Question Alignment Chart for WA characters

I think it would be interesting to prepare an alignment-chart in the 'motivation poster' meme style (such as the one I have below based on Batman) for WA characters.



I have some ideas as to some representative characters for different alignments, but I have never really been much of an artist myself. If anyone is interested in doing this, I can give some suggestions.

My own thoughts for characters and quotes:

Lawful Good - Phase: "We run a large portion of the planet, and we know that people depend on us. We have an obligation to help those people."

Neutral Good - Fey

Chaotic Good - Tennyo

Lawful Neutral - She-Beast

True Neutral - Jobe Wilkins: "If your ends don't justify the means, you are working on the wrong project."

Chaotic Neutral - Generator

Lawful Evil - Don Sebastiano

Neutral Evil - Nex

Chaotic Evil - Bloodwolf

A separate one for adults might be in order:

Lawful Good - Lady Astarte

Neutral Good - Hive

Chaotic Good - Brigand

Lawful Neutral - Dr. Alexander

True Neutral - Dr. Diabolik

Chaotic Neutral - Imp

Lawful Evil - Nimbus (or Dominus/Mephisto, perhaps)

Neutral Evil - Mimeo

Chaotic Evil - Necromancer

And perhaps a third for the 'stupid alignments':

Stupid Good - Skyhawk

Lawful Stupid - Stormwolf

Neutral Stupid - Killbot, maybe?

Chaotic Stupid - Madcap

Stupid Evil - Troll Bride (though Anti-Champion, Dr. Macabre, or Dr. Venus might do just as well)

Mimeo doesn't come across as Evil to me. He doesn't go out of his way to cause pain or harm. Look at his fight with Team Kimba, he lowers Hank to the ground, and pulls Ayla up out of the earth, then threatens to hunt down the Necromancer if he kills Fey. If anything I would say that he was Lawful Neutral. He has a code of ethics and rules, and he sticks to them.

Neutral Evil is much more the member of Spectrum that was just released from jail.

Energisers, PK Bricks. Alignment : Hungry

Any of Elrod's characters. Alignment : Chew-Toy

Blade Dancer is True Neutral by defintion. And if you place her there, which you have to. then other characters have to be adjusted to match. In particualr this firmly places Jobe in the Chaotic catagory,

I'd also have to shift Generator to Chaotic Good. All of Team Kimba are very firmly on the good side. Which is actually why Chou realsied she had to leave the team, because staying would have disturbed the balance.

Sara is probably a better example of Chotic Neutral, she is not actually evil, but but interacting with her can still screw you up purly based on her nature..


Though I'd be more interested in working out where to place Nacht, she is dark but not actually evil, and all the times we see here breaking the rules she is actually being forced to do so. Which would suggest that she may be Lawful Good.

Of course if you dare actually tell her that she'll just stare at you until you take it back.

Astrodragon wrote: Energisers, PK Bricks. Alignment : Hungry

Any of Elrod's characters. Alignment : Chew-Toy

Shine hasn't been chewed on yet.

Ah, no. Shine is a chew toy too.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Ah, no. Shine is a chew toy too.

'Shine is NOT a chew toy. (and note - his code-name starts with an apostrophe).

Knockoff isn't a chew toy.

Charge is not a chew toy.

Elle will not be a chew toy.

Kayda isn't a chew toy - at least not any more.

elrodw wrote:

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Ah, no. Shine is a chew toy too.

'Shine is NOT a chew toy. (and note - his code-name starts with an apostrophe).

Knockoff isn't a chew toy.

Charge is not a chew toy.

Elle will not be a chew toy.

Kayda isn't a chew toy - at least not any more.

Keep telling yourself that and it all might just come true!

And speaking of Miss Elle-usive, when might we readers meet her?

konzill wrote: Blade Dancer is True Neutral by defintion. And if you place her there, which you have to. then other characters have to be adjusted to match. In particualr this firmly places Jobe in the Chaotic catagory,

Blade Dancer is true neutral neutral, though I would place jobe as neutral chaotic.

