Alignment in the movie "Man on Fire"

[Henry Hankovich]

It's important to consider, too, one of the big unanswered aspects of Creasy's background: just how 'sinful' his previous career as an assassin was. That is to say, was he doing basically the same things he does in the film--hunting down and punishing obviously-rotten nogoodniks? In my opinion--based on both the CIA's track record, as well as Creasy's own attitude toward his earlier life, this is rather unlikely.

More probably, he's committed a number of "morally ambiguous" acts, if not downright evil ones, under orders. Killing politicians out of -suspected- socialist leanings? Blackmail? Training thugs and death squads? All part of the CIA's portfolio...and possibly part of Creasy's history as well. The fact that he sees himself as being damned, makes me lean this way. It's hard to believe he'd have fallen so far, if all he did in his career was hunt down and punish evil child-kidnappers and the like.

So this makes me lean toward describing him as LE at the onset of the film...as someone who's embraced a career of "sin," in the name of his "duty."

 

[tigycho]

It's important to consider, too, one of the big unanswered aspects of Creasy's background: just how 'sinful' his previous career as an assassin was. That is to say, was he doing basically the same things he does in the film--hunting down and punishing obviously-rotten nogoodniks? In my opinion--based on both the CIA's track record, as well as Creasy's own attitude toward his earlier life, this is rather unlikely.

More probably, he's committed a number of "morally ambiguous" acts, if not downright evil ones, under orders. Killing politicians out of -suspected- socialist leanings? Blackmail? Training thugs and death squads? All part of the CIA's portfolio...and possibly part of Creasy's history as well. The fact that he sees himself as being damned, makes me lean this way. It's hard to believe he'd have fallen so far, if all he did in his career was hunt down and punish evil child-kidnappers and the like.

So this makes me lean toward describing him as LE at the onset of the film...as someone who's embraced a career of "sin," in the name of his "duty."

I was leaning that way too, but he has abandoned that life, out of self loathing. As I understand it, alignment is what you do, not what you did, or how you feel about yourself.

He drifts from odd job to odd job, drinking himself to death, because the only thing he is any good at, as far as we know, is something he thinks is evil, which he no longer does. I wouldn't call that Good, but I would consider it Neutral.

You disagree?

 

[Ds Da Man]

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.

Ditto!!!!!

 

[Zappo]

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.

I think it shows the flaws of the online alignment test. And I think that we don't have enough information to judge the character's alignment. We would need to be into his mind, like we are in our PCs' minds.

First scenario - the reason for which he is saving the girl is that he failed to protect her. He wants to fix that failure at all costs, not because of the girl, but because of himself - he doesn't want to admit weakness, doesn't want to admit failure, doesn't want to think of himself as incapable of doing his job. He must prove to everyone (including himself and the girl) that he is the smartest and toughest man around, and if he's got to torture and kill for that, so be it.

Second scenario - he is saving the girl because the kidnapping was evil and unjust. He hates the thought of an innocent suffering, and the girl was under his protection so he also feels a sense of duty towards her. If the only way to save her is through torture and murder of the kidnappers, then so be it. He won't feel good about it, he may even regret it once the righteous rage is over, but his purpose and the unquestionably Evil nature of his victims will be enough to appease his conscience for now.

Third scenario - there are more motives which are hidden. His employers will kill him if he doesn't save her? He has had previous conflicts with the kidnappers and this is the last straw? His own daughter was kidnapped many years ago and died in captivity? The girl knows the cure for AIDS, or the winning number of the lottery, or the character's dark secret? The character is insane and thinks any of the above things, even if they aren't true?

And even those information aren't quite enough to make an uncontested decision. Without greater knowledge of the character's psyche, we could justify anything from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good and everything in between. The alignment system is only an oversimplification if the people using it are oversimplifying.

 

[reanjr]

Neutral.

I'd be tempted to make him Lawful Evil, but for two reasons.

He's a bit too independent and cares a bit too little about bystanders. Makes him chaotic. But he still has a fairly rigid sense of justice and seems to keep his word throughout.

He is working perfectly within the ends justify the means and is working against criminals. He is quite rough on his "obstacles" but I think it is always for the greater good, and he doesn't seem to injure anyone outside of those who have wronged Pita (?).

A recent thread talked about adding new axes to Alignment to better represent characters. One of these axes was Honorable/Dishonorable. It would work well here, making Creasy (?) Honorable Chaotic Neutral.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

This discussion prompted me to finally rent the DVD last night and watch it (shouldn't someone(s) from this thread get a free copy or two from FOX for that)?

I'd have to go with Lawful Neutral. I agree with tigycho's analysis, who I think hits the nail right on the head. I think as a viewer, Creasy's internal motivations were very clear even without knowing much about his past, which I thought was nicely summed up by his conversations with Rayburn (Christopher Walken's character).

 

[Henry Hankovich]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's the problem, though. He's not doing the torturing and killing to save her life--or at least, not most of it, since for most of the process he believes she's dead. He does it almost entirely for revenge, as well as a sense of several-eyes-for-an-eye justice. The kidnappers and profiteers have it coming, so he dispense it--but not even he believes that it's an act of redemption or heroism, so long as he believe's she's dead.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Now, I will admit it has been a little while since I have seen the movie... but I don't remember him believing she is dead most of the movie. I dunno, I'd do the vengeance thing anyway, just because it might save the next little girl's life.

 

[tigycho]

Now, I will admit it has been a little while since I have seen the movie... but I don't remember him believing she is dead most of the movie. I dunno, I'd do the vengeance thing anyway, just because it might save the next little girl's life.

He thought she was dead until almost the very end. He doesn't discover she's alive until he's killed the first cop, the nightclub bouncer, the nightclub owner, the head of the Mexican FBI, finds the lawyer dead, suggests and aids the suicide of Pita's father (that bastard), kidnaps the Voice's wife and busts up the Voice's brother... Pretty low body count, really, for a modern movie.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

i would go for chaotic neutral or chaotic good. i cannot decide on one or the other because of creasys sacrifices for the girl... but in such an unconventional fashion

i love this movie