Troperville
Editing Help
Tools
Toys
|
  ◊
Click for larger image
Character Alignment is a shorthand for a given character's (or religion's, society's, organization's, etc.) moral/ethical outlook on Life, The Universe, And Everything. Many roleplaying games use some sort of alignment system as an "ideal" for a character to live up to, though some gamers deride them as crutches to "real roleplaying," and some systems accordingly have none at all. The alignment system most roleplayers are familiar with is the one used in Dungeons And Dragons, which has appeared in a couple of different forms:
The original editions of Dungeons And Dragons drew on the works of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock to come up with three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, with Lawful representing honor and obedience to, well, law. Chaotic characters may be insane, but could lean towards a desire for the freedom to do what they want. Whether they do good or evil because of this freedom is what decides their moral leaning. Neutrality alternatively represents neither one (as was the case with animals and people who simply didn't care) or a desire to see "balance" between the two. Later editions kept this as the "ethical" axis of the alignment scale and added a second "moral" axis of Good, Neutral, and Evil.
The ethical axis was more one's attitude towards the position of society and rules: Lawful characters think having an ordered society is important and beneficial; Chaotic characters don't necessarily oppose this but think the freedom of the individual comes first; Neutral characters tend to judge such situations on a case by case basis. If a law was unjust, a lawful person might think it needs retooling, or say that it prevents more problems than it causes. A neutral person might see the need for such a law, but would still think it should be scrapped and redone from scratch. A chaotic person would probably just break it.
This is sometimes lumped in with two different attitudes: whether the character in question believes that the universe as a whole is orderly, and how the character conducts his life, with plans or flying by the seat of his pants. This can produce considerable confusion, as the three levels can exist in any combination.
The "moral" axis can be adequately explained by the focus of those morals: Good people are more focused on you; that is, they feel that they should help everyone else when possible. Neutral people are more focused on us; that is, on the welfare of themselves and their family and friends. They can be charitable, but their "circle" always comes first. Evil people are more focused on me; which of course means that they look out for number one and everyone else can get in line.
Combining the two axes allowed characters to be of nine possible alignments, as follows:
- Lawful Good: Basically, they believe Law is Good, and that you do good by upholding the law. The alignment of The Cape, Paladins and suspiciously ideal states. Believes in Truth, Justice, and the (insert country here) Way, but may believe in them a little too much. May also be Lawful Stupid, largely depending on your interpretation of "good". In D&D canon up to the most recent edition, archons, celestials who inhabit the Seven Heavens, are Lawful Good. From a non-D&D more realistic perspective however, LGs are likely altruists who believe in an orderly lifestyle for the benefit of their species. The alignment is also relative (and not in the sense that the PCs are always the good guys).
- Neutral Good: Sweetness and light. Doing good is more important than upholding the law, but the law is pretty important too. Not too caught up in Order Versus Chaos; concerned with moral goodness, but often not willing to enforce it in others. If The Messiah isn't Lawful Good, they're probably Neutral Good. Just think "basically nice person" and you've probably got it. Neutral Good states may be really nice places to live, but depending on how idealistic the setting is, they may be deluding themselves. The guardinal celestials of D&D, beastlike creatures who inhabit Elysium, are Neutral Good.
- Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits, but all around nice people. When they're doing good, they would rather do it without getting pushed around by authority. Or they may be outright Well Intentioned Extremists who believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as Big Damn Heroes, too damn idealistic, or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author, and ultimately the readers. In 3rd edition, the eladrins, elflike celestials from Arborea, are Chaotic Good. It should also be noted that CGs value individual merit over the 'greater good' but aren't willing themselves to amoral action to see that through.
- Lawful Neutral: The rule-abiding sort. Law and order is more important than whether you're good or evil. Believes in keeping order, though not necessarily in Justice as a universal constant (though they may - this can get complicated). Probably a better alignment for the Knight Templar than Lawful Good (or Lawful Evil, depending on how degrading), and one of the natural alignments of Police States. They'll arrest a robber or rapist, but may also kick a poor family out of their home for failing to pay rent. May also believe in a Cosmic Order that transcends laws - many monks are Lawful Neutral. Just as often the bad guys as the good guys in an Order Versus Chaos situation. Modrons, D&D beings of geometrically perfect precision and order who inhabit the plane of Mechanus, are Lawful Neutral. Mercenaries who obey their contracts without question, and take either side of the moral spectrum, are Lawful Neutral. The Stoic can make a good lawful neutral.
