![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inverarityBoy, I had no idea that nerding out about alignments would generate the most discussion in months.
It was very interesting seeing how you rated the characters and how your judgments differed from mine. Amusing was how there was unanimous or near-unanimous consensus about some characters, while others were all over the place.
Mostly, you were at least in the right quadrant, overall. In some cases, my judgment differed significantly from the majority, which made me think about how I have presented the character and whether I am actually "wrong" or if I just have not showed enough of the character's personality to justify my rating.
Now, my joking about Word of God notwithstanding, as the diagram above (and much of the discussion) illustrated, alignment is rather subjective and depends a lot on how the person rating the alignment perceives "Good" and "Evil" and "Law" and "Chaos." For example, can a "Good German" who serves his country, loves his family, is kind and generous to his friends, and honestly believes that Jews are an existential threat who need to be exterminated, be Lawful Good? What about slaveowners in the antebellum South? If we accept the premise that slavery is Evil (at least in the D&D sense), then can a supporter of slavery be Good?
It's a truism, of course, that most people believe themselves to be good, and very few people are knowingly and deliberately evil. It's also true, IMO, that most people who rationalize evil and selfishness know at some level that they are lying to themselves, which means telling yourself you're good doesn't mean you are.
The real problem with the AD&D alignment system was that it codified alignment almost as religions; characters basically walked around wearing their alignments like a badge. Lawful Evils would proudly proclaim themselves Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evils would have no qualms about being evilly evil for the sake of evil because evil. I don't know if this persisted in later editions, but at least through 2nd edition there were actually alignment languages. I always thought the idea of being able to "speak" Chaotic Good was kind of hilarious. Just by virtue of your alignment, you shared a common tongue with elves and brass dragons. o..O
Of course, the alignment system also punished anyone who acted against their alignment, which meant when presented with a quest or a job offer or a maiden in need of rescuing, players would think "Okay, what is the Chaotic Good way of responding to this?"
In real life, of course, people can be wildly variable in their behavior; good people can be really ugly jerk-asses and evil people can have family, friends, and pets they genuinely love and care about, and only psychopaths are Chaotic Evil.
That said, here are my alignment ratings. Feel free to argue in the comments!
Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? Almost everyone agreed on this.
In the first book, and probably through the second, Alexandra was Chaotic Neutral. But I'd rate very few eleven or twelve-year-olds other than neutral — kids that age usually just don't have the dedication to be consistently good or evil.
Alexandra is still not that far above the neutral axis: it wasn't until the third book that her nobler instincts began to exceed her selfishness. But at least thus far, she seems to be consistently heading north rather than south.
I know this is going to throw some people. Everyone charted her as Good, usually Lawful Good.
It's true that Anna is basically a nice person, and in the Lawful Neutral zone, she'd definitely be plotted above the line of strict neutrality (i.e. in the "tending toward good" half of the range).
Anna, however, is a bit more selfish than a lot of people seem to realize. She's very good to people she knows personally. It is a characteristic of her strict, ethnocentric upbringing (and also the fact that until she came to Charmbridge she had almost no friends) that she's more or less indifferent to those outside her in-group. She's worried more about keeping the peace than justice per se.
She was appalled at the Deathly Regiment, and at the fact that her father was a party to it, but more as a stain on her family and community and as a threat to her friends. She could easily have been persuaded (reluctantly) that it was a necessary evil. She considers the Deathly Regiment evil now mostly because Alexandra does and because her father opposes it.
Anna is, however, still young, and she does tend towards Good, so it's possible that her natural empathy and a bit more exposure to other people will eventually pull her all the way into the Lawful Good camp.
I know this will take some explanation, because David was the only character for whom the vote was unanimous — Neutral Good.
In fairness, the reasons why he is Lawful Good in my mind are largely my internal conception of him that hasn't really been demonstrated in the text, yet.
I know what you're thinking: "He's a rabble-rouser! He's a would-be revolutionary! He wants to bring down the Confederation!"
Well, no, he wants to reform the Confederation. This is a point he may not quite realize himself yet (since his political awareness isn't yet terribly sophisticated), but when confronted with evil rules, a Chaotic Good person says "Get rid of the rules," a Neutral Good person says "Ignore (these) rules," and a Lawful Good person says "Change the rules (preferably in a legal manner)."
David actually believes in following rules, though he likes to posture as a young hellion. But he wants the rules to be fair. In my mind, he is on the path to becoming a crusader-knight (though he is less intense, and, frankly, less formidable, than Alexandra).
