Alignment in the movie "Man on Fire"

[fusangite]

That said, I think that the MAIN reason the system seems to break down is because individuals don't know (or, charitably, do not agree about) what the different qualities MEAN.

And what do you think accounts for that?

 

[Malic]

Hi Amal

No, the fact that he breaks 'laws' is not the point to me at all. I thought I'd better mention it though because in other alignment threads, respect for society's laws has been pointed out as important to lawful behaviour. I think we can both agree that the police corruption makes that less important in this case.

I just don't think that you have to be lawful to work your way along a trail of bad guys, driven by revenge. This is not a complicated plan. Also, the fact that he does not seem to believe that he lives up to what he thinks is right, but does it anyway, argues for chaotic. Maybe he once had a code, but he doesn't follow it. Not to mention refusal to get medical treatment, emotional swings, alcohol abuse.

The actions you have suggested as chaotic mostly seem to assume that he is not really angry about a specific thing. Like either a chaotic person can't care about anything for 5 minutes at a time, or they can't connect the specific people who've wronged them to their desire for revenge. I just don't believe that.

"Someone/something important to me has been destroyed. I will find everyone responsible and kill them." Doesn't that sound like typical barbarian behaviour?


Fusangite - Yes. But at least it gets you thinking. What does my character believe? What box are they closest to? What issues would drive them out of that box?

edit. You are right. This thread really does underline how different people's understanding of the system is. I had always thought that assumed context was behind many of the different interpretations in previous threads. Now I see that something as apparantly simple as law and chaos - not on the border, but squarely in each camp - can be different to different people, when everyone has all the same context information. I really can't see anything lawful about this case at all, but plenty of people on the thread think it is.

 

[JDowling]

I think if it's this unclear which alignment he is, and if he doesn't have any strong convictions about the whole mess, then I think he's a pretty clear cut example of "just plain neutral" qua "I don't care about morals and ethics as long as I get done what I need/want to get done".

But I'm just going by what has been said in this thread, I've never seen the movie, so I don't know if he ever goes on about how great law, chaos, good, or evil are.

Anyway, I think the core books are pretty clear that if someone acts in different ways, or flip flops, or just doesn't have any strong compunctions about it then they are neutral because they don't care much about alignment. I've known so many DM who just wouldn't let an undecided character be neutral, they kept flip-flopping alignment around and having hemmorages because they couldn't understand some characters just don't give a hoot about all this junk, they just want to get the job done.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Hi Malic,

I think we can both agree that the police corruption makes that less important in this case.

Yup. The vermin do make it easy, mind you

I just don't think that you have to be lawful to work your way along a trail of bad guys, driven by revenge. This is not a complicated plan.

Sure, a Chaotic individual could do the same thing (work along a trail of bad guys), but he'd likely go about it differently. Mind you, I think they'd be just as likely to do something else...

Knowing Creasy's nature, I don't think any other response was possible (the hallmark of a lawful personality): He took the job, was upfront with his employer about his limitations (which I think some of the chaos advocates may have overlooked), took his duties seriously, executed them well and faithfully, and clearly saw that his duty required him to exact revenge on those responsible for kidnapping/killing his charge.

Yes, he was angry too - but I didn't see that anger interfere with his ability to execute his mission: The amount of violence applied was VERY precise - just enough to do the job, no more. Notice that people didn't end up inadvertantly dead before he found out what he needed to learn from them. Limited collateral damage, long stakeouts, careful attention paid to disguises, ensuring means of ingress/egress, taking pains to avoid killing bystanders. All of this speaks to him maintaining strict control of his emotions throughout - not giving in to the no doubt powerful impulse to just waste the bast@rds RIGHT NOW.

Also, while a reasonably straightforward 'Mission' (Kill 'em All), it was NOT an easy trail of bad guys to follow. More importantly, it was a MISSION. Not just a spastic outpouring of rage.

Also, the fact that he does not seem to believe that he lives up to what he thinks is right, but does it anyway, argues for chaotic.

