Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: proposal: split Character Alignment: From YKTTW

Man Without A Body: Will someone please tell me who the guy in the picture is?

Kerrah: Tidus, the main character of that horribly bad game, Final Fantasy X.

Ninjacrat: Signs you may be on the internet: People are unable to give a one-sentance answer without editorialising.

Kerrah: Seriously though, anyone feel like naming a blantantly obvious Neutral Good character? We could put him in pretty-boy's (from that horribly bad game, Final Fantasy X) place.

Prime32: Kira Yamato?

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Harry Potter?

Bob: I like the picture we have now, but if you want to change it, then the most blatantly obvious example of a Neutral Good character that I can think of is Iroh.

Kerrah: After a few plunders, I got a M-poster made and put it there. No more Tidus from the horribly bad game, Final Fantasy X.
Kerrah: Anyone else think the Babylon Five quote is too long?

Hydro Globus: Nope, it clearly foreshadows a CMOA or at least shows that Good can be portrayed without lots of Good Is Dumb. (I say this without any knowledge of B5.)

Kerrah: Meh. I guess Your Mileage May Wary.
Hydro Globus: Isn't the Gentle Giant another Neutral Good character type? Anyone mind if I add it?

Kerrah: Go ahead.
Silence: Could anyone explain to me why Spider-Man isn't simply Chaotic Good? Granted he is more 'good' than he is 'chaotic,' but that doesn't make him Neutral Good anymore than a character would be Neutral Evil if he was thoroughly chaotic, but was motivated more by evil than by chaos. Being chaotic doesn't mean that your main, much less your sole, motivation is to subvert authority. It simply means that you're characteristically anti-authority and lacking in respect for the establishment, whether that's a life-defining purpose or just a personality trait. On those grounds, wouldn't we expect most costumed vigilantes to be Chaotic Good, not Neutral Good, since they tend to care about helping people above all else, but also tend to think that established, organized (i.e., lawful) institutions like the police are woefully inadequate, and that certain laws should be habitually(!) broken for the sake of the greater good? Hell, isn't that the exact reason that Robin Hood is considered Chaotic Good? It's not that Robin Hood is necessarily an anarchist; he just makes a habit of law-breaking for the sake of helping people (not for its own sake, note). Well, what makes Robin Hood so different from Spider-Man? Certainly Spider-Man's words, and not just his actions, testify to his lack of respect for authority. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting either the character or the alignment; if so, could someone explain it to me?

Count Dorku: "A neutral good character may cooperate with lawful officials but does not feel beholden to them." Spidey cooperates quite frequently with the police, and trusts them to keep people like Kraven, Mysterio, and Shocker meticulously encased in cardboard. He doesn't think they're woefully inadequate, he just doesn't think they're capable of handling superpowered threats - but they can certainly deal with the mundane ones. If nothing else, a Chaotic Good character would probably have outright opposed the Registration Act in Civil War as a violation of individual rights, privacy and so forth, but Spidey couldn't decide whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, and went with the advice of the people he trusted. When he learned what Iron Man was up to, he got into a fight with Tony, ran away, and ended up joining the rebel faction - and in both cases, he was on the side of what he thought would do the most good. Not what the law said. Not an instinctive rebellion against the law. Just what he thought was the right thing to do. That is why he's Neutral Good. See also, the page quote.

Orange Aipom: "Neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable." What does this mean?

Count Dorku: I'm not entirely sure, but I think it involves Ayn Rand at some point.