You all may not be wrong that until now, Neutral Good would be the most accurate description for him.
Yup. They are both Lawful Good. And bucking my statement above, they've been Lawful Good pretty much since they were old enough to understand the difference between good and evil.
Forbearance is further along the "Good" axis than she is along the "Lawful" one, while Constance leans more heavily in the "Lawful" direction. Their drift has become more noticeable recently. It's possible that Forbearance could someday wind up Neutral Good (if she loses her faith in the righteousness of law, order, and propriety), and Constance, if she becomes harder with nothing to temper her judgmental streak, might become Lawful Neutral. But most likely, they will both remain in the LG quadrant.
A lot of you rated her somewhere in the Chaotic/Good spectrum. Innocence certainly has chaotic tendencies and if not reigned in, will probably end up there. And she's essentially good-natured and well-meaning.
That said, she's also really immature, even at age 13. First and foremost, Innocence wants to have fun, and she doesn't want to be told what she can and can't do. That's not chaotic per se; she doesn't think rules are bad. She just doesn't think rules she doesn't like should apply to her.
She does what she wants, constrained only by fear of consequences, not by morality or ethics.
Being young, she's also still quite impressionable, so she might continue to rebel and wind up firmly in the Chaotic Neutral/Good camp, or she may eventually settle down and conform more closely to her sisters.
There was general agreement here, though some of you plotted her as more neutral. One could argue for Julia being Neutral, but she's proven to be kind and generous in a way that goes beyond merely having social graces. She's too nice not to be truly good.
Likewise, she may have a basic respect for laws, being a refined member of polite society, but Julia is a good girl who thinks you should follow the rules unless the rules are bad. For example, her kindness towards elves will trump any laws concerning them, her feelings about family are heedless of social expectations, and there is a part of her that refuses to condemn her father even though she disapproves of what he's done.
Nobody thought he was evil, but other than that, the votes were all over, from Lawful Good to Chaotic Neutral.
Max tried to do the right thing. He was disciplined and he believed in rules and structure; he also believed his father. Which put him in a difficult position, as he was being pushed to do things that went against his nature. He'd have been happier just being a loyal Regimental Officer, but he knew too much.
As for being Good, though — he cared about his family, and his friends, but not really anyone else. He didn't dislike Muggles, but he thought they belonged in their place. And he had an angry, violent streak.
Darla started as Neutral and probably would have stayed there if not for John Manuelito and the Mors Mortis Society.
It's easy to feel sorry for her, but I don't think you can give her a pass for being 14. She chose her path, and she knew what she was doing. Wanting to save her sister isn't enough of a justification for all the things she did. And she wouldn't have been so susceptible to John Manuelito if she didn't have an attraction to the Dark Arts.
She probably could have been redeemed, if she'd lived, but by the time she tried to sacrifice Innocence, she'd gone well past Neutral.
Larry's not very Lawful, but he has a strong belief in the rules and social hierarchy of the Confederation. He's offended by people who get away with breaking the rules (and not knowing their place) — hence his dislike of Alexandra.
He's also demonstrated that he has a sense of honor. He plays by the rules, and he keeps his word. He wouldn't even accept Alexandra's concession of defeat, when he didn't think he'd won fairly.
On the Good/Evil spectrum, he wobbles a bit. He definitely has some evil tendencies: he's bigoted, he's a bully, he's not very nice. He could easily grow up to become Lawful Evil. Or maybe Neutral Evil. But he's got some scruples. Maybe because he's still a kid and hasn't lost all empathy yet.
People really wanted her to be Good, except the people who wanted her to be Evil, but Dean Grimm is all about independence and autonomy. She does things her way and tries to minimize external interference. She doesn't really care what other people do, as long as they are not (1) annoying her; (2) interfering with her; (3) bothering her or anyone she cares about.
She does care about her students, and she cares about Alexandra. "Neutral" does not mean "unfeeling" or unbiased. But her goals are her own.
She may seem Lawful, but rules are for making others behave. She likes rules to the degree that they make her life easier; hence her being a disciplinarian at Charmbridge. She dislikes having to follow the Confederation's rules.
Lilith Grimm is almost a Neutral archetype. Hence some seeing her as good, some seeing her as evil, and some seeing her as a force of nature.
Like Lilith, people had Diana pegged as Good, Evil, and everywhere in between.
