Actually all of the Indiana Jones movies (besides Temple of Doom) started with his professor buddy coming and telling him that the university wants him to go and get these artifacts. That sounds like pretty firm permission to me. Or did you want there to be a lengthly debate scene in the movie where the university higher ups sit down with the countrys government and iron out an agreement over the excavation particulars? Sounds riveting.
In doom he was asked by the village elder to return their sacred spirit stones and he did. Again, permission.
Cops beating confessions out of prisoners sadly does happen, every day, in countries around the world. Such as Russia, where it is completely legal to do so. So the cops using a technique that is available under the law is unlawful? No, it's not particularly good, but it isn't unlawful behavior. As I stated earlier you seem to have a tendancy to equate non-good behaviour with unlawful behaviour.
Whether he was looked down upon by his fellow archeologists is completely besides the point anyway. A supervillian might be looked down upon by his super villain peers because when he goes on his murdering rampages he likes to wear a pink flamingo costume. Does that make him any less chaotic evil than the rest of them?
I'm sure a movie of a guy asking for permissions and taking detailed notes of his findings would have been a *great* movie.
About Batman, I could see him being perhaps neutral, but chaotic? No way. The Joker IS chaotic, in his own words he's just a dog Chasing cars - no big plans, no foreseeing, just acting by instinct and going with whatever comes up. Do you think he would have cared if Harvey Dent died and Rachel was disfigured instead? Not at all. Those are chaotic personality traits and they are as far from Batman as you could possibly get.
I think the sheer amount of intelligent debate in this thread demonstrates the inherent problems with the 2E alignment system more than anything. Personalities are often too complex to effectively shoe-horn onto a two axis system - which no doubt explains the later revisions. These arguments remind of the Donnie Darko Fear-Love-Lifeline scene:
@GoodSteve You seem to be arguing from a 3e perspective of "Lawful Good", not a 2e perspective. I have always been arguing from a 2e perspective- because that is what this thread has been about. In 2e, Lawful types followed the universal law, either to make things better for everyone (LG), because it's the law (LN) or to make things better for themselves (LE). Chaotic types followed their own moral code- which could in many places be the same as the universal law or moral code, but in other places, be different from it. Again, for the reasons: because the law gets in the way of making things better for everyone (CG), Because I feel like it (CN) or because I get to have fun ignoring and breaking the law, and it's better for me (CE).
Batman breaks laws to bring villains to justice. That's CG behavior in 2e. Indiana Jones breaks and bends laws to save artifacts- also CG behavior. It's the breaking and bending of the law that makes their behavior Chaotic Good.
@Xanthul A line like, "We want you to retrieve this artifact for us, we've already applied for and received the necessary permissions..." would have ruined the movie for you? A few extras in the background drawing artifacts and taking notes would seriously have ruined a movie for you?
LadyRhian's argument about Indy is that he's portrayed as using substandard methods of archaeology which amount to little more than stealing. Specifically she noted King Tut (aka Tutankhamun) who was discovered using current aka modern archaeological techniques in 1922. Thus begins the modern period of archaeology. Since this time it has been habit to follow certain steps not only for preserving the artifact but also that surrounds the artifact(s) themselves to allow for greater understanding.
Indian Jones (using the beginning of Last Crusade as a marker) is in the Boy Scouts between prolly the ages of 13 and 15 during the start of this film. Furthermore, scouting doesn't come over to America until 1910 at the earliest. In fact, according to our friendly wikipedia, here is the most pertinent information:
Scout: 1912 (Intro to Last Crusade) Temple of Doom: 1935 Raiders of the Lost Ark: 1936 Last Crusade: 1938
Therefore, at most Indy is a professor 13 years AFTER King Tut was found. That said sometimes these things take time to matriculate throughout the system but by 13 years he should have at least heard about it.
The reason this is important is because @Goodsteve, you mentioned that would a cop be unlawful if he didn't fingerprint you. Speficially you noted that if they hadn't fingerprinted you before fingerprinting were that cops actions unlawful now. No usually they aren't, however the case can be reheard due to evidence. (Sorry oops went on a tangeant for a second).
However in this case 'fingerprinting' had already been discovered, thus the 'cops' (Aka Indy's) actions would have been viewed as unlawful.
One of the biggest things I've seen here is that ignoring their codes, the other argument made for Batman and Indiana Jones both being lawful good is that they're both very disciplined. This also has to be taken into account (remember Monks have to be lawful due to the amount of discipline their arts require and Kensai either have to be lawful or simply cannot be chaotic (don't remember), also because of the discipline their arts require).
I view Batman with the same lens I view Iron Man. They are both almost unquestionably good. Both work with particular organizations (Batman = Gotham Police Dept; Iron Man = Air Force and AVENGERS), but in the end, their personalities are closer to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good than to lawful. They both want to improve the society they live in, however, they feel that societies rules and regulations inhibit good or justice rather than promote it. Thus they go beyond the law (not necessarily killing, but there are definite instances where batman if he were a police officer would have been charged with excessive use of force. If we want to use movie examples, the end of The Dark Knight when he leaves Joker hanging waiting for someone else to retrieve him. Furthermore in the same movie also at the end, we see Batman willingly lying in order to promote a better society and further Dent's original dream. These are not usually seen as aspects of a lawful character. Leaving Joker hanging is a blatant violation of Joker's rights (Being both Cruel and Unusual and Excessive) and then lying when it comes to Dent.
