yet another alignment question

[bolen]

Got a question for you guys,

I watched "all in the family" last night after playing D&D and I was thinking. What would a biggot like Archie's alignment be. He is just dumb in his belief system, he does not really understand why it is wrong to use the "n-word". So I'd say he is LN. But he is good hearted so is he LG?

This is where alignment is an overly simplistic concept, I guess.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Watched Murder by Numbers the other night, the basic plot was a person could not be truly free without performing a crime, the greater the crime the greater the freedom. Sandra's character said; you can not have true freedom if you feel quility. I thought it was a good statement.

Archie does not feel quility, chaotic good.

 

[Drawmack]

I'd give archie a NG he doesn't particularly go out of his way to stand for or against the laws.

 

[bolen]

ahh..

Here's the rub. Are you saying it is possiable to be good and be a biggot. If you are then descrimination is good. where is that line? Obviously there are lines, If I want to kill elves because they are evil (in my world view), that would be good. But it is certainly not good if your an elf. Ok so that is evil. what about killing orcs?

I am confused.

 

[Planesdragon]

He's LN, but not for the reason you think.

ahh..

Here's the rub. Are you saying it is possiable to be good and be a biggot. If you are then descrimination is good. where is that line? Obviously there are lines, If I want to kill elves because they are evil (in my world view), that would be good. But it is certainly not good if your an elf. Ok so that is evil. what about killing orcs?

I am confused.

Archie is neither Good (charity isn't his forte), Evil (he doesn't hurt anyone else), or Chaotic (he respects authority and the system around him.) He is Lawful Neutral.

Archie being a bigot has little to no bearing on his alingment. A member of the medieval Catholic Inquistion (not the Spanish Inquiustion) who went about proclaiming his (by modern standards) closed-minded views of justice and religion, and who showed mercy and justice in all of his rulings and actions, would very likely be a Lawful Good Paladin.


Consider the case of someone like, oh, Marvel's Doctor Doom. He's obviously Chaotic Evil ("there is no law but doom" and all that), but he is not bigoted, sexist, racist, sadistic, or a good number of other things that are very much "not good."

Alingment is only part of a character's description. Attempts to stretch it to cover an entire persona are shortsighted and doomed to failure. Alingment is the color of the hat your cowboy wears, not their personality.

(FWIW, IMC I use "Nature", "Demeanor", "Role", "Religion" and "Alingment" to describe characters.)

 

[Darth Shoju]

I think the problem is that the D&D alignment system is an antiquated notion from simpler times, that tends to redline easily when applied to any kind of complex ethical situation.

It's been a while since I watched All in the Family, but I think Archie was essentially a good guy. Yes, he was a biggot in many respects, but I think the character was designed to make us think about our own prejudices and realized how shallow they really are. I think this was evidenced by the fact that Archie always talked big and called his son-in-law meathead and such, but he loved him all the same. I believe what they were implying is that Archie was a biggot in an abstract sense, in that he didn't truly believe his own biggotry. I'm thinking he just followed his own stereotypical ideals without really applying them to actual people. From what I remember, when he actually did have to apply those ideals to real people, when the situation got serious he did the right thing. And I think that is how they were trying to tell us how ridiculous biggotry is. Of course, I don't think I've watched the show in like 18 years, so I could be wrong .

If you want to ram Archie into the D&D alignment pigeon-hole, I'd call him neutral good, or possibly chaotic good. I'd say NG before CG as he generally seemed to be too ambivilant to do anything really chaotic.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I said chaotic because he speaks his mind, he says what he wants to say, when he wants to say it, and where he wants to. He did not surpress his actions or coments for anyone.

I said good because he never hurt anyone and even helped help people.

 

[Arnwyn]

I think he would be LN, but...

Here's the rub. Are you saying it is possiable to be good and be a biggot.

Yes, I do think that it's possible.

If you are then descrimination is good. where is that line?

Wha? Now how do you jump to *that* line of reasoning? No, discrimination isn't "good". However, a good person can be a bit of a bigot if he's stupid, uninformed, and doesn't do anything with it but talk a little about it (his actions will certainly determine his alignment). In the case of Archie, he's a bit of a blabbermouth, so I'd put in as LN, with good tendencies. Maybe L4G1 or even L4G2 (using the Book of Hallowed Might's nifty alignment system).

Everyone has a few foibles - no one's perfect. If the person is *mostly* good, then he/she is good. Where that line is can only be answered by you, based on how you envision society in your campaign.

Obviously there are lines, If I want to kill elves because they are evil (in my world view), that would be good. But it is certainly not good if your an elf. Ok so that is evil. what about killing orcs?

I am confused.

Now you are *really* going to places that can only be answered in your campaign.

For example, IMC, one cannot kill something that is evil, just because "it is evil" (well, you can't do that and expect to be considered "good"). That's called murder. It just doesn't work that way IMC (though it might in yours).

 

[Darth Shoju]

Re: He's LN, but not for the reason you think.

Consider the case of someone like, oh, Marvel's Doctor Doom. He's obviously Chaotic Evil ("there is no law but doom" and all that)

I'd say Doctor Doom is more Lawful Evil. Sure, he's evil and all, but he is usually good to his word too. And there may be no law but Doom, but he adheres to that law, and expects others to as well. I just think the iron-fisted (literally) dictator of a Latveria would be more LE, especially since he seems to have his own sense of honor and is pretty good to his subjects as long as they follow his law. Of course, he's evil in that he is willing to sacrifice pretty-much anyone to advance his own cause, but he still believes it is for the better in the long run.

Besides, anyone who goes to Hell and out-wits the Devil to get his mom's soul freed has to be pretty Lawful in my books.

 

[Umbran]

Being "a nice guy" is not sufficient to be "Good". Extremes of alignments are usually indicative of dedication to an ideal or mode of action. As I recall, Achie doesn't exactly go out of his way to help his fellow man. When push comes to shove, he does the right thing, but that's not the same as having the welfare fo his fellow man being tops on his priority list.

Archie Bunker is an Everyman. As such, he's got the same alignment - neutral.