One of the arguments was that as a high-ranking Confederation agent, Diana must know some of the Confederation's dirty secrets, and her complicity precludes her from being Good. There may be some truth to that, though it raises the question above about whether someone serving a corrupt system because they believe it's good can be Good. But Diana clearly values law and order and her own personal vendetta more than she values good for the sake of good.
She also has a sense of honor, and she has made it clear that she does, to some extent, care about Alexandra, even going so far as to bend the rules for her sake. So if she's Evil, she's not pure evil.
She's done some awfully mean things, but I don't think destroying her niece's broom is sufficient to label her Evil. However, if you believe she is directly involved in the Deathly Regiment (or, as some people speculated, she arranged Bonnie's accident), that would probably be sufficient to classify her as Lawful Evil. If she is not a willing facilitator of the Deathly Regiment, and did not arrange Bonnie's accident, then she's Lawful Neutral. Since it has yet to be made clear which is the case, I leave both possibilities open.
Most people pegged her as Good. Ms. Shirtliffe is unquestionably Lawful. But many of the arguments that apply to Diana Grimm also apply to her; she is a Witch-Colonel in the Regimental Officer Corps, after all.
Our view of her has been fairly limited, as we know about her only what Alexandra knows, and Alexandra has had little contact with her outside of class. Mary Shirtliffe is another character about whose alignment my rating is based largely on things that haven't really been shown in the text.
Abraham Thorn was once Lawful Good, before the thing happened that turned him against the Confederation. Clearly, he has undergone a radical alignment shift in his adult life.
Most voted him Evil, but a significant number voted him Neutral. Likewise, most rated him Chaotic, but a few just Neutral. (And one Lawful Evil.)
First of all, I don't see how anyone could consider him other than Chaotic. His entire goal is to destroy the Confederation, and at least part of his motivation is a personal vendetta. Remember, the Neutral person thinks rules have their place; the Lawful person thinks rules should be followed (and changed if necessary). The Chaotic person thinks rules should be ignored or abolished, and that's Abraham Thorn. Sure, he might like to set up a new regime to replace the old one, but he's said himself that he'd probably be a poor choice as leader.
That is, if you can take him at his word.
If you rate alignments largely on actions, then there's a pretty strong case for making him Chaotic Evil. After all, whatever his goals, he's killed a lot of innocent people and seems quite willing to start a war that will kill more.
But, if you believe as I do that intent is a factor in alignment, then where on the Chaotic spectrum Abraham Thorn lies depends on what you think his goals are.
If you believe his ultimate goal is justice and freedom, then he is arguably Chaotic Good (although an extremely brutal and ruthless shade of Good, with a lot to atone for).
If you believe his goal is primarily vengeance, then he's Chaotic Neutral.
If you believe his goal is power and it's all about destroying what he can't rule, then he's Chaotic Evil.
Of course, Chaotic Evil or not, clearly he does truly love his children (and even his exes). But he also may have willingly sacrificed one of them. So whatever alignment he is, he's complicated.
It was very interesting seeing how you rated the characters and how your judgments differed from mine. Amusing was how there was unanimous or near-unanimous consensus about some characters, while others were all over the place.
Mostly, you were at least in the right quadrant, overall. In some cases, my judgment differed significantly from the majority, which made me think about how I have presented the character and whether I am actually "wrong" or if I just have not showed enough of the character's personality to justify my rating.
Now, my joking about Word of God notwithstanding, as the diagram above (and much of the discussion) illustrated, alignment is rather subjective and depends a lot on how the person rating the alignment perceives "Good" and "Evil" and "Law" and "Chaos." For example, can a "Good German" who serves his country, loves his family, is kind and generous to his friends, and honestly believes that Jews are an existential threat who need to be exterminated, be Lawful Good? What about slaveowners in the antebellum South? If we accept the premise that slavery is Evil (at least in the D&D sense), then can a supporter of slavery be Good?
It's a truism, of course, that most people believe themselves to be good, and very few people are knowingly and deliberately evil. It's also true, IMO, that most people who rationalize evil and selfishness know at some level that they are lying to themselves, which means telling yourself you're good doesn't mean you are.
The real problem with the AD&D alignment system was that it codified alignment almost as religions; characters basically walked around wearing their alignments like a badge. Lawful Evils would proudly proclaim themselves Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evils would have no qualms about being evilly evil for the sake of evil because evil. I don't know if this persisted in later editions, but at least through 2nd edition there were actually alignment languages. I always thought the idea of being able to "speak" Chaotic Good was kind of hilarious. Just by virtue of your alignment, you shared a common tongue with elves and brass dragons. o..O
Of course, the alignment system also punished anyone who acted against their alignment, which meant when presented with a quest or a job offer or a maiden in need of rescuing, players would think "Okay, what is the Chaotic Good way of responding to this?"
