Lawful Neutral box. He's not malicious or cruel about the way he does his job, but he's got no mercy or compassion for lawbreakers no matter their motivation for stealing bread or breaking parole. If I was making a character somewhat based on him, I'd probably go with a LN Inquisitor of Abadar (possibly even Iomedae for the respect for order aspect,) Investigator Rogue or even a Detective Bard if I was feeling wacky and wanted to play up the stage-musical version of the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Javert's philosophical outlook is that Law = Good. In his mind, the two are one and the same and there's no higher Good than adhereing to the Law. This is why his whole worldview is thrown topsy-turvy when Valjean spares him.
In light of that, I'd agree that if we were to try and fit Javert into the alignment axes, that'd he actually be Lawful-Neutral but that he'd see himself as being Lawful-Good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People almost always attempt to justify their own actions so that they're on the side of "good". It's mostly only in fantasy games and fiction where you see people straight up decide "Screw it, I want to be on Team Evil!" Everybody sane justifies their own actions to themselves so the can sleep at night.
Javert is the Lawful Neutralest Lawful Neutral who ever walked around with a stick up his rear. He's the quintessential example of a character who valued law, order, and authority over merciful justice, without introducing self-serving motives or malice into the equation.
It becomes less stupid when you don't try conform characters to one of nine vaguely written boxes open to enough personal interpretation for people to still be arguing about which alignment means what and which people fit into which decades after it was created.
I mean seriously. What alignment is the Doctor and why?
which of the eleven? or do you mean the league of extraordinary gentleman's THE doctor
Javert's definitely a LN inquisitor... with Enprisonment or simply Law as his inquisition
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean seriously. What alignment is the Doctor and why? And after you tell me what alignment he is I'll tell you why he can fit into another alignment just as easily. And none of them will matter or be more correct than another because three dimensional characters can totally have "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him", "live by a code or standard", "follows his whims", and "is devoted to helping others. ...works with [authority figures] but does not feel beholden to them" as qualities all at the same time.
All his actions come from two core principles (with perhaps the exception of the first Doctor). No respect for authority, he laughs when someone tries to claim rank or position on him, whether it's ten tearing up the contracts in Forests of the Dead, Six arguing with the Galifreyian High Council, or two being a fugitive and not respecting Zoe when she calls upon 'logic' as an authority. He will work with authorities if they are competent and have the greater good in mind, for example, UNIT on most occasions, but only when it suits him. He goes where he pleases easily.
So he is Chaotic.
He values people as individuals and he only demeans people (perhaps their petty authority, but not the people themselves) only in the direst of circumstances, like the world will end (example: Seven and Ace in Curse of Fenric). He will do what he can to give a foe a way out so they will not die, to show mercey ala Human Nature/Family of Blood. The only exception to this (and only after he's become convinced there is no way to redeem them, Four tried in Genesis of the Daleks) is the Daleks and to a lesser extent the Cybermen, who literally lack any redeeming qualities. In fact, it's telling that his greatest foe is the LE Daleks rather then the CE Master, whom he will sometimes work and tries to redeem.
So he is Good.
The fact that I can figure this out pretty easily, and most people can peg Javert as LN pretty easily shows that the alignment system is a pretty effective tool in pegging characterization. Give me ten characters, historical or fictional (that I know) and I can give you the shorthand of their alignment pretty quickly.
I think most people can, and on any given character you'd have about 80 percent of the responces within one step of each other.
Give me ten characters, historical or fictional (that I know) and I can give you the shorthand of their alignment pretty quickly.
CHALLENGE EXCEPTED!!!!
1) Captain Kirk (from the series and the movies, although they might be different).
2) Vladimir Putin
3) Lance Armstrong
4) Gandolf the Grey and White
5) Scarlet O'Hara
6) Pontius Pilate
7) Kim Il Song
8) Joan of Arc
9) Indiana Jones
10) Liz Lemon
Dotted. That sounds fun.
