Fictional Character Alignment Thread #2

[Bartmanhomer]

By not risking the thread necromancy I'm going to start a new thread of the Fictional Character Alignment Thread #2. In this thread just like the old thread, I'm going to post a fictional character alignment and explain why. Feel free to disagree with my explanation of the alignment for the character.

Ok my two favourite Marvel hero and anti-hero: Spider-Man and Deadpool.

Spider-Man (Neutral Good): He's Neutral Good In his own right. Between Lawful and Chaotic. I feel like he's Neutral Good.

Deadpool (Chaotic Neutral): He's very anarchic and he not really the heroic type. May be leaning to Chaotic Evil. But I do like Deadpool so he fits in Chaotic Neutral.

[No brains]

Interesting to note that the 3.5 book Complete Scoundrel backs you up on Spider-Man being Neutral Good. It had a few characters from other media and gave examples on how they expressed their alignment.

President/ Lord Business from The Lego Movie is Lawful Neutral. His attempt to freeze everything with the Kragle edges toward Evil, but he also unconsciously knows as an avatar of Dad that their world is not real. Most of their freedom is created by Finn's imagination and so freezing the world into a slightly more ordered form will not remove 'life' from the LEGO people. It's very metaphysical. It's like he's achieved CHIM.

[Bartmanhomer]

Interesting to note that the 3.5 book Complete Scoundrel backs you up on Spider-Man being Neutral Good. It had a few characters from other media and gave examples on how they expressed their alignment.

President/ Lord Business from The Lego Movie is Lawful Neutral. His attempt to freeze everything with the Kragle edges toward Evil, but he also unconsciously knows as an avatar of Dad that their world is not real. Most of their freedom is created by Finn's imagination and so freezing the world into a slightly more ordered form will not remove 'life' from the LEGO people. It's very metaphysical. It's like he's achieved CHIM.

Hold up. I was right about Spider-Man alignment?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Hold up. I was right about Spider-Man alignment?

As right as one can be given that nothing outside DnD has an alignment.

Still the game is fun. My favourite examples are probably Discworld related as its full of heavily Lawful characters who also kick the rules in the goolies when its the right thing to do (see, Death, Granny and of course Vimes, who is both the establishment and anti-establishment at the same time).

Vimes really does stretch alignment to its breakpoint. He is Chaotic (he thinks rules exist to let the powerful run rough-shod over the weak and to rig the system against the average Joes and that trickery and misdirection are the most vital tools in his arsenal.) He is also Lawful (he thinks rules are vital to ensure that people can actually get on with living their lives and breaking, or even bending the rules to get the result you need ruins everything. Plus his entire life is suborned to The Law, because without it he fears becoming The Beast.)

So Vimes is LCG.

[Bartmanhomer]

As right as one can be given that nothing outside DnD has an alignment.

Still the game is fun. My favourite examples are probably Discworld related as its full of heavily Lawful characters who also kick the rules in the goolies when its the right thing to do (see, Death, Granny and of course Vimes, who is both the establishment and anti-establishment at the same time).

Vimes really does stretch alignment to its breakpoint. He is Chaotic (he thinks rules exist to let the powerful run rough-shod over the weak and to rig the system against the average Joes and that trickery and misdirection are the most vital tools in his arsenal.) He is also Lawful (he thinks rules are vital to ensure that people can actually get on with living their lives and breaking, or even bending the rules to get the result you need ruins everything. Plus his entire life is suborned to The Law, because without it he fears becoming The Beast.)

So Vimes is LCG.

Wouldn't that make Vimes Neutral Good?

[Reddish Mage]

Interesting to note that the 3.5 book Complete Scoundrel backs you up on Spider-Man being Neutral Good. It had a few characters from other media and gave examples on how they expressed their alignment.

It does not make a lot of sense or do a very deep reading of these characters. Batman, for example, almost assuredly has different alignments when done by different authors. Sometimes he a vicious vigilante who fools everyone about his intentions and identity, sometimes he works with police to uphold the law.

Also, it is worth stating that alignment has relatively few words dedicated to it in the core books of any edition and many of those words are contradictory according to the dictionary.