In real life, of course, people can be wildly variable in their behavior; good people can be really ugly jerk-asses and evil people can have family, friends, and pets they genuinely love and care about, and only psychopaths are Chaotic Evil.
That said, here are my alignment ratings. Feel free to argue in the comments!
Alexandra Quick: Chaotic Good
Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? Almost everyone agreed on this.
In the first book, and probably through the second, Alexandra was Chaotic Neutral. But I'd rate very few eleven or twelve-year-olds other than neutral — kids that age usually just don't have the dedication to be consistently good or evil.
Alexandra is still not that far above the neutral axis: it wasn't until the third book that her nobler instincts began to exceed her selfishness. But at least thus far, she seems to be consistently heading north rather than south.
Anna Chu: Lawful Neutral
I know this is going to throw some people. Everyone charted her as Good, usually Lawful Good.
It's true that Anna is basically a nice person, and in the Lawful Neutral zone, she'd definitely be plotted above the line of strict neutrality (i.e. in the "tending toward good" half of the range).
Anna, however, is a bit more selfish than a lot of people seem to realize. She's very good to people she knows personally. It is a characteristic of her strict, ethnocentric upbringing (and also the fact that until she came to Charmbridge she had almost no friends) that she's more or less indifferent to those outside her in-group. She's worried more about keeping the peace than justice per se.
She was appalled at the Deathly Regiment, and at the fact that her father was a party to it, but more as a stain on her family and community and as a threat to her friends. She could easily have been persuaded (reluctantly) that it was a necessary evil. She considers the Deathly Regiment evil now mostly because Alexandra does and because her father opposes it.
Anna is, however, still young, and she does tend towards Good, so it's possible that her natural empathy and a bit more exposure to other people will eventually pull her all the way into the Lawful Good camp.
David Washington: Lawful Good
I know this will take some explanation, because David was the only character for whom the vote was unanimous — Neutral Good.
In fairness, the reasons why he is Lawful Good in my mind are largely my internal conception of him that hasn't really been demonstrated in the text, yet.
I know what you're thinking: "He's a rabble-rouser! He's a would-be revolutionary! He wants to bring down the Confederation!"
Well, no, he wants to reform the Confederation. This is a point he may not quite realize himself yet (since his political awareness isn't yet terribly sophisticated), but when confronted with evil rules, a Chaotic Good person says "Get rid of the rules," a Neutral Good person says "Ignore (these) rules," and a Lawful Good person says "Change the rules (preferably in a legal manner)."
David actually believes in following rules, though he likes to posture as a young hellion. But he wants the rules to be fair. In my mind, he is on the path to becoming a crusader-knight (though he is less intense, and, frankly, less formidable, than Alexandra).
You all may not be wrong that until now, Neutral Good would be the most accurate description for him.
Constance and Forbearance Pritchard: Lawful Good
Yup. They are both Lawful Good. And bucking my statement above, they've been Lawful Good pretty much since they were old enough to understand the difference between good and evil.
Forbearance is further along the "Good" axis than she is along the "Lawful" one, while Constance leans more heavily in the "Lawful" direction. Their drift has become more noticeable recently. It's possible that Forbearance could someday wind up Neutral Good (if she loses her faith in the righteousness of law, order, and propriety), and Constance, if she becomes harder with nothing to temper her judgmental streak, might become Lawful Neutral. But most likely, they will both remain in the LG quadrant.
Innocence Pritchard: Neutral
A lot of you rated her somewhere in the Chaotic/Good spectrum. Innocence certainly has chaotic tendencies and if not reigned in, will probably end up there. And she's essentially good-natured and well-meaning.
That said, she's also really immature, even at age 13. First and foremost, Innocence wants to have fun, and she doesn't want to be told what she can and can't do. That's not chaotic per se; she doesn't think rules are bad. She just doesn't think rules she doesn't like should apply to her.
She does what she wants, constrained only by fear of consequences, not by morality or ethics.
Being young, she's also still quite impressionable, so she might continue to rebel and wind up firmly in the Chaotic Neutral/Good camp, or she may eventually settle down and conform more closely to her sisters.
