I would tend to let the DM worry about alignment and all it entails.
Obviously you would pick a deity if you want if you want to play character of that type. And by doing so you sort of assume that you would work toward the ideals of that deity.(this also applies to patrons for those characters)
As you play the DM could sort of keep track of your general actions. Play against your deity's ideals and you could be forsaken or dropped.
Imo he's borderline; can't recall just how repressive the Alliance or whatever the big evil government in the setting was called, but between the experiments on the one girl (and probably a lot of other kids) and what they did to the one planet, that's edging pretty far into "are we the baddies?" territory, which could make their wet works man more LE. LN is more the open and official by-the-book type who gets told "those people are criminals/terrorists/etc., go get them" without really being aware of what kind of sketchy stuff their bosses are up to.
Not to make this thread about the bad guy from Serenity, but I think he falls more on the LE side. He even said himself that he's wicked and what he does is evil, and that there's no place for him or men like him in the "perfect world" the Alliance is trying to build.
The Operative was unaware of what happened on Miranda and once he was forced to see it, he broke his ties to the Alliance. However, before, when he was their man, he acknowledged that what he did was evil, but was done to bring about order and true goodness. I can see that being a case for LE for sure, but he was a believer, as Shepard Book said, which made him so dangerous; everything he did was done with the absolute belief that it was for the greater good. I think this awareness that he was doing evil but the belief that he did it for good makes a good case for LN, dark twist on it though it may be. I also agree that alignments are imperfect when trying to fit an entire person, with their complex emotions, thoughts, and behaviors, into these neat little boxes.
The Operative from the movie Serenity is an example of Lawful Neutral. Follow the law, enforce the law, doesn't matter what method.
Actually, I'd say his methods went into the zone of 'Evil' a number of times. He even described himself as a 'Monster' after killing innocents in pursuit of his goals.
Judge Dredd is a better example of Lawful Neutral.
Judge Dredd is a better example of Lawful Neutral.
This comes down to whether alignment is defined by belief or action. Judge Dredd believes he's doing the right thing... but he's also a psychopath.
I don't think Dredd fits neatly into an alignment. He's Lawful Apathetic. He only cares about the law and simply does not even consider it's impact on other people. There is only him, and he is the Law.
The Operative from the movie Serenity is an example of Lawful Neutral. Follow the law, enforce the law, doesn't matter what method.
Actually, I'd say his methods went into the zone of 'Evil' a number of times. He even described himself as a 'Monster' after killing innocents in pursuit of his goals.
Good people kill and steal.
The Operative didn't lie about his goals and killed in the pursuit of the law. His efforts were not random and were not for the purpose of causing pain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Judge Dredd is a better example of Lawful Neutral.
This comes down to whether alignment is defined by belief or action. Judge Dredd believes he's doing the right thing... but he's also a psychopath.
I don't think Dredd fits neatly into an alignment. He's Lawful Apathetic. He only cares about the law and simply does not even consider it's impact on other people. There is only him, and he is the Law.
Less charitably, you could call that evil too.
Dredd, at least as he was originally written, was a parody of Lawful Neutral.
I don't think the Operative counts as Lawful at all: he enforces the Alliance's laws but he explicitly operates outside of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Dredd, at least as he was originally written, was a parody of Lawful Neutral.
I don't think the Operative counts as Lawful at all: he enforces the Alliance's laws but he explicitly operates outside of them.
You don't have to adhere to writ law to be lawful.
Lawful Neutral are identified as individuals who 'act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.' (2014)
While Lawful Evil are identified as individuals who 'methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.' (2014)
I think both could be argued to fit the Operative, as his personal code dictates his actions, which are done in accordance with his loyalty to the Alliance. I would say he is both, as his actions scream LE during most of the film, but the conclusion shows that his personal codes are more important to him than his loyalty.