I remember once reading that a lawful good paladin (I believe it was Helm or Torm), should try to change the laws from within, via election or other means, rather than act against them, EVEN if they were bad laws. The reason for this is that it further promotes lawful behavior by doing it this way rather than acting against them.
(Please note that for simplicity's sake, I focused solely on Batman for my argument and did not include Bruce Wayne into the mix who does try to fix society from the inside).
Anyway I find that:
Indy is Neutral Good Batman is Chaotic (with Bruce Wayne leaning towards lawful)
Unfortunately I think this is a Psuedo D&D Version of Godwin's Law.
Except rather than the longer the thread the higher chance of at least one mention of Nazi's it reads:
"When bringing up alignment in the presence of D&D players, the longer the thread goes the higher probability (reaching 1) that the conversation turns to the alignment of famous Superheroes, particularly Batman"
Also I think Minsc and Viconia fit, but that might be cause I never felt a need to argue with em. My big gripes are with Jaheria and Faldorn but I realize they had to be kept that way since druids could only be TN in AD&D
@Dragonspear Thank you! As I have said (in another post) that Indiana floats somewhere closer to Neutral Good than Chaotic Good for me, but Batman, yeah, he's pretty chaotic good. This doesn't mean anything bad about him. It's just the way he operates. And Modern Archaeology has been around, in some form or another, since about 1857 (I may be misremembering), The first modern archaeological dig was done by Augustus Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers in England in the late 1800s. Before that, Archaeology had been about grabbing the expensive artifacts (treasure hunting, essentially), but Pitt-Rivers catalogued everything and trained his diggers so they preserved all the evidence and recorded it.
@GoodSteve You seem to be arguing from a 3e perspective of "Lawful Good", not a 2e perspective. I have always been arguing from a 2e perspective- because that is what this thread has been about. In 2e, Lawful types followed the universal law, either to make things better for everyone (LG), because it's the law (LN) or to make things better for themselves (LE). Chaotic types followed their own moral code- which could in many places be the same as the universal law or moral code, but in other places, be different from it. Again, for the reasons: because the law gets in the way of making things better for everyone (CG), Because I feel like it (CN) or because I get to have fun ignoring and breaking the law, and it's better for me (CE).
Batman breaks laws to bring villains to justice. That's CG behavior in 2e. Indiana Jones breaks and bends laws to save artifacts- also CG behavior. It's the breaking and bending of the law that makes their behavior Chaotic Good.
@Xanthul A line like, "We want you to retrieve this artifact for us, we've already applied for and received the necessary permissions..." would have ruined the movie for you? A few extras in the background drawing artifacts and taking notes would seriously have ruined a movie for you?
2E description of Lawful alignment (emphasis mine, this has been posted before and seemingly disregarded):
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.
This definition of a Lawful alignment clearly leaves much room for a Lawful character who doesn't exactly mesh on all the same levels as a kingdom/city/country's laws. You don't have to be the D.A. in order to be lawful. Batman and Indiana Jones can break laws that aren't "FAIR AND JUST" and still be of a lawful alignment.
So, with this fresh in our minds lets take a look at Indiana Jones. Does Indiana Jones typically follow order and obey the rules? Yes. Not all the time but as the description says it's the belief that they "should" not that they "always must, or else welcome to chaosville population: YOU!"
Does Indiana Jones typically tell the truth, obey the law, and care about all living things? Yes. He tells the truth unless it would be foolish to do so and I cannot think of a single time in any of the films that you see him blatantly break the law without a good reason. Movie cops break the law all the time, keep in mind. How iconic is the "I have to confiscate this vehicle" scene which is genuinely against the law. He also obviously cares for all living things. In Temple of Doom when the one evil cultist slaver gets his sash caught in the rock crushing conveyor belt thing he does everything in his power to save his life despite the fact that the slaver just beat the crap out of him. He also warns Beloch (SP?) and a slew of NAZI's not to open the Ark once he realizes that it will kill them all. He's got the good health of slavers and Nazi's on his mind...
Does Indiana Jones keep his promises? In Temple of Doom he promises to save the village children and bring back their spirit stones. He could of simply released the children and sold the stones but he didn't, which is an obvious indicator that he isn't a "thief" as was argued earlier.
Back on a general note the part where it says "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." This could mean that a Lawful Good character could slay someone who was say possessed by an evil spirit because the risk of them harming the rest of the town is too great to be ignored. You're taking away someone's rights to life and liberty but as per the 2E Lawful alignment description it is fair game since it protects the group as opposed to the individual. So to say that Batman working as a Vigilante to (DARK KNIGHT RISES SPOILER!!!!) stop Bane from nuking gotham city makes him unlawful is false as per the 2E definition of the alignment.
My point is two-fold: 1) Alignments aren't as black and white as some people make them out to be.
Hoar asks they follow the spirit. not the letter. it's explicitly stated because i think Hoar is smart nuff to realise that the letter of the law can be retarded (because lawful evil people can use it to escape VENGANCE ie JUSTICE). Course LE people can follow hoar aswell, because they might be excessively cruel, eg torture instead of a dignified death (which is evil, atleast in this context, but so long as the evil character sees it as justified and proportionate then it's all good, atleast to hoar).
Lawful = follows the spirit AND/OR the letter of the law. Lawful Evil characters i would think tend do follow the letter and ignore the spirit.
I have a large amount of respect for your opinions usually @LadyRhian, however in this I disagree with most of what you have to say about alignments. As others have mentioned you seem to have very fixed definitions of what is lawful and what is not, failure to adhere to every precept of your version of lawful seems to thus invalidate that person from being a lawful alignment which I think is wrong.
