What alignment are these Harry Potter characters? (Spoilers abound.)

[LordVyreth]

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.

Huh, I was just about to suggest that Umbridge was a perfect example of Lawful Evil. I agree that she overlooked laws at times (like attempting to use an Unforgivable Curse on Harry,) but I don't think individual cases necessarily bump her down to neutral.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hermione Grainger: Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies
Harry Potter: Exalted Neutral Good
Ronald Weasley: Neutral Good

-

Neville Longbottom: Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies
Luna Lovegood: Chaotic Good
Ginny Weasley: Neutral Good

-

Katie Bell: Lawful Neutral
Lavender Brown: Neutral Good
Cho Chang: Neutral
Seamus Finnegan: (unknown)
Dean Thomas: Neutral Good

-

Crabbe: Chaotic Evil
Goyle: Neutral Evil
Draco Malfoy: Neutral Evil, then Neutral
Pansy Parkinson: Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies

-

Mr Weasley: Lawful Good
Mrs. Weasley: Lawful Good
Charlie Weasley: Neutral Good
Bill Weasley: Lawful Good
Percy Weasely: Neutral
George Weasely: Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies
Fred Weasely: Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies

-

House Griffyndor: All alignments, leaning towards Good
House Hufflepuff: All alignments, leaning towards Lawful
House Ravenclaw: All alignments, leaning towards Chaotic
House Slytherin: All alignments, leaning towards Evil

-

Binz: Neutral
Albus Dumbledore: Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good, then Neutral Good, then Exalted Neutral Good
Ferienze (sp?) : Chaotic Good
Flitwick: Lawful Good
Hagrid: Chaotic Good
Madam Hooch: Chaotic Neutral
Minerva McGonagall: Lawful Good with Neutral Good tendencies
Severus Snape: Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Evil, then Chaotic Good, then Neutral Good
Slughorn: Lawful Neutral
Professor Sprout: Neutral with Good tendencies

-

The Bloody Baron: (unknown)
The Grey Lady of Ravenclaw: Neutral

Peeves the Poltergeist: Chaotic Neutral

-

Aragog: Neutral
Grawp: Chaotic Neutral

-

Sirius Black: Neutral, then Neutral Good
Remus Lupin: Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good
Petter Pettigrew/Wormtail: Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Evil
James Potter: Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies, then Chaotic Good
Lily Potter: Chaotic Neutral, then Chaotic Good

-

Fleur Delacour: Neutral with Good tendencies, then Chaotic Good
Viktor Krum: Lawful Neutral
Neville Longbottom's grandmother: (unknown)
Xeno Lovegood, Luna's father: Chaotic Good
Tonks: Lawful Good

-

Cornelius Fudge: Neutral with Chaotic tendencies

Mad-Eyed Moody: Neutral
Kingsley Shaklebolt: Lawful Good
Dolores Umbridge: Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies

-

Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort: Vile Neutral Evil

Fenrir Greyback: Chaotic Evil with Vile tendencies
Bellatrix Lastrange: Vile Chaotic Evil
Lucius Malfoy: Lawful Evil
Narcissa Malfoy: Neutral with Evil tendencies

-

Mr. Dursley: Neutral
Mrs. Dursley/Aunt Petunia: Chaotic Neutral
Dudley Dursley: Neutral, then (unknown)

-

The Centaurs: Various Lawful and Neutral
The Dementors: Vile Chaotic Evil
The Dragon of Gringotts: Chaotic Neutral
The Giants: Various (unknown)
The Goblins: Various Chaotics
The Hippogriffs: Various Chaotics
The Unicorns: Exalted Lawful Good

 

[Mystaros]

Huh, I was just about to suggest that Umbridge was a perfect example of Lawful Evil. I agree that she overlooked laws at times (like attempting to use an Unforgivable Curse on Harry,) but I don't think individual cases necessarily bump her down to neutral.

Umbrage was known in Order of the Phoenix for exceeding or breaking the rules whenever she wanted and for the most petty reasons while she was Inquisitor and acting Headmistress. It was she who abused her power and send the Dementors to Little Whinging. Perhaps it would appear that she was Lawful Evil with Neutral Evil tendencies.

In Deathly Hallows, however, her true colors show. After the coup, she is the right-hand woman of Voldemort's hand-picked Minister of Magic, and is in charge of the group that ferrets out and eliminates muggle-born wizards. Even had this all occurred legally, pre-coup, it would have called into question her loyalty to law and order; this inquisition is not lawful by any means, using no real rules or laws of order other than the personal whims and hatreds of those in charge. It is, as some have noted, lifted straight from the Volksgerichtshof or "People's Court" of Nazi Germany, which was little more than a show court, bound by no law other than the Fuehrer's will.

