Alignment Wars Thread: Placing all our favorite fictional characters into little boxes
booinyoureyes
Member Posts: 6,164
There have been a lot of discussions on this site about where beloved fictional characters from various nerd universes fit in on the alignment chart. I always enjoyed these debates, but unfortunately they oftentimes on these threads it veers from the OP's intended topic of discussion.
So, in order to prevent derailing other topics, I think this would be a good place to redirect the conversations. Like, just tagging someone who made a point with the @ symbol and continuing the conversation here.
For example, we recently discussed the alignments of Captain America and Thor on this thread http://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/658024#Comment_658024
with @Yannir , @Dragonspear @Brer_Rabbit . Brer Rabbit also tagged developer @Amber_Scott who appears to be a comic nerd as well
So maybe, lets begin with the Marvel Universe then move on to other awesome nerd stuff like Star Wars and stuff.
Let the Great Alignment Wars begin!
So, in order to prevent derailing other topics, I think this would be a good place to redirect the conversations. Like, just tagging someone who made a point with the @ symbol and continuing the conversation here.
For example, we recently discussed the alignments of Captain America and Thor on this thread http://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/658024#Comment_658024
with @Yannir , @Dragonspear @Brer_Rabbit . Brer Rabbit also tagged developer @Amber_Scott who appears to be a comic nerd as well
So maybe, lets begin with the Marvel Universe then move on to other awesome nerd stuff like Star Wars and stuff.
Let the Great Alignment Wars begin!
4
Comments
...I just wanted to say that.
The Kitty Pryde of old (back when she was a kid with a crush on Colossus), would probably be Neutral Good. She's (was) too young to have really chosen a side (law vs chaos) and is always trying to do the right thing (good vs evil) not caring overly if it sews order or chaos. She's the type that wouldn't break the rules, not because she necessarily believed in rules and order but because she was scared of the consequences. But she wasn't necessarily an anarchist either.
To switch universes a little bit, a lot of people list The Batman as Lawful Good or neutral good or some such. My personal opinion is that he is Lawful evil. He isn't after 'What is right' so much as vengeance and his own particular brand of order. He is ruthless and methodical and will do whatever it takes (right or wrong) to get the job done. And there is no higher authority than his, but his is ABSOLUTE. Just because you are evil doesn't mean you can't Fight evil as well. I'm talking the ORIGINAL Batman from the 50s and 60s (or alternately the Frank Miller Batman), not the Adam West Batman nor even the Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney batman. Although Christian Bale took things closer to the Frank Miller Batman than the others did.
Good and Evil are easy to define. They're a person's ideals. Are they compassionate and giving? Or do they see their own advancement and growth as more important then that of the rest of the world's? Or perhaps neither extreme, thus making a damn dirty neutral? Captain Brannigan is not please.
Lawful and chaotic are harder to define, but I saw a definition once I rather loved. Lawful is a person who is consistent in their actions. They have a code, perhaps, or simply act based on past actions and thoughts. Someone who never kills counts as lawful, even if its not specifically a code they live by.
Chaotic is the opposite of this, someone who looks at every situation differently and judges based on assembled data. Sometimes its okay to kill, other times its not. Their logic might only make sense to them, but its still their own. They're often more driven by emotions then some sort of consistent logic.
That being said I can agree with Captain America being lawful good. Not sure I agree about Batman being evil. Yes, hes controlling, but his ideals are generally for a greater good. You can be a total asshole with deep control issues and still have good ideals...
Then again that brings up the "What defines good or evil in alignment? Our ideals or our actions." wich I'd say a bit of both. Batman's ideals are for a better world where others don't have to suffer the loss he has (Something he consistently fails to do due to his lawful nature keeping the loonies who escape and kill again alive.) and he saves people as often as he can while still keeping his morals consistent. Its important to him he doesn't break them because hes aware he has control issues and he doesn't want to end up a greater threat then those he fights.
Mind you, I admit Batman has gone through so many versions and rewrites I'm sure you could find plenty of exceptions to this.
My own personal definition is similar to yours.
Law and chaos are better translated as ORDER and anarchy. A lawful character supports ORDER in all things. This may have nothing to do what so ever with the laws of the land. Further, they can ACT in a seemingly chaotic manner so long as their actions and ultimate goals are to bring about/support ORDER. These aren't "Necessarily" militant rigid boring types. They merely believe that there is an order to things and a plan and that everyone would be happier following that plan (whatever it is).
