Inverarity is not a Scottish village

My alignment discussions with my husband often end with him reminding me that lawful means (in his 3.5ish head) that they adhere to the laws as written by the in-control power. Lawful Good will obey the law to the benefit of all, chotic good will do whatever NEEDS to be done, n their eyes, to benefit everyone. and themselves. Lawful Evil will exploit the rules, find loopholes, and make new laws, while Chaotic evil just does whatever they feel like, without regard for the rules.

I specify that because the alignment cheat sheet you linked to id's lawful as being honorably and truthful, and so forth. and that makes a BIG difference in how I voted the Ozarkers.

I also havn't read the stories in probably about a year.... so, my memories may be fuzzy.

Alex - CG because she does The Right Thing, according to HER rules.

Anna - LG, but Alex has passed on a lot of "chaotic points" so she's edging a bit towards NG. :) she likes the rules and doesn't like breaking them, but can and will if needed.

David - NG, of course. Because hey, there are rules, sure, but doing the good thing is more reasonable.

Constance, Forbearance, and Innocence - Lawful Neutral. They do follow the rules of their society, but I think if Ozarker rules came in conflict with the "american" rules, the Ozarker rules would come first.. Innocence, of course, is rebelling a bit, but there's a difference between wearing your hair under a cap and committing murder. They of course want to do the right thing... but the right thing isn't always the good thing. And then there's the question: If Ozarker rules and American rules DO come into conflict... if they DO follow Ozarker rules.. are they really still "Good"? I mean.. if they had a rule that said they could kill or injure someone who had slighted them most terribly (say, murdered a loved one, a sibling or something), where the american rules would say "imprisoned and put on trial, sentenced, etc" ... Does obeying make them evil? Neutral? Good? The Ozarkers are very hard to place, to me... but I stand by LN... but they follow THEIR rules, even though their rules are a minority. AS for good and evil.... I think they, of everyone, stand for balance. Maybe this is because in my head, they're sitting there holding on to troublesome's arm and pulling on her, will all their might, to keep her standing upright. I could honestly justify any alignment on the good or neutral side of the spectrum for them :) Innocence is more chaotic then her sisters, but only in small ways.

Julia is True neutral. She strikes me as the sort who'd do whatever seemed most right at the time.. regardless of if she had to fib or break rules, though those same rules would give her hesitation as she broke them. she has an inclination to good.

Max was CN He had too much of his father's influence to realy be "good" I think. He has a Good inclination, definetly, though. He only cares about the rules though, in as far as they can serve him to get him out of trouble, or to make him look better. I think he'd eventually have shifted to be CG or NG, but not yet.

Darla is CN... as.. I believe, for the most part, she was being manipulated. that doesn't make someone evil, just gullible. and generally, she was trying to look out for her own interests. In time she MIGHT have become evil, but...

Larry True Nuetral because Neutral :)

Lilith and Diana - NG for both of them.. they flex the rules to do good.. and I believe they both intend to do good... even if the rules don't always agree with them. I gotta laugh at the people who are saying that they're LAWFUL EVIL and stuff XD

Yay char limits. replying to myself with the last few...

From:

Ms Shirtliffe (how do you say that anyway? Shirt-life?) is LN. Because she has the rules, good and bad, and she obeys them. I believe she's pro-government, generally, and will support it as long as it is generally good or neutral, as long as it's not evil. She has a distinct GOOD leaning, and it's on the border between LN and LG. Wait, damn, I just looked back and saw I voted for LG instead. well, what I wrote still applies :)

Abraham Thorn - CN because fuck the rules. He's trying to do something good, I think, by doing bad things. I could also argue true neutral for him. I don't THINK he's devoted to any particular extremes. he's not Voldemort with a "I want to rules the world" attitude. He just, I think, doesn't want to see the government continue governing as it currently does. Maybe he DOES want to rule the wizarding world, but if he does, I think it's because he feels he can do a better job and provide a more stable, more fair world for the people who live in it.. and how is that any different then, say, the Rebel Alliance battling against the Evil Galactic Empire? it's not. It's all point of view...

