Shadowgirls

Jacobus · by **Jacobus** on Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:47 pm

Sas wrote:God, I'm sorry but I can't really see this as a Transformers/other comic thing. I have to break it down for myself in D&D standards. If only because it tackles all of these issues. You see. You can be good. You can be bad. You can be lawful. And you can be chaotic. Or you could be all of those things (True neutral FTW). There is no way to simply classify someone as good or evil, you must take both spectrums into account. Attention and Intention:

Galactus: Chaotic Neutral (probably) - He didn't devour planets because he had the desire to, he devoured planets because he had to live. But in the same light, couldn't he have inhabited planets without life? (I'm not familiar with his background and too lazy to wiki). The way he goes about surviving is chaotic, and while he could do more to push himself to the "good" side of the spectrum, he sounds more like a neutral grey area to me.

Johnny Blaze: Lawful Neutral/Evil? - Johnny goes by his law. Although he only hunts badass criminals and fiends and the occasional random criminal caught in the act, he doesn't take into account man's law or justice in any other means but death.

The Hulk: Chaotic Good - Yes he gets angry and destroys stuff. Just a hint, that's the chaotic part. But he doesn't intentionally harm people or things, without due cause to do so. He tries to stay out of the way when he's not playing green giant and generally tries to protect the innocent/good without taking the lives of all who oppose him.

Charon: True Neutral - When threatened, she kicks ass. Given the need, she defends herself, and if she let herself go, I'm sure she'd go for the three S's... (shoot em, shovel em and shhhh) but she does have some restraint, which is what made me toss her into the neutral category instead of the evil. She's not above the law, but she's not against it, either (self defense is not against the law). So she has a less than stellar record for her social life. I think that more has to do with her background and psychology (lost out on the only man she loved because she told him to go away, so she doesn't believe she deserves anyone, or that anyone is good enough to be around her daughter, so instead she uses them for sex and sends them packing. The drinking is just a little social lubricant.)

Becca: Lawful Good - She's a good girl, it's easy enough to see. She's got a good heart, she doesn't go vigilante on the gang rapist bastards and getting to safety and keeping those close to her safe is her top priority. Not vengence. Not rage. Not greed. She's good. It's hard to see her character as a lawbreaker or a mercenary.

Misty Snow: Neutral Evil - She uses all the cards she's been dealt to turn the world in her favor. Sometimes her plans don't work and the vicious things she desires to see happen to people fall through. I'll stick her at neutral evil for now, but I really haven't seen enough of her character to know whether or not she's better off in the chaotic light.

Sas I tend to disgree with Galactuc being chaotic. Part of being Chaotic is breaking tradition and being random, for lack of a better word, and from what I can remember off hand Galactus seems to follow the rules that govern him, and he also has strict guidlines for his heralds. Oh and I am not saying you are wrong, just offering a different way to look at it.

On another note, I dislike Lawful Good being seen as the pinacle in good. To me Neutral Good, is. I mean, take the Lawful Good guy in a town, catching thieves and throwing them in jail. He catches a kid, its the law, being lawful he follows the law and throws the kid in jail. Where as I think neutral good know when certain laws need to be bent . . . oh god im rambling and derailing . . .

Charles · by **Charles** on Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:38 pm

I guess another name for Lawful good could be Strict Good.

It can depend on the code or law followed.

Neutral Good are able to have consideration for the laws fo a society while Chaotic good are generally against restriction or simply don't pay attention to it.

Jacobus · by **Jacobus** on Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:22 am

Charles wrote:I guess another name for Lawful good could be Strict Good.

It can depend on the code or law followed.

Neutral Good are able to have consideration for the laws fo a society while Chaotic good are generally against restriction or simply don't pay attention to it.

I think alot of it is up to the DM to, because in any situation a specific alignment might act differently because there are factors which the player is taking into account that the DM may not foresee.

Bounty · by **Bounty** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:13 am

Jacobus wrote:
Charles wrote:I guess another name for Lawful good could be Strict Good.

It can depend on the code or law followed.

Neutral Good are able to have consideration for the laws fo a society while Chaotic good are generally against restriction or simply don't pay attention to it.

I think alot of it is up to the DM to, because in any situation a specific alignment might act differently because there are factors which the player is taking into account that the DM may not foresee.

Pretty much there. As it SHOULD work, Lawful is the belief that there are absolutes, and that these absolutes are externally defined. Choices should be weighed as much by result as by intent. Chaotic is the belief that all things are relative, and they value result over intent. The defining structure will vary form time to time, place to place, and person to person.

Just because I'm defining, Good would be "the inate benifit to the whole" Evil is typically "To the detriment of the whole" or "Irigardless to the effect on the whole".

We have to use these definitions to avoid things like defining A Lawful good person as one who did everything Hitler told them to, because he was law, and it benifited the Fatherland.

