What alignment are these Harry Potter characters? (Spoilers abound.)
Even before the second trilogy came out, Vader was portrayed as having violated his Jedi creed, and that it was his impatience and impetuousness that got him nailed by Palpy. He was basically a Chaotic person in a Lawful tradition and that was why he fell (it was less a Good vs Evil thing, more of a Law vs Chaos thing).Felix said:
Moggthegob
First Post
I would peg Harry at NG as many have said. I put severus to LN he is definitely all about propriety and patience(he stayed at a job he didnt want for years out of sheer principle) He helps harry even when he disagrees with him and he shows tough love becasuse its the best thing for harry. His overriding love for Lily potter and his oath to protect harry are the overriding laws in his life. He is against voldemort in the end because i fee l he eventually realizes his love for a mudblood showed him inevitably the redemption in them.If he had different friends he would have wound up with lily evans( after all the all thought James was obnoxious). He is the secret character that he story is REALLY all about, much liek great gatsby.
And betrayal is always and everywhere a Chaotic trait? So what have all those Baatezu been doing all this time schemeing and betraying each other for?Cameron said:
Exactly what evidence from the first three movies are you thinking about here?
Admiting the prequils, you allow that Ani was turned from Good to Evil, but can't accept a shift from Chaotic to Lawful? Uh, why?
DM-Rocco
Explorer
I don't believe that Snape was ever evil. Even when he was a death eater it was more of a fitting in thing at Howgwarts because his house prefect was Lucious Malfoy, then it was his free will. The only thing he ever loved was lilly. He is more neutral than anything. He might actually be the only true neutral character in the booksmorbiczer said:
Last edited:
Mystaros
First Post
IMO:
Harry Potter: Neutral Good. Likes things orderly, but not strict; willing to bend or even break the rules when necessary, but not without cause. Despises evil and all it stands for.
Ron Weasely: Starts out Chaotic Good like Fred and George, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Hermione's influence.
Hermione Granger: Starts out Lawful Good, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Harry and Ron's influences, plus first-hand experience that order isn't always better.
Lord Voldemort: Chaotic Evil and Vile. As mentioned elsewhere, everything he does and "believe in" is simply a front for his own desires. Chaotic Evil does not mean Chaotic Stupid (though he's got plenty of that, too). Promises are never made to be kept, lies slide from his mouth like a forked tongue from a snake, and even his least whim is usually indulged, save when he has more important matters to deal with (like his desire to kill the child in costume on Halloween... the only reason he did not do it is that it would have given him away to the Potters, and it was merely a whim!)
Malfoys: Lucius and Narcissa were Lawful Evil, with Neutral Evil leanings, while Draco was Neutral Evil. Note that while all Voldemort's followers were Evil, few were Vile. I'd say definitely Avery, Dolohov, Mulciber, Nott, and Rosier (the earliest Death Eaters), plus (probably) Fenrir, Bellatrix, Barty Crouch Jr., and the Carrows were Evil and Vile, while the other Death Eaters were merely Evil...
Severus Snape: I think in his childhood Snape was merely Neutral. Then, through influences in Slytherin and with bad experiences with James Potter and the Marauders he turned Neutral Evil. After the slaying of Lily Potter he saw the error of his ways, and was Neutral once more, with leanings toward Good. If he was pure Neutral he'd have never had a problem performing some minor Evil jobs, but in almost every case where we think he's done something Evil (like zapped George during the chase from the Dursely's), it was in fact a Good act, or a Good act gone wrong. If he'd been caught purposefully stopping another Death Eater, as he had done, he would have been killed out of hand. So I think by the end he was Neutral with Good tendencies.
Oh, and...
Dumbledore: Neutral Good with neutral tendencies. Bends rules happily, breaks rules when necessary, prefers order over chaos but values individuality over regimentation. Definitely good, as otherwise he could not have Fawkes, but is willing to recognize that at times less-than-perfectly-good actions must be taken.
Harry Potter: Neutral Good. Likes things orderly, but not strict; willing to bend or even break the rules when necessary, but not without cause. Despises evil and all it stands for.
Ron Weasely: Starts out Chaotic Good like Fred and George, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Hermione's influence.
Hermione Granger: Starts out Lawful Good, ends the series Neutral Good thanks to Harry and Ron's influences, plus first-hand experience that order isn't always better.
Lord Voldemort: Chaotic Evil and Vile. As mentioned elsewhere, everything he does and "believe in" is simply a front for his own desires. Chaotic Evil does not mean Chaotic Stupid (though he's got plenty of that, too). Promises are never made to be kept, lies slide from his mouth like a forked tongue from a snake, and even his least whim is usually indulged, save when he has more important matters to deal with (like his desire to kill the child in costume on Halloween... the only reason he did not do it is that it would have given him away to the Potters, and it was merely a whim!)
Malfoys: Lucius and Narcissa were Lawful Evil, with Neutral Evil leanings, while Draco was Neutral Evil. Note that while all Voldemort's followers were Evil, few were Vile. I'd say definitely Avery, Dolohov, Mulciber, Nott, and Rosier (the earliest Death Eaters), plus (probably) Fenrir, Bellatrix, Barty Crouch Jr., and the Carrows were Evil and Vile, while the other Death Eaters were merely Evil...
Severus Snape: I think in his childhood Snape was merely Neutral. Then, through influences in Slytherin and with bad experiences with James Potter and the Marauders he turned Neutral Evil. After the slaying of Lily Potter he saw the error of his ways, and was Neutral once more, with leanings toward Good. If he was pure Neutral he'd have never had a problem performing some minor Evil jobs, but in almost every case where we think he's done something Evil (like zapped George during the chase from the Dursely's), it was in fact a Good act, or a Good act gone wrong. If he'd been caught purposefully stopping another Death Eater, as he had done, he would have been killed out of hand. So I think by the end he was Neutral with Good tendencies.
