Personalities out of sync with alignments in BG1?
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,586
I've always felt the personalities of several characters don't fit their alignments in BG1.
For example, Minsc is a "good" character, and yet he comes off like a madman who'll turn on your party at any moment, either if you don't accept his quest or if you don't get to it fast enough. To me, that's much closer to a chaotic neutral character than any kind of "good" character. I think Minsc's portrayal in BG2 is much closer to what a chaotic good character should be.
By contrast, Viconia is considered "evil," and yet she seems much more like a sympathetic character in BG1. She's someone who is desperately trying to escape her evil heritage, and yet is victimized at every turn simply for the color of her skin. To me, she seems more like a "renegade" drow, like Drizzt, and the people who harass her (like Kivan) are the ones who come off looking bad. IMO, BG2 did a much better job of capturing Viconia's evil essence than BG1.
In the same vein, Kivan is supposed to be "good," yet he keeps antagonizing Viconia for supposedly worshiping the spider queen, even though Viconia repeatedly tells him that she "no longer serves Lolth!" Besides, Kivan generally acts like an impatient jerk. When Viconia dies, Kivan declares, "May Viconia's soul rot in hell!!!"; whereas when Kivan dies, Viconia much more humbly says, "Kivan and I never understood each other." If I didn't know beforehand which alignment each had, I would've thought Kivan was the "evil" character and Viconia the "good" one.
I think my biggest issue is with Coran running around fathering illegitimate children and then trying to avoid any ethical obligation to care for them - just doesn't jive with being a "good" character to me. Sounds more like a neutral char at best.
Thoughts?
For example, Minsc is a "good" character, and yet he comes off like a madman who'll turn on your party at any moment, either if you don't accept his quest or if you don't get to it fast enough. To me, that's much closer to a chaotic neutral character than any kind of "good" character. I think Minsc's portrayal in BG2 is much closer to what a chaotic good character should be.
By contrast, Viconia is considered "evil," and yet she seems much more like a sympathetic character in BG1. She's someone who is desperately trying to escape her evil heritage, and yet is victimized at every turn simply for the color of her skin. To me, she seems more like a "renegade" drow, like Drizzt, and the people who harass her (like Kivan) are the ones who come off looking bad. IMO, BG2 did a much better job of capturing Viconia's evil essence than BG1.
In the same vein, Kivan is supposed to be "good," yet he keeps antagonizing Viconia for supposedly worshiping the spider queen, even though Viconia repeatedly tells him that she "no longer serves Lolth!" Besides, Kivan generally acts like an impatient jerk. When Viconia dies, Kivan declares, "May Viconia's soul rot in hell!!!"; whereas when Kivan dies, Viconia much more humbly says, "Kivan and I never understood each other." If I didn't know beforehand which alignment each had, I would've thought Kivan was the "evil" character and Viconia the "good" one.
I think my biggest issue is with Coran running around fathering illegitimate children and then trying to avoid any ethical obligation to care for them - just doesn't jive with being a "good" character to me. Sounds more like a neutral char at best.
Thoughts?
3
Comments
Minsc is a berserker that can't control his rages. This does not mean he isn't Chaotic Good.
Kivan isn't exactly in the wrong for mistrusting a member of a race that generally isn't to be trusted. This is no mere intolerance, such as not liking black people or Asians in our world. We're talking about a race composed of 90% vicious sociopaths. He may simply not believe Viconia about her faith. Even if he does, Shar is still an evil goddess. Besides, Kivan is a jerk, but being a jerk has nothing to do with alignment.
The Good alignment puts characters under no ethical obligation to any specific people, progeny included. Being obligated to do things by social conventions and adhering to those conventions is more of a Lawful behavior. Coran helps others by hunting dangerous animals and criminals instead of putting his savvy to use robbing people blind or as an assassin. The fact that he turns these bandits and criminals in for bounty doesn't make him non-Good. Good people aren't forbidden to make money or ask for rewards for their efforts.
These are the definitions of chaotic good & neutral from the very game itself:
Chaotic good:
"Chaotic Good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations."
