Alignment examples of fictional characters.

[takyris]

Interesting remarks on Jesus. Hope I can reply without offense. I'm Catholic, by the way.

I'd differentiate between what the aposltes thought of Jesus and what he actually did and said. Most of what Jesus said, when you get right down to it, was trying to get people to obey the spirit of the old laws rather than the letter of the old laws. That's still a law that he's trying to get people to follow.

At the time, most of the Pharisees (spelling, sigh) were likely LN or LE. Jesus could be attempting to sway minds against their draconic interpretation of old rules and still be LG. His forgiveness of sinners and willingness to break Sabbath to heal people points to him being good first, lawful second -- as in, the original purpose of the Sabbath law doesn't jive with using the Sabbath law to stop him from healing someone.

I think a Chaotic Jesus would have run away rather than be crucified. So I'd put him at NG or LG, in an LE or LN society at the time.

Or possibly, I'm full of poo. Again, no offense intended.

-Tacky

 

[Samothdm]

I love your interpretation of the Peanuts gang. Excellent choice of material, as the Peanuts were always about philosophy. I think that for the most part, your assigned alignments are spot on

Thanks - it was a lot harder than I first thought it was going to be.

Why did you place Lucy and Sally among the lawful neutrals? Your evidence for this seems to be that they are primarily self interested, which they certainly are, but I don't see how it follows that they are lawful. Are you suggesting either a) that egotism is a neutral trait, and law/chaos is a personality trait like neatness? or b) that egotism is lawful trait?

I was thinking of it more like in "a". There isn't a lot of real "evil" in the Peanuts world, so I had to take some liberties. For the good-versus-evil axis, I looked at:
Good = helping other people/doing things for others
Neutral = doing things for yourself and not getting too involved with others' well-being.
Evil = Actively promoting the unfair treatment of others.

Based on this scale, one could argue that Lucy and Violet (along with a little-seen character named "Patty" who is NOT "Peppermint Patty") would be "evil" since they, above all others in the cartoons, constantly berate and belittle Good Ol' Charlie Brown.

As far as the law-versus-chaos aspect, that was a lot harder.
I was tempted to put Sally into Chaotic Neutral, but then I remember her quote from the Christmas Special about getting her "fair share". Obviously she knows that there is fairness/justice in the world just as their is unfairness and injustice. She was obviously coming from the "justice angle" (getting what was coming to her, in this case "Tens or Twenties"). Given that her interests were self-motivated (she wanted money for herself because it was "due" her, not because she wanted to use it to help people), I pegged her as Lawful Neutral.

Lucy I also thought about making Chaotic Neutral. In the end, I decided to put her as Lawful due to her unflagging determination and regimen in her constant pursuit of Schroeder. I felt that this amount of determination would not be becoming of a Chaotic character, who would most likely flirt with everyone at her whim. There are obviously other males around for her to focus her attentions on, yet she keeps going after Schroeder time and again. Perhaps should would be better as a "True" Neutral.

Is Patty chaotic because she lives in a self centered universe, or is that the reason you say she borders on chaotic neutrality?

I put Patty as chaotic based upon her actions in the comics and the cartoons which are very inconsistent. She says one thing and means another, and, deep down, I don't really think she even knows what she means. Her confusion over "the funny looking kid with the big nose" (who everyone can see is really Snoopy the Dog) makes her seem delusional. I figured that Chaotic Good was the best way to describe her.

The reason I felt that she was drifting toward neutrality versus good is because, based on my above scale, we don't see her selflessly do things for the other characters as often as some of the others.

I would tend to see Lucy and Sally as being Chaotic Nuetrals.

That's interesting. How come?

Glad you enjoyed the post.

EDIT: Corrected spelling error.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think a Chaotic Jesus would have run away rather than be crucified. So I'd put him at NG or LG, in an LE or LN society at the time.

Or possibly, I'm full of poo. Again, no offense intended.

I'm hard to offend. My problem is that I forget that other people take things seriously (hence the massive edit to my previous post when I actually read it in the light of day).

I disagree with the statement above because it implies that Chaotic Good characters are cowardly. I don't think that's true at all. Bravery is a Good trait, not a Lawful one (it's almost universally listed as a virtue, after all).

My personal interpretation has always been that Jesus was more about individuals than Laws. Societal taboos are really just another form of Law, and Jesus broke those left and right in order to help people. He was busily turning everyone's perceptions of God and the Messiah on their ear, and introducing the notion that God cared less about glory and worship than about people helping each other. Law doesn't even enter into that. He took the 10 Commandments (and all the derivative "laws") and eschewed them in favor of a code: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Much more effective, and has the advantage of growing with the times.

This could definitely be considered Neutral Good (with a leaning toward Chaos because of his strong push for the individual), but in the context of his society, he seems flat-out Chaotic.

 

[takyris]

Interesting. I'm no Biblical scholar, but my understanding was that Jesus was not so much trying to "tear down" the established religion as reform the existing religion to bring it back to its original spiritual roots. Looking at what he said, he never espoused ditching Judaism altogether -- it ended up being later people who formed a completely new church. At the time, he was a reformer of Judaism.

