What alignment are the cops on The Shield?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Shield is coming back soon -- hooray! -- and as always, Vic Mackey's slippery moral position makes me think.

As far as Vic is concerned, he's one of the good guys. Sure, he plants evidence, works with crooks and steals, but it's all for the greater good, or at least that's what he tells himself. Sometimes, you know you have the right guy, but you just can't prove it -- so maybe they finesse it to get the bad guy locked up anyway. With too few resources, working with the crooks to contain problems is more practical than trying (and failing) to outright eliminate crime. And, of course, risking their lives, destroying their marriages and making a wreck of their lives in general for the greater good, they deserve to be compensated, right? Right?

To me, Vic is as evil as Tony Soprano, but he's just less willing to come to grips with who and what he is. But I know some people refer to him as a hero. What do you think?

And let's not forget that Vic's in the middle of a scale. Shane Vendrell, if anything, is a more corrupt and less apologetic dirty cop, while the late, lamented Lemansky was a better guy who tries rationalizing the corners he cuts even more than Vic ever does.

So, where would you put all these guys on the D&D nine-point alignment grid and why? (And yes, they're probably as bad a fit as anyone is.)

 

[Korgoth]

The Shield is coming back soon -- hooray! -- and as always, Vic Mackey's slippery moral position makes me think.

As far as Vic is concerned, he's one of the good guys. Sure, he plants evidence, works with crooks and steals, but it's all for the greater good, or at least that's what he tells himself. Sometimes, you know you have the right guy, but you just can't prove it -- so maybe they finesse it to get the bad guy locked up anyway. With too few resources, working with the crooks to contain problems is more practical than trying (and failing) to outright eliminate crime. And, of course, risking their lives, destroying their marriages and making a wreck of their lives in general for the greater good, they deserve to be compensated, right? Right?

To me, Vic is as evil as Tony Soprano, but he's just less willing to come to grips with who and what he is. But I know some people refer to him as a hero. What do you think?

And let's not forget that Vic's in the middle of a scale. Shane Vendrell, if anything, is a more corrupt and less apologetic dirty cop, while the late, lamented Lemansky was a better guy who tries rationalizing the corners he cuts even more than Vic ever does.

So, where would you put all these guys on the D&D nine-point alignment grid and why? (And yes, they're probably as bad a fit as anyone is.)

Welcome to Geeksville! Sure, I'll give it a try:

Vic: Lawful Evil - While he does break the law, his purpose is a lawful one, to secure order in society and the benefit of the deserving (esp. himself and family, but also certain innocents). The happiness and rights of others are not much of a factor to him.

Shane: Neutral Evil - He uses the law when it suits him and ignores it otherwise. His purpose is selfish in nature, disregarding the happiness and rights of others.

Lem: Neutral Good - He supports the law when he perceives it to be for the good, but will disregard it otherwise. He places the happiness and rights of others above considerations of abstract purpose.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Vic: Lawful Evil

Shane: Neutral Evil

Lem: Neutral Good

I agree with all of them except Lemansky. I agree that he's not Evil, but there's no way that he's Good ... he's in too deep, too willingly. Lemonhead's Neutral -- he sticks by his friends; he'd like to see them behave better, and he'd like to see a Good world, but in the end, he sticks by himself and his friends, whatever they do.

Vic is a textbook anti-hero. Anybody who claims he's a hero -- in the sense that he's got morality on his side -- should be seeing a shrink.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I agree with all of them except Lemansky. I agree that he's not Evil, but there's no way that he's Good ... he's in too deep, too willingly. Lemonhead's Neutral -- he sticks by his friends; he'd like to see them behave better, and he'd like to see a Good world, but in the end, he sticks by himself and his friends, whatever they do.

I think you need to ask yourself why he's in so deep. Lem strikes me as the kind of guy who got as deep as he did due to loyalty to Vic and Ronnie. He may just be good, remember that the horrible stuff he's done is nowhere as deep as what Vic or Shane have. He doesn't know about some of the worst. Considering what he was willing to do last season for the guys I'd put him at NG. Not a very 'strong' neutral good. He'd want to be NG but often fails in living up to his own moral code.