- True Neutral: Sometimes known as just Neutral, or even Neutral Neutral. Comes in two flavors: Keeping the Balance and Just Doesn't Care. Druids are canonically the former sort, on the same side as the animals. The balance-happy sort may sometimes be characters just too dumb to know the difference, but may also be a Wild Card. It's not uncommon to see True Neutral monks, for instance; not to mention ordinary folks who just want to be left alone. Most Punch Clock Villains fit under this alignment. Your average citizen of Libria (in Equilibrium) is an example of the "Just Doesn't Care" version of neutrality, without necessarily being stupid - the government would probably be Lawful Evil. Druids in D&D were required to be True Neutral until the 3rd Edition of the game, and even then had to maintain "some of nature's neutrality". Mordenkainen, from the Dungeons And Dragons Greyhawk setting, a very powerful wizard who actively tries to keep any major power from getting the upper hand, is an example of the "Balance Keeping" version. Animals, meanwhile, are considered to lack any sort of moral capacity; since moral judgements can't be placed on them, they are canonically true neutral in Dungeons And Dragons. Rilmani, metallic-skinned humanoids from the Outlands, are the True Neutral archetype, maintining the balance between all the other planes. If True Neutrals include the kind with a head for things, then they most likely typically do not care for idealist virtues and/or politics. Intelligent true neutrals are quite logical in how they go about things, including morals. Employers fire and hire employees in equal measure, etc.
- Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward. The toadlike slaad, inhabitants of Limbo, are Chaotic Neutral. Also, Chaotic Neutrals can, in fact, have some degree of care for morality however they are more flexible in their moral algorithms, willing to risk more to accomplish whatever they believe is 'right' - under this interpretation, V from V for Vendetta is Chaotic Neutral.
- Lawful Evil: The most competent evil. The kind of Evil that winds up in charge. Can be a lot like Lawful Neutral, but nastier. Well-structured, large-scale and often scarily successful evil. May believe in keeping order at all costs, or may simply believe that a well-ordered system is so much easier to exploit. Whether an Obstructive Bureaucrat is Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral is basically a function of whether he enjoys what he's doing (see above example of kicking the family out of the house.) If God Is Evil, he's almost always Lawful Evil. On the "bright" side, the Worthy Opponent and Noble Demon are often Lawful Evil (if they're evil at all), as they tend to develop a "Code of Honor" to guide their actions, and can in fact be dependable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where other alignments might fizzle out. In circumstances where you are not a threat to their intentions, Lawful Evil might well be the "lesser of the three evils". BBEGs in general tend towards Lawful Evil - mostly since they plan to construct their very own empire that you'd better fall in line with - as do many Magnificent Bastards. A mercenary who always keeps his contract (good or evil), but enjoys a job where he gets to hurt people, is Lawful Evil and more likely to end up working for the bad guys. The baatezu (devils) of D&D rule the plane of Baator with a Lawful Evil fist, and some of of these were originally Knight Templar angels. As a good reference point, O'brien from 1984 would be Lawful Evil.
- Neutral Evil: Sometimes known as the Asshole Alignment. The Neutral Evil Alignment can be even more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil Alignment - simply because you can't be sure of which way they'll swing in the end. Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, because while they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the Magnificent Bastard they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team because it's better for them at the moment. Why are they so bad? It could be that Evil Tastes Good or maybe Evil Feels Good. Could be that they've given in to The Dark Side. They could be part of the Religion Of Evil. They could just be, you know, sociopaths. They could take looking out for number one to ridiculous extremes. Or it could be for no readily apparent reason whatsoever. Whatever it is, these characters are essentially the embodiment of malice - if they get a Start Of Darkness, expect it to make you like them less. In Dungeons And Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Expect any Neutral Evil state to be Mordor, and a Neutral Evil city the Wretched Hive. The double-dealing, backstabbing, gleefully evil and mercenary fiends called yugoloths, living in the Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, are D&D's archetypal Neutral Evil beings.
