101 réponses à ce sujet

[dipdunk]

Lawful Good - Samara
Neutral Good - Tali, Ash
Chaotic Good - Garrus (good, but very anti-"doing things by the book")
Lawful Neutral - Zaeed, Thane (don't care about good or evil, each one just follows the contract)
True Neutral - Legion
Chaotic Neutral - Grunt (doesn't care about good or evil, just wants to kill stuff)
Lawful Evil -
Neutral Evil -
Chaotic Evil - Morinth, Jack

Jacob and Miranda are hard to pin down.

Mordin is definitely good.  He has a very strict morality he follows in regards to the genophage, but the sterilization of an entire race makes it hard to list him as lawful good.

Zaeed and Thane could possibly be moved to True Neutral.

Alenko and Jacob are candidates for the new designation of Bland Neutral.

Reapers and Collectors are definitely Evil, but not sure whether to designate them as Lawful, or Neutral

[Onyx Jaguar]

How exactly do the alignments work.

[Fat Headed Wolf]

Jacob and Miranda are hard to put down. I suppose most of them depend on your perspective though. Like most people would say the Reapers Neutral but they themselves would probably call themselves Lawful Good (or at least Lawful Evil).



Same with Samara. If you have a problem with her killing a merc without a weapon you could call her Lawful Evil even though most would call her Lawful Good.

[wizardryforever]

I'd say Mordin is Chaotic Good, since he is open to doing things in just about any way so long as they don't conflict with his own personal moral compass. He doesn't particularly care about the law, though, at least, not that I can tell.



Also, I'd say that Morinth is Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil. She doesn't wreak havoc just for kicks, she is very cold and calculating, but still looks out for numero uno (herself). I also don't think Jack exactly fits in Chaotic Evil either, Chaotic Neutral definitely. She doesn't commit evil acts just because she can and wants to see chaos there were times where she does evil things, but they are always retaliatory, not preemptive. That seems to spell CN, leaning towards CE.

[Collider]

Lawful Good - Kaidan, Samara

Neutral Good - Ashley, Jacob, Tali

Chaotic Good - Garrus, Kasumi, Mordin, Thane

Lawful Neutral -

True Neutral - Legion, Samara, Miranda, Zaeed, Wrex

Chaotic Neutral - Grunt, Jack

Lawful Evil -

Neutral Evil - Morinth

Chaotic Evil -

[Garuda One]

@Collider, to me when we first meet Miranda, Lawful Evil, Jack is totally Chaotic Evil.

[Tlazolteotl]

Pfft ... still using 3rd edition alignments, I see.

[InStereoWhereAvailable]

Lawful Good - Samara
Neutral Good - Tali, Ash, Jacob, Mordin
Chaotic Good - Garrus,
Lawful Neutral - Miranda, Kasumi
True Neutral - Legion, Zaeed, Thane
Chaotic Neutral - Grunt, Jack
Lawful Evil -
Neutral Evil - Morinth
Chaotic Evil -

That's how I see it.

[mosor]

dipdunk wrote...

Lawful Good - Samara
Neutral Good - Tali, Ash
Chaotic Good - Garrus (good, but very anti-"doing things by the book")
Lawful Neutral - Zaeed, Thane (don't care about good or evil, each one just follows the contract)
True Neutral - Legion
Chaotic Neutral - Grunt (doesn't care about good or evil, just wants to kill stuff)
Lawful Evil -
Neutral Evil -
Chaotic Evil - Morinth, Jack

Jacob and Miranda are hard to pin down.

Mordin is definitely good.  He has a very strict morality he follows in regards to the genophage, but the sterilization of an entire race makes it hard to list him as lawful good.

Zaeed and Thane could possibly be moved to True Neutral.

Alenko and Jacob are candidates for the new designation of Bland Neutral.

Reapers and Collectors are definitely Evil, but not sure whether to designate them as Lawful, or Neutral

Cerberus aside, Jacob is generally lawful good.  He chides you for doing **** things, and if he gives you his word, he'll probably keep it.

I see Zaeed as lawful evil. He'll hold his end of the bargain, but pefectly willing to let the factory workers burn to get hs revenge, or strap some explosives on a girl to disloge an enemy from their bunker.

I think Mordin can be good or evil. He's willing to do what it takes to get the job done, but will follow procedure. I say lawful neutral.

Reapers probably neutral or chaotic evil. They have no regard for rules other than their own.

[MisterShine]

I'd say...



Miranda - Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral. Probably more neutral though, she doesn't ever really seem to ENJOY doing bad things, she just does them.

Jacob - Chaotic Good. Tries to do the right thing when he can, but doesn't let rules or what other people think get in his way.

Mordin - Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, depending on your point of view. Certainly doesn't care much for laws, and sees himself as a force for good in the galaxy (even those that he is hurting)

Jack - Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. She enjoys her destructive nature, though if you do the paragon romance you see that cracking a bit. Either way, she doesn't play well with others. MAYBE a CG shift in ME3?

Garrus - Easiest one I'd say, Chaotic Good

Grunt - Chaotic Neutral, or True Neutral.

Tali - Lawful Good. Though after the thing with her father, I'd say she shifts to Neutral Good.

