Thought Exercise - Alignments for Discworld characters

[Andor]

I dunno, a case for Neutral Good could be made. He has a fondness for cats and as he's progressed, for humans as well.

In fact, the best argument for his goodness could be made in Theif of Time, in which he and the other horsemen decide to fight the regulators, rather than sit back and wait for reality to end.

YOU MUST LEARN THE COMPASSION APPROPRIATE TO YOUR JOB.

Which is?

A SHARP EDGE.

 

[shilsen]

YOU MUST LEARN THE COMPASSION APPROPRIATE TO YOUR JOB.

Which is?

A SHARP EDGE.

Death, however, shows considerably more compassion than just a sharp edge and often messes with things to help humanity, esp. against the Auditors.

After all, as he asked Azrael, "What can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the reaper man?"

 

[brehobit]

We never see these things because Pratchett doesn't like to be too graphic, but we're told often about the Patrician's facility with torture. He refrains from killing people because typically he's ingenious enough to find a way to use them for his own ends, like the main character of Going Postal, not because he would hesitate to kill them if he needed to. Remember he's a former assassin. Lawful Evil, says I.

I think he'd kill anyone who needed killing. But I also strongly suspect he follows the law and doesn't kill the innocent. I've also seen very little to indicate he _actually_ tortures people. My sense is that he wants people scared of him. I've no doubt he _would_ torture someone if he felt it was needed. I'd go LN. He cares too much about the city and its people to be LE.

Mark

 

[Shayuri]

I tend to think the characters of Discworld that come off as "nongood" are actually, most often, putting on a sham. The reason being that REALLY nongood people tend to take advantage of goodness when they know it's there. Thus, a wise good person in Discworld generally tries to conceal their basic decency.

The exception is Carrot of course. He's SO good that even evil characters start acting good around him, negating the danger.

Some convincing arguments can be made in favor of Vetinari being evil...but I don't buy it. His training in the Assassin's guild is often brought up, but I'm not sure that that proves he really killed anyone. It's oft repeated that noble families often train their scions with the Assassins; not so they'll be killing machines, but because it's prestigious (and perhaps increases their odds of survival later). Morever, when I look at how he rules...yes, he's manipulative, but almost every single one of his manipulations are to make sure that horrible selfish greedy people are so busy watching their backs and feuding with each other that the common man has little to fear from them. In short, his motivation is not self-aggrandization, as an Evil man's would be. His motivation appears to be genuine concern for the well-being of Ankh-Morpork...and ALL the people in it. To that end, he uses the 'tools' at his disposal...tools like Vimes. You could accuse him of being detached from humanity...I think anyone with his superintelligence WOULD be. I'd tend to point out too that even his actions in manipulating "good" people like Vimes tend to work out in the person's best interest, and he's been known to have compassion though you have to really understand him to know when he's displaying it.

-- In short, Vetinari is the picture perfect example of what I'm talking about. I think he's really Good. As Good in his own way perhaps as Carrot is in his. Definitely Neutral Good, since law and order are merely tools in his arsenal for himself...even if they're also what he seeks to impose on others. I think every intimation of torture and deadliness he surrounds himself with are all part of a carefully managed self-image that he projects so that he doesn't HAVE to use torture and killing. His job description is to keep the low-lifes (who are usually the rich and well to do) from preying on the helpless and making Ankh Morpork into their personal feeding ground. So he HAS to seem hardcore. Unrelentingly hardcore. I argue that his actions (and I count only the actions that occur within the narrative...anything else could just be a self circulated rumor) do not bear this image out.

Same thing with Susan, Death, Vimes... All of them have this crusty outer shell where they pretend not to be motivated by compassion and goodwill. This protects them from those who would capitalize on that goodwill and use it against them...of which Discworld is FULL of. Death started out the true picture of Lawful Neutral, but his adventures with Mort, Alfred, and later Susan have sensitized him to humanity and the human condition. I would argue that he now sees his job as the epitome of -compassion- for us, and that is how he keeps doing it. He believes that he's just as impartial as he ever was...but again, his actions belie it. He cares now...cares enough to risk whatever he is on our behalf. Susan always cared, but had a rough childhood. She's fiercely independent and hates relying on anyone but herself...because anyone else can let her down. Yet look at how she treats children. With respect...as equals. She shields them from the schoolmistress and her misguided ways. Her desire to be 'normal' leads her to be reluctant to intervene on 'family business,' but she always takes the high road in the end.

...and I don't think anyone was actually arguing Vimes wasn't good.

Rincewind. I guess I agree he's more Chaotic Neutral. He's an oddity though, and very rarely shows up anymore. He's a relic of the Old Discworld, back when it was a parody of fantasy fiction tropes and RPG's...rather than a parody of reality and human nature.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I tend to think the characters of Discworld that come off as "nongood" are actually, most often, putting on a sham.

Except for the "villains of the book", who mostly are evil (with a few beings who are merely ignorant thrown into the mix, like the Wintersmith).

 

[delericho]

I dunno, a case for Neutral Good could be made. He has a fondness for cats and as he's progressed, for humans as well.

Yeah, Death's a strange one. He should be LN, straight down the line, but he's really not. I agree with NG, and submit as evidence his giving the dying girl more time in "Hogfather".

