Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Serenity, Firefly, and alignment drift
In the past, I’ve argued that the Dungeons and Dragons concept of “alignment” provides a useful framework for character development. Alignment describes a character’s intrinsic ethics and morality. There are two axes: lawful-neutral-chaotic, and good-neutral-evil, providing a total of nine character types. Lawful good = Superman or Dick Tracy, Unlawful evil = The Joker, and so forth. By “character development,” I mean both the author’s first conceptualization of the character, as well as the character’s moral and ethical evolution over the course of the story.
In D&D speak, “alignment drift” refers to the way a character’s behavior might change over the course of a game — usually because the player develops a deeper understanding of his character. But in fiction, “alignment drift” might be a useful way of looking at deep-down changes a character undergoes, those subtle and not so subtle shifts which make for a satisfying novel.
Still with me? Then follow past the cut . . .
Last night, I watched two episodes of Firefly, the short-run TV series upon which the movie Serenity was based. I had never seen Firefly before. Interesting thing: two years ago when I watched the movie, I was convinced the crew of the Serenity were all chaotic (unlawful) neutrals who ended up chaotic good by the story’s end. The series, based on the two episodes I saw, was a bit different. In one episode, the captain steals some cargo from a train. When he learns the cargo is medicine desperately required by people at the train’s destination, he returns the cargo.
This is not chaotic neutral behavior. This is chaotic good. He’s willing to steal, but not if the theft is an evil act.
I wonder if character change (alignment drift) is considered a bad thing in the TV screenwriting world. If so, the captain, Mal, needs to be chaotic good right from the start, since the viewers might be confused when he turns chaotic good at the end. After all, screenwriters can’t assume their viewers will see each and every episode; perhaps they’ll miss an episode providing key scenes accounting for a character’s growth.
We’ve seen some drift in the Showtime series Dexter. In the beginning of the series, Dexter, a serial killer who (following an internal code) preys only upon other serial killers, is a classic vigilante. However, he’s a sociopath, too, and he has friends and a girlfriend for cover, not because he needs them. As the series progressed — especially this season — he develops feelings for his girlfriend, loyalty to his friends, and damn it if his character hasn’t drifted from chaotic neutral to chaotic good. Ordinarily, this would be a good thing (most folks love to root for chaotic goods, since they flip off authority while committing one heroic act after another . . . think Robin Hood), but the writers haven’t provided much reason for Dexter’s change. Not that my wife and I can see, anyway.
Those Firefly episodes were fun, but Serenity is still the more satisfying experience. I like Mal as a chaotic neutral. Robin Hood is all well and good, but sometimes it’s fun to root for the fellow who is ruled by self-interest. Think about the early Han Solo, for example. In Serenity, Mal’s evolution to chaotic good follows from his experiences. It’s a believable change.
Locke Lamora (see my review from Thursday) is most definitely chaotic neutral, yet at the end, he chooses a chaotic good path, inexplicably, in my opinion. That’s another example of poorly handled drift.
What’s your main character’s alignment? Does it shift over the course of the novel, and if so, does it do so for believable reasons?
Here’s the link to a Dungeons & Dragons alignment test. I suspect there are other such tools available for understanding your characters, but I still like this one.
Live blogging tonight, folks, starting 7 to 8 PM PST.
D.
We always had problems with the D&D alignment system, for this very reason. Our hack to work around it was to use major & minor alignments, ie. neutral good with chaotic tendencies. They had to pass the sniff test: no lawful good with chaotic tendencies, no neutral good with evil tendencies.
WRT Firefly, here’s my breakdown within this framework: none of the regular characters are evil; Mal is neutral good; Zoe and Inara are lawful neutral, with good tendencies (Inara might be more lawful good); Wash is chaotic good; Jayne wants to be chaotic evil, but his heart isn’t in it – he’s really more like chaotic neutral; Kaylee is neutral good, with chaotic tendencies; Simon is lawful good; River is neutral; Shepard Book is lawful good with lawful neutral tendencies.
Stories are then driven by the tensions and conflicts between alignment and need: Simon breaks the law by kidnapping River, but at his core, he’s not a lawbreaker. The extra layer is personality – Jayne wants to be the tough guy, but at his heart he’s a mama’s boy.