Javert is lawful neutral, but thinks he's lawful good. I almost see him as a fallen paladin.
Give me ten characters, historical or fictional (that I know) and I can give you the shorthand of their alignment pretty quickly.CHALLENGE EXCEPTED!!!!
1) Captain Kirk (from the series and the movies, although they might be different).
2) Vladimir Putin
3) Lance Armstrong
4) Gandolf the Grey and White
5) Scarlet O'Hara
6) Pontius Pilate
7) Kim Il Song
8) Joan of Arc
9) Indiana Jones
10) Liz Lemon
This might be better in the "Forum Games" section.
My take on this list...
1) Kirk: Neutral Good
2) Putin: Lawful Evil
3) Lance: Chaotic Neutral
4) Gandalf: Neutral Good
5) Scarlett: Neutral
6) Pilate: Lawful Neutral
7) Kim Il Sung: Lawful Evil
8) Joan of Arc: Neutral Good
9) Indiana Jones: Chaotic Cood
10) Liz Lemon: Chaotic Good
|
|
Give me ten characters, historical or fictional (that I know) and I can give you the shorthand of their alignment pretty quickly.CHALLENGE EXCEPTED!!!!
1) Captain Kirk (from the series and the movies, although they might be different)---Neutral Good, works within an organization but plays a little fast and loose with the rules (Prime directive) and in the movies goes into chaotic territory temporarilly.
2) Vladimir Putin--Neutral Evil has risen from the KGB, however seems to care little about the law.3) Lance Armstrong--Chaotic Neutral, basically selfish in protecting his reputation and winning, including bankrupting his accusers. Has no regard for rules and the law. On the other hand his live strong foundation does good work and it's no as if he is a murderer.
4) Gandolf the Grey and White--Neutral Good
5) Scarlet O'Hara--Neutral at the start of Gone with the Wind,Neutral Evil by the end., her core behavior being selfish.
6) Pontius Pilate--Lawful Neutral
7) Kim Il Song--Lawful Evil
8) Joan of Arc--Chaotic Good, total disregard for custom in obeying what she sees as good god with a Lawful Neutral church. Puts her authority of her visions up against law and custom. Basic motives are unselfish, thus tending toward good.
9) Indiana Jones--Neutral Good. Has code (belongs in museum) and works within a accepted professional standard, however, he does not respect authority for it's own sake. Is interested in protecting people from what he find by keeping them out of the wrong hands (the Nazis)
10) Liz Lemon-- Falls into, never heard of the character before today. I'd go with Chaotic Neutral based only on the wikipedia article.
|
|
This looks like fun, as per Haladir's suggestion I'm starting one in Forum Games.
1) Captain Kirk - tough one, probably NG because as much as he breaks the rules I can't see a truly chaotic character functioning in a military hierarchy at all.
2) Vladimir Putin - LE
3) Lance Armstrong - CN
4) Gandolf the Grey and White - NG
5) Scarlet O'Hara - not familiar enough
6) Pontius Pilate - LN
7) Kim Il Song - not familiar enough
8) Joan of Arc - NG for similar reasons as Kirk
9) Indiana Jones - CG, as his minimal code isn't enough to balance his other chaotic tendencies
10) Liz Lemon - True Neutral. I don't see any strong enough alignment tendencies to assign otherwise.
1. Gilgamesh - True Neutral. This guy was a king, so there's some lawfulness there, but he also didn't really love the law, it just served his purpose. And though he's known for heroic deeds they weren't motivated by a desire to help others.
