Guess the characters' alignments!

[Madd the Sane]

She seems good, and she's got a code of ethics.  (see also: when Aniz dropped off Abel.)  However, she is willing to kick butt in the name of "You've really pissed me off!"  Which is deffinitely not a 'good' quality.  She's not capricious or overly whimsical, and she doesn't seem to want to destroy lots of things.  She's also not subversive (in the classically evil sense at least).

I would rate her Lawful Neutral.

from this post, an idea came to mind: analyze a character and guess their alignment!

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Isn't this then a game? And hence should be in The Arena?

[Tapewolf]

Isn't this then a game? And hence should be in The Arena?

It's DMFA-related and it looks a bit more like a speculation debate to me.  I'd say no.

[AmigaDragon]

I noticed no mention of winners, losers or prizes.

[Arcblade]

Which alignment system are we using?  When you say it, I automatically think D&D 3.5, because that's the first alignment system I learned.  But D&D 4.0 has a different system, and I'm willing to bet there are a good number of others out there. 

[Mao]

I noticed no mention of winners, losers or prizes.

That doesn't make it not a game.  Look at half the threads in the arena.

[Kenku]

Which alignment system are we using?  When you say it, I automatically think D&D 3.5, because that's the first alignment system I learned.  But D&D 4.0 has a different system, and I'm willing to bet there are a good number of others out there. 

The 4.0 system is well..."Watered down". Hes probably talking about the 3.5 system and just trying to bring up the silly slignment discussion.

[Naldru]

So are we talking about something like

Dark Pegasus - evil lawful
Regina - evil chaotic
Dan - good chaotic
Alexsis - good lawful

[Dagardo]

So are we talking about something like

Dark Pegasus - evil lawful
Regina - evil chaotic
Dan - good chaotic
Alexsi - good lawful

Seems like an easy enough system to understand, if not a bit limiting. Though Regina seems more like ''wannabe evil'' even from a ''headstrong, just plain better than you'' stereotypical-ish evil viewpoint. Which is a category she seems to fit into quite well.

[Arcblade]

3.5 it is.  But is Dan actually chaotic?  I'm not convinced. 

And Alexi has the tendency to lose her temper and smack people down with mallets.  Seems more neutral than lawful to me. 

Mab would, at first glance, seem to be some type of good.  Possibly lawful good, although I'd probably put her at neutral.  But then the question is whether that's just an act.  After all, Fae are known to act out parts in the world for kicks, as  opposed to being themselves. 

I have no clue about Pip.  I guess he could be True Neutral. 

Abel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral. 

[Tapewolf]

3.5 it is.  But is Dan actually chaotic?  I'm not convinced.

I think so - remember, his career involved going around killing people who he considered 'evil'.

And Alexi has the tendency to lose her temper and smack people down with mallets.  Seems more neutral than lawful to me.

She's been brought up by someone who probably counts as Chaotic Chaotic.  It's possible that she counts as 'good' but I'd want some evidence first.

Abel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral. 

AFAIK, we haven't seen him do anything evil yet.  He's done a number of dickish things, but that goes for most people.  However, he has done a number of good things - rescuing Jyrras in SAIA, befriending him and so on.  He's also done a lot of good for Dan, even if the latter doesn't realise it yet.  Neutral at a pinch, but I'd say he's more good oriented myself.

[Noone]

Alignments (the 3.5 categories) are very wide spectrums. There can be great differences within each category, they're guidelines.

Not every 'Chaotic Evil' person is a homicidal lunatic who would stab someone's puppy in front of a legion of armed guards. You certainly can get those types in that category, but you also get more 'moderate' characters that are still chaotic evil, such as one who is simply an uncaring individualist. You can even have evil characters performing genuine acts of kindness (Such as Ravel from Planescape Torment, wholly Evil but bends over backwards to help the protagonist.)

[Arcblade]

3.5 it is.  But is Dan actually chaotic?  I'm not convinced.

