Bittersweet Candy Bowl

What alignments do you think that the characters of BCB have? This topic came up in the IRC, and we had some pretty good ones. Some, like McCain are pretty cut and dry, but others, like Mike are debatable.

So, what alignments do you think the characters belong to?

making chart right now

You always discuss these things when I am not on. ^_^

Tee hee. It’s my own fault, I know.

Paulo = Chaotic Good.

Huh. Same wavelength.

For those of you unfamiliar with the D&D 3.5E alignment chart, this is what we’re referring to.

Characters have an alignment based on two axes:
Lawful — Neutral — Chaotic
Good — Neutral — Evil

Each character fits into one spot on each of the axes, and therefore is something like Lawful Good, or Chaotic Evil.

Lawful vs. Chaotic refers to how much a character obeys an outside set of regulations or a “code” (such as a moral code or “law among thieves” kind of thing). A chaotic character will obey his/her own instincts or preference above all else. Someone in the middle won’t take a preference to either side, and generally just work toward doing whatever Good or Evil they can manage.

Good vs. Evil should be fairly self explanatory.

Some examples:
A knight in King Arthur’s court: Lawful Good
Robin Hood/Aladdin: Chaotic Good
Darth Vader: Lawful Evil
A judge: Lawful Neutral
Serial killer: Chaotic Evil

Ohhhhhh. I get it now thanks.

There.
Link to full

Ah, I quite agree. Although I might have switched Rachel and Jess with Augustus.

it’s not really rachel, it’s more jess, though rachel is kinda a bitch there. jessica’s using the system and actively manipulating someone for her revenge. that’s sooo lawful evil.

Here’s Paulo’s

I suppose I should explain my placements:
I had the good-evil scale be more how often a character chooses others over themselves vs selfishness. Law-chaos is more if the character follows a code or uses the system, vs being more rebellious / taking things into their own hands.
Lawful Good: Abbey has a strong moral code and very much puts others before himself.
Neutral Good: Daisy doesn’t really follow a code, but very much cares about her friends more than herself. She’s proven she’s willing to be more chaotic about achieving a goal (awakening arc).
Chaotic Good: Paulo as of late has become more good, putting Lucy above himself. In the past, he was much more neutral, but has been showing his ‘heart of gold’ trope more, trying to help Lucy deal with Mike. He in fact refuses her when she’s hysterical, showing he refuses to be the chauvenist he acts as. Paulo rarely, if ever, follows the rules, but rather does things on his own terms.
Lawful Neutral: Mike as of late has become more selfish, caring about only himself and Sandy, shifting him away from good and to neutral. Mike follows a very strong code and his promises.
Neutral: David is perhaps too stupid to fall into any allignment.
Chaotic Neutral: Lucy is torn between doing things for herself, and for others. The inner turmoil inside her betrays a chaotic nature, but she allows people to help her, and in fact seeks retribution, so she’s not evil.
Lawful Evil: Jessica uses Paulo to get her revenge to Tess. She goes and flaunts it after. Manipulating the system is a lawful evil trait. Rachel is more neutral, as her intentions were based on that she liked Paulo rather than wanting revenge, and is just joining in because she dislikes Tess and is friends with Jessica.
Neutral Evil: Augustus’ true intentions are always cloudy, but he’s very much in it for himself. The system is not really something he cares about. His goals are all that matters. This is neutral evil. He does whatever is most convenient.
Chaotic Evil: Rapecat has no real reason to try and scam the group out of their money, just that he’s an asshole. He’s not afraid of using violence for his means, as well as intimidation. He in no way uses the system, but is much more vigalante.

Mhm. Yes, then I agree more, Space.

Also, Junior, are there anyone who plays more by the rules than McCain? ^_^

Been discussed before honestly. I had a good few big debates with Who on his art page here

So you just know I have to discuss this topic~ Wall of text go!

But let me beat up some of these Non-sense arguments.

First I will agree Abbey is lawful Good. He protects people, has a very strict code of honor, and is all about doing the right thing.

Similarly I agree with Daisy who is far more in the middle ground in the ‘neutral good’ type area. While David is the very definition of Chaotic Neutral, acting very much on impulse often with little thought of morals or consequences be they good or bad.

