Swordfish: Gabriel Shear - Alignment?

[DM_Matt]

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

But his intent is to cause order. Whether his plan will work or not is irrelevant to his motivational and moral states.

 

[Sejs]

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

Lawful doesn't equal legal/legislative. It's got nothing to do with The Law. Lawful basically means ordered, consistant, disciplined, etc.

The mafia could quite easily be seen as a lawful institution, with their (albiet twisted) codes of conduct, organizational loyalty, etc. but at the same time they exist for the sole purpose of breaking laws.

 

[Pielorinho]

I've not seen the movie, but this may be a good time to plug an interesting approach to the lawful/chaotic axis: the fox and the hedgehog

There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet Archilochus which says: 'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing'. Scholars have differed about the correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the hedgehog's one defense. But, taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel-a single, universal, organizing principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance-and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle; these last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision.

I love this idea, and when I think about lawful or chaotic, it's how I think of things. Someone who never breaks a law may well be chaotic good if they don't have an overarching theory of life (think of a kindly grandpa who likes to whittle and doesn't go in much for discussing philosophy); someone who breaks every law and violates every taboo may be lawful neutral if they do so in service to a goal (think of a student of medicine who robs graves in order to dissect the bodies, out of a belief in the inherent goodness of knowledge).

I'm not comfortable considering someone Good based purely on their aims, however. There are plenty of real-world dictators who attempted to build a better world through terrible acts, and thinking of them is an exercise left to the reader; in fiction, we may consider bad guys like the Borg (and here I speak as someone who knows very little about Star Trek, so forgive me if I make a mistake), who consider assimilation into the collective to be a good thing, no matter that it destroys billions of individuals. One can, in my opinion, be a utopian and be lawful evil, if you're willing to cause magnificent suffering in order to achieve your utopia.

I've not seen the movie, but based on the posts above, it sounds as though the main antagonist has a grand, unified theory of politics, which he is willing to enact even if it means causing a great deal of suffering. I'd classify such a person as a lawful evil hedgehog.

Oh, and folks, c'mon. Leave out the modern politics, m'kay?

Daniel

 

[Crothian]

LE

He opperates by his own rules and code and is willingto eliminate or do anything to meet his own goals. Not everything he does is lawful, but alignments are not straight jackets.

 

[Falkus]

But his intent is to cause order. Whether his plan will work or not is irrelevant to his motivational and moral states.

True. But, it seems inconceivable that a man as smart as Gabriel would be so completely ignorant of the political ramifications of his actions. Therefore, I have a new theory. Gabriel is not actually a super nationalist, but is an anarchist posing as a super nationalist.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Self-centered, loose cannon, no real belief in rules other than the ones he makes up himself: I'd say NE.

IMHO, Lawful beings believe in some kind of universal or local order, and believe there are benefits from adhering to such order, whether it be a code of conduct, the hierarchy of a caste system, or the structures of a government. Gabriel doesn't believe in the laws of the United States, or in the government of the US (viz. his murder of cops and senators). He does believe in a higher "moral" ideal, but morals don't really have weight in the D&D law-chaos axis.

 

[DM_Matt]

True. But, it seems inconceivable that a man as smart as Gabriel would be so completely ignorant of the political ramifications of his actions. Therefore, I have a new theory. Gabriel is not actually a super nationalist, but is an anarchist posing as a super nationalist.

Occham is dissapointed in you

 

[Falkus]

Occham is dissapointed in you

It's the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

 

[Pielorinho]

It's the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

I think hedgehogs, in knowing one big thing, often ignore the little things that contradict their big thing. If he was a fanatic who had a comprehensive theory about how the world should be, little things like contradictory facts wouldn't matter. Again, without naming names, you can look back at historical tyrants and fanatics and see where very smart people were in total denial about reality, because they believed so heavily in their theory of the world.

Hmm...I wonder if I can say the name "Robespierre" without inciting a political fight?

Daniel

 

[FraserRonald]

Hmm...I wonder if I can say the name "Robespierre" without inciting a political fight?

How dare you sully the name of a great revolutionary! That's it, the gloves are off! Political fight commences!

*political punch*

Let that be a lesson to you!