Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 3386810" data-attributes="member: 11760">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&amp;D nine-point alignment grid and why? (And yes, they're probably as bad a fit as anyone is.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whizbang Dustyboots, post: 3386810, member: 11760"] 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 [i]for the greater good[/i], or at least that's what he tells himself. Sometimes, you know you have the right guy, but you just can't [i]prove it[/i] -- 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.) [/QUOTE]

Verification