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

[shilsen]

I take it that you're referring to the bit that reads "or a personal code directs her"?

Yes.

Here, I'll reiterate my position that following a personal code is not, by itself, a sufficient condition for being Lawful.

Fair enough. As I said, it's fine if you rule that way. As far as the PHB definition of alignment (and since alignment doesn't have a real world existence, the PHB is mostly - though not totally - what I go on), a personal code can be a significantly important condition for being lawful. Of course, it also depends on all elements of the character, but it can be an important one.

And, again I'll ask, what if the code is Chaotic?

Then the DM and the player have to make a decision based on all elements of the character - nature of the code, how it's followed and enacted, how aspects beyond the code affect and are dealt with by the character, and so on. In short, what you do with all characters.

Fair point, and something that the alignment rules fail to take into account - the place of microcosmic and macrocosmic alignments (where Lawful in the microcosm is to do with being organised, methodical and rigourous, while in the macrocosm it's to do with societies, and laws, and order).

No argument here. Which is why any character's alignment has to take everything into account.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Superman would meet the criteria for being an exalted character. He's extra lawful good. So lawful good it makes your teeth hurt.

Alright, I can buy that. It just seems to me Supes and Batman have a lot to disagree on.

What about Paul Atreides? -Mua'dib!
Lawful Good, too?

 

[GreatLemur]

Regardless, I think this shows nicely why alignment should be scrapped.

Truest statement in this thread. If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.

 

[delericho]

Fair enough. As I said, it's fine if you rule that way. As far as the PHB definition of alignment (and since alignment doesn't have a real world existence, the PHB is mostly - though not totally - what I go on), a personal code can be a significantly important condition for being lawful. Of course, it also depends on all elements of the character, but it can be an important one.

Then the DM and the player have to make a decision based on all elements of the character - nature of the code, how it's followed and enacted, how aspects beyond the code affect and are dealt with by the character, and so on. In short, what you do with all characters.

Agreed.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'd put Al Sweringen as Neutral with strong Evil tendencies. He's strong on an orderly society, since without some order to society nobody is going to be buying his drugs, liquor and whores; chaos is bad for business and Al is against anything that is bad for Al's business. He even sets up a quasi-lawful society in Deadwood so it won't be imposed on them from the outside. ("I'm the chairman because I have the bribe sheet (the prices for the lawmakers back East)"). The other saloon owner is way more evil than Al is and I thought that if the show had any supernatural elements to it at all that Al would be The Devil. So, that should tell you how bad the other guy is.

 

[Felon]

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.

I don't know, I think partnering up with a bunch of bandits who rob and murder travellers on the road, scalping them to make it look like an Indian attack, is a little too dark to call a shade of grey. It's black. And as you may recall, when a little girl survives one of those attacks, Al sends Dan the knife-man to finish her off. Having little girls murdered is hard to write off as neutral.

True, he looks out for Jewel and once or twice performs some minor act of charity (like putting the preacher out of his misery), and I suspect that the CS authors ascribe that as an indicator of being chaotic, that even though he's an SOB he will capriciously decide to do something we might call "good".

Of course, that's one of the odd things about alignment. A predatory, opportunistic animal is neutral, while a predatory, opportunistic human(oid) is evil. If merely being sentient (possessing an Int higher than 2) amounted to being imbued with an innate sense of right of wrong, that might make sense, but that is not the case. Beings who are not exposed to compassion or treated fairly are not likely to develop empathy and affection for others. A troll or orc or Al Swearengen is evil for objectifying their victims, but a crocodile isn't.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Truest statement in this thread. If the moral structures and behavioral tendencies of interesting, complicated characters can not be satisfyingly expressed through the system, it's probably a bad system to use as any kind of roleplaying guide.

Well, alignment is not necessarily a bad thing. But D&D's alignment system is pretty complicated and esoteric. If you look at most stories that have alignment, they'll only have two sides, with maybe some neutrals in the middle. (Like OD&D and Michael Moorcock).

One problem with it is that, while it is a great thing for many stories and adventure ideas, it gets in the way with others. If you want to have an evil person high in the priesthood of the Church of Pelor, for example, you have to go through some serious acrobatics and, even then, you're really violating the rules. Pelor wouldn't allow them to stick around.

Fortunatelly, it's not hard to dump alignment from D&D. Paladins go out the window, and some spell choices do, too. But the champion from Arcana Evolved will port directly into regular D&D, if you should want that type of character, and there are enough new cleric domains in Comple Divine to make up for the loss of the aligned domains. The adjustment from D&D with alignments to without is, thus, pretty darn painless.