I think this is why he isn't 'Good'. I think a lot of the 'bad things they've done' that they're 'unlikely to be forgiven for' were ALSO done because he felt it was his duty to do those things in the service of his nation. His 'Lawfulness' (devotion to duty) was more important to him than being 'Good' or not being 'Evil'.

The 'he knows he's doing/done bad things, therefore he's chaotic' argument is just a repositioning of the Law = Legal position, except that now the 'Law' he's breaking is a 'higher Law' - perhaps that of his upbringing (Catholic) or culture (Judeo/Christian/Western).

He knows that what he does/did/is going to do is WRONG - but he does it because his understanding of his duty and his code requires it of him. Even were that not so, his actions are conducted in a structured, organized and disciplined fashion...

I'm not suggesting that he's completely immune from Chaotic influence - we agree that his drinking and general dissolution at the beginning of the film represent unlawful tendencies. But he definitely pulls himself together long enough to execute the Mission he assigns himself.

"Someone/something important to me has been destroyed. I will find everyone responsible and kill them." Doesn't that sound like typical barbarian behaviour?

I suppose. But the execution is somewhat different. Your typical Barbarian (D&D Flavah) does not assign himself a Mission, plan each detail in an exacting fashion, and painstakingly stick to the plan. In the games I play, they seem all about 'Kill now, plan Later'...

It is an interesting discussion. I might even go so far as to grudgingly agree with Fusangite that SOMETHING is wrong with the system: If people's understanding of Alignments is SO diverse, then they're useless as a tool to help describe a character's outlook.

A'mal

 

[Malic]

The 'he knows he's doing/done bad things, therefore he's chaotic' argument is just a repositioning of the Law = Legal position, except that now the 'Law' he's breaking is a 'higher Law' - perhaps that of his upbringing (Catholic) or culture (Judeo/Christian/Western).

He knows that what he does/did/is going to do is WRONG - but he does it because his understanding of his duty and his code requires it of him.A'mal

Mmm, that is a good point which I had not considered. It does assume a 'code of duty' that I didn't notice any evidence for in the film, which conflicts with the only 'code'-like thing he does, indirectly, refer to (divine judgement). If true, it's is an interesting place to be at in alignment (and RP) terms.

Why do you assume, though, that his 'code' - which you seem to connect to previous unpleasant work while serving his country (I apologise if I've got that wrong) - would require him to take comprehensive revenge for the death of someone under his care / failing in his mission? Particularly since he had already warned the client he would not be sufficient protection against a professional attack?

I guess we both agree that having an internal code and sticking to it is lawful, while believing in a code and breaking it frequently is chaotic?

Hypothetical question : leaving aside the issue of how complex the 'mission plan' was, do you think revenge motivated by emotion would be non-lawful whereas revenge mandated by some personal code would be lawful?

Gotta say it seems like that to me.

If so, then Patryn of Elvenshae was right on the first page in saying that an alignment can't be assigned unless we know what motivated someone to do something. Which as fusangite points out contradicts the DMG "actions determine alignment, not statements of intent".

Which only goes to further show that the alignment system isn't much use for describing a character (let alone managing a PC as a DM!).

Cheers!

(PS. Law=legal? Well at some point a lawful character has to have a 'highest law' they won't break. No reason you couldn't call that 'legal' too I guess. Also, a code learned from others is probably the most common for lawful characters - see 'respect for tradition and authority'. If it's the 'highest law' for that character, even if it's 'legal', yes they have to stick to it to be Lawful.)

 

[Afrodyte]

Hypothetical question : leaving aside the issue of how complex the 'mission plan' was, do you think revenge motivated by emotion would be non-lawful whereas revenge mandated by some personal code would be lawful?

No. Just because a character is lawful it does not mean he is a passionless automaton. The presence and intensity of emotions that a character feels has no bearing on their alignment; that is a function of temperament and experience. You can have a CE sociopath who kills people simply to see if he can get away with it just as you can have a LG paladin who upholds the standards of chivalry out of zeal for the ideals it represents.