I'd also have to shift Generator to Chaotic Good. All of Team Kimba are very firmly on the good side.

Actually, TK made a decision early in canon to be neutral, they could have options as neither extreme that are denied by the choice of good or evil.

I noticed that no-one took a stab at my characters alignment.
Kayda - ?
Addy - ? (when she's not making moon-eyes at Ayla, I mean)
Alicia - ?
'Shine - ? (besides drunk)
Knockoff - ? (interesting given her mom's influence and profession)

Dawnfyre wrote:

konzill wrote: Blade Dancer is True Neutral by defintion. And if you place her there, which you have to. then other characters have to be adjusted to match. In particualr this firmly places Jobe in the Chaotic catagory,

Blade Dancer is true neutral neutral, though I would place jobe as neutral chaotic.

I'd also have to shift Generator to Chaotic Good. All of Team Kimba are very firmly on the good side.

Actually, TK made a decision early in canon to be neutral, they could have options as neither extreme that are denied by the choice of good or evil.

Actually, as I remember the 'decision' was about the Lawful alignment, not the good vs. evil alignment. They decided that they'd be more flexible with their definitions, not necessarily hold to a strict "we'll uphold the law at all costs" approach, which I would interpret as the group as a whole choosing the "Neutral Good" path.

Toni and Jade individually are very much of the Chaotic Good alignment though. I'd also bump Sara into Chaotic Good, the vast majority of things she has done have been for the betterment of others, not necessarily for herself. A 'neutral' person would only ever think of themselves, helping others only so far as it also helps themselves. Sara has frequently been willing to do harm to herself to save others, which is a "good" trait, not a neutral one.

elrodw wrote: I noticed that no-one took a stab at my characters alignment.
Kayda - ?
Addy - ? (when she's not making moon-eyes at Ayla, I mean)
Alicia - ?
'Shine - ? (besides drunk)
Knockoff - ? (interesting given her mom's influence and profession)

Kayda - VG (Victim Good)
Addy - NS (Naive Stupid)
Alicia - SB (Southern Belle)
'Shine - Have we seen him drunk? We've seen him tasting whiskey, but not enough to get drunk. WC (Whiskey Connoisseur)
Knockoff - CC (Copy Cat)

Danny - KS (Kittyboy Scrumptious)

Kayda seems Neutral Good to me based on everything we've seen of her.
Addy is a bit harder, Neutral Good as well maybe, maybe Lawful Good with Neutral bent.
Alicia is Chaotic Good, doesn't seem to care too much as long as she does what she considers right.
'Shine is also a little hard, haven't seen enough to gauge him yet. Based on what we've seen so far though I think Neutral Good, True Neutral, or possibly Chaotic Neutral as he seems a little too unpredictable.
Knockoff, even harder. Going to wait until we've seen more of her in story to even try and gauge.
Danny seems Neutral Good so far, much like his sister, but with some Chaotic leanings.

elrodw wrote: I noticed that no-one took a stab at my characters alignment.
Kayda - ?
Addy - ? (when she's not making moon-eyes at Ayla, I mean)
Alicia - ?
'Shine - ? (besides drunk)
Knockoff - ? (interesting given her mom's influence and profession)

Kayda, by definition of a "shaman" can only be neutral neutral when she is truly a shaman. neutral good since her focus is on the good of the Lakota.
Addy I would have to say is Good Neutral, she won't go around breaking laws and doesn't have a strong hero complex.
Alicia Pretty much the same as Addy, which is why they get along so well, no driving passions that push them apart or cause conflict.
'Shine, neutral neutral. he will do what he decides he should, without consideration of the legalities.
Knockoff, Neutral chaotic. She jumps at the chance to go to work with mom, knowing mom is a villain. yet also jumped in to save 2 small children, so definitely not a bad person, just amoral.