One of the issues with determining the alignment of fictional characters that aren't from a D&D world is that they don't really adhere to D&D alignments very well (plus alignment is a description of how you behave most of the time, not ever single moment of the time). And also the description of different alignments is fuzzy and changes depending on the author and edition. By the end of the film, the Operative has most likely switched over to a Chaotic alignment of some kind, though we really don't see enough of his behavior to have an accurate picture.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Dredd, at least as he was originally written, was a parody of Lawful Neutral.
I don't think the Operative counts as Lawful at all: he enforces the Alliance's laws but he explicitly operates outside of them.
You don't have to adhere to writ law to be lawful.
Lawful Neutral are identified as individuals who 'act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.' (2014)
While Lawful Evil are identified as individuals who 'methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.' (2014)
I think both could be argued to fit the Operative, as his personal code dictates his actions, which are done in accordance with his loyalty to the Alliance. I would say he is both, as his actions scream LE during most of the film, but the conclusion shows that his personal codes are more important to him than his loyalty.
Honestly, the "personal codes" bit is somewhere between unhelpful and counterproductive for Lawful's description, imo. Having a few basic principles you hold to is not being Lawful, it's being a normal functional individual instead of a Chaotic Stupid who has no consistency to their behavior. I'd say being Lawful requires the "internal codes" to be closer to fully fleshed out philosophy rather than just a half dozen personal taboos or standards.
Dredd, at least as he was originally written, was a parody of Lawful Neutral.
I don't think the Operative counts as Lawful at all: he enforces the Alliance's laws but he explicitly operates outside of them.
You don't have to adhere to writ law to be lawful.
Lawful Neutral are identified as individuals who 'act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.' (2014)
While Lawful Evil are identified as individuals who 'methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.' (2014)
I think both could be argued to fit the Operative, as his personal code dictates his actions, which are done in accordance with his loyalty to the Alliance. I would say he is both, as his actions scream LE during most of the film, but the conclusion shows that his personal codes are more important to him than his loyalty.
Honestly, the "personal codes" bit is somewhere between unhelpful and counterproductive for Lawful's description, imo. Having a few basic principles you hold to is not being Lawful, it's being a normal functional individual instead of a Chaotic Stupid who has no consistency to their behavior. I'd say being Lawful requires the "internal codes" to be closer to fully fleshed out philosophy rather than just a half dozen personal taboos or standards.
Yeah, Han Solo in A New Hope is the textbook example of Chaotic Neutral and he's got a personal code. He's not in this for your revolution, but he'll come back and save the life of a friend.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Great points, both, but Han is a man who had, up until his meeting with Luke, been flexible in his code. He would make compromises in the name of survival or simply to fill his pockets. He may have had a code, but it didn't crystalize until he started to believe in people again. I think lawful people, in so far as these alignment descriptions are concerned, make no compromises to their code, and will die in the service of that code. Mal was proudly a self-described lawless man, but he was uncompromising in his own personal law and near as I can remember, did only threaten to break his own internal laws but never acted on the threats.
Again, though, having a handful of personal hard lines is not actually a distinct and defining personality trait. As the saying goes, everyone has standards- or at least the complete absence of standards is considered a very noteworthy departure from the norm. "I look out for my friends/crew" or "I don't like bullies" are not positive indicators of a Lawful character by themselves. Really, the more a given "code" looks like the Personality, Bonds, Ideals, Flaws entries from 2014, the less I'd call it a Lawful indicator as opposed to just characterization.
That just seems like a convenient way to ignore the definition used in the alignments. These handful of hard lines serve to form a held and binding code. Does that not meet the definition outlined in the rules?
If you'll recall, my earlier point is that the definition- or rather lack thereof- for "personal codes" is a problem with the 5e interpretation of Lawful. It's so general that going by it someone could try and say my CN Feylock character who emulates Fey behavior and etiquette is Lawful because he is adhering to certain standards of behavior. By definition one's ideals and principles are "held and binding", but the simple presence of such things are considered basic components of identity IRL as well as for fictional characters, so their presence doesn't make a good test/check among types of characterization beyond "uninhibited and/or deranged character".