Thane - Chaotic Good. Though his philosophy is really hard to pin down the D&D scale.

Samara - Lawful Good, pretty easy.

Mordin - Chaotic Evil, pretty easy.

Legion - Neutral

Zaeed - Neutral Evil. Just wants to make that chedda'.

Katsumi - Chaotic Neutral maybe?

[adam_grif]

Right click + view image.

Modifié par adam_grif, 10 mai 2010 - 03:41 .

[cepapoe]

[Beholderess]

Miranda - seems pretty much Lawful Evil (unquestioningly loyal to an evil organisation and willing to do anything for said organisation to succeed) when you first meet her. Possibly switches to Lawful Neutral or even True Neutral later.



Jacob - Chaotic Good. Wants to do right, but left Alliance because it had too much rules for his liking.



Mordin - now this one is hard to pin down. Possibly True Neutral, as his methods and goals balance each other perfectly.



Jack - Chaotic Evil. Has no regard for the laws, enjoys causing destruction wherever she goes just because she can, likes killing people. Possible change to Chaotic Netral if paragon-romanced.



Garrus - Chaotic Good. Almost classical example of said alignement



Grunt - True Neutral. Children are usually of this alignement=)



Tali - Lawful Good.



Thane - Neutral Good, though he was True Neutral earlier



Samara - Lawful Neutral. She says herself that in her case, Law>Good



Morinth - Chaotic Evil. She kills people for personal power and has great fun doing it.



Legion - True Neutral



Zaeed - Neutral Evil. He has his goals, and doesn't care how he reaches them. Takes no pleasure in making others suffer, but has completely no compulsions against doing it anyway if it benefits him.



Kazumi - no idea, don't have this DLC=)

[enormousmoonboots]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Pfft ... still using 3rd edition alignments, I see.

4ed alignments are dumbed down and liking 4ed makes you a bad person. Get out.

LG
Samara (I can see where people would get LN from, but judging by the Nihlus story her code has her default to saving innocents, which tips her more towards good)
Kaidan (I dunno where he goes if you Renegade him, but he seems to disapprove of your Renegade actions, and he doesn't like racism)
Tali (quarian culture disapproves of lawbreaking, see her comments about stealing the Normandy. I could see her going NG, though, given the exile debacle)

NG
ME1 Liara (she's naive, but doesn't seem to have a particular devotion to law)
Mordin (I'm waffling on him, but I don't think you can call him TN because of his devotion to the greater good. He doesn't go out of his way to break the law or hold a particular contempt for it, which means he's not chaotic, but he also has no particular regard if it gets in his way)
Thane (again, no particular contempt or devotion for the law, and definite good bent. By the time of the game, at least, before that I'd call him TN or maybe even NE depending on how benevolent his hanar bosses were. I'm a little skeptical about the idea of career assassins that don't choose their own targets and somehow only ever kill bad guys)

CG
Garrus (don't know how you can argue this. Though I think he might lean more NG if you Paragon him)
Jacob (he is kind of contradictory, though. At any rate, he doesn't like the Alliance's rules and seems to think TIM believes he is important--"The Illusive Man knows I disapprove"...yeah, Jacob, I'm sure he cares)

LN
Possibly Miranda and possibly Samara, but this is an empty category otherwise

TN
Legion (he is a robot.)

CN
Paragon'd Jack (she learns how to feel or some crap, definitely becomes more stable)
Grunt (he's childish, but loves chaos. Just look at his reaction to Jack breaking out. He doesn't care enough to end up in evil, though)
Kasumi (I don't think I can stick her in good, even though her actions--rescuing the kid, protecting Keiji's memories--do lean that way. She's not a Robin Hood thief. But she'd definitely be a 'proper' CN player, not a 'hurr so randum' one)
Wrex (I can't quite bring myself to call him evil after ME2; he seems more moral than Zaeed is, given his dedication to the krogan people. I feel like chaotic isn't quite right either, but TN doesn't really fit him)

LE
Initial Miranda (works for evil corporation, behind them 100% until people start melting. Probably goes up to LN after the Collector Base)

NE
Zaeed (doesn't care about laws, but boy does he love him some revenge, no matter the cost. Pre-betrayal Zaeed might have been LE, given his reluctance to work with terrorists)

CE
Morinth (she is a sociopathic murderer.)
Regular/Renegade'd Jack (unless you change her, she likes killing people and wreaking havoc, no question about it)

???
ME2 Liara (seriously, I have no idea. Maybe...TN?)
Ashley (LN, maybe? She's got a lot of respect for authority. But she falls into the game's category of 'sassy Renegade', which is kind of a weird one. She's not very trustful, but while she loves her family, she seems to have less regard for collateral damage casualties since she usually argues the Renegade approach--damn you, ME1 and your stupid flip-flopping alignment scale!)

[adriano_c]

Had to look these up...

dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment_and_Description

Lawful Good, “Crusader”:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor and compassion.