A chaotic person is someone who supports anarchy. This means that they will do whatever they can to break down order and structure. However, if the laws of the land happen to benefit or otherwise facilitate that? GREAT. These aren't "Necessarily" drop outs or burn outs or anti-social types. They merely believe that life is better lived one on one instead of everyone locking step.
Also, it is important to point out that alignment is a continuum. That means that just because you are in one camp it does not follow that you can't step out of it from time to time. Also, it does NOT mean (under any circumstances) that chaotic means "Do whatever you want" get out of jail free card. Playing either alignment should be difficult if being played correctly. Both require a dedication to an ideology.
Anyways, I'm bored so I'll try a few with my limited knowledge:
LG: Capt. A, Prof. X, Cyclops
NG: Spideyman
CG: Wolverine, sometimes Hulk
CN: Sometimes Hulk
LE: Magneto
NE: Galactus
CE: Venom maybe?
Neutrals are hard to come by in comics.
I feel I need to explain my thoughts on what I think about alignments. I use Drizzt as my basis on what is neutral and what is lawful, since he's a model example of NG. His basis on everything he does is his personal moral code, so I associate a personal moral code with NG. What he feels is right comes first to any organization, law or authority, yet he is consistent about it. Personal moral code in my head is not a lawful trait. A NG person is a more likeable man than a lawful one, and in my head, more Good.
Lawful is tied to an organization, or at least supporting one. A lawful good person would put his own feelings aside if they were in a conflict with his kings orders, for example. Yet a LG person wouldn't murder innocents for this reason, because the conflict becomes too severe. Still, he would feel guilty about not following his orders.
To sum it up:
NG is a good person whose motivation comes from the inside.
LG is a good person whose motivation is external but supports his own ideals.
CG deliberately goes against authority to right something that is wrong about it.
My initial assessment was a hasty one, I'll throw both Thor and Captain America into NG, their personalities in this regard are pretty similar. Iron man would be CG?
Wolverine, in the late years, has become more and more Neutral Good. He reformed Xaviers school and I think having a position of authority lead him to buy into capital-O Order more. Also, though I'm really not sure if this is intended, I view this as a product of his involvement with the Avengers as well.
Jerrica/Jem: Neutral Good
Kimber and Aja: Chaotic Good
Shana and Raya: Lawful Good
Pizzazz and Roxy: Chaotic Evil
Jetta: Neutral Evil
Stormer: True Neutral
Rio: Chaotic Neutral
Eric: Lawful Evil
Synergy: Lawful Neutral
(Seriously I don't know much about the Marvel universe other than the MCU, but I appreciate the tag! I might chime in on the posts but I'm coming from a position of "movies only.")
Edit: Forgot Synergy!
I think people's takes on Batman are entirely dependent on how they view the law-chaos axis. People like you ( @the_spyder ) @Necomancer and myself view this to be determined internally (as in I believe in/value ORDER or anarchy) see Batman as Lawful.
Some people view the axis as determined by outside powers (society, government, or something else) see him as chaotic since what he is doing is illegal or disregards the establishment and its institutions OR as neutral because he still works with institutions like the police.
Honestly, most of the time it really depends on whoever wrote the Batman work we are discussing, and that often determines someone's take on him.
I never got the disparity when people jumped in and said "Lawful needs to follow the law" and always thought they were confusing the term Lawful with the term law. Now I get it (ish). And yeah, I see it not so much 'Internally' as what they are trying to achieve. But it probably boils down to the same thing.
Thanks again for this insight. Mind blown.
Too mix things up a little bit, here are some characters from a bunch of comics that I actually did read:
Kenshin Himura (Kenshin) - Neutral Good - He is very levelheaded and values life higher than anything else. Even though he doesn't really care for the government, he also respects it and understands that laws are important. He may be leaning towards Chaos a bit more though, given that he frequently breaks the law without even batting an eye (carrying a sword for example) and he doesn't care much for tradition.
Kaito Jeanne/ Marron Kusakabe (Kamikaze Kaito Jeanne) - Chaotic Good through and through. She loves pestering the police but she also steals for the greater good. She would never put conventions over helping and is full of forgiveness. Also, she doesn't really care for her literally god given cause and mostly just does what she is told to fill that void in her life.