There was a James Bond thread quite awhile back where different people eventually argued sequentially that every single alignment applied to him.

President/ Lord Business from The Lego Movie is Lawful Neutral. His attempt to freeze everything with the Kragle edges toward Evil, but he also unconsciously knows as an avatar of Dad that their world is not real. Most of their freedom is created by Finn's imagination and so freezing the world into a slightly more ordered form will not remove 'life' from the LEGO people. It's very metaphysical. It's like he's achieved CHIM.

If you have to explain a persons alignment and cite metaphysics, its probably not a very convincing portrayal.

Dad may be lawful neutral. Lord Business is evil on so many levels, selfish, someone who uses the rules to serve himself, sadistic, and controlling to the point of being willing to freeze people. Saying kragling is morally neutral is a weird viewpoint not shared by anyone in the LEGO-verse (or in the real world, I assume you think kragling people are bad). Appealing to alignment means you are willing to think of the universe in simplistic terms that describe good and evil, law and chaos, not give justifications for why a literally cackling evil villain is actually ok. He is the perfect Avatar of Lawful Evil.

Vimes really does stretch alignment to its breakpoint. He is Chaotic (he thinks rules exist to let the powerful run rough-shod over the weak and to rig the system against the average Joes and that trickery and misdirection are the most vital tools in his arsenal.) He is also Lawful (he thinks rules are vital to ensure that people can actually get on with living their lives and breaking, or even bending the rules to get the result you need ruins everything. Plus his entire life is suborned to The Law, because without it he fears becoming The Beast.)

So Vimes is LCG.

Someone who thinks rules exist to run rough shod over the weak, uses trickery and misdirection and uses the rules for their own benefit is textbook lawful evil.

Other editions (and certain characters) are essentially what you just wrote about Vimes. The 3rd Edition SRD is close enough however:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself.

[hamishspence]

The point is that because he's worried that most of society's rules exist to help the strong tyrannise over the weak, he's on the side of the weak, and opposes these kind of rules.

He resents authority - even on the occasions when he is authority.

Taken as a whole, Vimes tends to do Good things, not Evil things.

The combination of these facts makes Vimes closer to Chaotic Good than to Lawful Evil - though his commitment to upholding Good through enforcing laws, might put him a bit closer to NG or LG. A very cynical Good, but still Good.

[Berenger]

Someone who thinks rules exist to run rough shod over the weak, uses trickery and misdirection and uses the rules for their own benefit is textbook lawful evil.

That's beside the point. He neither uses the rules in this way nor does he think the rules should be used this way by others. He's just under the mostly correct impression that the rules were made this way and are used this way by the ruling class and he is disgusted by this fact.

[Reddish Mage]

So characters that clearly have a mix of chaotic and lawful traits are neutral. Using chaotic means for lawful ends is neutral. However, some supplement characters that act the way you describe Vimes acting are Chaotic.

This is because countless supplements give example after example that suggest there is nothing incompatible with being Chaotic and being an authority and even involved in enforcing law and order. These types are, however, described as quite willing to break the rules based on their personal moral compass.





Chaotic is an odd alignment as its not especially clear how much chaos is necessary to qualify and how much law, orderly behavior, and rule following is a problem. Humans are natural rule followers. Its unreasonable to expect every Chaotic character to avoid a habit of brushing their teeth and going to bed at the same time because those are rules.

Its clear from the way the alignment is interpreted in official D&D material that “chaotic” characters don’t make a rule of always refusing to follow rules. In fact Chaotic types may have followers, even large followings, and may actually head up governments and key organs as Kings, Princes, Dukes, Generals, and so on. If they do so, Chaotic characters are commonly described as willing to buck convention and maybe also that they rely on personal traits and relationships rather than on institutional loyalty to motivate their followers.

Chaotic characters also sometimes have personal or group codes they follow strictly, although “the law” is never the thing they follow strictly. Note that, for many lawful characters following a personal or organizational code is cited as their primary lawful trait and they are quite willing to violate the law of a particular area or place.