- Chaotic Evil: The Religion Of Evil is more likely to be Chaotic Evil than Neutral Evil, and these characters are basically a force for wanton destruction, often without the slightest concern for themselves. It shouldn't be hard to work out how this can slide right into Chaotic Stupid. How is this different from Neutral Evil? There are a lot of arguments about this, but it basically boils down to how proactive they are. A Neutral Evil character may slaughter a village because it's in his way, but a Chaotic Evil one will slaughter it because he's passing through. Ends and means are another common distinction. Played more subtly when out of Chaotic Stupid waters, but generally with an undercurrent of madness (sometimes just below the surface). The canonical alignment of tanar'ri (demons), beings who were created in and by an endless semisentient Abyss that itself is dedicated to entropy, in Dungeons And Dragons. Contrary to popular belief (and what the SRD actually says), they can be capable of organisation.
It helps to think of it as a 3x3 square with the moral and ethical axes on each side, and all the possible alignments surrounding True Neutral like so:
| Alignment Chart | Order Versus Chaos |
| Ethical | Lawful | Neutral | Chaotic |
| Good | Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good |
| Neutral | Lawful Neutral | True Neutral | Chaotic Neutral |
| Evil | Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil |
The alignment any particular character falls under is mostly a matter of opinion in works other than Tabletop Games, where it's usually spelled out (and even then, fans are likely to spill a lot of words about how the creator got the character's alignment wrong). It's also generally only important in Tabletop Games, but that doesn't stop RPG fans from discussing what alignment characters in every other work they like would be - just for fun, try Googling ' Punisher alignment', or better yet, Google Site Search it on an RPG-oriented forum. This is why most of the above statements about which alignment a character "probably" is are qualified (and, incidentally, why none of the examples is The Punisher). There will always be a counter-interpretation.
This is the concept that gives Lawful Stupid Chaotic Stupid, Always Chaotic Evil, and True Neutral their names. Expect a setting that explicitly uses alignment to make frequent use of Order Versus Chaos and Balance Between Good And Evil type plots. The Karma Meter is a way for video games to represent this. Working out a specific character's alignment is subject to Alternate Character Interpretation, Values Dissonance, and let's not forget mountains of Fan Dumb. Arguments about what the alignments themselves mean often get into the Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Cynicism.
As the quote for Lawful Stupid Chaotic Stupid shows, the alignment system was and is meant to be a roleplaying tool (every Dn D manual from 2E on mentions this fact). Most players of any TTRPG involving one tend to ignore this, and either ignore their aligment or treat it as a character shackle. This truth in and of itself is the reason so many subtropes (and arguments) based on this concept exist.
A recent meme on a certain imageboard is creating motivational posters of various characters from fiction and real life with a caption explaining their alignment. The ultimate example being a 3x3 grid◊ (huge image) showing every alignment with varying pictures and captions, but the same subject: Batman.
As with all good concepts, it's very ripe for parody - there are such motivational posters of alignments including "Chaotic Awesome" (for Cartman) and "Chaotic Gorgeous" (Evanna Lynch's portrayal of Luna Lovegood).
For more information about specific alignments, and tropers' interpretation of characters who fit those alignments see:
See also Lawful Stupid Chaotic Stupid, Always Chaotic Evil, Good And Evil For Your Convenience.
Examples of Works/Settings With Explicit Character Alignment:
Tabletop Games
- Dungeons And Dragons: Not only did they come up with the best-known alignment system, but a number of their settings feature gods of different alignments competing for power. Many spells and items will only function on/for characters of a given alignment (moral, ethical, or both). In most settings, a god will accept clerics only of alignments no more than one "step" removed from its own (for example, a Lawful Neutral god, unless otherwise specified, would accept a Lawful Good or Lawful Evil cleric, but wouldn't accept a Chaotic Neutral cleric), though their lay worshippers can be of any alignment.
