Guess and argue fictional characters D&D "Alignments"

[2D8HP]

Lots of "Alignment" threads these past few months, and my post at the Favorite scene evar?, have made me feel like guessing and reading arguments of fictional characters D&D "Alignments" (ignoring that the traditional 9 points AD&D/WD&D "Alignment system" may not map multi-dimensiontional characters).

I'll let others pick "Alignments" for Batman, Daenerys Targaryen, Han Solo, Harry Dresden, etc (please do! )

Spoiler: Here's my picks:

Show

(In no particular order)

From the Discworld novels

Tiffany Aching,


Neutral Good


Sam Vines,


Lawful Good


Lord Havelock Vetinari,


Lawful Evil, trending Lawful Neutral

---

Rick from Casablanca,

I'll peg as someone Neutral Good, trying to be Evil, but coming around again to being Good.

---

Tom Joad at the end of the Grapes of Wrath,

outside of Robin Hood, maybe one of the purest distillation of Chaotic Good in fiction.

Atticus Finch, from To Kill A Mockingbird,

is a quintessence of Lawful Good (thanks to a post of @Red Fel's for reminding me of this),

---

Conan,


Chaotic Neutral

---

Thulsa Doom in Conan the Barbarian,


Lawful Evil

---

Richard the 3rd in Richard lll,


Neutral Evil

---

Bruno Anthony in Strangers on a Train


Chaotic Evil

---

Harry Lime in The Third Man


Neutral Evil

---

Phyllis Dietrichson & Walter Neff in
Double Indemnity


Both Chaotic Evil

---

Now I'm going to do a bunch from one film, Excalibur:

Sir Perceval,


Lawful Good, and the true hero of the film, if I ever play an old-fashioned D&D Paladin, this will be the model

Uther Pendragon,


His step-daughter Morgana (they combined the characters of Morgan le Fay, and her sister Morgause for the film),


and her son Mordred


all Chaotic Evil

Mordred's father
King Arthur Pendragon


and his wife,
Queen Guinevere,

both, Neutral Good, yep that's right, argue with me!

Merlin,


I can't even guess.

A force of Chaos, that profeses Lawful aims.

Okay, please pick some fictional characters, peg them to an Alignment, or argue with previous choices.

Thanks!

[Reddish Mage]

I haven’t had an alignment conversation in well over a year (mostly because they occur mostly in other forums than media) but over the last decade or so this forum has always teemed with them producing some of the most divisive and forum-rule breaking discussions to be had.

After seeing countless threads, the only conclusion (one that several people including the Giant has stated) is that the nine alignments are so vague that one can’t ever expect perfect agreement on what they mean and who should have what alignment.

I think this is especially true of law and chaos. People are also not used to thinking about morality in that way like they are in terms of “good” and “evil” so the ideas people have about what is lawful and chaotic vary quite a bit more. However, the text itself throws the law-chaos axis in contradictory directions. So many contradictory things are said about the axis that many actions might be indicative of either law or chaos. For example in the players handbook the Monk is lawful because of her dedication to her discipline but Mialee the Mage is neutral because of her dedication to her art. The words “discipline” and “art” however, are synonyms in English.

Finally, I’ve seen forum debate where James Bond was literally argued to be each of the 9 alignments.

After that I’m not sure alignment related discussions are all that valuable barring a specific D&D related purpose. Also, after seeing a ton of fictional character alignment charts, I wouldn’t put any stock in them.

[Fri]

Spoiler

Show

[Metahuman1]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?

[2D8HP]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?

.
Since they were under 1e AD&D rules, post Unearthed Arcana (which I read in the store, didn't like, and pretty much was the end of my buying D&D stuff), the Barbarian would have to be Chaotic (something), so probably Chaotic Good (if UA matches the Barbarian class from The Dragon article), the Thief would have to be (something) Neutral, Neutral (sometimg), or (somethimg) Evil, so probably Neutral Good, the Ranger would have to be (something) Good, and the Monk would have to be (Lawful) something, I don't remember the rules for Cavalier, and the Magic-User could be any alignment under the rules (weird how I still remember the class alignment restrictions decades after I played AD&D).