Julia King: Neutral Good
There was general agreement here, though some of you plotted her as more neutral. One could argue for Julia being Neutral, but she's proven to be kind and generous in a way that goes beyond merely having social graces. She's too nice not to be truly good.
Likewise, she may have a basic respect for laws, being a refined member of polite society, but Julia is a good girl who thinks you should follow the rules unless the rules are bad. For example, her kindness towards elves will trump any laws concerning them, her feelings about family are heedless of social expectations, and there is a part of her that refuses to condemn her father even though she disapproves of what he's done.
Maximilian King: Lawful Neutral
Nobody thought he was evil, but other than that, the votes were all over, from Lawful Good to Chaotic Neutral.
Max tried to do the right thing. He was disciplined and he believed in rules and structure; he also believed his father. Which put him in a difficult position, as he was being pushed to do things that went against his nature. He'd have been happier just being a loyal Regimental Officer, but he knew too much.
As for being Good, though — he cared about his family, and his friends, but not really anyone else. He didn't dislike Muggles, but he thought they belonged in their place. And he had an angry, violent streak.
Darla Dearborn: Neutral Evil
Darla started as Neutral and probably would have stayed there if not for John Manuelito and the Mors Mortis Society.
It's easy to feel sorry for her, but I don't think you can give her a pass for being 14. She chose her path, and she knew what she was doing. Wanting to save her sister isn't enough of a justification for all the things she did. And she wouldn't have been so susceptible to John Manuelito if she didn't have an attraction to the Dark Arts.
She probably could have been redeemed, if she'd lived, but by the time she tried to sacrifice Innocence, she'd gone well past Neutral.
Larry Albo: Lawful Neutral
Larry's not very Lawful, but he has a strong belief in the rules and social hierarchy of the Confederation. He's offended by people who get away with breaking the rules (and not knowing their place) — hence his dislike of Alexandra.
He's also demonstrated that he has a sense of honor. He plays by the rules, and he keeps his word. He wouldn't even accept Alexandra's concession of defeat, when he didn't think he'd won fairly.
On the Good/Evil spectrum, he wobbles a bit. He definitely has some evil tendencies: he's bigoted, he's a bully, he's not very nice. He could easily grow up to become Lawful Evil. Or maybe Neutral Evil. But he's got some scruples. Maybe because he's still a kid and hasn't lost all empathy yet.
Lilith Grimm: Neutral
People really wanted her to be Good, except the people who wanted her to be Evil, but Dean Grimm is all about independence and autonomy. She does things her way and tries to minimize external interference. She doesn't really care what other people do, as long as they are not (1) annoying her; (2) interfering with her; (3) bothering her or anyone she cares about.
She does care about her students, and she cares about Alexandra. "Neutral" does not mean "unfeeling" or unbiased. But her goals are her own.
She may seem Lawful, but rules are for making others behave. She likes rules to the degree that they make her life easier; hence her being a disciplinarian at Charmbridge. She dislikes having to follow the Confederation's rules.
Lilith Grimm is almost a Neutral archetype. Hence some seeing her as good, some seeing her as evil, and some seeing her as a force of nature.
Diana Grimm: Lawful Neutral/Evil
Like Lilith, people had Diana pegged as Good, Evil, and everywhere in between.
One of the arguments was that as a high-ranking Confederation agent, Diana must know some of the Confederation's dirty secrets, and her complicity precludes her from being Good. There may be some truth to that, though it raises the question above about whether someone serving a corrupt system because they believe it's good can be Good. But Diana clearly values law and order and her own personal vendetta more than she values good for the sake of good.
She also has a sense of honor, and she has made it clear that she does, to some extent, care about Alexandra, even going so far as to bend the rules for her sake. So if she's Evil, she's not pure evil.
She's done some awfully mean things, but I don't think destroying her niece's broom is sufficient to label her Evil. However, if you believe she is directly involved in the Deathly Regiment (or, as some people speculated, she arranged Bonnie's accident), that would probably be sufficient to classify her as Lawful Evil. If she is not a willing facilitator of the Deathly Regiment, and did not arrange Bonnie's accident, then she's Lawful Neutral. Since it has yet to be made clear which is the case, I leave both possibilities open.
Mary Shirtliffe: Lawful Neutral
Most people pegged her as Good. Ms. Shirtliffe is unquestionably Lawful. But many of the arguments that apply to Diana Grimm also apply to her; she is a Witch-Colonel in the Regimental Officer Corps, after all.