So in combination, Lawful Good see that there are absolutes, and seek to befinit the greatest number of people while holding ot these absolutes you have to be trying to do good, and doing good. Nurtral good cares more about the trying. So long as your intent was to benifit the greatest number of people, the Nuetral would support it. The Chaotic sees results. If killing the corrupt policeman results in greater good, than you do it. The nutral would get behind that too, because the intent "benift people" is good, though they'd be a bit leary at the killing. The lawful Good wouldn't kill to do it, not if there was any other way.

Best way I've ever seen it put" Superman is Lawful Good, Batman is Chaotic Good.

Galacticus is Evil. He does for himself irrigardless of the effect on others. He may have been made evil, it might be he default mode, but its still evil. I would also term him Lawful. There are absolutes in his world, and he abides by them. Good for Earth, bad for the Silver Surfer. If you want to go closer to your 16 point scal than your 8, I'd make him Lawful by Nutral Evil.

Bounty · by **Bounty** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:47 am

I answered one, I might as well cover them all...

Mach Sabre wrote:What about someone like Galactus? After all, he is self-aware, but he has killed trillions for selfish reasons. Yet, is he really evil? If you ask the greater schemes of the universe and Galactus himself, the answer is no. He only does what he must to survive, much like us when we kill a cow for beef to make that bacon double cheeseburger we crave so much. Yet, if you ask the surviving people of the planets he's devoured, they might say without hesitation that he's the devil himself.

Mach Sabre wrote:As I pointed out above, you need to sincsider result as well as intent. It's one thing to kill a cow to make a Hamburger. It's another to Nuke a field to cook it. If Galactus was intended to be a Shiva style cleanser of that which must die to make way for new growth, he's failed. But as he stands now, he's clearly evil, because it's the lives of BILLIONS for the life of 1.

Mach Sabre wrote:Taking another example, Namor the Sub-Mariner. How many innocent people died in his many misguided attacks on the surface world? And yet, he's allowed to fight along side the greatest of the world's heroes as a friend?

Namor's Chaotic, the only law he respects is he own. Weather he's good or not, I'd side twards Nuetral rather than good. He may be acking in the best interests of the planet, but he started out doing so in a way that disregarded the suffering he caused. Also, remember that he pretyt much stopped killing innocents before they let him play with the good guys. He even repented for it in some continuites...

Mach Sabre wrote:Meanwhile, Hulk's never killed anyone and he gets shot into space for property damage.

That Hulk has never killed anyone is pure luck. We're talking Japanese School girl skirt odds here. Also Hulk is true Nuetral. Banner may be good, but Hulk just reacts, if it hurts smash it, if it fights, smash it. If it moves, chase it down then smash it and reation is a nuetral thing.

Mach Sabre wrote:Johnny Blaze is essentially a demon from Hell, and Danny Ketch's Ghost Rider was the Angel of Death, yet they fight for the greater good in the world.

Here you're going to lose your D&D-isms. Blaze is Evil, Ketch is Good, because by D&D physics, the other plane from which a being originates dictates its Moral Resonance, so all Demons are evil, and all angels good.

I haven't read enough of the books to apply my guidelines, but I'm guessing both get Lawful Nuetrals. They have a Job "enforce this standard" and they exicute that job irregardless of the help/harm they may cause by doing so. the rules are more important than what happens when they're being inforced, or even if they're right or wrong.

Mach Sabre wrote:Some could say that Charon's own actions with her unhealthy life style puts herself and in a round about way, Becka's life in danger. What about the marriages she's knowingly disrupted? It may seem like apples and oranges, but to someone, she's that "evil slut who made my husband cheat on me!"

again, I dont think she's good, I think she's Nuetral, and Leaning twards Chaotic. She has her own set of right and wrong, and she applies them regardless of weather it's benifiting society, or herself. That she's done what she thinks is the right thing is key, though she perfers to do things that help more than things that harm, and things that benifit society over things that benifit solely her, or that directly harm society.

Mach Sabre wrote:Isn't evil really about perspective?

That's the effective evil slogan. The ineffective Evil slogan by the way is "But Evil spelled backwards is Live, and we all want to live don't we?"

I allow in my fiction for evil to be a more fluid concept. Good stories come out of conflict, and good vs. evil is a staple of conflicts. In the real world I find I believe in much more stringent, absolute standards of what is right and wrong. I shun others for failing to meet there, or even aknowledge they exist. I don't even manage to live up to the standards I set, a constant souce of confusiuon for my wife, and stress for me. But I'm not willing to admit that X might not be wreong, just because I can't seem to keep from doing X.

Charles · by **Charles** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:10 am

I guess the best example of Evil being about perspective is we kill millions of cows a year and it's no worry. Japan kills a few dozen whales and they are considered evil.

For the English, it's respectful to leave sunken wreaks intact and unchanged (we see it as a memorial). But the French (I think it's them) believe they should be remembered by fetching bits and errecting memorials around them.

I think Charon was considered the "drunk, town bike" ever since she was 15, despite reality. After a while she probably just figured she'd live up to their expectations. The one saving grace she holds dear to herself is that she's a good mother.