Also lawful characters, especially adventurers and major story figures in big stories, are often willing to violate the rules or ignore them completely when it becomes necessary or even clearly desirable in order to achieve whatever important objectives are required by the adventure. Its not uncommon to see such characters granting the PCs special dispensation to handle things in a very unconventional manner.

Basically, you could take some explicitly labeled lawful characters in D&D officially licensed materials, relabel them chaotic or vice-versa and I’m not sure it would change how they act or the role they play.

[Fyraltari]

The dude is so committed to his code of ethics

Spoiler: Thud

Show

that it manifests inside his headspace as a policeman strong enough to force a demon-thing of vengeance that was possessing Vimes to stop. Something that had never happened in the history of ever on the Disk as this demon is of the habit of taking his hosts’ soul.

Moving on, I would peg Arsène Lupin, gentleman-burglar, as Chaotic Neutral.
The man is an intense thrill-seeker (his need to scheme, disguise himself and lie is borderline pathological) who supremely enjoy embarrassing the police and the government. That he mostly targets the rich makes him look like a folk hero, but that’s because there is no challenge nor reward to stealing from the poor and he thinks he belongs to the upper-class by virtue of his birth (even though he can’t fit). He always plans his crimes to be bloodless but that seems to be more a matter of style than moral standards as he is perfectly willing to hire murderers and help them escape the law if they agree not to kill while under his employ. He also often faces-off less criminals than he (especially when he was a private detective) but never forgets to steal whatever valuable they were after in the middle of that (or is trying to deflect police attention from where he happens to be at the moment). And while he takes a lot of pleasure in humiliating the police and government in general he doesn’t seem to be opposed to their existence as he is genuinely fond of his long suffering arch-nemesis and ‘pal’ Commisioner Ganimard and draws the line at helping foreign intelligence agencies or fencing jewels that belonged to the crown (‘I haven’t touched a single one of those. They belong to France’).

So basically a guy who does things because they strike his fancy but doesn’t actually care about helping anybody else save a handful of loved ones.

[Evil DM Mark3]

So characters that clearly have a mix of chaotic and lawful traits are neutral. Using chaotic means for lawful ends is neutral. However, some supplement characters that act the way you describe Vimes acting are Chaotic.

Having slept on this I think sit might be more accurate to describe Vimes as a Chaotic soul that has squashed itself into a Lawful one for fear of what it, itself might do. LG with the [Chaotic] subtype maybe . This is what I meant about nothing outside DnD having alignments, alignment is a tool to allow certain types of magic common in European fantasy to function. Like all attempts to categorise natural phenomena or approximations thereof it doesn't work past a certain level.

Carrot of course if LG from the tip of his orange hair to the soles of his boots.

[Reddish Mage]

Your silliness regarding a specific character who seems to have a complex relationship with law, lawfulness, and the very concept of order, belies a bigger problem with D&D’s alignment system. According to what you’re saying the whole alignment system is something very unnatural and very restrictive.

Characters exist inside and outside D&D. If alignment is descriptive, it should describe different sorts of characters whether they were created for D&D or not. To the extent you must be a “D&D character” for alignment to make any sense, means that alignment is actually prescriptive (limits and mandates actions by characters that have it) not merely descriptive.

If you really think that it’s nonsense to describe characters outside of D&D with an alignment then you were viewing alignment as a sort of “straight jacket.” At the very least it’s a big limitation on how people role play, because they have to conform to one of these 9 descriptions that apparently don’t tend to describe anyone outside of D&D.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok now for DC superheroes and villains:

Superman (Neutral Good)
Batman (Neutral Good)
Joker (Chaotic Evil)
Lex Luthor (Lawful Evil)
Green Arrow (Chaotic Good)
Wonder Woman (Neutral Good)
Deathstroke (Lawful Evil)

[No brains]

Ok now for DC superheroes and villains:

Superman (Neutral Good)
Batman (Neutral Good)
Joker (Chaotic Evil)
Lex Luthor (Lawful Evil)
Green Arrow (Chaotic Good)
Wonder Woman (Neutral Good)
Deathstroke (Lawful Evil)

Regarding Lex Luthor, how much real 'evil' has he done? I'm way behind on my Superman lore. I think most of the time he doesn't kill people even indirectly.

