I've always though Odo more a lawful neutral type. He never seemed to really care who was writing the law, only who was breaking it. He upheld Cardassian and Dominion law just the same as Federation or Bajoran.
O'Briens excellent at balancing the work through troubles and not give in sort of CG
the
Doctors good at suppressing his Eugenics enhanced abilities to blend in. Medical types can be LN
O'brien had some borderline racist baggage regarding Cardassians. Chaotic good fits him well. I'd say aside from Picard, chaotic good fits most of the major Starfleet characters in the shows - many of them favor getting the right things done the most important thing, and the rules rarely stop them from doing that.
Bashir's very existence is a crime, and the fact that he's still in Starfleet is the result of authorities choosing to look the other way on the matter. And in TNG we saw that the Federation takes its laws on genetic engineering and cloning seriously enough to justify killing a defenseless sentient in cold blood and dismantle a peaceful society, and we even saw several others like him who had been incarcerated for life, so this isn't a trivial thing to look the other way on. I wouldn't call him outright criminal, but he's got enough baggage to lock him out of the lawful end of the spectrum. I'd say neutral good to true neutral, which suits being a healer well.
I disagree. O'brien has disobeyed orders on several occasions, to follow his own rules of right and wrong. I'm not sure that could be considered "Lawful"
I've always though Odo more a lawful neutral type. He never seemed to really care who was writing the law, only who was breaking it. He upheld Cardassian and Dominion law just the same as Federation or Bajoran.
Though, who in DS9 really fits into lawful good?
Its funny you mention this, because Odo is definitely Lawful Neutral, in fact, his coolest speech of the series is entirely about his alignment "Laws change depending on who's making them, but justice is justice." Yah, Odo is definitely Lawful Neutral.
I actually have to Disagree with the placement of Worf as Lawful Neutral. He is definitely Lawful Good. It's a huge part of his character, being caught between his honor (lawful) and doing what is right (Good).
The funny thing is, throughout the series most of the characters had shifts in their alignment. By the end Dukat was unequivocally Chaotic Evil, but early on? No way, throughout most of the series he wasn't even really evil, at first he seemed a little lawful evil, but then when the Detapa Council took over and the Klingon invasion happened he seemed more Neutral (or at times, Lawful Neutral) it wasn't even a paradigm shift really, just a fleshing out of the character and his motivations.
Also: O'brien is Neutral Good, no doubt about it. Somebody mentioned his slightly racist attitudes, but ultimately it was more lingering hostility from a brutal war he fought in, and once faced with individual Cardassians who weren't J-Holes, he changed his tune.
Would anyone agree with the idea that Janeway could be considered lawful good? She follows the Starfleet directives to the very end in some cases.
are you kidding?
watch endgame, equinox and scorpian and then come back to us. she followed starfleet principles to a degree but there are episodes where she goes completely off the spectrum.
watch endgame, equinox and scorpian and then come back to us. she followed starfleet principles to a degree but there are episodes where she goes completely off the spectrum.
Without a doubt she has walked the line on occasion but in the same episodes you see the impact of her morals and how reluctant she is to make the decision. I think there's a clear difference between someone who is "Good" and follows the rules being "lawful" and only breaks them when it is an absolute necessity and those who would actively seek to circumvent the rules with the intent of doing "good."
You have to admit that for 7 years she held true to the Starfleet principles that eventually brought her crew home, had she broken the rules more than she had to Voyager would have been home a lot sooner, she knows this and you could see the conflict and guilt she felt over this in the show..
Talking out of the context of voyager now character alignment is always much more of a guide in roleplaying games rather than a strict rule the character follows flawlessly, take it from a frequent DM /nerd
Without a doubt she has walked the line on occasion but in the same episodes you see the impact of her morals and how reluctant she is to make the decision. I think there's a clear difference between someone who is "Good" and follows the rules being "lawful" and only breaks them when it is an absolute necessity and those who would actively seek to circumvent the rules with the intent of doing "good."
