Poll of the Day > Judge Dredd Dnd alignment

(+) Yeah! (+)

So, having a discussion with mates about Paladins in DnD an how they are shoehorned (I personally think Paladins should have skills like clerics where there alignment is set to the god and skills swap like a cleric, Smite Good/Evil/Chaos/Law ect)

The opinion then came that Judge Dredd is Lawful Neutral, I disagree, I think he is Lawful Evil. Why? Because of his total disregard for life and property, granted it is in the pursuit of law, hence LE.

So whats your guys thoughts? Judge Dredd, LG, LN or LE?
---

Lawful
a
w
f
u
l
---

The LAAAWWWWW

Babbit55 posted...

Because of his total disregard for life and property, granted it is in the pursuit of law

That's literally the definition of Lawful Neutral.

Your concept of Lawful Evil is pretty off. Someone who is Lawful Evil works within society and manipulates the law for their own evil means.

Dredd's goals of justice are neither inherently good, evil, or at all self-motivated.
---

ReggieTheReckless posted...

The LAAAWWWWW

https://youtu.be/mY77Ng7sZrs?t=18s
---

He's Lawful Good

Yeah, he kills people mercilessly, but he's still following the laws of the land as an official. Killing people doesn't inherently make you bad just like sparing people doesn't inherently make you good. He's only be Lawful Evil if what he was doing was illegal and only Lawful Neutral if he was acting of his own accord.

Dredd is super interesting to viewers because we're really not used to protagonists who kill the way he does while not having a super tragic backstory to help justify it. Super brutal violence is just the norm in his world, so he does it without a problem while still remaining Lawful Good because he's acting on the side of the law without hoping to get anything out of it, really.
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Because of his total disregard for life and property, granted it is in the pursuit of law

That's literally the definition of Lawful Neutral.

Your concept of Lawful Evil is pretty off. Someone who is Lawful Evil works within society and manipulates the law for their own evil means.

Dredd's goals of justice are neither inherently good, evil, or at all self-motivated.

I can see where you come from, though someone who is Evil may still follow the Law or strict code, Sheriff of Nottingham for example, yes he is following the law though he is known for being overly strict, if he took joy from it he would be clear cut LE, though while I can see the LN argument, I personally feel he drops into LE, just.

PK_Spam posted...

He's Lawful Good

Yeah, he kills people mercilessly, but he's still following the laws of the land as an official. Killing people doesn't inherently make you bad just like sparing people doesn't inherently make you good.

He's only be Lawful Evil if what he was doing was illegal and only Lawful Neutral if he was acting of his own accord.

Lawful defines how they view the laws of the land, it has no baring on the Good/Evil side of an Alignment in that sense. See above example on Sheriff of Nottingham, noone would call him Lawful Good even though he is following and enacting the Laws of the Land and Robin Hood is Chaotic good as he has no regard for the law of the land but is doing Good still.
---

Babbit55 posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Because of his total disregard for life and property, granted it is in the pursuit of law

That's literally the definition of Lawful Neutral.

Your concept of Lawful Evil is pretty off. Someone who is Lawful Evil works within society and manipulates the law for their own evil means.

Dredd's goals of justice are neither inherently good, evil, or at all self-motivated.

I can see where you come from, though someone who is Evil may still follow the Law or strict code, Sheriff of Nottingham for example, yes he is following the law though he is known for being overly strict, if he took joy from it he would be clear cut LE, though while I can see the LN argument, I personally feel he drops into LE, just.

Yes, the Sheriff of Nottingham is a perfect example of Lawful Evil. In fact, the first character that came to mind was the tax collector from the many RH stories.

But those characters are a far cry from Dredd.
---

He is absolutely lawful neutral.

He isn't interested in any evil intent, and from his perspective the law does serve the greater good.
---

Babbit55 posted...

Lawful defines how they view the laws of the land, it has no baring on the Good/Evil side of an Alignment in that sense. See above example on Sheriff of Nottingham, noone would call him Lawful Good even though he is following and enacting the Laws of the Land and Robin Hood is Chaotic good as he has no regard for the law of the land but is doing Good still.