If I remember right, it might be a tough call between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral (Neutral?). He's absolutely selfish, but he does recognize that other people being alive and buying his stuff makes money for him. It's just that with how many laws he breaks I think of an error screen when trying to think of him as Lawful.

Ultimately, I approve of these thought exercises because it helps me improvise NPCs. Oh, I need a Neutral Good NPC? I'll have him act like Spider-Man. Someone Chaotic Evil, but not stupid? I'll just do Riddick.

[Silfir]

There's nothing Chaotic about Vimes, he's Lawful Good to the core. You couldn't point to any other character whose belief in the importance of the rule of law is as ingrained into their very beings as Vimes' is to his. He believes the law is so important that nobody can be exempt from it - not even the ruling class.

That's why the ruling class think of him as a dangerous rebel; because their idea of order is that laws do not apply to them - that laws exist only to control the masses. Vimes begs to differ. He believes that laws exist - have any justification to exist - because they protect the weak from the strong. And that's the system of law he chooses to uphold.

Old Stoneface Vimes, his ancestor, once executed a king, because that king was a monster of a man to the core - I'm not sure it's ever explicitly said what atrocities the last King of Ankh-Morpork committed to earn execution, but the only objection that people ever make to Vimes' face is that Old Stoneface was wrong to kill him was that he was the king, and there is no law higher than the king. Again: Vimes begs to differ. To him, it was a lawful execution, because there is a justice higher than kings.

I don't know about you, but to me that's so Lawful it hurts.

[Bartmanhomer]

Regarding Lex Luthor, how much real 'evil' has he done? I'm way behind on my Superman lore. I think most of the time he doesn't kill people even indirectly.

If I remember right, it might be a tough call between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral (Neutral?). He's absolutely selfish, but he does recognize that other people being alive and buying his stuff makes money for him. It's just that with how many laws he breaks I think of an error screen when trying to think of him as Lawful.

Ultimately, I approve of these thought exercises because it helps me improvise NPCs. Oh, I need a Neutral Good NPC? I'll have him act like Spider-Man. Someone Chaotic Evil, but not stupid? I'll just do Riddick.

I really don't see Lex Luthor as Chaotic Neutral but hey agree to disagree.

[Reddish Mage]

Old Stoneface Vimes, his ancestor, once executed a king, because that king was a monster of a man to the core - I'm not sure it's ever explicitly said what atrocities the last King of Ankh-Morpork committed to earn execution, but the only objection that people ever make to Vimes' face is that Old Stoneface was wrong to kill him was that he was the king, and there is no law higher than the king. Again: Vimes begs to differ. To him, it was a lawful execution, because there is a justice higher than kings.

I don't know about you, but to me that's so Lawful it hurts.

So I clearly really don’t know Vimes and how he acts but hearing the analysis, the explanations don’t make any sense.

Killing an evil King (like ignoring his orders), presumably against the law, out of a higher sense of justice would be a neutral good or chaotic good act. The “law” isn’t (just) some abstraction in D&D but is bound up with the actual laws and authority of the nation. Going against that is usually considered chaotic or neutral. There is an actual ur-example of this sort of thing being neutral good in some of the handbooks.

Vimes following an abstract ideal of justice even if it means opposing the nobles and “the law” is textbook example neutral good.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok more DC characters.

Flash (Chaotic Good)
Green Lantern (Lawful Good)
Robin (Neutral Good)
Batgirl (Lawful Good)
Grod (Lawful Evil)
Penguin (Lawful Evil)
Cat woman (Lawful Evil)
Two-Faced (Neutral Evil)
Poison Ivy (Neutral Evil)
Harley Quinn (Chaotic Evil)

[Fyraltari]

So I clearly really don’t know Vimes and how he acts but hearing the analysis, the explanations don’t make any sense.

Killing an evil King (like ignoring his orders), presumably against the law, out of a higher sense of justice would be a neutral good or chaotic good act. The “law” isn’t (just) some abstraction in D&D but is bound up with the actual laws and authority of the nation. Going against that is usually considered chaotic or neutral. There is an actual ur-example of this sort of thing being neutral good in some of the handbooks.