- Samara, possibly
- Jacob
- Ashley, possibly

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”:

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

Neutral good means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

- Tali
- Liara, possibly

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

- Garrus
- Mordin, possibly
- Kasumi
- Thane, possibly

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

- Samara, possibly
- Miranda, possibly
- Ashley, possibly

Neutral, “Undecided”:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

A variation of the neutral character alignment can be seen in Dragon Issue #310. (Relating to Paladin class.) The variation is that balance is achieved through destruction. This neutral character would be one that believes all good, evil, law, and chaos can only be balanced by ridding the material plane of their existence. And in the end, they would remove themselves as well.

This form of Neutral alignment, lets you help your party for many adventures, as you further your alignments purpose. Though at somepoint, you will have to deal with them as well.

- Legion
- Mordin, possibly
- The Illusive Man, possibly
- Miranda, possibly
- Thane, possibly
- Liara, possibly

Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”:

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

- Grunt, possibly
- Jack, possibly
- Zaeed, possibly
- Morinth, possibly
- Wrex

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”:

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

- The Illusive Man, possibly
- Morinth, possibly

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

- Grunt, possibly
- Jack, possibly
- Zaeed, possibly

Modifié par adriano_c, 10 mai 2010 - 07:13 .

[Beholderess]

enormousmoonboots wrote...

4ed alignments are dumbed down and liking 4ed makes you a bad person. Get out.

Hey, I like 4ed! But prefer 3ed alignements

enormousmoonboots wrote...

LG
Samara (I can see where people would get LN from, but judging by the Nihlus story her code has her default to saving innocents, which tips her more towards good)
Kaidan (I dunno where he goes if you Renegade him, but he seems to disapprove of your Renegade actions, and he doesn't like racism)
Tali (quarian culture disapproves of lawbreaking, see her comments about stealing the Normandy. I could see her going NG, though, given the exile debacle)

NG
ME1 Liara (she's naive, but doesn't seem to have a particular devotion to law)
Mordin (I'm waffling on him, but I don't think you can call him TN because of his devotion to the greater good. He doesn't go out of his way to break the law or hold a particular contempt for it, which means he's not chaotic, but he also has no particular regard if it gets in his way)
Thane (again, no particular contempt or devotion for the law, and definite good bent. By the time of the game, at least, before that I'd call him TN or maybe even NE depending on how benevolent his hanar bosses were. I'm a little skeptical about the idea of career assassins that don't choose their own targets and somehow only ever kill bad guys)

CG
Garrus (don't know how you can argue this. Though I think he might lean more NG if you Paragon him)
Jacob (he is kind of contradictory, though. At any rate, he doesn't like the Alliance's rules and seems to think TIM believes he is important--"The Illusive Man knows I disapprove"...yeah, Jacob, I'm sure he cares)

LN
Possibly Miranda and possibly Samara, but this is an empty category otherwise

TN
Legion (he is a robot.)

CN
Paragon'd Jack (she learns how to feel or some crap, definitely becomes more stable)
Grunt (he's childish, but loves chaos. Just look at his reaction to Jack breaking out. He doesn't care enough to end up in evil, though)
Kasumi (I don't think I can stick her in good, even though her actions--rescuing the kid, protecting Keiji's memories--do lean that way. She's not a Robin Hood thief. But she'd definitely be a 'proper' CN player, not a 'hurr so randum' one)
Wrex (I can't quite bring myself to call him evil after ME2; he seems more moral than Zaeed is, given his dedication to the krogan people. I feel like chaotic isn't quite right either, but TN doesn't really fit him)

LE
Initial Miranda (works for evil corporation, behind them 100% until people start melting. Probably goes up to LN after the Collector Base)

NE
Zaeed (doesn't care about laws, but boy does he love him some revenge, no matter the cost. Pre-betrayal Zaeed might have been LE, given his reluctance to work with terrorists)

CE
Morinth (she is a sociopathic murderer.)
Regular/Renegade'd Jack (unless you change her, she likes killing people and wreaking havoc, no question about it)

???
ME2 Liara (seriously, I have no idea. Maybe...TN?)
Ashley (LN, maybe? She's got a lot of respect for authority. But she falls into the game's category of 'sassy Renegade', which is kind of a weird one. She's not very trustful, but while she loves her family, she seems to have less regard for collateral damage casualties since she usually argues the Renegade approach--damn you, ME1 and your stupid flip-flopping alignment scale!)

Not sure why Wrex and Mordin cannot be TN - TN can mean lack of strong convincions, but doesn't have to. It can mean a great contradiction between goals and means (having a worthy goal does not make person good), or a goal that has little to do with morality.

ME2 Liara is certainly TN, and she can slide to NE is she is not careful in her current cource. Really, she was willing to kill 5 people based on suspition only...
And Ashley looks like a classic LN, LG if paragoned.

[Lemonwizard]

Honestly I think Samara fits under lawful stupid more than lawful good.





I am not intellectually inclined enough at the moment to discuss anything further.

[Beholderess]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Honestly I think Samara fits under lawful stupid more than lawful good.


I am not intellectually inclined enough at the moment to discuss anything further.

Heh, Samara is an interesting subversion of lawful stupid, cos' she is aware that her code sometimes requires her to act as such, and that sometimes not following the code could be an objectively better course of action, and she aknowleges this fact.

[shoemy89]

Maybe...