Lucy is almost certainly a Chaotic neutral as well. Maybe just plain neutral but she’s pretty impulsive one would have to admit. All be it a very different sort. Simply uncaring of the world around her, impulsive only worried about her direct friends and treating all strangers with apathy.

Now Mike? Lawful neutral? This is non-sense. He’s Lawful Good or at the very lest Neutral Good. Being ‘Good’ doesn’t mean being ‘Nice’ and friendly all the time, nor does it even mean doing the -right- thing 24/7. Humans are flawed creatures, and even the best person cracks after enough pressure which is exactly what we’re seeing with Mike. It’s not like he has no justification (Though he’s still overreacting!) for being upset over this and it does NOT suddenly erase all the good he’s done before hand.

But let me ask you this:do you really think, do you REALLY think if any of his friends were in-trouble Lucy included that Mike wouldn’t jump to their aid in an instant? Take a bullet for them, a fist, protect them from Rape-cat with all his effort? You -know- he would. The Fall scene where he pretty much sacrifices himself to save Lucy? HE HATED HER AT THAT POINT TOO But.. he saved her anyway didn’t he? Even are the risk of great personal harm. That fall could have -killed- him for heavens sake.

I also -strongly- disagree with Rach and Jess being set as ‘Evil’. Yes they’re mean, but they have every REASON to be mean. If I might remind you Tess helped in an attack against RACHELS BROTHER! Making her EXTREMELY upset and Jessica is he girls best friend and cares for her deeply (maybe even romantically). They’ve ‘mean’ yes but they stick up for each other and against those -they- see as wrong. This was payback for what Tess did to a -family- member. Their reactions are very ‘Neutral’ an eye for an eye as it were. Maybe.. a little chaotic at best.

They might be bitches but they’re bitches who look out for those close to them damn it. Good=/=Nice. Neutral! Case Closed!

Yes Tess has been trying to reform herself, but if a girl made your life a living hell for an entire year if not longer would you trust her when she tried to be ‘nice’ a year later? During your emotional Teenage years for that matter?

Now FF-Cat? you could argue he’s Evil pretty easily. Lawful Evil most likely though it might not appear it. He’s taking ‘evil’ actions (helping a bunch of thugs who’s only intentions are to harm a bunch of teenagers he doesn’t know, talk about others) but seems to believe he ‘has’ to do it there’s no choice, no way he can really change things a victim of circumstance which strikes me as pretty lawful thinking. He uses underhanded tactics yes, but typically with a very organized goal in mind.

You might be able to argue ‘Neutral’ if he’s scared shitless of his superiors but there hasn’t been much evidence of that.

That said you can see the signs that he WANTS To be good. He WANTS to save Daisy but his unwillingness to break from his boss’s rules for her sake, and utter disregard for anyone else safety but hers makes it impossible. Redemption at the last minute would be a great thing to see though.

Lets see here who else can I do quickly.

Paulo? Chaotic Good. Impulsive but has a good heart, and wants to do the right thing more often then not. No debating this. Anywho who thinks he’s Chaotic Neutral is out of their mind~

McCain? Lawful Neutral. Often cares more about correcting people then whatever emotions are at hand. Way too logic for his own good.

Sue? Lawful Good. This girl screams of organization always rolling her eyes at the chaos around her, but all signs point to her being a good and helpful person when needed.

Tess? Hmm Chaotic Good. Impulsive once again, and seems to be all for dragging people along on trips willing or no. Wants to do the right thing and make up for past mistakes. Formally that ‘Good’ was Evil or Neutral depending on how bad her acts really were…. though cackling evilly while people were beat senseless is pretty immoral behavior.

Katie? Stacy? Amaya? No where near enough information to define them properly.

The pets? Ehn Yash-Chaotic Neutral. Chirpy-Neutral Good. Lily-Lawful or Neutral Good. Blur-Not Sure. Low evidence.