Vimes following an abstract ideal of justice even if it means opposing the nobles and “the law” is textbook example neutral good.

King Lorenzio ‘the kind’* was already deposed when Old Stoneface killed him. I think he was even condemned but Stoneface was the only one willing to serve as the executioner. It also should be noted (and Vimes does) that the Watchman’s Oath is carefully worded so that the watchmen never actually swears to obey the king or current ruler of Ankh-Morpork, even though it sounds a lot like he does.

Vimes is the protagonist in half a dozen or more books and only once acts against the law (because the goblins are not recognized as people and therefore genociding them is not a crime something Vimes vehemently objects to) and his opposition to the nobles happens strictly within the confines of the law (such as investigating all those crimes they commit and generally being as annoying as humanly possible). Even when Vimes is leading a revolutionary group because of timey-wimey he still does so by applying the letter of the law to the full extent (including refusing to hand prisoners to the Secret Police unless they give them receipts! That defeats the whole point of the Secret Police!)


Vimes doesn’t care about good more than the law because to him the law exists to be the manifestation of good and be amended when it isn’t.

Vimes care so much about the law the last guy who tried to bribe him stillhasn’t recovered full motor control of his fingers. He cares so much about the law he once arrested two warring armies for ‘breaking the peace’ . He cares so much about the law he turned the AM Night Watch from being literally four dudes back to several hundreds, many of those went on to reform the Watches of other cities to his standard so much so that half the continent nicknames policemen ‘Sammies’ after him. He cares so much about the law people say he carries it before him like a lantern. He cares so much about the law he has a mental policeman in his head strong enough to override the Summoning Darkness.

*Who really liked children, really, he had special devices for them in his basement.

[Reddish Mage]

Ok I get it, Vimes is lawful.

Lex on the other hands is “either Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral...” those two not close. That’s like saying something tastes like dark chocolate or a handful of nuts. That’s like saying a particular roller coaster is a simple climb and plunge down or that it takes you around in every direction and in loop de loops and then you go backwards. Basically, the statement either makes no sense, the alignment system itself doesn’t, or the character has no consistency.

Is the answer all of the above?

[Serenity]

So I clearly really don’t know Vimes and how he acts but hearing the analysis, the explanations don’t make any sense.

Killing an evil King (like ignoring his orders), presumably against the law, out of a higher sense of justice would be a neutral good or chaotic good act. The “law” isn’t (just) some abstraction in D&D but is bound up with the actual laws and authority of the nation. Going against that is usually considered chaotic or neutral. There is an actual ur-example of this sort of thing being neutral good in some of the handbooks.

No, it really isn't. A paladin is absolutely not bound to swear allegiance to Asmodeus just because he happens to be in a nation that makes devil-worship compulsory, and there's all manner of examples of out-and-out criminals who are still Lawful-aligned.

[Sapphire Guard]

Killing the King was Vimes' ancestor, but it seems like it was probably a lawful death sentence, because it seems vaguely modelled on Charles I.

[Bartmanhomer]

Kirby Series:

Kirby (Neutral Good)
King Dedede (Chaotic Neutral)
Meta-Knight (Lawful Neutral)

[Reddish Mage]

No, it really isn't. A paladin is absolutely not bound to swear allegiance to Asmodeus just because he happens to be in a nation that makes devil-worship compulsory, and there's all manner of examples of out-and-out criminals who are still Lawful-aligned.

Lawful criminals require explanation when you find them for a reason. This is a pretty significant trend in D&D that “Lawful” is associated with the actual “law” and actual authority although by no means is a localities laws, rules and authorities determinative. The description of lawfulness and most lawful alignments reference authority.

There is many mysteries of alignment but this is not one of them. Lawful characters are supposed to be reluctant to go against authority, and although there are plenty of examples of officially lawful characters doing so, they supposedly have adequate justification (sometimes they do so because they are following an aberrant code or another jurisdiction’s authority).

[hamishspence]

Lawful criminals require explanation when you find them for a reason.

And "Their criminal organisation is run in an extremely orderly fashion" is generally sufficient reason.