I think the problem with alignment (or rather, people's interpretations of it) is that it is an attempt to be both a personality mechanic and a measure of a person's morality. Quite frankly, it is simply too clumsy a tool to do both. Personalities are by nature complex; different situations trigger different emotions and behaviors. However, as a measure of a person's general behavioral tendencies, it can function quite well. The key here, though, is to make its limitations clear.

Let's take the PHB example of Tordek. It says that he is LG, but can be a bit greedy too. Therefore, while his general tendency is to act in a Lawful and Good manner, when it comes to things of material value, he may behave in a way that would seem distinctly non-lawful and non-good. Would this warrant an alignment change? Only insofar as it completely changes his overall pattern of behavior. You'd have to observe him over the course of an entire campaign to see. All in all, I'd say that alignment would only shift at dramatically appropriate moments. If the only time he acts in a non-lawful and non-good manner is when treasure is involved, chances are he'd still remain LG. However, if he begins a new pattern, such as betraying his friends for a pouch full of silver pieces, that may reflect an alignment change. It's one thing to constantly get into arguments or tense negotiations with the other members of the party whenever they divide treasure. It's another thing altogether to steal treasure from them, betray them, or harm them to satisfy that greed.

 

[Klaus]

Malic wrote: "The lawful/chaotic split is very interesting. People who think he is lawful, what does that leave for chaotic behaviour?"

Although I voted for True Neutral, I'd say that a chaotic person would go something like this:

Princess: "Wait! Did you think this through before coming to rescue me?"
Chaotic Rescuer: "Pardon me, your honor, but I'm making this up as I go!"

 

[Amal Shukup]

I guess we both agree that having an internal code and sticking to it is lawful, while believing in a code and breaking it frequently is chaotic?

We do agree: Having a code indicates Lawfulness, I think. Breaking such a code is a chaotic act...

But there are complexities. It seems to me that Creasy had very specific understanding of his Duty (to country before, to his employer/Pita now). He also subscribed to Judeo Christian morality (or 'code' perhaps) - but his Duty to country/Pita OBVIOUSLY took precedence. Is breaking one 'code' in furtherance of another code chaotic? I don't think so.

How does a lawful character CHOOSE between "Thou shalt not Kill" and "Sgt. Creasy, terminate that objective with extreme prejudice"? Or even his self imposed mission? By CHOOSING (and living/dying with the consequences). In other words, it sucks to be Creasy.

Hypothetical question : leaving aside the issue of how complex the 'mission plan' was, do you think revenge motivated by emotion would be non-lawful whereas revenge mandated by some personal code would be lawful?

No, I think Creasy's lawfulness is well demonstrated by his actions (controlled, planned, disciplined). He was obviously also deeply, deeply angry. A Chaotic individual would feel just as angry but be less controlled in his actions.

A'Mal

 

[tigycho]

Knowing Creasy's nature, I don't think any other response was possible (the hallmark of a lawful personality): He took the job, was upfront with his employer about his limitations (which I think some of the chaos advocates may have overlooked), took his duties seriously, executed them well and faithfully, and clearly saw that his duty required him to exact revenge on those responsible for kidnapping/killing his charge.

We have to take Creasy's friend's speech to the Mexican version of the FBI into account. When Rayburn, played by Christopher Walken, is asked by the FBI guy, why Creasy is doing what he is doing,

Cop: What happened to him? What happened to Creasy?
Rayburn: [Pita] showed him that it was alright to live again.
Cop: And the kidnappers that took that away?
Rayburn: They're going to wish they never touched a haair on her head

Than, my favorite quote from the movie... it always sends chills down my spine:
Rayburn: "A man can be an artist... in anything, food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasey's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece. "

If we take this at face value, plus what creasy tells the mother, when she asks him what he's going to do "What I do best... kill them all.", it isn't so clear that Creasy is doing this out of a sense of ongoing duty to Pita.

I agree with other posters who feel that all evidnce is that Creasy is, in general, Lawful. His approach to EVERYTHING is methodical. Planning routes to and from the school, training Pita for the swim meet, preparing and planning each stage of his hunt for those who (he thought) were responsible for Pita's death.

His disbelief in his abilities to be an effective bodyguard is balanced by the fact that he KNOWS he used to be one of the best professional assassins. As his friend and former co-assassin Rayburn puts it, "Even at your worst, your still pretty good" or something like that.

