Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

[David Johnston]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

No - most of the villains are selfish, so it's very useful for making distinctions.

 

 

Not especially. That just means most villains are evil and most heroes are good. We already knew that.

 

 

Susano

 

Like I said. I was trying to balance Superman's "by the book" philosophy against Batman's "whatever gets the jog done."

 

If Batman believed in doing whatever it took to get the job done he would have long since started trying to kill his opponents, or at least set up his own more inescapable prison for captured villains. And he would not have objected to minutia like using mind editing on villains or popping Maxwell Lord's head like a zit. Heck, he might even start using guns.

[secretID]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Not especially. That just means most villains are evil and most heroes are good. We already knew that.

Oh, okay - so "selfless" and "good" are in fact synonymous.

 

You speak with such assurance that I guess I can just throw out the whole point of my last couple of posts and completely change my mind on the issue without the need to see any counterargument. I'm sure you must have many other philosophical questions to clear up worldwide, so I wouldn't want you to waste any more time on me.

[David Johnston]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Oh, okay - so "selfless" and "good" are in fact synonymous.

 

Doesn't matter whether they're synonymous if they generally go hand in hand.

 

Incidentally, Magneto isn't particularly selfless. Plotting to put your own subgroup in charge of everyone else is obviously serving your own interests.

[Funksaw]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Here's the way I see it breaking down.

 

(Order and Safety) Lawful Good: Batman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,

(Kantian Morality) Neutral Good: Superman, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, The Atom, Steel, Zatanna

(Utilitarianism) Chaotic Good: Flash, Hawkgirl, Supergirl, The Question, Vigilante, The Creeper, Cheetah, Orion,

 

(Some things are more important than morality) Lawful Neutral: Aquaman, Captain Atom, Tempus Fugate,

(Morally absent, but not morally corrupt) Neutral: Solomon Grundy, Mirror Master, Captain Cold, Captain Boomerang,

(Hedonists) Chaotic Neutral: Booster Gold, LiveWire, Sonar, Volcana, Tala

 

(Law is a weapon) Lawful Evil: Lex Luthor, Sinestro

(Ubermenchen) Neutral Evil: Gorilla Grodd, Devil Ray, John Dee, Metallo,

(Violence is it's own end.) Chaotic Evil: Etrigan, Bizarro, Killer Frost, Toyman, Joker

[secretID]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Plotting to put your own subgroup in charge of everyone else is obviously serving your own interests.

If Magneto were purely selfish, he would simply retire to one of his many lavish bases, or, if he selfishly wanted power, devote himself to generally conquering the world instead of the more specific goals.

 

Ghandi and MLK Jr. worked to advance their subgroups. We're all in a subgroup of life called humankind.

 

I was looking for conversation, not condescension. I'll retire now.

[wcw43921]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I never figured that alignments were merely philosophical standpoints. Allow me to re-post a message I posted on the KODT boards about the matter--

 

My understanding of alignment was that it wasn't just about moral codes or lack thereof; it was also about what you drew upon for your power, be it divine, magical, or your own inner strength. In the original AD&D you had the three Material Planes--Positive, Negative, and Prime. Characters of Good Alignment drew their power fron the Positive Material Plane, which promotes and energizes life. Characters of Evil Alignment draw their power from the Negative Material Plane, which drains and destroys life. Characters of Neutral Alignment draw their power from the Prime Material Plane, which explains why Druids, who draw their power directly from nature itself, are the only True Neutrals in the game.

 

This is borne out in the Cleric/Priest ability to affect undead. Good Clerics use the power of the Positive Material Plane to turn away undead beings, and if of high enough level, destroy them outright. Evil Clerics use the same ability to befriend and command undead, because the same Negative Material Plane energy that sustains undead powers Evil Clerical Magic.

 

Because characters draw their energy from the Material Planes, it becomes part of their essence, and they radiate this energy in accordance with their alignment. This is how the Detect Evil (or Good) spell, or the Paladin's Detect Evil ability functions--they are detecting Negative (or Positive, or Prime) Material Plane emanations. More than that, this energy is how a character is able to advance in power and prowess--i.e. higher experience levels, increased spellcasting abilities, higher hit point totals--etc. etc.