Mike has become entirely self-centered as of late. He WAS more Lawful Good / Neutral Good, but has become Neutral, through his actions. He isn’t evil, because he shows remorse when people point out he’s wrong / being an asshole, but his actions are still by default now to be an asshole. During the fall, he didn’t hate Lucy yet! Not at all! It wasn’t until after he found out how she acted when she thought he was dead that he suddenly started hating her. He in fact told Zach he wanted nothing to do with her any more, AND that he hated her! Evil is caring about yourself more than others, and even at the expense of others. Good is caring about others first. Neutral is what most people fall under. Mike now has become too “evil” to be considered Good any longer. He’s become too self-absorbed. He’s Lawful Neutral.

Rachel is by far more Neutral than Jessica, but Jessica is in fact, a heartless bitch. She uses someone else (Paulo) to get her revenge on Tess. Even relentlessly taunting her while Lucy is fighting with Mike during the end of Back and Forth. Rachel doesn’t. She’s made her point. Jessica is who I was referring to was being evil and selfish over others, not really Rachel.
The important thing to note here is that REGARDLESS of reasons, revenge is still an evil, selfish act. Yes, Rachel and Jessica were oppressed by Tess. Tess has also reformed and TRIED to mend bridges between them, but they both hold on to their grudge.

An organized goal doesn’t make someone Lawful. You can be Chaotic and still have a very detailed plan. Augustus doesn’t really care about the system; when it benefits him, he uses it, but otherwise he just doesn’t care. Case in point: he was probably going to rape Daisy. That is not something a lawful character would do easily.

BriBri you forgot to analyze the Turtle.

Analyze the sleeping guy and the guy who looks like Zach on the first page of Back and Forth

Everybody knows the “crotch grabber” is a lawful good, complimenting young girls on their appearances and reaching into his secret pants pocket to give them money because of his moral code of helping those in distress.

Not to mention how courteous he was when he cashed that check. What a guy!

To clarify my statement:
I’m not saying Mike isn’t someone who cares about his friends. But currently, there is one code Mike is following: Loyalty to Sandy. That is going above and beyond anything else in his mind.
You can be neutral with good tendencies, or good with neutral tendencies. There is grey area! It isn’t an absolute. I am saying he has become more neutral than good at the moment.
Mike would most likely hesitate to step in and save Lucy, if it conflicted with his prime directive. If he was with Sandy, and Lucy was in trouble, would he even care?
Paulo is good because he wouldn’t hesitate. Mike would most likely still save Lucy, but he would hesitate. That’s what makes him currently more Neutral.

Tae: you have an omniscient perspective on the entire narrative. We do not.
From his most recent actions, he gives off that he would hesitate. That he would need to consider if she actually needed him rather than instantly go. He used to be willing to instantly sacrifice himself. Now, mayhaps not.
Also, the fact that he’d be “shitty” in the aftermath betrays a more neutral nature. He would use the opportunity to be selfish, and further his personal goals, rather than being completely selfless in the act. If you help someone and you are an ass to them after about helping them, you’re Neutral.

Okay two things Mousy. first off:

Perspective is EVERYTHING. You’re looking at this from an outsiders view point. a person who knows all the emotions present as well as from Lucys perspective only. NOT Rachels or Mikes specifically.

Second as previously stated:Good is not nice. Good people can be mean. Good people can taunt. What they are on the outside isn’t always what matters. No one is COMPLETELY good, or COMPLETELY bad, and one action one way or another will change that. Good people have selfish moments, good people can hate, just as Evil people can love. Even people with the good alignment ARE NOT PERFECT. It isn’t so cut in an dry that ‘if you’re selfish at all you’re evil!’.

Put yourself in Mikes shoes first. There’s a girl you love, a ton, you want to be with her, but everyone keeps telling you it’s utter non-sense and you’re an idiot. At the same time you have your ‘best friend’ who constantly dismisses you, constantly hits you, and constantly acts utterly dependent caring little of your needs and wants and only her own. (which by your selfish definition makes Lucy evil all of a sudden? Absolutes are -bad-)

Add to this that most of your friends around you demonize you for -not- loving this girl. For not just doing as you’re told. Add in a teenagers emotional state and yes you’re going to get frustrated, you’re going to get annoyed, you’re going to over-react. But is one over-reaction enough to completely change a persons alignment? No it freaking isn’t. If any of Mikes friends were in true danger he would still step out to save them. If you think he’s recent jerkishness towards Lucy is enough to change that…. you really don’t understand Mike.