You have to admit that for 7 years she held true to the Starfleet principles that eventually brought her crew home, had she broken the rules more than she had to Voyager would have been home a lot sooner, she knows this and you could see the conflict and guilt she felt over this in the show..
Talking out of the context of voyager now character alignment is always much more of a guide in roleplaying games rather than a strict rule the character follows flawlessly, take it from a frequent DM /nerd
Sometimes. Not every time. She also spent entire episodes just looking for flimsy justification for breaking the Prime Directive on purely internal matters of culture and government, and spent at least one episode threatening to throw people off the ship if they break the prime directive to save a peaceful civilization, backed only by "I said so" and the baby Hitler fallacy.
She's all over the board enough to almost qualify as true neutral on the schizophrenic archetype, but even disregarding the outliers, your own desscription is not lawful good. Breaking the rules when its the right thing to do is chaotic good. There's a reason the chaotic end of the scale, good or evil, is the end that generally gets things done. However, letting a planet die because its the rules is lawful evil.
The alignments may not be hard set boxes, but lawful good is still pretty restrictive. A paladin who broke alignment a fraction as often as Janeway would be pretty much irrecoverably fallen.
watch endgame, equinox and scorpion and then come back to us. she followed starfleet principles to a degree but there are episodes where she goes completely off the spectrum.
Yes when she bartered with the Klingon General for a Cloaking device how did she use it.. Revenge
Revenge is a StarFleet officer that never forgets.. the BOrg.
Following the Greater Good Precept and protecting in a Mother Earth almost Gia NG
and not a Vulcan Monk TN Which Reminds me of ARchers dealings with the Vulcans that were dealing in a Romulan Fasion with the Andorians
Without a doubt she has walked the line on occasion but in the same episodes you see the impact of her morals and how reluctant she is to make the decision. I think there's a clear difference between someone who is "Good" and follows the rules being "lawful" and only breaks them when it is an absolute necessity and those who would actively seek to circumvent the rules with the intent of doing "good."
You have to admit that for 7 years she held true to the Starfleet principles that eventually brought her crew home, had she broken the rules more than she had to Voyager would have been home a lot sooner, she knows this and you could see the conflict and guilt she felt over this in the show..
Talking out of the context of voyager now character alignment is always much more of a guide in roleplaying games rather than a strict rule the character follows flawlessly, take it from a frequent DM /nerd
There is no way you can claim Janeway's alignment is anything but chaotic. She was inconsistent in crew evaluations, her reaction to violations of her orders, even in her command decisions. And starting from the reason they were stuck in the Delta Quadrant in the first place, she was all over the map. She destroyed the Caretaker's Array and involved herself in the internal conflict of THREE sentient species (which would haunt her for several seasons with the Kazon).
Lets not even mention the fact that Janeway also used a subspace weapon (banned by the Khitomer Accords), which presumably parallels to modern day nukes, without authorization from Starfleet. And a few episodes later she is involved in the destruction of an entire planet, placing an entire pre-warp civilization in extinction.
I disagree. O'brien has disobeyed orders on several occasions, to follow his own rules of right and wrong. I'm not sure that could be considered "Lawful"
Lawful/Chaotic is highly misunderstood. It is not related to how well you obey the law. Good people follow good laws (and don't follow evil laws) and Evil people follow the laws whenever it serves their purposes. Lawful/Chaotic refers to how disciplined a character is. O'Brien is very disciplined, even if he doesn't always follow orders.
Lawful/Chaotic is highly misunderstood. It is not related to how well you obey the law. Good people follow good laws (and don't follow evil laws) and Evil people follow the laws whenever it serves their purposes. Lawful/Chaotic refers to how disciplined a character is. O'Brien is very disciplined, even if he doesn't always follow orders.
I think that is also just one interpretation of it, I am afraid.
For others, lawful is following the laws and structures of a society, and chaotic is not doing that.
But ultimately, all the alignment discussions in the past mostly confirmed to me that alignment is an inadequate concept mostly. IF you really want to use it, you are doing good by defining what interpretation of good/evil and law/chaos you want to follow in your setting.
