"I love it when a plan comes together" The entire A team.
Wow that's a lot already.
Littlefinger from Game of thrones too, maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Littlefinger strikes me as NE especially on the tv series.
The American Colonies: Don't Tread on Me.
The hound from Game of thrones. Might manage to climb himself up to CGJammie is CE and might climb his way up to CN (or further) but attempted murder of an 8 year old is a reeaaaaaally deep pit.
The Hound is LN going CN.
Jamie is LN on the path of redemption to LG. After all, he was commanded to push Bran by the Queen and he is sworn to obey.
Edit: This is interesting because both the Hound and Jamie have killed a child at the request of the royal family, yet you assign them rather different alignments.
And ironically the killing of children isn't the act that keeps me from making either of them Lawful. . . it does start them both off as neutral however.
With Jaime its the King slaying that you have to reconcile against the strict code of the order of Knights he's sworn to-- vows which he otherwise hasn't broken except two obvious breaches (kingslaying and incesting).
As far as the hound. . . (going to spoiler tag this since its not first book necessarily)
** spoiler omitted **Tyrion's henchman character is another interesting candidate for CN, though since he is solely motivated by greed I'd say NN or maybe a hint of NE.
Another example-- The Bloody Nine/Logen Ninefingers-- definitely starts off as CN.
The Hound hates Knights because he thinks they just wave their titles around and pretend honor when they have none. He is fiercely loyal until he fails his will save vs. phobia.
|
Archer
He's, even by cartoon character standards, cartoonishly over the top. If for nothing else, the unholy glee he takes in Woodhouse's misfortunes tips him over the line into evil.
He's just lucked out in that his mom (who, if anything, is even worse!) has arranged for him to have a job that rewards that sort of moral emptiness.
It's scary that even the people working at Isis who *notice* when Archer (and his mother) are going wildly off the rails (such as Lana), still aren't 'good' by any stretch of the definition, since, while they may be capable of *recognizing* that Sterling & Mallory are breath-takingly immoral, they still don't do anything about it other than say, 'Wow.'
I don't know that much about Punisher, but based on the recent movie I would call him CN. Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life. I didn't see Punisher kill anyone who could be classified as "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.
.
.
Others who I don't think have been mentioned but might fit the bill:
Clyde Shelton - Law Abiding Citizen
John Creasy - Man on Fire
Brian Mills - Taken
Tobin Frost - Safe House
H, the "special interrogator" - Unthinkable
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life.
I disagree here; I think that if you destroy or debase innocent life, you're evil (or at least well on your way there), but you can be evil without doing so. Also, I don't think the alignment system works very well for comics, since the general ethos and morality are different than for fantasy RPGs. For example, even LG RPG characters kill quite frequently, but in comics, the vast majority of heroes don't kill, and the ones that do are usually closer to anti-hero than hero.
Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life.I disagree here; I think that if you destroy or debase innocent life, you're evil (or at least well on your way there), but you can be evil without doing so.
Perhaps, but if killing Evil people is a sign of Evil there would be no Good PCs.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life.I disagree here; I think that if you destroy or debase innocent life, you're evil (or at least well on your way there), but you can be evil without doing so.Perhaps, but if killing Evil people is a sign of Evil there would be no Good PCs.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
That's an example of a thing that evil characters do, but it'd be like saying "People drive to get from point A to B" doesn't mean that everyone drives, and nobody walks or bikes or anything else, but it means that driving is a common method of transportation that many people use. The part where it specifically delineates what is implied by the Evil alignment makes no mention innocence, or what "harm" entails, as it can entail physical, emotional, psychological, financial, and so on.
As such, it's not a checklist, but more a judgement of the person as a whole. As such, you can be Evil without specifically harming innocents, and you can be Good, without entirely abstaining from Evil acts, such as killing (using capital E and capital G to denote alignment, rather than morality, before this goes on a tangent on whether killing is always morally evil or whether you can be morally good if you kill or anything along any of those lines).
Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life.I disagree here; I think that if you destroy or debase innocent life, you're evil (or at least well on your way there), but you can be evil without doing so.Perhaps, but if killing Evil people is a sign of Evil there would be no Good PCs.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.That's an example of a thing that evil characters do, but it'd be like saying "People drive to get from point A to B" doesn't mean that everyone drives, and nobody walks or bikes or anything else, but it means that driving is a common method of transportation that many people use. The part where it specifically delineates what is implied by the Evil alignment makes no mention innocence, or what "harm" entails, as it can entail physical, emotional, psychological, financial, and so on.
As such, it's not a checklist, but more a judgement of the person as a whole. As such, you can be Evil without specifically harming innocents, and you can be Good, without entirely abstaining from Evil acts, such as killing (using capital E and capital G to denote alignment, rather than morality, before this goes on a tangent on whether killing is always morally evil or whether you can be morally good if you kill or anything along any of those lines).
Alright well I think I over all agree with you. I was just expressing that I think the Punisher in the movie I saw could probably be classified as CN. Then again he could easily be LN too. He was very organized and methodical in the movie. However, based on his motives in the movie and the targets he selected, I would not call him Evil.
Al Swarengen from Deadwood IMO is a candidate for CN.
Alright well I think I over all agree with you. I was just expressing that I think the Punisher in the movie I saw could probably be classified as CN. Then again he could easily be LN too. He was very organized and methodical in the movie. However, based on his motives in the movie and the...Remember, to be Evil you have to destroy or debase innocent life.I disagree here; I think that if you destroy or debase innocent life, you're evil (or at least well on your way there), but you can be evil without doing so.Perhaps, but if killing Evil people is a sign of Evil there would be no Good PCs.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.That's an example of a thing that evil characters do, but it'd be like saying "People drive to get from point A to B" doesn't mean that everyone drives, and nobody walks or bikes or anything else, but it means that driving is a common method of transportation that many people use. The part where it specifically delineates what is implied by the Evil alignment makes no mention innocence, or what "harm" entails, as it can entail physical, emotional, psychological, financial, and so on.
As such, it's not a checklist, but more a judgement of the person as a whole. As such, you can be Evil without specifically harming innocents, and you can be Good, without entirely abstaining from Evil acts, such as killing (using capital E and capital G to denote alignment, rather than morality, before this goes on a tangent on whether killing is always morally evil or whether you can be morally good if you kill or anything along any of those lines).
Haven't seen the movie, so I'm not going to disagree, but at least comic-wise, I think it'd be easy to categorize him as LE. Then again, Comics are different from Fantasy RPGs, so their alignment systems don't line completely up.
Littlefinger strikes me as NE especially on the tv series.
idk, anyone who plays the Game of Thrones strike me as Lawful, since without the 'law' (the Game), they would be without purpose.
But then again, given the strong LE example that Tywin is, I suppose Littlefinger could be interpreted as NE.
Indiana Jones perhaps? He strikes me as pretty CN in his actions, even if he wants to preserve some history.
In the case of Littlefinger, I liked looking at him as an example of calm and rational CE, since he's out for himself and will destroy the world to do it. His monologue about chaos and the ladder kind of reinforced that for me. That said, I could see NE as well.
It is difficult to visualize CN. But try this: Most elves are CG, because they cherish life, both sentient and otherwise, and are willing to fight against evil. A CN elf is one who no longer feels that connection, and is unwilling to devote themselves to fighting evil. Or, a CN character is one that feels the same way about good and evil as a LN one, but prefers a personal touch and flexibility before laws and predictability. A strong motivator is avoiding boredom, as is not getting tied down with expectations, duties and responsibilities. Note that anyone fighting against a legalistic society might well be chaotic.
To me, faeries are the epitome of CN. They love to see disorder come to the orderly. They have no qualms about harming those targets of their disorder, but they don't go into the realm of killing.
As for a more "pop culture" type, Bart Simpson fits into CN.