If you'll recall, my earlier point is that the definition- or rather lack thereof- for "personal codes" is a problem with the 5e interpretation of Lawful. It's so general that going by it someone could try and say my CN Feylock character who emulates Fey behavior and etiquette is Lawful because he is adhering to certain standards of behavior. By definition one's ideals and principles are "held and binding", but the simple presence of such things are considered basic components of identity IRL as well as for fictional characters, so their presence doesn't make a good test/check among types of characterization beyond "uninhibited and/or deranged character".
I do recall, but if you make up your own definitions of alignments, we can't play the game of discussing which characters fit into which alignments without being tied into the very knot we find ourselves in now because only one of us is choosing to use the definitions used in the rule book.
I do recall, but if you make up your own definitions of alignments, we can't play the game of discussing which characters fit into which alignments without being tied into the very knot we find ourselves in now because only one of us is choosing to use the definitions used in the rule book.
Making up definitions is unavoidable, because the existing definitions are (probably unavoidably) vague; what exactly qualifies as a 'personal code', for example, is never specified (I would say Han's rule is too narrow -- yes, it's a rule he doesn't break, but it also doesn't come up very often).
I do recall, but if you make up your own definitions of alignments, we can't play the game of discussing which characters fit into which alignments without being tied into the very knot we find ourselves in now because only one of us is choosing to use the definitions used in the rule book.
Making up definitions is unavoidable, because the existing definitions are (probably unavoidably) vague; what exactly qualifies as a 'personal code', for example, is never specified (I would say Han's rule is too narrow -- yes, it's a rule he doesn't break, but it also doesn't come up very often).
Anyway, I am just here because someone mentioned a beloved series and I wanted to participate in a discussion about Firefly. It has ceased being a fun, light conversation about dearly missed characters though, so I guess this is where I will bow out.
I can't believe that Luke and Han come up in a discussion about Lawful Neutral, but not the Armorer from the Mandalorian. Din Djarin would probably more closely align with Lawful Good throughout most of the show, but the Armorer enforces the Code even on Din Djarin. She doesn't care why the Code is broken, only that it is broken and the offender must atone in the appropriate manner.
I can't believe that Luke and Han come up in a discussion about Lawful Neutral, but not the Armorer from the Mandalorian. Din Djarin would probably more closely align with Lawful Good throughout most of the show, but the Armorer enforces the Code even on Din Djarin. She doesn't care why the Code is broken, only that it is broken and the offender must atone in the appropriate manner.
Yeah, well, no shade on the Mandalorian but there have been an order of magnitude more people who've seen the original Star Wars Trilogy than that show.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would tend to let the DM worry about alignment and all it entails.
Obviously you would pick a deity if you want if you want to play character of that type. And by doing so you sort of assume that you would work toward the ideals of that deity.(this also applies to patrons for those characters)
As you play the DM could sort of keep track of your general actions. Play against your deity's ideals and you could be forsaken or dropped.
The Operative was unaware of what happened on Miranda and once he was forced to see it, he broke his ties to the Alliance. However, before, when he was their man, he acknowledged that what he did was evil, but was done to bring about order and true goodness. I can see that being a case for LE for sure, but he was a believer, as Shepard Book said, which made him so dangerous; everything he did was done with the absolute belief that it was for the greater good. I think this awareness that he was doing evil but the belief that he did it for good makes a good case for LN, dark twist on it though it may be. I also agree that alignments are imperfect when trying to fit an entire person, with their complex emotions, thoughts, and behaviors, into these neat little boxes.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Actually, I'd say his methods went into the zone of 'Evil' a number of times. He even described himself as a 'Monster' after killing innocents in pursuit of his goals.
Judge Dredd is a better example of Lawful Neutral.
This comes down to whether alignment is defined by belief or action. Judge Dredd believes he's doing the right thing... but he's also a psychopath.
I don't think Dredd fits neatly into an alignment. He's Lawful Apathetic. He only cares about the law and simply does not even consider it's impact on other people. There is only him, and he is the Law.
Less charitably, you could call that evil too.
Good people kill and steal.