Cutter (ElfQuest) - Lawful Good. He values the traditions of his kin and is a (literally) a born leader. He would do most anything for his family and tribe and always thinks in the greater picture.
V (V for Vendetta) - He is rather tricky to grasp. On the one hand, he values freedom like nothing else and literally wants to cause anarchy on the entire country, on the other, he does it for the greater good and he is truly driven by his morals, which would make him rather lawful. But I guess actions speak louder than words, so he classifies as Chaotic Good.
Snow White (Fables) - Lawful Neutral. She always goes by the book and would never put her own desires over her job. Even if it sometimes means that she has to do bad things. Rules are rules and they exist for a reason.
Bigby Wolf (Fables) - Neutral Good. He tries to do a good job as a sheriff and if that means that he sometimes needs to bend the rules for that, then so be it. He never makes rash decisions and is very collected. Back in the homelands, when he was a loner, he was true neutral, but the war and his new life among others has taught him compassion.
I might gonna write about some more when I feel like it.
But for now, I am gonna leave you with this
And we're discussing ALL the nerdy things, so if you think you can get them in an alignment, toss 'em in. XD
Mal/ Captain Reynolds - He hates the government and beyond some basic morality, he does his own thing. But he is also a captain and expects his crew members to know their place and do their jobs. Other than that, he certainly isn't a saint, but at the bottom of his heart, he's a good guy. So I'd say Neutral Good, with tendencies to Chaotic Good.
Zoe - She is a no-nonsense type of person (at least when compared to the other crewmembers) and very dutiful, a soldier trough and trough. Even in the most stressful situations she doesn't lose her cool. Otherwise she rarely shows compassion, but that might just be to her rather unemotional nature (again, when compared to the rest of the crew). So either Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral.
Wash - He is very laid back and always has a quick and funny remark on his lips. He doesn't seem to care about much else than having fun and that his wife is happy. He doesn't like fighting and confrontations and seems to be more or less pacifistic. I'd have him be either Neutral Good or True Neutral.
Inara - Quick and cunning, it seems impossible to trick her, but she is very good at playing others. That given, she would never use her skills to harm anyone who doesn't deserve it. She likes her, uhm, rather unconventional work and doesn't shy away from using her privileges to her and her friend's purpose. Neutral Good, I say.
Jayne - Uhm, he is a big, selfish idiot with an affinity for guns. Chaotic Neutral.
Kaylee - A cute and witty nerd who likes getting her hands dirty. The things she cares most about are her craft and her friends, she is the most openly affectionate member of the crew and always speaks her mind. Rules and conventions don't mean much to her. Chaotic Good.
Simon/ Doctor Tam - A by the book academic with a wealthy upbringing. His only interest is the safety of his sister and he'd do pretty much anything for her. But he has also shown compassion to those who needed his help. Neutral Good, I think.
River - She shows little to no emotions and is usually absent minded. True Neutral, though later in the story more Neutral Good.
Shepherd Book - For a man of God, he seems to be very liberal about what happens around him. He loves helping others and works for the greater good. Neutral Good.
I am going to make the case for Tony Stark as Lawful Good.
My favourite character in the MCU is, hands-down, Iron Man. Anyone who works with me for any length of time soon learns of my obsession. I offer as my qualifications to make this claim, a picture my friend painted of me and Iron Man together which I keep on my desk (Exhibit A). I also saw the original Iron Man six times in the theatre (Exhibit B ).
I'll tackle Iron Man and Iron Man II to begin.
Iron Man
We start with Tony Stark in Afghanistan demoing weapons for the US military. In a flashback, we learn that Tony considered his father a patriot. This is an important scene (with the reporter Christine Everheart) because it implies that Tony considers himself a patriot as well. He sees his actions as “good.” Others, like Everheart, may disagree of course but Tony considers himself fundamentally working for the good of his country.
We're also quickly introduced to Tony's unreliability seeming indifference to other peoples' needs, which we'll circle around to later.
The military demonstration goes horribly wrong and Tony is kidnapped by terrorists (uh, spoiler alert I guess). We get some great shots of muscley Tony hammering iron or whatever, and his interactions with Yinsen where Tony displays compassion on an individual level when the stakes are high. He may be late for appointments and dismissive of social events, but when it comes to life or death situations he cares about his fellow human beings. Another point for good.
