What alignment is Baltar?

[delericho]

Is what they're doing "Good" by the D&D definition of the term?

Risking harm to self for the benefit of others? Yes, that's Good.

I would back that with a quote, but my books are at home.

Please make your case rather than starting with an unproven assumption.

I was addressing the assertion that to do good you have to "help people for the sole sake of helping them". To do so, all I need to show is one example of a Good act that has a motivation beyond "the sole sake" of doing good. So...

Every time a firefighter enters a burning building to pull someone out of the fire, they risk bodily harm for the benefit of others. They do so to help others, it is true, but that is not the sole motivation - it is also their job, and presumably it is a job they enjoy.

Does that make the act not Good? No. The fact remains he risked bodily harm for others.

Note: I have not stated that all firefighters, paramedics, soldiers (or any other group) are therefore Good. My case is that some of these individuals do Good acts for reasons that go beyond "the sole sake" of doing Good.

Being good requires a willingness to unselfishly sacrifice for others.

Having taken me up on "unproved assumptions", you shouldn't be making them either. Provide support for your use of the word "unselfishly" please.

Sometimes people risk the sacrifice and don't actually get hurt, but it's their willingness to do so in the first place that makes them good.

Which is what I said.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm truly baffled at how anyone could see Baltar as anything other than Chaotic Evil.

I don't, because I have a very strong image of the CE D&D villain, and Baltar ain't it. D&D evil is not complex; it is never as insipid and weak-willed as Balter; it is much more forward-thinking, sophisticated, and rational than he ever will be.

This is one of the better threads on alignment that's been posted at ENW. Enjoying this!

 

[MarkB]

I'd have to add my vote for Baltar being the poster child for Neutral Evil. Not evil-mastermind level evil, but he's utterly self-serving, does not even slightly value the lives or feelings of others, and whilst he does occasionally wrestle with his conscience, his conscience never, ever wins. And whilst he does act on a whim at times, he lacks the inconsistency of a truly Chaotic alignment.

I'd also consider Starbuck to be an excellent representation of Chaotic Good. She does, more often than most in the series, act in the best interests of the greater good, but has a big problem with authority, and isn't above breaking the rules just for the sake of it.

 

[Klaus]

Or breaking a nose every now and then...

 

[satori01]

Put me down for Chaotic Evil. Baltar is definetely chaotic. Baltar has no firmly held beliefs, and when left to his own devices tends fall into depravity and indulgence. The glimpses into his presidency pretty much show that. Even worse Baltar is vengeful and petty, thus perceived slights and insults will often result in retailiation.
I would personaly say, that poor impule control is an accurate descriptor for Chaotic.

As for the evil part, he is not evil with a capital "E", he is not cleric of an evil god, demon lord evil. Baltar is selfishly evil. He is juvenillely evil, in fact many of his actions, especially in the begining of the series was spured on by the want to escape punishment. Baltar in love pretty much showed he was willing to jepordize the security of humanity for the mere image of the 6 in his head, while at the same time, you can also say he took advantage of a severely tramatized 6 model.

Which I think is the strongest arguement for Baltar being evil, he is willing to betray, (sometimes consciously, sometimes because of the defects in his character), both the Cylons and Humanity.

I'm not sure I could say the same for the Tom Zarek character, (who I would say is in the NE-NG axis, he could go either way, which I think is representative the old alignment graph, the difference between NG & NE is often not that great at all).

 

[Kesh]

My second response would be Neutral Evil. He's selfish and doesn't care about the lives of others, but he's willing to work within the structure of society around him when necessary to preserve his skin. A Chaotic Evil person simply wouldn't care: they'd do what they want, when they want, to whom they want, everyone else be damned. Baltar's too cowardly to buck the system that flagrantly, but willing to break the rules when no one's looking. Hence, I peg him Neutral in that regard.

My first response was: Baltar's alignment is "Bat Insane."

 

[Kesh]

I'd also consider Starbuck to be an excellent representation of Chaotic Good. She does, more often than most in the series, act in the best interests of the greater good, but has a big problem with authority, and isn't above breaking the rules just for the sake of it.

QFT. Starbuck sticks (loosely) to military discipline because she wants to. The minute that discipline interferes with what she wants, she bucks it. Even if it's going to get her chewed out / disciplined / stripped of rank. That is Chaotic.

And, reckless as she is, she always strives to do what's best for people in general. Though she has a bit of a problem with her dad.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Just not seeing this in Baltar for the most part. Perhaps by the end of season two he has reached the "ruthless and brutal" part, but I'm not really convinced he has hit the CE level. I think he started the show as Neutral and has moved to Neutral evil at most.

 

[Delta]

One issue I've noticed is that in early D&D (1st Ed.), it was CE that was more simply selfish and uncaring, NE that was more "devoted" to Evil as a moral principle. It seems the 3E language changed that subtly, implying that CE is the more "hardcore", active evil.

Grognards like me may have a different point-of-view from people who are only reading the 3E books. I'm pretty sure there was a PC in the 1st Ed. Rogues Gallery, with a description of "selfishness" almost exaclty like Baltar, who was listed as CE.

 

[sckeener]

I think CE is a bit strong for him

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is
committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.​

GOOD VS. EVIL

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.​

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.​

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
​

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.​

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, as with the paladin who attempts to live up to her ideals or the evil cleric who causes pain and terror to emulate his god. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.​