In my personal view:
I think Evil is about Egoism and Good is about altruism.
For Law vs Chaos: The rules of lawful people come from the outside - society, religion, peers. The rules (or "guidelines of behavior" of chaotic people come from their inner self. Introspection, personal ideals, or just mood.
I think that is also just one interpretation of it, I am afraid.
For others, lawful is following the laws and structures of a society, and chaotic is not doing that.
But ultimately, all the alignment discussions in the past mostly confirmed to me that alignment is an inadequate concept mostly. IF you really want to use it, you are doing good by defining what interpretation of good/evil and law/chaos you want to follow in your setting.
In my personal view:
I think Evil is about Egoism and Good is about altruism.
For Law vs Chaos: The rules of lawful people come from the outside - society, religion, peers. The rules (or "guidelines of behavior" of chaotic people come from their inner self. Introspection, personal ideals, or just mood.
If you read the actual description about the Lawful/Chaotic axis in the D&D books, the disciplined nature of it is quite clear.
Actually it varies based on edition. Which one are you referring to?
Well I'll admit I haven't played TSR D&D, but any of the WotC books definitely make the whole discipline thing clear. Its also evident in the fact that Bards and Barbarians can't be lawful but Monks and Paladins *must* be lawful. Nothing about those classes says or implies they have to follow or not follow the laws about any arbitrary land.
There is no way Odo is Lawful Good, if anything he is lawful neutral. He was the constable for the Cardassians as well as working security for the federation as well as having ties to the Founders. He played all sides of the fence but was primarily concerned with upholding the laws.
I think Rom would be the closest DS9 character that is LG. He is basically selfless, kind hearted and good natured and would probably never hurt a fly. He gets off track because he is closely associated with Quark, but I think if you stuck Rom on a federation star ship his LGness would shine through.
Does LG mean you have the do the LG thing every single time? Or can you be lawful and good but occasionally have a chaotic tendency. Picard would be that guy.
The Doctor is basically LG, as dictated by his programing. Well, except for that one episode where he becomes evil...lol.
Comments
its hard to find a good paladin in space these days....
Though, who in DS9 really fits into lawful good?
O'brien or bashir? probably bashir for all his arguments with sloan about doing the right thing?
the
Doctors good at suppressing his Eugenics enhanced abilities to blend in. Medical types can be LN
Bashir's very existence is a crime, and the fact that he's still in Starfleet is the result of authorities choosing to look the other way on the matter. And in TNG we saw that the Federation takes its laws on genetic engineering and cloning seriously enough to justify killing a defenseless sentient in cold blood and dismantle a peaceful society, and we even saw several others like him who had been incarcerated for life, so this isn't a trivial thing to look the other way on. I wouldn't call him outright criminal, but he's got enough baggage to lock him out of the lawful end of the spectrum. I'd say neutral good to true neutral, which suits being a healer well.
Its funny you mention this, because Odo is definitely Lawful Neutral, in fact, his coolest speech of the series is entirely about his alignment "Laws change depending on who's making them, but justice is justice." Yah, Odo is definitely Lawful Neutral.
I actually have to Disagree with the placement of Worf as Lawful Neutral. He is definitely Lawful Good. It's a huge part of his character, being caught between his honor (lawful) and doing what is right (Good).
The funny thing is, throughout the series most of the characters had shifts in their alignment. By the end Dukat was unequivocally Chaotic Evil, but early on? No way, throughout most of the series he wasn't even really evil, at first he seemed a little lawful evil, but then when the Detapa Council took over and the Klingon invasion happened he seemed more Neutral (or at times, Lawful Neutral) it wasn't even a paradigm shift really, just a fleshing out of the character and his motivations.
Also: O'brien is Neutral Good, no doubt about it. Somebody mentioned his slightly racist attitudes, but ultimately it was more lingering hostility from a brutal war he fought in, and once faced with individual Cardassians who weren't J-Holes, he changed his tune.
are you kidding?
watch endgame, equinox and scorpian and then come back to us. she followed starfleet principles to a degree but there are episodes where she goes completely off the spectrum.
