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

[Felon]

Magneto is not lawful. He cares nothing of laws of mankind. He's all for mutants over men. CE (sometimes CN).

Mutants represent a disenfranchised segment of society, and very few people have a high regard for laws that oppress them. However, that doesn't exclude them from being lawful. A lawful character tends to work within the system if they think they can achieve their goals that way, but if they can't they will work to improve or replace the system. In the case of a lawful evil character, he might become a politician or judge, or he might try to subvert established authority by building his own order (with him firmly situated on top, of course). The latter is the path of LE villains like Magneto, Dr. Doom, and Kingpin.

To my mind, that calls into question the chaoticness of Robin Hood. He subverts the rule of John because it's unjust and (to his mind) illegitmate, not because he loves commiting crimes and has a general objection to authority. In fact, his method of fighting back is to establish his own underground organization that provides relief for the oppressed peasantry. An amnesiac Superman does the same thing when trapped on Apokolyps, as does Captain America in several instances where he's faced with a corrupt system.

 

[teitan]

See, I don't agree that he has a repressed sense of goodness, it's simply an impulse that strikes him sometimes, even to the extent of overriding his baser instincts--which again is in keeping with the CN alignment.

I was agreeing with the CN assessment, I simply forgot to note it...

 

[teitan]

Oh yeah, Magneto is also the ruler of Genosha, a mutant country in the area of the Indian Ocean that was mostly wiped out in an unprovoked Sentinel attack in Morrison's first issue. The Excalibur reboot focused on the rebuilding of Genosha until House of M came along.

 

[Sejs]

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.

Just as Darklone said - actually Jack was mutinied against precisely because he wasn't going around randomly killing people for their money. Remember, sacking Nassau Port without even firing a single shot? Now you see, Jack, that's exactly the attitude that lost you the Pearl - people are easy to search when they're dead.

Barbossa's evil. Amusing, but evil. Jack is throughly chaotic, and meanders (well.. okay, staggers) back and forth between the two poles of neutral, sometimes being closer to good, othertimes closer to evil, but most of the time staying easily in the territory between.

 

[pawsplay]

The reason I say CE for Jack Sparrow is that he kills people for money, undertakes treachery on the spur of the moment, and encourages others to do the same. He contradicts himself just as easily. Sometimes he behaves in a seemingly good or lawful fashion, because it appeals to him; the rest of the time, he improvises, or resorts to evil or neutral decisions. He's willingly turned himself into an undead creature, which D&D defines as a particularly evil act in the case of the lich and similar scenarios.

The "goodness" that he has is that of integrity, vivacity, dignity, and moral sophistication. Though he can certainly understand the impulses that drive others to altruisim, he considers it deluded behavior, in the same way a good person views falling to temptation as understandable but foolish.

Basically, he's random, sociopathic, selfish, exploitive, treacherous, impulsive, untrustworthy, capricious, bullying, rash, murderous, rapacious, greedy, etc. He just happens to have a pretty good Wis score.

 

[pawsplay]

Just as Darklone said - actually Jack was mutinied against precisely because he wasn't going around randomly killing people for their money.

Good business sense and allowing people to surrender out of a very minimal sense of decency does not really outweigh his other actions. Jack is not the Joker, it's true, but he's not Conan, either. He is the antithesis of Chaotic Stupid. But still a fiend, particularly in D&D terms.

 

[Felon]

The reason I say CE for Jack Sparrow is that he kills people for money, undertakes treachery on the spur of the moment, and encourages others to do the same. He contradicts himself just as easily.

This is all in keeping with the characteristics of CN.

Basically, he's random, sociopathic, selfish, exploitive, treacherous, impulsive, untrustworthy, capricious, bullying, rash, murderous, rapacious, greedy, etc. He just happens to have a pretty good Wis score.

Where is this murderousness that you speak of? According to the PHB's descriptions, the leap from CN from to CE is basically about being vicious--actively seeking to wreak destruction. If you demonstrate that Jack has a desire to inflict suffering, rather than a carefree philosophy of every-man-for-himself, then you've made a sale.

Good business sense and allowing people to surrender out of a very minimal sense of decency does not really outweigh his other actions. Jack is not the Joker, it's true, but he's not Conan, either.

What, you're holding Conan up to be the exemplar of goodness? He's depicted as being much more willing to murder in cold blod than Jack ever could get away with in a Disney film.

 

[pawsplay]

What, you're holding Conan up to be the exemplar of goodness? He's depicted as being much more willing to murder in cold blod than Jack ever could get away with in a Disney film.

I'm putting Conan as a solid CN.

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.

Your "viciousness" criterion does not exist. Jack Sparrow is evil, as is Jango Fett, or the protagonist of A Boy and His Dog.

 

[mmu1]

I'm putting Conan as a solid CN.

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.

Your "viciousness" criterion does not exist. Jack Sparrow is evil, as is Jango Fett, or the protagonist of A Boy and His Dog.

This actually ties in nicely with something I was going to bring up.

I think it's not hard to get people to agree that Conan is CN, and Riddick is CE... But really, what's the difference between the two (movie) characters? Aside from the fact that one comes from a fantasy setting and the other a sci-fi one, there really isn't a shred of difference. They both kill and steal for a living, and they both end up detroying a greater evil for purely personal reasons. One just happens to live in a time where his actions get him branded a mass murderer rather than a barbarian.

It's actually funny how many other, superficial similarities there are between the characters. Last survivors of a fallen people, grew up and learned to kill while prisoner/slave, end up killing the bad guy for the sake of a dead (literally in one case, figuratively in the other) girl, end up as king...

 

[Darklone]

Conan... Hrmpf. He lives by his own codex and would never act against it. It's just the world that suffers from not being compatible with his sense of how it should be

Jack Sparrow? I still don't understand why you call him murderous. How many people does he kill in the movies? How many get mentioned that have been killed by him? None, right, except Barbossa at the end?