Follow TV Tropes
I would peg Gibbs from NCIS as more like Lawful Good (even if he does some pretty chaotic things at some points) but I figured I\'d ask around rather than just change it. What do you guys think?
Katara seems more Lawful Good to me. Anyone else?
Why you guess that she is Lawful Good?
No official d&d material implies this- and a lot of old persons in d&d are chaotic.
In the entry for Bleach, wouldn't the Vizard fit more of a Chaotic Neutral alignment than they do Chaotic Good? My reasoning is that, as the example states, they're not fighting Aizen because they really care for Karakura or Soul Society, but because they want to obtain vengeance on Aizen. That's not fighting for good because good is right, that's fighting for good because your own goals work well with good for the moment.
I think Cosmo Kramer from Seinfeld is of this alignment. He's a slacker and Cloudcookulander too boot, but also the Token Good Teammate of the main cast because he seems to be the only one with concience.
I'm surprised there are no Wrestling Examples, but I suppose I'm unsure where the line between Chatoic Neutral and Chaotic Good is always drawn. Steve Austin is labeled as Chaotic Neutral, he may have been that first, but over time he mellowed to true Chaotic Good I feel.
From WM 13-14 Austin was pretty firmly Chatoic Neutral, but I feel like after becoming The main star he went to Chaotic Good pretty quickly, being clearly disturbed when Foely turned on Terry Funk the Raw after Unforgiven for example.
I dispute Ghenghiz Cohen: I'd say he's like Chaotic Good, except kills people with no justification sometimes, so I'd go with Chaotic Neutral.
Finn from adventure time was on both this page and the lawful good page. Besides the rule about not assigning alignments to characters in settings that don't have them, Finn is arguably in a vaguely D&D-centric universe and is canonically a paladin-in-training (see: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20110408 ) which would make him lawful good. Whether he should be removed from that page too is debatable, but he should definitely be removed from this one.
the example you removed was Finn saying:
"I'll slay anything that's evil!"
and it really sounds a bad argument to argue that a character is chaotic- the official description of Lawful Good in the Hypertext D20, by the way, implies it is supposed to be the more ruthless and judgemental of the three good alignments("A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."?)
I don't agree that Chaotic Good characters are "consistently unselfish". For one thing, consistency in general is pretty much at the core of being Lawful, and correspondingly Chaoticness imples a lack of moral consistency of at least some sort. It's a bit too harsh to say that you need to be consistently unselfish to be Good; unselfishness is a defining trait of Good alignment, but what it needs to be is dominant, not consistent. Adding to this, hardly anyone is ever consistently what any alignment says they should be like, unless they're really one-dimensional characters. So you certainly shouldn't invoke consistency with a Chaotic alignment.
I'll change it to "predominantly" for now.
It is not clear that Dumbledore from Harry Potter really belongs here. While it is true that he tended to disregard the Ministry of Magic, it was mostly because they were overly-bureaucratic, often unjust and in denial about the impending return of Voldemort. On his own turf, Hogwarts, Dumbledore actually maintained fairly strict discipline among the students. He insisted that proper forms be maintained, even repeatedly correcting Harry when he failed to use the title "Professor" when speaking of Snape. When Dumbledore needed Harry to go Pensieve-diving with him, but Harry had detention (again from Snape), Dumbledore merely arranged to have the detention *rescheduled*, rather than simply cancelling it. This balance between Chaotic and Lawful behavior should place him squarely in Neutral Good, rather than Chaotic Good.
Does Indiana Jones really belong here, seeing as how WOTC themselves used him as an example of Lawful Good? Not trying to be inflammatory, just wondering.
I'd personally put him as Neutral Good. I don't know why he fits the other two better than that.
Well, about the lawful thing, Indiana Jones is honorable and want preserve old cultures.
The example from Narnia, which I moved from the main page:
Does this really count? It's not a sign of being Chaotic Good to commit one act of aiding another country against the government of your own country if you believe your own government is doing something unconscionable. You could be loyal to the laws of the Geneva Convention, or something.
The Rebel Alliance in Star Wars is Neutral Good. It has Generals and Captains, ranks and rules, and the only thing keeping it from being Lawful Good is the fact that it hasn't yet overthrown the Galactic Empire. The enforcers of the official law are still the bad guys. Robin Hood and his gang of Merry Men are Chaotic Good because they are not structured like a military. Robin Hood is the unofficial leader, but you'd never hear any of them say "yes sir."
Because being Lawful does not mean that you follow everyone's rules and just because you have lost your legal authority, it does not mean your alignment necessarily have changed.
Hmm, true. In fact a lawful character fallen from power is even more likely to cleave to their old code, even if it becomes illegal.