[Saintheart]

Ok more DC characters.
Two-Face (Neutral Evil)

I'd argue Two-Face as Lawful Evil, the Lawful part of it being imposed by the double-headed coin: even if it's sometimes convenient when he flips it, in most of his incarnations he does follow the dictates of how the coin comes up - and in the Bale film series, he's explicit that the coin is the only way to deliver justice. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following laws, it can be acting as a personal code or tradition directs you to. He's certainly Evil when you consider how much he enjoys the horrible things he does under the coin's flips, but I'd call him Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil. Neutral Evil is completely out for itself without any regard for laws except as they're convenient and help the person, it's the height of doing whatever suits yourself without regard to law, chaos, or the morality of your actions. Two-Face is following the Laws of probability.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'd argue Two-Face as Lawful Evil, the Lawful part of it being imposed by the double-headed coin: even if it's sometimes convenient when he flips it, in most of his incarnations he does follow the dictates of how the coin comes up - and in the Bale film series, he's explicit that the coin is the only way to deliver justice. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following laws, it can be acting as a personal code or tradition directs you to. He's certainly Evil when you consider how much he enjoys the horrible things he does under the coin's flips, but I'd call him Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil. Neutral Evil is completely out for itself without any regard for laws except as they're convenient and help the person, it's the height of doing whatever suits yourself without regard to law, chaos, or the morality of your actions. Two-Face is following the Laws of probability.

You're probably right.

[Serenity]

The Crystal Gems:
Steven Universe: very, very Neutral Good. So are/were his parents, though
Garnet: Neutral Good, being the synthesis of Lawful Good Sapphire and Chaotic Good Ruby.
Amethyst: Chaotic Good
Pearl: Started out Lawful Neutral--not just in backstory, but in a lot of the show--but is becoming Lawful Good in her own right.
Bismuth: Chaotic Neutral, driven by very understandable anarchist sentiment and capable of great ruthlessness in pursuit of those ideals.

The Homeworld Gems:
Lapis Lazuli: True Neutral, possibly Neutral Good by the Wedding/Battle of Heart and Mind arc when she overcomes her personal fears to help her friends.
Peridot: Lawful Evil. Definitely became Good after the Cluster arc, not certain where she lands on the Law-Chaos axis ultimately.
Jasper: Neutral Evil. An exemplary soldier, too loyal for her bloodthirsty nature to quite make her Chaotic, but ultimately driven by her own personal feelings more than the orders of her superiors.

[Silfir]

I don't think Peridot was ever Evil. She didn't have the necessary framework of knowledge to understand the value of human beings, or the Earth. There's an entire song number about the turning point in her way of thinking ("Peace and Love on the Planet Earth") that culminates in her breaking ties with Yellow Diamond one episode later. I'd argue at that point she shifts from Lawful Neutral to Neutral Good, or at least some flavor of Good.

Peridot's change is more of a Coming of Age than simply an alignment shift. She starts as a child who trusts her parental figure without question, and is slowly nurtured by her surrogate elder brother Steven towards a fuller understanding of the world and her own role in it. At the end of that process, her "true" alignment comes to light - one that involves compassion and altruism and love. So another way of looking at it was that Peridot didn't really have an alignment until she learned to think for herself.



I don't think Lapis Lazuli ever really undergoes an alignment shift. You don't have to be Good to gather the courage to protect your friends even at a personal risk to yourself. (You can even be Evil and have friends you want to protect.) Being paralyzed by trauma and fear or other mental hang-ups doesn't implicate your alignment, because it's involuntary. Nobody chooses to be too depressed to act. She was True Neutral before and remains True Neutral after - her values don't change, only the degree to which she succeeds at living up to them. She always treasured Steven as a friend and tried to protect him, but it took a lot of personal development for her to be able to oppose Homeworld directly in order to do so.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok more DC characters:

Constantine (True Neutral)
Swamp Thing (Neutral Good)
Raven (Neutral Good)
Cyborg (Neutral Good)
Beast Boy (Chaotic Good)
Starfire (Neutral Good)
Nightwing (Neutral Good)
Blue Beetle (Neutral Good)
Terra (True Neutral)