He gets back to the US and everything. Now, one of my favourite scenes in cinema. The press conference. I could write an entire essay about the press conference but I'll limit myself to one particular line:
“I saw that I had become comfortable with a system that has zero accountability.”
Tony saw himself as a patriot designing weapons to protect “American men and women.” Now that he knows the system he backed is not working as it should, he disables the system until he can repair it. To me, that is the action of a lawful man who cares about the integrity of an agreed-upon code of rules.
Even when it costs him both personally (damaged relations with Obadiah and Rhodes) and financially (with his huge stock drop), he does the right thing.
Fast-forward through all the (awesome) suit-building montages and we have Tony learning about the atrocities in Golmira. Although he had no direct influence in the sale of Stark Industry weapons to the Ten Rings, he feels personally responsible. These were his inventions and they're being used to hurt innocent people. He confronts Obadiah, and is genuinely upset and shocked to learn their business dealings have not been honest (lawful).
Tony decides he has to be held accountable for his inventions and help the people who have been injured by them (another point for good and, I would argue, lawful). He flies over to Afghanistan which apparently takes like an hour (?) (I think there were some deleted scenes here) and beats up the bad guys.
When he subdues the ringleader, though, he doesn't take revenge himself. Even though this man injured Tony personally and Tony would have every right to be angry at him, Tony leaves him for the villagers to dispense justice on. “He's all yours.” Again, I would argue, a lawful action where the victims of the crime collectively decide on the punishment for the perpetrator.
On the flight back to Malibu, Tony flies afoul of the US military. (Here it's shown that, in a sense, he is breaking the law in that the military wasn't cleared to enter Golmira. However since Tony is a civilian, he arguably didn't break any laws at all.) Here we come to another important point.
Tony Stark rarely lies. He tells the truth even when it's clearly making things harder for him. (“Don't I even get a reaction?” “Panic. Panic is my reaction.”) When he does lie, he almost immediately tells the truth right afterward. His treatment of Killian in IM3 is remarkably out of character. Rhodey calls Tony and Tony makes up an unbelievable lie (that neither he nor Rhodey seem to think is actually intended to fool Rhodey) and then almost immediately calls him back and fesses' up. Though that may be self-preservation, it's a pattern he repeats throughout the series. Tony Stark is an honest man—another point for lawful.
He returns to Malibu and is caught by Pepper. He has one of his most LG moments as he explains to her how he cannot turn a blind eye to the damage his inventions have caused, and how he is personally responsible for undoing the evil he has done.
Then we skim through the Pepper scenes and Ironmonger beating up the city until we get to the end, with Tony and Obadiah on the rooftop. He sees an opportunity to take down Ironmonger and put an end to the destruction and calls for Pepper to blow the roof, or the reactors, or whatever. In The Avengers, Captain America accuses Tony of not being willing to “lie down on the wire and let the other guy crawl over you” though that is exactly what Tony does in this scene. He's even physically lying down, willing to sacrifice himself to save others. Definitely good, arguably lawful.
Then the final press conference. (It's a minor aside, but I'd also like to note that Tony had no objection to a debriefing with Coulson and though he didn't enthusiastically pursue an appointment with the government, he was willing to cooperate with legitimate authority.) Tony has his lines all prepared. He's in the clear! But... Tony Stark doesn't lie. He's not good at it and he rarely does it. He gets a few lines in, goes off track, and then goes for the truth. He is Iron Man. He's willing to let others cover for him (“training exercise”) but he can't or won't do it himself. It's a strong lawful moment for Stark.
I don't have a lot to say about Iron Man II. I enjoyed the movie, it had some really high moments, but overall I don't think it added a lot to Tony Stark's character development. They could have done a lot more, but wound up sidestepping potentially powerful scenes.
Probably the most relevant scene in the movie is the courtroom scene. Tony Stark receives a summons, obeys the summons, and argues his case in court. He doesn't say “I am above your puny laws,” disobey the summons, or move out of reach of the US government. He makes counterpoints to the senate's arguments and while he says “you can't have [the suit]” there's no evidence that he refuses a legal order to surrender it. Instead he successfully argues that he deserves to keep it and is rewarded with a judgement in his favour (at least, I assume he is given that he isn't arrested and armed soldiers don't show up to seize the suit). Super lawful.
One could argue that he acts illegally when he hacks into security cameras, but since he does so to prove the unfounded basis of his opponents' arguments and is not punished for the act, I'll let it slide.
