Alignment in the movie "Man on Fire"

[Nadaka]

Creasy is Lawful Neutral. He gives the law time to do its job. Only when it fails does he take matters into his own hands. He is dedicated to a cause, the cause of retrieving/avenging Pita. He failed to do his duty to protect her and it burns him up inside. Yes, he tourtures, yes he kills helpless people. He does so only to those responsible for taking Pita and the "issues" that arose from the corruption of those involved. He also shows mercy at times, even to the guilty. I believe that his complete devotion to his goal without regard to his own health and life is very much an orderly/lawful quality.

 

[Malic]

Chaotic neutral.

My impression from the film was that he will do anything to recover the girl because of his personal feelings for her. He did not act on any of the other kidnappings of innocents etc earlier in the movie, so he is not acting on some moral principle. He is certainly acting outside his contract, especially after he warned the father what level of performance to expect.

In the end he puts her life above his own, but I think neutral people can do that. Any alignment can value their family, for example, that highly. I believe it is a similar emotional meaning the girl has for him. Good people might do so for strangers - they consider people's value as absolute, not defined by their relationship to the person.

He does not 'give the law time to find her', he is out of commission for that time and begins the hunt as soon as he is able. Chaotic alignment does not mean someone's actions are random or they are unable to plan. He does not care for the local law forces - admittedly with reason - and we learn little about his personal moral code except that he believes he has done, and is doing, wrong. He does whatever he wants to do, which I think makes him Chaotic.

He is brutal and violent in the search, but does not seem to enjoy it, or be particularly over the top. For example after getting the info he wanted from the guy in the car he shoots him dead. He doesn't set fire to the car. Pain is a means and not an end. These actions are definitely on the evil side of neutral, but I don't think it's quite enough to make him Evil.

The chaotic/neutral and neutral/evil lines vary from campaign to campaign though, so I could understand putting him in any of those four boxes.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I'd say neutral evil. Mind you, that's a close to true neutral neutral evil. In the early scenes it's painted that he has been a very bad man. And even when he's trying to save the girl, I always had the feeling that he'd do just about anything to reach that end. And to me, that ruthlessness is where the line starts being drawn.

Also, I try to look at alignments in terms of opposites. And it seems like kindness and compassion have become foreign to him.

It's been a while since I've seen the movie though.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Rel - you stated exactly how I would have felt were I in Creasy's shoes... basically "F*ck Heaven & Hell... All I want to know is where is the little girl, and what can I do to keep her safe?"

All other considerations are secondary - I was hired specifically to keep her safe, and I have failed. My only options are to attempt to rescue her, or to admit defeat and let that haunt me for the rest of my life.

 

[Malic]

Interesting. A few posts now have referred to finding the little girl. But if I remember correctly, she was believed to be dead until right at the end? And his hunt was to kill all those responsible?

Does that make a difference, alignment-wise?

 

[qstor]

I would say Lawful Neutral overall... The lawful part comes from his dedication to the contract of protecting the girl. Neutral since he is trying to protect the girl (the good component) and his methods are pretty ruthless (the evil component) and IMHO they are closely balanced since at the end of the movie he redeems himself thru self sacrifice.

BTW - if you haven't seen this movie I highly recommend it.

Thanks for all the cool comments/replies.

I guess in overview. I'd go with True Neutral as well, with a strong personal code of honor.

He's not good because IMHO he kills helpless people after he's tortured them. He might be CG if he roughed them up a bit but left them for the authorities or left them alone. To me torturing someone, leaving them helpless and THEN killing them is a pure evil act. Man on Fire is a bit different from the part in Mad Max, where Max just goes against those responsible for his families death and in someparts gives the killers an option out. In Man on Fire it seems his vengence is spread in a wider net in his search for the girls kidnappers.

I would say he's not lawful because he acts alone without credence to any sense of authority apart from his own.

Mike

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'd say he's evil during much of the movie. After he finds out the girl's alive he slips over to good. But then, I also think that the Punisher's evil, as well as many incarnations of Batman.

I really, really, really wish that The Punisher movie had been more like Man on Fire.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Huh... well I guess I am an evil SOB then, because I know if torturing and then killing a "bad guy" could give me the information I need to save a little girl's life, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Wolf72]

...

If it's the latter, I'd probably say NE with a touch of Law. He's very methodical, and very good at restricting his targets. Remember, Evil feels love, too-- sometimes even in a wholesome, inspiring fashion.

I agree, this is how NE might work in a party of characters w/o disrupting the cooperative aspects of the game.

 

[Mystery Man]

Chaotic neutral.

Finally someone else who knows whats up.