I was already a teenager (15 to 17 years old) during the shows run, and didn't watch all of it, or much Saturday morning cartoons at all during that time (unlike the earlier Thundar the Barbarian which I watched avidly).

But I'd say one Chaotic Good Barbarian, and the rest Lawful or Neutral Good.

[Reddish Mage]

Spoiler

Show

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

[Fri]

Fair, the evil one is Crazy Steve pretending to be batman

(it's referring to the theory that the batman in Frank miller's all star batman is a crazy hobo who found batman costume)

[Metahuman1]

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

Were's there a couple of versions of Batman that were in fact soulless blood sucking vampires whom fed on the innocent?

[Drascin]

I said alignment is vague, this chart makes it absurd. There’s no version of Batman (lacking mind control) that can be described as evil.

Yes some alignment treatment of actions are contradictory but good and evil are sometimes quite distinct and this is one of the times.

Honesty, Batman absolutely has descended to Lawful Evil on occassion - this stuff is what you get when a character is written by someone who fundamentally doesn't GET the character.

[Eldan]

I don't see how you can argue Harry Dresden to be anything but Chaotic Good. He's sarcastic about it occasionally, but I don't have any doubt about it.

Just see him opposite any authority figure. He pisses them off on purpose and enjoys it greatly. On the other hand, strong personal loyalties to people he respects. Entirely too willing to break laws and rules, occasionally lie and cheat, even to his best and most respected friends.

Messiah complex the size of the planet. Self-sacrifices all over for other people. Did... things (spoilers) because he thought he might potentially turn evil. Tries to help everyone he meets, especially anyone he sees as weak or innocent. Goes ballistic when children are concerned.

[Reddish Mage]

Were's there a couple of versions of Batman that were in fact soulless blood sucking vampires whom fed on the innocent?

Those versions aren't "Batman" they are distinctly separate fiction characters that might have the name as well as being Batman's alternative Earth doppelgänger.

Honesty, Batman absolutely has descended to Lawful Evil on occassion - this stuff is what you get when a character is written by someone who fundamentally doesn't GET the character.

An evil act does not (usually) automatically shift a character's alignment.

Moreover, by your own explanation, writers who on occasion write Batman in ways consistent with lawful evil don't understand or "GET" the character. You yourself assume there is a singular "character" that can be gotten and that character is not lawful evil.

[Yanisa]

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

[Kyberwulf]

Man, Dresden is Lawful Neutral. Although the lawful part... is pretty loose. lol

While he isn't outright evil. He has to much stain on his soul to be considered gud. To willing to do the things you aren't suppose to do to get the job done. However he does have a lot of rules that he follows and doesn't break. If he says he will do something, he will get it done. for the most part. Again, being lawful doesn't mean you follow every rule, just that you follow a set of rules you will not break. Also, he does respect the laws of others as long as they don't get in his way.

[Dr.Samurai]

Man, Dresden is Lawful Neutral. Although the lawful part... is pretty loose. lol

Sayeth what?

While he isn't outright evil. He has to much stain on his soul to be considered gud.

What stains on his soul prevent him from being a good person?

[Gnoman]

What stains on his soul prevent him from being a good person?

Well, he did spend several years communing with a fallen angel and channeling the power of Hell itself, is bound to the service of a fairly wicked fairy, and has dabbled with multiple forms of black magic. Not to mention the genocide.


I don't think it is enough to push him all the way from Good to Neutral (it takes a lot of moral fiber to threaten a literal angel of death in a misguided attempt to protect a good man), but by Skin Game he's wandered pretty close to that line.



I do agree that he's much more Lawful (his own internal code is extremely strict, and much of his knee-jerk rejection of authority is due to the number of authorities he's met that don't live up to his standards) than he is Chaotic. Depending on how you rate his actions, he's somewhere at the border of Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, and True Neutral.

[Peelee]

Well, here's a thought for this.



The D&D Cartoon.

What Alignments are the main character kids?

