D & D Alignment of Ultimate Characters

[ourchair]

I don't think he is that chaotic. Actually I could see him as a stupid true neutral he tries not to break rules, but if they get in the way of his intentions then they mean nothing.

I thought about it reading the description of neutral in the complete scoundrel book (really good D&D book)

"Neutral: Scoundrels of this alignment are opportunists.
They are concerned with themselves above all others, taking whatever they can get, although not purposely trying to hurt anyone else. Tomb robbers, wheeler-dealer merchants, and other purely selfish scoundrels typify this alignment."

Scoundrels and thiefs are regarded as Chaotic Neutral.

I think everyone is reading too much into the connotations of the NAMES of the alignments, rather than according to the distinctions established by the D&D rules.

Chaotic doesn't mean evil or insane, it just refers to adaptable personalities or recklessness and irresponsible ones. Chaotic Neutral refers to individualists who aren't particularly interested in the well-being of society or its people, but don't really go out of their way to hurt anyone either.

Jack Sparrow or Snake Plissken count as Chaotic Neutral and to some extent, some incarnations of Wolverine are also Chaotic Neutral.

 

[ShaggyMarco]

As an ESTABLISHER of a society governed by laws, I would say that Ultimate Magneto is CLEARLY Lawful Evil. Just because his society is in conflict with other societies, doesn't make him chaotic.

Incedentally, I would say that Xavier is CG, simply because he eventually rebelled against his society.

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

Scoundrels and thiefs are regarded as Chaotic Neutral.

the book actually shows scoundrels of every alignment, not just chaotic neutrals.

What i think about chaotic is that a person doesn't believe in the laws of society and/or would would always try first the illegal way over the normal way, and that's why i think Pym is not a chaotic.

 

[The Overlord]

Scoundrels and thiefs are regarded as Chaotic Neutral.

I think everyone is reading too much into the connotations of the NAMES of the alignments, rather than according to the distinctions established by the D&D rules.

Chaotic doesn't mean evil or insane, it just refers to adaptable personalities or recklessness and irresponsible ones. Chaotic Neutral refers to individualists who aren't particularly interested in the well-being of society or its people, but don't really go out of their way to hurt anyone either.

Jack Sparrow or Snake Plissken count as Chaotic Neutral and to some extent, some incarnations of Wolverine are also Chaotic Neutral.

Yeah that makes sense.

True neutral is pretty rare anyway, off the top of my head only Galactus and perhaps the High Evolutionary spring to mind.

As an ESTABLISHER of a society governed by laws, I would say that Ultimate Magneto is CLEARLY Lawful Evil. Just because his society is in conflict with other societies, doesn't make him chaotic.

Incedentally, I would say that Xavier is CG, simply because he eventually rebelled against his society.

Ultimate mags always seemed like osama bin Laden to me, (a ruthless, petty terrorist, who thinks his people are superior to others and feels past injustices are grounds to commit horrorific actions) so I think it depends on whether we consider Bin laden to be lawful or not. I would say not.

Also rebelling against his society doesn't make Xacier CG persay. Lawful good characters desire to change their societies for the better, they just use purely lawful methods and i think Xavier has shown a willinginess to use legal methods to pursue his goals.

 

[ourchair]

the book actually shows scoundrels of every alignment, not just chaotic neutrals.

I know it does.

I even have the one with the awesometastic intro written by Vin Diesel.

What i think about chaotic is that a person doesn't believe in the laws of society and/or would would always try first the illegal way over the normal way, and that's why i think Pym is not a chaotic.

Chaotic doesn't mean that they would always go for the illegal way FIRST, it just means that the law does not factor as an ethical obstacle --- it may be a practical obstacle --- and therefore the individual's own ethical compass comes before the ethical compass of established society.

A true neutral would flip flop sides. I think there's a misinterpretation about how true neutrality = does not care much for laws = animals. I think what it means is that the laws themselves are not part of the moral reasoning of the character.

Which is why a 'true neutral' warrior would just as soon defend the trolls from extinction as he would kick their butts for picking on innocent bridge-crossers.

 

[ShaggyMarco]

Ultimate mags always seemed like osama bin Laden to me, (a ruthless, petty terrorist, who thinks his people are superior to others and feels past injustices are grounds to commit horrorific actions) so I think it depends on whether we consider Bin laden to be lawful or not. I would say not.

I think Ultimate Mags believes in an Order to things, with mutants on top. Plus, he has an interest in a creation of all of the trappings of society (Mutant Alphabet, a new mutant Language, mutant names, etc.). These are all very lawful traits. I don't see him as so Bin Ladenesque--he doesn't do things to humans because he hates them, he does them because it is his place in the order to decide their life and death and since he is at the top of the order, the lesser beings don't matter so much.

Also rebelling against his society doesn't make Xacier CG persay. Lawful good characters desire to change their societies for the better, they just use purely lawful methods and i think Xavier has shown a willinginess to use legal methods to pursue his goals.

Xavier has also shown a certain disregard for the rules of society to bring about that change (mental manipulations of the police, forcing investors, utilizing secret agents to do his bidding in other countries/spies). I could buy him as NG instead of CG, but he seems clearly NOT LG.