And keep in mind that he didn't demand top prices for his services, either. He tells his new employer, when asked why he'll work for so little, something to the effect that "service will be commensurate with pay". He doesn't seem to be implying that he sucks, just that he has little confidence in his abilities, and that the low fee he's collecting is about all he thinks he's worth. Samuel is Pita's father:

Samuel: Your resume is quite impressive. 16 years of miltary experience, extensive counter-terrorism work. I'm surprised anyone could afford you, what's the catch?
Creasy: I drink.
Samuel: How does that affect you?
Creasy: Coordination, reaction time. Top professionals try to kidnap your daughter I'll do the best I can but the service will be on par with the pay.
Samuel: What if amatuers try?
Creasy: I'd probably kill 'em. That likely?
Samuel: No. No one is to know about your drinking. That includes my wife.



Of course, when he takes out like 4 of the 6 kidnappers (and professionals at that) in the initial kidnapping attempt, we discover just how good a washed out prefessional assassin can be....

In any case, I thnk he is trying to be as fair as he can with his employers, which is definately not evil, nor chaotic, IMO... neutral at worst.

So, I'm totally on board with him being Lawful.

So, do I think he is Good, Evil, or Neutral?

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Is Creasy altruistic? No evidence for this until the end, when he trades his life for Pita's. I'll call this a maybe.

Does Creasy have respect for life? Definately... in fact, he is tortured by the lives he has taken and/or failed to save in the past. A Yes here.

Is Creasy concerned for the dignity of sentient beings? He's certainly polite, and mindful of others' feelings (witness his discussions with the nuns and Pita's mother). But he doesn't go out of his way, that we know of in this regard, so, I'll say maybe.

Does Creasy hurt, oppress, and kill other people? Yes, No, and Yes.

Does Creasy lack compassion for others? No. He isn't outwardly focussed at the beginning of the movie, having his own personal demons to drink into silence, but he isn't a cold fish, either... he cares, or used to, and wants to again, but can't, until Pita revives his 'spark'.


Does Creasy kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. No. He kills those invoved in the kidnapping, certainly, and no second thoughts. Does he have qualms about doing it? We don't really know. Is it because it is convenient? No, it is, in fact, often inconvenient, but he does it anyway, and goes out of his way to keep innocents safe.**

Does Creasy actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master? Not a chance.

So, Id say he has both Good and Evil tendencies, more toward Good than evil. In the end, I'd say Lawful Neutral, with Good tendencies.

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Creasy is the Judge. He is a witness to an act he deems deserves the death penalty. He uses torture to find the next victim. He doesn't take any joy in these acts. In fact, he is merciful, when he can be: "Smoke it while you have time", "You have 30 seconds to Pray". One of the three in the night club he just turns over to the police.

Creasy: Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.

As someone else said: Creasy is the Punisher that the Punisher should have been.

Tiggs

** Some might argue that torching a nightclub full of Ecstasy wacked out freaks might be a disregard for public safety. He DID clear the building on his way out, trying to make sure everyone ELSE left before he got to safety, but a burning building is never safe. Also, firing an RPG rocket into downtown daytime traffic is bound to bring a small chance of injury or death to innocents. None occurred, but that doesn't matter... Thus, this is the part of the Evil that I think mostly sticks to him. He is willing to take a calculated risk of injuring innocents to accomplish his tasks.

 

[tigycho]

Another memorable quote from the movie, that illustrates Creasy:

Sister Anna is a nun at Pita's school. He's talking to her on one of the days he has dropped her off at school. She is referring, presumably, only to his work as a bodyguard. He, presumably, is not.

Sister Anna: Do you ever see the Hand of God in what you do?
Creasy: No, not for a long time.
Sister Anna: The Bible says, "Do not be over come with evil, but overcome..."
Creasy: But overcome evil with good."
Creasy: [in spanish] That's Romans Chapter 12 Verse 21.
Creasy: I am the sheep that got lost, Madre.

Can everyone tell this is one my my favorite movies from recent years?