With Jobe I'd put him in lawful evil, he has a very strong code of ethics but it's suitably warped from regular people that it's not neutral and sure as heck isn't good.

elrodw wrote: I noticed that no-one took a stab at my characters alignment.
Kayda - ?
Addy - ? (when she's not making moon-eyes at Ayla, I mean)
Alicia - ?
'Shine - ? (besides drunk)
Knockoff - ? (interesting given her mom's influence and profession)

Kayda is veering towards lawful good. She probably was already but after manifesting and the trauma of her attack she wasn't exactly lawful. But she's really heading towards it now as we saw in the last story. She follows the law of her people and the school, she doesn't let it control her into being lawful stupid but she is becoming less and less of a loose cannon.

Addy: chaotic neutral. at first she was very selfish and thinking only of herself and maybe a few friends, almost to the point of being evil. But now she's considering others, thinking about how her actions affect them and her future, But she is still pretty selfish and ignores the rules as it suits her.

Alicia: neutral good. She cares about her friends, tries to help people, and be a good person, but its not exactly an overriding goal for her to follow the rules or to deliberately break them.

Shine: I'd put him as neutral. He breaks the laws when he thinks they're not very good or get in the way, but he doesn't take it into his own hands beyond self defense. He's very much go along and get along taking things as they come.

Knock Off: Lawful neutral. She has her own codes to follow, largely gained from her mother, but its more personal and she doesn't insist others follow her ideas.

There's been some good analysis of Elrod's characters. Now, is there any love for mine?

Imp: Lawful Evil. She is a criminal and enjoys doing it. However she has an extremely strong code of ethics.

Ribbon: Growing Lawful Neutral. Like Imp she has a code of ethics, but its much more personal and until manifesting she would let emotions get the better of him. Now that an angry outburst could kill someone, she is more rigorously asserting her basic ethics. These ethics are very much based around protecting her family and friends, and then the public at large, no matter if it breaks the law or her own heart. We saw this with his daughter, who he saw as a danger to the public and herself so he turned her in to protect both as best he could.

Chicken Hawk: Lawful good. At first he seemed to border on lawful stupid, but after the road trip to find his daughter we see he is willing to bend the rules to get the best possible outcome.

Domoviye wrote: Imp: Lawful Evil. She is a criminal and enjoys doing it. However she has an extremely strong code of ethics.

Evil? Really?

I would state chaotic good.

She may have been Chaotic Neutral before, but i doubt it, it seems imbedded into her character to care for those around her. Rescue kids. Visit her mentor. get really, really angry and then even with those who hurt / kill her friends. These are all "good" traits, not the apathy of neutral or the complete "what I want, when I want, how I want" of evil.

Of course as a thief she's not Lawful, but not obeying the law doesn't automatically make you evil, no matter what the Lawful Stupid believe.

Lawful does not equal legal. The Mafia as it was was one of the most Lawful, alignment wise, organizations in the world.

Jobe is very difficult. He isn't evil, he doesn't start things, but he does finish them. His personal credo of self determination is a tenet of Chaoticness, but his precision and meticulousness is very Lawful. Jobe is True Neutral.

Imp is Chaotic Neutral turning to Chaotic Good.

Mischief is Chaotic Silly.(Good)

Ribbon is strongly Lawful and generally Neutral with Good tendencies.

Chicken Hawk is definitely Lawful Good,

The Shielders are more Neutral Good.

Glyph is Lawful Neutral.

Ribbon: Lawful Good. running around capturing criminals and leaving them tied up in ribbons. Going after the criminal that kidnapped her son, even working with a criminal to do so ( her daughter ) is more neutral, but the motive was pure lawful good.

Sphere: Neutral Good. She isn't criminally bent and has been a positive influence to some degree on Pinball. ( receipt for espresso machine gift from Pinball to show she actually purchased it )

Pinball, neutral evil. She is a criminal, but it was a matter of no choice due to discrimination / harassment than real desire for the life.

Imp, chaotic good. She loves the chaos but her life of crime was forced on her by the GSD of her mutation, she wasn't allowed to live / work in a legal position.

