D&D alignments for movie/book/comic book characters

[frepla]

So I occasinally find myself wondering about the d&d alignment of certain fictional characters 1, for the sole purpose of it, 2, to try to understand d&d alignment concepts. This topic is kind of a "throw in a character, name its alignment and give some reasons" game.

Here are some examples:

Batman (Chris Nolan's) could qualify as Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, but his constant violation of laws obviously places him in the CG area. Now he did some "totalitarian" - lawful moves, like in the dark knight, and in some comic books he is an outright fascist (well by today's standards of liberty of course), bit imho his principle of not killing in cold blood places him strongly in the Good alignment (in the movies and most comic books).

Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean): I think he is the perfect portrayal of a Chaotic Neutral character: selfish but not evil, obviously following his own codes (that are pretty loose indeed) and this places him in the CN area.

Harvey Dent (mostly Chris Nolan's, but the comic book and previous versions are also similar imho): He almost qualifies as a LG (before his fall), but the fact that he was prone to being impulsive, and occasionally broke the rules places him somewhere along the lines of NG or CG, and after his fall, he is obviously a CE: no rules, no vengeance, simply let chaos decide who suffers or not, while at the same time being ruthless.

So if you feel like you have your own understanding of these characters, or have your own character to throw in, play along.

[Kinerd]

So I occasinally find myself wondering about the d&d alignment of certain fictional characters 1, for the sole purpose of it, 2, to try to understand d&d alignment concepts. This topic is kind of a "throw in a character, name its alignment and give some reasons" game.

Here are some examples:

Batman (Chris Nolan's) could qualify as Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, but his constant violation of laws obviously places him in the CG area. Now he did some "totalitarian" - lawful moves, like in the dark knight, and in some comic books he is an outright fascist (well by today's standards of liberty of course), bit imho his principle of not killing in cold blood places him strongly in the Good alignment (in the movies and most comic books).

Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean): I think he is the perfect portrayal of a Chaotic Neutral character: selfish but not evil, obviously following his own codes (that are pretty loose indeed) and this places him in the CN area.

Harvey Dent (mostly Chris Nolan's, but the comic book and previous versions are also similar imho): He almost qualifies as a LG (before his fall), but the fact that he was prone to being impulsive, and occasionally broke the rules places him somewhere along the lines of NG or CG, and after his fall, he is obviously a CE: no rules, no vengeance, simply let chaos decide who suffers or not, while at the same time being ruthless.

So if you feel like you have your own understanding of these characters, or have your own character to throw in, play along.

i think it's worth distinguishing between obeying laws and behaving in an orderly way - the opposite of Lawful is not Criminal but Chaotic. in this way batman is a paragon of Law because he never strays from his principles, ignoring lowercase-l laws entirely when necessary. i would also say he's Neutral or maybe even Evil - borrowing from another (superior?) Batman he is not justice, he is VENGEANCE; he is not the day, he is the NIGHT. he cheerfully hands criminals over to a justice system that notoriously employs the death penalty - he therefore doesn't think killing criminals is wrong per se, he just won't do it himself, and so he never does. a billionaire has any number of avenues to make the world a better place, punching the mentally ill is not high on any absolute scale of morality i know of.

in the same way, i'd argue Harvey Dent becomes a paragon of Law after his fall - the capriciousness of a rule does not make it any less of a rule, and he honors the coin flip even at the cost of letting the men he hates most in the world live (the Joker and himself). by comparison the Joker is fully Chaotic - decrying schemers one moment, organizing Byzantine schemes literally the same moment; lusting for the Batman's death, promising to never kill him; robbing a bank, torching money. he's a dog chasing cars, yes, and the car itself

there's also the lack of quantification to consider. for example, a pet classification of mine is Captain Picard as Lawful Good and more Good than Lawful - he has a strict code of conduct including the Prime Directive but he sees scenarios where it should(!!!) apply but doesn't (i.e. the Masterpiece Society) and scenarios where it does apply but shouldn't (i.e. Insurrection). he still lives in rigid order and so is Lawful, and he still pursues the right thing and so is Good, but inevitably those two will conflict - surely the inevitable choice of one over the other doesn't dismiss what came before, right? that's what i think, anyway

