What is your character's alignment?

[spicemustflow]

Borrowed from someone who borrowed it from the Complete Bastard:

Lawful Good: Batman, Indiana Jones, Dick Tracy
Lawful Neutral: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
Lawful Evil: Boba Fett, Magneto
Neutral Good: Spider-Man, Zorro
Neutral: Lara Croft, Han Solo (early on), Lucy Westerna (from Dracula)
Neutral Evil: Mystique, Sawyer (from Lost)
Chaotic Good: Robin Hood, Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly), Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)
Chaotic Neutral: Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), Snake Plissken
Chaotic Evil: Riddick, Carl Denham (King Kong)

[Dunno if I agree with all this, but interesting inasmuch as a three by three grid can be used to understand human behavior.]

batman and riddick are total miss

[valeria]

My most recent was definitely lawful evil.

[X-D]

Boba fett would be neutral evil...he is a merc bounty hunter,  so does not take sides but tends to do bad things for the right pay, far from lawful. Replace him with Hector Barbossa.

Riddick would actually be Neutral good.

Batman would be Chaotic good.

Hard to come up with a good chaotic evil though. Maybe Apocolypse...Hhhmm, No, Joker specially the Ledger version...Yes, He is Chaotic Evil.

Prof X lawful Good and Wolverine Chaotic Neutral...or Gambit, take your pick:)

[Reiloth]

Yeah, I think the Joker in "The Dark Knight" is a perfect example of chaotic evil. Doesn't play by the rules, and wants to watch the world burn, just because.

[Spoon]

I'd say a good Lawful Evil would be Evil from Terry Gilliham's Time Bandits.

If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams] Sorry.

[Talia]

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb!

[boog]

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb boring!

[Zoan]

Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).

[Intrepid]

Current pc is...umm...probably closest to Chaotic Neutral, but a totall opportunist.

[FantasyWriter]

Chaotic neutral working his way toward chaotic evil or true neutral.

[X-D]

Batman is the tricky one.

On looking at it again, both comics and movies, batman does lean towards lawful...now good, that is debatable...I don't know. I might have to put him more towards lawful evil. Since he is a more "End justify means" type, closer to Magneto.

[Morrolan]

Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).

That possibly would make him lawful neutral.  Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.

[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]
[/quote]

[2.derail]Aside: The definition of "good" in D&D is seriously questionable.  One of the general themes of D&D is using swords and magick to kill one's problems away.  That is generally considered an "evil" solution in the real world.  In literature, it is certainly a form of heroic good, but it ignores the psychological implications and pressures that killing puts on a person's mind [and spirit].  As I age, I find myself more and more creeped out  by "Paladin"-type figures who kill again and again with little remorse, certain of the "rightness" of the killing.

At another extreme, there is violence for its own sake, and that is also problematic.  And pacifism for its own sake is just as troubling.  Violence (the use of force to achieve a goal) is a thorny issue that can never be solved by a simple blanket statement of "use it" or "do not use it." [2.derail]

[Morrolan]

*pushed "quote" instead of "modify"*

[Potaje]

Batman is sort of a tricky one. He's lawful good because he abides by a set of rules (such as pacifism). He also collaborates with the police force, albeit as an illegal vigilante. Chaotic good implies he's good without considering the consequences to his actions, or doesn't plan ahead (the opposite of which Batman is very renowned for).

That possibly would make him lawful neutral.  Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.

[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]

That possibly would make him lawful neutral.  Though we might argue that Bruce Wayne is LG, and Batman is LE, and part of the dramatic tension of the series is the internal conflict through which Bruce Wayne must control Batman (his dark side) and dedicate him to the pursuit of good.

[derail]Though it would be easier to use Freudian analysis on Batman, where Alfred is his Superego (representing his parents, civilization, and nurturance), Batman is his Id (his urge to destroy, to just do what he wants, to take power for himself), and Bruce Wayne is the ego, trying to balance between the needs to create and destroy.[/derail]

[2.derail]Aside: The definition of "good" in D&D is seriously questionable.  One of the general themes of D&D is using swords and magick to kill one's problems away.  That is generally considered an "evil" solution in the real world.  In literature, it is certainly a form of heroic good, but it ignores the psychological implications and pressures that killing puts on a person's mind [and spirit].  As I age, I find myself more and more creeped out  by "Paladin"-type figures who kill again and again with little remorse, certain of the "rightness" of the killing.

At another extreme, there is violence for its own sake, and that is also problematic.  And pacifism for its own sake is just as troubling.  Violence (the use of force to achieve a goal) is a thorny issue that can never be solved by a simple blanket statement of "use it" or "do not use it." [2.derail]
[/quote]

You say in this it is the need to create and destroy, I rather see it as the need to control and let go. Alfred the voice of reason or the Archetype, Bruce wayne is the self the Id, the true self torn between the two, leaving Batman as the ego swollen and bruised self always seeking to protect the Id.

Just my 2 sid.

[spicemustflow]

Riddick would actually be Neutral good.

You meant to type evil?

[RogueGunslinger]

He leans toward doing good, actually. It's his destiny.

[Spoon]

Not really evil, from what I gather from the two films. He's always killing evil peopleand defending innocent ones. Though I suppose he's mostly a selfish badass who coincidentally gets caught up in showdowns.

Anyway, where do you put Mahatma Ghandi? Neutral good?

[X-D]

I meant neutral good, a few others have even explained already.

He does not care about law but his actions don't show any randomness, So, those two are out. He is not trying to keep any balance, so true neutral is out as well, He tends to protect the innocent when he can though is willing to use violent means, he is willing to risk his own life to protect what he considers good.

He is Neutral Good.

[Fathi]

Lawful stupid.

[Fredd]

Lawful Evil.

Reason being: He will sacrafice that innocent commoner girl without a thread of guilt for the greater good of whoever his employer might be.

End justifys the means

[FantasyWriter]

What would Malcolm Reynolds be?

[bcw81]

Chaotic Good

[FantasyWriter]

Even though he tries really, really hard NOT to be good?

[bcw81]

Hint:
>That's what makes him chaotic.

[Karieith]

Neutral-Good. For sure, way too soft hearted.