- It should be noted that, in earlier editions of the game, only player characters were able to freely choose their alignment; monsters (that is, any non-human or demihuman creature) were born with their specific alignment and could never change. This was due to the influence of the Outer Planes (which were arranged precisely according to the alignment axis) and the gods of the campaign. A goblin, for example, was born evil, and no amount of counseling would ever change it (though magic might.) The fact all creatures (including P Cs) had invisible "alignment auras" that could be "read" was proof of this. The reason for this was, of course, so that good-aligned characters would be justified in killing or stealing from most monsters. There were, however, occasional variations- you might meet the rare non-evil goblin, for example, but it would be the result of crossbreeding, magic, etc.- never willing change.
- Eberron does away with this; clerics can be of any alignment and still cast spells, allowing for corrupt Knight Templar priests of good gods and Anti Hero priests of evil gods.
- If the many many conversations on alignment on various boards (oddly only rarely becomeing flame wars) are any idication, the rules for alignment are vague as hell. It really doesn't help that the writers don't seem that constant, one iconic character is lawful because they are devoted to something, but another iconic is chaotic because they are devoted to their art.
- Interestingly enough, the newest edition of D&D have done away with the nine-point axis. To be specific, 4th Edition has five alignments: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. Basically, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good were merged into Good, Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were merged into Evil, and Lawful, True, and Chaotic Neutral merged into unaligned.
- This system owes a lot to the first edition of Warhammer FRP, which also had five alignments: Law, Good, Neutral, Evil and Chaos.
- Not that the absence of any nonevil Chaotic alignments dials back on the Chaotic Stupid...
- Or just plain Stupid. Getting rid of almost half the alignments and leaving only the obvious ones, the ones they think you "should" play? Really D&D? Really?
- As the Troper below me demonstrates, many players define their character by their alignment, rather than the other way around. The alignments were simplified in order to reduce this problem.
- It's probably more of a case of generalizing the alignments and making them more realistic. If you played, say, a chaotic good character in 3rd edition, you can still play one in 4th, it will just have a different name. I'm personally very satisfied with this, as it greatly simplifies things and allows for much more freedom, rather than acting strictly as you "should" act according to your stated alignement. After all, the moral axis has considerably more than 9 spectrums, it's silly to try and count them all.
- D&D's original alignment system was Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. Lawful generally got equated to good and Chaotic with evil (though the rules and retroclones such as Swords And Wizardry make it clear that this does not have to be the case) but good examples of Chaotics like the unicorn and such may have been the impetus for creating the two-axis system we know and love today.
- World Of Darkness: Doesn't have nearly as explicit a system as Dungeons And Dragons, but still has a stat representing how "moral" each character is. This is called by a lot of different names, based on which edition of which World Of Darkness game you're playing, but it's generally a scale of "bestial monstrosity" (0) to "saint." (10) Characters also pick one each of seven virtues and seven vices, which add additional depth. A character who chooses Justice and Wrath will be very different from somebody who chooses, say, Faith and Pride.
- D 20 Modern, which is built on the same system that Dungeons And Dragons uses, has allegiances. These can be to Ethical (law or chaos) or moral (good or evil) systems, but can also be to other things such as religious beliefs, political views, or organizations. The Urban Arcana campaign setting converts alignment to allegiances for Always Chaotic Evil creatures from D & D.
- GURPS Powers allows for "Moral" powers of the types Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil.
- GURPS Thaumatology also explores the concept of "ethical magic", and offers spells related to such "ethics" such as Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, or even any other concept a GM might add to a campaign setting.
- For the most part, however, GURPS as a rule tends to avoid "alignments" as such, and instead represents character traits through the use of Disadvantages.
- Missions in Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries will give you either "nobility" or "infamy". Nobility is usually earned for defense-oriented missions like convoy escorts and reinforcement, letting defeated opponents flee, protecting optional objectives, and also fighting the Clans or Capellans. Infamy is gained for aggressive missions like raids and convoy interception, destroying retreating enemies, and assassinations. The two numbers are measured side-by-side, and usually go exclusively up (and the game notes that it's practically impossible to not get a fair bit of each), but one mission does decrease your infamy - after a mission as honor guard at a peace conference (which get bombed, to nobody's surprise), you have the option to escort the delegates off-planet, provided you do it free of charge.