Most of what we see in IM2 is Tony Stark's erratic and inconsiderate behaviour. There are plenty of examples of him treating his friends poorly and losing control of himself. I have a theory about this, and while it's less well supported than my other arguments, I'll slot it in here because I don't have much else to say about this movie.
Assume Tony Stark has an inherently lawful character. He's a mechanic; he understand that parts serve a specific purpose and that rules have to be obeyed in order for machines to function. Mechanical devices often serve as stand-ins for rigidly lawful systems in film and literature.
Tony Stark lives in an inherently chaotic structure. His father is a confirmed alcoholic who by all accounts was distant and cold toward his son. Tony himself is a genius, which does not often make childhoods easier for children. I can easily picture this lawful good child, struggling to put order into his disruptive world by building more and more elaborate machines. Striving for his father's approval but never receiving it. Growing up the child of an alcoholic whose moods change from moment to moment. We all know people like this. It's not an uncommon story. The only thing that makes it uncommon is Tony lives in a superhero universe and is a billionaire.
I posit that Tony Stark is a lawful good character who has learned to be chaotic as a result of his upbringing. The more he denies his true nature, the worse his circumstances become. He has almost no friends. His mental state degrades. He refuses to take objects from people, he drinks to excess, he endangers himself and his loved ones. He runs his company into the ground and then gives it away. These are not the actions of a healthy man.
I argue that a chaotic good individual would gain mental strength and a healthy life from obeying his nature. Tony breaks himself down the more chaotic he seems. This is because he fights against his own lawful self.
Like I said, this is the least supported argument I have but I believe it stands nonetheless. I can bring up more substantial evidence in The Avengers and Iron Man 3 but first I need a break.
As for Deadpool, I don't know a lot about the character. From what I DO know, he seems more insane than any actual alignment. The reason I jump in here is that a LOT of people tend to think that 'Chaotic Neutral' stands for 'Do whatever I want in a more or less random pattern'. That is NOT (personal and subjective) my view of Chaotic neutral. A true Chaotic Neutral is someone who abstains from any conflict between Good and evil (hence NEUTRAL) and who values individuality over unit or order. That CAN be the hardest alignment to play rather than, as is normally believed, the easiest.
It is VERY easy to play a saint or a Sinner. It is WAY harder to avoid getting involved at all.
A CN would cause disorder for the sake of disorder.
I suppose what it boils down to is that I find Tony Stark rigidly predictable. What would Tony do in any of the following situations?
-there's a pretty girl in the room
-there's a mysterious mechanical geegaw in the room
-there is alcohol in the room
-there's a big bad guy throwing snark in the room
He is relentless in his character tags. There's never any question about how he's going to live his life. To me that points to his lawful nature.
I think one of the biggest reasons Winter Soldier delighted me was that Captain America was unpredictable. Yes he's lawful in that he obeys the law, but I could never take a situation and go "oh obviously he's going to do XYZ." In my opinion his nature is far less lawful than Tony Stark's.
But I'm not going to die on this hill or anything. Everyone's going to have a different opinion.
@Amber_scott - In my view being predictable is not the same as being lawful. Tas Burrfoot from the Dragonlance novels was predictable in the extreme. What does he do if he gets bored? He wanders off.
The Tony Stark in the MCU wants to be a part of The Avengers, but he doesn't want to be 'A part of the team' so much as he wants it to be The Iron Man show, with several side kicks. That's less about unity and order and more about individuality. Now granted, the events in Age of Ultron do strongly suggest a desire for Order on his part, and so I agree that there's a case. Just saying that his hold on that "Lawful" title is tenuous at times.
And again, in the comics he struggles and is quite conflicted (or at least used to be back in the 80s when I read the book). And his personality seems more centered on him doing what he wants rather than any sort of order. And you are right, someone that enjoys parties is not 'by definition' chaotic. Him being his own party and damn the consequences isn't really about order though. But that's only one side of his personality.
I was going to make a comment about ego, but then there are and can be BIG egos on both sides of that particular fence. I am not NOT buying Lawful as an alignment choice, merely positing that a case can be made either way. I personally love the Iron Man from MCU, so I can't see wrong with the role.
We first see Tony Stark in this movie setting up his free energy program. I think I have enough evidence by now to speak to his “good” alignment so we'll move on to Agent Coulson's arrival.
