Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3288949" data-attributes="member: 22424">Actually, it's doing pretty well. There are a handful of difficult examples that keep being argued over: James Bond, Gaius Baltar, Batman, Jack Bauer, Sawyer, Londo Mollari, etc.In many of these cases, the character in question shifts alignment (Londo) over the course of his story, which means that the arguement is clouded by the question of when each party is talking about. Other examples are complicated by the fact that different versions exist (Batman), and so the argument is similarly clouded. The Adam West Batman is completely different from the Christian Bale Batman, so determining an alignment to reconcile these two is rather pointless.Alignment arguments are further clouded by a couple of fallacies: "He's fighting against <someone worse>, so he must be Good", "I like him, so he can't be Evil", and my own particular failing "I understand alignment better than anyone else". There's also a tendency to think in terms of a Law/Chaos and Good/Evil binary decision, omitting Neutral.Oh, and then there's the caricatures of Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, which are largely holdovers from previous editions, and which really don't help.But, if you cut through that, you tend to find that most examples are pegged reasonably consistently by most people, which suggests that the tool does its job. It's not a perfect tool, but what is?(Of course, that speil is off-topic for this thread - the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=185674" target="_blank">"Alignment Myths"</a> thread presents a lot more debate on this issue.)</blockquote>

Verification