Lawful Good - Tali
Neutral Good - Mordin, Kasumi, Liara, Kaiden
Chaotic Good - Garrus
Lawful Neutral - Samara, Thane, Jacob, Wrex, Ashley
True Neutral - Legion
Chaotic Neutral - Grunt, Zaeed
Lawful Evil - Miranda
Neutral Evil -
Chaotic Evil - Jack, Morinth

Tried to think of as many as possible. :l

Modifié par shoemy89, 10 mai 2010 - 07:01 .

[Nivenus]

Saw this and thought I might comment given that I've had played a part in alignment discussions several times before. Be warned, what follows is a massive post.

For the sake of argument, I imagine we're using the 2nd / 3rd edition alignments based on  your post rather than the dumbed down 4e alignments (that's not a dig necessarily - I largely enjoy 4e rules).

Lawful Good - The Crusader

The lawful good character is the archetypical paladin of truth, justice, and the Alliance way. A common misconception about lawful good characters is that they have to follow the law, even if it's evil. However, this is very much not true. Lawful good characters, like characters of all the good alignments, are avowedly good people and while the need to balance law and good does require a juggling act of sorts from time to time that can provide conflict for the character, if a law is blatantly and undeniably evil than a truly lawful good character will feel no compulsion to follow it: in their eyes, no law is truly lawful that enforces evil upon others. Also important to note is that a lawful good character does not necessarily follow the laws of the land in which they travel: rather, they adhere to a single code of laws and rules which they consider to be the purest and, most important, most effective method of enforcing good.

What distinguishes a lawful good character from a lawful neutral one is that, unlike the latter, a purely lawful good character will never willingly commit an act that is evil, even if the law requires it: good and law must be held in equal respect. What distinguishes a lawful good character from a neutral good one is the reverse: a lawful good character that is pure of heart will never break their code unless it requires them to harm someone (which it wouldn't if they're truly lawful good), even if it puts them at a disadvantage in their efforts to do good. Neutral good characters feel no such compunction.

Examples:

Kaidan is probably lawful good, though a strong case can be made that he's neutral good too. Kaidan is willing to stand up and say if he thinks something is wrong, but when the cards are down, he does what he's told, so long as it doesn't require him to do something he considers beyond the pale morally. Furthermore, he seems to admire and respect the Alliance and the Citadel Council as institutions, even if he doesn't always agree with their decisions, which is the mark of a well-developed lawful good character: lawful good characters do not always think that the sun shines and sets on the shoulders of authority figures, but they deliver them the respect they deserve regardless of their personal feelings.

A case could also be made that David Anderson is lawful good: particularly in the novels. While he's willing to break the laws of the Citadel and risk charges of treason during the end game of ME1 the only reason he does this is because he knows that if he doesn't the entire galaxy will be destroyed by the Reapers. Under these circumstances, any sane lawful good character will willingly abandon their code, even if it is technically unlawful. Doing otherwise is what we like to call "lawful stupid."

Also, while she probably doesn't start out this way, one could argue with a reasonable degree of certainty that Miranda ends up lawful good at the end of ME2 (assuming you choose the paragon ending). Her objection to the Illusive Man's proposed use of the Collector base is nothing if not based in a moral objection which is untypical of lawful neutral characters and it is practically indisputable, given her love of rules, protocol, and regulations, that she's unlawful (her association with a criminal organization aside).

Neutral Good - The Benefactor

A neutral good characters is someone who, above all else, considers the concerns of others over themselves. Often, though not always, these characters are very sweet, kind people who will go out of their way to help others. This is not necessarily true, however, since Good is Not Nice. But it usually is. A neutral good character is different from a lawful good character in that they do not require a codified set of rules to guide their morality but differ from chaotic good characters in that they do not view authority and law as inherently constrictive or oppressive and feel themselves no more compelled to fight it than the average person, so long as that law is not tyrannical in nature.

Examples:

The original post is quite correct in identifying Tali is this. Tali's a borderline lawful good, but ultimately she is not as bound to tradition and authority as the typical lawful good character is and she's got enough renegade tendencies (which tend to be fairly chaotic in nature) to put her squarely in "neutral good." And I think it goes without saying that Tali is definitely the type who puts the good of others over herself.

Jacob could also qualify as neutral good, though more information on his activities within Cerberus (an organization that is, at best, neutral on the good/evil axis) is required to be sure. Like Tali, he's a generally nice person and he seems neither substantially attached to rules and regulations nor particularly compelled to rebel against them. Instead, he seems to follow his heart, a mark of the neutral good character, which led him first to the Alliance Navy, then to Cerberus, and, ultimately, to Shepard.

Ashley is probably also neutral good, in spite of her rough attitude. For one thing, while Ashley clearly has a disdain for authority figures who fail to meet her expectations she seems to fall in line whenever one tells her to. Of course, not doing so would be suicidal for her career in the military, but regardless the point stands. It is noteworthy that she does evidently, according to her record, have a few discipline problems so she's probably on the cusp between being a true chaotic good and a neutral good character. Paragoning her or renegading her in this case is, however, more about moving her further along the good/evil axis rather than the law/chaos one, so she'll remain neutral good if  you paragon her while becoming closer to true neutral if you renegade her.