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Some convincing arguments can be made in favor of Vetinari being evil...but I don't buy it. His training in the Assassin's guild is often brought up, but I'm not sure that that proves he really killed anyone. It's oft repeated that noble families often train their scions with the Assassins; not so they'll be killing machines, but because it's prestigious (and perhaps increases their odds of survival later). Morever, when I look at how he rules...yes, he's manipulative, but almost every single one of his manipulations are to make sure that horrible selfish greedy people are so busy watching their backs and feuding with each other that the common man has little to fear from them. In short, his motivation is not self-aggrandization, as an Evil man's would be. His motivation appears to be genuine concern for the well-being of Ankh-Morpork...and ALL the people in it. To that end, he uses the 'tools' at his disposal...tools like Vimes. You could accuse him of being detached from humanity...I think anyone with his superintelligence WOULD be. I'd tend to point out too that even his actions in manipulating "good" people like Vimes tend to work out in the person's best interest, and he's been known to have compassion though you have to really understand him to know when he's displaying it.

-- In short, Vetinari is the picture perfect example of what I'm talking about. I think he's really Good. As Good in his own way perhaps as Carrot is in his. Definitely Neutral Good, since law and order are merely tools in his arsenal for himself...even if they're also what he seeks to impose on others. I think every intimation of torture and deadliness he surrounds himself with are all part of a carefully managed self-image that he projects so that he doesn't HAVE to use torture and killing. His job description is to keep the low-lifes (who are usually the rich and well to do) from preying on the helpless and making Ankh Morpork into their personal feeding ground. So he HAS to seem hardcore. Unrelentingly hardcore. I argue that his actions (and I count only the actions that occur within the narrative...anything else could just be a self circulated rumor) do not bear this image out.

I disagree with Vetinari being pegged as good. Ultimately, he cares little for individual people other than their usefulness for his machinations. He only cares for the city as a whole. Whether an ordinary person lives or dies is of no concern to him, and he certainly does not go out of his way to protect people from ttheir own stupidity. He only gets involved when something or someone threatens to "rock the boat".

He is only charitable towards the common citizenry by recognizing that almost any other person would be worse in his job than he is - whether that person has good intentions or not - and thus takes care to ensure that those who scheme after his power are dealt with in one form or another. Apart from that, he leaves the citizens alone, which is not the same as actively helping them.

 

[Sammael]

I unfortunately have no time for an analysis.

Vimes - NG
Carrot - LG
Colon - LN
Nobby - CN
Angua - CG
Vetinari - LE
Leonard da Quirm - NG in the most idealistic way possible
DEATH - N
DEATH in "Hogfather" - NG
Albert - N
Susan - ack! no alignment that I can identify
Lu Tze - N
The Auditors - LN
Granny Weatherwax - N
Nanny Ogg - CG
Magrat - NG
Rincewind - CN
Archchancellor Ridcully - N
The Librarian - CG

 

[delericho]

His training in the Assassin's guild is often brought up, but I'm not sure that that proves he really killed anyone.

Pretty sure he's an active assassin in "Night Watch".

Morever, when I look at how he rules...yes, he's manipulative, but almost every single one of his manipulations are to make sure that horrible selfish greedy people are so busy watching their backs and feuding with each other that the common man has little to fear from them.

I recommend reading "The Prince" (Machiavelli) if you haven't already. In it, he lays out a very convincing argument that the very best ruler a nation could have would be extremely Lawful Evil. He suggests, for example, that the new prince should immediately begin his reign by rounding up all the survivors from the last dynasty and executing them, along with anyone else who later might be a threat. The argument here was that if you don't, you will likely spend the majority of your reign putting down one bloody uprising after another, formed around the claims of some minor heir or other. And in each rebellion, it is the people who suffer most. Better, he says, to commit all your attrocities early, so they are forgotten in the long years of peace that follow. (Whether he's right or not is very much an open question, and strays so far into politics that I'm not going to touch it.)

Lord Vetinari, I would suggest, is very much a ruler in that mould. His reign is remarkably peaceful, and has been hugely beneficial to Ankh-Morpork and its people... but his methods are extremely dark. (I would very much like to read the story of how he came to power, and the deeds of his early reign.)

 

[Shayuri]

Pretty sure he's an active assassin in "Night Watch".



I recommend reading "The Prince" (Machiavelli) if you haven't already. In it, he lays out a very convincing argument that the very best ruler a nation could have would be extremely Lawful Evil. He suggests, for example, that the new prince should immediately begin his reign by rounding up all the survivors from the last dynasty and executing them, along with anyone else who later might be a threat. The argument here was that if you don't, you will likely spend the majority of your reign putting down one bloody uprising after another, formed around the claims of some minor heir or other. And in each rebellion, it is the people who suffer most. Better, he says, to commit all your attrocities early, so they are forgotten in the long years of peace that follow. (Whether he's right or not is very much an open question, and strays so far into politics that I'm not going to touch it.)

Lord Vetinari, I would suggest, is very much a ruler in that mould. His reign is remarkably peaceful, and has been hugely beneficial to Ankh-Morpork and its people... but his methods are extremely dark. (I would very much like to read the story of how he came to power, and the deeds of his early reign.)

Hmm, been ages since I read Night Watch. I'll have to re-aquaint myself with it.

To your statements re: Machiavelli, I'd point out one time when Vetinari specifically did -not- do what he should have, if that parallel is to be drawn. Specifically, he let Carrot live, even when it was clear both Vetinari and Carrot knew (whether or not Carrot decided to act on) that Carrot was the rightful heir to the long unused throne of Ankh-Morpork. Granted, Carrot had no intention of claiming it...but would that be enough for Machiavelli? Minds can change anytime. Only death is sure.

Again, I think Vetinari certainly molds himself after Machiavelli in his public image...but I don't see his actions really reflecting that.

And I agree he doesn't seem to care about individual people. I still believe that the reason for that is because he's the most watched person in AM...and many of the watchers are really, really depraved people. If he shows obvious favor or emotion for someone, that someone will suffer for it...as will Vetinari himself. I'll have to re-read some books though to get some examples I can use of times when he subtly does favors for people he likes...even if they're not always favors the person would have asked for.