Oh, and...
Dumbledore: Neutral Good with neutral tendencies. Bends rules happily, breaks rules when necessary, prefers order over chaos but values individuality over regimentation. Definitely good, as otherwise he could not have Fawkes, but is willing to recognize that at times less-than-perfectly-good actions must be taken.
Last edited:
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Whizbang Dustyboots said:That suggests that well roleplayed characters can't have an alignment as well.
Well, in fairness, alignment in D&D is meant to act as a guideline, not a straightjacket. This being the case, its real value isn't in categorizing behavior but in serving a requisite for mechanical effects.
Dr. Prunesquallor
First Post
Put me in the "Snape is Neutral Evil" camp. Possibly Lawful Evil if his Death Eater association actually had anything to do with the Wizard/Muggle divide. If only more evil PCs rolled this way. Also gets my vote for best character in the series.
Honestly, I've got some questions about Dumbledore being good. Not so much because of his childhood waywardness as because of his treatment of Snape and Harry as, respectively, knowing and unknowing, pawns and the fact that he continued to seek to gather the hallows until it effectively killed him. (And potentialy killed James & Lily, would they have gotten away with the cloak?) In the final big reveal Dumbledore wins, but does the end justify the means? Especially since that last chapter seemed so slap-dash. I kind of feel like the final victory was the result of a bit of handwavium.
These are just my impressions after burning through the book before handing it off to the significant other. I want to take another look at it and see if it hangs together better on a second reading. All in all, I did enjoy it immensely.
Honestly, I've got some questions about Dumbledore being good. Not so much because of his childhood waywardness as because of his treatment of Snape and Harry as, respectively, knowing and unknowing, pawns and the fact that he continued to seek to gather the hallows until it effectively killed him. (And potentialy killed James & Lily, would they have gotten away with the cloak?) In the final big reveal Dumbledore wins, but does the end justify the means? Especially since that last chapter seemed so slap-dash. I kind of feel like the final victory was the result of a bit of handwavium.
These are just my impressions after burning through the book before handing it off to the significant other. I want to take another look at it and see if it hangs together better on a second reading. All in all, I did enjoy it immensely.
Mystaros
First Post
Evil with Law vs. Chaos and the Ministries
Here's an example of how Evil works within the ministries and in regards to muggles, vis a vis Voldemort and the Death Eaters:
Lawful Evil: A Lawful Evil Death Eater, while Voldemort is not active, will advocate anti-Muggle legislation. If it does not win, he will try again. Will not use spells to modify the outcome, unless such use is legal. Might use spells to spy on opponents to get leverage, or to resort to a little blackmail; after all, politics is politics. While Lord Voldemort is active but generally in hiding, will use Imperius and other such spells to control ministry members. Will torment and abuse muggles given half a chance, but will not kill them out of hand, save when Voldemort is fully in power (as after the coup in Deathly Hallows). Example: Lucius Malfoy.
Neutral Evil: No compunctions about using Imperius and other such spells to control members of the Wizengamot and the Ministry of Magic. Uses power and status to enforce will and get what they want when they cannot do so on their own. Enjoys abusing power in both whenever possible, and will fulfill slightest evil whims when Voldemort is secretly in power or openly in power. Will kill muggles if given half a chance but won't get caught, and will do so happily and openly once Voldemort is in power. Example: Dolores Umbridge.
Chaotic Evil: Has no regard for any Wizarding world governmental institutions; would love to tear them down, but never could from inside, as rarely would have the patience to do so. If forced to deal with the ministry, usually ends up throwing curses, unless under orders from Voldemort (who would like to himself, but has more experience at subtlety; once firmly in power, he will be the only power). Will kill muggles out of hand, laws be damned. Likes doing so painfully and slowly when given the chance. Example: Fenrir Greyback.
Here's an example of how Evil works within the ministries and in regards to muggles, vis a vis Voldemort and the Death Eaters:
Lawful Evil: A Lawful Evil Death Eater, while Voldemort is not active, will advocate anti-Muggle legislation. If it does not win, he will try again. Will not use spells to modify the outcome, unless such use is legal. Might use spells to spy on opponents to get leverage, or to resort to a little blackmail; after all, politics is politics. While Lord Voldemort is active but generally in hiding, will use Imperius and other such spells to control ministry members. Will torment and abuse muggles given half a chance, but will not kill them out of hand, save when Voldemort is fully in power (as after the coup in Deathly Hallows). Example: Lucius Malfoy.
Neutral Evil: No compunctions about using Imperius and other such spells to control members of the Wizengamot and the Ministry of Magic. Uses power and status to enforce will and get what they want when they cannot do so on their own. Enjoys abusing power in both whenever possible, and will fulfill slightest evil whims when Voldemort is secretly in power or openly in power. Will kill muggles if given half a chance but won't get caught, and will do so happily and openly once Voldemort is in power. Example: Dolores Umbridge.
Chaotic Evil: Has no regard for any Wizarding world governmental institutions; would love to tear them down, but never could from inside, as rarely would have the patience to do so. If forced to deal with the ministry, usually ends up throwing curses, unless under orders from Voldemort (who would like to himself, but has more experience at subtlety; once firmly in power, he will be the only power). Will kill muggles out of hand, laws be damned. Likes doing so painfully and slowly when given the chance. Example: Fenrir Greyback.
Similar Threads