Liara (as of ME1) is also probably neutral good, though in some ways it's hard to say if she's this or lawful good. In support of the latter, she does tend to favor the most extreme paragon options in ME1 and paragon at its most extreme is straight up lawful good. However, her antisocial tendencies (by which I mean her sharp discomfort when around more than a few people) and seeming tendency to follow her own heart, wherever that leads her, is probably a clearer case of a neutral good character and it's important to remember that lawful good doesn't mean super good.

Interestingly, a strong argument can be made that Mordin is neutral good, in spite of the genophage modification you can confront him over and which he eventually angsts over. This is because that, in spite of his alleged moral grayness, he rarely, if ever proposes doing anything that is morally questionable in the traditional D&D sense. Sure, he shows a willingness to kill, but then, so does every other character in the game. The most evil thing he does is the genophage modification which, as he tells it, is actually far less evil than it initially sounds and he certainly goes out of his way to help others - the mark of a truly good character. However, he clearly has no concern for protocol (beyond what medical safety dictates) but neither is he resentful of it, so neither lawful good nor chaotic good fit him.

A paragoned Garrus might end up neutral good, depending on your perspective.

Chaotic Good - The Rebel

Chaotic good characters are frequently misunderstood. They are not good characters who are cool with doing evil things from time to time. Nor are they good characters who randomly spaz and do crazy random things that make no sense. Neither of those is what "chaotic" is about. What is a chaotic good character is a person who naturally dislikes authority or any outside attempt to direct their lives but who is, of their own accord, a good person who helps out others when they can, regardless of what others think about it. Chaotic good characters have little care - even less than neutral good characters - for how other people regard them and generally just do whatever they feel like doing - which, in their case, is either harmless or beneficial to others.

What separates a chaotic characters from a neutral good character is that they are not merely indifferent to authority but outright resentful of it. What separates them from a chaotic neutral character is that they're still largely benevolent in nature and that they will rarely do anything harmful to maintain their freedom of spirit - like all good character, they're still self-sacrificing.

Examples:

It's a tough call, but I'd say Garrus is an example of chaotic good by default (though you can make him lean more towards neutral good or chaotic neutral depending on whether you paragon or renegade him). Garrus is ultimately a brash rebel, who chaffs at authority and regulations but wants to do the right thing. While he can be ruthless - a non-good quality - he's still pure enough of heart when you meet him that about the worst that he seems to have done is be overly reckless. And, after all, good isn't nice.

One could also argue that Kasumi is chaotic good, though she makes a strong case for chaotic neutral as well. She's not evil by any standard and the people she seems to rob are those who aren't really harmed by her thievery anyway, like rich aristocrats, or people who are jerks anyway, like gangsters. She also seems to be a generally well-meaning individual, based on her comments about your crew mates, which show a fair degree of empathy and concern for their well-being.

Lawful Neutral - The Judge

A lawful neutral character believes in the adherence to an objective code by the letter, without consideration for the circumstances or whether someone gets hurt. This doesn't mean they're "lawful stupid," however, it just means that they believe that any code worth obeying is worth adhering to with as much discipline as possible. What separates lawful neutral characters from lawful good characters is their willingness to do whatever is necessary to follow their code and that they will not "bend" the rules to help others, while what separates them from lawful evil characters is that their code usually prohibits them from harming others unnecessarily and they will not bend the rules to help themselves.

Examples:

Samara is practically an embodiment of this trope. Completely selfless but also completely detached from conventional morality, Samara even admits that her methods are ruthless. However, she refrains from harming those who do not impede her task and holds herself as tightly to the code as anyone else.

A strong case can be made that Wrex in ME2 is an example of lawful neutral. While he certainly is ruthless enough when pushed that he could be considered lawful evil he seems to do his best to avoid unnecessary conflict and encourages dialogue and conciliation over violence as a means to solving problems. For this reason, he can probably be firmly considered to be in the lawful neutral category, with a few evil tendencies owing to his ready willingness to get nasty when he feels its necessary.

Miranda is also probably lawful neutral, though depending on how things turn out she might shift towards lawful good by the end of ME2. She's a constant Cerberus apologist who's loyalty is in no way questioned and she's got a clear love for protocol, discipline, rules, and regulations that begs her firmly as lawful. however, once more, she's a Cerberus apologist and she makes few excuses for Cerberus' atrocities, largely, I think, because she feels they were necessary. She doesn't necessarily condone them, however, and she seems to feel that certain things are sacred, so I think she skirts the line of lawful evil just by a hair and, if you carry out her loyalty mission and paragon your way to the end of the game, it's possible even to edge her towards lawful good.

Thane, however, is not lawful neutral (more on this in a bit). While he shows remorse for his killings, he still carries them out nonetheless and seems to have little concern over the nature of the contracts he takes. Never once, in his stories does he pause to say that there was a contract he never took. The closest he ever comes is when he talks about how he met his wife, but that's not enough to exonerate him.

Zaeed also isn't lawful neutral, though for different reasons. Unlike Thane, he does seem to have a limit on what contracts he's willing to take so he's clearly got moral qualms. However, I don't really see him adhering to any kind of code in the game: none of his dialogue suggests he believes in any such thing. Zaeed's more pure mercenary, which is more of a neutral trait.

