D & D Alignment of Ultimate Characters

[The Overlord]

Just to do something nerdy, what is the D & D alignment of the characters of the Ultimate Universe. Just in case you need some info of on the D & D alignments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

So just pick a character and state what alignment they are.

 

[Jaggyd]

Doom - Lawful Evil

Cap - Lawful Good

Xavier - Lawful Neutral


Magneto - Neutral Evil

Wolverine - Neutral Good

(No matter what TSR says, no one, and nothing can be true neutral)


Green Goblin - Chaotic Evil

Spider-man - Chaotic Good

Sinister - Chaotic Neutral

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I would Classifiy Wolvie as Chaotic Good and Spidey as Neutral Good.

 

[The Overlord]

Doom - Lawful Evil

Cap - Lawful Good

Xavier - Lawful Neutral


Magneto - Neutral Evil

Wolverine - Neutral Good

(No matter what TSR says, no one, and nothing can be true neutral)


Green Goblin - Chaotic Evil

Spider-man - Chaotic Good

Sinister - Chaotic Neutral

Good picks, though I think one could argue that some characters are true neutral, but it is very, very rare, like 616 Galactus.

I would agree that Cap is lawful Good, though he does act Lawful Neutral at times. He is not as much as boyscott as 616 Cap.

Here are some others:

Reed Richards- Neutral Good

Thor- Choatic Good

Electro- Neutral Evil

Mole Man- Choatic Evil

Thanos- Lawful Evil

Kleiser- Lawful Evil

Iron Man- Neutral Good

 

[ourchair]

(No matter what TSR says, no one, and nothing can be true neutral)

I disagree, although I do think it would still be a very RARE alignment.

Compound and I like to talk about how D & D alignment applies to local politicians --- especially since most of them seem to stay in politics waaaaay longer than Yanqui ones (and yes, that's saying a long time) --- and I think a good example is Rene Saguisag, who consistently sides with the underdog, no matter what the moral/political stance of the underdog IS.

There was a time when his stance was completely anti-administration when most of the senators were pro-administration, but the moment the balance tipped and all the senators became anti-administration, he was suddenly rushing to the defense of the administration.

That, to me would be a True Neutral... contrasted from the complete unpredictability of a Chaotic Neutral, and far from being the morally ambivalent but order-conscious Lawful Neutral.

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

The first appearance of Ultimate Carnage, before it went all Gwentastic, I would have classed as true Neutral, as it was basically an animal, mindless and only killing to survive, which if I recall correctly is why animals were given the neutral status because they have no capacity for moral judgement.

 

[ourchair]

The first appearance of Ultimate Carnage, before it went all Gwentastic, I would have classed as true Neutral, as it was basically an animal, mindless and only killing to survive, which if I recall correctly is why animals were given the neutral status because they have no capacity for moral judgement.

I would've thought that it was more Chaotic Neutral, in the sense that it is neutral with a completely ambivalent moral compass, or rather a non-existent moral compass.

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

Isn't the fact that animals have no moral compass the reason why they were given true neutral status though? They are not influenced either way by if the thing they attack is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever. It's just lunch and they just kill to survive. I would put the current Ultimate Gwarnage at Chaotic Neutral, as we don't know what side shes gonna come down on, but has the mind now to affect her judgements.

 

[ourchair]

Isn't the fact that animals have no moral compass the reason why they were given true neutral status though? They are not influenced either way by if the thing they attack is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever. It's just lunch and they just kill to survive. I would put the current Ultimate Gwarnage at Chaotic Neutral, as we don't know what side shes gonna come down on, but has the mind now to affect her judgements.

I think the difference is that animals CAN'T have a moral compass is the reason why they are 'true neutral' rather than whether or not their compass can point somewhere.

But you are right, though. Carnage was an aminal-like creature.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I would go with Chaotic Neutral for Carnage, he he basically tore up anyone that got within a foot of him, no matter what.

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

I would go with Chaotic Neutral for Carnage, he he basically tore up anyone that got within a foot of him, no matter what.

As we said, so will a lot of animals. Go stare down a Great White Shark, you'll get the same response.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Fine John Rhys-Davis, I will go stare down a Great White.

*goes off a hunting*

 

[Zombipanda]

Isn't the fact that animals have no moral compass the reason why they were given true neutral status though? They are not influenced either way by if the thing they attack is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever. It's just lunch and they just kill to survive. I would put the current Ultimate Gwarnage at Chaotic Neutral, as we don't know what side shes gonna come down on, but has the mind now to affect her judgements.

Whether or not they have moral imperatives, they still have instinctual imperatives, and as moral creatures, we need to base our assessment of their alignment based on these instinctual imperatives. I'd say that killer sharks and Carnage would both be chaotic neutral, in that they are essentially mindless creatures, but they serve as agents of destruction. They're instinctually programmed to **** **** up.

 

[TwilightEL]

I was under the impression that "chaotic" is the opposite of "lawful"--as in, purposefully disobeying authority and breaking rules and regulations whenever it wouldn't conflict with their moral alignment. Animalistic Carnage would therefore be true neutral rather than chaotic neutral because not only is it out for itself, it is incapable of understanding what thoughts and living beings are, much less laws. It doesn't try to break the law... it just reacts to pain and desire.

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

Wouldn't Magneto be a Lawful evil? Of course he sets his own rules and all but he still follow them. He would respect the law if it was written by mutants for mutants.

Ya can't be a really good leader and not being Lawful.

 

[ourchair]

Wouldn't Magneto be a Lawful evil? Of course he sets his own rules and all but he still follow them. He would respect the law if it was written by mutants for mutants.

Ya can't be a really good leader and not being Lawful.

As far as D&D is concerned, "Lawful" refers to the laws of societies and that of the established social order in general and not whether the person believes in laws.

It's a present state kind of thing. In Magneto's ideal world, mutants take their place as the ruling species --- mutants lording over humans, just as humans lord over the common animals --- and create the laws.

But in his opinion that means that mutants are entitled to disregard human laws, and in that sense he is not Lawful.

 

[Zombipanda]

I was under the impression that "chaotic" is the opposite of "lawful"--as in, purposefully disobeying authority and breaking rules and regulations whenever it wouldn't conflict with their moral alignment

Why does it have to be purposeful?

 

[The Overlord]

What about Nick Fury and Hank Pym? Fury I would assume is Lawful Neutral, But I'm not sure about Pym.

 

[ourchair]

What about Nick Fury and Hank Pym? Fury I would assume is Lawful Neutral, But I'm not sure about Pym.

Considering how selfishly Pym has behaved but without any overtly malicious intent or patent disregard or respect for law, I'd say he's Chaotic Neutral.

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, shirks rules and traditions. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not enjoy seeing others suffer.

 

[Ultimate Quicksilver]

Considering how selfishly Pym has behaved but without any overtly malicious intent or patent disregard or respect for law, I'd say he's Chaotic Neutral.

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."