Istbor
Dances with Gnolls
Without turning this into a Firefly discussion, Jayne is more chaotic neutral (and maybe even chaotic good in Serenity).
Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I would totally be down for a flash Firefly discussion.
Without turning this into a Firefly discussion, Jayne is more chaotic neutral (and maybe even chaotic good in Serenity).
We must have watched different Jaynestowns. The main thing you learn from that segment is that (1) Jayne will stab anyone in the back for cash; (2) Jayne feels rotten about himself but has no intention of changing.
Edit: I see you edited in a clip of Mal gratuitously torturing someone to prove your assertion that Mal is Lawful Good. Seriously?! We have very different standards for what constitutes good and evil.
Jayne is indistinguishable from Brutish Evil though, and he doesn't disrupt the show. In fact he adds a lot of humorous moments to it.
Mal Reynolds might be evil--it's hard to say how bad his offscreen activities are. Remember, this is the guy who would kill a shipful of refugees in order to save the lives of (only) his crew. If he intensely regrets that act, he's probably still good. If he secretly, in his heart, thinks that those idiot yokels aren't worth saving in the first place, he's probably evil.
It's hard to know a man's heart from only the actions that are written in the script.
He gives a bad guy who tried to murder him (after also doing a bunch of other bad stuff), a few extra jabs with his sword. He doesn't torture the guy, nor kill him. He just gives him a few punches while he's down. Given the context of the episode, Mal can be forgiven by the audience for not being entirely kind to the guy.
Certainly given the story of serenity, it is clear that Mal is a good guy, with a strict moral code. This episode was all about that code. He didn't have to face an expert swordsman in a duel and risk his life, but he did so because he wanted to defend the honor of the woman he loves. And then he shows mercy to the man who tried to kill him. He just wanted to make a point.
Given that what you call "Lawful Good" I call "Evil", it's not surprising that you refuse to allow evil characters in your campaign. The evil characters I'd allow would probably be Lawful Good at your table, and the evil characters you'd disallow would be Unspeakably Vile at mine.
Given that what you call "Lawful Good" I call "Evil", it's not surprising that you refuse to allow evil characters in your campaign. The evil characters I'd allow would probably be Lawful Good at your table, and the evil characters you'd disallow would be Unspeakably Vile at mine.
A lawful good character is not a character that always does the right thing, or follows the law. A lawful good character can have bad character traits just like any other alignment can. Just because the character has a good heart, doesn't mean he's nice, or likeable. Han Solo is a good guy, although you wouldn't be able to tell at first. But when it comes down to it, he shows up in the nick of time to help Luke blow up the Death Star. He's the kind of guy who says he doesn't care about it all... but in the end, he pulls through (He leans towards neutral good though). But a lawful good character simply follows a code, be it the actual law, or some strong personal ethics. It is this code that informs his good acts. Its what makes Mal instruct the people he's robbing to lock themselves up in the vault when the reavers attack in Serenity. Playing a good character does not mean that you have to play a goody-two-shoes. But when it comes down to it, you're the good guy. That doesn't mean you have to be nice to your enemies though, or show them mercy. A lawful good paladin for example, could be a fanatic who doesn't show her enemies any mercy at all.
Translation: We would both ban Unspeakably Vile PCs from our tables. Apparently we would both allow characters who enjoy torturing their enemies; it's just that I call those characters Evil and you call them Lawful Good.
What would you say Superman's alignment is then? After all, in the last movie he killed Zod even though Zod is "helpless". In the old Christopher Reeve version it's even worse - IIRC Superman reverses polarity on a gizmo that returns his super powers while taking away Zod's powers. He then ----slaps Zod to his death.
Whether they enjoy torturing, or just commit an act that inflicts pain on an enemy to punish him, are two very different things. Mal giving his defeated opponent two extra pokes with his sword, was obviously not doing the right thing there. But does that make him evil, when he is teaching his opponent a well deserved lesson and also sparing his life?
In my current pirate campaign, the players play more morally gray characters. They are pirates, so they are already ignoring the law. But they do have ethics. They do protect the weak and innocent, while even sometimes showing mercy to their enemies. But they have on occasion also subjected one of their enemies to torture, to extract information. Yet despite that, they are good characters at heart.