Rowling, like Lucas before her (and others) stole from Nazi themes to show how truly, dreadfully evil Voldemort's Order was. Fascists speak much of law and order, but hate it in truth; it is raw, naked power that they desire, and they use and abuse the law to get it. They willingly break the law or change it by fiat as they wish to further their ends. The philosophy is "Power for us, obedience or death for others." That is the essence of Neutral Evil. Chaotic Evil is "Power for ME, bugger all else" while Lawful Evil is "Order is proper, and the laws should work for me, especially if they screw over those guys over there."

This, I think, is where the differences between Lucius Malfoy and Umbridge are apparent; Lucius was not let loose after the coup, as Voldemort knew he was not fully his anymore; during his absence he gained respect for law, order, and decorum, however feeble, and realized that the lawless nature of Voldemort's Order was not what he sought. He sought power, but in his mind, what power is there without law and order? Umbridge, on the other hand, luxuriates in the power she is given, which is wholly outside any sort of law.

Why did Voldemort not just kill the Malfoys, then? Well, because if things failed... if he lost control of the Ministry... he'd need a backup, and then Malfoy would be his. Plus, he liked toying with Draco and his mother, apparently.

Anyway, though he had a will to power and despised muggles and mudbloods, Malfoy was all for law and order, which is not what Voldemort stood for at all. Umbridge desires power, unrestrained, to do as she wishes; she uses the law and the Ministry and a means to power, and respects it only in as much as it is useful to her. When it is not, she happily goes around it or abuses it. Therefore, I feel she is Neutral Evil, as opposed to Lawful Evil. I think Malfoy was Neutral Evil when he was originally a Death Eater, then during the intervening years moved to Lawful Evil, as he discovered the uses and importance of law and order...

 

[Cameron]

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?


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?

Impatience and impetuousness are Chaotic traits, not betrayal. Betrayal without regret is Evil.

Didn't Yoda remind Kenobi about it when they were discussing Luke's training?

The last paragraph makes no sense. Please reiterate in a different manner.

 

[Cameron]

Have you read Book 7?

Umm... Have you read my entire post?

No. I just read a couple of the initial ones that my cousins left lying around. I am not a HP fan of any stripe. I just read what I can when I am bored.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Could anyone cut and paste my list of characters, and add to it, so we have them all? (It'd be nice to have them all!)

Then we can do a comparison on how we think about each character's alignment, if everyone wants to.

 

[I'm A Banana]

LAWFUL does not equal FOLLOWS THE LAW

In Deathly Hallows, however, her true colors show. After the coup, she is the right-hand woman of Voldemort's hand-picked Minister of Magic, and is in charge of the group that ferrets out and eliminates muggle-born wizards. Even had this all occurred legally, pre-coup, it would have called into question her loyalty to law and order; this inquisition is not lawful by any means, using no real rules or laws of order other than the personal whims and hatreds of those in charge. It is, as some have noted, lifted straight from the Volksgerichtshof or "People's Court" of Nazi Germany, which was little more than a show court, bound by no law other than the Fuehrer's will.

A corrupt court is still a show of order, the power of a unified front, and the rubber-stamp legitimacy of Law.

You can break laws of society left and right in pursuit of a Higher Order. Ultimately, the belief that muggles are less worthy to live than wizards is a LAWFUL belief, a belief in hierarchy and the legitimacy of those higher up to do whatever they want to those lower down. Muggles are being "put in their place." Their place, as naturally subservient to Wizards.

It doesn't have to be Lawful, but there are other things that point to this being Lawful instead of Neutral. Using the Ministry to execute this plan is very Lawful: you're using the power of order and control to enact your will. Having a court (even one that is a sham) is Lawful. Laws don't have to be fair or equitable, they just have to be there as a process to follow.

If those in charge communicate to those lower down on the totem pole, their whims are LAW, and so what they do is very very LAWFUL.

It it with an order, with authority, with the goal of establishing a correct hierarchy, that this is done.

That's got Law written all over it.

Indeed, using the power of authority, the power of government, of systems, is very Lawful.

Chaotic would imply that you use your personal power, and rely not on these artificial constructs of society and culture.

Neutral wouldn't be unduly concerned with authority or personal power, per se. They would be more concerned with the Evil portion of their alignment, so they would probably not worry about gaining authority in the Ministry. Most of the Death Eaters fall into this category, probably: willing to pledge their allegiance to whatever will get them more of what they want and deprive others of it.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Let's start with the heroes:

Harry Potter is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?

