Swordfish: Gabriel Shear - Alignment?

[DM_Matt]

It sounds to me like Gabrial Shear is a Strangelove device updated for modern times. The device in the movie Dr. Strangelove was intended to bypass the flaws of nuclear deterrance. They created an integrated, inaccessable, and untamperable computer system guanunteed to respond to any nuclear attack with the total nuclear destruction of their nation's enemy. By leaving the decision to strike in the hands of an unfeeling machine, lack of resolve, unwillingness to slaughter civilians, hopeful attempts to deescalate, moves to capitulate, and delays relating to communications issues, killing of leaders, etc, deterrance became a lot more effective because mutually assured destruction really was assured. Its reletively safe and inaccessable position eliminated any hope of a successful first strike and the scale of its response made hopes of a sucessful strike irelevant. It also did not matter who did the nuking. The target would be the same regardless. Plausable deniability was thus also rendered useless.

The device failed becuase an accidental nuclear detonation occurred between the time it was activated and the time it was announced to the world, and there was nothing that could be done to prevent it from going off even though they knew the accident was coming.

Enter Gabrial Shear. A reliable human sociopath hiding in the shadows, having a clear purpose and set of rules for the use of nukes but without responsability can serve much the same purpose as that machine, but could avoid some of the falibility ot computers while preserving much of that reliability. It also gives plausable deniability to the user of nukes in this case, which is a bonus of sorts I suppose.

 

[DM_Matt]

Shh, don't tell anyone that I need to read up on the rules on political posts!

I know this is a pot calling the kettle black situation, but THAT is definately too political for the rules here. Or at least it was, until a moderator came in and totally ruined it!

 

[Dracorat]

Just want to let you all know I didnt write the post and abandon it. I have been reading it and it is good conversation. Thanks, all those who have contributed.

 

[Rabelais]

There are only two reasons to watch this movie... and neither are under discussion here.

Sweet Baby Jebus this movie was awful.

I would say Chaotic Evil...maybe NE, but closer to CE.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

In order to attempt to get back to the actual point of this thread rather than getting it closed (anybody object to that?)

I'm rather torn as to alignment. Gabriel could just as easily be LN as LE so far as I interpret the alignments. (For example I've always thought the Lawful ethical axis is not law as in legalism and jurisprudence but Order with a big O. The adherence to a particular systematic ethical code that valued the collective over the individual.) So his actions while not legal could be Lawful in an alignment sense. As to the moral axis that is considerably more problematic.

While he both breaks laws and kills quite a few people during the course of the movie his goal is not death and destruction. In fact at several points where it would be easier to take the offensive and kill on a more widespread level to achieve his goals he avoids this in favor of misdirection and complicated plans prone to point-source failure. The exploding hostage is in my opinion an example more of LN than LE. For the overall purpose of his goal he required the hostages and even required a lethal threat to them. However he set up the device so that it would go off only if they left his own groups control. When the police snagged one of them he attempted at considerable danger to himself and his own men to retrieve them before the failsafe was activated. When it became obvious that was impossible he took action to protect his men and the remaining hostages. He was protecting his own, acquessing to acceptable losses, and turning his own loss into a weapon against the enemy. Which seems far more a LN act than the LE act which would have planned around allowing the majority of the hostages to be taken and command detonated them causing far more damage to the police.

 

[Rabelais]

In the absence of Swordfish II (perish the thought), there would have to be additional information regarding his objectives

If he States that he wants to destroy evil by committing evil acts to increase Order, it does not follow that he is actually being Lawful... Chaos is as Chaos does. At best he is Neutral Evil ethically.

If he intends to blow up innocent civilians because he enjoys it, it can have any secondary effect (create more Order) he still remains Chaotic.

No doubt Evil. I say Chaotic... on a good day Neutral

 

[reanjr]

I say LE. His purpose is the greater good of America, making him lawful. His methods (ends justify means) make him lawful. He's Machiavellian in the extreme. That's definitely lawful.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I'd say CE.
He isn't LE, as he kills cops and other 'Law' representatives for fun.

Geoff.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

He isn't LE, as he kills cops and other 'Law' representatives for fun.

lawful does not mean he follows the law only that he is ordered and that he is has great thought out plans and he doesnt kill for fun he kills becase hes plan and the greater good calls for it ... that makes him lawful theres no chotic thoughts there hell he might be LN i would go with LE but he is lawful

 

[Falkus]

lawful does not mean he follows the law only that he is ordered and that he is has great thought out plans and he doesnt kill for fun he kills becase hes plan and the greater good calls for it

But his ultimate plan would create chaos, not order, if carried out.