I think so - remember, his career involved going around killing people who he considered 'evil'.

Abel seems mainly chaotic, and probably neutral. 

AFAIK, we haven't seen him do anything evil yet.  He's done a number of dickish things, but that goes for most people.  However, he has done a number of good things - rescuing Jyrras in SAIA, befriending him and so on.  He's also done a lot of good for Dan, even if the latter doesn't realise it yet.  Neutral at a pinch, but I'd say he's more good oriented myself.

In Dan's case, doesn't he hold himself to some kind of code, though?  Adventurer's code or whatever?  It doesn't seem to me like he does just anything he wants to.  He does follow the rules of politeness, at least.  That in itself is not enough to make him neutral rather than chaotic, of course.

I would err on the side of good for Abel's neutral as well.  He may even be good.  Not sure yet.  Keep in mind, though, that he has some tie to Dan's father.  And Destania as well. 

[Damaris]

Mab is obviously Communist

[Darkmoon]

Well, from what I've seen, I'd have to say Darth Vader is Lawful Evil. Plainly he follows the rule of law as set down by the emperor, but is free to kill and destroy as he sees fit so long as it's in support of said emperor.

The machines from the Matrix are neutral evil or lawful evil, but I'd lean towards lawful evil. Certainly the agents are, although Agent Smith is almost an agent of chaos, chaotic evil, as he's willing to do whatever he can to further his goals.

[Mao]

You all knew this was coming....

NNNNEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDDSSSSSSS!

[Caswin]

Hmm... running down the cast page, off the top of my head, I'll have to say...

[Edit it!  Edit good!]

Dan: He defends the innocent against creatures and monsters who would hurt or kill them, or at least he did before his retirement.  Now... well, he still does that occasionally.  Definitely does not have an overt devotion to the law, but despite his goofy personality, he doesn't seem to chafe under it, either.  Neutral Good.
Mab: Mab's... different.  I daresay we might have a better idea where she's going with this and where to place her when the dust settles, but for the time being, I'm sticking to my interpretation of Chaotic Purple.

Pip: Kii.  Kii kii kii kii kiiii.  Kii kii, kii kii kii.  Chomp.  Chaotic Neutral.
Jyrras: He's good-hearted and loyal enough to have the "Good" part down.  He also seems very much like the rule-abiding type, Deebs notwithstanding.  Lawful Good.
Lorenda: On closer inspection, I'm going to go with Neutral Good.  Doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
Wildy: Like I said, about a hundred strips ago, I wouldn't have hesitated to put her under "Evil".  It wasn't until a relatively recent flash of actual sympathy that I was convinced that her only inclination was not only evil all of the time.  Besides that, there's enough supporting evidence to slide her into "Neutral" territory. (Chaotic is a given.) Chaotic Neutral.

Alexsi: There are rules.  The rules are there for a reason.  So is that mallet she carries around.  Call it a variation on Lawful Good.
Abel: Uh... Chaotic Neutral.  That's what I'm going with.
Pyroduck: [Still pending current story arc.  Actual conclusion not guaranteed at the end of said story arc.  Pyroduck's almost in the same league as Mab.]
Azlan: This one's easy.  He's in the same "hero" zone as Dan, but much... sillier whenever he can afford to be.  I don't see any reason not to file him under Chaotic Good.
Fi: Y'know how helpful he (I'm just going to stick with "he" here) is all the time?  That's good.  Remember how he fondly remembered Destania and Fa'Lina throwing down over the issue of torturing infants?  Uh... I'm going to say Neutral as all get out in this case.  True Neutral with a Chaotic tinge.