Similarly, a chaotic character gaining power is only likely to shift towards neutral or lawful if, within their newfound position, they wholly change the way they interact with other people or their life philosophy. And if they do so, they probably were never chaotic in the first place, only acting like it.
Even a general could still be chaotic good, depending on their personal philosophy and how they treat people. If they believe in personal freedom and individualism, and if they praise creative problem solving with successful results despite disobeyed orders. For example, using Han Solo again, from the linked quotes: "Is that the position of the Jedi Order? What the galaxy needs is one language, one system of measurement, one uniform, one flag? Should we just cut the word 'no' out of the language and substitute 'Yes sir, right away, sir' instead?" Han Solo is a military general, but also chaotic good.
Perhaps a better rule of thumb is that individuals in any organization can be any alignment. And that between organizations, the difference between chaotic and neutral is that while both will under certain circumstances oppose an authority, chaotic types will seek to defeat the authority without replacing it, while neutral types will try to replace it with their preferred system of governance/authority.
If you think of authority maybe not in the sense of a government entire, but rather an issue (bad authority) and a cause (good authority), then you can also have neutral organizations who may only oppose or promote certain laws, while not opposing or promoting entire governments. The chaotic organization would just want those governments struck down, and not be overly concerned about breaking the laws they disagree with.
Well consider that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Law-based religions, but that does not mean that they agree on, or want to follow, each others laws. Likewise, secular governments are usually lawful, but that does not automatically entail compliance with the laws of other governments. Many countries that object to American use of capital punishment often refuse to extradite criminals that might be executed.
In the case of the Rebel Alliance, they are disputing Palpatine's imperial government, which is itself based on dubious legal grounds. But their goal is to (re)introduce a republican form of government to replace his empire, not merely to institute "freedom". Being Lawful Good does not mean that you have to put up with Lawful Evil just because there are laws involved (that is Lawful Stupid). Indeed, if your ideology is that the purpose of Law is to promote Good, then you are not obligated to support laws that instead promote Evil. A Lawful Neutral character might run into the quandary of supporting Evil laws, but a Lawful Good character would not.
The Vizard example from Bleach:
I don't know if I'd consider the Vizard chaotic good or chaotic neutral, but this isn't a description of chaotic good behavior. (Also, is there any consensus of spelling of Vizard?)
Wait how is Jack Bauer Chaotic Good
....Because he's fighting to protect the world (mainly the US though) against some of the most threatening terrorists in the world? I think that kinda has something to do with it. :/
Well the reason I was asking that was well because, he is a trope namer for a specific type of torture....
It still boils down to " we're automatically the good guys, while they're automatically the bad guys, regardless that our methods are virtually identical, and they probably have better motivations than we do" sort of thinking. Of course, in this case "they" really are bad guys, but so is a torturer. It's better to admit that it's all about self-preservation, not good and evil, possibly different types of evil, but definitely not any form of ideal to hold up as a higher standard.
Black and Grey Morality.
Removed spider Jerusalem, Because He is really morally neutral.
Look are the Straw Hat Pirates Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral?
Depends on whether they practice altruism. If so, then even if they're morally ambiguous about the how, they're Chaotic Good. Remember, Good Is Not Nice.
Mostly their interests seem to concern with close friends only. So I'd say Chaotic Neutral.
Well, their "close" friend often end being the major part of an island. Their speech made them Chaotic Neutral, but their act are selfless and completely devoid of anything like law. They are perfect Chaotic Good
I don't like the batman quote for the page opener. A chaotic good person would agree with the sentiment that "sometimes you have to ignore the rules," but the idea of justice carries with it a bit too strong a dependence on some concept of law.
My feeling is chaotic good is less about punishing people (justice) and more about stopping harm from befalling people, or resisting/helping the people resist an oppressive authority figure. A chaotic good character can acknowledge some rules are okay, and can live alongside a concept of justice until it crosses their sense of good behaviour and decency to others. But at the same time they tend to be wary of or outright DISLIKE the idea of justice.
I'm not too sure about accepting rules, which sounds more like Neutral Good. Remember that CG characters do care about the concept of freedom whilst L Gs care about law and order
But you generally don't see a Chaotic Good character automatically rebelling against a social organization/ rule of law when they come across it until they're given REASON to, which was the point. They might be wary, but they'll grudgingly accept rules.
The ones that don't follow or allow for any kind of rules are more Chaotic stupid.
In any case, there's still the issue that Batman is decidedly not a Chaotic Good character, and so a quote from him at the top of this page is somewhat inappropriate.
"Justice" carries too much of a sense that there's an authority that has force to back up their enforcement of a law, which Chaotic types of any stripe would probably not like. Chaotic Good types believe that if you abide by a rule it should be out of free will or choice and because there is something inherently moral about the rule, not because you're forced to do so.