(True) Neutral - The Undecided

Neutrals come in three kinds - the unaligned who simply have no strong inclination one way, those who simply have a different moral perspective, and "true" neutrals, individuals who actively strive to avoid "extremes" of good and evil or law and chaos (in some ways, Taoism meets this latter definition). The first are simply your average joe who either doesn't have the time, the desire, or simply the willpower to adhere to one of the other alignments and who just slips back into something more mundane. The second and third both tend to include individuals who are just as devoted and strident in their worldviews as the most dedicated of the other alignments, but whose ideals just don't match up with the traditional ideas of good and evil or law and chaos. The third in particular tend to have the abstract concept that not only can law and chaos come in excess, but so can good and evil. Perhaps they believe that every good act has an evil reciprocal and so good acts must be limited, but whatever the case, their morality simply doesn't match up with the traditional D&D axes.

Example:

Yeah, Legion's pretty much this. He's not really harming anybody in what he does, but he also doesn't really have a feel for organic concepts of morality and what he does know he has only the barest grasp of. It's not so much that he does equal good and evil, it's just that he doesn't have a concept of either.

In ME1, when you meet him, Wrex is pretty much the first kind of this: he just doesn't care anymore, he's given up hope in whatever humans would call "morality" and has chosen to just embrace his own needs. He doesn't kill unless he needs to and he seems discerning enough to choose between the contracts that require him to kill innocents and those that are simply regular old wetwork. A case could be made that he's neutral evil and he certainly straddles the gray line, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. However, if he survives ME1 and becomes the chief of Clan Urdnot, he's almost assuredly lawful neutral, straddling lawful evil.

Like Wrex, Grunt is probably also neutral, though for different reasons. While Wrex simply doesn't care when you meet him in ME1, Grunt simply has different goals than are compatible with the D&D morality axes and these goals tend to move in both the law and chaos directions, without pinning him down firmly in either. On the one hand, Grunt is firmly read and willing to kick the quads of anybody who tries to control him... unless that person is Shepard who, because he sees the commander as his "battlemaster," he is willing to obey without question. It is this incredibly resolute loyalty that makes him neutral: otherwise his general restlessness and disregard for tradition or law would probably peg him squarely in the chaotic neutral alignment.

Liara is probably neutral as of ME2, given her newfound ruthlessness and allowance for immoral acts. She's clearly slipping into neutral evil as well, given her increasing willingness to resort to violence, but she's got enough discomfort and restraint that I think she still fits squarely within the neutral alignment. It'll be interesting to see where they take her in ME3 - I have a feeling that you'll be able to push her either further towards good or evil depending on your choices.

It's tough to peg Zaeed into a single alignment for sure, but neutral's a pretty good guess to make. While Zaeed certainly has moral qualms (his distaste for torture, his admission that he was wrong to endanger the workers, etc.) they don't seem to be particularly strong ones; they're just strong enough to temper him and keep him from taking whatever contract pays the most. Ultimately, however, Zaeed looks out for himself and he's not the kind of guy who's going to foot the bill of some orphan or go crusading about the galaxy, helping others. Likewise, I really don't see him adhering to much of a code. Money comes first for Zaeed.

A renegaded Ashley might be considered neutral, depending on how forgiving you're willing to be of her now reinforced ruthlessness and distrust of other species.

Chaotic Neutral - The Anarchist

The chaotic neutral character is the freest of free spirits. Unlike the chaotic good character, a chaotic neutral individual feels no loyalty to any cause but his or her own freedom. This does not mean they just go around doing anything or that they wildly alternate between good and evil - for the most part, he or she has no strong impulses towards either and they're no more likely to stab you than they are to give you the money you need to pay for your grandmother's medicine: like the neutral character they're neither charitable nor selfish. However, unlike the neutral character the chaotic neutral character does feel a strong drive for independence and autonomy: they abhor all forms of outside authority and will struggle against any bonds placed upon them. This doesn't mean they can't form friendships or attachments - it just means that such bonds will always be voluntary and readily escapable.

The difference between a chaotic neutral individual and a chaotic good individual is that a chaotic neutral character does not put the freedom of others over their own. The difference between a chaotic neutral individual and a chaotic evil one is that the chaotic neutral character does not choose to hurt others unless they feel their rights are being impeded.

Examples:

Jack is a pretty strong (and well-written) example of a chaotic neutral. Yes, she derives pleasure from killing but, for the most part, she seems to keep this under control in Mass Effect 2 and there's never really an incident of her killing others just for the hell of it. However, Jack does strain under authority or rules and she outright refuses to see things from Shepard's point of view unless you work hard to gain her loyalty. In her relationships she usually takes the "easy way out" route, although a paragon Shepard can convince her to shift slightly over to chaotic good, trusting in others more.

In spite of his abrasive attitude, Grunt is not a chaotic neutral character. For one thing, he has far too much respect for tradition and authority (see his attitude towards Shepard).

A renegaded Garrus could probably be considered chaotic neutral given that, under this guidance, he is less likely than before to care if innocents get caught between him and his sense of justice.

