Elsewhere: classic rock, the alignment chart.
“Cocksucker” is the epithet of choice for the lawful apparently.
“Cocksucker” is the epithet of choice for everyone in Deadwood.
Interesting that Hearst is not on the chart. His evil cannot be contained by such petty measurements.
I was considering doing one for Deadwood, back in the day, but I never got around to it, so it’s interesting to see how we aligned. I actually had Trixie for Chaotic Good, Alma for Lawful Neutral, and Francis Woolcott for Chaotic Evil. I’d put Jane Canary down as True Neutral, while I’d have Doc share space with Charlie on Neutral Good (if sharing space were something one did, which it isn’t).
I think TV Tropes suggests ‘Chaotic Neutral’ for Al Swearengen, and there’s a healthy debate that could take place over that character’s complexities, but I can see the case for calling him Lawful, and I appreciate the instinct to call him Evil.
I showed this to a friend.
He said it was stupid to pigeonhole the main cast of every series into every possible alignment.
Then he asked if there was a Brady Bunch one yet.
Swearengen isn’t lawful; he resents law. Civilization is his nemesis. Wu isn’t lawful either. Jane is pretty easily Good, not Neutral. Chaotic, definitely, but really, how is she anything but good on the show?
Swearengen is totally lawful- he has a rough and brutal set of laws and rules to which he adheres and he ensures his men and those around him stick to it. It may or may not boil down to ‘don’t fuck with me’, but it’s there.
Remember that he carved the little slice of civilisation that is Deadwood out of rocks and forest. It’s not pretty and it’s not nice, but it works, and he does everything in his power to make sure it works.
And that he stays on top.
This may not be the place for comments on the “Classic Rock” one, but the Doors have no place on that chart, even as “chaotic evil.”
Jim Morrison should only appear on something like that if there’s a slot for “full of shit.”
Man, fuck that guy.
B, what “laws and rules” does he adhere to? Every action of his is governed by his own self-interest, and the rare deviations from that extend toward acts of compassion. Good rather than Law.
This is a man who said, “we’ll have laws and every other fucking thing,” who openly laments the telegraph wires coming into town (“when has a letter ever brought good news?”), who fears outside attention or interference from the cocksuckers in Yankton to the Pinkertons, who wistfully tells Tolliver, “sometimes I wish we could just hit ‘em over the head, rob ‘em and throw their bodies in the creek.” He broke the law to come into Deadwood, was driven out by the army, and broke the law again to do it again. Al thrives in the early chaos of Deadwood, when he was the only game in town. His arc over the three seasons was his struggle against the advent of civilization, as control of the town gets away from him. Don’t take my word for it, Milch has said pretty much the same thing, both on the DVD extras and the companion book.
Wolcott is easily the best choice for Chaotic Evil. Hearst would be Neutral Evil, I think. I think Dan would be Lawful Evil (and his Law is Al’s will).
Al himself is definitely more complicated than he first appeared. I think he shifted alignments over the course of the show, from Neutral Evil to True Neutral.
I’m not talking about other people’s laws- I’m talking about *his*. You seem to think Lawful means following the law of the state.
To be fair, B, roughly half of all D&D supplements that mention alignment think that too. The fact that not even all the employees at the company understood it was one of the ways you could tell alignments were stupid.
B, by that argument, the Joker is Lawful because he follows his own set of laws.
Or, as a more reasonable example, Batman. His laws are: no killing, be prepared for everything, defend the defenseless, etc. However, I don’t think anyone would argue that Batman is Lawful.
I agree with B mostly because this is the definition of Lawful Evil that I have seen the most
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
Lawful here mostly means preferring a certain order in life. The Joker does not work withing a frame of “order”.
First one of these I’ve agreed with in a long time.
I’d say Hearst is chaotic evil, he’d gladly burn the world and everyone in it to get his way.
Cyrus is probably Neutral Evil, he’ll acknowledge someone else’s authority if he sees gain in it for himself, although IDK if alignments are really built to account for his sort of fundamentally diseased soul.
Maybe Clay above is right, Hearst is neutral evil; he’s happy to use the law or not as it suits his overall “devour the world” agenda.
His equivocating about people’s justifications for violence notwithstanding, I can’t see the Doc as anything but a Neutral Good. He consistently tries to relieve suffering, no matter the identity of the afflicted or the cause of their affliction.
Now on to the important question: Where does Ellsworth fit into the alignment scheme?
[…] I’ve seen a lot of these recently. But one seemed to be missing… […]
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more." -- Popcrunch.com
"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization." -- Jenn
Subscribe in a reader