I might note this has been -one month-. It’s been ONE month in story since Lucy finally admitted her love for Mike. She did it at the start of the School year:September. Next arc is Halloween aka October. It may seem longer to us but it’s true. He just needs time to cool down that’s all. One month of jerkish actions is not enough to change him so utterly. Give it some time and they’ll be hanging out again. Promise. All be it in their usual bickery fashion keke.

Yes Mike is acting a bit selfishly in someways. Yes he is being mean to Lucy, cruel even. But it’s a temporary over-reaction. You’re too focused on Lucy’s anguish.

Next set. Jessica being a bitch at the end of that whole Paulo man-whore thing. First off remember she IS NOT A MIND READER. She doesn’t really know Lucy well, they are not close, she does NOT know what the girl has been though, not really. We might know every aspect of her, have seen her tears and heart shattering moments but Jessica HASN’T. All she sees is some hot girl she sorta knows that’s also pissed at Paulo.

She was, for the most part, just innocently teasing them, all be it with her usual tinge of bitchiness likely still riding her pride over seeing Tess shattered getting the just deserts she deserved. If you honestly think such basic mockery is enough to turn her evil? Then Paulo is evil for every time he made fun of Mike. Or pretty much any time we tease someone on the channel.

Also… revenge being evil or not really depends on how far you’re willing to go, what the person did, and what you do to them back. It is, in itself, a rather neutral feeling. The anger you feel towards something else being wronged. It’s like putting stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank at the same level man.

Lets also note both Rachel’s and Jessica’s need for Revenge comes from care for ANOTHER not themselves. Rachel over her brother and Jessica over her care for Rachel… not simply quick and dirty payback for a personal insult. Not to mention from their perspective Tess is an evil terrible bitch that can’t be trusted. Would ‘Abbey’ be evil if he was extremely suspicious and distrusting of Augustin even confront him about it if our dear FF-cat ever showed up trying to play nice with the group? No he’d still be lawful good.. just an emotional bias creature like the rest of us!

It is a little petty I would agree, just as her mockery is rather mean as well. But once again there’s a reason these two are neutral and not ‘good’. They aren’t perfect but calling them evil is madness.

Augustus’s Flavor of evil however I would agree is debatable. He’s a very evasive character and defining the difference between lawful evil and Neutral evil is a very thin line. Not to mention a character is not defined by ‘one’ lawful trait, or ‘one’ chaotic trait but the sum of them all. I would agree he could be either.

Turtle is Chaotic Evil due to its tendency to trip people up and laugh. The jerk.

I’ll re-read the confrontation arc later. I’m sort of betting on Lawful Good though ;p

Also just for the record:I debate for fun! I like discussing these things! Never any hard feelings present and I love every last one of you <3

Also i have to strongly disagree with ‘helping someone and being ass to them after words’=Neutral. This is silly. Good is not ‘nice’. Good is not ‘friendly’ Good is doing the right thing when it counts more then anything though being nice can certainly help it. If you’re a sort of grouchy jerkish guy, but regularly risk your life to save peoples lives you are most -certainly- good. Just as if you’re super nice to them all the time, but abandon them the minute it becomes inconvenient you’re likely neutral, or even evil.

Hell saving someone you -hate- proves you’re VERY good in most cases. That you’re willing to put aside your feelings for them and rescue them anyway. To do the right thing despite your own thoughts on the matter.

That and.. we don’t NEED Tae’s all seeing view to realize Mike would risk his life to save lucy. He’s done it before. Yes you can argue how he isn’t acting right now ‘past acts shouldn’t count etc’… But his last ‘heroic self-risking’ act to save her was… what? A few months ago tops? Does something from such a short time ago not count?

It feels like your definition of good is very absolute. I don’t think any of the characters could match these standards. Daisy has had her selfish moments, going against Tess because of Jealousy, Abbey has snapped from time to time out of frustration, and Paulo constantly Mockery of Mike and irresponsible behavior not to mention Lucys rare consideration for anyone save herself and maybe her pets. Good does not mean PERFECT. It’s the sum of the parts, not just the one. I like all these characters, I see good in all these people, I could rant about it easily and will defined most as such despite their occasional screw up.

I mean come on their teenagers here. be a bit forgiving.

Forgive the double post. took a while to type out the first and didn’t see the other responses. As always <3~ Everybody

OH LOOK ITS THE STRAWMAN BRIBRI. Just because someone has a selfish attribute doesn’t make them automatically “evil”. Words don’t work that way, especially when it was never implied to begin with. MOVING ON.
Edit: Except he also never does the “good” option unless he has to. BA-ZING.

Yeah, good is not nice. And they can be mean. That doesn’t make him good. He’s not completely selfless, no. He’s not completely selfish, either. Yet he’s so neutral it’s not even funny. It takes Abbey, Sir Paladin McLawful Good calling him out (ages ago) before he even realizes how much he ignores any sort of issue that doesn’t immediately concern him.

A Lawful Neutral person adheres to a strong, personal conviction, and uses that as their guiding compass for determining their actions, regardless of morality or emotional investment. For Mike, it’s his commitment to Sandy. He’s been very clearly willing to throw anything out of the way or do anything for Sandy at a moments notice. And thusly, that is what he uses as a judge of whether his actions are “good” or “bad”. He chooses whatever he thinks would be best with regards to his relationship with Sandy. Like, he would literally drop Lucy like a bad habit if Sandy came into town. Really now. By YOUR logic I should be crying hellfire and claiming he’s evil. But he’s just someone looking out for his own best interest. That’s fine. That’s Neutral.

On the same note, Paulo actively teases Mike, yeah. Somehow they’re still friends, probably because he never crosses “the line”. But he’s gone out of his way more times than basically anyone else (except maybe Abbey) just to please or help out his friend. The way he acted on vacation? Cheer up his buddy David. Hang out with Lucy? Because she needs the company. Freshmen? That accursed David again. ALWAYS looking out for Daisy’s best interest, because he considers her “innocent”, and wouldn’t dare wish anything bad on her. Dude is a trooper. This isn’t even about liking the character, he has just consistently, time and time again, shown that he is a person who cares about the well being of his friends.

Augustus’ flavor of evil is pretty much exactly what he is, given what information we’ve been given to work with. That’s kind of how this works; You make a judgment based on the perceived action of an individual, not some “well they COULD be doing this for x reason”, because we don’t know. Only Tae gets that luxury. Just like how the girls fit the closest example with regards to the chart; Tess has tried patching things up. They’d rather carefully enact revenge.

Really though, the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil alignment axis basically boils down to “Plays By The Rules”/”Doesn’t Play By The Rules”, and “Nice Guy”/”Total Dick”. You can be somewhere inbetween, and the nomenclature is just used for generalizations, not complete extremes.

There are two things people can be judged on. Their intentions and their actions. Of those two things, one is more important. It is their actions. Because actions change the world, not intentions.

With that is how can decide a character’s allignment. Let me start with Rachel and Jessica.
Their actions are evil. Manipulating someone, using them, throwing them away, and hurting someone else is evil. Regardless of your intentions, or your reasons, evil acts are still evil. Example: if someone kills because their sister was raped, even though they are doing something “good” in their own mind, the act was still evil, making the entire action evil. Rachel probably has remorse for what she did. She is more neutral than evil. Jessica probably does not. She is more evil than neutral.
Jessica’s act of being mean and a bitch to Lucy without knowing her only proves her more evil nature! Her default action, with no prior knowledge, is to be a bitch, even though Lucy hasn’t wronged her! Lucy, being a Chaotic Neutral actor, has no qualms with beating the shit out of Jessica in response. I am not saying Jessica is a godless baby-eater! I am merely stating that she is a selfish actor. Much in the same vein many ‘evil’ characters are. Evil isn’t a radical thing. It can be much more subtle.
Revenge is always an evil action. It is an action born out of evil thoughts, and is selfish by nature. You are putting yourself above others, at their expense. That is evil.
I would request you suggest someone in BCB who is more Lawful Evil than Jessica. I would like to hear why.

Augustus is very much a grey area. I chose to nail him more as Neutral Evil, because of his actions to Daisy, rather than Lawful Evil.

Now, to Mike: First, I believe we can assume the vacation arc ends in August. Since that is when most schools start again. By that, since halloween is starting, it has been at least two months. Time however is something very relative; in a short time someone’s allignment can change. If a paladin breaks the paladin code in a radical way, their allignment instantly changes and they lose their benefits. That happens in an instant! Saying “this hasn’t happened for very long so it isn’t true” is not at all arguable.
Relating to time as well, we’ve been told that during the play Mike is a cruel bastard to Lucy, and I don’t believe that happens until January, if I remember correctly. We still have many months of Mike being a jackass to go.
I am exactly saying that this is a grey area. Selfishness by itself is neutral. Animals act only for themselves. They are neutral. Selfishness at the expense of others is what is evil. Mike is currently doing just that.
Yes, Mike has been pressured, and still is, by all of his friends to be with Lucy. But he sticks to his prime directive. Follow Sandy. We can both surely agree that is the code he sticks to.
You’re arguing again and again that Mike can’t be neutral, and that it’s just a phase, and expected, etc, etc. But the entire thing about good is that you overcome what is expected. You, despite all the pressure, still always do the right thing. That is the difference between Good and Neutral. Mike has become a normal person, acting for themselves. He has become Neutral.
Once again intentions vs actions. Mike would step in and save Lucy, yes, but he would be a jackass about it, a neutral action. This would make the overall action a Good action with Neutral tendencies.

I’m really not demonizing him. Mike is currently Neutral with Good tendencies.
AND TO COMPLETELY CLARIFY, because I believe this is getting missed:
I really can only put one character per slot. As Abbey is far more lawful good than Mike, Abbey gets the lawful good slot. Mike gets the lawful neutral slot. Our entire argument here is that Mike falls in the grey and we’re just assigning him to different labels. Congratulations, Taeshi. You created a good character.

I love this thread. People are saying what I think for me.

Also, yeah. The fact that characters are hard to place is generally a good thing. It means they’re normal, since the average person is all over the place. Awesome.

Normality is overrated.

No no no. I think you misunderstood. I was not trying to be absolutest there. I do not believe you should be screaming evil for every selfish act done. Perhaps my wording was wrong here and there and I should have said “Is X Neutral too because he does Selfish Act Y?” Though I will admit my use of that sort of argument is a bit much of here.

While I would say some of my examples are a little weak I was giving examples where other characters, which most of us consider good were being likely as selfish as Mike is now. My goal was more so to…put perspective on the issue, that his recent selfish acts don’t damn him in the same way they don’t damn the others. Daisy might have turned on Tess that one time, but does anyone here really think she was Neutral even then? She was a Good character having a bad moment which is what Mike is right now.

As far as making judgments based on what I’ve seen in the comic… I think there’s enough evidence here to support my claims. Some of them might be a little subtle, like Rachel’s little sad look away during the driving scene, but it’s most certainly there. Tess hurt these girls and I honestly think we’ve seen enough to know this. Maybe we can say their own claims and the claims of the entire school are ‘hearsay’ but.. I think it’d be a bit of a stretch to say whatever happened was a minor grievance at best. Tess’s desire to make it up to them shows the goodness in her, just as Rachel and Jessica’s inability to get over it shows their neutrality.

Now as for your debate over Mike here. I would agree he’s lawful most certainly has all the signs of that. I’d also agree Mike is a somewhat detached sort of guy, content to be on his own and doesn’t always keep track of what’s going on around him. Though this really doesn’t make him ‘evil’ just unaware. Hardly the first to be so given Abbey was the -only- one who noticed Daisy’s issues back then.

But simply because he doesn’t actively seek out wrongs to right doesn’t make him neutral. Nor does the fact he only reacts when he ‘has to’. Because when that ‘has to’ situation comes to light he tends to go ALL the way. Risking life and limb to save those in danger. Is this really a ‘neutral’ action to you? Perhaps I’m bringing up this aspect of his ‘Good’ side too much, but it IS a pretty big indicator of someones deep down, past their outside alignment. Those times when choosing the Good or Evil action is no longer a luxury with no real consequence and peoples lives are really on the line.

I also like to say that… generally Mike is sort of a friendly guy over all. He isn’t a jerk. And will help you out if asked without complaint. His current jerkishness is temporary after all so… even what you could call ‘Skin deep’ sort of alignment seems to show a good person. Though I wouldn’t put too much stock in them.

I also agree complete extremes are silly! They rarely exist and I’m certainly not arguing for them. For that matter I agree in full with Paulo hell couldn’t have put it better myself. The man IS good. Did I come off as sounding as if I thought he wasn’t?

Though this very much is a irrelevant comment I’m going to make next but uh. The ‘Alignment picture’ has nothing to do with this debate, and the requirement for a Lawful Evil character to be put in there doesn’t really mean anything to who these people actually are.

Could we stop saying this “It’s only temporary” when we have no given evidence for it being temporary, and he has been this way for awhile? (And yeah, there was no indication of something happening during the play. Just that he was going to do “something very bad” of indeterminant value.)

Also, why do you keep saying that extremes are silly, but then saying our argument is an extreme when we’re trying to put him in a neutral state? We’re saying “He’s a neutral guy, who does a good thing from time to time”, and it seems you cannot accept that he is not some paragon of virtue. The fact that he’s detached is what makes him Neutral in the first place. If given a choice with no Neutral option, he’d head towards Good, most likely, yes. So again, Lawful Neutral, with Good tendencies. But eh. We both have good points. Hurpadurp.

tae: i swear to god you’ve said multiple times on irc that Mike is really mean to Lucy during the play. I believe the exact phrasing was “Mike was going to do something really bad.” I kind of took that as Mike was going to be terrible to Lucy, as I had asked if Lucy ever got a break, and that’s how you responded.
Tae are you messing with me

Spacemouse just wants to see Mike be a jerk so that her relative rage against him is vindicated.

Now what if Paulo ended up being a jerk to her….. I wonder….

Ace: I really don’t. I don’t want Mike to be mean to Lucy, because that would break Lucy’s heart more. I’ve said this multiple times:

I want Lucy to be happy.

If that’s with Mike, sure! If that’s with Paulo, whatever! If that’s with Liam, who cares? If Lucy is honestly happy, I’d be happy.
I’m really not someone who demonizes Mike

Oh I know what you’ve said, but is that what you feeeeeeeeel?

But yeah I’m really just messing with you here, I have a blind devotion to a character who has so far been in one chapter so what the hell do I know.

Oh damnit! I’m late to this party. Any alignment label I might have placed on a character has already been covered, so there is no point in beating a dead horse.

Since Mike seems to be up in the air, I’ll just throw my own 2 cents on regarding him.

At this stage he seems mainly Lawful Neutral. He plays by a moral code and he isn’t going out of his way to hurt or help anyone.

Also… I’m with SpaceMouse. Let Lucy be happy!

Taeshi: Chaotic Neutral. >:[

AMEN Jerk!

Well I’m certainly with that. I -would- like to see Lucy happy. Poor girls had enough emotional roller coasters.

And besides! I want more Arcs revolving around Sue and McCain! Let the boring tale where absolutely nothing happens commence! Well that or a straight man comedy where McCain keeps making really nerdy blunt statements next to a more happy-go-lucky mode Sue. Whichever. ;p

I like this thread! Hmmm, let’s see…

Lawful Good: Abbey, no question
Neutral Good: Daisy for sure
Chaotic Good: Paulo, although he’s leaned toward both Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Good at one point or another.
Lawful Neutral: McCain. Just McCain.
True Neutral: Amaya is the closest to this
Chaotic Neutral: As Bribri said before, David is almost the definition of this.
Lawful Good: I’d place Augustus here as opposed to Neutral Good, as I believe he has some morals behind his evilness
Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil: I can’t come up with anyone.

On the note of the debates in this thread. I think the reason Mike (as well as Lucy) is hard to classify is that his personality and actions have changed over the course of the comic.

Carson: Chaotic Gay