The Operative didn't lie about his goals and killed in the pursuit of the law. His efforts were not random and were not for the purpose of causing pain.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Dredd, at least as he was originally written, was a parody of Lawful Neutral.
I don't think the Operative counts as Lawful at all: he enforces the Alliance's laws but he explicitly operates outside of them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You don't have to adhere to writ law to be lawful.
Lawful Neutral are identified as individuals who 'act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.' (2014)
While Lawful Evil are identified as individuals who 'methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.' (2014)
I think both could be argued to fit the Operative, as his personal code dictates his actions, which are done in accordance with his loyalty to the Alliance. I would say he is both, as his actions scream LE during most of the film, but the conclusion shows that his personal codes are more important to him than his loyalty.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
One of the issues with determining the alignment of fictional characters that aren't from a D&D world is that they don't really adhere to D&D alignments very well (plus alignment is a description of how you behave most of the time, not ever single moment of the time). And also the description of different alignments is fuzzy and changes depending on the author and edition. By the end of the film, the Operative has most likely switched over to a Chaotic alignment of some kind, though we really don't see enough of his behavior to have an accurate picture.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Honestly, the "personal codes" bit is somewhere between unhelpful and counterproductive for Lawful's description, imo. Having a few basic principles you hold to is not being Lawful, it's being a normal functional individual instead of a Chaotic Stupid who has no consistency to their behavior. I'd say being Lawful requires the "internal codes" to be closer to fully fleshed out philosophy rather than just a half dozen personal taboos or standards.
Yeah, Han Solo in A New Hope is the textbook example of Chaotic Neutral and he's got a personal code. He's not in this for your revolution, but he'll come back and save the life of a friend.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Great points, both, but Han is a man who had, up until his meeting with Luke, been flexible in his code. He would make compromises in the name of survival or simply to fill his pockets. He may have had a code, but it didn't crystalize until he started to believe in people again. I think lawful people, in so far as these alignment descriptions are concerned, make no compromises to their code, and will die in the service of that code. Mal was proudly a self-described lawless man, but he was uncompromising in his own personal law and near as I can remember, did only threaten to break his own internal laws but never acted on the threats.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That just seems like a convenient way to ignore the definition used in the alignments. These handful of hard lines serve to form a held and binding code. Does that not meet the definition outlined in the rules?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
If you'll recall, my earlier point is that the definition- or rather lack thereof- for "personal codes" is a problem with the 5e interpretation of Lawful. It's so general that going by it someone could try and say my CN Feylock character who emulates Fey behavior and etiquette is Lawful because he is adhering to certain standards of behavior. By definition one's ideals and principles are "held and binding", but the simple presence of such things are considered basic components of identity IRL as well as for fictional characters, so their presence doesn't make a good test/check among types of characterization beyond "uninhibited and/or deranged character".
I do recall, but if you make up your own definitions of alignments, we can't play the game of discussing which characters fit into which alignments without being tied into the very knot we find ourselves in now because only one of us is choosing to use the definitions used in the rule book.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Making up definitions is unavoidable, because the existing definitions are (probably unavoidably) vague; what exactly qualifies as a 'personal code', for example, is never specified (I would say Han's rule is too narrow -- yes, it's a rule he doesn't break, but it also doesn't come up very often).
The list of personality traits by alignment may be more helpful than the actual alignment definitions.
Point.
Anyway, I am just here because someone mentioned a beloved series and I wanted to participate in a discussion about Firefly. It has ceased being a fun, light conversation about dearly missed characters though, so I guess this is where I will bow out.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I can't believe that Luke and Han come up in a discussion about Lawful Neutral, but not the Armorer from the Mandalorian. Din Djarin would probably more closely align with Lawful Good throughout most of the show, but the Armorer enforces the Code even on Din Djarin. She doesn't care why the Code is broken, only that it is broken and the offender must atone in the appropriate manner.
Yeah, well, no shade on the Mandalorian but there have been an order of magnitude more people who've seen the original Star Wars Trilogy than that show.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.