Now, one can shift alignments – Shepard Book is someone who may have had a sinister past (probably as a government-sanctioned killer of some kind), and has shifted from lawful evil to lawful good. He’s had a classic Road to Damascus conversion, but the core of his personality is obedience to law. So how does that square with his support of the crew of Serenity? The Alliance is oppressive – he’s adhering to a higher law in resisting the Alliance.
I should probably clarify – by “We always had problems”, I mean the D&D geeks I hung out with in high school…
Hmm. I can see you’ve thought about this a bit 😉 I can’t argue with your analysis. Haven’t seen much of Shep in these two episodes, but from what I’ve seen, he’s a goody two-shoes. Nice to hear there’s more to him than meets the eye.
Erm… Well, I’m a huge Firefly fan, and I was a big
loserD&D geek in high school, so, well… I’m kind of embarrassed to admit that it probably required more effort to type than to actually think through.Hmmm… I think my protagonist starts out lawful/good, with an ability to backslide to neutral/good. But he’s had to make kind of a deal with the devil*, and so even though he‘s good, his mission may not be. And the onscreen antagonist is undead, so that’s made some shifts to his personality; in life, he’d’ve been, at worst, neutral/neutral, but now he’s probably sliding into neutral/evil territory.
____
* Not the actual devil, but an undead lawyer, who is probably lawful/evil, and has the (IMHO) lovely moniker Natasha Noir.
I equate the D&D version of chaotic/lawfulness with predictability, not with following rules established by others. For example, I think that The Clock King from the Batman series was VERY lawful in that he was highly pedantic, predictable, and structured.
A chaotic character could literally do *anything* to achieve their ends, they have all sorts of options available at all the time and they get frustrated by being backed into a corner and forced to follow a specific path. They tend to chafe under authority. They also tend to take the easy way out – or the one that best serves their other (perhaps unknown) motives. Han Solo is a good chaotic model because you just never really know what he’s going to do next. Talk his way out, shoot his way out, be charming, be a coward, kiss the girl… But he is almost certain to thumb his nose at whatever’s ‘expected’ of him.
A lawful character, however, regardless of alignment, has things that they just wouldn’t do. No matter what. The follow an inner compass and to have that taken away really screws them up. The Gordian knot approach works well for a lawful character, straight through the problem to the other side. Good or bad, they take direct, structured routes. There usually isn’t any compromise in a lawful character. Don’t like it? There’s the door. Repent or die. Do what I say or you’re fired. The older Darth Vader is a lawful character. He takes no bullshit, gives no bullshit, and expects things to be ‘just so’. Or else. Young ObiWan was also a lawful character, he followed rules, insisted the status quo be maintained, and got frustrated when Anakin (chaotic) went off half cocked on whatever thing he toddled off on.
Fwiw, since I’m keeping comments in the Star Wars universe, I found the character drift of all three characters perplexing and disappointing. Han Solo became a standard stand-up-guy (lawful) hero – well, he approached it, anyway. Blah! Where’s the sexiness in that?!? ObiWan was originally a patient neutral good old man who was later shown to be an uptight, preachy stiff. If old ObiWan had been bitter or maybe a bit desperate, that would have made sense, but how did point A get to point B while living a hermit’s life in the Tattooine desert? I just can’t see it. And Darth Vader, the ultimate intergalactic Bad Ass, was nothing more than a misled, testosterone fueled teenager with a chip on his shoulder. Puh-leese.
Character drift is a powerful tool, but it needs to be used with a bit more logic and precision. Sure, creativity and flexibility are good, but within reason. lol
Fwiw, I believe my characters are: Dubric – Neutral; Lars – Lawful Good (but it’s cracking to Lawful Neutral as he matures); Jess Neutral Good; Otlee – Chaotic Neutral (used to be lawful good, but he got broken), Maeve is Lawful Neutral, and Dien is Chaotic Good. I think. sometimes I’m not sure. 😉
Oh, I would agree with Dien as chaotic good. Dub as a true Neutral? Interesting.
Pat,
… and the difference is?
Hmmm, good point. Except that I’ll say that the lawyer in question, while she was alive, had something of a raw deal, and is in it for the vengeance.
And, I suppose, that’s not really making the distinction any more distinct, is it now?
Actually, Dubric is neutral only in that it’s what I’m permitted to admit to publicly. 😀 My own personal opinion differs.
Make sure you re-watch the very last Firefly ep with Whedon’s commentary.