.
Since they were under 1e AD&D rules, post Unearthed Arcana (which I read in the store, didn't like, and pretty much was the end of my buying D&D stuff), the Barbarian would have to be Chaotic (something), so probably Chaotic Good (if UA matches the Barbarian class from The Dragon article), the Thief would have to be (something) Neutral, Neutral (sometimg), or (somethimg) Evil, so probably Neutral Good, the Ranger would have to be (something) Good, and the Monk would have to be (Lawful) something, I don't remember the rules for Cavalier, and the Magic-User could be any alignment under the rules (weird how I still remember the class alignment restrictions decades after I played AD&D).

I was already a teenager (15 to 17 years old) during the shows run, and didn't watch all of it, or much Saturday morning cartoons at all during that time (unlike the earlier Thundar the Barbarian which I watched avidly).

But I'd say one Chaotic Good Barbarian, and the rest Lawful or Neutral Good.

Fun fact! The DVD set contains a booklet that has, among other things, the full character stats for everyone! It looks like the stats are for 3.5 edition (the current edition at the time of DVD set release), but I dunno, I've never played any previous version. Enjoy:

Spoiler: Short version, Venger should have killed them all in every episode.

Show

Hank Human Male Ranger 7th AL: LG
S: 14 D: 17 C: 15 I: 10 W: 15 Ch: 18 HP: 49
Feats: Dodge, Endurance, Manyshot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Track, Weapon Focus (Longbow)
Equip: +3 Studded Leather, Energy Bow (+2 Composite Longbow that accommodates any strength, force arrows deal 2d6 and ignore miss chance for incorporeal, shed light as a torch, can make power shots with Hank taking a negative to attack and adding that number to damage), Amulet of Natural Armor +1, lesser bracers of archery, ring of protection +1, masterwork longsword, potion of cure light wounds, potion of resist cold 20, some normal gear

Eric Male Human Fighter 7th AL: NG
S: 18 D: 13 C: 14 I: 13 W: 10 Ch: 9 HP: 57
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Initiative, Improved Shield Bash, Lightning Reflexes, Run, Weapon Focus (Shield), Weapon Specialization (Shield)
Equip: +2 Elven Chain, Griffon Shield (+2 Bashing Heavy Steel Shield that can be wielded two handed, as an immediate action can create a 10ft diameter Otiluke's Resilient Sphere centered on Eric, any other creature in the area may make a Reflex save DC16 to be pushed into the nearest open square on a success, effect can be dismissed as a standard action or until the duration elapses. The sphere effect may be used for 5 rounds per day which need not be consecutive.), Bag of holding (type I), cloak of resistance +2, gauntlets of ogre power +2, potion of cure moderate wounds, some normal gear.

Diana Human Female Monk 7th AL: LG
S: 14 D: 17 C: 16 I: 13 W: 17 Ch: 13 HP: 56
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Lightning Reflexes, Stunning Fist, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
Equip: Javelin Staff (+2 ki strike quarterstaff when used in melee or +2 ki strike javelin when thrown, allows use of stunning fist in melee or at range, can extend to 20 feet or shrink to the size of a toothpick as a standard action but can not be used as a weapon in either form, +5 bonus to jump checks, Diana may make a free trip attack whenever the staff hits someone without provoking attacks of opportunity and if the attempt fails the opponent may not attempt to trip Diana), amulet of natural armor +1, bracers of armor +3, ring of protection +1, vest of escape, potion of cure serious wounds, some normal gear.

Presto Human Male Wizard 7th AL: NG
S: 11 D: 9 C: 16 I: 20 W: 15 Ch: 13 HP: 40
Feats: Combat Casting, Empower Spell, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (Evocation)
Equip: dagger, Hat of Many Spells (acts as a rod of wonder, Presto can reach into the hat and produce any spell component up to 1000 gp for any spell he casts (component lasts 1 round), use the hat to Empower a spell he is casting or cast a spell directly from his spellbook but these effects can be unpredictable - roll percentile dice: on 1 - 35 the spell is wasted but a rod of wonder effect occurs, 36 - 65 the spell takes effect but a rod of wonder effect occurs as well, 66 - 100 the spell takes effect as desired.), Amulet of Natural Armor +1, cloak of resistance +2, headband of intellect +2, ring of protection +1, spellbook, potion of aid, potion of cure serious wounds, potion of displacement, wand of magic missile (7th), some normal gear