Good people can do evil things, lawful people can do chaotic things, evil people can do good things and chaotic people can do lawful things. Crossovers in perceived alignment boundaries don't automatically invalidate you from that alignment. As mentioned by other posters there are a thousand variations of grey between your black and white definitions which you seem to be ignoring.
As far as I'm concerned the only sensible way to understand the Law vs. Chaos axis is to see it as a continuum of what guides people internally in real life:
Strict adherence to an internalized code of behavior/set of principles, and consistency of behavior, accordingly, at the Lawful end...
and
decision-making and action arising from more transitory things such as emotions, personal affinities, wishes, wants, whims, idiosyncrasies, etc., on the Chaotic end.
But it is a continuum, after all, and that means one falls somewhere within the specturm--rarely if ever extremely all the way at one end. And even for every individual there will be a range along that continuum where they remain most of the time. It's a matter then of whether one tends to fall toward one side of the spectrum or the other, most of the time. And sure enough, I think people consistently do.
Aaah, but you can look at your "internal alignment" a number of ways, too.
Isn't ultimately every conscious decision you make because of your wants and feelings? Even with stone-hard principles it is still you who wants to abide by them (or feels compelled to at least), essentially just making them a rationalization of your actions.
Or we can go even deeper - it is biology and chemistry dictating your actions, which you physically cannot go against, period. Even your DNA has a major impact on personality and thought processes and that's as close to a code as you can get.
I think I said it in another thread already but - I believe the opposite of you @Lemernis, that alignment is to be looked at externally as a loose model of societal behavior (though again it fails at some point). I've arrived at this through looking at the purpose of alignment as a d&d stat/tool. I believe it's just a quick reference to place someone in a society, i.e. to give him an expected personality; modus operandi when making decisions, if you will. Mostly to help the DM perhaps.
To put things into a more tangible form: In Planescape: Torment, you start as true neutral and change your alignment gradually through your actions. Picking an alignment would just be skipping that part. Actually the ending would suggest that you were judged based on your whole life, regardless of your condition and the nature of your first life. Another game that made me think about alignments a bit is Mask of the Betrayer, an expansion for NWN2. You are constantly prodded into your alignment preconceptions, from your companions to the world and the deities themselves (might be the only game where I actually felt I met one).
So, yes, I think debating alignments is like debating chicken intestines, but I still do it, I wonder why .
P.S. Batman's real alignment is "I'm the goddamn batman".
Aaah, but you can look at your "internal alignment" a number of ways, too... I think I said it in another thread already but - I believe the opposite of you @Lemernis, that alignment is to be looked at externally as a loose model of societal behavior (though again it fails at some point).
The problem is that the 'law of the land' varies tremendously from location to location throughout the Realms, which is so culturally and societally diverse. Otherwise I would agree that external order would be the better measure. But that yardstick is way too fraught with inconsistencies to work in the Forgotten Realms, in my humble opinion.
Hmm, I slept on all this last night, and I'm still thinking about it. There's certainly a lot of food for thought here. It's a stimulating hypothetical discussion.
I started to come around a bit more towards @LadyRhian's thinking on the Indiana Jones character. The guy would definitely not think twice about diobeying his superiors in the university political system if he thought they were wrong. And he is a bit of a maverick in the archaeology field. Of course, if he followed all the rules, it would have been a boring character and a boring movie. But I guess @LadyRhian does have a good argument that Indy doesn't really fit a "lawful" alignment. So neutral good or full-out chaotic good fits here.
What I objected to most was the characterization of Indy as a "little more than a thief", which struck me as very pejorative and unfair. I would have considered more carefully if @LadyRhian had said "Indy has a rogue's skill set, and a rogue's personality, so he seems pretty clearly to have 'rogue' as his character class". And isn't there some kind of (arguably arbitrary) rule in some of the editions of D&D that says rogues can't be lawful in alignment?
I still disagree about Batman though. Mr. Wayne believes in law and order over anything else. You'd have a stronger argument to say he's lawful neutral or even lawful evil than to say he's chaotic about anything. He is precise, obssessed with planning and contingencies, methodical, obssessed with the idea of justice, at genius-level orderedness in mind and thinking. The very definition of "lawful" for me.
@LadyRhian, I think that the crux of our disagreement is on the definition of "lawful". You seem a lot more literalistic in your interpretation of it than I am. For me, it has less to do with actual law and more to do with "order". Its opposite would not be "lawbreaking" but rather "randomness". Lawful characters deplore allowing randomness to control the outcomes of things. They may or may not believe that the actual legal system of their society is the best way to produce order. So I and others here have a bit more flexible definition. Your definition which hangs on service to the legal system of the society (if I understand you correctly), is included in mine, but mine is not limited to it. Those kinds of characters (such as police officer heroes in fiction) are indeed lawful good, but there are a lot more kinds of characters than can still fit under the same umbrella, and to me, Batman is one of them.
As someone probably not as deeply versed in Batman lore but finding the conversation interesting, one of the issues I have with Batman being lawful is that he routinely engages in behavior that he knows cannot be tolerated in society such as his unlawful surveillance of others, violence, breaking and entering, etc. All this is behavior which in its essence says, "I can do this because I am doing it for the right reasons (good) but I recognize that if others were allowed to behave this way that it would undermine good in society. Therefore, I am adopting the cape and going very expressly outside of the law and outside of society so I can run without the checks and legality of society and simultaneously be seen as an outlaw/vigilante so that the damage I do to the system is not as systemic as if I was working within it."