Definitely Neutral Good. He's out to do the right thing for the greater good, rules be damned.

Hermione Granger sure seems Good and probably Lawful, but she does get talked into all sorts of mischief on a regular basis. Is that sufficient to knock her over to Neutral Good instead?

I'd say she starts out Lawful Neutral and by series end she's Lawful Good. Just remember that Lawful Good doesn't mean upholding rules you know are wrong, evil, or spiteful.

Ron Weasely has Weasely blood in him, which seems to give him both red hair and a Chaotic Good attitude, unless you're Percy, in which case you're the white sheep of the family and are Lawful Git instead.

Ron is Chaotic Good, as are Fred and George. Percy is Lawful Neutral, while the rest of the clan seems to be hovering around Lawful Good

[QUOTEAs we see in HP7, Albus Dumbledore doesn't have a spotless record, but he seems to have spent his long life trying to make up for being a brat for 18 months or so as a young man. He's secretive and cryptic, but that doesn't necessarily change his alignment. I'd say he's a safe Neutral Good.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Like Harry, he's willing to put everything else aside for the greater good in a form of penance for his youthful arrogance (which explains why he's willing to give everyone else a second chance).

Then there's the villains:

Voldemort is Evil, no question, and is entirely focussed on himself, which would suggest Chaotic, but folks often like to argue that the ability (and inclination) to make long-range plans suggests Lawfulness. So what is he? CE, LE or NE?

Neutral Evil. He's only in it for himself, which is the epitome of NE.

The Malfoys are interesting in the light of HP7. Once confronted with what life under a returned Voldemort is like, they decide that blood is thicker than water. But does Narcissa's willingness to betray Voldemort for the sake of her family (and Draco's apparent willingness to do the same) suggest a different alignment? Prior to this book, I'd say they were either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. What do you think?

Lawful Evil for the most part. Work within the framework for their own benefit, which Lucius and Draco certainly did. Narcissa would be more True Neutral I think. Bellatrix would be Chaotic Evil.

And then there's ...

Severus Snape is a weird one. His behavior is all over the map -- snide and bullying, insolent to authority that won't physically retaliate, capable and even eager for love -- but ultimately, while he does what he does out of love and duty, he doesn't really seem interested in the larger good, nor does he seem particularly eager to truly renounce the worldview of Voldemort and those like him. I'd peg him as floating between Neutral and Neutral Evil, myself.

I'd go True Neutral. His main goal seemed to be avenging Lily after her death, and he was largely willing to do whatever it took, good or bad. Of course, how much of his attitude was acting to make Voldemort's followers think he was on their side is up for debate.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Harry Potter is clearly Good and clearly not Lawful. But is he Chaotic or Neutral?

After some thought, I change my mind on Harry Potter. I think throughout the first 6 books Harry is Chaotic Good, but in the last book I think he made the change to Lawful Good. I think this is evident in the change of heart towards the Malfoys. Whether or not he trusted them, he did save Draco from the demon fire. As much as I personal would have let those three die, and long before this book.

He chose to save Draco's and Goyles life (and even Crab's, even if he was too late), even when they were trying to kill him and his friends. I think that, coupled with his desire NOT to gain the power of the hallows for personal use, and his choice to disarm Voldemort instead of trying to kill him and even his willingness to give him one last chance to turn back from his evil ways has turned him into Lawful Good in the end.

I still think that Ron is neutral good, hermione is lawful good leaning toward neutral good (but not quite there) Voldemort is Chaotic evil and Snape is True Neutral (never evil, he only has one concern, his love for Lily. In spite of his, at times what seems like, hatred towards Potter, it is really a re-living of his feelings for James Potter. He loves Harry as much as lily, just can't express it. He is niether good nor evil. Neither Chaotic nor Lawful. He just is.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, Harry Potter - Neutral Good leaning toward True Neutral just a bit, though he re-centers his Good alignment in Hallows.

Hermione Granger - Neutral Good, and very little shilly shallying about it - likes rules, but is more than willing to break them if greater good is served.

Ron Weasely - Another Weasely? Griffendor! Errr, I mean Neutral Good leaning a touch towards Chaotic Good, likes their fun the Weaselys do.

Albus Dumbledor - Lawful Good, shaping the laws to serve good.

Severus Snape - Once Lawful Evil, still leans that way a bit, but has taken enough hits to his Evil nature to turn away from it. Summed up best near the end of Hallows - [sblock]"Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?"
"Lately, only those whom I could not save."[/sblock]

The Auld Grump