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

[GreatLemur]

Which is exactly why alignments should reflect character actions and philosophies, not the other way around. Sure, a player may put LG on his character sheet and proceed to act in a manner that he feels is LG, but if I as the DM see it as being anything but LG, that's going to be how the game elements (Detect spells, magic items, etc.) are going to react to him as.

Obviously, that's your prerogative as DM, and if your player is cool he'll remember Rule Zero, but I think we've all heard stories about games plagued by debates likes the ones in this thread. Whether behavior is supposed to reflect alignment or alignment is supposed to reflect behavior, the inherent imperfections of the nine-pigeonhole system are gonna leave people annoyed from time to time.

 

[hong]

As inspirational as Uncle Ben's creed is, it doesn't provide Spidey any particular rules of conduct, just a general imperative to behave responsibly. We are supposed to identify with the character because he doesn't behave like he's got all the answers.

That, and he wisecracks something fierce!

 

[airwalkrr]

Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken

I'm just happy that Snake Plissken made it on the list. I love the "Escape from..." movies.

 

[hong]

I'm just happy that Snake Plissken made it on the list. I love the "Escape from..." movies.

The Escape From movies were all right, but Snake Plissken was AWESOME in the Metal Gear Solid games. Awesome, I say.

 

[Darklone]

Batman doesn't seek vengeance. Vengenace is what young Bruce Wayne was after when he walked up to Joe Chill with a hidden gun in Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne became Batman to keep others from suffering the loss he did.

... or simply to fight the frustration that he can't get revenge?

In the Mayfair DC Heroes game, Batman's motivation is Seeking Justice.

I'd say, his aim is seeking justice, his motivation is vengeance.

Alignments are crap.

Snake Plissken is great. Capt. Jack Sparrow isn't evil. He's not even able to think along the good-evil line, that would take too much concentration.

 

[Sejs]

Captain Jack Sparrow isn't evil. He doesn't really display the concerted malice of forethought that is the benchmark of evil. Jack's chaotic neutral. He's more interested in himself than others, and frankly he's just making crap up as he goes along. Absolutely spur of the moment.

 

[prosfilaes]

Captain Jack Sparrow isn't evil. He doesn't really display the concerted malice of forethought that is the benchmark of evil. Jack's chaotic neutral. He's more interested in himself than others, and frankly he's just making crap up as he goes along. Absolutely spur of the moment.

I don't see why that description doesn't fit evil. You don't have to have malice or forethought to randomly kill people for their money, and I would consider that evil.

 

[S. Baldrick]

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 agree. Al Swearengen does have some good moments, but mainly he does some very rotten, evil things.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I think Al and Jack are probably both Neutral Evil.

From the SRD:
"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience."

That sounds quite a lot like Jack and Al. Sure, Jack's got the whole spacey-thing going on, but he's completely and totally 100% out for himself, with the "100 souls" bit in the 2nd movie really sealing the deal. Al is the real face of human evil; practical, somewhat banal, and completely selfish.

 

[Mighty Veil]

I really wish game designers would actually ask Gary what a specific alignment means and how it effects the game. It's funny how the so-called best of the biz just don't seem to get the simplest thing, like alignment.

It's like the stats for the "kids" of the D&D cartoon. All of their alignments were NG, not what was printed. I asked Gary once ---> Neutral Good.

I look at this list and just shake my head. You can make up all the excuses, er, reasons why Batman is "actually" lawful. Just to prove you're right. In the end it just confuses people. And D&D wonders why it can't break back into mainstream.

Okay, my own take (off the notes of Alignments, Gary told me once):

Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy

Dick Tracy, LG. Batman, NG (he's not there to disrupt the law, but he acts above it). Indy Jones, NG (most fiction heroes will be NG)

Lawful Neutral: James Bond

I'd never thought about James. LN seems right.

Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto

Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men. CE (sometimes CN). I'd say Boba is NE. Mandlorians are space barbarians, like mongols or vandals were.

Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)

I'll stick with Robin being CG. He didn't recognize Prince John's laws. However, he did King Richard's. I'm tempted to say NG, but. One can change alignment through their actions. Alignments don't control the person (well, they were suppose to, but numerous Dragon articles, 2 more editions, and game writers not understanding alignment, confused everything).

Starbuck. Hmmmm. The original cool Starbuck was LG. I'm tempted to say NG, to give him more of a roguish feel, but he was military and he was self-sacrifing. The current stupid Kara Starbuck however. Hmmmm...

She is military. Yeah she originally butted heads with the X/O (for like 3 eps). She's a bit self destructive. Bad with relationships. She does her orders given to her. She's not so recklace that she endangers others. Okay, not CG! I'll go with Neutral (though she could be LN).