The real question is Ronnie. He's the quiet guy who we rarely see actually voice an opinion. Honestly I don't think I'd be that surprised if the series ends with Ronnie being the only one who gets out clean. Either cause he does everything right or Vic and Shane have an "accident".

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I definitely think this season is going to be where we see Ronnie step out of the shadows at long last.

Now, what about Vic's police nemeses? Acaveda's not good, I'd argue for one.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think you need to ask yourself why he's in so deep. Lem strikes me as the kind of guy who got as deep as he did due to loyalty to Vic and Ronnie.

I completely agree. And that's Neutral. He does Evil things, but not out of any desire to do them -- although he didn't turn down his share of the Armenian heist -- but out of loyalty to his friends. Classic Neutral.

Aceveda is Lawful Neutral, IMO. Dutch is NG or maybe LG, with some serious quirks. Wyms is NG. Danny is Neutral, arguably NG. Julien is LG.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why would you call Acaveda Lawful? He doesn't seem to have respect for any institutions (even marriage) unless he thinks he'll be caught breaking the rules. That to me doesn't show an inherent respect for the legal system and the law.

 

[Psimancer]

This is also one of my all time favourite shows. Unfortunately, being down in Aus means that I need to make 'other arrangements' to watch it, given that the TV stations down here are so... chronically unreliable...

For me, the Shield is proof that the alignment system doesn't work. But if I did have to have a go…

Vic is far from law-abiding, nor is he personally disciplined, therefore, IMHO, he’s not Lawful. He is willing to torture and kill, so he isn’t Good. He is always willing to do what ever it takes to get the job done, virtually at any expense – the ends definitely justify the means; so maybe Chaotic. He does what he does because in the grand scheme of things, he see it as doing good for society, so he isn’t Evil. So the best I can come up with is Chaotic Neutral… but to be honest, that doesn’t feel right either. If I really had to label him, I would probably go with absolute Neutral…

As for the others… Lem, relative to Vic is slightly more Lawful and Good, but by no means Lawful Good.

Shane on the other hand is far more Chaotic and Evil, but whether or not he is actually Chaotic Evil is another story.

And Ronnie… as WD said, this maybe his year to step out of the shadows… maybe a little more ‘Good’ than Vic, but I doubt he would be enough to carry him into that moral tier…

Aceveda, Dutch, Wyms, Danny and Julien? All these characters would fall in the Lawful & Good categories, but rarely simultaneously…


* * *

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I completely agree. And that's Neutral. He does Evil things, but not out of any desire to do them -- although he didn't turn down his share of the Armenian heist -- but out of loyalty to his friends. Classic Neutral.

You're ignoring all the things that he does when he's "away" from the gang. The season where he was in juvie we hear about all these kids he's helped and all the time he spends trying to get people back on track. Willing to eat a prison term so his friends would be safe? Refusing to run away from his crimes? Lem's the classic innocent tainted by his associations.

With the Money Train taking money from that is no different from adventurers taking a monsters "money", it's justified (to themselves, not in some objective sense) by the victim deserving the punishment. Regardless, he wasn't involved in the train because of a desire for personal profit (and IIRC he almost said no) but because of the welfare of his friends.

Aceveda is Lawful Neutral, IMO. Dutch is NG or maybe LG, with some serious quirks. Wyms is NG. Danny is Neutral, arguably NG. Julien is LG.

You've got the guy who hits on the wife of a murder victim he's investigating as Good? He's prideful, selfish and cowardly in the majority of his dealings. About the only person on the show he seems to care about in a non-sexual manner is Wyms. He ended last season by following the relationship advice of a pimp. Definitely Not Good. NE, maybe LE.

Dutch is the inverse of Lem, someone who believes he's good but can't resist the dark impulses from within himself. Lem thinks he's bad but only really becomes so when under external influence.

 

[Herobizkit]

The Shield is coming back soon...

Okay, so I have the first four seasons on DVD. Are you telling me they've gone ahead and make a fifth season AND it's on the air AND I've been missing it?!