The whole lying about Harvey Dent aspect is another example of this. You can see that the lying is tearing LG Commissioner Gordon apart. He hates living a lie even if it is for the good of society and is on the edge of a knife as far as whether he will reveal the truth and undermine the good that has been done so as to clear up the lie. Bruce/Batman has no problem with the lie. He recognizes at the end of the day that it serves to benefit the people - just like Bruce Wayne's secret identity. He wouldn't let honesty get in the way of that good.
For Batman, the law and the system are only good for him in so far as they serve the good of the people. When the law is ineffective, he will completely disregard it and do things himself. When law gains traction and serves the good of the people, he will generally support it while preserving his flexibility to later go outside the law again as needed. (Such as going underground when Gotham's legal system gets effective while violating the law by doing things like cooking the books on his public company's financial records to conceal his "off the books" activities. He wouldn't endorse white collar financial fraud because that generally hurts society and innocent investors but doesn't hesitate to do it himself for the right reasons.)
I do agree that he is a very calculating and methodical person so I can't get behind a chaotic alignment for him either. Following his own personal code doesn't really move him to LG on the 2e scale, however, because someone following their own personal code religiously can be considered NG or CG in 2e.
At the end of the day, I see him as neutral good because the system and law is completely subordinate to doing what he thinks is good and he will disregard it or embrace to the extent it serves that end.
Indeed. This is the nerdiest discussion I've heard since I sat next to two people debating which shades to paint their WWII vehicle minis based on the season, year and theater of deployment. I swear a fistfight was about to break out...
I reread the whole thread, and I have already contradicted myself in some of my statements, as I have been influenced to change my mind a couple of times by other posters.
I think that the character of Batman keeps coming up in debates about the D&D alignment system because he is impossible to peg into the system. He's too complicated, and he's had too many different incarnations and character/lore reboots over the years. So he winds up throwing a wrench into the system and making the whole D&D personality theory crash.
As others have said, the alignment system is supposed to just be a guideline to get your character started anyway, and not meant to be a straightjacket on character development.
Going back to the original thread intent where we were supposed to be talking about the Baldur's Gate characters specifically, I think that these characters are a little easier to pigeonhole, because they are not that well fleshed-out or developed, and they leave a lot up to the player's imagination. Sometimes their alignments as marked have only to do with 2E arbitrary character class restrictions. They make good examples that lots of different character personalities can fit into single alignment categories. There are way more than just seven types of people.
BTW, I was going to say the above in an edit to my last post, and the edit button isn't working all of a sudden. It's eating edits.
For Batman, the law and the system are only good for him in so far as they serve the good of the people. When the law is ineffective, he will completely disregard it and do things himself. When law gains traction and serves the good of the people, he will generally support it while preserving his flexibility to later go outside the law again as needed. At the end of the day, I see him as neutral good because the system and law is completely subordinate to doing what he thinks is good and he will disregard it or embrace to the extent it serves that end.
That would make him lawful no? because he seeks to institute a lawful system. If he were neutral, he wouldn't care if there was a lawful/systematic system or not, so long as things worked and people could have a good life. If he were chaotic, he would inherently dislike a lawful system because he would view it as the path to destruction/evil or in the very least ultimately restrictive of the greater good/freedoms.
His attitude to the law itself says lawful IMO, he isn't indifferent to it or just treat it as a means to an end. He genuinely cares about law and order and seeks to restore/institute a functional system. That speaks lawful to me, even though he must break the law to fix it (which is what a lawful good knight can also do if his country instituted a tyrannical and evil law).
In the same vein, luthor (which I view as the epitome as lawful evil) loves a lawful society and the institution, because he can use the law and the power from position as a powerful tool, plus he prob gets a kick from being a puppet master. He still breaks the law though, but its all planned out to further his goals of putting himself in charge (and therefore instituting his own rules). Contrast to Joker, who wouldn't give an arse about rules, and if he happened to be in charge his rule would be chaotic, random, etc.
tl;dr: Batman sees the value of a legal system and seeks to implement a functioning one, this screams lawful to me.
So much to take in... but here's a few points I'd like to comment on:
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 agree 100% - I've always been frustrated by the obvious inconsistencies in Jaheira's behavior especially in BG1. On a side note, I think it would've been a fitting touch if her alignment shifted to neutral or chaotic good after she turned her back on the Harpers in BG2.
I also felt Branwen's personality/alignment were similarly inconsistent. Branwen presents as a noble, heroic figure, who stood up to evil forces and paid the price by getting frozen in concrete. But if you remove her from the party while your rep is too high, she will declare, "You are no better then the Loki spawn I left behind!" and leave permanently - that's just absurd IMO. Branwen should also have been neutral good IMO.
I also don't think Garrick quite fits the "chaotic neutral" alignment, and should either be true neutral or maybe even chaotic good.
Viconia is defined as "evil" because she cares ultimately about only herself, and Charname if he can advance her status in the world.
People keep saying this, but I don't understand what this is based on (at least as far as BG1 is concerned).
All we know about Viconia in BG1 is that she split with her homeland, at great personal, financial, and emotional cost to herself, and which could likely result in her own death eventually (which is explicitly stated in her char bio). She now wanders alone in unfamiliar territory where she is an outcast and often victimized. There is little, if any, indication that she is purely out to "advance her status in the world." If anything, quite the opposite is true: she gave up on her status.