 

I think by explaining it this way, alignment becomes more that just a game device; it becomes part of the game universe. It explains how the magical and the mighty become even more magical and more mighty. You can still find the shades of gray within each alignment, still find ways to disagree with like-aligned beings, but the essential difference and conflict between Good and Evil still remains.

 

Now it is possible to have the same aims--for Good, establishing justice, promoting well-being for all, and defeating Evil; for Evil, establishing power, promoting well-being for a favored few, and defeating Good--but differ on the methods. The examples of King Arthur and Robin Hood come to mind. Arthur believed in establishing good and just laws, and having his knights enforce those laws. Robin believed in opposing unjust rulers and outright stealing from those who had the most to give to those who had the least. Arthur is Lawful, Robin is Chaotic, but both are Good. . .

 

 

Obviously this only works if you adopt a D&D-style cosmology for your game--which could allow for an explanation of how super-powers can work, and provide some nfity plot hooks--like this one:

 

THE VILLAIN: "Hear me, people of the city! I have proven the existence of Evil as a tangible force, and I have configured that force into an unstoppable, indefensible weapon! In precisely one hour, my Negative Matter Bomb will detonate over the city center, suffusing and saturating each and every last part with Negative Matter Energy! Those of you who join with me and accept Evil into your hearts will find yourselves endowed with powers and abilities the likes of which you have never imagined! Those of you who stand against me--let us hope that you are fortunate enough to perish in the blast.

 

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! AH-HAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!"

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I never figured that alignments were merely philosophical standpoints. Allow me to re-post a message I posted on the KODT boards about the matter--

 

 

 

Obviously this only works if you adopt a D&D-style cosmology for your game--which could allow for an explanation of how super-powers can work, and provide some nfity plot hooks--like this one:

 

THE VILLAIN: "Hear me, people of the city! I have proven the existence of Evil as a tangible force, and I have configured that force into an unstoppable, indefensible weapon! In precisely one hour, my Negative Matter Bomb will detonate over the city center, suffusing and saturating each and every last part with Negative Matter Energy! Those of you who join with me and accept Evil into your hearts will find yourselves endowed with powers and abilities the likes of which you have never imagined! Those of you who stand against me--let us hope that you are fortunate enough to perish in the blast.

 

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! AH-HAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!"

In your post you don't accurately describe the nature or the use of the Positive and Negative Energy planes.

 

The Positive and Negative Energy planes are elemental planes (Inner Planes), they have nothing to do with alignment. They dealt with life energy, Positive Energy Plane was where the energy that sustained physical life came from (though, not spiritual existence, that comes from the Outer Planes) and the Negative Energy Plane is where the energy that physically sustained the Undead came from. It had to do with the physical substance of an animate being, not the soul, consciousness, or anything else.

 

The Outer Planes are where alignment mattered, so yes, your statement that in AD&D alignment had external as well as internal factors that go beyond mere philosophical outlook was spot on, just it comes from a different neighborhood than you indicated.

 

TB

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Not especially. That just means most villains are evil and most heroes are good. We already knew that.

 

 

Susano

 

Like I said. I was trying to balance Superman's "by the book" philosophy against Batman's "whatever gets the jog done."

 

If Batman believed in doing whatever it took to get the job done he would have long since started trying to kill his opponents, or at least set up his own more inescapable prison for captured villains. And he would not have objected to minutia like using mind editing on villains or popping Maxwell Lord's head like a zit. Heck, he might even start using guns.

..again

OR keep files on how to best dispose of his comrads should it become necessary...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

for what it's worth I put both Superman and Batman as Lawful Good Characters.