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

I don't think of Law and Chaos as being about what the character thinks of the current status quo so much as the person's opinion on whether order or freedom is preferable in principle. A lawful good and chaotic good person would both oppose an evil government but would differ on what to replace it with. Lilith Grimm is Lawful good because she is good (self-sacrificing, actively works to protect others) but also a strict disciplinarian who believes that that the best way to protect others is through a strictly enforced code of rules. Alexandra is Chaotic Good because she has the same self-sacrifice and moral compass but believes in following her own principles and neither submits to others authority nor tries to impose her own rules upon others. Abraham Thorn is Lawful Neutral (Or Lawful Evil). Abraham is trying to to bring down the status quo (though he preferred to work within the system to change it and only took the sword when he was forced to), and his ruthless methods disqualify him for a Good alignment, but by his own admission he is doing this in order to replace it with a better system. He would prefer to rule in this system but it's the system that matters and he would be willing to let someone else rule. Diana Grimm is also Lawful Neutral (Or maybe Lawful Evil), though from the perspective of someone who either believes in the system or thinks that it's bad but preferable to chaos. Chaotic Evil is John Manuelito. He does whatever he pleases, and in his view this is the only course that makes sense because he sees both ethics and morals as pointless.

From:

This might account for voting discrepancies with some chars lol. Must say, I totally disagree with your interpretation of lawful... To me actions are more significant than abstractly held principles. The inclination of a lawful person is to work within the confines of existing laws, customs, systems etc when possible in pursuing goals, whereas the chaotic person sees all of these things by and large as insignificant. Abraham thorn is willing to cross all established laws, traditions, to take extremely extra legal measures in pursuit of his vision and that to me is the opposite of lawful. There are a lot of steps one could take between being a member of the executive or legislative branch of a government you disagree with and leading a rebellion seeking to overthrow the regime which does not hesitate to use guerilla and terrorist tactics. He gravitated to the latter, imo in no small part due to ego, and yeah, so not lawful in my books. Whereas Diana, I'd agree, does seem to do her thing while staying within the bounds of the system, using the power she can get out of it, etc. In cannon, Lucius Malfoy would be lawful to me, if evil. He manipulates the system, uses systemic corruption to his advantage, breaks laws when it suits him but quietly, so as to maintain pretence of deniability etc.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

What laws should the person follow though? By your definition Law and Chaos is completely subjective to what society a person happens to be in and a Lawful person instantly becomes Chaotic if he strongly disagrees with a new law that is passed, and Lenin and Castro instantly switched from chaotic to lawful the second they won, for it to have meaning as alignment the person's own philosophy has to come into it somewhere. Abraham didn't break the law first, the Confederation did when it declared a lawfully elected congressman an enemy of the state without due process. The fact that Thorn no longer follows the confederation law is because a) he's not stupid and doesn't want to die in prison and b) He no longer has any reason to view the government as legitimate. There may be a lot of steps he could take between being a congressman and being a revolutionary leader, but when the Jackbooted thugs are coming after you the options tend to narrow down to fight, run or surrender.

From:

I don't think I expressed my view very well before. By laws and customs I don't only mean laws in the sense of the legal strictures of a given state, but also societal laws, cultural laws, moral laws.

I would not call Lenin chaotic at any point, really. Yes, he was a revolutionary that worked towards the overthrow of the czarist regime. But how did he do that? He published political tracts, organized an elite and highly trained underground political party, did consciousness raising/education in benefits of socialism type activities, attended international socialist conventions etc etc. While those activities certainly violated the law of the czarist regime, and he was arrested as a result, they don't in my view of things violate higher "laws" of acceptable political/societal activism. It was not Lenin's prerogative to adopt widespread campaign of public assassinations, as some groups at the time did. There was no campaign of shooting or bombing of military barracks, police stations, other symbols of imperial power. It was not Lenin's Bolsheviks even who initiated the first revolution/overthrow of the czar. He kept within certain limits, even as a revolutionary.

