Beast Wars Moral Alignment Test

[The Master Meglomaniac]

What is the moral alignment of the following Beast Wars characters:

Optimus Primal

Rhinox

Rattrap

Cheetor

Dinobot

Silverbolt

Depthcharge

Tigertron

Megatron

Inferno

Blackarachnia

Quickstrike

Waspinator

Tarantulas

Rampage

[Rod G]

What is the moral alignment of the following Beast Wars characters:

Optimus Primal

Rhinox

Rattrap

Cheetor

Dinobot

Silverbolt

Depthcharge

Tigertron

Megatron

Inferno

Blackarachnia

Quickstrike

Waspinator

Tarantulas

Rampage

Don't forget Airrazor!

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Optimus Primal - Lawful Good

Rhinox - Lawful Good

Rattrap - Chaotic Neutral

Cheetor - Chaotic Good

Dinobot - Lawful Neutral

Silverbolt - Neutral Good

Depthcharge - Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral

Tigertron -Neutral Good

Megatron - Lawful Evil

Inferno - Lawful Evil

Blackarachnia - Chaotic Neutral

Quickstrike -Chaotic Evil

Waspinator - True Neutral? He's hard.

Tarantulas - Neutral Evil

Rampage - Chaotic Evil


What's that? Responding to a thread that's five years old? Damn straight! Not sure how alignments qualify as a "rumble" though.

[Ant Crown]

Optimus Primal - Lawful Good

Rhinox - Lawful Good

Rattrap - Chaotic Neutral

Cheetor - Chaotic Good

Dinobot - Lawful Neutral

Silverbolt - Neutral Good

Depthcharge - Chaotic Good/Chaotic Neutral

Tigertron -Neutral Good

Megatron - Lawful Evil

Inferno - Lawful Evil

Blackarachnia - Chaotic Neutral

Quickstrike -Chaotic Evil

Waspinator - True Neutral? He's hard.

Tarantulas - Neutral Evil

Rampage - Chaotic Evil


What's that? Responding to a thread that's five years old? Damn straight! Not sure how alignments qualify as a "rumble" though.

Meh, we get all sorts including this gem.

Welcome to the Board.

[yeoman]

Rattrap - Chaotic Good. When it comes down to it, he'll still make personal sacrifices. He just whines about doing so.


Cheetor - Starts Lawful Good, slides to neutral or chaotic in season 3 and back to lawful for the end of Beast Machines.

Dinobot - Starts Lawful Evil, slides to Lawful Neautral and is Lawful Good by "Code of Hero."

Silverbolt - Lawful good throguh and through. No one with that rigid a code of personal ethics is anything but Lawful.


Waspinator - Neutral Evil. He joined up with Megatron in the first place and was his most loyal supporter until Inferno showed up.

[Ant Crown]

Rattrap - Chaotic Good. When it comes down to it, he'll still make personal sacrifices. He just whines about doing so.


Cheetor - Starts Lawful Good, slides to neutral or chaotic in season 3 and back to lawful for the end of Beast Machines.

Dinobot - Starts Lawful Evil, slides to Lawful Neautral and is Lawful Good by "Code of Hero."

Silverbolt - Lawful good throguh and through. No one with that rigid a code of personal ethics is anything but Lawful.


Waspinator - Neutral Evil. He joined up with Megatron in the first place and was his most loyal supporter until Inferno showed up.

I thought Silverbolt did a few disobey orders during his tenure.

[yeoman]

I thought Silverbolt did a few disobey orders during his tenure.

Didn't they pretty much all involve Blackarachnia though?

And breaking a rule here or there doesn't stop one from being Lawful Good. It's when you do it as much as you do obey that makes one Neutral Good.

[Sound Silence]

I thought Silverbolt did a few disobey orders during his tenure.

That was him being stupid and thinking his code of chivalry and Blackarachnia were more important than what Prime thought.

[yeoman]

That was him being stupid and thinking his code of chivalry and Blackarachnia were more important than what Prime thought.

To be fair, Primal's been wrong before and Blackarachnia has boobs.

And, hey, dude was the first transformer to get to make out with his girlfriend on screen.

Also, without him Blackarachnia would never have defected and Megatron would have won. So, dude was totally right.

[lonewolf23k]

Blackarachnia starts out Neutral Evil, goes Neutral after falling for Silverbolt, then eventually becomes Neutral Good by the end of Beast Wars.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Rattrap - Chaotic Good. When it comes down to it, he'll still make personal sacrifices. He just whines about doing so.A Chaotic Neutral person will make personal sacrifices to an extent.

A key quote for Chaotic Neutral that I read is: ""People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." That's Rattrap to a tee. Does Rattrap want only good, nice things for all innocent people? Sure. But he's not going to risk his tail just so everything can be sunshine and butterflies for everybody. He's not fighting for idealistic reasons - he's fighting so that he and his friends can get out of this mess in one piece. The Chaotic aspect, obviously, comes from his general contempt for rules or authority.

So, yes, he'd sacrifice himself for the people he cares about, but I don't think he would sacrifice himself for some stranger just because it's the right thing to do. I just saw the pilot recently and he refuses to even help Cheetor because he might get shot. He becomes less of a jerk, later on, I know. And certainly, by even the end of Season 1 he'd easily risk his life for Cheetor. But for a stranger? I have my doubts.

Even his desire for the advancement of the Maximals and destruction of the Preds, doesn't seem to be about right and wrong but because he's inherently prejudiced against Predacons.


Cheetor - Starts Lawful Good, slides to neutral or chaotic in season 3 and back to lawful for the end of Beast Machines.See, I think Cheetor's Chaotic Good from the get go (maybe sliding to Neutral or Lawful Good in Beast Machines)

The first season is filled to the brim of examples of Cheetor wanting to do the right thing but wanting to do it his own way and not how Optimus or Rhinox or anyone tells him to. He positively revelled in disobeying authority because he was sure he knew better. In fact, sternly telling Cheetor not to do something is a pretty good way to get him to do it.

Seems like Chaotic Good to me.



Silverbolt - Lawful good throguh and through. No one with that rigid a code of personal ethics is anything but Lawful.There are few Maximals who disobey rules more than Silverbolt. Rattrap, Depth Charge... and that's about it. You don't usually even see Dinobot disobey rules as much as Silverbolt. (He'll switch sides, but whatever side he's on, he'll do what they say.) I know Silverbolt seems like a Paladin archetype, but his ethics aren't quite the same.

A Lawful Good character would have just accepted it when he was told to stay away from Blackarachnia, or just accepted it when he was told not to interfere with Transmutate. But Silverbolt's more concerned about doing the right thing than doing what his commanding officer tells him to do. It's what caused him to defect from Megatron in the first place.

Obeying the rules is only something Silverbolt cares about if they're in line with what he believes. They often are, so there's no problem. But when they're not, he doesn't even consider them anymore. I think almost every single episode in which Silverbolt had a main character role, involved him disobeying a rule for the cause of justice.


Blackarachnia starts out Neutral Evil, goes Neutral after falling for Silverbolt, then eventually becomes Neutral Good by the end of Beast Wars. I don't agree with that. I think she begins Chaotic Neutral and ends Chaotic Neutral. She's always about fulfilling her desires and nothing else, but it's just that those desires change. But even at the end she adores "being a bad girl" and breaking rules and causing troubles. I mean, maybe you can make the argument that she's Chaotic Good at the end of the series, but even still I don't know.

Beast Machines is a different matter, she's probably Neutral or Chaotic Good there. They're almost all different in Beast Machines.