Lawful Evil - The Dominator

Lawful evil is frequently the alignment of tyrants and despots - but not always. The definition of a lawful evil character is not a villain who just happens to be in a position of power. Rather, a lawful evil character is one who tempers their lack of moral qualms with a strong code that they adhere to, even if that code requires them to be evil. For example, a Sith who adheres to the Sith Code to the letter is, in spite of the Code's unusual idiosyncracies and chaotic nature, a lawful evil villain. One who bends or breaks it for their own purposes might be neutral evil. Often, lawful evil characters consider a few acts or tasks "beneath them;" although such actions may further their goals, they won't commit them nonetheless because they violate their sense of decency or honor. Many lawful evil characters also feel, like lawful neutral characters, that the code or authority they adhere to is just as or more worthy than what the heroes call "good" and that they're merely enforcing their own twisted sense of "justice." Not always th

What distinguishes a lawful evil characters from a lawful neutral one is largely their complete lack of any moral qualms; the lawful neutral character might pause before slaying an innocent in the name of the "greater good," a lawful evil character will only do so if something else about the act bothers them (rather than the killing part). Another, perhaps more important difference, is that lawful evil characters may occasionally bend the code they live for their own self-advantage, something the purest lawful neutrals would never do. What distinguishes lawful evil from neutral evil is largely the fact that lawful evil characters won't do anything that furthers themselves or their goals: they still have standards.

Examples:

In some ways, Thane is a good example of a lawful evil character, controversial as it may be to say so. Thane is borderline lawful neutral, given the large amount of gift and desire for redemption the assassin exhibits, but guilt over past crimes does not make one not evil: it's the act, and not so much the intention, that counts (although motive does matter in some small part). But while Thane adheres to a firm code this code does not prohibit him from killing innocents unless as a last resort the way that Samara's does and it is doubtless that Thane's killed people who did not deserve to die (though he has killed several that did). Thane is actually a great example of how a character can be evil, without being maniacal or back-stabby. He's also an example of a character working hard for redemption.

The Illusive Man is almost certainly lawful evil. He puts on a nice face for Shepard during ME2, but he's more than willing to commit atrocities to further his goals. Granted, his goals are, in his mind, quite noble and he seems to adhere to a code of sorts - but this only further reinforces the idea that he's lawful evil. In the end, the Illusive Man certainly has some kind of guidelines that he follows when making decisions, but they're almost certain to be anything but "good" and I'm sure he's willing to bend them from to time when he feels it's "necessary" - both qualities that distinguish him from a lawful neutral character.

Is Saren lawful evil or neutral evil? ME1 gives the impression that he may will be the former, given that he seems to be doing what he thinks is necessary for the survival of the galaxy and he certainly seems to have the sort of dignified, "I'm doing what's best for you" attitude that is the mark of an affably lawful evil villain. However, Revelation, while giving him one or two moments where he doesn't seem completely evil, certainly makes him out to be ruthless beyond what is simply necessary as an enforcement of the law or the Council's will, a point Anderson raises. Given his overall ruthlessness without regard for law, regulation, or custom, I'd be more tempted to peg Saren as neutral evil, with a possible shift to lawful evil when he realizes what the Reapers truly are (shortly before ME1 starts presumably).

Neutral Evil - The Malefactor

Neutral evil characters are those who simply do what it takes to get them ahead in life, no matter the cost. Like neutral characters, they feel neither beholden nor particularly threatened by authority but unlike them, they're willing to go the extra mile to get themselves ahead in life. In a sense, they're devoutly selfish - absolutely devoted to their own self-interest at the cost of anyone else. Most common criminals, although certainly opposed to the law, are neutral evil rather than chaotic evil for this reason. In fact, neutral evil is probably the most common alignment of evil.

The difference between neutral evil and lawful evil characters is that the former do not feel that anything is "beneath them" and they certainly don't hold themselves to some kind of arbitrary code. The difference between chaotic evil and neutral evil characters is that neutral evil characters are willing to work with authority and follow the rules if it gets them ahead - chaotic evil characters will simply get bored or restless. In some ways, neutral evil characters are the most dangerous out of all the evil alignments because they're perfectly willing to work with you one moment, only to backstab you the next if their goals change.

Examples:

Morinth's a close toss-up between this and a chaotic evil character. It's very tempting to call her chaotic evil, because we tend to think of chaotic evil characters as serial killers. This isn't necessarily true, however, and neutral evil characters can be just as, if not more murderous. Ultimately, it comes down to what you think is more important to Morinth: survival (hence, neutral evil) or freedom (hence, chaotic evil). If Morinth would rather die than live in captivity, than she's chaotic evil. If she's more motivated by her own pursuit of life and its pleasures, however, than she's neutral evil. It's a tough call and I'd probably be able to say with more certainty if I'd recruited her. But I didn't, because I tend to enjoy survival very much myself and am not fond of murderous crew members.