2. Alexander the Great - LN
3. Atila the Hun - LE maybe, violent and organized?
4. Plato - LN
5. Ozyimadias (watchman) - not familiar enough
6. Batman - In the Christopher Nolan films I'd call him NG.
7. Severus Snape - barely NG, I can see TN
8. Julius Ceasar - TN for similar reasons as Gilgamesh.
9. Trotsky - not familiar enough
10. Napoleon - LN. Dude build an empire.
Javert - definitely LN. Probably an inquisitor.
|
|
1. Gilgamesh
2. Alexander the Great
3. Atila the Hun
4. Plato
5. Ozyimadias (watchman)
6. Batman
7. Severus Snape
8. Julius Cesare
9. Trotsky
10. Napoleon
1. Gilgamesh--Starts out True Neutral, probably after his quest to return Enkidu to life fails, he accepts his limitations, becomes Lawful Neutral.
2. Alexander the Great--Conquered a long time enemy to the Greeks and initially treated them fairly well, thought towards the end of his life you see massacures. LN most of his life but dies LE.3. Atila the Hun--Need to read more.
4. Plato-- knowledge is justified true belief--True Neutral.,
5. Ozyimadias (watchman)--Been years since I've read it, so I think have to plead some ignorance. Instict tells me Neutral.
6. Batman--Too many different literary interpretations of this character. 60's TV is Lawful Good. Christopher Nolan's in Neutral Good.
7. Severus Snape--Starts out neutral, would have probably ended up NE but for love of Lilly Potter. Plays a roll which suggests his alignment is probably Neutral Good.
8. Julius Cesare --Starts a war to earn the money to pay off his debts and kills about 1/3 of the population of Gaul. This put him on about the same moral plain as Pol Pot and the Nazi's in Poland. Makes a big show of being Lawful but ultimately usurps the lawful power of the Senate. His reforms as ruler of Rome are designed to give him good press. Personally, I wish Vercengetrix had been able to use this Neutral Evil SOB's skull as a drinking cup. Classic case of a villain with good press.
9. Trotsky--Complicated. Believed Communism would make a better world in 1917 and worked hard for it. His falling out w/Stalin was based on loyalty to that vision. However, used some pretty brutal tactics in the Russian Civil War. Overthrew a corrupt government and put a more Lawful one in its place. I'd say Lawful Neutral.
10. Napoleon--Egotist helps put him toward the chaotic side, however, he set up a pretty effective law code. Wars of conquest and the misery he creates puts him toward evil. However, spread the ideals of a Chaotic Good philsophy accross Europe. I'd go with Neutral.
So he is Chaotic.So he is Good
Is he?
"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do [which the Doctor regularly does]. He is devoted to helping others [He has been for most of his history, though sometimes he has taken a 'one life is not worth a thousand' approach and more recently Matt Smith's Doctor in the Snowmen has been reluctant to help]. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them [his interaction with Harriet Jones immediately springs to mind but is hardly the only example].
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order. [The Doctor works with figures of authority because he can achieve a greater good are because he believes they can. He has no opinion for are against the order of a place, just the greater welfare, so his bias is pretty low."
But then again
"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her [The Doctor has a strict personal code]. Order and organization are paramount. [Very true on the macro scale. He is very worried about the laws of time and space and the interaction of various species to those laws. There have been many times where the sole motivation for the Doctor getting involved in something is simply because he did not believe that a creature or technology was meant to be in this place at this time.] She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard [He clearly has a standard of conduct that he lives by], or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot [Well he's no Zealot. And he's certainly reliable. I got chills down my spine when Matt Smitt stared down the atraxi and asked '...Is this planet protected?"]
I don't think I need to go further. Your interpretation that he is chaotic good is perfectly valid because he fits that box. But he fits the neutral good and lawful neutral boxes just as easily and those interpretations are equally valid. The truth is that the alignments are so vaguely written that there is no objective way map a characters behavior to an alignment. Not unless that character is extremely one dimensional. Discord is the spirit of chaos but he is a three dimensional character that fits more than just the chaotic neutral box. But King Sombra is so one dimensional that his alignment could just as well be "Cryssssttallssss Ssslaaavveeess GGghhsssss" and it wouldn't make a difference.