And from what I have gleaned off of people describing the Dude, that screams "True Neutral" to me.
Deadpool is the epitome of CN to me
Deadpool is the epitome of CN to me
The problem with that, is he fills the type of CN that characters should rarely be. Since he's a fourth-wall smashing semi joke character, it's ok for him to be the type of character who would just as often jump off a bridge as cross it (especially considering jumping off said bridge is more likely to result in the next storyline for the issue), but in an RPG, CN characters are (usually) not that type of character. They may be unpredictable, and their methods and reasonings may not line up with society's expectations or a "good" character's morality, but there always is a method to their madness, and they're not going to be completely random and unpredictable.
I meant the part that didn't involve breaking the fourth wall. He wants to be a hero but then bad things are so easy for him and then there's his love of money.
I meant the part that didn't involve breaking the fourth wall. He wants to be a hero but then bad things are so easy for him and then there's his love of money.
Yeah, that part of him is certainly CN, but the problem is that it's very hard to separate him from his comic relief bits, which don't play out so well in an RPG (at least one not specifically designed for it), so saying he's the epitome of CN might be technically correct, but he's far from a fully functioning CN PC.
|
|
The Punisher hides behind the premise that criminals will not face justice through the court system, therefore he breaks the law and kills them himself. He has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
That I feel makes him Chaotic.
He also tends only to have one punishment, the death sentence. So the punishment is not proportionate to the crime, only his own prejudices. I would argue that makes him very close to Evil.
So I would say, despite what he claims his motives are, he is Chaotic Evil in his actions.
I'd definitely place him more LN/LE, breaking the law doesn't make you automatically Chaotic. He feels the law has failed and thus holds criminals to a more strict code of law that he enforces, he completely believes in a strong, inflexible personal code and the ideal of a lawful society. He just see it not happening in reality and so acts to 'correct the system' by punishing those who escape what *should* have happened to them in his idyllic perfect lawful system.
Consistently breaking the law (and especially the law of your own society) is definitely Chaotic in my book.
Also thinking that you know better than the authorities and the system is Chaotic, not Lawful.
What if you don't think you know better than the authorities, but know that you know better than the authorities?
For me Jack Sparrow, Daario Naharis, and Arya Stark (past a certain point, surprised no ones mentioned her) are all great examples of CN.
Alright well I think I over all agree with you. I was just expressing that I think the Punisher in the movie I saw could probably be classified as CN. Then again he could easily be LN too. He was very organized and methodical in the movie. However, based on his motives in the movie and the...
Which movie is this? The one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta?
In which case you are probably right on that... but at the same time I thought that was the weakest of all punisher movies. (including the Dolph ludgren one)
It was basically a Death Wish remake or any of a hundred other 'you hurt my family, so I'll kill you' type movies.
Punisher REALLY needs to get PAST the origin story more than any other character ever. Punisher is about killing ALL the criminals EVER, not JUST the ones that wronged him. The idea of him going after mob kingpins who never ever crossed him before... this impartial, unforgiving angel of death just waiting for your name on the list...
THAT's what sets him apart from all the other vigilantes out there.
Alright well I think I over all agree with you. I was just expressing that I think the Punisher in the movie I saw could probably be classified as CN. Then again he could easily be LN too. He was very organized and methodical in the movie. However, based on his motives in the movie and the...Which movie is this? The one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta?
Yes, that one.
In which case you are probably right on that... but at the same time I thought that was the weakest of all punisher movies. (including the Dolph ludgren one)
Maybe so. I didn't really follow the comics and for whatever reason, even with all the excellent comic book movies rolling out, I think ALL of the Punisher movies have been mediocre.
It was basically a Death Wish remake or any of a hundred other 'you hurt my family, so I'll kill you' type movies.
Yeah, that's what makes me think CN or LN for that particular incarnation of Punisher.
Punisher REALLY needs to get PAST the origin story more than any other character ever. Punisher is about killing ALL the criminals EVER, not JUST the ones that wronged him. The idea of him going after mob kingpins who never ever crossed him before... this impartial, unforgiving angel of death just waiting for your name on the list...
THAT's what sets him apart from all the other vigilantes out there.
In this case I could see LE (L because he is organized and methodical, but I'm not sure if that is common or just seen in the movie I referenced). Although, I still don't think it's Evil to go around killing Evil people, so maybe still LN depending on his targets. If he is going around killing people who have never killed, raped, or otherwise debased anyone else he could definitely be E. If he executes guys like the thief who has never otherwise hurt anyone and is probably N vs. E, then he is probably E himself. That guy probably doesn't need to be executed for being a thief if he hasn't otherwise hurt anyone.
If anyone's read the Malazan Book of the Fallen, Karsa Oorlong is almost definitively CN. He's a barbarian whose goal is to literally erase civilization because the thinks it poisons the soul.
In this case I could see LE (L because he is organized and methodical, but I'm not sure if that is common or just seen in the movie I referenced).
Yeah, it's pretty common. It's pretty common for any 'one man army' to be methodical. You need a good plan to stay alive.
I would see it as a dividing line. On the one hand... he has a personal code and he follows a plan. On the other, he disregards anything that society says is right and doesn't feel that anyone has any authority over him, but him...
It really falls to where 'your' personal opinion of 'lawful' means. An argument could go either way :)
|
|
The comic book Punisher was, back in the day, totally crazy, and would fire off automatic weapons at such dastardly 'lawbreakers' as jaywalkers and a dude who threw trash into an overfull trashcan and it fell out (making him a 'litterer').
He's gotten a bit more Batman-y, in later decades, and generally only uses lethal force on people waving guns around (who may or may not be on their first day of 'gang' duty, and have done nothing terrible quite yet, but we can generally assume are asking for it) and serious bad-guys. Still, totally a vigilante, who believes that his own personal judgment is more valid than 'the system' chosen (or settled for) by pretty much everyone else in a democratic society.
So, Chaotic, definitely. Neutral, when he's not crazy (which he hasn't been for a long time).
Consistently breaking the law (and especially the law of your own society) is definitely Chaotic in my book.
Also thinking that you know better than the authorities and the system is Chaotic, not Lawful.
Well, this isn't really how Pathfinder defines "lawful". Lawful in pathfinder is more about order than about codified law. While lawful characters are more inclined to follow codified law (as this promotes an ordered society), they are not necessarily bound by it, though they may be bound by other orderly codes. This is why (even though I don't agree with it, not because it isn't true for the stereotypical monk, but I don't think it should be applied blindly to all non-martial Artist monks) the Monk has a Lawful-only requirement; not because they care more about codified law than any other character, but that they hold themselves to a rigid orderly method of training and focusing their Ki. While a passively LN character will be the type as you claim, who through adherence to tradition, or obedience to authority, or as a way of seeking security, will respect codified laws, and never think of breaking them.
However, with the Punisher, he's not like that. His lawful comes down to his belief that when the law fails to punish the guilty he must punish them. This isn't really chaotic, so much as a very cynical shade of Lawful. To him, the fact that the guilty remain unpunished by the justice system, is a failure of that system to keep an ordered society, so his breaking of the law is not disorderly, but a way to right the wrongs of a justice system which fails at it's goal of keeping order by punishing the guilty. That's what makes him lawful. What puts him on the border between neutral and evil is the fact that his only "punishment" is the death sentence. The difficulty in determining that is whether alignment is an absolute (i.e. society and the setting play no part in whether an action is good or evil or lawful or chaotic), or if it is society dependent. Because if it is absolute, then arguing that he is evil would drop most PF characters to Evil, or at best neutral. If it is society dependent, then it most likely would be considered evil, as the society, especially one in which superheroes exist, is built around the idea of prison and other non-lethal punishments as the primary method of punishment for crime, and even where the death sentence exists, there exists the ability to appeal the sentence. As such, indiscriminately killing those he rules as guilty would be an evil act in such a society.
AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM OTHER BARBARIAN, AND AM KNOW "AM BARBARIAN," AM BEST AT "KAY-AH-TICK NOO-TRUL."
AM NOT KNOW WHERE "AM BARBARIAN" IS, BUT AM BARBARIAN NOW, AND AM SMASH CASTIES, AM SMASH TALKY-MEN. AM SMASH ALL NOT-BARBARIANS.
AM NOT CARE FOR PRETTY ROBES, AM SMASH. AM NOT CARE ABOUT TIN CANS, AM SMASH. AM NOT THAT SMART, BUT AM KNOW SMASH SOLVE "EH-VRY-THING."
|
What if you don't think you know better than the authorities, but know that you know better than the authorities?Consistently breaking the law (and especially the law of your own society) is definitely Chaotic in my book.
Also thinking that you know better than the authorities and the system is Chaotic, not Lawful.
And now I am left wondering what the alignment of Edward Snowden is ;-)
I think it is quite difficult to say some is good or evil or chaotic or lawful in game of thrones. Yes there are exceptions but Jamie Lannister is someone who has a very bad start in the beginning, incest and trying to murder a child to protect his sister. But the fact remains he has a sense of honor, tarnished by a deed no one can understand. His killing the king and chief alchemist was a pure good act, always to be misunderstood. The incest between him and his sister should also not be seen with our eyes, it was common practise with the Targaryans.
He tries to fight Ned Stark one on one, his duty to the king, as much as he despised Robert for treating his beloved sister cruelly and especially everything after his capture and "behanding" point to a person who really wants to do the good thing.
Joe from Looper. Both of them.
A person can do impressively terrible things without actually being evil.
id say both mad max and the guy from the book of eli. yes they do good things but they seem to be forced into it more then any real desire to do good.
If anyone's ever read Eyeshield 21, I think Hiruma is a great example. He comes off as evil for sure, follows no one's rules, has no issues with using manipulation, lies, and coercion to get what he wants... But he will do anything to help his friends and the dreams they share, even if it brings him trouble. He'll hold back on his wrath when the target is someone who he believes doesn't deserve it (which is rarely). He has a code, but it's hard to say what it is or even if it's really consistent.
I think, personally, that being good isn't just about doing good things but about somewhat actively asking the question of what is good and if doing things is right or not. The chaotic neutral character may do good deeds, but he does them because he wants to. There's no concern about whether it's good or bad. He's not trying to be good, so how can he be good?
Sorry Ciabola..but Max was a good guy (NG likely) trying very hard to be neutral..but his old tendencies kept resurfacing :)
(well that's my take on the mad one)
not really sure sitting by while someone has very bad things done to them is lawful. they both did this. max goes back to eating dog food while this happened. I don't view chaoic as evil or even selfish.. its more about self and independence. cg <or any lawful really>wouldn't have let It happen ce would have joined in.. CN would look at it from what do I gain from getting into this.. from this I get that max is totally cn and the book of eli guy could be TN but not lawful.
Surprised no one has yet mentioned:
Marv (Ron Perlman's character) from Sin City
Max from "Sam and Max: Freelance Police" (arguably Sam too)
Strong Bad (and an argument could be made for several other Homestar Runner characters as well). Strong Bad might think of himself as Chaotic Awesome, and he would border on Chaotic Evil is his schemes weren't generally more goofy than harmful.
Salad Fingers (CN of the "insane" kind)
Pretty much every character in The Thing. Except for Garry...he was Lawful Spineless.
Cha Tae-sik from The Man From Nowhere.
Oscar the Grouch
|
Yeah to me me V (v for vendetta) "order is bad" is a good example as is Riddick (pitch black, chronicles of riddick) "i just want to be free".
V is doing it out of disire to do what he sees as "best for all" but doesn't worry about collateral damage or a few evil acts in the process. Riddick just wants to live his life his way. Interfere and he will beat and or kill you but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt others that leave him alone.