Waspinator - Neutral Evil. He joined up with Megatron in the first place and was his most loyal supporter until Inferno showed up.Scorponok was the really loyal one originally. Waspinator was never that loyal. He wasn't blatantly treacherous like Tarantulas and Terrorsaur, but he did mutter under his breath about how he had plans.

He seems to to take no delight in anything evil, and obviously he winds up quitting the Predacons because he's sick of having to be evil. I think he's neutral because he often tends to make decisions based on what will keep him from being scrapped... which never works out. As for joining Megatron... he's a Predacon by birth, so what was he supposed to do?

[Nik Hasta]

Rhinox started out as Lawful Good and then became sort of... Neutral Evil...(?) in Beast Machines.

[yeoman]

[QUOTE=SlyFoxDeveraux;10507344
There are few Maximals who disobey rules more than Silverbolt. Rattrap, Depth Charge... and that's about it. You don't usually even see Dinobot disobey rules as much as Silverbolt. (He'll switch sides, but whatever side he's on, he'll do what they say.) I know Silverbolt seems like a Paladin archetype, but his ethics aren't quite the same.

A Lawful Good character would have just accepted it when he was told to stay away from Blackarachnia, or just accepted it when he was told not to interfere with Transmutate. But Silverbolt's more concerned about doing the right thing than doing what his commanding officer tells him to do. It's what caused him to defect from Megatron in the first place.

Obeying the rules is only something Silverbolt cares about if they're in line with what he believes. [/QUOTE]


And finding the balance between Law and Good is something every Lawful Good character has to do. Some side more towards law, some more towards good. Silverbolt tends to land more on the good side.

His entire attitude towards disobeying orders RE: Blackarachnia was that he felt she was redeemable, and that through his actions he could bring her around to the side of good.

[yeoman]

Rhinox started out as Lawful Good and then became sort of... Neutral Evil...(?) in Beast Machines.


We don't discuss the characterization issues between Beast Wars and Beast Machines. And, note, I actually like Beast Machines more than the average Transformers fan.

Well, once I compartmentalized it in my mind as something wholly different than Beast Wars.


Edit: And to be fair to the writers on that one, there were some strong hints that his Vehicon repregramming was driving the Rhinox bus in season 1, just like Black Arachnia's predacon shell programming influenced their actions in Beast Wars (Inferno and Quickstrike were just nuts).

[chilled monkey]

Edit: And to be fair to the writers on that one, there were some strong hints that his Vehicon repregramming was driving the Rhinox bus in season 1, just like Black Arachnia's predacon shell programming influenced their actions in Beast Wars (Inferno and Quickstrike were just nuts).

Beg your pardon, but not quite. In Inferno's case, his personality was due to his beast mode completely over-riding his logic circuits (presumably because the ant instincts were too strong).

Quickstrike, yeah, he was just crazy.

No offence, but I find this "lawful good/neutral good" concept a little hard to grasp.

I understand stuff like Joker is chaotic evil (obvious), Palpatine is lawful evil (wants to bring order to the galaxy and sees himself as the best guy for the job), Jack Sparrow is chaotic neutral (cares nothing for law and authority but doesn't take pleasure in hurting others) etc, but "lawful good/neutral good" seems hard to grasp. I don't see the major distinction.

As I see it, any good person basically upholds law as long as it's just law. If it's an unjust law, then a good person should not obey it.

[yeoman]

Beg your pardon, but not quite. In Inferno's case, his personality was due to his beast mode completely over-riding his logic circuits (presumably because the ant instincts were too strong).

Quickstrike, yeah, he was just crazy.

Eh, it's all crazy in my book. Whether it's from Beast Mode programming or.... why ever Quickstrike is crazy...


No offence, but I find this "lawful good/neutral good" concept a little hard to grasp.

I understand stuff like Joker is chaotic evil (obvious), Palpatine is lawful evil (wants to bring order to the galaxy and sees himself as the best guy for the job), Jack Sparrow is chaotic neutral (cares nothing for law and authority but doesn't take pleasure in hurting others) etc, but "lawful good/neutral good" seems hard to grasp. I don't see the major distinction.

As I see it, any good person basically upholds law as long as it's just law. If it's an unjust law, then a good person should not obey it.

The difference between Lawful Good and both Lawful Neautral and Lawful Good can often be a little hazy, because ultimately a lawful good person has to choose which is more important to him when they conflict the way a Lawful Evil person never has to.

I always see them as someone that pursues upholding both whenever possible.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

We don't discuss the characterization issues between Beast Wars and Beast Machines. And, note, I actually like Beast Machines more than the average Transformers fan.

Well, once I compartmentalized it in my mind as something wholly different than Beast Wars.


Edit: And to be fair to the writers on that one, there were some strong hints that his Vehicon repregramming was driving the Rhinox bus in season 1The Vehicon programming definitely factored in, because after Rhinox died and Optimus saw him in the Matrix, he was back to his old self and was mournful that he hadn't been embracing the true nature of his spark. Rhinox's characterization isn't one that bothers me because of this. Megatron and Rattrap had it worse. Since when is Megatron obsessed with purging himself of his beast mode? Had no problem with it in Beast Wars, in fact he downright loved his dragon form. And since when is his goal an empty Cybertron that includes only him? That sounds like an awful, lonely, boring fate that no one would want, including Megatron of Beast Wars who simply wanted Predacon dominion with himself in command.

Rattrap was almost as bad with how pathetic he became and Cheetor leapfrogging over him to become second-in-command.

But yeah, Rhinox-as-Tankorr I would say probably was Neutral Evil. Other differences include Cheetor being more Lawful Good than Chaotic Good as befit his new leadership role. Rattrap probably shifting over to Neutral Good at some point (he was still Chaotic Neutral when it began), and Silverbolt becoming Chaotic Good as befit his new dark, angsty personality.


No offence, but I find this "lawful good/neutral good" concept a little hard to grasp.

I understand stuff like Joker is chaotic evil (obvious), Palpatine is lawful evil (wants to bring order to the galaxy and sees himself as the best guy for the job), Jack Sparrow is chaotic neutral (cares nothing for law and authority but doesn't take pleasure in hurting others) etc, but "lawful good/neutral good" seems hard to grasp. I don't see the major distinction.

As I see it, any good person basically upholds law as long as it's just law. If it's an unjust law, then a good person should not obey it. To me, it comes down to the regard with which they hold the law. A Lawful Good person really really wants to obey the law. To not do so (even if sometimes in a situation goodness orders that they must) is pretty devastating to them and makes them question their whole life and philosophy and civilization and all sorts of stuff. But they really don't break the law very much and plenty of Lawful Goods will bite the bullets and help enforce laws they don't agree.

Neutral Goods don't really care that much about laws or rules. Most laws are good, so as long as that's true Neutral Goods have no problem and won't appear much different then Lawful Goods. But the right thing will always trump everything. They won't help enforce a law they don't think is right... if it's not right, they have no part of it. If their commander gives them an order they thing is wrong, they won't do it and probably won't lose too much sleep over it because they know they're doing the right thing.