Our view of her has been fairly limited, as we know about her only what Alexandra knows, and Alexandra has had little contact with her outside of class. Mary Shirtliffe is another character about whose alignment my rating is based largely on things that haven't really been shown in the text.
Abraham Thorn: Chaotic ???
Abraham Thorn was once Lawful Good, before the thing happened that turned him against the Confederation. Clearly, he has undergone a radical alignment shift in his adult life.
Most voted him Evil, but a significant number voted him Neutral. Likewise, most rated him Chaotic, but a few just Neutral. (And one Lawful Evil.)
First of all, I don't see how anyone could consider him other than Chaotic. His entire goal is to destroy the Confederation, and at least part of his motivation is a personal vendetta. Remember, the Neutral person thinks rules have their place; the Lawful person thinks rules should be followed (and changed if necessary). The Chaotic person thinks rules should be ignored or abolished, and that's Abraham Thorn. Sure, he might like to set up a new regime to replace the old one, but he's said himself that he'd probably be a poor choice as leader.
That is, if you can take him at his word.
If you rate alignments largely on actions, then there's a pretty strong case for making him Chaotic Evil. After all, whatever his goals, he's killed a lot of innocent people and seems quite willing to start a war that will kill more.
But, if you believe as I do that intent is a factor in alignment, then where on the Chaotic spectrum Abraham Thorn lies depends on what you think his goals are.
If you believe his ultimate goal is justice and freedom, then he is arguably Chaotic Good (although an extremely brutal and ruthless shade of Good, with a lot to atone for).
If you believe his goal is primarily vengeance, then he's Chaotic Neutral.
If you believe his goal is power and it's all about destroying what he can't rule, then he's Chaotic Evil.
Of course, Chaotic Evil or not, clearly he does truly love his children (and even his exes). But he also may have willingly sacrificed one of them. So whatever alignment he is, he's complicated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-11-17 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-11-17 08:58 pm (UTC)So we've got our Lawful Evil outsiders, now we need some Chaotic Evil outsiders for them to have a blood war with.
Ben Journey
Date: 2013-11-17 09:08 pm (UTC)Ben Journey started out Chaotic Good, when he first joined the Thorn Circle. By the time he tried to kill Alexandra, he probably was sliding into Chaotic Evil. (He did wrestle with his conscience, which is why I hesitate to classify him as unambiguously evil, but that goes back to whether you think intent ameliorates actions.) Now that he's a ghost, and trying to earn redemption, he's at least in the Chaotic Neutral range.
If Darla came back as a ghost, she'd likely be back to Neutral as well.
Re: Ben Journey
Date: 2013-11-17 10:32 pm (UTC)Edit: Should probably make clear that I consider them both to be evil and I voted NE for Darla, I just think Journey is both the weaker and more evil of the two.
Re: Ben Journey
Date: 2013-11-17 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-11-17 10:42 pm (UTC)Responses! Part 1 of 2
Date: 2013-11-18 12:19 am (UTC)Arguing about alignments is basically arguing about morality (witness the discussions on Abraham). So I'm not surprised.
Setting aside peoples' disagreements about morality (I suspect my judgment of Abraham Thorn is harsher than most), it is true that the alignments themselves, especially the law/chaos axis, are rather subjective. This will come up several times in my...*ahem* extended response below.
Before getting into the individual characters, I'd like to say: (1) most realistic characters such as yours are complex and sit close to the borderline; (2) to a certain extent, all 9 alignments are unique and express a different aspect of each of the axes. A Lawful Neutral person, for example, understands "lawful" in a much different way from a Lawful Good person, etc.
Alex: Yeah, this is easy. She was probably CN as a child, but starting from about the end of Book 3, and definitely throughout Book 4 (especially her Indian Territories adventure), she's clearly been Good.
Anna: Hm. It is true that, since we mostly see her through Alex's eyes, we don't have as much opportunity to see her interact with people outside her in-group. It's also true she's shown a consistent tendency to not care very much for people she doesn't know (e.g., her reaction to Alexandra being "noble" with Mary). Then again, this mostly shows up with people (Tomo, Mary) whom she has reason to dislike--not always good reason, mind. So it's hard to say. I think a case can still be made for Good, but she's certainly closer to the borderline than I had previously supposed.
Still, I'm going to press my case for her not being Lawful. This is probably one of those subjective things, but you don't have to be lawful to follow the rules--you just have to not want to be punished. I've seen no evidence that Anna believes in order or harmony as good things in themselves, and while the cases where she breaks the rules are mostly for Alex's sake, she still does so fairly often. I can definitely see her as being True Neutral, at least for the moment.
