Complete Scoundrel gives alignments for Batman, James Bond, Riddick, and more...

[Felon]

One of the sections in the first chapter of Complete Scoundrel discusses the personalities of scoundrels of each alignment, and provides examples based on fiction. Check it out:

Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
Lawful Neutral: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto
Neutral Good: Spider-Man, Zorro
Neutral: Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from Dracula)
Neutral Evil: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)
Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken
Chaotic Evil: Riddick, Carl Denham (King Kong)

Some interesting decisions there. Many folks think of a lawful good character as upholding the law of the land, but CS assumes that a scoundrel is only beholden to his own code (if he even has that), and thus a lawful character can break the laws others set in place. So, Batman winds up as LG in their book.

Some of the picks for evil are, naturally, the most interesting. Sawyer behaves like a selfish thug (particularly early in the series), but the viewer finds that he's actually hiding a lot of guilt and self-loathing, and mainly acts in ways that will bring a world of hurt onto himself, which is in direct opposition to the self-interested nature of a NE character. I think of his actions being more CN myself. Then there's Riddick, who is certainly a real nasty piece of work but still is capable of valuing others and acting in a selfless (as in the latter half of Pitch Black where he goes back for Jack and the Muslim guy).

 

[delericho]

Yay, another alignment thread! Haven't had a good argument for a while...

Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
Lawful Neutral: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto
Neutral Good: Spider-Man, Zorro
Neutral: Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from Dracula)
Neutral Evil: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)
Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken
Chaotic Evil: Riddick, Carl Denham (King Kong)

Quite a lot of these I'm not familiar enough with to comment on. I shall restrict myself therefore to the ones I am familiar with...

Batman's alignment depends very much on which version of the character you're dealing with. The Adam West version of the character is clearly Lawful Good. Other versions vary, but he is seldom Lawful, and sometimes non-Good.

Indiana Jones I would have pegged as Neutral Good. I don't recall anything he's done that's particularly Lawful.

James Bond (as portrayed in the novels, in the early films, and in Casino Royale) is Lawful Evil. The character's alignment is closer to Neutral Good in much of the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan eras.

Han Solo I would have pegged as Chaotic Neutral at first, shifting to a clear Chaotic Good by the end of Star Wars.

I don't recall Boba Fett ever actually doing anything Evil. Neutral for this one. Neutral Evil if you can persuade me as to the character's evilness... but as I said, I don't see it in the films. (That said, he doesn't do much of anything in the films, when all is said and done.)

Sawyer I list as a clear Chaotic Neutral. He doesn't care for others, but he's not outright scum, despite what he'd like us to believe. And he's definately in the "every man for himself" camp, which fits Chaotic very neatly.

I would probably peg Mystique as a (very mild) Chaotic Evil, but must confess to a lack of knowledge of the character beyond the films.

I agree on Magneto, Spider Man, Zorro, Malcolm Reynolds, Starbuck, Captain Jack, and Riddick. Robin Hood is only Good if the rich he's stealing from are corrupt lords who are excessively overtaxing the peasantry, such that all he's doing is restoring wealth to where it rightly belongs. If his victims are just the medieval equivalents of Bill Gates and Donald Trump, then his thefts are Evil, and he's certainly not Good.

Some interesting decisions there. Many folks think of a lawful good character as upholding the law of the land, but CS assumes that a scoundrel is only beholden to his own code (if he even has that), and thus a lawful character can break the laws others set in place. So, Batman winds up as LG in their book.

CS is half right. A Lawful character is not necessarily beholden to the specific laws of the land. However, a Lawful character will necessarily be a believer in the notion of laws, and will accept that in virtually all cases the individual should be beholden to the laws of the land, even where he personally disagrees with them.

Following your own code is not a sufficient condition for being Lawful. Firstly, the code itself could be Chaotic. Even if it is not, following your own notion of right and wrong is a classically Chaotic position. It places the individual over society.

Very often, though, the characters who "follow their own code" over the laws of the land are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they are subscribing to some communal, but perhaps not generally-accepted, standard of behaviour, such as the knightly code of chivalry, of the samurai's bushido. In either case, the character is generally Lawful, because he is beholden to a specific and public code, and can be held accountable to it. It's not just some code he's cobbled together for himself based on his own whims, and that is subject to change when it's inconvenient.

Some of the picks for evil are, naturally, the most interesting. Sawyer behaves like a selfish thug (particularly early in the series), but the viewer finds that he's actually hiding a lot of guilt and self-loathing,

Why you act in an Evil manner has little to no bearing on your alignment. A pattern of Evil actions makes you Evil, whether you do it out of fun, or out of some twisted psychological need to be seen as a monster.

However, as I noted above, I agree that Sawyer isn't Evil.

Then there's Riddick, who is certainly a real nasty piece of work but still is capable of valuing others and acting in a selfless (as in the latter half of Pitch Black where he goes back for Jack and the Muslim guy).

One such action does not make for an alignment change. If he had used that as an opportunity to change his behaviour (as, arguably, he did in CoR) then that would have some weight.

 

[Zaister]

The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...

 

[Felon]

Why you act in an Evil manner has little to no bearing on your alignment. A pattern of Evil actions makes you Evil, whether you do it out of fun, or out of some twisted psychological need to be seen as a monster.

It is indeed actions that matter, but the point I was making about Sawyer is that when push comes to shove, his facade has a tendency to crack and he actually winds up behaving like a human rather than a monster (though he might offer self-serving rationalization to others). But again, we are not actually in disagreement on the character's alignment.

 

[DragonLancer]

I wouldn't class Batman as LG, but a rather extreme LN. Maybe once, early in his career he may have been good but I don't think he is anymore.

Sawyer ... thats a tough one. I don't see him as NE at all. After some internal debate I think he's CN. He's certainly not evil IMO.

And finally, Riddick, he's not CE at all. He's NE bordering TN to my mind. Yes, he's a remorseless killer but as we see from both films he is prepared to make a stand for something.

 

[Klaus]

Those are some nice insights in CS. Gotta get me that book.

I see Batman as LG. He follows the law of the land (he has an utmost belief that the "System" will work, and keeps sending the loonies back to Arkham) and while he does break a few bones here and there, he has the strictest stance in "Never Kill" in all of DC heroes.

Sawyer I see as NE. We do understand why he's that way, but that doesn't change the fact that he hurts people (financially and emotionally) to benefit himself.

If we go simply by the tales we're told of him, Riddick is CE. It's just that the movies show us caring about that girl/woman, something CE doesn't preclude.

 

[shilsen]

Following your own code is not a sufficient condition for being Lawful. Firstly, the code itself could be Chaotic. Even if it is not, following your own notion of right and wrong is a classically Chaotic position. It places the individual over society.

This I'll disagree with. Check the definitions in the PHB and esp. the definition of Lawful Neutral. Following a personal code stringently is a very lawful activity in the D&D alignment paradigm. It just happens to place more emphasis on internal than external order.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?

 

[philreed]

The one that grated on me the most ist Al Swearengen as Chaotic Neutral. If he's not evil, I don't know who is...

I would call him an opportunist and manipulator rather than evil. Sure he'll commit -- and have committed -- evil acts but he also does some good (and less evil) things.

 

[philreed]

It would have been interesting to see a comparison between Supes and Batman. If Batman is LG then what is Superman?

The original DC RPG had an excellent section on the contrast between the two characters. Superman blindingly follows law and authority while Batman seeks justice no matter the cost or laws broken.