Neither of them is any more "good" than the other, they both have the same basic principle of having good intentions, it's just a matter of how they handle things. So, in this situation, I say Optimus and Rhinox are Lawful Good while Silverbolt and Tigatron are Neutral Good. All four of them are incredibly good people, probably the four "goodest" people in the show. But Optimus and Rhinox are very big on protocol. There's rules and they expect them to be followed and they don't have much patience for people breaking the rules, even if they have good intentions. I remember a scene with Optimus and Silverbolt arguing in Optimus' office about Blackarachnia and there was a portion of the dialogue that went something like this (and I'm paraphrasing, although I actually think I may be pretty close):

Silverbolt: Sir, I believe I can turn her around.
Optimus: Oh, don't be an idiot, Silverbolt. Blackarachnia is using you! She may be made from Maximal parts, but she is Predacon to the core.
Silverbolt: I do not believe that, sir!
Optimus: Whether you believe it or not is immaterial. You're confined to quarters.

Silverbolt's arguing for what he believes is right and Optimus doesn't care and just wants him to do what he's told. Is Silverbolt any more "good" than Optimus? No, they're about even. But Optimus has one way of thinking things should be followed (following the rules) and Silverbolt has another (following his conscience.) And there's the difference.

Tigatron's another one for Neutral Good because he's even the deserted the Maximal cause mid-battle because he decided that he didn't like fighting anymore and turned down Optimus' request to live and fight with them at the Axalon because he preferred to hang out in the wild. He was still a good guy, he still hated evil and opposed it and would fight when he felt he should and whatnot... but the laws that Optimus set down? Meant almost nothing to him.

But unlike, say, Cheetor (who I have as Chaotic Good), neither Silverbolt nor Tigatron actively went out of their way to flagrantly ignore the rules. Cheetor (like a typical teenager) can't abide being told what to do and so he'll occasionally do shit his own way basically just because Optimus or Rhinox or someone told him not to.

[chilled monkey]

Eh, it's all crazy in my book. Whether it's from Beast Mode programming or.... why ever Quickstrike is crazy...



The difference between Lawful Good and both Lawful Neautral and Lawful Good can often be a little hazy, because ultimately a lawful good person has to choose which is more important to him when they conflict the way a Lawful Evil person never has to.

I always see them as someone that pursues upholding both whenever possible.

Yeah I understand that part. But how about in general?

For example, the Sailor Senshi. They are clearly good since they protect innocent people from evil beings. Now they don't actively break laws in doing so but nor do they uphold them, since they don't go around stopping bank-robbers etc. So what would they be classed as?

[yeoman]

The Vehicon programming definitely factored in, because after Rhinox died and Optimus saw him in the Matrix, he was back to his old self and was mournful that he hadn't been embracing the true nature of his spark. Rhinox's characterization isn't one that bothers me because of this. Megatron and Rattrap had it worse. Since when is Megatron obsessed with purging himself of his beast mode? Had no problem with it in Beast Wars, in fact he downright loved his dragon form. And since when is his goal an empty Cybertron that includes only him? That sounds like an awful, lonely, boring fate that no one would want, including Megatron of Beast Wars who simply wanted Predacon dominion with himself in command.

Rattrap was almost as bad with how pathetic he became and Cheetor leapfrogging over him to become second-in-command.



Eh, at least his maturing into a leadership role was a continuation of his character arc from Beast Wars.

[yeoman]

Yeah I understand that part. But how about in general?

For example, the Sailor Senshi. They are clearly good since they protect innocent people from evil beings. Now they don't actively break laws in doing so but nor do they uphold them, since they don't go around stopping bank-robbers etc. So what would they be classed as?

One doesn't have to go around fighting crime to be lawful, especially given their powers aren't well suited to doing so, and that, depending on local laws, they would possibly be vigilaties for doing so.

And it's worth noting Minako *did* have a career as a super-hero.

That said, most of them, as individuals, aren't lawful. Ami probably is. Maybe Rei. Usagi grows into it. Haruka and Michiru, especially in the anime, are most certainly not. Even the Good part is suspect with them. And Pluto is probably Lawful Neutral.

[Sound Silence]

I've always interpreted Lawful/Chaotic to come down to personal codes, rather than ceding to any and all "authority".

A true chaotic figure will never listen to his boss, and in general won't be as consistent in his behavior.

A lawful person will prefer a structure, but if that structure jives against his sensibilities, he may rebel against it, seek or create a new order more in line with what he thinks is right (which is how you can have law-breaking criminals in a mafia-type set-up be considered "lawful").

It's always tough in the good alignments, though, since "good" in itself is a concept of rules (called morals) that a person can't really cross and still be called "good".

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Beg your pardon, but not quite. In Inferno's case, his personality was due to his beast mode completely over-riding his logic circuits (presumably because the ant instincts were too strong).It's a little of both. His faulty programming with the beast mode is why he thinks he's an ant and calls Megatron his queen. But it's not why he's a screaming pyromaniac, that part is just him being crazy.


Eh, at least his maturing into a leadership role was a continuation of his character arc from Beast Wars. Cheetor wasn't the problem, it was that Rattrap had to be bastardized in order for it to make sense why Cheetor's now second-in-command when Rattrap was the one who took over whenever Optimus was gone in Beast Wars.

[lonewolf23k]

I don't agree with that. I think she begins Chaotic Neutral and ends Chaotic Neutral. She's always about fulfilling her desires and nothing else, but it's just that those desires change. But even at the end she adores "being a bad girl" and breaking rules and causing troubles. I mean, maybe you can make the argument that she's Chaotic Good at the end of the series, but even still I don't know.


Nah, back in Season One, she was definitely self-serving to the point of being very destructive. In "The Trigger, Part 2", she was planning on using the Vok-made floating island to destroy the Maximals and conquer the Maximals. That's pretty much an Evil act.

I believe Blackarachnia's turn away from Evil during Season 2 comes from her victimization at Tarantulas' hands, combined with getting some nice treatment from Silverbolt. And, of course, realizing that Megatron's genocidal plans for the Autobots meant her destruction probably helped.

[chilled monkey]

Haruka and Michiru, especially in the anime, are most certainly not. Even the Good part is suspect with them.

No offence but I must strongly disagree with you there. Haruka and Michiru may have been somewhat ruthless in their methods but they were always Good.

They took no pleasure in causing pain and they never acted for selfish reasons. Heck, they were actually extremely selfless. The Inner Senshi by contrast, were pretty selfish as they placed their personal feelings before the greater good.

True, they were willing to kill innocents (or rather let them be killed), but they felt remorse for this and they only did so to save the entire planet! How is it 'Good' to let billions of lives be destroyed because you don't want one person to die (especially as they would die anyway if the world was destroyed)?

Joe Dawson in "Highlander" mentions a time in Vietnam when he and his squad took out a village. As he says "do you think somehow the bullets missed all the children?" Does that make him Evil? No. And that wasn't even done to save the world.

A Good person places others before themselves. If that means they must do something they aren't proud of so that others will live, they do it. A person who will let countless lives be destroyed rather than do something they find reprehensible is putting themselves before others and so is selfish, thus not much of a 'Good' person.

It's like that saying that the moral thing isn't always the right thing.

Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

[yeoman]

No offfence but I must strongly disagree with you there. Haruka and Michiru may have been somewhat ruthless in their methods but they were always Good.

They took no pleasure in causing pain and they never acted for selfish reasons. Heck, they were actually extremely selfless. The Inner Senshi by contrast, were pretty selfish as they placed their personal feelings before the greater good.

It's like that saying that the moral thing isn't always the right thing.

The greater good Knight Templar bit is pretty much one of the examples of Lawful Neautral and often sliding into Lawful Evil.

Miko Miyazaki of Order of the Stick also acted according to what she thought was the greater good. This lead to her murdering a defenseless octagenarian who was in no way threatening her and, indeed, the next most lawful authority was in the room and ready to take the man into custody. That's pretty much the point she *stopped* being lawful good.