The keyword in a Lawful Neutral alignment is "order". The Sheriff of Nottingham had no interest in order, but personal greed. That's what makes him evil.

A paladin who enforces the law of a tyrannical empire for the sake of order and everything not-chaos, is an example of a character who is lawful neutral. Or in some cases, lawful good. Although lawful good generally means the character has some principles and whatnot of their own. They serve their liege not necessarily for the sake of stability, but to fulfill their own sense of honor and righteousness. But they would never break the law or commit any act that is at all morally grey, for the sake of that same honor and righteousness.
---

Babbit55 posted...

Lawful defines how they view the laws of the land, it has no baring on the Good/Evil side of an Alignment in that sense. See above example on Sheriff of Nottingham, noone would call him Lawful Good even though he is following and enacting the Laws of the Land and Robin Hood is Chaotic good as he has no regard for the law of the land but is doing Good still.

But here's the thing. Alignments don't mean shit, and should only ever be used to briefly describe principal characters. And they change depending on who's perspective we're looking through.

Dredd is opporating through the law and following it, and he happens to be our protagonist. He's Lawful Good because we see him acting as a force for "justice" by following the rules, so to speak.

Reverse that. Dredd is now the antagonist to a ragtag group of young revolutionaries. He's now Lawful Evil. Nothing has changed about him. In hoping to stop these revolutionaries from, say, selling pot and stopping bad politician men, Dredd takes an antagonistic role (Evil) because he's siding directly with the opposition. He remains Lawful because he's not trying to make a statement with his actions. They're just the effect of following dumb laws that are already put into place.

If Robin Hood weren't the hero of the story, he would be a Chaotic Evil or a Chaotic Neutral, at best. So I dunno what you were going with there.
---

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.
---

PK_Spam posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Lawful defines how they view the laws of the land, it has no baring on the Good/Evil side of an Alignment in that sense. See above example on Sheriff of Nottingham, noone would call him Lawful Good even though he is following and enacting the Laws of the Land and Robin Hood is Chaotic good as he has no regard for the law of the land but is doing Good still.

But here's the thing. Alignments don't mean shit, and should only ever be used to briefly describe principal characters. And they change depending on who's perspective we're looking through.

Dredd is opporating through the law and following it, and he happens to be our protagonist. He's Lawful Good because we see him acting as a force for "justice" by following the rules, so to speak.

Reverse that. Dredd is now the antagonist to a ragtag group of young revolutionaries. He's now Lawful Evil. Nothing has changed about him. In hoping to stop these revolutionaries from, say, selling pot and stopping bad politician men, Dredd takes an antagonistic role (Evil) because he's siding directly with the opposition. He remains Lawful because he's not trying to make a statement with his actions. They're just the effect of following dumb laws that are already put into place.

If Robin Hood weren't the hero of the story, he would be a Chaotic Evil or a Chaotic Neutral, at best. So I dunno what you were going with there.

I totally agree with this statement, (Hence me not liking how Paladins get shoehorned) Alignment should be used as a thing to say 2 things, how they view the "Law" be it a code of Honour, Law of the Lands ect and their "morals" so how they would act in some situations, like a Good person would not torture someone, even for a "greater good" (That would be a neutral action) and an Evil person would be unlikely to help someone without benefit.

Robin hood as the antagonist would still be CG, I cannot see how he could be viewed as even LN.
---

Lawful Evil would be Judge Death, right?
---

You betrayed The Law!
---

I would go and say hes more lawful netural to lawful good.

i wouldn't think a lawful good person goes around killing people.
---

But he's doing it because the law allows it and he's doing it as an agent of the law.

Lawful Good doesn't mean that you're good and pure. Lawful good means that you do things in strict accordance to morals other than your own. That's why Batman is Chaotic Good and not Lawful Good.
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.
---

PK_Spam posted...

But he's doing it because the law allows it and he's doing it as an agent of the law.

