Dragon_Nexus wrote: GrimSkald wrote: Had to make this fit - here's one of Spider-Man, the Punisher, and a woman named Rachel Cole-Alves who assisted the PunPun for a time: (Stupid Mouth...) So...how did he NOT get killed by S̶o̶l̶i̶d̶ ̶S̶n̶a̶k̶e̶ Punisher after that?
GrimSkald wrote: Had to make this fit - here's one of Spider-Man, the Punisher, and a woman named Rachel Cole-Alves who assisted the PunPun for a time: (Stupid Mouth...)
Tatercat wrote: I do see Cap as Lawful Good, mainly for the reasons loroku already pointed out.
loroku wrote: I actually agree with Steve being Lawful Good. It's more about intent, I think, than actual laws; he follows his own code, and most of the time it's in agreement with society's laws, but sometimes it's not, and that's ok. Because it's still his code, and he still intends to follow it because he thinks it's right.
_RiO_ wrote: Tatercat wrote: I do see Cap as Lawful Good, mainly for the reasons loroku already pointed out. loroku wrote: I actually agree with Steve being Lawful Good. It's more about intent, I think, than actual laws; he follows his own code, and most of the time it's in agreement with society's laws, but sometimes it's not, and that's ok. Because it's still his code, and he still intends to follow it because he thinks it's right. In original first-edition D&D, the Lawful alignment is defined as holding the belief that everything in life and existence should follow some form of order and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Chaotic alignment is defined as holding the belief that life is random and up to chance and luck. Lawful characters aim to protect the interest of the group over the individual, whereas chaotic characters value the individual over the group. (Note that they explicitly value any individual over the group. Chaos does not mean valuing yourself more than others!) Under those definitions, the first; Lawful, is quintessential Tony Stark: a scientist who operates on the belief that everything works according to a system. A man who looks at the big picture and the extremely long play. Someone who is not above moving live assets like pieces on a chessboard if it means coming out on top in the long run and who is not above sacrificing a few if he must. And the second; Chaotic, is quintessential Steve Rogers: a man who operates according to a set of morals that are his and his alone and who is guided mostly by his own gut. A man who strongly believes in the rights of the individual and who will not accept that sacrifice of the individual can mean preservation of the group. He will endeavour to find another way. Third-edition D&D is where things get interesting. The first edition's definitions are mostly upheld, but negative connotations are added to them. Lawful characters can be closed-minded and traditional or may lack adaptability, whereas Chaotic characters can be reckless and disdainful of authority. Tony and Steve are kind of weird, because the combine the positive of one alignment with the negative values of the other. Galactus is either (True) Neutral for being a form of balance-bringer in the universe, or a Neutral Evil for being selfish and having no qualms about sacrificing others or recruiting others into his service and granting them power, just as long as it furthers his goals, while simultaneously not going out of his way to cause additional harm. (He simply must feed.)
Cylaali wrote:
Virus Type V wrote:
GrimSkald wrote: Virus Type V wrote: You know it's bad when the hypothetical relationship with a psychotic mercenary is 10x better than her actual one...
GrimSkald wrote: More Punisher:
20three wrote: : |
Jaedenkaal wrote: GrimSkald wrote: More Punisher: o.O