(Um, Religious Studies people, please kick me if I'm full of it)

And I didn't say that as a true CG he'd have run away because it was cowardice. I think he'd have run because staying and dying in obedience of laws that (as CG) he didn't respect would be stupid, when compared to continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority.

He was definitely trying to bring about a new and less corrupt set of rules and guidelines to live by. And he was trying to get sinners back into church by forgiving them and telling them to live good lives again. To me, it still sounds like LG-to-NG.

As for "CG in a LE society", I don't see alignments as changing based on the society they're in. If someone is LG and they enter and live in an LE society, you don't suddenly call them CG because they don't respect the LE laws.

-Tacky

 

[DonAdam]

I'll pipe in on the Jesus issue (Catholic Theology major speaking, if that means anything):

I said Lawful Good.

Socially, he certainly did some reinterpretation (you can read it as "tearing down," but that goes against his claim that he has come to fulfill the law).

However, popular interpretation is that he brought the law back to it's original meaning.

Furthermore, Jesus always and everywhere believes in following God's law. If you interpret that as merely good/evil, then there may be some ambiguity towards the lawful/chaotic question.

Remember Jesus' statement: give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Just because he doesn't recognize the authority of the Pharisees over him (true authority comes from the Father, who by Catholic interpretation is of one being with Jesus) doesn't mean that he denies the existence of a legitimate social authority.

The sabbath thing highlights the above parenthetical note. Man is not allowed to work on the sabbath, but God must always act, and Jesus is God as well. The miracles are certainly a work of Jesus's divinity. Furthermore, it is commonly understood that the Pharisees had imposed their interpretation of the law as the law itself, and so the core of God's law took precedence.

The whole notion of the kingdom of God is like an invasion of God's forces into the kingdom currently held by Satan, the earth. So, rather than Jesus being revolutionary, he was a conquerer reclaiming the hearts of God's people under God's law, God's rule, and God's Word, which is then revealed to be Jesus Himself.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I always thought Creon, from Antigony, was a great example of LN.

FD

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Interesting. I'm no Biblical scholar, but my understanding was that Jesus was not so much trying to "tear down" the established religion as reform the existing religion to bring it back to its original spiritual roots. Looking at what he said, he never espoused ditching Judaism altogether -- it ended up being later people who formed a completely new church. At the time, he was a reformer of Judaism.

He was definitely trying to bring about a new and less corrupt set of rules and guidelines to live by. And he was trying to get sinners back into church by forgiving them and telling them to live good lives again. To me, it still sounds like LG-to-NG.

He was definitely a reformer of Judaism. No argument here. But he was instituting MAJOR reform. God was an unpleasant fellow in the Scriptures up to that point. He even encouraged genocide (of the Canaanites, for example), and tended to smite sinners, even among his chosen people. Jesus showed up with an ENTIRELY different idea of a Supreme Being. His didn't smite. He forgave. Didn't like the whole "chosen people" routine. Consorting with Gentiles and Sinners! GASP! People figured the Messiah was going to come and lead them to dominion over their Roman oppressors, and here was this Jesus guy taking a "live and let live" view of Rome: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." and so on.

"And I didn't say that as a true CG he'd have run away because it was cowardice. I think he'd have run because staying and dying in obedience of laws that (as CG) he didn't respect would be stupid, when compared to continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority."

I wasn't even thinking about the "obedience to law" angle. Jesus didn't go to the cross willingly because of obedience to the law. He went because he knew that by his suffering he opened the way to Heaven for his people. The law had nothing to do with his motivations there. In fact, I find it ironic that the corrupt law put Jesus exactly where he needed to go. Besides, "continuing to live as an outlaw preacher who flouted authority" wouldn't gain him anything in the long run. If he got lucky, he would have scrabbled together a minor Jewish cult. By dying, (and rising again, if one believes in that sort of thing), he founded a lasting religion (if one that IMO ignores a LOT of what he was all about).

As for "CG in a LE society", I don't see alignments as changing based on the society they're in. If someone is LG and they enter and live in an LE society, you don't suddenly call them CG because they don't respect the LE laws."

Point to you. That was a pretty inane remark from me. Being against a particular Lawful society doesn't make one chaotic. Reading what Jesus said, as opposed to how he was subsequently interpreted, has always led me to list his priorities like so:
1. Compassion
2. Worth of Every Individual
3. Respect and Love for God (which is shown via compassion for all people and respect for God's Creation)
4. Church and Secular Law
Neutral Good may be a better choice, but I still think he leans more to the Chaotic side than the Lawful side.

 

[Romotre]

i can't believe nobody has mentioned Iago from Othello. Great example of lawful evil.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

CAUTION

Let's stick with the Peanuts (and Thomas Covenant!), but not Jesus.

If you'all keep on with Jesus and religion, I think the moderators will close this thread.

Remember, they do not permit Religion or Politics to be discussed on the ENBoards.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

i can't believe nobody has mentioned Iago from Othello. Great example of lawful evil.

Neutral Evil all the way- he did not respect the laws and had no code of behavior. He was perverse (old definition)- in doing evil for the sake of evil.

The best example of LE: Scrooge.

FD