The best axample of ruthless Lawful Good I can think of is are Signum, Shamal and Zafira of the Wolkenritter* in Nanoha. They disobey orders to save the life of their master by stealing magical energy from living beings. They do this, however, to save the life of a complete innocent and only do so after agonizing over it for days. And even then they try to hurt as few people as humanly possible.

[chilled monkey]

It's a little of both. His faulty programming with the beast mode is why he thinks he's an ant and calls Megatron his queen. But it's not why he's a screaming pyromaniac, that part is just him being crazy.

I see. Makes sense.

Thanks for answering my question.

[chilled monkey]

The greater good Knight Templar bit is pretty much one of the examples of Lawful Neautral and often sliding into Lawful Evil.

Miko Miyazaki of Order of the Stick also acted according to what she thought was the greater good. This lead to her murdering a defenseless octagenarian who was in no way threatening her and, indeed, the next most lawful authority was in the room and ready to take the man into custody. That's pretty much the point she *stopped* being lawful good.

The best axample of ruthless Lawful Good I can think of is are Signum, Shamal and Zafira of the Wolkenritter* in Nanoha. They disobey orders to save the life of their master by stealing magical energy from living beings. They do this, however, to save the life of a complete innocent and only do so after agonizing over it for days. And even then they try to hurt as few people as humanly possible.

I don't know either of those well enough to comment. However I'm sticking to my guns that Haruka and Michiru are Good and always have been. I'm not budging on that.

[yeoman]

I don't know either of those well enough to comment. However I'm sticking to my guns that Haruka and Michiru are Good and always have been. I'm not budging on that.

Oh, one can have ruthless tendencies and still be good. But those two struck me as have far more than mere tendencies. And from what I heard about they pulled in the last season of the anime, I tend to doubt one can do that and not have the GM call for an alignment switch.

Even truely ruthless characters can remain lawful good. Look at His Honor Sir Samuel Vimes, Duke of Ankh-Morpork and Commander of the City Watch. But then, Vimes' standard of right and wrong that he holds himself to beat an ancient quasi-demonic thing of pure vengance.

[Kirika]

Lawful Good: Doing what ever they can to stay on what they see as the good side of law, for better or worse.

Neutral Good: Is willing to go against authority with justice is on the line.

Chaotic Good: Doing good when they see it needed.

Lawful Neutral: Neither sees authority as being good or evil, but at the very most something that is better than anarchy when done well enough.

True Neutral: Apathy or other interests are their concern.

Chaotic Neutral: Neither good or evil or capable of both all the same to some degree.

Lawful Evil: Someone who lives by using rules and laws to exploit as much as they can while not ever really breaking the rules, using loopholes when in site for the sake of being safe.

Neutral Evil: More unstable than Lawful evil, but a lot more in control of themselves than Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic Evil: Someone who is ruled by their impulses and doesn't care who gets hurt because of it, possibly even themselves included.

[BYC]

Being D&D lawful isn't just "obeying the law". It's about creating more detailed plans. It's about living your life in a more rigid code. It's about being organized and prepared. It's about respecting legitmate authority. It's about working within the system.

This does not mean there are no exceptions. This means as an overall, a being that is lawful or chaotic lives their life that way.

However, one has to remember in D&D, good and evil are not just shades of gray. It's often clearly defined within that game and gaming system. Law and chaos aren't as tightly defined.

[Kirika]

Being D&D lawful isn't just "obeying the law". It's about creating more detailed plans. It's about living your life in a more rigid code. It's about being organized and prepared. It's about respecting legitmate authority. It's about working within the system.

This does not mean there are no exceptions. This means as an overall, a being that is lawful or chaotic lives their life that way.

However, one has to remember in D&D, good and evil are not just shades of gray. It's often clearly defined within that game and gaming system. Law and chaos aren't as tightly defined.

So I didn't get it perfectly.

[BYC]

So I didn't get it perfectly.
I wasn't directing my post to anybody specific. Just pointing out in D&D, that's how it's suppose to work. And of course, it's also often ignored, mistaken, or otherwise incorrect.

I think if there's a lot of middle ground, that being is neutral/whatever.

Superman is LG. Wolverine is CG. Batman is NG, in my mind. He has very lawful habits, but his disdain for legitimate authory, and his trust issues (leading to lies and deception, unlawful) makes him NG.

That being said, D&D's alignment system works in that system. It's not particularly suited for anything with strong shades of gray.

[chilled monkey]

Oh, one can have ruthless tendencies and still be good. But those two struck me as have far more than mere tendencies. And from what I heard about they pulled in the last season of the anime, I tend to doubt one can do that and not have the GM call for an alignment switch.


Let's get something clear.

I am absolutely sick of people bad-mouthing Haruka and Michiru. Everything they did was done to save countless lives. They always, always placed others before themselves.

If you think it's "good" to just give up and let billions die while you could have prevented it but didn't because you thought that said billions of lives were less important than feeling good about yourself, well I see nothing "good" there. That to me is the epitome of selfishness.

If you think it's "evil" to lay down your life to save others, frankly, I think you need help.

I will consider anything else said against them to be a personal insult. So do everyone a favour.

DROP IT!

[BYC]

Let's get something clear.

I am absolutely sick of people bad-mouthing Haruka and Michiru. Everything they did was done to save countless lives. They always, always placed others before themselves.

If you think it's "good" to just give up and let billions die while you could have prevented it but didn't because you thought that said billions of lives were less important than feeling good about yourself, well I see nothing "good" there. That to me is the epitome of selfishness.

If you think it's "evil" to lay down your life to save others, frankly, I think you need help.

I will consider anything else said against them to be a personal insult. So do everyone a favour.

DROP IT!
A personal insult? HAHAHAHAHA.

I don't even know who those characters are, but it's hiliarious to see the reaction nonetheless.

[Nik Hasta]

Let's get something clear.

I am absolutely sick of people bad-mouthing Haruka and Michiru. Everything they did was done to save countless lives. They always, always placed others before themselves.

If you think it's "good" to just give up and let billions die while you could have prevented it but didn't because you thought that said billions of lives were less important than feeling good about yourself, well I see nothing "good" there. That to me is the epitome of selfishness.

If you think it's "evil" to lay down your life to save others, frankly, I think you need help.

I will consider anything else said against them to be a personal insult. So do everyone a favour.

DROP IT!

Okay...

First: chill out.

Second: People are allowed to have differing opinions on an interpretation of a character to you. They are fictional, they are not actual people and as such their characters can be interpreted in many different ways. There's nothing you can do about that so I suggest you cool down and stop taking offense for no good reason.

Third: One can be Lawful Neutral, as Yeo is suggesting, and still be a "good," person. I don't know these characters at all so I can't comment on the correctness of his statement.

[Alexander the immortal]

Personally I would prefer to call someone who follows a code of Justice extremely faithfully to be a lawfull character. If he disobeys the boss' orders it's because his authority is considered to him to be inferior to the code , which he follows very faithfully.

[chilled monkey]

Okay...

First: chill out.

Second: People are allowed to have differing opinions on an interpretation of a character to you. They are fictional, they are not actual people and as such their characters can be interpreted in many different ways. There's nothing you can do about that so I suggest you cool down and stop taking offense for no good reason.

Why do you think I asked them to agree to disagree? I fail to see a problem with just asking someone to not insult me.


Third: One can be Lawful Neutral, as Yeo is suggesting, and still be a "good," person.