Sheila Human Female Rogue 7th AL: NG
S: 10 D: 18 C: 17 I: 14 W: 13 Ch: 15 HP: 48
Feats: Skill Focus (Use Magic Device), Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Rapier)
Equip: +2 Mithral Shirt, ring of protection +1, two masterwork rapiers, Cloak of Invisibility (Invisibility as the spell 5/day, greater invisibility 2/day for 1d4 rounds, Sheila needs a free hand to activate the cloak, if damaged while invisible Sheila becomes visible and the cloak stops functioning for 2d4 rounds), potion of cure moderate wounds, scroll of raise dead, scroll of sanctuary, wand of cure moderate wounds (25 charges), some normal gear

Bobby Human Male Barbarian 7th AL: CG
S: 19 D: 13 C: 18 I: 11 W: 8 Ch: 10 HP: 79
Feats: Cleave, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatclub)
Equip: Thunder Club (+2 greatclub, grants +4 Strength, 3/day Bobby may strike the ground and cause a tremor in a 30 foot line those in the area must make a Reflex DC 20 or fall prone), +2 hide armor, amulet of natural armor +2, boots of the winterlands, potion of cure light wounds, potion of heroism, salve of slipperiness, sovereign glue, universal solvent, some normal gear

Uni 3HD Young Unicorn (Small Magical Beast) AL: LG CR: 2
S: 10 D: 17 C: 21 I: 10 W: 16 Ch: 17 HP: 31
Feats: Alertness, Skill Focus (Survival)
SA/SQ: Magic Circle against Evil 10 radius; immune to charm, compulsion, and poison; alicorn (Uni's horn is treated as +1 magic weapon); darkvision 60 feet; lowlight vision; scent
Spell like abilities: Cure light wounds 3/day, cure moderate wounds 1/day, neutralize poison (touch only DC 17) 1/day, greater teleport (within forest only) 1/day (caster Level 5th)




Venger Male Half Fiend Human Sorcerer 13th/ Archmage 5th AL: NE
S: 18 D: 22 C: 26 I: 18 W: 15 Ch: 24 HP: 190
Feats: Empower Spell, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Spell Focus (Evocation), Spell Focus (Necromancy), Weapon Focus (Ray)
Equip: Amulet of Health +6, Bracers of Armor +8, Cape of Montebank, Bead of Force, Elemental Gem (Fire), Maximize Metamagic Rod, Potion of Barkskin +3, Potion of Cat's Grace
High Arcana: Arcane Fire, Arcane Reach, Mastery of Elements, Mastery of Shaping, Spell Power +1
Sorcerer Spells Known: (Caster Level 19)
0th (6/day): arcane mark, detect magic, ghost sound, light, mage hand, open/close, read magic, resistance, touch of fatigue
1st (8/day): expeditious retreat, magic missile, protection from good, ray of enfeeblement, shield
2nd (8/day): Knock, false life, scorching ray, touch of idiocy, web
3rd (8/day): dispel magic, displacement, fireball, hold person
4th (7/day): animate dead, bestow curse, polymorph, wall of ice
5th (6/day): cone of cold, symbol of pain, telekinesis, wall of force
6th (6/day): chain lightning, flesh to stone, Otiluke's freezing sphere
7th (6/day): control undead, delayed blast fireball, limited wish
8th (4/day): Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere, polar ray
9th (2/day): Imprisonment

Also, obviously, the Dungeon Master is a Cheese Elemental.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, he did spend several years communing with a fallen angel and channeling the power of Hell itself...

Well, sure. But...

Spoiler

Show

He was exposed to Lasciel's power because he was saving an innocent child from being exposed to and corrupted by her instead.

And then in those years that she was tempting him, he was so incorruptible that instead of Dresden turning to evil, she actually commits an act of self sacrifice to save him, rebelling against her evil nature instead.

So, I chalk this up to "Dresden is good".

is bound to the service of a fairly wicked fairy

Sure. But...