Chaotic neutral:
"Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. ...Lunatics and madmen tend toward Chaotic Neutral behavior."
By definition, someone who "can't control his rages" should be chaotic neutral.
Minsc will attack your party if the whim strikes him - that's fits in perfectly with the definition of chaotic neutral as taken from the game.
In the 3e handbook, it says to look at alignments simply as a guiding principle that person adheres to. There can be multiple degrees of character that would "fit" in the same alignment.
The book makes a point of some Lawful Good dwarf, who's vice is that he's a bit of a greedy pickpocket. His love of gold makes him occasionally falter off that LG path if he sees a lonely purse of gold he can snatch. He's still LG in every other way, but has a vice because welcome to reality. No one is perfect.
So let's talk Minsc. He wants to beat evil. He's too stupid to really understand anything else. He'll flip out on you if you do not share his simplistic butt-kicking ways and attack what he views as goodness. Minsc is listed as Neutral Good, btw.
The only alignments I would argue are off are purely from AD&D game mechanics standpoint. Druids are forced to be True Neutral, but Jaheira strikes me more as neutral good and probably would by 3e standards. Faldorn also strikes me as NE by the same token. I'd also say Korgan in BG2 is more Neutral Evil than Chaotic because he's not out to inflict pain for the sake of it.
Neutral Good, True Neutral, and Neutral Evil are more flexible. A true neutral, neutral good, or neutral evil character understands why there are laws and rules. He can follow them, but will intentionally or uninentionally break the rules to pursue the path of good/evil/neutrality.
A chaotic person is someone who is entirely unpredictable. Sometimes they have thought reasons for why they do things, while other times, they do not... A Chaotic Good person will still, however, in most cases end up with a good result. A chaotic evil person will often end up with an evil result. An a neutral person can end up with either or neither!
I don't think BG 1 characters are developed enough for the alignment system to truly matter, though.
Honestly Batman has always struck me more like Chaotic Good than Lawful Good. He operates outside the law, albiet he helps them at the same time. That makes him neutral at best. His actions themselves are AGAINST the law of Gotham City, since he's a masked vigilante.
Coran mostly fits Chaotic Good as well. He may be a bit of a scoundrel but he doesn't seem like he'd ever want to do anything to truly hurt anyone.
But I'm totally with you on Minsc and Viconia. And even in BGII, Viconia still just isn't that good at being evil; thus why you can get her to switch alignment. And as you said, Minsc seems a lot more "good" in BGII than in BG1.
Viconia is defined as "evil" because she cares ultimately about only herself, and Charname if he can advance her status in the world. She deplores weakness. She doesn't blink an eye at cruelty against "the weak". And her racial and personal background have strongly imprinted a "survival of the fittest" mentality. And she comes from a matriarchal society of houses and "game of thrones" type jockeying for position. She is clearly not "lawful" by any definition. She certainly isn't "good", and she isn't "neutral" either, because she believes in power as the ultimate goal of life. Neutral Evil or even Chaotic Evil fits her to a "T".
Batman is methodical. His actions aren't random, but well thought-out, and justified. In fact, thanks to him.. The result from "Batman the Dark Knight" was that Gotham became a prosperous place and crime got eradicated for years to follow.
But again, that doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, I'd say it takes extreme actions to really shift an alignment. It's just the general principle that guides the guy. If Batman were an AD&D character, I could see arguments for either Lawful or Neutral Good and I don't think anyone would have a problem with either.
Like I've state, the only characters I think don't really fit their alignments because they are simply too extreme in personality compared to what their alignment is listed as are the druids. Jaheira is constantly pushing you to do the good thing in every situation, then starts to whine when your reputation gets too high? That's just silly. She's textbook Neutral Good and I guarantee she would be by any 3e measure.
I know 4e gets a lot of hate, but I think they did alignments right. There is only LG, NG, NE and CE. Everything else is unaligned. Honestly most the other alignments are contradictory and don't make a whole lot of sense.