Highwayman, evil neutral. not much to go on, but his style doesn't lend to seeing him without strong morale lines he won't cross.

Emily, neutral good, working as a paralegal yet "helps" with Pinball's robberies on occasion.

Roulette, have to say, with the little we have on her, neutral good.

Mischief, Neutral Chaotic, not a strong feeling for legality and a love of thrills deny her being lawful.

Absinthe, neutral good. she has memories that show she will do what she thinks is right, even if it breaks laws and has actively assisted in capturing criminals.

ChickenHawk, lawful good., active superhero.

you have a number more characters, most being heroes so lawful good. not enough background on the criminals to truly say, but that only rules out the lawful part. your record would tend to have them fall in the neutral range.

Just wanted to comment on something I'm seeing a lot in this thread. Being a "hero" does NOT automatically make a character lawful or good, just as being a criminal does NOT automatically make someone evil or chaotic. This is particularly important to keep in mind with the Whateley Universe, as it is filled with so many grey characters that blur the lines between these alignments. In my opinion there are actually rather few evil characters in the WU, as most of the characters, even the villains, have complex motivations that aren't purely self-seeking or destructive.

Take Dr. Diabolic for example. While most of the WU's population would certainly consider him evil (likely Chaotic/Evil) due to the massive damage and confusion his activities tend to generate, we as the readers get to see much deeper into his actual motivations (through the eyes of his daughter, Jadis). From her perspective, we see that he is actually greatly concerned with the advancement and well-being of humanity as a whole and isn't afraid to play the antagonist role in order to drive humanity to its best state of being. I would dare say that this reveals him to actually be strongly Chaotic/Good, rather than the Chaotic/Evil that most believe.

In short, alignment is a tricky concept, especially with well-written and complex characters like we see so often in the WU. Generally the obvious assessment will be proven incorrect with a deeper look, and it can be very difficult to be certain of any given alignment for any given character, especially when you realize that alignments can change over time.

Pinball is Chaotic Good. Her life of crime was forced on her.

She's more like Robin Hood, she targets only certain people and groups for her crimes, like Goodkind Banks and supporters of H1!, and she tries to make sure no "neutrals" are injured. She also rescued and protected Sphere just because she could.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Pinball is Chaotic Good. Her life of crime was forced on her.

She's more like Robin Hood, she targets only certain people and groups for her crimes, like Goodkind Banks and supporters of H1!, and she tries to make sure no "neutrals" are injured. She also rescued and protected Sphere just because she could.

Yep. Another good example of a criminal with a good alignment. The same can be said for a number of the sympathetic "villains" we've been introduced to.

Yeah. Examples of evil are guys like Deathlist, Sebastiano, Heckate, Necromancer, some of the H1 and MCO, etc. Pretty different from people like Pinball, Diabolik, and Jobe.

I would call Pinball neutral, not good. We haven't seen her origin, so it's possible that she really was forced into a life of crime, for a time. That is no longer the case. She may be forced to live as a fugitive, but that does not mean she is forced to continue committing crimes that do not directly pertain to keeping her identity hidden. She could get a job under a false identity and resume being an upstanding member of society. She chooses to continue committing crimes instead. Perhaps she mostly or only commits crimes against shady targets, and perhaps she tries to avoid endangering people, but that is not the same as being good. She's willing to go out of her way to do good deeds when a sympathetic case falls into her lap, but she doesn't venture out with the intention of doing good deeds, and she does endanger people through her unnecessary actions, however much she tries to minimize that.

To me she definitely seems to be on the good side of neutral, but still within the overall zone of neutrality (which I do not consider a razor-thin line, since that would be an essentially useless definition that leaves too much vagueness in the good and evil categories).