(Exist two Xuus?)Actually, the "justice"'s meaning 1 in the wikitionary is "The state or characteristic of being just or fair." and the meaning 2 is "The ideal of fairness, impartiality, etc., especially with regard to the punishment of wrongdoing."
That's... Not quite the definition ol' Bats was using there. He meant justice in the sense of a retribution. Which is why I wasn't comfortable with it as the page quote for chaotic good. Though really there has to be a better one than what I chose.
For a further experiment, try "justice" distilling down to "just.".
"Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Done or made according to principle; equitable; proper. Based on right; rightful; lawful."
Sounds like it's more of a principle of lawful types to me.
Sorry, me again, different computer.
It's accurate that good characters would value truth, reason, and fairness. What I'm getting at is that the way a chaotic good character would pursue those is different from a lawful character. A chaotic good character will act to right wrongs on their own, but is unlikely to operate under rule of law, they are often uncomfortable with such authority. To that effect, they will likely be reluctant to work together with representatives of lawful authority.
A few other definitions, on dictionary.com:
"Justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice. Judgment of persons or causes by judicial process. Bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds."
honestly, I don't see how Batman in the Nolan Trilogy isn't Lawful Good. Is he not devoted to preserving order in Gotham through its own justice and police system (i.e. supportive of Dent, and the Dent Act, and of hanging up his cape when Gotham could protect itself?) And does he not have his own no-kill, never side with evil code? When did Batman ever choose an immoral means to achieve his moral end?
Nero- Neutral Good or Chaotic Good? I'd say the former.
nero to which you refer?
from Devil May Cry 4 I presume.
Alignment of the punisher ?
In the real world there are no innocents, only different degrees of guilt, or at the very least the definition is hard to make, and tthe true definition of genuine evil would probably be very different from the common callous scapegoating subsyitute to hold any value.
Regardless, the Punisher is mostly motivated by "take out the rage on people I will feel good about", "let's purge the Earth of anyone I don't like", "screw the system and that determining guilt is a strenous investigation, just kill anyone in my path and most of them should fit the label", and of course Disproportionate Retribution for a lot of his victims, plenty of whom probably weren't nearly as bad as himself. If he strictly surgically investigated and discretely assassinated the worst of the worst of those beyond the reach of the system he would have a much better argument for being neutral, but in reality his kind of thinking leads to third world vengeance-driven feuding militias, or at the very least neverending Vendetta mob and biker wars.
As Garth Ennis said right at the start of his long run, only "morons" think that putting torture- and massmurder vigilantism into system is a workable idea, and he even parodied a few of the types ("the Elite" and some others)... I'd recommend reading Death Note right to the end speech to get over the notion. So Yeah views are definitely split on whether Punisher is of crusading evil or neutral alignment.
Done, I put the Punisher by Garth Ennis as Chaotic Evil, you can edit if you think it is wrong.
It's probably better to give him a "views differ" rating as usual. It feels more honest. I'd personally rank him at either True Neutral, Neutral Evil, or some suitable "stupid"/extremist alignment. I don't always have a clear-cut, unconflicted view. On the one hand there's "ridiculously cruel deeds usually don't get any karmic payback beyond the usual "life is a torture- and extinction-machine that is over before it has begun" " and on the other there's "hardcore ancient-school vigilantism really doesn't work at all, and you can't beat a social symtom into submission; ruthleesly and extremely loudmouthedly "moralising", from the comfort of an armchair, about people who are simply damaged, desperate, and reduced to survival-values is ridiculous, callous and conceited; and the heroic ideal should probably be redefined to rescue-workers, philantropists and altruistic scientists, i.e."man versus nature" rather than "man versus man" in the "idealising people who are good at hurting and butchering fellow sentients out of wrath and sense of entitlement" sense". It's not so clear-cut.
By the by, Deadpool is definitely pound-for-pound considerably worse than the Punisher, and Wolverine at least slightly more so, as Frank is only a regular human and pretty much has to play for keeps to survive, whereas Logan will recurrently gladly butcher completely outmatched foes, prolonged a torture-process for years rather than kill Matsuo Tsurabaya outright, fed a mental patient to a rabid real wolverine with a catchphrase (Hama definitely gave a few Complete Monster style Moral Dissonance perspective wibes during his run), and has killed far more regular reasonably decent people in his past.
Moved here for discussion. Sort it out off the main page.
I think it is between Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.
-Punisher never hurts the innocent, but using the Pay Evil unto Evil, for that reason is neutral.
-Is un Vigilante Man,I'm not sure if they are Lawful or chaotic.
Just have them as True Neutral if you can't decide.
I have no idea what's wrong with the Live Action TV section. The problem doesn't show up when you try to edit it.
Ok so it's not just me, and i can't see any reason it would be that way from the edit page either.
Community Showcase More