[frepla]

i think it's worth distinguishing between obeying laws and behaving in an orderly way - the opposite of Lawful is not Criminal but Chaotic. in this way batman is a paragon of Law because he never strays from his principles, ignoring lowercase-l laws entirely when necessary. i would also say he's Neutral or maybe even Evil - borrowing from another (superior?) Batman he is not justice, he is VENGEANCE; he is not the day, he is the NIGHT. he cheerfully hands criminals over to a justice system that notoriously employs the death penalty - he therefore doesn't think killing criminals is wrong per se, he just won't do it himself, and so he never does. a billionaire has any number of avenues to make the world a better place, punching the mentally ill is not high on any absolute scale of morality i know of.

in the same way, i'd argue Harvey Dent becomes a paragon of Law after his fall - the capriciousness of a rule does not make it any less of a rule, and he honors the coin flip even at the cost of letting the men he hates most in the world live (the Joker and himself). by comparison the Joker is fully Chaotic - decrying schemers one moment, organizing Byzantine schemes literally the same moment; lusting for the Batman's death, promising to never kill him; robbing a bank, torching money. he's a dog chasing cars, yes, and the car itself

there's also the lack of quantification to consider. for example, a pet classification of mine is Captain Picard as Lawful Good and more Good than Lawful - he has a strict code of conduct including the Prime Directive but he sees scenarios where it should(!!!) apply but doesn't (i.e. the Masterpiece Society) and scenarios where it does apply but shouldn't (i.e. Insurrection). he still lives in rigid order and so is Lawful, and he still pursues the right thing and so is Good, but inevitably those two will conflict - surely the inevitable choice of one over the other doesn't dismiss what came before, right? that's what i think, anyway

Now we're talking! And good points, although: "punching the mentally ill is not high on any absolute scale of morality i know of" sounds like you took a *ahem* joker side.

[C-Dog]

Some of this comes down to an individual's interpretation/understanding of the Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic dichotomies, and ~exactly~ how those are defined.

But I'll take a swing...

Batman (Chris Nolan's) could qualify as Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, but his constant violation of laws obviously places him in the CG area. Now he did some "totalitarian" - lawful moves, like in the dark knight, and in some comic books he is an outright fascist (well by today's standards of liberty of course), bit imho his principle of not killing in cold blood places him strongly in the Good alignment (in the movies and most comic books).

"Lawful" doesn't have to be "the law of the land" - it just has to be "a law". The classic example is a Paladin chasing a murderer, who hides in an "evil" city, with a law "no paladins allowed". The Pali is a hypocrite if he lets an evil law tell him what he can/not do - he is following the laws of his land, where murderers get punished - done.

So, I see Batman as Lawful Neutral. He punishes lawbreakers, but does it according to his own rules. Sometimes (and depending which series of comics, or which movie(s) we're drawing from - some are rather contradictory) he is happy to get an excuse to kill the bad guy (or let him die) - other times, even an accidental, unpreventable death is cause for bat-angst. But it's definitely "my way or the highway" with Batman, no variation from what HE think is right/wrong - and that's Lawful, straight down the line, regardless of where he's getting that law from.


Now, here's a fun one...

Robin Hood is Lawful Good.

Many people will kneejerk at this one, and reply "NO! He's a classic Rogue, he's totally Chaotic!!!" - but he's not at all (well, not unless you're getting your plot notes from a comic book, Saturday morning TV or the animated Disney version - let's stick to the book, k?)

Robin is a noble, and is a loyal follower of King Richard, who is off fighting the Crusades. Robin's lands are unjustly seized by nobles loyal to King John, a pretender and Richard's brother. So, Robin stays loyal to HIS king - Richard - despite the illegal change in rulership. Robin stays Lawful to his oath to the true king. He disregards laws enacted by a usurper - nothing unLawful about that imo. He risks his life in the name of the true King to whom he remains loyal, and, against great odds and in the only way possible - labeled as a criminal by the usurper.

Sounds Lawful to me.

Now, some - perhaps most - of his "merry men" are not the same, but LG doesn't mean you have to fight anything and everything not LG whenever encountered - and so he uses them to a higher purpose, the return of the rightful king, and the overthrow of a greater evil.