NeoMagus wrote: Just wanted to comment on something I'm seeing a lot in this thread. Being a "hero" does NOT automatically make a character lawful or good, just as being a criminal does NOT automatically make someone evil or chaotic. This is particularly important to keep in mind with the Whateley Universe, as it is filled with so many grey characters that blur the lines between these alignments. In my opinion there are actually rather few evil characters in the WU, as most of the characters, even the villains, have complex motivations that aren't purely self-seeking or destructive.

Take Dr. Diabolic for example. While most of the WU's population would certainly consider him evil (likely Chaotic/Evil) due to the massive damage and confusion his activities tend to generate, we as the readers get to see much deeper into his actual motivations (through the eyes of his daughter, Jadis). From her perspective, we see that he is actually greatly concerned with the advancement and well-being of humanity as a whole and isn't afraid to play the antagonist role in order to drive humanity to its best state of being. I would dare say that this reveals him to actually be strongly Chaotic/Good, rather than the Chaotic/Evil that most believe.

In short, alignment is a tricky concept, especially with well-written and complex characters like we see so often in the WU. Generally the obvious assessment will be proven incorrect with a deeper look, and it can be very difficult to be certain of any given alignment for any given character, especially when you realize that alignments can change over time.

Sure spoil my black and white view of the world.

Shouldn't this thread be moved somewhere more appropriate, such as The Quad? Or maybe the Characters forum?

D&D assumes absolute morality, it is a fantasy world where the definitiosn of good and evil, lawful and chatotic are set in stone by the pantheon of gods. The problem with applying this to the Whateley verse is that the definitions are more reletive here, as we are closer to the real world where absolute morality is impossible to pin down. And rally when you get down to it the vast majority of real world people would end up in true neutral.

That said there is no way that Dr Diabolic can be seen as anytghing but evil. WIlingness to cause the deaths of innocent people to acheive your objectis makes you evil, no matter what thouse objectives happen to be. You could make a case for him being Lawful, as he apperently sticks to his agreements and does not betray his allies for the lols. So I'm saying Lawful Evil on that one.

Ribbon is definatly Lawful Good, and indeed was Lawful good even bfore manifestiong. the fact that He turned his own daughter in to the police because it was for the greater good, and because she had broken the law is the top example of this. As is her current long term goal, to cure dedricks syndrome.

Imp is true neutral tending towards neutral good. At the start of the story she is a self interested theif who breaks the law when it suits her, but mostly because the law failred to protect her, not because she wants to sow chaos. During the storeis she spends a lot of effort helping others and moves away from her life of crime, pushing her into the good catagory.

konzill wrote: WIlingness to cause the deaths of innocent people to acheive your objectis makes you evil, no matter what thouse objectives happen to be.

That is an overly general rule.

Imagine a scenario where you're looking at a man in a park across the street who is shooting into a crowd. Your objective is to stop him. You have a gun too and could try to shoot him, but you don't have a clear shot. By your rule, shooting would be evil, since you'd probably have to kill a few innocents yourself before you manage to hit him. According to your rule, you should either wait for a better shot, move in order to obtain a better shot, or move to his position so that you can stop him without shooting. However, all of those decisions will waste time, during which he is actively and rapidly killing people.

In that scenario, I would not call it evil to open fire.

Kettlekorn wrote:

konzill wrote: WIlingness to cause the deaths of innocent people to acheive your objectis makes you evil, no matter what thouse objectives happen to be.

That is an overly general rule.

Imagine a scenario where you're looking at a man in a park across the street who is shooting into a crowd. Your objective is to stop him. You have a gun too and could try to shoot him, but you don't have a clear shot. By your rule, shooting would be evil, since you'd probably have to kill a few innocents yourself before you manage to hit him. According to your rule, you should either wait for a better shot, move in order to obtain a better shot, or move to his position so that you can stop him without shooting. However, all of those decisions will waste time, during which he is actively and rapidly killing people.

In that scenario, I would not call it evil to open fire.

Also by your rule all those WWII bomber pilots are evil, because they willingly dropped bombs that they knew would kill civilians.