Lawful Good doesn't mean that you're good and pure. Lawful good means that you do things in strict accordance to morals other than your own. That's why Batman is Chaotic Good and not Lawful Good.

The good/Evil side is about your morals, the lawful.chaotic side is the bit about following codes and the like. I see no case where Dredd is LG at all.

Lightning Bolt posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.

That is a valid and very fair point.
---

He's lawful neutral as fuck. Being lawful neutral is pretty much his entire character.
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Because of his total disregard for life and property, granted it is in the pursuit of law

That's literally the definition of Lawful Neutral.

Your concept of Lawful Evil is pretty off. Someone who is Lawful Evil works within society and manipulates the law for their own evil means.

Dredd's goals of justice are neither inherently good, evil, or at all self-motivated.

This. A truly lawful neutral person adheres to the letter of the law, even when they disagree with it.

Babbit55 posted...

I can see where you come from, though someone who is Evil may still follow the Law or strict code, Sheriff of Nottingham for example, yes he is following the law though he is known for being overly strict, if he took joy from it he would be clear cut LE, though while I can see the LN argument, I personally feel he drops into LE, just.

I'm not sure to what extent he was following the letter of the law. He was an authority figure who could impose the law as he saw fit for his personal benefit... and he was big into personal benefit. Dredd doesn't have a personal benefit nor some odious ideal driving his actions.
---

sorta off topic but only slightly. just got me to wondering. what about robocop? guessing he would be lawful neutral as well, but what about the third movie where he took the side of the people over the cops, does that change his alignment?

and can it be really considered his alignment since despite still being human partially he was coded to act a certain way
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

sorta off topic but only slightly. just got me to wondering. what about robocop? guessing he would be lawful neutral as well, but what about the third movie where he took the side of the people over the cops, does that change his alignment?

and can it be really considered his alignment since despite still being human partially he was coded to act a certain way

Hmm interesting one. I would say, especially since he goes against his "Code" (programming) that he is NG, maybe even CG with how often his "code" changes. He is very much good as he puts the life of others over his well being and even aims to stop before aiming to kill.
---

Babbit55 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

sorta off topic but only slightly. just got me to wondering. what about robocop? guessing he would be lawful neutral as well, but what about the third movie where he took the side of the people over the cops, does that change his alignment?

and can it be really considered his alignment since despite still being human partially he was coded to act a certain way

Hmm interesting one. I would say, especially since he goes against his "Code" (programming) that he is NG, maybe even CG with how often his "code" changes. He is very much good as he puts the life of others over his well being and even aims to stop before aiming to kill.

yeah maybe his phrase of "dead or alive you are coming with me" put me in the mindset of as long as his original directives are in order, he was lawful neutral. on top of the fact he harassed a guy for smoking in a no smoking area I think, and when asked if he had anything to say to kids he just said "stay out of trouble"
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

sorta off topic but only slightly. just got me to wondering. what about robocop? guessing he would be lawful neutral as well, but what about the third movie where he took the side of the people over the cops, does that change his alignment?

and can it be really considered his alignment since despite still being human partially he was coded to act a certain way

Hmm interesting one. I would say, especially since he goes against his "Code" (programming) that he is NG, maybe even CG with how often his "code" changes. He is very much good as he puts the life of others over his well being and even aims to stop before aiming to kill.

yeah maybe his phrase of "dead or alive you are coming with me" put me in the mindset of as long as his original directives are in order, he was lawful neutral. on top of the fact he harassed a guy for smoking in a no smoking area I think, and when asked if he had anything to say to kids he just said "stay out of trouble"

Difficult one when you add in the robot side, kind of like when people put an alignment on the terminator in T2.
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.

Yeah but robbing dudes even if they are rich or whatever isnt lawful or good.
---

EvilMegas posted...

Lightning Bolt posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.

Yeah but robbing dudes even if they are rich or whatever isnt lawful or good.