- The Warhammer 40k roleplaying game, Dark Heresy, averts this, as is appropriate for the morally gray 41st millennium, substituting a system of Insanity and Corruption to determine how crazy or [[Chaos]] influenced you are.
Webcomics
- Order Of The Stick, naturally, as it is loosely based on the Dungeons And Dragons world. However, several recent strips give an excellent illustration of alignments coming into conflict: The Lawful Good Celia, Chaotic Good Haley, and Chaotic Evil Belkar encounter a couple of Lawful Evil Hobgoblins. Belkar stabs the Hobgoblin because he just likes killing. Celia is horrified at his random unlawful murder, but Haley justifies it by saying that as they are fighting a war against evil, the unjust killing was, if not necessary, then at least acceptable. However, then they come into contact with a friendly gnome merchant, who Belkar then also stabs. Haley is horrified, but Belkar points out that the gnome's cart and donkey are of great use to the group, and likely to benefit the resistance more than his hobgoblin slaying. Celia then starts commenting on how Not So Different the situation is, and sarcastically suggests that Haley should paint the corpse to look like a Hobgoblin so that Haley can more easily rationalize this second unlawful killing.
- Not to mention the endless alignment debates over Varsuvius. It's gotten to the point where people jokingly start arguing about alignments every time a character moves a muscle.
- Darths And Droids has remained deliberately vague about the rules and game mechanics of the RPG that the characters are playing. There does appear to be some sort of alignment system: in strip 192, Pete, the resident Munchkin, identifies his Jerk Ass droid character as Chaotic Neutral.
Other
- The standard Palladium system of most of its settings, such as Rifts, Palladium, Heroes Unlimited and Robotech has a different alignment system from Dungeons And Dragons. In this system, there are three different types of alignments, broken down into Good, Selfish, and Evil. Palladium rulebooks state that there is no such thing as Neutral, and dismiss the term as misleading. Good alignments include Principled, which is roughly equivalent to Lawful Good, and Scrupulous, which is roughly equivalent to Neutral Good. Selfish includes Unprincipled, which is often regarded as the Han Solo alignment, of the Han Shot First variety; and Anarchist, which is roughly like Chaotic Neutral. Evil has Miscreant, the selfish but not demonic; Aberrant, who is basically the Noble Demon as an alignment; and Diabolic, a "cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way." Palladium even includes a helpful list of behaviors associated with their alignments, which helps cut down on arguments on whether or not somebody is acting properly. Scrupulous folk never betray a friend. It says so right in the rule book.
Literature
- In the book of I Claudius, Claudius refers to different character types: virtuous men or scoundrels, stony hearts or golden hearts. He gives example of virtuous men with golden hearts (his old teacher), virtuous men with stony hearts (Cato), scoundrels with stony hearts (one of Caligula's henchmen) and scoundrels with golden hearts (Herod Agrippa).
- Frederick Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is an exploration of Chaotic Evil amorality from a sympathetic perspective. It is a tough slog, but worth skimming if you want any chance of describing chaotic evil entities operating in groups.
- Beyond Good and Evil is an exploration of the evolution of morality, with the goal being transcendence of moral categories (says so right on the tin), and has nothing meaningful to say about the concept of Chaotic Evil.
Video Games
- Every character in the Ogre Battle series has an alignment, ranging from Lawful to Chaotic, which changes based on their actions during battles. (Characters which attack enemies stronger than themselves, for example, grow more lawful, while characters who hunt down and destroy weaker units will grow chaotic.) Alignment affects what classes are available to a particular character. In addition, there is another measure available only to the main character which goes by multiple names but is generally known as Reputation. The two are completely separate — you can be utterly evil but still be famous and respected for your strength. Many special characters will only join you if your Reputation is high or low enough to suit their tastes, and it affects your ending.
- The summoned champions of Fate Stay Night each have their own D&D-esque alignment, if you read the supplemental materials. For example, Saber is Lawful Good, Archer is True Neutral and Gilgamesh is Chaotic Good.
- The similarities between Nasuverse alignments and D&D alignments is cause for much hilarity with Gilgamesh (Who is just shown as just a selfish jerkass, even in the game), mostly by trying to figure HOW he could possibly be anything resembling good. One Theory that gained weight was that its alignments they had when they were alive, but Berserker's Chaotic Mad threw it out the window. In the end, we just decided that Nasu had some scale he's not telling anyone else about. Mentions of character alignment now usually end up with "Gilgamesh" being stated.