One of the most interesting things I found with this movie is the separation between what people say and what they do. Anyone will tell you “Tony Stark doesn't like being part of a team. Tony Stark wants to be in charge.” He himself would probably tell you that. He has a lot of energy and he's snarky and likes to quip and tease and I think that reads as “chaotic,” but his actions tell a different story. Suppose we listed the events of the movie without additional commentary or dialogue. It would look like this:
-Coulson shows up uninvited at Tony's, uh, business or loft or whatever it is
-Tony doesn't want to let him in but Coulson breaks in
-Coulson asks/demands Tony help out with the Avengers. Pepper backs him up.
-Tony agrees and studies the file and all the information Coulson gives him.
-Tony joins the rest of the team on the helicarrier and helps identify a way to find Loki.
-With Bruce's help, Tony tracks down Loki while also exposing SHIELD's lies/secret plan
-He also pokes Bruce and tries to get him to change into the Hulk, an arguably chaotic act
-Tony comes to help Captain America capture Loki. Later he fights Thor, but only because Thor stole the prisoner Tony was tasked to bring back and Tony doesn't know Thor's intentions.
-Tony, CA, and Thor bring Loki back to the helicarrier
-Tony argues with Captain America, possibly due to the scepter's influence
-When the helicarrier is attacked, Tony immediately stops arguing and works with Captain America to save the ship, nearly dying in the process
-After learning of Coulson's death, a grief-stricken Tony determines where Loki is and tells everyone else
-Tony and the team fly to the tower and see all the aliens
-Tony asks Captain America to take charge and give them all assignments
-Tony obeys Captain America's instructions
-Tony learns about the nuke and risks his life to get rid of it
-Tony & crew eats shawarma
There's literally no action evidence that Tony doesn't work well as part of a team. He SAYS he doesn't, Coulson says he doesn't, Fury says he doesn't, Pepper says he doesn't, and everyone agrees with them but in practice, Tony willingly shares information and obeys orders. It's a really severe example of “telling not showing.” I can't think of a single moment where Tony shows his unwillingness to work on a team except when he pokes Bruce Banner (and arguably when he hacks into SHIELD's computers, but since he suspected his team wasn't getting all the necessary information and he was right, I'll give him a pass.)
Ugh, I have written SO MUCH about IM3. Like pages and pages of analysis. It took me about three months to decide if I thought it was a good movie or not. I decided it was actually a great movie. But most of my analysis has been about the theme of identity in IM3 so I won't rehash that old territory.
(My friends and I had an “Iron Man party” one night and watched the movies and partway through the first, one of my friends said it was more like “Iron Man: A Thesis” by Amber Scott with accompanying slides. I think I actually paused the movies from time to time to discuss salient points.)
Anyway, the intro to Iron Man 3 shows Tony being an unmitigated dick to Killian. This is actually way out of character for him, as I mentioned earlier. Tony is a drunk and a womanizer, and he has no respect for other peoples' time, but he almost never lies. Instead he insults people directly and honestly. The Tony Stark of the previous three movies would be more likely to say, “Sorry, I only hang out with cool people and you look like you lost your membership card,” than to play a mean trick on him.
I don't really have an explanation for that scene, unless Tony felt bad about his trick the next day and resolved never to lie to people again? I don't know. It's the biggest flaw in the movie for me.
There's not a whole lot in this movie that shows lawful or chaotic one way or another. The biggest point in favour of CG, I would say, is Tony calling out the Mandarin and subsequently getting his house destroyed. It wasn't a smart move and the best explanation is that Tony was so agitated he didn't think it through and just did the first thing that came to mind. He works through most of the rest of the movie alone and so it's hard to judge his place on the law/chaos axis.
I do think his panic attacks provide some support for my “lawful nature in a chaotic environment” theory. The more out of control he feels, the more he takes comfort in routine and predictability.
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Oh boy. Where to begin here.
I'm not crazy about AoU. It felt rushed and crowded to me and I'm not sure the movie was as careful with the characters as it could be. Tony doesn't get a whole lot of screen time or development as a result, but there are a few scenes we can examine. (Spoilers, obvi).
In the initial assault on the Hydra fortress, Tony works fine as part of a team. He teases his teammates but there's no evidence that he's going against the good of the whole. He reports information back as he obtains it and generally pulls his weight. He even has robots designed to protect the public and keep the chaos to a minimum, which is extremely lawful in my opinion.