 

It's just that Superman leans more Good than Lawful and Batman leans more jackass.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

DC:

 

Lawful Good: Supes, Bats, WW, Hawkman...many many more

Neutral Good: Captain Marvel, Black Canary

Chaotic Good: Green Arrow

 

Lawful Neutral: The Spectre

Neutral: The Shaggy Man before he merged into the General

Chaotic Neutral: Myzlplk (can't remember how its spelled)

 

Lawful Evil: Black Adam

Neutral Evil: Poison Ivy, Lex Luther

Chaotic Evil: Joker (duh)

 

Marvel:

LG: Captain America, Iron Man

NG: Thor, She Hulk

CG: Spiderman, Hawkeye, Hercules

 

LN: Certain Cosmic beings, Master Order being the obvious choice

N: Other Cosmics: Galactus, the InBetweener

CN: Lord Chaos of course, Madcap

 

LE: Victor VOn Doom

NE: Red Skull

CE: Carnage

[Kenn]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

While I'd agree for the Golden Age (Mr. I led the JSA for most of the 1940s) and Silver Age Hawkmen, I'd have to disagree in regards to the modern "Hawkman the Barbarian" character. I'd call him more Neutral Good.

[Susano]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

..again

OR keep files on how to best dispose of his comrads should it become necessary...

 

This was sort of how I looked at the CG idea of Batman. But I'm not 100% up on my Alignments, especially 3E Alignments. I was thinking more of how, like I said, Supers is very law and order and by the book, while Bats is very much fear, sneakiness, and subterfuge. Which strikes me as less then "lawful" per se.

[oryanfactor]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I may have a different take on D&D alignments, which never worked as well in practice than it sounded in theory.

 

In the law versus chaos axis, lawfuls are characters who respect discipline, order, routine, systems and community while chaotic characters prefer individualism, randomness and chance.

 

In the good and evil axis, good characters value life, creation, what we regard as beauty. They despise loss. Evil characters regard their own impulses as being superior to these concepts, even if they do not regard this as "evil" from their point of view.

 

The way I understand the alignments to work is:

 

Lawful Good--These characters beleive that life and society must be preserved, even if that means trampling a few rights along the way. They tend to be supportive of the local legal system where they live, even if they feel personally that it's values are wrong. In D&D games, LG's tend to be assumed to have taken codes against killing, or never lying, etc, but they simply do whatever they can to preserve the greater good while trying to remain "reasonable". Examples include: Superman, Captain America and Hal Jordan.

 

Neutral Good--NG characters are interested in preserving life and creation, no matter what. They can be a bit blind to wether they need to bend rules, regulations or disruption might be caused, simply because goodness is more important. They aren't looking to break rules, but have no problem doing so. Examples include: Batman, Thor and Ben Grimm.

 

Chaotic Good--The major difference between these characters and others in the good axis is not that they are inherently wild, but rather they either lack a certain self-control, have a sense of irony when "the system" breaks down or simply beleive that individuals are more important than societies. Examples include: The Creeper, Green Arrow or Power Girl.

 

Lawful Neutrals--All the Neutrals share in common that systems are important to them, even the Chaotics who value a system which is the breaking of systems. No alignment expresses a love for systems more so than the LN. They tend to identify the way things are and are rigid in their beliefs. Wether the system of things causes joy or pain, LN's will defend it's perfect order. Examples include: The Spectre, Clock King (BTAS) or The Collector.

 

True Neutral--This alignment senses that balance is the best way and that law, order, good and evil exist only to counter each other. They will act to create balance when they feel that one side or the other has the upper hand. They may appear to be feckless, and may turn on both friend and foe alike to insure that none prevails over another. Examples include: Galactus, Destiny of the Endless and Two-Face.

 

Chaotic Neutral--Probably the most dangerous alignment, as they simply operate by the breakdown of systems, and are personally rewarded when disruption results. It is in no way important to them wether anyone is hurt or not, so long as change is a constant. Examples include: Mr. Myxyzsptlk, Major Disaster or Chemo.

 

Lawful Evil--While they may appear as uncaring as LN's, these characters differ in the sense that they feel order is best preserved by their own rules.

If destruction of life is the result of their imposition of order, so be it. They are dominators. At worst, LE's may take a perverse pleasure in suffering, and may deliberately cause it, according to their own codes. Examples include: Darkseid, Doctor Doom or Magneto.

 

Neutral Evil--This alignment is dedicated to getting their way, regardless of the cost in life or property. Whether thier own standards are maintained in the process is irrelevant, and will lie, cheat, steal or kill, provided they take the day. Examples include Lex Luthor, Loki or The Penguin.