Likewise, its not Thorn's 'revolutionary' activities that make me see him as chaotic. It's the specific tactics he deliberately chose to employ. He could have striven, as the leader of a revolutionary organization, if we want to call it that, to publicize the details of the Deathly regimen, under the assumption that the wizarding public in general would have revolted against Hucksteen if they knew the full extent of what he was doing. He could have attempted to organize some large-scale form of nonviolent civil disobedience. If he really wanted to take the violent route, he could have stuck more closely to the kinds of guerrilla tactics that still pay respect to some degree to established 'rules of war': targeting military and police personnel (in this case, aurors and the like) and facilities, high level politicians directly collaborating with Hucksteen, and very clearly political symbols, ONLY. He could have deliberately aimed for targets with symbolic value in ways which were much less likely to hurt civilians. Yes, it would have been more difficult and possibly less efficient to do so, but a Lawful person, to me, is someone who would have prioritized staying within certain boundaries, even at a cost; Thorn seems to have had no such inclination.

Even looking just at revolutionary figures, I see a big difference there - if your first instinct is 'screw all conventional norms of legality, morality, proportionality, etc' that is not indicative of a Lawful mindset.

Edited Date: 2013-11-12 03:08 am (UTC)

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

I never said Lenin was chaotic, I agree that he was Lawful Evil the whole way, though I think you greatly underestimate the amount of violence the bolsheviks engaged in.

Thorn and everyone else who know about the Deathly Regiment are under unbreakable vows never to reveal it so it is not possible to spread the word about it, which would make it difficult to organize civil disobedience around it. Either way it's a moot point because Law and Chaos have nothing to do with whether or not someone believes in non-violence. Alexandra is clearly Chaotic and much more averse to violence than the clearly-lawful Diana Grimm.

From:

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of lawful/chaotic. alignment is, in any case, apparently a highly subjective thing on the whole, so.

interesting to read the variety of takes on it in any case.

From:

it's not so much status quo so much as... do you work within the rules or do you ignore them... case in point.. someone who gets into a position of power, then abuses their power, and the word of the rules. For example, a headmaster who uses the school rules to promote their own agenda-- they want, say, students to graduate with less knowledge about X. SO they hire a poor teacher, they skimp on their budget, and don't allow them new equipment, etc. Kids learn less, testing standards are lowered, and soon, people don't know about that topic as much any more. All legal.

Or, say there was someone that the headmaster specifically wanted to hinder... make sure his schooling was particulaarly disjointed, bad teachers, poor timing, lots of barely justified detention, etc Versus the chaotic evil one who might just arrange for his hindered student to be killed.

Working within the laws, versus complete disregard.

As you say, Lilith could be lawful because she obeys the laws and follows them. She makes rules, and works within them. Alex doesn't CARE about hte rules, so, Chaotic. I don't think we know wnough about Abraham's methods to make a full analysis of his opinion... but with the train incident, we can probably pretty safely say chaotic because he disregarded laws and stand morality to get his point across. He WAS lawful, but it wasn't working.

ANd I don't really see how Diana's evil. Lawful good, to nuetral if anything :) I dont remember her doing many EVIL things. AS I recall, she mostly seems to want to help people.. even if she doens't always know what hte best way to do so is.

BUT we can, absolutly, agree about JOhn Manuelito. XD

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

As I mentioned before, the reason I think it's likely that Diana is Lawful Evil is because I think it's likely she arranged Bonnie's accident so that Alexandra would find out the truth about her mother. If so that's pretty evil. If it's not then I agree that Lawful Neutral would fit her best.

From:

That' s a fair point. IF she did, then, evil. If not, then Nuetral.

I admit it's been too long for me to remember my opinion on that one.. yikes.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

I only picked up on it after my second read-through, and it's entirely possible I'm wrong, my reasons for suspecting it was her are described in another comment further down.

From:

Mm.. I think those reasosn are a bit of a stretch, but not TOO far, if you know what I mean. Interesting...

From:

ng14916.livejournal.com

I'm surprised Lilith Grimm's all over the place. She's definitely not lawful or chaotic. She follows the rules for the most part, but she's willing to disobey the government to protect Alexandra and the students. Whether she's good or neutral is another question, but I think she's neutral. She's definitely not evil, though, since she tries to protect Alexandra and the other students.