On the way back to Avengers HQ, Thor says he's going to take the sceptre back home. Tony asks him if he can examine it for a few days first, and Thor agrees. There's no secrecy or trickery involved, it's a straight-up exchange.
After Bruce and Tony find out about the AI in the sceptre, they argue over whether or not to stick it into Ultron. Tony convinces Bruce it's a good idea. Neither of them consult the rest of the team. I'd say this is pretty deceptive and does show that Tony doesn't always share his intentions with others (though Bruce could easily have told anyone, and anyone could have walked into the lab so it was a pretty crappy plan.)
Ultron shows up, it's a big deal, there's fighting and stuff. The biggest chaotic moment for Tony comes after they get the Ultron body thing and bring it back to Avengers HQ. Tony thinks they should put Jarvis in the body, Bruce disagrees. It's implied Tony turned off his radio so no one could argue with him though it's never actually shown. Again Tony talks Bruce to his side—there's no trickery or coercion, he just convinces Bruce that it's a good idea.
When Captain America returns and starts arguing with Tony, this shows the split in the team. Now Tony refuses to cooperate and says his way is the best way. This is the only time he goes against the wishes of the team and shows himself to be completely selfish in any of the movies that I can see. The argument becomes moot when Thor arrives and lights up Vision (without, I might add, soliciting any input first. I think Thor is the most chaotic of the bunch.)
Then they all work together and save the day. Eh. It's not a great movie or a great ending I think. But they all seem to be friends after so that's good?
If I was writing Civil War, it wouldn't be about chaos vs. law, but about a lawful man who has denied his lawful nature his whole life going up against a man who has never questioned his lawful nature.
And I'm done. Beambard out.
Thing is, Tony doesn't want to be part of 'The Team', he wants to BE the TEAM with some side kicks. It is ALL About Tony Stark in his mind.
And just because you CAN play on a team and choose to do so, doesn't make you a Lawful character. If that were the case, no D&D DM would allow a Chaotic character.
If you want evidence that he doesn't work well as part of the team?
- Iron Man 1, Tony doesn't share with his own business partner the sudden change in direction for his company, but dumps it at the press while his own people are completely unaware.
- Iron Man 1, Tony doesn't share his suit technology with the rest of his own company even before he starts not trusting Obedia
- Iron Man 1, Tony starts flying his own missions into Military occupied territory without even letting the government (and his best friend) that he is going in. When Rhodey calls him on it, he lies to his best friend about it, badly and only recants when he starts getting shot at.
- Iron Man 1, Tony is given 'The party line' to read at the press conference but does his own thing despite the ramifications.
- Iron Man 1, Colson's own assessment of Iron Man is that he doesn't play well with others and is unsuitable for the team. Iron Man, yes. Tony Stark, No.
- In Iron Man 2, he won't give over his suit to the government, despite the fact that a government run project might very well end war on a permanent basis (yes, this is naive, but that is what they think they are selling). He runs his own show.
- Iron Man 2, When confronted by Nick Fury to reign in his activities and solve his father's problems, Tony balks at this and instead tries to escape and then throws a party.
- Iron Man 2, when Rhodey finally suits up to help Tony against Ivan Vanko and the Hammer Drones, it all has to be Tony's show. When Rhodey attempts to work together, Tony has to one up him. (ok this is just male testosterone, but Tony has that in spades).
- In Avengers, when Tony first hits the bridge of the Helicarrier, he bugs it with intent to 'spy on the spies'. He admittedly shares this info later with the other avengers but this is less about being a team player and more about showing his ingenuity.
- In Avengers, Tony intentionally antagonizes Captain America as being a joiner, clearly defining himself as something other than that
- In Avengers, Tony is constantly egging Banner on to 'Go Green' for the sheer pleasure of seeing what chaos that would bring, on a helicarrier, WAY UP IN THE AIR.
- Iron Man 3, Tony is quite the hot head attempting to draw out The Mandarin. He doesn't call in for help or go through regular channels, he Hot heads the whole thing.
- Iron Man 3, Tony installs a kill switch in the War Machine armor "Just in case", hardly a Team thing to do.
And the list goes on. Tony tries to do good. Tony tries to be a team player. Tony is pretty much the biggest ego in the room and needs everyone to dance to his tune. While that isn't "Necessarily" Chaotic, it certainly creates a lot more chaos than order.