 

Chaotic Evil--The Jackanapes in this catagory bring mindless destruction and suffering, moreso, they delight in it. They will go long out of their way to cause death or pain, even if their own goals suffer for it. They cannot be trusted, and will turn on an ally even when it is in their best interests to maintain that relationship. Examples include: Joker, Eclipso and The Green Goblin.

 

 

I hope you enjoyed the list, and I am not above begging for a little green pip for this much work.

 

oryan

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I may have a different take on D&D alignments, which never worked as well in practice than it sounded in theory.

 

In the law versus chaos axis, lawfuls are characters who respect discipline, order, routine, systems and community while chaotic characters prefer individualism, randomness and chance.

 

In the good and evil axis, good characters value life, creation, what we regard as beauty. They despise loss. Evil characters regard their own impulses as being superior to these concepts, even if they do not regard this as "evil" from their point of view.

 

Overall, I like this analysis. I'm going to nitpick one example, however.

 

True Neutral--Examples include: Two-Face.

 

I'd place Two Face as CN. You can't get much more random than letting all your choices be dictated by the toss of a coin.

 

I find Chaotic tends to be vestly underplayed. If I can generally predict how your character will react in any given situation, he's not really all that chaotic, is he now?

 

I also find it interesting that every game I've ever been in, seen or heard tell of considers "good" and "evil" to be incompatable opposites, but Law ands Chaos can get along just fine. Paladins and CG characters routiunely work together. Paladins and LE characters will not work together. Why not? If both axes are important, the Paladin has as much (or as little) in common with the LE characters as with the CG character. It would be interesting to see a game world where the Law/Chaos axis is at least as important as the Good/Evil axis.

[oryanfactor]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Hugh,

I almost put Two-Face into the CN category, but then I realized he isn't chaotic at all. He has a monomania regarding the coin, and adjusts his behavior depending on which side comes up. He could no more deny the coin than the Sun could rise in the west. Therefore, that is his "system", from his perspective. In his world of order, perfect random chance determines acts of kindness or cruelty. He takes no pleasure in his wrong-doing, yet is not rewarded by acting with compassion.

From our perspective as generally good people (I assume you are), we regard what he does as wrong. Giving $1000 to orphans does not balance mugging the night before, so he is a villian. Did you ever stop to think that Luke Skywalker is a dangerous terrorist, fighting the legitimate order of the Empire or that to a Klingon, James Kirk is the most reviled military enemy? This is one of the flaws of the alignment system, that it is far too easy to look at them subjectively, and put our opponents in catagories opposite ourselves.

 

Also, I'm not sure I agree that differing alignments cannot work together, they are rather more likely to come into conflict. When this occurs, they may either begrudging assist each other or fight openly, but it's a matter of degree. A Paladin working with a LE Fighter, for instance, may allow that Fighter to kill a man the Paladin knows to be innocent, because that Fighter might be the local sherrif. It also depends on that Paladin's local order and their rules.

 

You may see another problem which arises with alignment systems here. They are objectively constant, but subjectively personal. A good example is Al Capone. Capone rubbed out his enemies, and delighted in making them suffer for their transgressions. However, he was highly protective of his territories and people and provided social services to the community. He maintained a strict heiarchy within his organization, but was highly disruptive towards elected government. What is his alignment?

 

I'll end up with trying to venture a guess. Because overall, he did what he did to enrich himself, I'd catagorize him as evil, because evil doesn't mean a cackling manaical fool, but a selfish person. He respected rules and discipline, but wasn't blindly bound to societies' law, and was known to break his own from time to time. I'd say that makes him more neutral. But, as you see, it can be much more grey than appears at first glance.

 

oryan

[bwdemon]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

My interpretation, just to mix things up a bit more...