David: To be fair to David, he hasn't had much chance to do...well...anything of importance. And he gets less focus than Alex's other friends. I can certainly see him becoming LG in the future, though I do think his actions up until now are pretty clearly NG.
C&F: Not much to say here. Agreed that Constance stresses more the Law and Forbearance more the Good.
Innocence: This is another disagreement caused by different understandings of alignments, because this:
She just doesn't think rules she doesn't like should apply to her.
is, IMO, the textbook definition of "chaotic."
Several times, you suggest chaotic people want rules to be abolished. But this kind of anarchism is only true of the most extreme chaotics. Most chaotic people don't break the law because it's the law; they break the law because they disagree with it, or don't care. Similarly, most don't think laws are inherently bad, they just see no reason to respect them. In short, they (really, really) don't like being told what to do, and whatever else she is Innocence is certainly that.
I can definitely see her being CN, especially since she is still young, but if she's not chaotic then I can't see how you think Alex is either.
(I exceeded the Livejournal character limit, by a lot. The rest is coming in the next post.)
Responses! Part 2 of 2
Date: 2013-11-18 12:19 am (UTC)Max: Practicing Wizard Dueling with his friends, bringing Alex into it, and going to the Lands Below make it hard for me to accept him as being Lawful. Maybe I just put less stock in intentions than you; he probably does generally have lawful intentions, but his chaotic actions make me believe he belongs in the True Neutral camp.
Darla: I give her a pass for being 14. :p Again, she's definitely on the CN/NE borderline (interestingly, NE is a lot closer to CN than CE is). But I really do hesitate to call a teenager "evil," even D&D alignment evil. Ultimately, I think the fact that her goal was technically altruistic pushes her into the Neutral camp. Evil people can have loved ones, but they rarely self-sacrifice.
Larry: Alright, I probably judged a little too quickly when I pegged him as CN. I had forgotten his attitude about people "knowing their place," his (IIRC) pride in being an Elect, etc. That said, it seems to me that he puts his own moral code above society's rules, and he certainly is willing to do whatever it takes to keep up his antagonism with Alex. In total, though, I think you're probably right about him being LN.
Lilith: I'm not sure how "her goals are her own" is supposed to mean she's not Good. What matters is whether those goals are altruistic, 100% selfish, or somewhere in between. It's hard because, again, we mostly see her through the eyes of Alex, and Lilith has special reasons for helping her. Ultimately though, it seems to me that Lilith is willing to put her reputation on the line for the sake of her students, even the non-Alex ones, and that pushes her into "Good" IMO (even if it's a close-to-Neutral Good).
Diana: I agree with your conclusion.
Shirtliffe: Fair enough if she's LN because of extratextual information.
Abraham: Alright, first, I disagree with this:
The Chaotic person thinks rules should be ignored or abolished, and that's Abraham Thorn.
Abraham doesn't believe the rules should be abolished; he thinks they should be replaced with different rules--his own. Part of being Lawful is an inclination to submit to authority, but only part of it. It also involves a general belief in order being important, having a code that one never breaks, and much else besides. Even now, Abraham keeps his promises and doesn't lie if he can help it (witness how he tiptoes around his precise relationship with Claudia in discussions with Alex). I think he's ultimately NE, not LE, but that's because I think he values his cause above everything, even his personal code (whatever it might be).
And while I do think intent does impact alignment, come on, no way is Abraham Good. If you value intent highly, and think that Abraham really does honestly want what's best for Wizarding America, I can see N or CN. But not Good.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-18 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-11-18 02:10 am (UTC)You're right that Lawful people can believe the end justifies the means, but the impression I get from Abraham is less "breaking some principles for the sake of others" and more "I have one principle, bringing down Hucksteen/the Deathly Regiment, and everything else is secondary." Actually, he's a lot like Darla in that way, except he's, you know, an adult.
(I think this may have been the first time anyone has ever compared Abraham Thorn and Darla Dearborn. This is why geeky alignment arguments are worth having. :p)
And yes, let's not rehash that argument.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-18 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-11-18 06:13 pm (UTC)Stat Blocks on the other hand...