Batman- Chaotic Good
Commissioner Gordon- Lawful Good with tendencies towards Neutral Good
Judge Dredd/Flaming Fist- Lawful Neutral
Hmm, Batman works for and respects Commissioner Gordon, and thus is practically an employee of the Gotham Police Department. He knows how to manage wealth, so will never lack for unlimited money to do anything money can do. He does adhere to a certain code. So, while my first impulse is usually to define Batman as chaotic, because of his ruthlessness toward villainous predators, you have a good argument that he is actually lawful.
He cares about innocents, and deplores human predators like those who killed his parents. He is capable of being absolutley merciless if any villain or criminal reminds him of his past.
So he gets points on the good axis for protecting the innocent, but loses points on the good axis for lacking mercy.
Aren't there story examples where he does show some mercy, though? So points back on the good axis.
I think that Batman may be a perfect example of a character in drift around the alignment axis because of a very traumatic past. He starts at true neutral. He drifts both good-evil, and lawful-chaotic, depending on the situation. He doesn't flaunt the law, but he's not above breaking it if there is a villain to be apprehended and prevented from hurting others.
He's a very interesting character who exhibits a huge variety of shades of grey and black, just like his totem.
I am going to vote for true neutral as his alignment, with strong tendencies toward lawful good, which he would have been if he hadn't witnessed his parents' murders.
Secondly, Rhian. You're wrong, but I was wrong about Batman and Chaotic alignment.
Anyway, let's all shut up and read this.
This is from Wikipedia.
Alignment (Dungeons and Dragons)
Law vs. Chaos
The law versus chaos axis in Dungeons & Dragons predates good versus evil in the game rules. In esoteric Greyhawk setting lore, too, the precepts of law and chaos predate good and evil in the world's prehistory. Players often consider law and chaos less relevant to their character than good and evil. Confusingly, a lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that a character obeys a region's laws, nor does a chaotic alignment necessarily mean that a character disobeys a region's laws.
Originally the Law/Chaos axis was defined as[7]:
Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called good.
Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident, and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, and their behavior is hard to predict. They have a strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil".
Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither sides will get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither!), depending on the situation.
The end! (On a nerd-thread? No likely!)
If the alignments of any of these characters were changed, would you think of them any differently?
Garrick is "Chaotic Neutral." WTF?
Also, the sourcebook explicitly states that batman is lawful good. So it's the word of god here.
Mind you, alignment means that, on average, his actions are lawful and good, not that his every action is 100% to that alignment. Eg a lawful good paladin might break his oath of fealty to his lord (if his lord has become massively evil and insane) to serve the greater good and follow his teachings. But it's something he would do so with great reluctance and remorse. And a chaotic good character (like han solo) might agree to co-operate with a law enforcer temporarily if in a tight spot, but wouldn't like it at all.
Lets say you have a paladin, who in a fit of rage or poor judgement kills an innocent (evil act). but if he from then on seeks to atone for this action and continues to do good, he's still lawful good.
In terms of gameplay he might get -20 or something to his alignment (or something) and because he continues to do good and lawful things, it will still push him back to being lawful/good.
Note that alignment != karma or judgement of the gods. It's an internal scale of a character describing their behavioural tendancies.
my understanding of the subject matter atleast.
We just find it interesting and fun to do it. And the D&D alignment system gives us a good frame of reference for a whole lot of geek-debate joy.
Lawful Good- Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, Lawful Good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
Chaotic Good- Chaotic Good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws or regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folks around and tell then what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.
So, sorry, Zinodin, but Batman is clearly Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good. He no longer trusts the law to keep people safe, so he goes outside the law to do so. in doing so, he is heeding his own, personal morality.
"Back in my day, music was better! Oyh, kids and their Metallicatz and Coldplays.. I remember Frank Sinatra and derpy derp!"
Hehehe.. Actually, you win due to BG being set in 2nd edition. Happy now, you dinosaur?
Besides, lawful good characters can disagree with the law if it's flawed. Secondly, batman works with law enforcement regularly and hell, the justice league is it's own organization with structure, rules, etc of which batman was a founding member.
He cares about the law and recognizes they are important. When someone breaks the law like Joker, to batman him being a vigilante is a lesser evil that is trumped by the lawfully goodness of taking Joker to prison/the nutter house. He also follows his own personal codes of honour and not killing. Following the exact letter of the law and not thinking for oneself would be lawful stupid. Which batman is not.