Kria: Well, "Evil" seems like a given here, at least.  I'm sure that's what the families of her many and assorted victims would say.  However, the other half makes me wonder -- my first instinct is Chaotic, but her knack for political maneuvering just doesn't mesh with that.  Not comfortably, anyway.  I'm going with Chaotic Evil on this one, but it's a tight fit.
Biggs: King of the Twinks, man.  Chaotic Evil.
The Rats: Obviously, I don't think they're all going to be the same alignment.  Based on what relatively little we've seen, I'd put them in Lawful/Neutral Neutral/Good territory.
Matilda: Lawfully, she doesn't seem to be any more or less than Neutral.  Morally... er... Neutral Not-Evil.
Dark Pegasus: Your laws do not apply to him.  He operates outside of the law.  In due time, if all goes to plan, he will put down his own laws, the details of which I'm at a loss toward but am suddenly very interested in.  However, the sheer calm level-headedness with which he goes about his business suggests anything but Chaos.  Neutral Evil.
Aliyka: I just can't see her being particularly Lawful or Chaotic.  In the meantime, she's... well... she's a good person.  That much is obvious, "ALIYKA SMASH" notwithstanding.  Neutral Good.
Regina: Even if she is a "newblet villain", that doesn't change her total lack of empathy (if I'm using that right) and penchant for hurting and killing people.  She doesn't have anything resembling her Second-Uncle's composure, either.  Chaotic Evil.
Aaryanna: Another easy one: No particular disdain or support for order as a concept, all the laws she's broken notwithstanding.  Lots of rape, murder and torture.  Neutral Evil.
Devin: Neutral Jerk.  I kid, uh... I'll say True Neutral on this one.
Fa'Lina: Ironically, when I originally posted this, she was the first one to really put me in the "filing a complex character in a D&D alignment" spot.  However, the more I think about it, the more closely she seems to fit: She runs SAIA, "evil" classes and all, with no signs of remorse or reluctance.  Whatever else she may be, she also conveys a strong sense of order, twisted as it may be.  The path there might be complicated and it's anyone's guess exactly what's going through her mind at any given time, but if I had to give her an alignment, it would be Lawful Evil.

[Madd the Sane]

I want some analysis.  Why are they chaotic evil, etc...

[Arcblade]

You all knew this was coming....

NNNNEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDDSSSSSSS!

Yes.  Yes I am.   

[AmigaDragon]

Which alignment system are we using?  When you say it, I automatically think D&D 3.5, because that's the first alignment system I learned.  But D&D 4.0 has a different system, and I'm willing to bet there are a good number of others out there. 

I'm not familiar with any of the systems beyond AD&D 2nd edition. What's the difference?

[A. Lurker]

I'm not familiar with any of the systems beyond AD&D 2nd edition. What's the difference?

Up to and including D&D 3.5, it's pretty much the old law/chaos/good/evil system you're probably used to, although the official wording on what each alignment is supposed to mean precisely has changed a bit (for instance, they put some effort into cleaning up the impression that 'chaotic neutral' always meant 'nucking futz').

D&D4, however, pares the alignments down to five: lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. Apparently the idea here was to put the emphasis more firmly on the good/evil division instead of the (to most people) more abstract law/chaos axis; it's also worth noting that there's effectively no magic interacting with alignment anymore in this edition. (And yes, you can finally have chaotic evil paladins if you want, though the game recommends that player characters should lean towards the good end of the spectrum.) Essentially, neutral and chaotic good got folded into 'good', lawful  and neutral evil into 'evil', and lawful, chaotic, and true neutral into 'unaligned'.

[Tapewolf]

I would err on the side of good for Abel's neutral as well.  He may even be good.  Not sure yet.  Keep in mind, though, that he has some tie to Dan's father.  And Destania as well. 

We don't know much about Dan's father, but we do know that while Abel somehow convinced Destania to teach him various self-defence things, it's not clear that he did whatever Destania was hoping he would do ("A student I once had a vested interest in", #713) and that he loathes Destania for her evil deeds (#811).

[A. Lurker]

Abel is obviously Jerkass Good.

(If you're not afraid of losing some hours of your life, I could point you to some TV Tropes entries like Good Is Not Nice or Jerkass Facade...)

[RobbieThe1st]

The best alignment explanation I have seen is RHJunior's Goblin Hollow #58. It seems to explain the whole situation well enough(I think - I've never played D&D).