Besides, your description of Viconia could just as well (if not more aptly) apply to Safana, and she is listed as chaotic neutral. Based on what I've seen in both BG1 and BG2, I think Safana and Viconia should have their alignments switched (after all, Safana ultimately does sell you out to a pack of wolves in BG2 - Viconia never betrays you like that).
@belgarathmth: The problem with that assessment is that in her backstory, Viconia refused to cross certain lines in the pursuit of her power. Her exile was the direct result of refusing a course of action that, had she followed through, would have solidified her status within drow society. In effect, she gave up power and gained nothing in the exchange.
Exactly.
Nono. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean loyalty to THE LAW. It can be loyalty to a set of personal rules, or to a codex, as long as you stick to them.
This seems to have been addressed already, but lawful good DOES, in fact, mean loyalty to some form of higher governing body, rather than personal mores.
The definition of lawful good, from BG1 itself: "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."
@Seriales A Good character wouldn't kill for revenge. He'd turn the miscreant over to the authorities to punish, because the rule of law is good for all people.
This would certainly be true for a LAWFUL good char, but for ANY good char? I'm not sure I agree with that.
About Batman, I could see him being perhaps neutral, but chaotic? No way. The Joker IS chaotic, in his own words he's just a dog Chasing cars - no big plans, no foreseeing, just acting by instinct and going with whatever comes up. Do you think he would have cared if Harvey Dent died and Rachel was disfigured instead? Not at all. Those are chaotic personality traits and they are as far from Batman as you could possibly get.
I agree, Batman is NEUTRAL good. He's not lawful because he operates outside the law, even though for the collective good, and he's not chaotic either because he acts in a planned, methodical way.
As someone else touched on earlier, I think these alignments apply to the Batman world: Batman - Neutral good Commish Gordon - Lawful good Robert Wuhl's character in the original Batman movie would be chaotic good, I.e.: hastily runs into a crowd of villains with a makeshift gasmask, swinging a bat.
Sticking with the 1st Batman movie... Joker - chaotic evil Carl Grissom - neutral evil (i.e., connives to bring about pre-Joker Napier's downfall as a means of achieving his own ends) Lt. Eckhardt - lawful evil (sets up a sting operation so he can kill Napier legally).
except it's officially recognized that batman is lawful good?
Aye, but the main point of this thread is that "official" descriptions are not always accurate. ;-)
I think Anomen's subplot in BG2 is a very good example of what is expected of certain alignments.
*** MAJOR SPOILERS ***
In order for Anomen to become lawful good (and thus gain acceptance into the Order of Radiant Heart) he must refuse all temptations to kill the murderers of his family, and allow the law to apprehend them and prosecute them legally. If at any point, Anomen departs from this and takes revenge on the murderers, his efforts to become lawful good will come undone. He will ultimately either become chaotic neutral (and then flip out on party members for no reason), or he will even kill himself.
Perhaps picking aligment at very beggining of the game makes sense as you belive that is the path you want to take with your character. But sometimes thing just work out differently and aligment should change according to ones actions ( seperate of reputation sistem). Maybe it makes sense in PnP, but system as they had it in kotor is much better on PC. Life isnt black and white, nor shades of grey and many choices in game reflect that. With that, evry time you open character sheet and aligment pops out that has absolutly nothing to do with your ingame choices, it just doesnt sit well with me. Yet at some turns you are either punished or rewarded becouse of your aligment... Ironiclly Chaotic Neutral is only sane choice to make if one already has to make that choice...best argument for that would be this entire thread.
Comments
In doom he was asked by the village elder to return their sacred spirit stones and he did. Again, permission.
Cops beating confessions out of prisoners sadly does happen, every day, in countries around the world. Such as Russia, where it is completely legal to do so. So the cops using a technique that is available under the law is unlawful? No, it's not particularly good, but it isn't unlawful behavior. As I stated earlier you seem to have a tendancy to equate non-good behaviour with unlawful behaviour.
Whether he was looked down upon by his fellow archeologists is completely besides the point anyway. A supervillian might be looked down upon by his super villain peers because when he goes on his murdering rampages he likes to wear a pink flamingo costume. Does that make him any less chaotic evil than the rest of them?
About Batman, I could see him being perhaps neutral, but chaotic? No way. The Joker IS chaotic, in his own words he's just a dog Chasing cars - no big plans, no foreseeing, just acting by instinct and going with whatever comes up. Do you think he would have cared if Harvey Dent died and Rachel was disfigured instead? Not at all. Those are chaotic personality traits and they are as far from Batman as you could possibly get.
Batman breaks laws to bring villains to justice. That's CG behavior in 2e. Indiana Jones breaks and bends laws to save artifacts- also CG behavior. It's the breaking and bending of the law that makes their behavior Chaotic Good.
@Xanthul A line like, "We want you to retrieve this artifact for us, we've already applied for and received the necessary permissions..." would have ruined the movie for you? A few extras in the background drawing artifacts and taking notes would seriously have ruined a movie for you?
@GoodSteve
@LadyRhian
@Lock
LadyRhian's argument about Indy is that he's portrayed as using substandard methods of archaeology which amount to little more than stealing. Specifically she noted King Tut (aka Tutankhamun) who was discovered using current aka modern archaeological techniques in 1922. Thus begins the modern period of archaeology. Since this time it has been habit to follow certain steps not only for preserving the artifact but also that surrounds the artifact(s) themselves to allow for greater understanding.
Indian Jones (using the beginning of Last Crusade as a marker) is in the Boy Scouts between prolly the ages of 13 and 15 during the start of this film. Furthermore, scouting doesn't come over to America until 1910 at the earliest. In fact, according to our friendly wikipedia, here is the most pertinent information:
Scout: 1912 (Intro to Last Crusade)
Temple of Doom: 1935
Raiders of the Lost Ark: 1936
Last Crusade: 1938
Therefore, at most Indy is a professor 13 years AFTER King Tut was found. That said sometimes these things take time to matriculate throughout the system but by 13 years he should have at least heard about it.
The reason this is important is because @Goodsteve, you mentioned that would a cop be unlawful if he didn't fingerprint you. Speficially you noted that if they hadn't fingerprinted you before fingerprinting were that cops actions unlawful now. No usually they aren't, however the case can be reheard due to evidence. (Sorry oops went on a tangeant for a second).
However in this case 'fingerprinting' had already been discovered, thus the 'cops' (Aka Indy's) actions would have been viewed as unlawful.
One of the biggest things I've seen here is that ignoring their codes, the other argument made for Batman and Indiana Jones both being lawful good is that they're both very disciplined. This also has to be taken into account (remember Monks have to be lawful due to the amount of discipline their arts require and Kensai either have to be lawful or simply cannot be chaotic (don't remember), also because of the discipline their arts require).
I view Batman with the same lens I view Iron Man. They are both almost unquestionably good. Both work with particular organizations (Batman = Gotham Police Dept; Iron Man = Air Force and AVENGERS), but in the end, their personalities are closer to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good than to lawful. They both want to improve the society they live in, however, they feel that societies rules and regulations inhibit good or justice rather than promote it. Thus they go beyond the law (not necessarily killing, but there are definite instances where batman if he were a police officer would have been charged with excessive use of force. If we want to use movie examples, the end of The Dark Knight when he leaves Joker hanging waiting for someone else to retrieve him. Furthermore in the same movie also at the end, we see Batman willingly lying in order to promote a better society and further Dent's original dream. These are not usually seen as aspects of a lawful character. Leaving Joker hanging is a blatant violation of Joker's rights (Being both Cruel and Unusual and Excessive) and then lying when it comes to Dent.
I remember once reading that a lawful good paladin (I believe it was Helm or Torm), should try to change the laws from within, via election or other means, rather than act against them, EVEN if they were bad laws. The reason for this is that it further promotes lawful behavior by doing it this way rather than acting against them.
(Please note that for simplicity's sake, I focused solely on Batman for my argument and did not include Bruce Wayne into the mix who does try to fix society from the inside).
Anyway I find that:
Indy is Neutral Good
Batman is Chaotic (with Bruce Wayne leaning towards lawful)
Too bad it's Batman and Indiana Jones now.
Unfortunately I think this is a Psuedo D&D Version of Godwin's Law.
Except rather than the longer the thread the higher chance of at least one mention of Nazi's it reads:
"When bringing up alignment in the presence of D&D players, the longer the thread goes the higher probability (reaching 1) that the conversation turns to the alignment of famous Superheroes, particularly Batman"
Also I think Minsc and Viconia fit, but that might be cause I never felt a need to argue with em. My big gripes are with Jaheria and Faldorn but I realize they had to be kept that way since druids could only be TN in AD&D
Ah, here's part of a site: http://library.thinkquest.org/J001645/mod.shtml
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.
This definition of a Lawful alignment clearly leaves much room for a Lawful character who doesn't exactly mesh on all the same levels as a kingdom/city/country's laws. You don't have to be the D.A. in order to be lawful. Batman and Indiana Jones can break laws that aren't "FAIR AND JUST" and still be of a lawful alignment.
So, with this fresh in our minds lets take a look at Indiana Jones. Does Indiana Jones typically follow order and obey the rules? Yes. Not all the time but as the description says it's the belief that they "should" not that they "always must, or else welcome to chaosville population: YOU!"
Does Indiana Jones typically tell the truth, obey the law, and care about all living things? Yes. He tells the truth unless it would be foolish to do so and I cannot think of a single time in any of the films that you see him blatantly break the law without a good reason. Movie cops break the law all the time, keep in mind. How iconic is the "I have to confiscate this vehicle" scene which is genuinely against the law. He also obviously cares for all living things. In Temple of Doom when the one evil cultist slaver gets his sash caught in the rock crushing conveyor belt thing he does everything in his power to save his life despite the fact that the slaver just beat the crap out of him. He also warns Beloch (SP?) and a slew of NAZI's not to open the Ark once he realizes that it will kill them all. He's got the good health of slavers and Nazi's on his mind...
Does Indiana Jones keep his promises? In Temple of Doom he promises to save the village children and bring back their spirit stones. He could of simply released the children and sold the stones but he didn't, which is an obvious indicator that he isn't a "thief" as was argued earlier.
Back on a general note the part where it says "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." This could mean that a Lawful Good character could slay someone who was say possessed by an evil spirit because the risk of them harming the rest of the town is too great to be ignored. You're taking away someone's rights to life and liberty but as per the 2E Lawful alignment description it is fair game since it protects the group as opposed to the individual. So to say that Batman working as a Vigilante to (DARK KNIGHT RISES SPOILER!!!!) stop Bane from nuking gotham city makes him unlawful is false as per the 2E definition of the alignment.
My point is two-fold: 1) Alignments aren't as black and white as some people make them out to be.
2) Indiana Jones is awesome..... and lawful good.
Just to clarify something as a fan of hoar...s
Hoar asks they follow the spirit. not the letter. it's explicitly stated because i think Hoar is smart nuff to realise that the letter of the law can be retarded (because lawful evil people can use it to escape VENGANCE ie JUSTICE). Course LE people can follow hoar aswell, because they might be excessively cruel, eg torture instead of a dignified death (which is evil, atleast in this context, but so long as the evil character sees it as justified and proportionate then it's all good, atleast to hoar).
Lawful = follows the spirit AND/OR the letter of the law.
Lawful Evil characters i would think tend do follow the letter and ignore the spirit.
Good people can do evil things, lawful people can do chaotic things, evil people can do good things and chaotic people can do lawful things. Crossovers in perceived alignment boundaries don't automatically invalidate you from that alignment. As mentioned by other posters there are a thousand variations of grey between your black and white definitions which you seem to be ignoring.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html
You don't have to be perfect at an alignment to be that alignment.
Strict adherence to an internalized code of behavior/set of principles, and consistency of behavior, accordingly, at the Lawful end...
and
decision-making and action arising from more transitory things such as emotions, personal affinities, wishes, wants, whims, idiosyncrasies, etc., on the Chaotic end.
But it is a continuum, after all, and that means one falls somewhere within the specturm--rarely if ever extremely all the way at one end. And even for every individual there will be a range along that continuum where they remain most of the time. It's a matter then of whether one tends to fall toward one side of the spectrum or the other, most of the time. And sure enough, I think people consistently do.
Isn't ultimately every conscious decision you make because of your wants and feelings? Even with stone-hard principles it is still you who wants to abide by them (or feels compelled to at least), essentially just making them a rationalization of your actions.
Or we can go even deeper - it is biology and chemistry dictating your actions, which you physically cannot go against, period. Even your DNA has a major impact on personality and thought processes and that's as close to a code as you can get.
I think I said it in another thread already but - I believe the opposite of you @Lemernis, that alignment is to be looked at externally as a loose model of societal behavior (though again it fails at some point). I've arrived at this through looking at the purpose of alignment as a d&d stat/tool. I believe it's just a quick reference to place someone in a society, i.e. to give him an expected personality; modus operandi when making decisions, if you will. Mostly to help the DM perhaps.
To put things into a more tangible form: In Planescape: Torment, you start as true neutral and change your alignment gradually through your actions. Picking an alignment would just be skipping that part. Actually the ending would suggest that you were judged based on your whole life, regardless of your condition and the nature of your first life.
Another game that made me think about alignments a bit is Mask of the Betrayer, an expansion for NWN2. You are constantly prodded into your alignment preconceptions, from your companions to the world and the deities themselves (might be the only game where I actually felt I met one).
So, yes, I think debating alignments is like debating chicken intestines, but I still do it, I wonder why
P.S. Batman's real alignment is "I'm the goddamn batman".
I started to come around a bit more towards @LadyRhian's thinking on the Indiana Jones character. The guy would definitely not think twice about diobeying his superiors in the university political system if he thought they were wrong. And he is a bit of a maverick in the archaeology field. Of course, if he followed all the rules, it would have been a boring character and a boring movie. But I guess @LadyRhian does have a good argument that Indy doesn't really fit a "lawful" alignment. So neutral good or full-out chaotic good fits here.
What I objected to most was the characterization of Indy as a "little more than a thief", which struck me as very pejorative and unfair. I would have considered more carefully if @LadyRhian had said "Indy has a rogue's skill set, and a rogue's personality, so he seems pretty clearly to have 'rogue' as his character class". And isn't there some kind of (arguably arbitrary) rule in some of the editions of D&D that says rogues can't be lawful in alignment?
I still disagree about Batman though. Mr. Wayne believes in law and order over anything else. You'd have a stronger argument to say he's lawful neutral or even lawful evil than to say he's chaotic about anything. He is precise, obssessed with planning and contingencies, methodical, obssessed with the idea of justice, at genius-level orderedness in mind and thinking. The very definition of "lawful" for me.
@LadyRhian, I think that the crux of our disagreement is on the definition of "lawful". You seem a lot more literalistic in your interpretation of it than I am. For me, it has less to do with actual law and more to do with "order". Its opposite would not be "lawbreaking" but rather "randomness". Lawful characters deplore allowing randomness to control the outcomes of things. They may or may not believe that the actual legal system of their society is the best way to produce order. So I and others here have a bit more flexible definition. Your definition which hangs on service to the legal system of the society (if I understand you correctly), is included in mine, but mine is not limited to it. Those kinds of characters (such as police officer heroes in fiction) are indeed lawful good, but there are a lot more kinds of characters than can still fit under the same umbrella, and to me, Batman is one of them.
The whole lying about Harvey Dent aspect is another example of this. You can see that the lying is tearing LG Commissioner Gordon apart. He hates living a lie even if it is for the good of society and is on the edge of a knife as far as whether he will reveal the truth and undermine the good that has been done so as to clear up the lie. Bruce/Batman has no problem with the lie. He recognizes at the end of the day that it serves to benefit the people - just like Bruce Wayne's secret identity. He wouldn't let honesty get in the way of that good.
For Batman, the law and the system are only good for him in so far as they serve the good of the people. When the law is ineffective, he will completely disregard it and do things himself. When law gains traction and serves the good of the people, he will generally support it while preserving his flexibility to later go outside the law again as needed. (Such as going underground when Gotham's legal system gets effective while violating the law by doing things like cooking the books on his public company's financial records to conceal his "off the books" activities. He wouldn't endorse white collar financial fraud because that generally hurts society and innocent investors but doesn't hesitate to do it himself for the right reasons.)
I do agree that he is a very calculating and methodical person so I can't get behind a chaotic alignment for him either. Following his own personal code doesn't really move him to LG on the 2e scale, however, because someone following their own personal code religiously can be considered NG or CG in 2e.
At the end of the day, I see him as neutral good because the system and law is completely subordinate to doing what he thinks is good and he will disregard it or embrace to the extent it serves that end.
That's a good thing.
I think that the character of Batman keeps coming up in debates about the D&D alignment system because he is impossible to peg into the system. He's too complicated, and he's had too many different incarnations and character/lore reboots over the years. So he winds up throwing a wrench into the system and making the whole D&D personality theory crash.
As others have said, the alignment system is supposed to just be a guideline to get your character started anyway, and not meant to be a straightjacket on character development.
Going back to the original thread intent where we were supposed to be talking about the Baldur's Gate characters specifically, I think that these characters are a little easier to pigeonhole, because they are not that well fleshed-out or developed, and they leave a lot up to the player's imagination. Sometimes their alignments as marked have only to do with 2E arbitrary character class restrictions. They make good examples that lots of different character personalities can fit into single alignment categories. There are way more than just seven types of people.
BTW, I was going to say the above in an edit to my last post, and the edit button isn't working all of a sudden. It's eating edits.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for that picture to appear.
If he were neutral, he wouldn't care if there was a lawful/systematic system or not, so long as things worked and people could have a good life.
If he were chaotic, he would inherently dislike a lawful system because he would view it as the path to destruction/evil or in the very least ultimately restrictive of the greater good/freedoms.
His attitude to the law itself says lawful IMO, he isn't indifferent to it or just treat it as a means to an end. He genuinely cares about law and order and seeks to restore/institute a functional system.
That speaks lawful to me, even though he must break the law to fix it (which is what a lawful good knight can also do if his country instituted a tyrannical and evil law).
In the same vein, luthor (which I view as the epitome as lawful evil) loves a lawful society and the institution, because he can use the law and the power from position as a powerful tool, plus he prob gets a kick from being a puppet master.
He still breaks the law though, but its all planned out to further his goals of putting himself in charge (and therefore instituting his own rules).
Contrast to Joker, who wouldn't give an arse about rules, and if he happened to be in charge his rule would be chaotic, random, etc.
tl;dr: Batman sees the value of a legal system and seeks to implement a functioning one, this screams lawful to me.
Oh no! I've created a monster here, LOL!
So much to take in... but here's a few points I'd like to comment on: I agree 100% - I've always been frustrated by the obvious inconsistencies in Jaheira's behavior especially in BG1. On a side note, I think it would've been a fitting touch if her alignment shifted to neutral or chaotic good after she turned her back on the Harpers in BG2.
I also felt Branwen's personality/alignment were similarly inconsistent. Branwen presents as a noble, heroic figure, who stood up to evil forces and paid the price by getting frozen in concrete. But if you remove her from the party while your rep is too high, she will declare, "You are no better then the Loki spawn I left behind!" and leave permanently - that's just absurd IMO. Branwen should also have been neutral good IMO.
I also don't think Garrick quite fits the "chaotic neutral" alignment, and should either be true neutral or maybe even chaotic good. People keep saying this, but I don't understand what this is based on (at least as far as BG1 is concerned).
All we know about Viconia in BG1 is that she split with her homeland, at great personal, financial, and emotional cost to herself, and which could likely result in her own death eventually (which is explicitly stated in her char bio). She now wanders alone in unfamiliar territory where she is an outcast and often victimized. There is little, if any, indication that she is purely out to "advance her status in the world." If anything, quite the opposite is true: she gave up on her status.
Besides, your description of Viconia could just as well (if not more aptly) apply to Safana, and she is listed as chaotic neutral. Based on what I've seen in both BG1 and BG2, I think Safana and Viconia should have their alignments switched (after all, Safana ultimately does sell you out to a pack of wolves in BG2 - Viconia never betrays you like that).
Exactly.
This seems to have been addressed already, but lawful good DOES, in fact, mean loyalty to some form of higher governing body, rather than personal mores.
The definition of lawful good, from BG1 itself: "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."
This would certainly be true for a LAWFUL good char, but for ANY good char? I'm not sure I agree with that.
I agree, Batman is NEUTRAL good. He's not lawful because he operates outside the law, even though for the collective good, and he's not chaotic either because he acts in a planned, methodical way.
As someone else touched on earlier, I think these alignments apply to the Batman world:
Batman - Neutral good
Commish Gordon - Lawful good
Robert Wuhl's character in the original Batman movie would be chaotic good, I.e.: hastily runs into a crowd of villains with a makeshift gasmask, swinging a bat.
Sticking with the 1st Batman movie...
Joker - chaotic evil
Carl Grissom - neutral evil (i.e., connives to bring about pre-Joker Napier's downfall as a means of achieving his own ends)
Lt. Eckhardt - lawful evil (sets up a sting operation so he can kill Napier legally).
Aye, but the main point of this thread is that "official" descriptions are not always accurate. ;-)
*** MAJOR SPOILERS ***
In order for Anomen to become lawful good (and thus gain acceptance into the Order of Radiant Heart) he must refuse all temptations to kill the murderers of his family, and allow the law to apprehend them and prosecute them legally. If at any point, Anomen departs from this and takes revenge on the murderers, his efforts to become lawful good will come undone. He will ultimately either become chaotic neutral (and then flip out on party members for no reason), or he will even kill himself.