From:

Alex: CG, obvious.

Anna: I seem to have gone against the grain in choosing NG. Anna certainly has a lawful "air" about her, but she doesn't follow the rules because she believes they're right--she follows them to avoid getting punished. She's shown a consistent willingness to break them throughout all the books (mostly because Alex is already breaking them, given, but still). I think Neutral fits.

David: NG, obvious.

Constance & Forbearance: LG, obvious.

Innocence: CG; in many ways she's "young Ozarker Alex" so this is pretty clear. I almost chose Chaotic Neutral actually, since she hasn't really done that much that's really "good," but I'll be charitable and assume it's due to lack of opportunity.

Julia: I went against the grain here and chose LG. She does occasionally bend the rules for Alex, but in general she strikes me as a "good girl" type who almost always follows the rules.

Max: Lol, answers all over the place here; I picked N. I think he has both LN tendencies (he is basically in the army after all) and CN tendencies (following his father), so I figured he averaged out to True Neutral. He's not evil, obviously, but not good either; he'll do anything for people inside his "circle" (family and friends), true, but consistently showed little regard for those outside it.

Darla: CN. Pretty obvious. The only other real option is NE, which is kind of unfair to her. She wasn't evil, she was a 14-year-old.

Larry: CN. I'm surprised True Neutral is the popular option here. Larry has never shown respect for the law or school rules, and indeed consistently breaks them (mostly for the sake of antagonizing Alex, true, but still).

Lilith: NG. This is fairly clear I think. She may be Dean, but she runs the school her way--she doesn't like the government poking its nose in her domain. At the same time, she does her best to help and protect her students (doesn't always succeed of course).

Diana: Wow, people don't like her. I picked LN, though honestly LG is just as likely. Destroying Alex's broom tipped the scales for me, but really, evil? Come on guys.

Shirtliffe: LG. Could be LN, but like with Innocence, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

Abraham: NE. Sorry guys, but "necessarily evil" is still evil. He killed dozens of muggles at the end of Book 2. I almost pegged him as LE, actually, since he does have some sort of moral code, but then I decided "revolutionaries can't be lawful." I kind of regret that now, really; a very good case can be made for LE.

From:

Yeah I also totally do not see justification for an evil alignment with Diana...

From:

I think the logic is something like "Diana is supporting the Confederation; the Confederation is evil; therefore, Diana is also evil." But there's a difference between the Confederation and Hucksteen/the Deathly Regiment--Diana's not supporting the Deathly Regiment, she's trying to stop a mass-murdering terrorist. (It is possible she'll later be outed as a Deathly Regiment supporter, but I kind of doubt it.)

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

1. She is trying to stop a democratically elected member of congress who resorted to violence after her bosses decided to ruin his life and crush his efforts at reform. Thorn didn't choose violence, Hucksteen did, and Diana knows this. Thorn's terrorism amounted only to an assassination attempt on the confederation's dictator until more than a decade into Diana Grimm's hunt.

2. Even so, I would still probably consider her Lawful Neutral if it weren't for the little incident where she arranged for a muggle child to get hit by a car.

From:

1. As vile as Hucksteen is, ruining someone's life and crushing their efforts at reform does not count as "violence." Abraham not getting his way democratically, and so deciding to get his way militarily instead, can only be cast as "Thorn didn't choose violence, Hucksteen did" inside Abraham's own self-justifying mind. And neither of us have any idea what other actions Abraham might've taken between the failed assassination and going into hiding. (The fact that he allied with the Dark Convention is not a good sign.)

2. Did I miss the part where it was even implied, much less outright stated, that Diana was behind Bonnie almost dying? (I assume that's what you're referring to.) Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

1. Throwing someone in prison for life, or for any length of time, is violence. If the confederation was willing to use extra legal means to defend the deathly regiment, then extralegal means are necessary to stop it.

