|
I was just finishing watching Jack Reacher again. This was the last line in the movie:
There's this guy. He's a kind of cop, at least he used to be. He doesn't care about proof, he doesn't care about the law, he only cares about what's right. He knows what I did. You can't protect me. No one can.
What alignment would that description fit under? Alignment is hard to peg, because a lot of time it's all dependent on your point of view.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on whats "right" and one what actions they take while going after the guy who did the bad thing.
If what's "right" is defined by a personal moral code, it could be lawful even if it against the laws of the land. Good/Neutral/Evil are all possible depending on the amount of punishment they put out.
|
|
I haven't seen the movie so I have to say: Not enough information. Context *really* matters. He could be literally any alignment based on that information given.
So I'm going to take this opportunity to lay down blind questions that would help clarify alignment in this situation. For clarity, I'll refer to the narrator of that quote as the target.
Does he know the target did the crime for certain but merely lacks physical evidence? Or is he just "really sure"? Or maybe he has some evidence, but not enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Is this what's right because the target will perform further, similar acts? Or is it because the target hasn't been brought to justice for existing acts? It can be both.
Did the target actually violate the law, or just his beliefs? Are those beliefs something he can articulate or just gut feelings?
Does he intend to mete out justice via a quick and painless death, or does he intend to drag the process out? Is this justice in line with some kind of code, including legal code, or is he a dog chasing a car: not sure what he would do with it if he caught it?
Is he seeking justice because the target's crime was a slight again him? Or family/friends? Or just a stranger? Was it a major slight (e.g. murder) or a minor one (e.g. stole $20)?
Of course, none of the above matters because Pathfinder is a descriptive alignment system: He isn't that alignment until after he does the acts that would make him so. If this is uncharacteristic of him then he could be nearly any alignment prior to this, then a different one after. For simplicity we can assume this is perfectly in line with his character for now.
Kind of been awhile since the movie, and haven't seen it sober yet, but I would say Chaotic Good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen the movie (and its awesome) I'd put Jack at Neutral Good. He has a firm belief in honor and duty, but these aren't by necessity lawful traits.
If memory serves, in the film, Jack tries to accomplish things legally, but when legal recourse fails he tries to pursue the path of justice. He's direct, but proportionate and does not endanger people who'd qualify as 'innocent' in his activities.
Good doesn't mean nice. In fact sometimes, Good /requires/ you to not be nice.
Kind of been awhile since the movie, and haven't seen it sober yet, but I would say Chaotic Good.It could just as easily be Chaotic Evil, depending on the context. After all, Light Yagami considered himself a hero in "Death Note". I could easily see him making the same kind of monologue.
It has been a long time since i have seen Death Note but i would peg Yagami Light as LE and not CE.