Compare this with Lawful evil and chaotic evil. A lawful evil person may use a law and loopholes to futher his agenda, but they are also characterized by their own personal code, eg don't break promises or don't kill in cold blood, or don't kill children. Chaotic evil wouldn't care less and does what he wants to get what he wants.
"Little use for laws and regulations?" The guy works for the Gotham police department. He believes in law and order for the good of society. He only breaks that code when he decides that the official law is going to allow a misfire of justice and let a dangerous criminal go free to hurt the innocent.
When he commits a questionable act of violence against a murderer, he is at worst only losing some points on his lawful axis, and none on his good axis.
I think that it is helpful to remember that character alignment is plotted on a two-axis graph, with the usual four quadrants. Any good DM keeps such an alignment graph on his or her players, and moves their alignment "dot" along those axes according to their actions. Only in very extreme cases would a player's actions (usually if it's a very bad player), result in that graph point actually moving into a new quadrant.
Batman starts as lawful good, both by upbringing and in his childhood disposition, as well as his adult disposition. He suffers a horrible trauma as a child (witnessing his parents' murder), and starts to drift south on the good-evil axis and west on the law-chaos axis. He has a very long way to go southwest before he changes quadrants into either the chaos or the evil quadrants.
Each act of subverting the justice system drifts him away from his true nature, toward the 'darkside', and toward being a "fallen paladin", or "dark knight", if you don't think he's religious enough to qualify as a paladin.
I think that the DM who wants to change Batman to the "chaotic" quadrant needs to cite story examples of several chaotic acts that he has committed in stories about him.
@LadyRhian, I know that you are an expert DM. You are far more an expert at managing D&D sessions that are fun for your players than I could ever hope to be.
But since I also hope that we are all in this thread just having a bit of fun with the discussion, I would challenge you to come up with chaotic examples of Batman's behavior.
Let's see, in support of my side of the debate that he is actually Lawful, he brings criminals to justice. He may scare them half to death, but he doesn't kill them - he brings them in. Case in point, the Joker, the Riddler, the Scarecrow, the Penguin, Catwoman, Bane, etc., etc. are all still alive. They are residing in a mental institution unless they break out in order to become the antagonists of new stories. If Batman were Chaotic, should not all those supervillains be dead?
@Serialles Clearly by whom?
Being Chaotic Good is not a bad thing- it just means that you care less about laws and more about results. Robin Hood, who redistributed money from the rich to the poor, is chaotic good- he believed laws were good except when they caused poor people to suffer compared to the rich, so he went on his own, personal morality and did something about it.
http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html
Does Batman let people, or the police, tell him what to do? No? Then he isn't lawful good. He doesn't let the mayor or the city government tell him what to do, either. That's pretty much a hallmark of Chaotic Good. Superman is Lawful Good, and Batman very rarely agrees totally with Superman.
Complete scoundrel sourcebook (3.5e). I'd take a screenshot but i donno the rules about posting images and such on the forum (+ where would i upload it?). It's page 8.
Batman and Indiana Jones are both lawful good.
Besides, lawful good characters are meticulous and plan to the extreme. Chaotic characters wing it.
Batman is the physical god of planning, contingencies and overplanning. It wouldn't fit for him to be chaotic.
EDIT: Also, cooperating with law enforcement is lawful behaviour, simply because he doesn't work "for" the police doesnt make him chaotic. The idea that only a person who follows orders can be lawful is grossly oversimplified. Otherwise you'd never have lawful good kings (they dont follow orders) and bounty hunters (typically chaotic or neutral) would be lawful.
A lawful good king believes in order and laws which are fair and serve the greater good. A paladin would share this sentiment, but if ordered by his liege to kill a child he would not, because clearly his duty/law to obey his noble liege in that instance has become retarded and his own code (ie the higher ideal) is what the paladin adheres to.
Of course, a chaotic good person wouldn't kill a child either (probably), but the difference is the chaotic good person would probably tell the noble liege to eff off, maybe stab him in the face too.