Stealing for the right reasons can be good, in this essence anyway. He is stealing from the rich, that have been draining the people dry, and giving it back to the people, The Lawful/Chaotic side doesn't affect the Good/Evil side that greatly.
---

Babbit55 posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Lightning Bolt posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.

Yeah but robbing dudes even if they are rich or whatever isnt lawful or good.

Stealing for the right reasons can be good, in this essence anyway. He is stealing from the rich, that have been draining the people dry, and giving it back to the people, The Lawful/Chaotic side doesn't affect the Good/Evil side that greatly.

Doing an evil act for good is neutral right?
---

EvilMegas posted...

Babbit55 posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Lightning Bolt posted...

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Robin Hood believed he was acting honorably. He is Chaotic or even Neutral Good.

You might could make a case for Chaotic Neutral.

At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.

^Taken from King Richard's wiki page.

Perhaps Will Scarlett could be seen as a Neutral Evil character, but even then, I'd lean towards Chaotic Neutral.

Robin Hood could be Lawful Good.
He spent the entirety of his story (some versions) resisting the illegitimate rule of Prince John, the phony king of England. He didn't place particular value on his own self-determination, he was a loyal soldier of King Richard and worked to protect his people against the injustices that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham's abuses of power were causing.
Resisting your ruler isn't chaotic if the ruler isn't acting lawfully.

Alignment is kinda wonky.

Yeah but robbing dudes even if they are rich or whatever isnt lawful or good.

Stealing for the right reasons can be good, in this essence anyway. He is stealing from the rich, that have been draining the people dry, and giving it back to the people, The Lawful/Chaotic side doesn't affect the Good/Evil side that greatly.

Doing an evil act for good is neutral right?

If theft was (lets use tax avoidance) "Legal", but Immoral, it would be a LE act, if it was "Illegal, but moral" It would be a CG act. This is the difference between the Law side and the Good side of the Alignment system in DnD (By no means close to "perfect")
---

That makes sense to me.
---

I only know him from the movie but I'd say lawful good.
He was shown at least once ignoring a crime because he didn't believe in punishing them.

Lawful neutral: you stole bread, punishment is death, die.
Lawful good: you stole bread, the punishment is death, but your hungry so I'll let you go this time.
Lawful evil: *gives bread to hungry person* you stole bread, die
---

Welcome to why alignment sucks.

SinisterSlay posted...

I only know him from the movie but I'd say lawful good.
He was shown at least once ignoring a crime because he didn't believe in punishing them.

Lawful neutral: you stole bread, punishment is death, die.
Lawful good: you stole bread, the punishment is death, but your hungry so I'll let you go this time.
Lawful evil: *gives bread to hungry person* you stole bread, die

Normally it is extremely rare for him to ignore any kind of crime.
---

Lawful good does not mean lawful nice.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

Lawful good does not mean lawful nice.

And Lawful Neutral means completely indiscriminate, which Dredd is.
---

Babbit55 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

sorta off topic but only slightly. just got me to wondering. what about robocop? guessing he would be lawful neutral as well, but what about the third movie where he took the side of the people over the cops, does that change his alignment?

and can it be really considered his alignment since despite still being human partially he was coded to act a certain way

Hmm interesting one. I would say, especially since he goes against his "Code" (programming) that he is NG, maybe even CG with how often his "code" changes. He is very much good as he puts the life of others over his well being and even aims to stop before aiming to kill.

yeah maybe his phrase of "dead or alive you are coming with me" put me in the mindset of as long as his original directives are in order, he was lawful neutral. on top of the fact he harassed a guy for smoking in a no smoking area I think, and when asked if he had anything to say to kids he just said "stay out of trouble"

Difficult one when you add in the robot side, kind of like when people put an alignment on the terminator in T2.

yeah and you didn't really get much time seeing Murphy to really get a good idea of how he was other than he was brave/stupid enough to go into a place knowingly outnumbered and he liked to twirl his gun because his son liked it and it felt cool to him as well.

even when he lets his human side start to emerge as robocop he still acts hardly anything like what little we saw of him as fully human.
---