 

[Felon]

The other saloon owner is way more evil than Al is and I thought that if the show had any supernatural elements to it at all that Al would be The Devil. So, that should tell you how bad the other guy is.

It's interesting to see people engage in this sort of relativism. Cy Tolliver is utterly despicable, so he makes Al look he's not such a bad guy, despite all the bodies the latter has dropped off at Wu's pig pen. But what redeeming qualities does Al possess that Cy doesn't? Well, it's not so much that he's kinder and gentler--he's a murderer many times over--it's mainly that he possesses a genuine sardonic wit, which often makes him the only character a viewer can relate to simply because there are few people in Deadwood that have half a brain, "good guys" included; Seth, Alma, and Sol have varying levels of education, but they're often not very quick on the uptake.

So, merely because we can identify with the character we're inclined to cut him slack for minor random acts of kindness. It's not rational, but I know a lot of jerks and screw-ups in real life who get a lot of breaks because they're affable jerks and screw-ups. In the field of comics, Rob Liefeld is pretty exemplary of this trait.

 

[ivocaliban]

Quite a few of these I don't recognize, myself...

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.

Agreed.

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

I would agree, but I can see the argument. What gets lost in all of the action, however, is that Indy is a professor and thinks that all these fantastic relics he's after belong in a museum or in the hands of fellow archaeologists. All of this points to a very ordered and lawful way of thinking, but it's true that Indy often behaves closer to Neutral or even Chaotic in the course of the films.

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.

I think Roger Moore's Bond is definitely Lawful Evil throughout most of his films. It's just that his personal style (and funky 70's attire) make him seem far more benign than Connery's Bond. After all this is the same Bond that in Live Or Let Die, pretty much forces himself on Solitaire, robbing her of her of both her virginity and her gift as a seer. He also kills people quite off-handedly in The Spy Who Loved Me. After questioning Sandor he chooses to let him drop to his death without any hesitation. Later he shoots Stromberg numerous times, including once in what was likely the crotch, when certainly one well-placed bullet would have done the trick.

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

This always brings up an interesting question for me. What if your image has a different alignment than your behavior? True, the early Han Solo appears as Chaotic Neutral in his behavior, but he's also very Neutral in his mindset. He's essentially a businessman who is only interested in saving his own neck and making a buck. Of course, the business he's engaged in is illegal so that certainly makes one think he must be Chaotic. Difficult to say.

Reminds me of Rick Blaine in Casablanca who obviously wants the world to believe he's Neutral and doesn't get involved. However, it's clear through his secret actions that he is generally Good, underneath it all.

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.)

Boba Fett is a bounty hunter that works for the Empire. He doesn't do very much in the films, agreed, but as a bounty hunter he is working for a Lawful establishment and he seems to be very deferential when it comes to people of authority. I would assume that his profession is fraught with rules to follow, permits to obtain and so forth. As for the Evil part, I can agree. I'd probably have pegged him as Lawful Neutral from the films alone.

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 think Mystique is the epitome of Neutral Evil. Again, however, her frenetic nature, her powers, and even her sense of humor, makes her appear more Chaotic. Still, she only acts when it serves her own interest or the interests of those she serves.

I agree on Magneto, Spider Man, Zorro, Malcolm Reynolds, Starbuck, Captain Jack, and Riddick.

Of the ones I'm familiar with, I agree.

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.

Makes me wonder what alignment you think Donald Trump is...*heehee*

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.

So a Paladin in Baator would be beholden to its laws? Captain America (assuming you agree he's Lawful Good) in Nazi Germany would be beholden to its laws?

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.

The Lawful Neutral description in the PHB clearly states: "[The character] may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard..." It's reasonable to think that "personal order" and "codes and standards" will differ from town to town, nation to nation, world to world...and that the laws themselves clash.

Just as Indiana Jones thinks that the world's artifacts belong in museums for study, the descendants of the natives who created the artifacts might have different views. So might the occupying forces who displaced the natives in the first place and use the artifacts for target practice. All of them have some claim to a Lawful belief. Whose law should be obeyed? The one who wants to study and protect the relic, the ones with ancestral ties to the relic, or the ones who just happen to have all the military force in the same region as the relic?

 

[Darklone]

Always did like the Palladium FRPG Alignment system better.

Seconded. Aberrant evil rules. Mystique - Selfish evil. Most of the time.

I like Capt. Jack Sparrow as Chaotic chaotic.

Batman? Lawful Neutral. Never good. He seeks Vengeance and calls it Justice.

James Bond: Lawful Evil. He's a killer for a system that doesn't even matter that much to him. No matter which actor.