Kettlekorn wrote:

konzill wrote: WIlingness to cause the deaths of innocent people to acheive your objectis makes you evil, no matter what thouse objectives happen to be.

That is an overly general rule.

Imagine a scenario where you're looking at a man in a park across the street who is shooting into a crowd. Your objective is to stop him. You have a gun too and could try to shoot him, but you don't have a clear shot. By your rule, shooting would be evil, since you'd probably have to kill a few innocents yourself before you manage to hit him. According to your rule, you should either wait for a better shot, move in order to obtain a better shot, or move to his position so that you can stop him without shooting. However, all of those decisions will waste time, during which he is actively and rapidly killing people.

In that scenario, I would not call it evil to open fire.

Yes it would be evil and even many trained police snipers would not take the shot if they risked hitting someone else. We just had this debate here in Australia after the Cafe siege in Sydney.

in any case Diabolic des not have this excuse anyway, as he is not respondong to an imenant threat, he is the imensnt threat.

Keep in mind, lawful good does not equate to lawful stupid. I once played a Paladin in a LARP who achieved the dukedom, married the nonhuman (Furry) head of the "dark healers Guild" and was your basic iron age thug and butcher.

But he was ruthlessly lawful good.

He could be quite charming as a host, and you couldn't ask for a better ally in a fight. But most of the people in that game were terrified of pissing him off, because lawful depends entirely on who's making the laws and good is one of the most subjective states of being there is. It's good for me to slaughter the cow to feed myself in the village; from the cow's POV not so much.

You'd be amazed at the kind of barbarism that can be cloaked in good so long as someone is the beneficiary of it.

People did use to ask the alignement of monsters they met.

I just answered 'Hungry'

konzill wrote:

Kettlekorn wrote:

konzill wrote: WIlingness to cause the deaths of innocent people to acheive your objectis makes you evil, no matter what thouse objectives happen to be.

That is an overly general rule.

Imagine a scenario where you're looking at a man in a park across the street who is shooting into a crowd. Your objective is to stop him. You have a gun too and could try to shoot him, but you don't have a clear shot. By your rule, shooting would be evil, since you'd probably have to kill a few innocents yourself before you manage to hit him. According to your rule, you should either wait for a better shot, move in order to obtain a better shot, or move to his position so that you can stop him without shooting. However, all of those decisions will waste time, during which he is actively and rapidly killing people.

In that scenario, I would not call it evil to open fire.

Yes it would be evil and even many trained police snipers would not take the shot if they risked hitting someone else. We just had this debate here in Australia after the Cafe siege in Sydney.

I'm not familiar with that event, but skimming through the wikipedia page, I don't think it's relevant. I'm not talking about hostages and standoffs. I'm talking about the bad guy actively and continuously firing bullets into a crowd. Every second you spend waiting for that clean shot, two more people die. If I was one of the people in that park, I'd genuinely want the police to shoot. There would be a chance the police would hit me, but if they wait, there's a better chance that the shooter himself will shoot me. My odds of survival are better if the police open fire on him.

Of course, in a hostage scenario, or one where the guy is only brandishing his weapon, not actually shooting, things are different. I'm definitely not saying that they should not worry about collateral damage at all. I'm just saying that context matters and sometimes you have to do unfortunate things to prevent even less fortunate things. That doesn't mean you're doing the lesser of two evils. If you are doing the least evil thing you can do, then you are not doing evil. Unless you're in a system with absolutes, but that's not reality. That's religion.

My personal definitions run along these lines:

Evil - Someone who finds joy in causing suffering for strangers.
Good - Someone who finds joy in reducing the suffering of strangers. (Alternatively, someone who feels distress at causing suffering for strangers. I haven't decided which definition I like more)
Neutral - Someone who is indifferent to the suffering of strangers.

In these definitions, suffering is distinct from pain - you are not evil simply for enjoying slapstick comedy.

There are, of course, all sorts of fuzzy lines. And of course, many acts that fit my definition of "neutral" are unconscionably terrible. But there you have it.