I appreciate what you're saying, but it makes little sense to me. If someone's good, why say they aren't?

[Nik Hasta]

Why do you think I asked them to agree to disagree? I fail to see a problem with just asking someone to not insult me.

Okay, three points here for your perusal.

Point one: No one is insulting you. Equating an insult to a character to an insult to you is just plain wrong.

Point two: No one has insulted the characters in question. Yeo has questioned that they can be interpreted as not Lawful Good. That's not an insult.

Point three: Using bolded all-caps ordering someone to drop a perfectly innocent line of discussion is not saying "Agree to disagree," it's confrontational and immature. I suggest you try rewording your statement.


I appreciate what you're saying, but it makes little sense to me. If someone's good, why say they aren't?

Because it's obviously not as clear cut as you think? I don't know the characters I have no idea.

[chilled monkey]

Okay, three points here for your perusal.

Point one: No one is insulting you. Equating an insult to a character to an insult to you is just plain wrong.

Says you.


Point two: No one has insulted the characters in question. Yeo has questioned that they can be interpreted as not Lawful Good. That's not an insult.

No, Yeo questioned whether they were Good at all. That is an insult.

Exact words - "Even the Good part is suspect with them."


Point three: Using bolded all-caps ordering someone to drop a perfectly innocent line of discussion is not saying "Agree to disagree," it's confrontational and immature. I suggest you try rewording your statement.

For your information I did that to show I was serious.

[Nik Hasta]

Says you.

Yes and I'm correct. You are not the character, there is no need for you to take any kind of derogatory comment personally.


No, Yeo questioned whether they were Good at all. That is an insult.

Exact words - "Even the Good part is suspect with them."

I'm failing to see how that is an insult. Looks to me like Yeo is commenting from a literary standpoint on the morality of their actions when examining said actions through the lens of the DnD morality system.


For your information I did that to show I was serious.

There are plenty of ways to show a serious intention in a post without resorting to bold all-caps, the internet equivilant of screaming.

[chilled monkey]

Yes and I'm correct. You are not the character, there is no need for you to take any kind of derogatory comment personally.

When something I like is bad-mouthed, I get angry about it. It's quite simple.


I'm failing to see how that is an insult. Looks to me like Yeo is commenting from a literary standpoint on the morality of their actions when examining said actions through the lens of the DnD morality system.

As far as I'm concerned, saying someone isn't Good is a derogatory remark.

[BYC]

So you haven't answered the question.

Are you these 2 fictional characters?

Because if you are not, you can't take it personally.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Chilled Monkey, I, too, have absolutely no idea who these characters are what they're from, but it seems to me that anyone has the right to insult them if they want. Clearly it offends you if they do, but isn't there an extent to which that's... your problem and not ours?

They're cartoon characters, they're not real people. If you want to take a comment about their morality as a personal attack, that's your call, but it's such a strange reaction that I just don't think anyone else needs to be expected to deal with it.

Consider this. Say you're at a party and you come wearing a shirt with, I don't know, Scooby Doo on it. And someone at the party HATES Scooby Doo. DESPISES him. So he marches over to you and says "HEY! That shirt OFFENDS me! Take it off right now!" And you're like "Why does it offend you?" and he says "I just don't like Scooby Doo. I don't have to have a good reason, I'm asking you not to keep insulting me. Go change your shirt." Wouldn't you find such a demand unreasonable? You'd probably feel it's too bad they're offended, but the shirt is incredibly benign and they have no good reason for being offended like that, are you really supposed to go out of your way to change how you've chosen to represent yourself because someone is offended bizarrely?

No one insulted you. You may have felt insulted, that's your business, but you're not in charge of the motives other people had with what they said, and I'd bet a fairly large amount of money that not a one of them said anything with any inkling of insult behind it.

All of that said, very few of us even know what anime you're talking about, and this thread, I'm fairly sure, was once about Beast Wars and moral alignments, so...

[Nik Hasta]

When something I like is bad-mouthed, I get angry about it. It's quite simple.

Again, you're labouring under the misapprehension that anyone is actually badmouthing the characters you like. The only comment that has been made about said characters is calling into question their morality, which is not a slur against them.


As far as I'm concerned, saying someone isn't Good is a derogatory remark.

You should probably consider growing a thicker skin on these matters. Not everyone is going to agree with you and shouting at them isn't going to help and just makes you look like a tool.

[Deadpooligan]

Let's get something clear.

I am absolutely sick of people bad-mouthing Haruka and Michiru. Everything they did was done to save countless lives. They always, always placed others before themselves.

If you think it's "good" to just give up and let billions die while you could have prevented it but didn't because you thought that said billions of lives were less important than feeling good about yourself, well I see nothing "good" there. That to me is the epitome of selfishness.

If you think it's "evil" to lay down your life to save others, frankly, I think you need help.

I will consider anything else said against them to be a personal insult. So do everyone a favour.

DROP IT!

http://blomg1.com/files/2009/10/she-is-a-cartoon-not-your-wife.jpg

[Crimson King]

Inferno: Chaotic insane. And a bit of chaotic evil.

[chilled monkey]

Again, you're labouring under the misapprehension that anyone is actually badmouthing the characters you like. The only comment that has been made about said characters is calling into question their morality, which is not a slur against them.

Hold on. Are you saying if someone called you evil you wouldn't consider that a slur?

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Hold on. Are you saying if someone called you evil you wouldn't consider that a slur?But a real person wasn't called evil, a fictional character was. And fictional characters have no feelings, and can thus be looked upon objectively. Some of my favorite characters are complete evil bastards, I don't get all... offended on their behalf when people say so. They're fictional.

[Sound Silence]

You know...I wonder if the creators of D&D ever considered their alignment system would be the instigator of great moral debate...

I don't know much Sailor Moon either, but...sometimes doing the right thing is tough. Sometimes you want to get the big picture taken care of, but you can't, because it means you have to be a prick to do it. Or you think you'll do things one step at a time, and things end up worse, and you seem pretty sleazy when you say stuff like "we can't take extreme measures 'cuz they're bad".

Good has so many complexities that evil doesn't have to worry about. Evil can just do whatever the hell it wants, because it's evil, nya? But good...well, when you try to do good, you can never please everybody, because that'd mean doing something perfectly and fixing all problems, which just doesn't happen.

Personally, I don't think just because someone screwed up and got misled means they are any less good. Some people, of course, have higher standards that are less forgiving for screwing up (i.e. a Paladin might violate his code and lose status as a Paladin, but that doesn't mean he's no longer good, just as a regular Joe can be Lawful Good and not live by Paladin codes).

[Redem]

Inferno: Chaotic insane. And a bit of chaotic evil.

Well Inferno was indeed insane (he think he's ant) but in a way his wouldn't that insanity somehow make him lawful? He basicly was out protecting his colony and obeying his queen Megatron

[Crimson King]

Well Inferno was indeed insane (he think he's ant) but in a way his wouldn't that insanity somehow make him lawful? He basicly was out protecting his colony and obeying his queen Megatron

There's also the whole "BURN!!!!!!!" thing that makes him insane.

[Redem]

There's also the whole "BURN!!!!!!!" thing that makes him insane.

I won't deny Inferno insanity, but I merely wonder if its one of those rare case were insanity make the character somehow lawful

[Sound Silence]

There's also the whole "BURN!!!!!!!" thing that makes him insane.

Insanity does not automatically mean chaotic. His loyalty and unquestioning nature makes him far more lawful. His destructive tendencies are what put him at evil. At worst he could be neutral, but I still say Inferno is lawful. Especially since his fire obsession is a fixation. A chaotic crazy would be less consistent.