Based on -that- scale, I can see Dan as "Neutral good". Mab is, well, Mab. I don't think she would fit too well into -any- of the categories.

I suppose characters like Biggs would probably be in the Chaotic Good category...

-Robbie

[Tapewolf]

Based on -that- scale, I can see Dan as "Neutral good". Mab is, well, Mab. I don't think she would fit too well into -any- of the categories.

Funnily enough, that's what made me peg Dan as chaotic.  Robin Hood supposedly went around killing and stealing for the greater good.  Dan went around killing people for the greater good, apparently using their race a a guide to determine how evil they are.

[Mao]

I was of the impression that an Adventurer responded to the needs of the beings around him, meaning he didn't go around slaying demons just for being demons.. unless said demons were terrorizing or threatening the being populace of Furrae.

[Tapewolf]

I was of the impression that an Adventurer responded to the needs of the beings around him, meaning he didn't go around slaying demons just for being demons.. unless said demons were terrorizing or threatening the being populace of Furrae.

Point.  I was thinking of strip 203, where Dan decides "Let's go kill something!" for laughs.  But as it happens, they do follow Azlan's lead on some disappearances.  On the other hand, they go looking for the first demon they can find on the assumption that they are responsible (which wasn't even the case, for Aary).

The other thing which sprang to mind was the bit where Dan is explaining to Abel that he's been taught to assume that all Creatures want to kill him unless he kills them first and that practical experience has backed that up.

EDIT:

Oh, oh, oh.  Strips 934-936 - Dan's debate with Fi about the morals of killing people.  Just to make it even murkier 

[A. Lurker]

Funnily enough, that's what made me peg Dan as chaotic.  Robin Hood supposedly went around killing and stealing for the greater good.  Dan went around killing people for the greater good, apparently using their race a a guide to determine how evil they are.

Actually, the Robin Hood myth tends to rather downplay the 'killing' part. Armed robbery, yes; actual bloodshed, not so much. Then there's the whole "fighting the Evil Ursurper Prince John and supporting the Good True King Richard" bit that might cast a bit of doubt on the 'chaotic' part of his alignment...if we take that as canon, then neutral good just might describe Robin better as well.

Also, as I see it, the job of an adventurer in Furrae isn't primarily to "kill people for the greater good". It's to protect 'people' from 'monsters'. The tricky part is figuring out which is which, and with the way the Creature/Being split generally seems to work out in Furrae, well...

[MT Hazard]

Funnily enough, that's what made me peg Dan as chaotic.  Robin Hood supposedly went around killing and stealing for the greater good.  Dan went around killing people for the greater good, apparently using their race a a guide to determine how evil they are.

Actually, the Robin Hood myth tends to rather downplay the 'killing' part. Armed robbery, yes; actual bloodshed, not so much. Then there's the whole "fighting the Evil Ursurper Prince John and supporting the Good True King Richard" bit that might cast a bit of doubt on the 'chaotic' part of his alignment...if we take that as canon, then neutral good just might describe Robin better as well.

Also, as I see it, the job of an adventurer in Furrae isn't primarily to "kill people for the greater good". It's to protect 'people' from 'monsters'. The tricky part is figuring out which is which, and with the way the Creature/Being split generally seems to work out in Furrae, well...

For Dan he gets the added energy boost from hurting creatures/beings for the greater good, maybe that will effect his behaviour a little.

I don't expect him to start bellowing "Your pain gives me strength!" during a battle but he might put off killing them for the extra energy.

[Psy-Kosh]

Seems like an easy enough system to understand, if not a bit limiting. Though Regina seems more like ''wannabe evil'' even from a ''headstrong, just plain better than you'' stereotypical-ish evil viewpoint. Which is a category she seems to fit into quite well.

Ahem.

I think taking advantage of someone's trust and using it to murder a dozen people might just push one past "wannabe evil" and firmly into "evil" territory.