Alignment in the movie "Man on Fire"

[Odysseus]

I used the wotc online alignment test, answering fron DWs perspective. And got Neutral Good. Which I think shows the flaws of the aligmnet system.

 

[fusangite]

Of course the alignment system cannot represent the character; for alignment to work, we must inhabit a universe like Star Trek's in which all means-ends distinctions are evil illusions. The inability to represents Washington's character is also indicative of the problems entailed when the law-chaos axis comes into contact with conflicting behavioural and ethical codes within the same society. The D&D alignment system is already stretched when it confronts highly codified hierarchical criminal organizations.

 

[fusangite]

Alignment is stupid concept that should have been purged from the game with 3.0.

A less extreme solution might have been to make it modular, retaining it as a subtype for extraplanar creatures and creating optional rules for GMs to use alignment in their campaign with various consistent interpretations of how the system might work.

 

[Aristotle]

This is seriously tough...

My first instinct is to say that he was Chaotic Neutral, taking the shortest and most direct path to an end without particular concern for how good or bad that end was. If this is the case then he was probably Chaotic Good in his younger years, doing the same things but justifying them by the good ends that came from them (he was a government assassin after all). The girl was a catalyst that shook him of his current state and inspired him to act on the same sorts of emotions that once fueled his Chaotic Good self. I'm not a fan of alignments switching all of the time, but given the extremes he goes to ... I'd say that by the end he 'redeems' himself and is Chaotic Good once more.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The D&D alignment system is already stretched when it confronts highly codified hierarchical criminal organizations.

You mean like the classic Lawful Evil mafia?

 

[fusangite]

You mean like the classic Lawful Evil mafia?

So, you're certain of Tony Soprano's lawful alignment? You don't find that any of the text of the rules might make it problematic?

How many people have to share the agenda of systematically breaking the laws of their society before this behaviour, which is clearly chaotic when one individual does it, becomes lawful?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, you're certain of Tony Soprano's lawful alignment?

Nope.

Didn't you read what I posted above? I'll repost it for you:

No, this is not a shortfall of the alignment system.

This is a shortfall of the media which transmit the characters' actions and intentions to the observers.

If, at every given point in the movie, we knew exactly what DW was doing and why and how he felt about it, then we could reasonably judge his alignment.

However, we don't. Therefore, just like in the case of, "What alignment is Robin Hood?" we cannot give the correct answer except by accident.

PCs, on the other hand, do have such transparency because of the player's direct involvement. Therefore, you can always accurately determine a PC's alignment - so long as the player is honest, at least.

And, again, Lawful and Legal have nothing to do with each other. Don't confuse them - you'll be happier that way.

 

[fusangite]

Nope.

Didn't you read what I posted above?

I did. It did not provide a coherent answer.

In the first place, GMs are instructed by the DMG as follows:

Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.

So, your statement that without knowing the internal thoughts of the character is directly contradicted by the letter of the rules.

In the second place, in an RPG, people do not express the internal thoughts of their characters as a running monologue. They generally only notify the GM and their fellow players of the PC's actions.

So, not only do the rules say that you are supposed to ignore statements of motive/intent and only consider actions, but the actual practice of play does not permit running the alignment system the way you suggest.

And, again, Lawful and Legal have nothing to do with each other. Don't confuse them - you'll be happier that way.

And let me quote the section of the rules that might just undermine your Tony Soprano theory. Regarding Lawful Evil characters, the PHB says:

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.

 

[Klaus]

Originally posted at the Save My Game column at WotC:

"To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself."

Fits the Mafia stereotype (can't speak for Tony Soprano, never watched that show).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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.

Punisher's LE all the way, but I don't think I've ever seen a version of Batman I wouldn't call LG, or at least LN (G). He pushes it sometimes, but he's always been joyward of Menausus.

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

It disappoints me how few people understand this.