Without a doubt she has walked the line on occasion but in the same episodes you see the impact of her morals and how reluctant she is to make the decision. I think there's a clear difference between someone who is "Good" and follows the rules being "lawful" and only breaks them when it is an absolute necessity and those who would actively seek to circumvent the rules with the intent of doing "good."
You have to admit that for 7 years she held true to the Starfleet principles that eventually brought her crew home, had she broken the rules more than she had to Voyager would have been home a lot sooner, she knows this and you could see the conflict and guilt she felt over this in the show..
Talking out of the context of voyager now character alignment is always much more of a guide in roleplaying games rather than a strict rule the character follows flawlessly, take it from a frequent DM /nerd
O'Brien should simply be "The Victim". He has to suffer!
Sometimes. Not every time. She also spent entire episodes just looking for flimsy justification for breaking the Prime Directive on purely internal matters of culture and government, and spent at least one episode threatening to throw people off the ship if they break the prime directive to save a peaceful civilization, backed only by "I said so" and the baby Hitler fallacy.
She's all over the board enough to almost qualify as true neutral on the schizophrenic archetype, but even disregarding the outliers, your own desscription is not lawful good. Breaking the rules when its the right thing to do is chaotic good. There's a reason the chaotic end of the scale, good or evil, is the end that generally gets things done. However, letting a planet die because its the rules is lawful evil.
The alignments may not be hard set boxes, but lawful good is still pretty restrictive. A paladin who broke alignment a fraction as often as Janeway would be pretty much irrecoverably fallen.
Yes when she bartered with the Klingon General for a Cloaking device how did she use it.. Revenge
Revenge is a StarFleet officer that never forgets.. the BOrg.
Following the Greater Good Precept and protecting in a Mother Earth almost Gia NG
and not a Vulcan Monk TN Which Reminds me of ARchers dealings with the Vulcans that were dealing in a Romulan Fasion with the Andorians
There is no way you can claim Janeway's alignment is anything but chaotic. She was inconsistent in crew evaluations, her reaction to violations of her orders, even in her command decisions. And starting from the reason they were stuck in the Delta Quadrant in the first place, she was all over the map. She destroyed the Caretaker's Array and involved herself in the internal conflict of THREE sentient species (which would haunt her for several seasons with the Kazon).
Lets not even mention the fact that Janeway also used a subspace weapon (banned by the Khitomer Accords), which presumably parallels to modern day nukes, without authorization from Starfleet. And a few episodes later she is involved in the destruction of an entire planet, placing an entire pre-warp civilization in extinction.
Yeah, that sure sounds Lawful Good to me.
I think that is also just one interpretation of it, I am afraid.
For others, lawful is following the laws and structures of a society, and chaotic is not doing that.
But ultimately, all the alignment discussions in the past mostly confirmed to me that alignment is an inadequate concept mostly. IF you really want to use it, you are doing good by defining what interpretation of good/evil and law/chaos you want to follow in your setting.
In my personal view:
I think Evil is about Egoism and Good is about altruism.
For Law vs Chaos: The rules of lawful people come from the outside - society, religion, peers. The rules (or "guidelines of behavior" of chaotic people come from their inner self. Introspection, personal ideals, or just mood.
Actually it varies based on edition. Which one are you referring to?
I think Rom would be the closest DS9 character that is LG. He is basically selfless, kind hearted and good natured and would probably never hurt a fly. He gets off track because he is closely associated with Quark, but I think if you stuck Rom on a federation star ship his LGness would shine through.
Does LG mean you have the do the LG thing every single time? Or can you be lawful and good but occasionally have a chaotic tendency. Picard would be that guy.
The Doctor is basically LG, as dictated by his programing. Well, except for that one episode where he becomes evil...lol.
What would Q be? CN?
In the hunt for DS9's LG character, lets not forget about Vedek Bereil.