Spoiler

Show

Dresden could have always been bound to Mab. But he has resisted her offer time and time again. She, as an immortal, can simply wait him out, until he is so desperate that he comes to her for aid. Obviously, we see that happen in Changes. But it doesn't make him evil, or not good. He didn't serve her because he wants to be evil and wants the power she grants for the sake of being a tyrant over others. He serves her, yes, but he still has agency and still enacts her orders without being evil. They even say in Skin Game that Mab had Dresden get involved precisely because she could count on him to foil Nicodemus' plans.

and has dabbled with multiple forms of black magic.

He hasn't actually broken any of the rules though right? As opposed to someone like... the Blackstaff.

Not to mention the genocide.

Spoiler

Show

So the destruction of monsters outweighs the liberation of entire nations of humans that up until that point were various levels of pawn, slave, chattel?

I don't think it is enough to push him all the way from Good to Neutral (it takes a lot of moral fiber to threaten a literal angel of death in a misguided attempt to protect a good man), but by Skin Game he's wandered pretty close to that line.

Yeah I'm not really seeing it. Much of the plot in The Dresden Files is driven by the fact that Dresden is trying to be a good person and do the right thing despite the various powerful and dangerous forces arrayed against him. He's always getting in deeper because he's trying to do good.

Spoiler

Show

By Skin Game, he appears to be all the things people are suspicious of him for, but as the reader we have a more intimate perspective and know why/how he was using Hellfire, why he is the Winter Knight, how it came to be that he eradicated an entire court of vampires, etc. It's not because he's evil, or borderline evil, or anything like that.

I do agree that he's much more Lawful (his own internal code is extremely strict, and much of his knee-jerk rejection of authority is due to the number of authorities he's met that don't live up to his standards) than he is Chaotic. Depending on how you rate his actions, he's somewhere at the border of Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, and True Neutral.

When I think of Law/Chaos, I think of adhering to what society expects/wants vs adhering to what you want. And in that sense, I think Dresden is closer to chaotic than lawful. He doesn't care what a law, or tradition, or even a god has to say. He'll run his mouth, he'll defy you, he'll fight you, whatever it is he thinks he needs to do, he'll do it according to his own principles. And I definitely think he's good. If I had to come down on an alignment, I'd say neutral good.

[Kyberwulf]

The disconnect you are having, isn't that Dresden is an evil person, or borderline evil. He isn't. We know this, everyone around knows it, even his enemies know it. Inherently, yeah Dresden is a good person. Not in an alignment sense. The problem is that he doesn't see himself this way. This allows himself to LET himself do horrible acts. The thing is though, he KNOWS he is doing horrible acts, and doesn't try to lie to himself about it. What evil people do is do those acts, and then try to justify those actions.

Yes, he killed of a lot of horrible monsters. He didn't do it for good reasons. He didn't do it out of any sense of altruism. He did it cause they wronged him. He knows about all the horrible things in the world. He doesn't do anything about them, until they do something to him first.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't see how you can argue Harry Dresden to be anything but Chaotic Good. He's sarcastic about it occasionally, but I don't have any doubt about it.

Just see him opposite any authority figure. He pisses them off on purpose and enjoys it greatly. On the other hand, strong personal loyalties to people he respects. Entirely too willing to break laws and rules, occasionally lie and cheat, even to his best and most respected friends.

Messiah complex the size of the planet. Self-sacrifices all over for other people. Did... things (spoilers) because he thought he might potentially turn evil. Tries to help everyone he meets, especially anyone he sees as weak or innocent. Goes ballistic when children are concerned.

Agreed. Despite all his self-flagellation and deprecation, he does everything he does with goodness in mind without ever really actually going over any clear lines I can point to. He is solidly chaotic good despite him beating himself up about wielding powers that are labeled Evil(TM).