As listed above, it's unclear if Saren is neutral evil or lawful evil. His motives in ME1 seem firmly lawful evil in nature, given that he seems to think he's saving the galaxy from certain doom through a slightly less certain form of doom. It may be that Reaper indoctrination tends to do this to its victims, as it would be an effective means of controlling them. However, in Revelation I think it's fair to say that Saren's general jerkass-ness puts him squarely in the neutral evil alignment since he seems to have little concern at all for the consequences of his actions, so long as they "get the job done."

Chaotic Evil - The Destroyer

The chaotic evil character, to quote Alfred from The Dark Knight, just wants "to watch the world burn." They're, essentially, the ultimate Nietzche wannabe. While a neutral evil character is motivated mostly by self-interest and the lawful evil character by a desire for control, often over others, the chaotic evil character simply feels that things ought to blow up more often. Perhaps they feel this way because they're just overly fond of causing pain. Sometimes, like the Joker in TDK, they're more philosophical about it. But whatever the case, they're willing to throw their own lives away (like lawful evils and unlike neutral evils) in order to get their point across and/or because whatever they're doing is so much damn fun.

A chaotic evil character is distinguished from a neutral evil character in that self-interest isn't really what drives them. The Joker burning the money the gangster give him or laughing his way to what he presumed was his death near the end of the film is an example of this: they just don't care so much about their own well-being. Another important difference is that chaotic evil characters, unlike neutral evil ones, can't sit still under someone else's thumb, even if it's their own self-interest; they go crazy and need to move their legs. The difference between a chaotic evil character and a chaotic neutral character is primarily that, while a chaotic neutral character simply wants to be free from restraint, a chaotic evil characters tend to hurt others as part of their "expression of freedom."

Examples:

Morinth is either this or neutral evil: it's unclear to me exactly which. One the one hand, her escape from her mother's clutches may have been out of a desire for freedom, after all, non-lethal methods of controlling Ardat-Yakshi exist. On the other hand, it's unclear if Morinth is more interested in her freedom than her life as she's willing to swear fealty to Shepard to save her own life. In Legion's words, more data is necessary.

As for the Reapers... it's impossible to say given that only the vaguest details have been revealed about the nature of their attacks (mostly that it seems to be tied to their biology, if you care to call it that). A case could be made that they fit any of the three evil alignments: lawful (because they seek to control and "impose order"), neutral (because their motives seem to be at least partially tied to self-interest), or chaotic (because they destroy everything within reach). After ME3, it may be easier to determine where they fit along the axes. Or not. We'll see.

[Collider]

I kind of think the whole alignment thing is restrictive baloney.

[Symbolz]

Collider wrote...

I kind of think the whole alignment thing is restrictive baloney.

It's more of a guideline than an absolute.  An example of this is with one of my own D&D characters. 

I had this Gold Elf (or Sun Elf, whatever you wish to call it) mage who started off with a CG alignment.  Now she was of good alignment but by description of the Gold Elf sub-race they are arrogant and often ignorant of other races, even to non-gold elves.  I played on this and even though I generally was playing the good deed I was often a ****** about it, eventually earning the nick-name, the biatch with the stick up her ass. 

After a while even my own party members wanted to kill off the character but had no valid excuse besides me being a ****** to their characters.  Much later on during high level I had my alignment changed due to a Deck of Many Things.  The card states a direct opposite alignment change, so that changed me from CG to LE.  Now at this point the rest of the group jumped at the changes to finally be rid of my character. 

"You're evil now so we get to kill you now."
"How do you know I'm evil now?"
"Because you're acting differently now!"
"Exactly how am I acting differently now?  I was still a ****** before the alignment change.  If anything the only thing you notice is that I'm a bit more orderly and neat."
".....CRAP!"

Moral: Good guys can be jerks, and bad guys can be nice. 

[MaaZeus]

wizardryforever wrote...


Also, I'd say that Morinth is Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil. She doesn't wreak havoc just for kicks, she is very cold and calculating, but still looks out for numero uno (herself).

On the contrary, she DOES do it for kicks so to speak. She gets HIGH from each kill she does. She gets more powerfull with each person she drains, gets strong euphoria when doing so, and has to kill more because its so incredibly addicting. Her condition is not exactly her choice, yes, but she had a choice to separate herself from civilization but instead she chose to keep feeding her condition because she enjoys it so much.

This really spells as Chaotic Evil to me. Self preservation is meaningles as chaotic evil can also try to keep herself safe.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 10 mai 2010 - 10:03 .

[wizardryforever]

MaaZeus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...


Also, I'd say that Morinth is Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil. She doesn't wreak havoc just for kicks, she is very cold and calculating, but still looks out for numero uno (herself).

On the contrary, she DOES do it for kicks so to speak. She gets HIGH from each kill she does. She gets more powerfull with each person she drains, gets strong euphoria when doing so, and has to kill more because its so incredibly addicting. Her condition is not exactly her choice, yes, but she had a choice to separate herself from civilization but instead she chose to keep feeding her condition because she enjoys it so much.

This really spells as Chaotic Evil to me. Self preservation is meaningles as chaotic evil can also try to keep herself safe.

But she doesn't wreak havoc by killing one person every few months, she's wantonly destructive, which is what chaotic evil is.  If there was no framework for society, then she couldn't operate as effectively.  Maybe I'm not saying it well enough, it's early.