2. Diana went out of her way to make sure that Alexandra knew about Livia, and the cause of the crash was a freak swarm of owls. We know that Diana has a spell that conjures a swarm of owls from her fight with Thorn and she is the only one we have seen use the spell or any other Owl-themed magic. Since Livia was the only means Alexandra had to save Bonnie it was fairly predictable that she would try to call her in, which predictably led to Alex learning of her true parentage, which adds up to Diana setting up the whole thing so that Alex would find out. Why? I don't know.

From:

1. While I had forgotten the exact details, according to Quickipedia:

In 1994, he began to publicly denounce the American Wizarding Confederation and Governor-General Elias Hucksteen in particular, and lent aid to accused members of the Dark Convention. He ultimately came under suspicion when he traveled to Britain in 1995, allegedly to meet with Lord Voldemort; a warrant was issued for his arrest and his property was seized, but he eluded capture.

Issuing a warrant for someone's arrest is not "extra-legal," it is perfectly legal. Perhaps Abraham was afraid his trial would be politicized. It's still way overstating things to say that he was "forced into" violence. He chose it.

2. Not only is your only piece of evidence that it was a swarm of owls, a spell I assume most if not all high-level wizards can cast, but you're also attributing a near-superhuman level of foresight to Diana. You may be right, of course, but I see no reason to treat your theory as anything more than a hypothesis.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

It appears that by your definition Revolutionaries are always evil as well, unless the government is obliging enough to surrender without a fight. I would strongly disagree with revolutionaries cannot be lawful, from what I've seen that's the preferred alignment for a revolutionary, or at least a successful one (Washington, Lenin, Nehru, each of whom killed way more than a dozen muggles). Whether someone follows school rules is not the defining factor in what makes them lawful.

From:

There's a difference between killing enemy soldiers in a war (and a revolution is effectively a civil war) and killing civilians, "collateral damage" or no. Abraham Thorn did the latter. Killing civilians may sometimes (extremely rarely) be "necessary," but it's still evil.

I apologize for being unclear. I agree that revolutionaries can be lawful, and my original reasoning for moving Abraham into the NE category was unsound. That's why I think a strong argument can be given for him being LE. I think it depends on how you interpret "Lawful Evil," which is one of the more complicated alignments.

Whether someone follows school rules is a defining factor in whether or not they're lawful when the person in question is a student. School rules are laws for a student.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

I agree that there is a difference between killing enemy soldiers and killing civilians, but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a revolutionary who didn't do both. Not every revolutionary has the means to fight a conventional war and in this case the civilians were legitimate collateral damage. Thorn didn't set out to kill civilians and (he says) he gave the confederation the means to prevent civilian deaths, but cutting off the confederation from the Lands Below is a legitimate military objective. In his other attacks (Gringotts, the schools) he has also gone out of his way to limit collateral damage. The way I see it he is waging this war as cleanly as possible while still being effective.

From:

You're right, it's hard to find a revolutionary who doesn't kill civilians. That's why a violent revolution should be a method of last resort. Abraham's methods are not necessary to end the Deathly Regiment and depose Hucksteen. Geming Chu is trying to do the same thing nonviolently and democratically. But even if they were necessary, I repeat, necessary evil is still evil.

Look, the alignment system doesn't leave much room for moral ambiguity. Abraham is certainly a much more complex figure than, say, John Manuelito. But if committing evil actions without remorse--which Abraham certainly does--is not enough to count as "evil," quite frankly I don't know what does.

(As a final note, the civilian deaths were only "legitimate collateral damage" if [a] Abraham's revolution is the only way to stop the Deathly Regiment and [b] sealing the Lands Below is necessary for the success of the revolution. Neither of those has been demonstrated.)

