Alignment examples of fictional characters.

[S'mon]

However, Conan changed somewhat over the course of his saga. Conan the stripling young barbarian, was CN to a 'tee'. Conan the soldier was still somewhat CN but began exhibiting neutral tendencies. By the time he has become King of Aquilonia, he is IMO somewhere between TN and possibly even LN. So to descibe his alignment you have to "pick your Conan", much like Kevin Pollack has to "pick his Shatner" when imitating Captain Kirk.

I see Conan as a purely self-interested survivor - Neutral. He does what suits this goal best at different ages, from thief to king, but I don't think he ever went through anything that could be classed as an alignment change.

BTW I think real-world villains like Hitler are really hard to classify in D&D alignment terms, they talk about the need for Order but seem to actively promote Chaos. Moorcock has Hitler aligned with Chaos, whereas many would see him as Lawful-Evil; I think either view is equally justifiable.

Star Wars is easier - Vader seems Lawful Evil, he genuinely wants to restore Order to the Galaxy, albeit preferably with him and his dynasty in charge, and is willing to undermine Palpatine's Empire to achieve this. Palpatine seems Neutral Evil, he's consumed by the Dark Side and seeks nothing but personal power. Most of the Imperial military like Tarkin (just saw Ep IV last night - great film, except for the cheesy CGI add-ins) are Lawful Evil. The Rebels seem basically NG with some LG leaders.

 

[S'mon]

I'll give you Law & Order, and I never watched Homicide, but NYPD Blue is the defining example of what I'm talking about. Paying lip service to Order while at work, and then turning everything you touch in your personal life to Chaos does not a Lawful person make.

And, generally speaking, most cops on TV are more about the personal power their badge and gun give them than actually promoting Order. And why does using unlawful methods to promote law still make them lawful, while using evil methods to promote good still makes people evil? "The ends justify the means" is acceptable on one moral axis, but not the other?

I don't see Law-Chaos as a 'moral' axis - I guess that means I'm Neutral vis-a-vis the two!
I suppose you can argue that having chaotic personal lives means people are chaotic, but do they _want_ their personal lives to be Chaotic, or is that the result of the stresses placed upon them by their job? If the latter, I don't see how that makes them Chaotic.

As far as 'unlawful methods to promote law' goes, I'd say it was a question of whether they casually resort to unlawful methods (NYPD Blue, often), or resort to them in desperation because the legal system itself is incapable of dealing with the threat (Homicide). I agree that not all the NYPD Blue characters are Lawful, some like Sipowicz seem more Neutral if anything. The red-haired guy's girlfriend who shoots the Mafia boss in the first episode is the only one I can think of who might actually be Chaotic.

As for 'doing evil to promote good', I think it's a question of degree. Dirty Harry (in the original movie) I'd say is Lawful Good, in fact a good paladin archetype; 'executing' the serial killer is justifiable when he knows the system itself has failed. Others disagree and class him as LN (ends don't justify means) or even Chaotic (because he breaks the Law). Vigilante characters who go around happily shooting every thug they find (Charles Bronson's Deathwish character) seem more N to CN.