Chysgoda · by **Chysgoda** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:26 am

The problem with D&D alignments is that they are actually really vague. They depend a lot on how the DM views the world they’ve created and how the alignments fit into that world. Then there’s a problem in trying to apply D&D alignments to the real world. Good and evil is generally described as a gray scale with white (pure good) at one end and black (pure evil) at the other. However life doesn’t happen in a black and white film, it happens in full high definition Technicolor. White is good, black is evil, but what is Green? Or Fuchsia? I agree that there should be standards. I’d even go so far as to say there should be standards you will never conceivably reach. (I.e. Jesus Christ, Buddha, the knights of the round table, whoever it is for your belief or moral system) However in trying to reach that you will be forced to grow. But seeing things only in gray scale limits your ability to grow.

Attempting to get back to the subject at hand…

The original question was basically do we really know who the good guys and bad guys are in Shadowgirls. I’d say the biggest clue (besides comments made here on the board) is the story telling. Traditionally speaking, the focus rests on the good guys. Charon and Becca have gotten roughly 75% of the screen time. I’d say it’s fairly safe to say they’re our good guys. But then again D. Rod could break with tradition and there are no good guys. The Bounty hunter trilogy in the Star Wars expanded universe is a good example of this for any other Star Wars geeks out there. Given the context of the world as we’ve been shown it thus far I’d say the D&D alignments have little bearing on the moral spectrum of Innsmouth.

zombie penguin · by **zombie penguin** on Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:38 am

I agree with Chysgoda on most of her points. I have to say though, that the biggest clues we have were D-Rod's comments to remember that NONE of the characters were completely good or evil. I do agree that as a matter of course, the good or in this case "better" guys get the most airplay, so we're probably looking at Charon and Becka as our heros.

However I also think Charles has a good possible grasp on Charon's motivations as well.

Bounty · by **Bounty** on Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:37 pm

Charles wrote:I guess the best example of Evil being about perspective is we kill millions of cows a year and it's no worry. Japan kills a few dozen whales and they are considered evil.

The difference being that we've raised Millions of cows this year, and left enough to sustan the cows so that they can produce millions more next year. In fact, if we DIDN"T kill millions of cows this year, several millions of other things would die of starvation as the cattle ate the world bare of grass.

Japan has yet to breed a single whale. They will not ensure that the whale is killed as painlessly as possible. They will not ensure that only healthy adult whales who are not currently having or careing for children are killed. They will not ensure that enough whales remain after the hunt that whales in general will continue.

While I respect that ancient Japanese tradition has whale hunting as good. I din't see the Japanese setting out in a fleet of wooden ships powered by wind to throw some harpoons as whales. Htey're going out in Gass powered Trawlers with GPS and Echo Location devices, and high power Pnumatic Spear Guns, and possibly a helicopter. That is NOT the tradional way of whale hunting.

Mach Sabre · by **Mach Sabre** on Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:48 pm

zombie penguin wrote:...that NONE of the characters were completely good or evil.

Except two. One actually is good person (or as damn close as they come here) and one is completely evil bitch. By this point in time, it's obvious who they are.

zombie penguin · by **zombie penguin** on Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:36 pm

@ D-Rey:

You know what I meant...

Charles · by **Charles** on Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:37 pm

IF YOU LOVE ANIMALS DON'T READ THIS.

SERIOUSLY, I'VE WRITTEN SOME DISTURBING STUFF HERE!!!!

(in fact I won't be surprised if it's moded out, and I probably won't blame the DRs if they do just that)

Bounty: I worked in an abbatoir for 1.5 years and for a company that produced systems and software fot he meat industry, for 3 years. That last one had me stairing at the pictures of a good few thousand beef carcases a year.

I certainly agree with pretty much everything you have on Japan there but understand now that the beef industry is no mater. Cattle are kept penned up their entire lives, hearded around, scared by dogs that bite their ankles. Kicked, hit and electricuted as their loaded tight on trucks to travel 4 hours or more to a bare dirt paddock with grain feed. Finally their led past the stench of the tannery and up a ramp where a guy hits them with an air-gun designed to knock them out without killing. Hooks skewer their hind legs and raise them up of the ground where their throats are finally cut so they can bleed to death, hopefully just before their front feet and snout are cut off. (the meat is more tender by knocking them out and bleeding them rather than killing them straight).

If a cow happens to be pregnant at the time, her unborn calf ends up in the "foetal lab" where a needle skewers it's lungs and draws out the blood. But thats OK 'cos its for cancer reaserch to one-day save human lives.

Despite knowing this I still eat my steak.

Don't bother telling me what a whale goes through. I'm well aware of the exploding harpoon and getting draged by a hook in the wound, its no better. My point here isn't to justify Japan's whaling, but to point out that we don't consider our actions, evil in the least because we have a different perspective. They are justified because millions of people would starve without the industry and millions of other things would starve if we left them to eat all the grass. Japan has it's justifications for killing whales. We simply don't understand or agree with them, so their actions are evil.

Perspective. It lets Japan eat whale and you eat steak at night.

Shadowgirls

Establishing Allegiance

Who is online