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

Whether or not his actions are the only way to end the deathly regiment (or all the other crap the confederation does) is up for debate. But Abraham clearly believes that it's the only way, he's said it in so many words and, given what has transpired so far, he has a point. It wasn't Thorn's choice to stop trying the peaceful path, the confederation forced it on him by declaring him an enemy of the state. Geming Chu would be the case in point giving the lengths the confederation went to to prevent his election. Does this prove it is impossible to stop legislatively? Not with certainty, but Abraham isn't the first Thorn who has tried to stop the Deathly Regiment and I suspect he doesn't want to be the next one to die doing so. When the other guy is willing to kill for it you can either kill him back, surrender, or die pointlessly. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that people would be able to judge whether sealing the Lands Below is "Necessary", all Abraham can see is that it is the best, and probably least casualty intensive, way he has to hurt the confederation. You might as well argue that the Italian Campaign or the sinking of the Tirpitz were war crimes because it can't be proved that they were absolutely "necessary" for the defeat of Germany, such certainty is not possible in the midst of war.

From:

ng14916.livejournal.com

I've always wondered, why does the Deathly Regiment use children? Why not adult volunteers? It doesn't really need to be secret.

From:

I assume that'll be explained in later books. It's probably some sort of Generous Ones rule or something.

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

It hasn't been explained but it had occurred to me that children might give more charge (if you're trading a person's life for a temporary token, then it might make sense that someone with a longer remaining life span would give a longer lasting token).

From:

Of course Abraham believes he's right. Pretty much everyone believes they're right. (Even John Manuelito!) I'm not saying he doesn't have a point, I'm saying that he's blinded by his own biases and history, too obsessed with revenge to think clearly about how his (stated) goals might best be achieved. A complex figure, yes, but definitely firmly in the "Evil" portion of D&D's limited alignment system.

Italy was an enemy nation filled with actual soldiers; the Tirpitz was a battleship. We are talking about the deaths of civilians here, so your analogy does not hold. There is, of course, a good chance sealing the Lands Below was the most efficient way to deal a huge blow to the Confederation, but even at this early stage I have a hard time believing it was "necessary," even if I thought violent revolution was the only way to bring down the Deathly Regiment (which again, I don't).

From:

graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)

Italy was also filled with enemy civilians, guess which died more in the campaign?

From:

thirdgorchbro.livejournal.com

That was fun!

A few minor thoughts for the three characters I tagged as evil - for Darla, I picked Neutral Evil. She had no grand designs, but she wasn't doing evil stuff for the shits & giggles, either (that was Manuelito's bag). She just wanted to save her sister, and was willing to do anything - even sacrifice an innocent.

Diana Grimm - Lawful Evil. Based on what we've seen of her character so far, it seems she values order over justice. She can't be blind to the corruption of the Confederation, and I'd lay even odds she knows something about the Deathly Regiment. But she is willing to ignore all that, even be a part of it, rather than accept change. The "Good German."

Abraham Thorn. I had the hardest time deciding for him. Some people have made a good case for Lawful Evil. I went with Neutral Evil, because because he's clearly not some chaotic psychopath like John Manuelito, but he also doesn't seem to have ever given much of a hoot for following rules. As for why Neutral Evil instead of True Neutral or NG, it seems clear from the text that he has delved into the dark arts and murdered people (some of Manuelito's associates, for example).

From:

kerneyhead.livejournal.com

http://eminence.dkpsystem.com/viewthread.php?threadid=922&p=1#p5008

My favorite alignment chart. Looking at books and the divisions, the one thing I'm noticing is "Thorn's Revolt" seems to be more of a Law/Chaos divide than a good/evil thing.

The Confederation is on the evil side of the lawful side but there are good people like Mary Shirtcliffe on their side, who believe in the system and want to make it work.

Abraham Thorne tried to work in the system but has now turned against it. I think he started out Lawful good, then became Chaotic good at anger at the system, tried to fix it, and is now Chaotic Neutral.

The Ozarkers, and to a lesser extent the Chinese wizardling culture, follow their own 'laws'. Anna and the Pritchards are loyal to those 'laws'.

I can see both Constance and Anna heading toward neutral good. Anna because of the pull of her best friend, Constance because she and David are eventually be a couple and that will be a break from Ozarker custom.

Ultimately, Alexandra Quick as a series about lawful evil vs chaotic good in alignment terms, with Abraham being a warning about the fall into Chaotic Evil i.e. don't become a monster while opposing the monsterous.

Least that's how I see it.

From: