Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:00 pm
by Erro
Stam wrote:Alucard from Hellsing

Evil, no question here. He does good under orders, but the guy's pure evil to the core. Mass murder is something he thrives on and just plain loves doing.
C-L axis is a little harder. Sometimes he comes across as pure CE, "I did that because I wanted to," and other times more as NE. I'd personally put him in the latter.

I agree with you about Alucard being evil. (No Doubt There.)

However, I picture him along the lawful axis, he follows to many rules to be anything but. (With the organization and how he obeys integra, etc..)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:45 pm
by Guest
The whole discussion is largely pointless until someone can provide objective definitions for establishing a person's position on the moral/ethical axes.

IF one were to define Lawful behaviour as exhibiting or promoting consistency, method, discipline, etc. and Chaotic behaviour as exhibiting or promoting inconsistency, spontaneity, randomness, etc. then you might arrive at very different conclusions from definitions based on legality and social convention, etc.
And there's a whole pile of complications involved from whether intent is all that matters, unintentional side-effects, the lesser of two evils/means vs. ends, the spectrum of choice- it goes on.

All that said, I love to argue. So:

Tyler Durden (from Fight Club).
Lawful aspects- Tyler heads a large underground organisation that he runs with flawless efficiency and martial discipline. He is methodical and plans far ahead. His emphasis on 'losing everything' and cultish regimen seem almost monkish.
Chaotic aspects- Tyler wants to destroy the entire existing social order, to set people free from the bonds of a soul-destroying culture based on mindless consumption. Being 'free to do anything' is his ultimate goal.
Evil aspects- Tyler may not kill people directly, but he's clearly willing to stomach casualties as part of his master plan, violently coerce others, and generally spread panic and destruction on as wide a scale as possible.
Good aspects- Tyler's ultimate goal is to see the fulfilment of individual human potential, something he genuinely believes himself to be pursuing by the only means available, and helps many specific individuals to achieve.

So, what is Tyler Durden's alignment? Even if the ends justified the means, does the fact that he genuinely believes himself to be working for a greater good mean that his actions are good? His ultimate aims aren't to hurt people, but set them free. But do they set them free? His brainwashed minions obey his orders unquestioningly, and whether global anarchy would really promote human liberty is a shaky assertion at best. Is he simply doing what he can with limited information and available tools, or is it that his goals are basically flawed?

I tend to feel that the Chaotic consequences of Tyler's actions outweight the quasi-Lawful methods used, but Good or Evil are closely balanced, so: Chaotic Neutral. But there are lots of ways you could call it.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:43 pm
by Kemian
Okay I feel I need to comment regarding some of the comic book hero's listed First of all I think you have to look at Batman in two different lights.

Batman w/Sidekick = Lawful Good

Batman with a healthy sidekick is just more stable and generally more positive and dare I say light hearted. He is more disciplined (Law) because he has a teammate counting on him.

Batman alone AKA Dark Knight = Chaotic Good
When Batman does not have the stabilizing influence of another person sharing his danger and burdens he is much darker and prone to take risks since it is just himself that will suffer the consequences of a mistake. This is a Batman that is much less disciplined and more likely to give into emotion.

Spider Man _ Chaotic Good Nuff said.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:23 pm
by Mark
Kefka of Final Fantasy VI: Chaotic Evil

Another easy example and, in my view, the epitome of Chaotic Evil. While I do not associate madness with chaotic, this is a case in which both intertwine seamlessly.

Kefka acts by his own whims to accomplish anything that he wishes. He sets the mind controlled Terra against fifty of his own soldiers, sending them to their deaths to test her powers. He sets fire to the Castle Figaro simply to flush out Terra and Locke. He goes on to poison Doma's water supply, despite the possibility of winning due to a prolonged siege, with the pure intention of killing everyone in the city. He goes on to trick General Leo and, if Leo beats Kefka in combat, kills him mercilessly for little reason. He also kills the Emperor simply because he is the only individual between himself and the pure power he seeks, regardless of the power the Emperor had given him.

Kefka's philosophy of destroying all life, because life itself is meaningless, strikes of pure nihilism and chaotic evil flavor. He kills indiscriminately, not because he has to, but simply for the sake of destruction.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:59 am
by Andy

PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:50 am
by Jiriki
The sandman. Chaotic neutral but he's more coming across as neutral good by the end of the comic series.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:38 am
by Guest
Jiriki wrote:The sandman. Chaotic neutral but he's more coming across as neutral good by the end of the comic series.

Just out of curiosity, how did you figure he was chaotic?

Morpheus, even in the early part of the series always struck me as obsessively lawful. Rules must be abided by, even at one's own peril. Ettiquette was observed perfectly even when those around him were unable to appreciate the subtlety. In particular please note his actions just prior to entering Hell in order to free Nadia, where he sent Caine as an Envoy, and went through the front door rather than try to sneak in.

I'm wondering if you are thinking of the punishments he sometimes doled out to those he felt wronged by, such as Burgess's son or even Nadia. If that's the case please remember that the Sandman was Monarch of his own realm, and was very well within his rights to deal out such punishments among humans, and especially ANYONE who attempted to tamper with the dreaming.

We may not always agree with his actions, but then we are not the King of Dreams.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:23 am
by Mark
I agree with Manium on that one. Out of the Endless, only Delerium and possibly Destruction would I call Chaotic.

Destiny is most definately LN. Death is TN (perky does not equal good), Dream is LN, Desire is NE, Despair is NE.

(Note: Full reasons coming after I get out of class today)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:05 am
by Guest
I'm looking forward to hearing your reasons in judging Death True neutral. Personally, I'm hard pressed to naming a single instance in which she committed an act which wasn't within the realm of good.

Re: The Fun Alignment Debate

PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:34 am
by Jiriki
It just always struck me as him having this, odd little, well, when he goes into hell yes that's lawful, but he's always been pig-headed too. And the humanism that comes across in the final books, particularly when killing Orpheus and Destructions passage onwards he's definatly on the way to chaotic.

Re: The Fun Alignment Debate

PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:52 pm
by Mark
Light Yagami of Death Note: Lawful Evil

Light Yagami is a prime example of how someone with good intentions can still prove to be an evil individual. In this case, Light uses the power of the Death Note to kill criminals and those he deems to be evil and wrong for the new world, which he will be the God of. In this case, he dubs himself to be the only one suitable to judge the world, where his word alone is the final stance on light and death.

A good intention, but lawful evil for several reasons: First, he abides by what might be considered a set of rules. Light does not kill the innocent or capriciously. Instead, he kills those that have done crimes, which points to a lawful aspect. However, evil comes into play through several reasons. First, his willingness to kill those who oppose him, regardless of their own lives. Several times, he kills individuals who did nothing against him, but merely were intent upon finding the identity of Kira. Further, Light repeatedly uses individuals, from his father to his girlfriend, as mere pawns to ensure that his view of law and order and "goodness" remains in the world.

Vicious from Cowboy Bebop: Neutral Evil

Vicious is a good example of a Neutral Evil individual in a place of power. Throughout the the Cowboy Bebop series, he repeatedly lies, betrays and kills in order to further his own standing within the Red Dragons. While a few might view him as more of a LE individual, I think that he points to Neutral Evil due to the following:

Vicious prove to have no scruples throughout any part of the series, something that LE individuals seem to have on one level or another. He attempts to betray his old war comrade, slays members of the Red Dragons who attempt to further peace, and finally leads a coup, not because he feels he is more fit or will better the interests of the organization, but because he feels the elders have "lost their fangs." My decision against CE in this case is in the fact that Vicious does not indiscriminately kill or further his own agenda for a pure degree of selfishness with the purpose of breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. His methodical preparation for each step and, in some regards, respect for Spike and Shin prove that he is not willing to tear down all barricades, even that of begrudged loyalty to some, in self interest.