Abraham Everard Thorn C? Male Human Wiz23/Acm5; CR 28; HD 20d4+20; hp 78; Init +6; Spd 30ft; Atk +16 (Ranged Touch); SV Fort +11; Ref +12; Will +19; Str 13; Dex 15; Con 12; Int 21; Wis 17; Cha 18;
Feats: Combat Casting, Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous Item, Silent Spell, Skill Focus: Spellcraft, Spell Focus: (Abjuration and Divination), Quicken Spell, Improved Familiar, Improved Counterspell, Maximize Spell
Epic Feats: Epic Spellcasting, Automatic Silent Spell, Craft Epic Wondrous Item, Multispell, Automatic Quicken Spell.
Archmage High Arcana: Arcane Reach, Mastery of Counterspelling, Mastery of Shaping, Spell Power +2
Epic Spells: Abraham Thorns Munchkined-up Fidelius Charm, Abraham Thorn’s Circle of Protection, Create Death token, probably others.
Possessions: Cloak of Spell Deflection
no subject
Date: 2013-11-19 08:33 pm (UTC)First of all, I think we can say the Confederation is a corrupt system which cannot be reformed. It has to be overthrown, though many who particpate in it might end up serving in the following regime, and that many Lawful Good people don't quite get just how corrupt the system is.The fact that they 'establishment' went so far to stop Gemling Chu from being elected makes this point.
But overthrowing the system is an honorable, good act. The way, Abraham Thorn has gone about it is arguably evil, though I'd say some of his targeting because the 'bad guys' have literally put children in the line of fire of legitimate military targets (sign of just how evil the confederation is).
Note: "Chaotic good characters disregard others' expectations of their behavior, finding many laws and regulations too limiting to their personal freedom. They resent those who inflict their ideals on others, especially through intimidation, and are often reluctant to conform. Chaotic good characters want the freedom to do as they will and desire others to be free of oppression as well." Source, Pathfinder OGC (Note: Pathfinder, sometimes called D&D 3.75 is the currently most played version of the 'D&D').
That sounds a lot like Abraham Thorne if you believe he is acting out of a sense of injustice. If you think his motives are more personal, then I could see chaotic Neutral or even Evil, if you believe otherwise.
As for his harsh acts, I would ask you to point to a Chaotic Good character who wiped out his entire species for the good of the Universe. Guess Who?
http://dt16community.nbed.nb.ca/blogs/tommietalk/files/2013/05/doctorwho50.png
No one would consider him evil. If you see him as less than evil, wouldn't you have to give Abraham Thorne a pass if his motives are noble (something we do not know yet)?
Also, I noticed that many of your kids are Lawful Good. That makes sense, being children of privilege whom the laws support and who are basically decent. I think most such people at some point need to choose between lawful and good. I suspect the young, when confronted at a young age of the evil of a lawful evil society, choose good. But if they are spared that banality, they more often choose law, because they grow up, have kids, jobs, or whatever and are invested in the system and therefore come to the point they can excuse and justify said system.
Hope this is interesting and helpful.
Take care,
Kerney
no subject
Date: 2013-11-19 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-11-20 01:25 am (UTC)If I were to compare the death of Max. I would compare it Abraham Thorne to a very Lawful and possibly good character and his relations to his sons. William Adama encourages his children to join the Colonial fleet. The kids know the risk, and one of them, Zac, dies. Adama, if the stakes were high enough, he'd send his other son on a likely suicide mission. But no one would call Adama evil.
Max, like Zac Adama, knew the risks, knew what he was getting into. He died. But if you would give Bill Adama a non evil alignment, you have to give the same to Abraham Thorn.
Roanoke Underhill was an act of terrorism, but it let the Confederation know it was under threat. It, and the attacks of the schools are what make me think of a non good alignment (in spite of the enemy putting them on targets). On the other hand, he and those who follow him are at war, and disrupting the 'enemy' transportation network is a legitimate target and people got killed. Whether that is enough to make him evil, I'm not sure. I think we need to know if the killing of innocents happened because he wanted to kill others to terrorize, or whether they were incidental casualties.
What this is reminding me is that I need to re-read the books.
Take Care,
Kerney
no subject
Date: 2013-11-20 02:30 am (UTC)As for the Roanoke Underhill, I largely agree with you again, I just included it because many point to it as his moral event horizon. There aren't many targets more valid than enemy transportation infrastructure and since the civilian casualties were incidental to the attack rather than an objective (if you take Thorn at his word, he even went out of his way to prevent them) I don't think it's as evil as some people say. With the school attacks, he again went out of his way to avoid civilian casualties. And Diana's auror friend well... guys with wives and kids probably shouldn't try to kill Abraham Thorn.