[Redem]

Insanity does not automatically mean chaotic. His loyalty and unquestioning nature makes him far more lawful. His destructive tendencies are what put him at evil. At worst he could be neutral, but I still say Inferno is lawful. Especially since his fire obsession is a fixation. A chaotic crazy would be less consistent.

You want to see how Inferno true to his word, he once called Megatron "My queen" and Megatron told him to stop, he never called him "My queen " ever again :biggrin:

Heh I wonder if left alone Rampage could have evolve toward more Neutral allignement than being more on the evil side. In a way he ressented both side and could have sympathy toward some people like transmutate.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

I think Inferno's definitely Lawful Evil. Yes, he's batshit crazy... but he's batshit crazy about following what he believes to be the law (Megatron's word) He's all about chain of command and having the "drones" follow his orders, since he's Megatron's second-in-command.

Just goes to show you that insanity doesn't always mean "chaotic".

[chilled monkey]

Some of my favorite characters are complete evil bastards, I don't get all... offended on their behalf when people say so. [/i]

Well why would you get offended if they are, in fact, "complete evil b******s"?

I was angered because Haruka and Michiru are NOT evil, at all, and someone said, "Even the Good part is suspect with them."


You know...I wonder if the creators of D&D ever considered their alignment system would be the instigator of great moral debate...

I don't know much Sailor Moon either, but...sometimes doing the right thing is tough. Sometimes you want to get the big picture taken care of, but you can't, because it means you have to be a prick to do it. Or you think you'll do things one step at a time, and things end up worse, and you seem pretty sleazy when you say stuff like "we can't take extreme measures 'cuz they're bad".

Good has so many complexities that evil doesn't have to worry about. Evil can just do whatever the hell it wants, because it's evil, nya? But good...well, when you try to do good, you can never please everybody, because that'd mean doing something perfectly and fixing all problems, which just doesn't happen.

Personally, I don't think just because someone screwed up and got misled means they are any less good. Some people, of course, have higher standards that are less forgiving for screwing up (i.e. a Paladin might violate his code and lose status as a Paladin, but that doesn't mean he's no longer good, just as a regular Joe can be Lawful Good and not live by Paladin codes).[/i]

Precisely. Thank you.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Yeah I would say Lawful Good isn't just someone whose good but someone whose sense of morality is strongly ingrained with their sense of order and authority.

And of course lives their live as such.

And as for the characters that apparently killed off some people to save the world; does that make them evil?

Hmm....

Thats a tough one; but since their goal is ultimately a noble one and they have no desire to harm people but feel it is simply something that has to be done.

Than I would say they aren't evil; maybe morally compromised but not evil.

[BYC]

I don't remember Inferno well enough anymore to say for sure. He was loyal to Megatron to a fault. But when not following Megatron's orders, wasn't he rampaging all over the place?

[Kirika]

I don't remember Inferno well enough anymore to say for sure. He was loyal to Megatron to a fault. But when not following Megatron's orders, wasn't he rampaging all over the place?

Is anyone willing to take into account the concept of tendencies along with a characters main Alignment? He could have be a Lawful Evil character with Chaotic Evil tendencies when he has no one to answer to.

[Alexander the immortal]

Yeah I would say Lawful Good isn't just someone whose good but someone whose sense of morality is strongly ingrained with their sense of order and authority.

And of course lives their live as such.

And as for the characters that apparently killed off some people to save the world; does that make them evil?

Hmm....

Thats a tough one; but since their goal is ultimately a noble one and they have no desire to harm people but feel it is simply something that has to be done.

Than I would say they aren't evil; maybe morally compromised but not evil.

why are they morally compromised ?

[chilled monkey]

Thats a tough one; but since their goal is ultimately a noble one and they have no desire to harm people but feel it is simply something that has to be done.

Than I would say they aren't evil; maybe morally compromised but not evil.

Thank you.

About the "morally compromised" bit, technically you could say that about any soldier.

For example, Joe Dawson in "Highlander" mentions a time in Vietnam when he and his squad took out a village. As he says, "do you think somehow the bullets managed to miss all the children?"

[Alexander the immortal]

I doubt most soldiers fight to save the world. Though in some cases they do fight to save something precious , and of course D D morality alignment system should not be considered a panacea to all "how do we define morality" problems.

Anyway , the usual "Good guy who kills people to save the world" of fiction is usually less complicated , more one dimensional , and of course "more Goody good or simply good" than the usual soldier.

[Sound Silence]

You want to see how Inferno true to his word, he once called Megatron "My queen" and Megatron told him to stop, he never called him "My queen " ever again :biggrin:

Heh I wonder if left alone Rampage could have evolve toward more Neutral allignement than being more on the evil side. In a way he ressented both side and could have sympathy toward some people like transmutate.

On his own, I don't think so. But with lots of therapy, sure.


Well why would you get offended if they are, in fact, "complete evil b******s"?

I was angered because Haruka and Michiru are NOT evil, at all, and someone said, "Even the Good part is suspect with them."

Precisely. Thank you.

By the way, even though I was on your side of this, I'm with the others saying you live up to your name a bit more. Even if someone said the same thing about your sister or something, flying off the handle doesn't help anyone. Mkay? :smile:




Than I would say they aren't evil; maybe morally compromised but not evil.

Characters wanting to be good will always need compromises, especially Lawful Good types. The key is if they are regretful that it "wasn't good enough" and remain aware of what they are doing.

[chilled monkey]

I doubt most soldiers fight to save the world. Though in some cases they do fight to save something precious , and of course D D morality alignment system should not be considered a panacea to all "how do we define morality" problems.

Precisely. Thanks.


By the way, even though I was on your side of this, I'm with the others saying you live up to your name a bit more. Even if someone said the same thing about your sister or something, flying off the handle doesn't help anyone. Mkay?

Okay. I must admit I do have a tendency to get carried away.


Characters wanting to be good will always need compromises, especially Lawful Good types. The key is if they are regretful that it "wasn't good enough" and remain aware of what they are doing.

I second that.

[Redem]

On his own, I don't think so. But with lots of therapy, sure.


Well I think if the Maximals had suceed in their mission and dump him on some deserted. He would look out for his own interest, but not try to brush with other people therefore coming closer to neutral than evil

The thing the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic (espicially with good character) become a bit blury in the setting of Beast War because they are very little character and very little immediate background therefore the relationship with authority become a bit more blury because things are a bit more personal than in most setting

[yeoman]

Let's get something clear.

I am absolutely sick of people bad-mouthing Haruka and Michiru. Everything they did was done to save countless lives. They always, always placed others before themselves.

If you think it's "good" to just give up and let billions die while you could have prevented it but didn't because you thought that said billions of lives were less important than feeling good about yourself, well I see nothing "good" there. That to me is the epitome of selfishness.

If you think it's "evil" to lay down your life to save others, frankly, I think you need help.

I will consider anything else said against them to be a personal insult. So do everyone a favour.

DROP IT!

What I think good and evil are doesn't matter. And I never said they were evil. What I am saying is that the D&D Alignment system has a strict defination of what "Good" means. And the "Good of the Many outweighs the good of the one, or the few" is not in it, unless the one is the self. It's in the realm of Neutral. Very solidly.

Not being "Good" by D&D alignment standards is not a bad thing. It's not a good thing. It's just what the system is. This is why is was incredibly truncated in 4th ed.

For example, by the D&D alignment system Nobby Nobbs is Neutral Evil. He is self serving and oppontunistic, The scourge of men on the battlefield on their backs and unable to defend themselves. But that's it. He's petty and selfish. These are negative traits, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people.

It's not about what any individual might consider right and wrong. I's what the system *says* right and wrong is. And that's the reason discussions about it always end with people screaming at each other and why many boards I've seen outright ban discussion about it.

[yeoman]

Okay...

First: chill out.

Second: People are allowed to have differing opinions on an interpretation of a character to you. They are fictional, they are not actual people and as such their characters can be interpreted in many different ways. There's nothing you can do about that so I suggest you cool down and stop taking offense for no good reason.

Third: One can be Lawful Neutral, as Yeo is suggesting, and still be a "good," person. I don't know these characters at all so I can't comment on the correctness of his statement.

And I've never seen the end of the anime, I'm just going off what I've heard at that. Something I repeatedly stated.

[Sound Silence]

Not being "Good" by D&D alignment standards is not a bad thing. It's not a good thing. It's just what the system is. This is why is was incredibly truncated in 4th ed.

For example, by the D&D alignment system Nobby Nobbs is Neutral Evil. He is self serving and oppontunistic, The scourge of men on the battlefield on their backs and unable to defend themselves. But that's it. He's petty and selfish. These are negative traits, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people.

It's not about what any individual might consider right and wrong. I's what the system *says* right and wrong is. And that's the reason discussions about it always end with people screaming at each other and why many boards I've seen outright ban discussion about it.

You know, it's funny you bring that up about Nobby, because if this were an official D&D deal, I'm sure he'd get a True Neutral on credit of some kind, because he's not a total monster.

Sometimes good in D&D is like rainbows and butterflies, and evil is like eating kittens, and everything that isn't ends up in neutrality.

[yeoman]

But a real person wasn't called evil, a fictional character was. And fictional characters have no feelings, and can thus be looked upon objectively. Some of my favorite characters are complete evil bastards, I don't get all... offended on their behalf when people say so. They're fictional.

And I didn't say evil. I said "Not good." D&D has Neutral between the two for a reason. This is why in Order of the Stick Palidan detect evil sight doesn't say "Good" it says "Not Evil."

[yeoman]

You know...I wonder if the creators of D&D ever considered their alignment system would be the instigator of great moral debate...

I don't know much Sailor Moon either, but...sometimes doing the right thing is tough. Sometimes you want to get the big picture taken care of, but you can't, because it means you have to be a prick to do it. Or you think you'll do things one step at a time, and things end up worse, and you seem pretty sleazy when you say stuff like "we can't take extreme measures 'cuz they're bad".

Good has so many complexities that evil doesn't have to worry about. Evil can just do whatever the hell it wants, because it's evil, nya? But good...well, when you try to do good, you can never please everybody, because that'd mean doing something perfectly and fixing all problems, which just doesn't happen.

Personally, I don't think just because someone screwed up and got misled means they are any less good. Some people, of course, have higher standards that are less forgiving for screwing up (i.e. a Paladin might violate his code and lose status as a Paladin, but that doesn't mean he's no longer good, just as a regular Joe can be Lawful Good and not live by Paladin codes).

It really depends on what one does and how one reacts to it. We go, again, to Rossieu.

A man who betrayed his old co-pilot and the hero of the entire world and strung him up and hung him out to die as a traitor while lying to the entire populace about the danger's at hand. He did this to keep order during the time it would take him to save the sliver of the human race it was within his power to do so. And when the man he betrayed breaks out of prison, teams up with an old enemy and saves the entire damn world thus making everything he did worthless? He's so wracked with guilt he's ready to kill himself.

Is Rossiu Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral? He lies to the populace and betrays a man who called him friend. He does this because he wants to save who he can and suffers extreme remourse later. It's *Debatable." Just like Haruka and Michiru. I further never said their weren't good. I said whether they are is *questionable.* Huge difference. And, again, not being good in the alignment system is *not* the same as being evil.

I also*repeatedly* noted one can undertake ruthless actions and still be Lawful Good. Vimes is a good case. And extreme one due to him having a subconcious mental constuct that keeps him from going too far, but it's possible.

Also, dude, come one. I loves me Mal Reynolds as a character, but I don't get upset if people label him Chaotic Neutral. Because I admit the guy did some pretty questionable things.

[yeoman]

You know, it's funny you bring that up about Nobby, because if this were an official D&D deal, I'm sure he'd get a True Neutral on credit of some kind, because he's not a total monster.


Only because the system wouldn't believe that certificate and assume that he is, in fact, a monkey.


Also, another Discworld one, Vetinari is solidly Lawful Evil. This does not stop him from being beneficial to his city and the entire world. But he is, at his core, Evil. Something he freely admits.

The alignment system doesn't always work well. And it's not meant to cover every situation. And it's why we hav ethe motivational poster that tells us Deadpool makes mockery of you attempt to label him.

[Sound Silence]

Is Rossiu Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral? He lies to the populace and betrays a man who called him friend. He does this because he wants to save who he can and suffers extreme remourse later. It's *Debatable." Just like Haruka and Michiru. I further never said their weren't good. I said whether they are is *questionable.* Huge difference. And, again, not being good in the alignment system is *not* the same as being evil.



Ah...tough call there. I'd say you'd have to figure out what he was before he started to go to extreme measures. I'd say he was Lawful Good, but acting out of alignment until Simon snapped him back to his senses. If things had continued, Rossiu probably would have full on changed alignment.




Also, dude, come one. I loves me Mal Reynolds as a character, but I don't get upset if people label him Chaotic Neutral. Because I admit the guy did some pretty questionable things.

Well, Mal has a much more obviously neutral attitude.


Only because the system wouldn't believe that certificate and assume that he is, in fact, a monkey.


Also, another Discworld one, Vetinari is solidly Lawful Evil. This does not stop him from being beneficial to his city and the entire world. But he is, at his core, Evil. Something he freely admits.

Well, I'm sure you know that Discworld basically punches a mighty fist through D&D/standard fantasy alignment tropes.



The alignment system doesn't always work well. And it's not meant to cover every situation. And it's why we hav ethe motivational poster that tells us Deadpool makes mockery of you attempt to label him.

Yeah. Eventually you get to a point that it just becomes muddled.

[yeoman]

Ah...tough call there. I'd say you'd have to figure out what he was before he started to go to extreme measures. I'd say he was Lawful Good, but acting out of alignment until Simon snapped him back to his senses. If things had continued, Rossiu probably would have full on changed alignment.


And with the outers, I don't know how repentant they are. Like I said, I'm going off what I've heard, and I know the series ends pretty soon afterwards, and I'm not overly familar with their history.

[Sound Silence]

And with the outers, I don't know how repentant they are. Like I said, I'm going off what I've heard, and I know the series ends pretty soon afterwards, and I'm not overly familar with their history.

Yeah, me neither.

[The Master Meglomaniac]

You know I think the line between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is really blurry.

[Kirika]

You know I think the line between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is really blurry.

I'm pretty sure that's the point behind it as an alignment.

[yeoman]

You know I think the line between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil is really blurry.

Neutral Evil tends to have a plan, but disdains society's rules. Chaotic Evil just tends to be ****ing nuts.

[chilled monkey]

What I think good and evil are doesn't matter. And I never said they were evil. What I am saying is that the D&D Alignment system has a strict defination of what "Good" means. And the "Good of the Many outweighs the good of the one, or the few" is not in it, unless the one is the self. It's in the realm of Neutral. Very solidly.

Not being "Good" by D&D alignment standards is not a bad thing. It's not a good thing. It's just what the system is. This is why is was incredibly truncated in 4th ed.

For example, by the D&D alignment system Nobby Nobbs is Neutral Evil. He is self serving and oppontunistic, The scourge of men on the battlefield on their backs and unable to defend themselves. But that's it. He's petty and selfish. These are negative traits, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people.

It's not about what any individual might consider right and wrong. I's what the system *says* right and wrong is. And that's the reason discussions about it always end with people screaming at each other and why many boards I've seen outright ban discussion about it.

The alignment system doesn't always work well. And it's not meant to cover every situation.

Okay. Sorry, my mistake.


And I've never seen the end of the anime, I'm just going off what I've heard at that. Something I repeatedly stated.

Beg your pardon, but don't you think it's important to know the facts yourself before passing judgement (figuratively speaking)?


And with the outers, I don't know how repentant they are.

Very. They always felt remorse for every ruthless action they took. Just as Joe Dawson felt remorse for the children he killed in Vietnam (not exactly the same I know).

[chilled monkey]

Neutral Evil tends to have a plan, but disdains society's rules. Chaotic Evil just tends to be ****ing nuts.

As I understand it the basic difference is that if you ask an NE why they destroyed a village they'll say "because it was in my way."

Ask the same question to a CE and they'll say "because it was there."

[Sharpandpointies]

Seeing as how things have calmed down...I'll just say please continue to keep things civil, like they are now.

Thank you.

[BYC]

CE is suppose to be the bully, doing evil because he can and he wants to. A CE character finds it hard not to do evil. I know devils are considered the bane of D&D, but CE is just as bad if not worse with demons. It's like the argument about slavery and genocide.

CE characters are generally ones that are so powerful they can openly cause evil, or really clever characters that can't help but cause trouble and chaos wherever they go.

NE tends to allow more range in types of characters that fit better in real life examples. Like a greedy mailman who goes through people's mails when he can get away with it, kicking dogs, and doing petty evil. CE doesn't fit as well for real life, but in a fictional world it's great. NE has a tendency to be small-minded characters because they aren't strong enough to be CE, or clever enough to be LE. Hence the ever-popular NE rogue.

The classic D&D analogy is always an evil lawyer for LE, thieves and cutthroats for NE, and powerful and deprived warlords for CE.

And as always, nothing is set in stone, and these work better in the black and white world of D&D.

[Sound Silence]

Neutral Evil also has people that just simply don't care. They aren't wild and capricious, but they aren't tyrannical or meticulous. They're just completely callous and uncaring about anything, except maybe themselves.

[BYC]

Neutral Evil also has people that just simply don't care. They aren't wild and capricious, but they aren't tyrannical or meticulous. They're just completely callous and uncaring about anything, except maybe themselves.
Correct, and performed enough acts of evil, small or large, to be evil.

[Kirika]

Neutral Evil also has people that just simply don't care. They aren't wild and capricious, but they aren't tyrannical or meticulous. They're just completely callous and uncaring about anything, except maybe themselves.

What would you consider Chaotic Neutral to be?

[BYC]

People who aren't good or evil (normal people is often the case), but doesn't live their life in an organized matter. CN fits a lot better in modern day, real life people better than in D&D. Stoners, drunks, social degenerates, IMO, are solid examples of this. Anybody who has trouble not only obeying the law, but living their life in an organized matter, and isn't really slanted towards good/evil would all fit. Adventure seekers, thrill seekers, people who live in the moment are good too.

[Sound Silence]

What would you consider Chaotic Neutral to be?

Basically, people who are not super-nice folks, but also not super-pricks, that just like to be themselves and don't like others messing with them.

NE and CN are the archetypical "do anything I feel like" alignments, but CN is more of the "I do it because it's fun" whereas NE is "I do it because I hate everybody".

Chaotic Evil is the "I do it because it's fun to hate people". Neutral Evil types are often pretty miserable in spite of whatever they might gain from their schemes.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Well I think if the Maximals had suceed in their mission and dump him on some deserted. He would look out for his own interest, but not try to brush with other people therefore coming closer to neutral than evilI don't think that's true. Rampage delights in causing torture and pain and terror. He almost feeds off it. I don't think he would have lived and let live no matter where he was, thus "somewhere far, somewhere barren" was the only place he could possibly not cause any damage.

As for this Chaotic Neutral vs. Neutral Evil vs. Chaotic Evil stuff, I think they're different in plenty of ways. I'll use a Beast Wars example for each: Rattrap, Tarantulas and Rampage, respectively.

The way in which Rattrap is not like Tarantulas or Rampage is obvious. Rattrap, though selfish and more concerned about his own survival than anything else, doesn't ever intentionally hurt people. He doesn't really get into the whole altruism thing, but he's not going to go killing people either. The only people he does care about and try to help are those he has genuine affection for based on his personal relationship with them. In the beginning of the series, Rhinox was the only person he was friends with, and thus the only person he ever tried to protect. Eventually the rest of the Maximals grew on him too, but before they did he wouldn't lift a finger to help them if he didn't see what was in it for him. That's Chaotic Neutral. Like Rampage as Chaotic Evil, Rattrap does whatever he wants, but what he wants is completely different and doesn't involve killing or inflicting pain.

This is contrary to Tarantulas and Rampage who actively enjoy causing pain and destruction. But they're very different too. Rampage is just a raving psychopath. He will kill and torture and be terrible at any and all opportunity, and it's what he lives for. The only possible way he can be controlled is out of fear of punishment (i.e. Megatron's spark-torturer thing)

Tarantulas is equally evil, but in far less a chaotic way. He does kill and torture people, but with purpose. He's working towards a hidden agenda in which both Maximals and Predacons are destroyed and Autobots and Decepticons are all negated from history, since Tarantulas has different origins and wants to clear the way for his people to rule. That's evil. He's neutral in terms of lawfulness though because he's not just some uncontrollable madman. He can be reasoned with, he can work alongside people (Maximals and Predacons alike) if he doesn't really kill for the hell of it (usually) - this isn't because he'd feel bad about it, but if there's no purpose to it, he's not just going to do it to be evil. But at the same time he's not lawful either, because you can never count on him to do anything he's told, law and order mean nothing to him and no one's really capable of truly earning his loyalty. But even he, despite being evil, is more lawful than Rattrap because Rattrap just can't really abide being told what to do, whereas Tarantulas has no problem playing along and following the rules for a while if he must.

Do the differences make sense?

[BYC]

I thought people were already in agreement that Rattrap is CN or CG.

Rampage is clearly CE. He does it because he can and because he likes it.

Tarantulas is either NE or LE. NE probably before we found out he was a special double agent, and then the LE made more sense.

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Oh, I agree that Rattrap, Tarantulas and Rampage are pretty obvious. But some people seemed to be confused about CN, NE and CE in general, so I tried to choose three people that fit each role to explain what I saw as the differences.

[Redem]

I thought people were already in agreement that Rattrap is CN or CG.

Rampage is clearly CE. He does it because he can and because he likes it.

Tarantulas is either NE or LE. NE probably before we found out he was a special double agent, and then the LE made more sense.

I don't think him being part of the secret police make him that much more Lawful, he hardly seem to be an enforcer of order or that focus on his mission

[SlyFoxDeveraux]

Right, I'm sure his work for the Secret Police is just another means to his personal end. Tarantulas is too unstable and inherently treacherous to be truly Lawful.