 

Law/Chaos Axis:

Lawful = society over the individual

Neutral = balance of society and individual

Chaotic = individual over society

 

Good/Evil Axis:

Good = prevent harm to others

Neutral = not cause harm to others

Evil = cause harm to others

 

Under this interpretation, Batman would be Lawful Good. He puts the importance of an ordered society over individual rights and seeks to prevent harm to others. While he does not work within the boundaries of ordered society, the establishment and maintenance of such a society remains his driving concern.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I almost put Two-Face into the CN category' date=' but then I realized he isn't chaotic at all. He has a monomania regarding the coin, and adjusts his behavior depending on which side comes up. He could no more deny the coin than the Sun could rise in the west. Therefore, that is his "system", from his perspective. In his world of order, perfect random chance determines acts of kindness or cruelty. He takes no pleasure in his wrong-doing, yet is not rewarded by acting with compassion.[/quote']

 

There's a definite matter of degrees, and interpretations will vary. I would continue to place Two Face squarely in the Chaotic side of the axis because he determines his actions purely at random. The fact that he uses the coin to randomize those decisions doesn't change the random nature of his actions.

 

Put another way, is a person absolutely dedicated and focused on the advancement of Chaos a Lawful person? He's dedicated and driven to his cause - and he's always, "systematically" Chaotic. I thinbk "pure chaos" is a concept we have difficuty comprehending because the universe, ultimately, follows the order of science - things don't happen at random - so it's the concept furthest out of our experience.

 

From our perspective as generally good people (I assume you are)' date=' we regard what he does as wrong. Giving $1000 to orphans does not balance mugging the night before, so he is a villian.[/quote']

 

This seems to argue the good/evil axis. Two Face is neither - he seeks neither to help nor to harm, simply does what random chance dictates. He's a villain because that lack of caring makes him dangerous half the time, even if he were purely benevolent the other half.

 

Did you ever stop to think that Luke Skywalker is a dangerous terrorist' date=' fighting the legitimate order of the Empire or that to a Klingon, James Kirk is the most reviled military enemy? This is one of the flaws of the alignment system, that it is far too easy to look at them subjectively, and put our opponents in catagories opposite ourselves.[/quote']

 

As I believe you mentioned earlier, no one believes themselves to be "Evil". The Crusaders believed in conversion at swordpoint followed by execution to prevent backsliding. Evil by modern standards, certainly. However, if this action truly did prevent the pagan from eternal damnation and allow him entry into paradise, is the act objectively "Evil"?

 

Also' date=' I'm not sure I agree that differing alignments cannot work together, they are rather more likely to come into conflict. When this occurs, they may either begrudging assist each other or fight openly, but it's a matter of degree. A Paladin working with a LE Fighter, for instance, may allow that Fighter to kill a man the Paladin knows to be innocent, because that Fighter might be the local sherrif. It also depends on that Paladin's local order and their rules.[/quote']

 

My issue here is not that differing alignments should not be able to work together, but the common approach that Good and Evil are far more opposed than Law and Chaos.

 

You may see another problem which arises with alignment systems here. They are objectively constant, but subjectively personal. A good example is Al Capone. Capone rubbed out his enemies, and delighted in making them suffer for their transgressions. However, he was highly protective of his territories and people and provided social services to the community. He maintained a strict heiarchy within his organization, but was highly disruptive towards elected government. What is his alignment?

 

I'll end up with trying to venture a guess. Because overall, he did what he did to enrich himself, I'd catagorize him as evil, because evil doesn't mean a cackling manaical fool, but a selfish person. He respected rules and discipline, but wasn't blindly bound to societies' law, and was known to break his own from time to time. I'd say that makes him more neutral. But, as you see, it can be much more grey than appears at first glance.

 

 

I think a key issue here is the role of selfishness. I've heard many arguments over the years that "neutral" means "selfish". I'd sure like to get a raise and a promotion. Probably, we all would. However:

 

- a Good person will work hard and try to earn that promotion honestly.

 

- a Neutral person will likely also work hard. However, they'll be far more likely to point at their co-worker slacking off ("He spends half his day on the Hero games website, Boss").

 

- an Evil person would, if given an opportunity, actively sabotage a rival for that raise/promotion (to the extent of killing the rival if the opportunity presented itself), blackmail the boss ("see these pictures from the office party - if you want to stay married, I need a raise") and otherwise take any steps which will advance his own goals, regardless of the harm done to others in the process.

 

Capone was willing to kill in order to advance himself. I'd place that on the Evil end. Law and Chaos become the tougher axis to define, as is often the case. I'd lean to lawful given the level of organization his operations required, but Neutral on this axis is also arguable.