- He's pretty good as a kid. The 'selfish jerkass' isn't really as pronounced as an adult in the sequel either, so the total ammoral dickery is generally attributed to his corruption by the grail, much like Dark Saber.
- Alignment plays a huge role in the Shin Megami Tensei series of games. Each monster is classed on the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis and the Light-Neutral-Dark axis. The former is the important one: monsters that are Chaotic will refuse to join you if the main character is Lawful and vice-versa. The alignment of the main character is determined by the type of monsters he summons (eg: Lawful creatures will move your alignment towards Law), by his responses to philosophical questions asked at key points of the game and by whose dirty work (The Messians or the Gaians) he carries out. The ending of the game is determined by the final alignment of the main character. Interestingly, Neutrality is presented neither as the uncaring or balancing alignment, but rather one that focuses on individual choice and inner strength, as opposed to relying on outside power. In Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne the previous system of alignment is discarded in favour of three specific philosophies: Shijima (which is closest to Law but without the Knight Templar tendencies), Musabi (Neutral, focusing on individuality and freedom of choice) and Yosuga (Chaos with a heavy dose of the elitism that Law was previously known for).
- And then there's True Demon, in which you say "fuck that noise," give up your leftover humanity and join Lucifer's army in order to take out God and keep this stuff from happening over and over again
- A rare action game example, the game, Shadow The Hedgehog works off this system to near perfection. Using branching story-lines, the player would choose multiple endings using a system of levels made up of three outcomes: hero, neutral and dark. The final levels would involve only two outcomes (niether could be neutral) which would decide the boss fought and ultimately the ending. To Clairify:
- Most evil ending: Using the Chaos Emerald's power, Shadow decides to destroy the earth and everything else that he can. Having perfectly followed Black Doom's orders, he became more evil than the Dark Lord himself, going down the path of destruction.
- Less than completely evil: Shadow decides to back-stab Black Doom at the last second and take over the universe himself in the path of conquest.
- Bad ending: Deciding that he was created to serve Black Doom, Shadow becomes a soldier in the Dark empire in the path of tyrany.
- Less than bad: Betraying Doctor Eggman, Shadow declares that he as the ultimate lifeform can't be told what to do and may defy who he wants in the path of freedom.
- Bad neutral: Shadow decides that as a Shadow android (or so he thinks), he should have no concern other than surpassing the original.
- Good neutral: Shadow decides that as a powerful android, his only concern should be to bring about a robot uprising and have androids rule.
- Less than good: Shadow decides that ultimately his only purpose was to exemplify the ultimate lifeform and to protect the ARK forever in the path of duty.
- Good ending: Discovering the tragedy surrounding his existence, Shadow solemnly declares that such a being should never have been created in the path of repentance.
- Less than heroic: having defeated Sonic and become invincible with the Chaos Emeralds, Shadow declares that his purpose as both the ultimate lifefom and the greatest hedgehog has been fulfilled in what could be called the calmest path.
- Most heroic ending: Defeating Black Doom, Shadow decides that his ultimate purpose was to protect humanity, and so he he declares he'll crusade against the Black Arms army in the path of valiancy.
- It seems Sega tried to play this trope to a near-tee.
- Fable 1 had a Good V Evil system, based on your actions in albion. In Fable 2, it was extended to something similar to this trope, with Good/Evil being your morality and Corrupt/Pure being how nice you were to others and your own body. (I.E Pure characters treat their own body as a temple, while corrupt characters would drink a gallon of ale every morning).
- Even with the improvements in Fable II, the system is still quite simplistic with the only two discernible options being either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. While the game's Big Bad is pretty much Lawful Evil, the game does not provide many options to exercise an influence over the story or quests based on one's alignment other than not taking the good or evil quests. The citizens of Albion will still hail you as the greatest hero of all time if you save enough slaves, even if you are also the kingdom's biggest slum lord and adulterer.