I mean lets remember that this entire series is narrated from Dresden's own self depreciating viewpoint about himself, and thus probably doesn't give himself enough credit. He is oddly similar to Ciaphas Cain in that regard. I mean The Knights of the Cross for whatever reason are still his allies and friends. I think that counts for a lot, because if he really stepped over a line, I'm pretty sure those guys would rightly turn against him. Furthermore, Uriel is still on his side. an angel. The black ops angel but an angel nonetheless. He really hasn't done anything I can really label as bad enough to be anything but good

I mean so far his "hellish powers" didn't involve doing anything evil to cast, his Winter Knight mantle is not reflective of alignment as its just some external magic thing put inside him rather than his actual morality, his T-rex stunt didn't really seem to affect his morality at all, and despite his whole "I'm going to burn the world to save my daughter" rant, the only people he ends up destroying are those Red Court jerks which no one sheds a tear for. I think we can safely say his professed "burn the world, I'm rescuing my daughter" thing and him talking about his plans for other deals is him speaking out of stress of the moment really, he never really did anything that truly crosses the line, like ok he got some primal magic sexytimes with Mab, who cares, like ok he killed the Red Court, awesome.

Like.....I guess some of this is somehow morally ambiguous if your being a complete knight templar about viewing his actions and think that somehow he could be gooderer than he already is, but all the actions he takes is reasonable and have had positive effects on the world while getting rid of truly horrible monsters, I can't ask for anything more good than that.

[Drascin]

An evil act does not (usually) automatically shift a character's alignment.

Moreover, by your own explanation, writers who on occasion write Batman in ways consistent with lawful evil don't understand or "GET" the character. You yourself assume there is a singular "character" that can be gotten and that character is not lawful evil.

That is the joke of that poster, dude. That Batman's different writers have written him in such different ways that you can find runs that write him as basically every alignment.

Course, fans do have their own ideas. Hence wht Fri said - for example, Miller's Batman is memefied to not actually BE Batman, but a hobo in a Batman suit, because the way he acts is straight up Evil, and fans are like "um, I'm pretty sure Batman is not supposed to be like this". But the (actually pretty long!) run with Batman being more or less a pro-totalitarianism fascist ****head absolutely exists. Hence the poster.

[Eldan]

One of my personal metrics for lawful or chaotic is whether you respect a person in authority because of the "person" or the "authority" part more. "WE respect the king because he is the king" is lawful. "I respect the king because he's a good man" is chaotic. Following the rules you set for yourself, on the other hand, I don't really see as that lawful, though it can be an indication.

So, to me, Dresden is chaotic. But then, as we've seen, law and chaos are up to debate. I just made my own definition that I think mostly works for me.

[Kato]

Honestly, I feel the lawful/chaotic distinction is way easier than the good/evil one if you don't want to stick to mere personal opinion. Of course there are a few people who consider themselves evil but for the majority they have some kind of reasoning why their actions are good, so in their own eyes they are good. Of course their opponents think differently but who are we to judge which side is correct? To go with an old popular argument : is the established government defending itself against terrorists good or is it the rebel alliance fighting the evil empire? Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly, I feel the lawful/chaotic distinction is way easier than the good/evil one if you don't want to stick to mere personal opinion. Of course there are a few people who consider themselves evil but for the majority they have some kind of reasoning why their actions are good, so in their own eyes they are good. Of course their opponents think differently but who are we to judge which side is correct? To go with an old popular argument : is the established government defending itself against terrorists good or is it the rebel alliance fighting the evil empire? Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

morality is not about knowing, because we'll never have perfect information. its about being aware and not-knowing, and doing something about it because of the possibilities that could occur if we didn't do something. I can't imagine a galactic consequences of a single planet existing or not existing, but I can imagine the consequence of the planet itself: I can either imagine a future where that planet is all destroyed in a burst of searing, screaming agony from a horrible light as they are ripped to atoms, their last moments being pure burning torment on every part of their body, or I can imagine a future where the innocents, the children and all the people on there continue to live happy lives because I intervened. given those two possibilities, it is right to pick to defend the planet every time.

[Kyberwulf]

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.

[hamishspence]

"You respect the man because he's done stuff that you think is enough to earn your respect" is a Chaotic reason for giving respect.

Alternatively:

"You respect the man because that's your default - you respect everybody until they lose your respect"

That's Drizzt's version (novel "Drizzt essay" on respect at the start of a section)- Drizzt being CG in most (all?) stattings.


According to Fiendish Codex 2 - obeying somebody you do not respect, is Lawful - an "Obesiant act" - textbook example of "respecting the office rather than the person".

[Eldan]

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.

Not caring about anyone is not chaotic. That sounds neutral evil to me. Maybe chaotic evil. Certainly apathetic.

[Kato]

given those two possibilities, it is right to pick to defend the planet every time.

How do you know their lives are going to be happy?
And if the planet is merely a base for an organization that plans to repeatedly attack the workplace of people merely doing their job for what the terrorists consider an evil regime? But OK, we know alderaan in all likelihood was just an ordinary planet. The question about the justification of Luke's mass murder when he blew up the Death Star remains. We could of course make the assumption that anyone who works for an evil empire must be evil but that seems simplistic to me. Or "they knew what they signed up for" but then we also give a pass to criminals hurting law enforcement officials and such.

[hamishspence]

But OK, we know alderaan in all likelihood was just an ordinary planet. The question about the justification of Luke's mass murder when he blew up the Death Star remains.

The Death Star, despite the name "space station" is a warship. Blowing up a warship, in a "time of civil war" can hardly be deemed murder. Nor is it anything like blowing up a planet.

Starkiller Base is a bit more "planet-like" (it even has trees on its surface) but it's still a superweapon. Blowing it up is akin to, during a nuclear war, blowing up a city that happens to have nuclear silos within - a city that has already fired some of them once.

Whereas blowing up the Death Star, is like blowing up a ballistic missile submarine - again, one that has already acted as a combatant and fired some of its missiles.

[Peelee]

Sure, blowing up a planet doesn't sound too nice but on a stellar scale it's akin to.. I just realized my comparison might be a little bit too close to real life politics. Let's just say it's not that destructive if there are millions of other planets.

If an argument against an entity being Evil relies on, "once there are enough lives, those lives become cheaper and less important and more ok to snuff out," I feel pretty safe in still painting said entity as Evil.

[Dr.Samurai]

The disconnect you are having, isn't that Dresden is an evil person, or borderline evil. He isn't. We know this, everyone around knows it, even his enemies know it.

You said he isn't outright evil. I thought you were implying that he's close to it. Am I wrong?

Inherently, yeah Dresden is a good person. Not in an alignment sense. The problem is that he doesn't see himself this way. This allows himself to LET himself do horrible acts. The thing is though, he KNOWS he is doing horrible acts, and doesn't try to lie to himself about it. What evil people do is do those acts, and then try to justify those actions.

I think some examples of these horrible things would be helpful. Because I can think of all the good things he has done, but thinking of "horrible" things that would pull him away from the good alignment is harder.

Yes, he killed of a lot of horrible monsters. He didn't do it for good reasons. He didn't do it out of any sense of altruism. He did it cause they wronged him.

He did it for multiple reasons because he is a character. Just because it is his daughter doesn't mean he can't be altruistic. The guy gives his own life, as revealed in Ghost Story, to save her. That's altruism. He felt forced to do this in part because he got paralyzed climbing a ladder to save his neighbors from a burning building. That's altruism.

So was it personal for him that they went after his daughter? Yeah, it was. But were the actions he took after that altruistic? Yeah, I would argue they were. And I would argue that he didn't have to kill Susan on the altar with the sacrificial knife, but he knew that doing so would destroy the Red Court and alleviate an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering in the world, so he did.

He knows about all the horrible things in the world. He doesn't do anything about them, until they do something to him first.

The books are about a private detective, not a god or superman. Dresden goes above and beyond to help people and do the right thing. But no, he doesn't go out and try to fix all of the world's problems by himself for no reason. I don't think that's what defines "good".

There is a flaw in that reasoning though.

You respect the man cause' he is King. sure law.
You respect the man cause he is a man.. that is neutral.
You don't care about the man. That is chaotic.

I think a chaotic person can respect a station. I can easily see someone like that bowing to a king or showing respect. It's when you're expected to do something because of the law, or an authority, or because of societal norms that you might start to see the divide in alignments. A chaotic person might be more inclined to say "yeah, no thanks" and go their own way.