 

Part of the problem is that these aren't nine precise points, but a continuum. A few Chaotic acts does not mean a person cannot be Lawful overall. Kindness to children doesn't render a killer for hire "Good". Assessing when a specific character crosses the line is tough, which can make the alignment system difficult to work with in practice.

 

On the other hand, is there a better system? We'll leap to "psychological limitations" given where we're posting, but how many arguments have you seen about what actions should be taken by a character with "strong" overconfidence, or when a character with a "Total code vs killing" would be able to use his 15d6 Energy Blast against an opponent? These also have an element of subjectivity. It's not avoidable.

[oryanfactor]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Hugh,

 

I just want to point out that Harvey's dedication to the order of the coin, good and bad, black and white, is what appears to make him appear random, and therefore chaotic. The irony is his very lawfulness is what makes him chaotic, and the chaos he causes is the direct result of his dedication to the law. He is after all, a lawyer by training.

 

"You are lying to me now. But if you are lying, that must be the truth, and if you are telling the truth, you cannot be lying, which makes your statement a lie.......warning, warning, abort, abort......."

 

oryan

[David Johnston]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

As I believe you mentioned earlier, no one believes themselves to be "Evil".

 

I believe the Brother of Evil Mutants, The Brotherhood of Evil, the Sinister Six and and the Masters of Evil may dispute that claim.

 

The Crusaders believed in conversion at swordpoint followed by execution to prevent backsliding. Evil by modern standards, certainly.

 

Well, no they didn't. The closest approximation of that would be witches and heretics condemned to death who would be given an opportunity to repent their allegiances before an execution that would occur regardless of their repenting or not. We do the same things now with people we condemn to death.

 

However, if this action truly did prevent the pagan from eternal damnation and allow him entry into paradise, is the act objectively "Evil"?

Hypothetically? Sure. It gets a person who is not really entitled to be there into paradise under false pretenses. It's like forging green cards for Heaven.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

Hugh,

 

I just want to point out that Harvey's dedication to the order of the coin, good and bad, black and white, is what appears to make him appear random, and therefore chaotic. The irony is his very lawfulness is what makes him chaotic, and the chaos he causes is the direct result of his dedication to the law. He is after all, a lawyer by training.

 

By the same flow of logic, any character who is wholly and completely dedicated to Chaos, and whose every action is dedicated to chaos, must be lawful. Only someone with a sporadic dedication to chaos could truly be chaotic.

[OzMike]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

So if I only have sporadic dedication to Law, I am chaotic?

 

How would the forces of chaos ever beat the forces of law? We've just put the whole idea of Warhammer behind the 8 ball I think

[Springald Jack]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

I find Chaotic tends to be vestly underplayed. If I can generally predict how your character will react in any given situation, he's not really all that chaotic, is he now?

 

So your of the old-school chaotic=insane eh? And yet in D&D Robin Hood, who in addition to being some sort of proto-Communist, more importantly opposes legal authority because it is being used wrongly is a CG poster-child yet is pretty predictable in a lot of ways.

 

I see it as:

 

Law=strong belief in order, normally public law and order however a sufficently rigid personal code may qualify (in a free society such a peron probably approves of freedoms but is very unhappy with people who excercise them in a way he/she doesn't like) Most Heros, a Few Villains

 

Chaos=strong belief in personal choice and individual identity, generally naturally distrusts centralized power, though may be able to work with it. Some Heros, Many Villains

 

Neutral vs Law/Chaos=Everyone Else.

 

Good=strong commitment to altruism and selflessness. Strongly motivated by injustice. (precise reaction to injustice colored by Law/Chaos axis) Most Heros, Extremely unlikely for a villain.

 

Evil=strong selfishness, lack of any strong degree of real empathy, strong tendency to see other people (either all people, or all except a specific group to which the character belongs) only as objects wether helpful or harmful. Most Villains, Extremely unlikely for Heros

 

Neutral vs Good/Evil=Everyone Else

 

This system of course means that most people(but not most Heros or Villains) are Neutral vs Both, which is fine by me.

 

I also think someone with a non-neutral alignment in both axes should probably prioritize the two.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

So your of the old-school chaotic=insane eh?