- Its worse than that. Purity/Corruption is tied to Good/Evil, whether you like it or not. Try being Good but Corrupt and not seeing your character look just like some evil demon. And the opposite (Evil/Pure) ends up with the same outcome. Good/Pure and Evil/Corrupt are the only possible paths in the game. Any deviance from this yields nothing in terms of character appearance or NPC reaction.
- While the NPC reaction is no different depending on your purity/corruption, your character's appearance is very different. A Corrupt Good character has dirty-looking skin and a greenish tinge to their eyes, while still looking like a good person. On the flip-side a Pure Evil character will be very attractive, but with ashy grey skin and red cat-like eyes. Compare Pure Good to Corrupt Good and you'll notice a decent difference, but Pure Evil and Corrupt Evil are vastly different of one another.
- One Castlevania character has been given a canonical alignment: according to the Portrait of Ruin manual, Death is Lawful Evil. This is common for incarnations of Death — in most settings, Death follows strict rules (e.g. Disc World, Forgotten Realms, Incarnations Of Immortality). It also works for this particular Death, who's a and servant to Count Dracula, and follows rules.
- Wizardry uses the good/evil axis, though it leaves out order and chaos. The manual states that a good man helps an old lady across the street, a neutral man crosses the street and helps an old lady across, an evil male PC helps a young lady across the street, and the level of evil they all oppose helps an old lady halfway across the street. A note adds that since the game uses Purely Aesthetic Gender, a good woman helps an old man across the street.
- Dwarf Fortress rates regions of land on a "benign-neutral-savage" and a "good-neutral-evil" axis. So, benign good is "serene", while savage evil is "terrifying". (It's...not very good for your dwarves to start in an evil area. Really. For them, at least.)
- In Age Of Wonders, the races are aligned on the Good-Evil spectrum, with Pure Evil (The Undead), Evil (Dark Elves, Orcs and Goblins), Neutral (Human, Azracs, Lizardmen, Frostlings), Good (Elves, Dwarfs, Halflings), and Pure Good (Highmen)
- Battle For Wesnoth has the alignments of "Lawful", "Neutral", and "Chaotic". Alignment is decided by class and cannot be changed (as far as this troper knows). It also only affects one thing: how well units fight during certain times of day. "Lawful" characters fight well at day and badly at night, while "Chaotic" characters are the exact opposite. "Neutral" characters are never affected by the time of day. Caves function as a permanent night, and characters with the Illumination skill cause a permanent day wherever they stand.
- In Mass Effect, the character is rated on an ethical axis rather than a moral one. Forced to play the hero by the plot, the character can decide to be a nice guy and play by the rules ("Paragon" lawful) or be a jerk to everything in sight and shoot anything that moves ("Renegade" chaotic). Interestingly, the character is rated on both criteria independently, so Paragon acts do not overwrite Renegade ones or viceversa.
Professional Wrestling
- Professional Wrestling has a bit of an implied alignment system, with all wrestlers being divided into Face, Heel, or Tweener, though this generally isn't acknowledged in Kayfabe — except in Mexican lucha libre promotions, and lucha-inspired promotions like CHIKARA, where wrestlers are openly referred to as either "Tecnicos" or "Rudos". Look for media based on North American wrestling, such as video games, to use euphemisms to refer to this system (such as "Fan Favorite" for Face and "Rule Breaker" for Heel).
- When a D20 game was released under WWE's licensing, the alignments were actually Face, Tweener, and Heel. The most recent games have 'Clean' and 'Dirty'; apparently no real 'tweeners.
Film
Real Life
- There are some examples in real life of "alignment systems". Before the development of modern medecine, the theory of humors was supposed to be an indicator of ones character as well as of physical health. Nowadays there is the Myers-Briggs Typology which classifies people according to Jungian archetypes, each of which is broken up into four subcategories.
Web Original
|
|
◊ (huge image) showing every alignment with varying pictures and captions, but the same subject: Batman.
As with all good concepts, it's very ripe for parody - there are such motivational posters of alignments including "Chaotic Awesome" (for Cartman) and "Chaotic Gorgeous" (Evanna Lynch's portrayal of Luna Lovegood).
For more information about specific alignments, and tropers' interpretation of characters who fit those alignments see:
