Swordfish: Gabriel Shear - Alignment?

[Dracorat]

Using the traditional alignments, what alignment would Gabriel Shear be and why? (Hes the rich guy who is the main 'villain' in the movie. The one with the cash. Trivolta)

The guy has good intentions (preserve America and her people) but all the wrong ways about going about it, including misdirection, murder, theft and forced coercion.

He's certainly not good, because no matter how good his motivations may be, they are grounded in the wrong principles. But other than that, I'm open to pretty much any other interpretation, as long as people have supporting evidence to back it up.

Thanks for posting. I look forward to the responses.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Evil. I can't remember enough of the movie to say what he'd be on the 'ethical axis'.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I seem to recall (though it's been a while since I've seen the movie, and I thought it was awful) that he wanted to fight terrorism with terrorism.

Evil, all the way, without anything even remotely redeeming about him.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Chaotic Evil without a doubt.

Even though he was fighting terrorism, he killed anyone who got in his way and he also killed complete innocents without any qualms.

When the senators (or whoever - it has been awhile since I've seen it) called him off and said they didn't need him anymore; those senators ended up dead so he could keep going.

And even though he would claim that he didn't kill any of the bank hostiges ("they wouldn't have died if they didn't leave the 'safe zone' for the bombs") he is the one who strapped the explosives onto the hostiges and fully activated said bombs. The hostiges had absolutely nothing to do with his fight except for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Jim Hague]

Lawful Evil - cold, methodical, well-organized and utterly ruthless. Looking to put the world in order his way, and damned be anyone who gets in his way. Possessed of a code of ethics (twisted), a certain degreee of honor, but willing to torture, rob, and murder to achieve his ends.

 

[Falkus]

The guy has good intentions

He doesn't even have good intentions, there's so many things wrong with his approach to fighting terrorism that they can't even claim to be slightly grounded in reality. I won't get into politics, but suffice it to say, anybody with even a basic understanding of political theory could point out why his beliefs are so incredibly wrong.

 

[FraserRonald]

He doesn't even have good intentions, there's so many things wrong with his approach to fighting terrorism that they can't even claim to be slightly grounded in reality. I won't get into politics, but suffice it to say, anybody with even a basic understanding of political theory could point out why his beliefs are so incredibly wrong.

In Dracorat's defence, he did say good intentions, not good ideas or methods.

Shear wanted to fight terrorism and save his homeland. I'd say those are good intentions. The methods by which he did so--as you point out--were not so good.

I think I'd agree with Jim Hague and go with lawful evil.

 

[Dracorat]

I tend to agree with Evil as well, but am opposed to lawful. I tend toward Neutral. (Neutral Evil)

The main reason is that I don't see him dying for his personal code of conduct or betraying his own code of conduct if it betters his position. I see him as "I try to conduct myself lawfully, but if I have to deviate, then deviate I will."

That's my take on him. =)

 

[teitan]

I'd say Lawful Neutral myself, he did whatever was necessary to preserve the America while trying to maintain minimal collateral damage but understanding some sacrifices had to be made. In the situation he was in he couldn't allow traitors or the possibility of ANYONE finding a way to pull the plug. He was focused and what evil acts he performed I understood completely..

 

[Falkus]

I'd say Lawful Neutral myself, he did whatever was necessary to preserve the America while trying to maintain minimal collateral damage but understanding some sacrifices had to be made.

Except his goals and actions following said goals, as anybody versed in political science could tell you, would only result in a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks on the United States.