 

Not necessarily insane, but certainly unpredictable. A classic Chaotic fantasy character is Elric. Scenes where he and his sidekick do mercenary work, and Elric shortly afterwards just drops the gems received in payment in the street because he doesn't care about them any more stand out in this regard. Characters who are very passionate about something for a short period, and don't care much about it later, or who flit from goal to goal, strike me as chaotic.

 

And yet in D&D Robin Hood' date=' who in addition to being some sort of proto-Communist, more importantly opposes legal authority because it is being used wrongly is a CG poster-child yet is pretty predictable in a lot of ways.[/quote']

 

Robin Hood's alignment is a hotly contested area. Chaos for the reasons you suggest is one interpretation. I've seen LG suggested in some cases on the basis that he opposed corruption in the government which the true and rightful King, Richard, would have put a stop to had he not been absent on the Crusades. Thus, all his actions were undertaken in service of the true lawful authority. Neutral good recognizes that he wasn't much concerned with whether good was dispensed by or in spite of the organized societal structure so long as good was in fact dispensed seems a reasonable interpretation as well.

 

One of the early articles I read about expanding alignments beyond the base in original D&D (when one was lawful, neutral or chaotic) used the Dr. Who series as an excellent example. The Doctor is chaotic - he flits around the universe, establishes no roots or ties to any organizations, runs hot and cold on virtually every topic. But he's clearly good. The Daleks, meanwhile, while obviously evil, are about as lawful as they come.

 

This system of course means that most people(but not most Heros or Villains) are Neutral vs Both' date=' which is fine by me.[/quote']

 

I think most humans tend to be Lawful - where no centralized authority exists, it tends to be created. Where one does exist, it tends to be followed. I'd agree with Neutral to good and evil.

 

I also think someone with a non-neutral alignment in both axes should probably prioritize the two.

 

I also consider that dual alignments are not as pure as singles. LG or CG will compromise good in the interests of law or chaos. NG will not.

[David Johnston]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

 

Robin Hood's alignment is a hotly contested area. Chaos for the reasons you suggest is one interpretation. I've seen LG suggested in some cases on the basis that he opposed corruption in the government which the true and rightful King, Richard, would have put a stop to had he not been absent on the Crusades. Thus, all his actions were undertaken in service of the true lawful authority. Neutral good recognizes that he wasn't much concerned with whether good was dispensed by or in spite of the organized societal structure so long as good was in fact dispensed seems a reasonable interpretation as well.

.

 

First you'd have to settle which Robin Hood you're talking about. Some _very_ different interpretations of Robin Hood have been around from the one who is fighting on behalf of the rightful King and stealing from the rich to pay Richard's ransom, to the one who when Richard returned and asked him whether John was responsible for the problems in Englands said, "No, you are for not keeping an eye on things.", to the unabashed bandit/revolutionary who regards himself as the King of Sherwood in his own right but treats his followers as equals.

 

It's the same thing with Two-Face. Sure it's pretty consistent between appearances that he likes to flip coins, but the kind of thing he flips coins for change from writer to writer. If you regard all of his appearances as being the same character, then no he isn't predictable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments

 

First you'd have to settle which Robin Hood you're talking about. Some _very_ different interpretations of Robin Hood have been around from the one who is fighting on behalf of the rightful King and stealing from the rich to pay Richard's ransom, to the one who when Richard returned and asked him whether John was responsible for the problems in Englands said, "No, you are for not keeping an eye on things.", to the unabashed bandit/revolutionary who regards himself as the King of Sherwood in his own right but treats his followers as equals.

 

It's the same thing with Two-Face. Sure it's pretty consistent between appearances that he likes to flip coins, but the kind of thing he flips coins for change from writer to writer. If you regard all of his appearances as being the same character, then no he isn't predictable.

 

This is an issue for virtually any fictional character. Even those written cnsistently by a single author require the reader to assess the reasoning behind the character's actions, and which ones are more or less consistent with his overall character. Add to this subjectivity of interpreting the character the overall subjectivity of defining the alignments themselves, and a clear definition of any one character's alignment isn't likely to emerge.