The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: miltonyorkcastle on November 18, 2005, 07:44:00 AM
-
Question: for those that are familiar with the character of Riddick (Pitch Black, Dark Fury, Chronicles of Riddick), what would you say his alignment is, if described in DnD terms?
I am torn, as I keep finding ways to justify a slew of different alignments. so let me know what you think and why, and maybe I'll make up my mind. ;)
-
"I'm gonna kill you with my tea cup" I mean... can't you hear Derrick saying that?
I would say. . .
Chaotic Nuetral
Riddick... Derrick... Hmmmmmm =P
-
I would say 100% Chaotic Nuetral
You could always just ask Vin as the second film was based on his DnD game :O)
I would have loved to see Dame Judy Dench playing with Vin in his traler as
is rumered to have happond
-
interesting. the first votes are for Chaotic Neutral. This was my first guess as well. my only problem with this, is that how often is he really chaotic? I mean, Riddick acts with extreme purpose and prejudice. He seldom does things on a whim or just because.
-
I'd say his alignement changes as the tale unfolds. He starts out chaotic neutral, but moves towards lawful. I'm not saying he ends up being lawful, but its closer to that than chaotic.
-
That would place him at True Neutral, or very near it, going by what you say, Harlas, but then, how do you justify his almost absolute disregard for life other than his own?
-
- His actions are self serving which points to Chaotic Neutral
The movies just show a small portion of the character's existance... comon you know he has probably killed a few people on a whim... or maybe randomly blown stuff up.
At the end of the second movie... (SPOILER!!!!)
When his character becaome ruler of the Necromongers... what do you suppose he did? =P
-
heh, self serving does indeed point toward neutral, at least, if not evil. but all we have to go off of are the movies, and I don't think I ever saw him kill without purpose.
And I think there's a high possibility he abandoned his new-found kinghood. It just doesn't seem like his style.
-
OK lets start with his background. It was military I think. ok for that part LG.
Then he got screwed (like so many of our [USA] combat Veterans, VeitNam comes to mind) and entered the prison system. Changing him to CG.
Was tortured & thrown away. (A lookup that you will never see the light of day) Shift to CG with some "Neutral to Evil" tendencies.
Enter "Pitch Black", actions were TN with "Chaotic" tendencies.
Now "Dark Fury & Chronicles of Riddick" permanet shift to CN. (You keep what you kill!) LOL :)
-
miltonyorkcastle - 11/18/2005 10:33 AM
And I think there's a high possibility he abandoned his new-found kinghood. It just doesn't seem like his style.
Well I tend to think that he would keep all the Technology and disband the Religon AFTER he did the "Half-Dead" thing to himself.
Just too much power in that move to pass up. :)
-
See, I don't think he gives a rat's...err... rear... about going after more power. After Dark Fury, he chose to 'disappear.' This does not lead me to think he was after a gain of power, but rather some semblance of peace.
-
Only seen the movie "Chronicles of Riddick" but here's my take.
He doesn't care whether or not he dies (though he'd rather not). Most of the stuff he does is to protect err... Kira (that was her name right?). It seemed like he had purpose, that was to protect her and, well not die.
I also agree that he didn't act on a whim (remember their little prison break scene when he recited his little plan to bust out?). However acting on a whim doesn't really mean much to chaotic.
Is he Lawful? Well, I don't think so. If you notice he's running from a lot of people. Bounty hunters that want to put him in Prison (sounded like he'd been there before to). They were the law, however corrupt and wrong the laws were, he didn't seem lawful.
Good? Maybe just a little. He cared for someone, and he did do a few good things, though I thought it was more because he either "felt like it" or "didn't care."
Chaotic? Well, he was planned, but that to me just means controlled chaos. He's a killer, flat out. Just because he could formulate a plan for attack/escaping in a few seconds doesn't mean it's not still a chaotic act.
Evil? He's got his dark side. But I don't think evil would really fit. I mean, he wasn't killing innocent people. Granted he didn't really try to help them all that much... but I still don't think he's Evil.
Because of the reasons stated, I will also go with Chaotic Neutral, though just barely. I'd also say he could probably slip to True Neutral (True Neutral being nearly impossible to define) or CG (though just barely).
-
ahhh, but Chaotic doesn't mean 'killer,' nor does Lawful mean you follow any laws of the lands. There are lots of 'lawful' criminals. 'lawful' means strict adherence to a code, whether established or not. 'chaotic' means you make up the code as you go. hence why there can be lawful good paladins to neutral dieties.
Does Riddick follow a code? or does he simply follow his whims? or does he follow no code, yet still act with purpose?
-
Hahahaha By the shear fact he might do something good.... or what some would consider evil... depending on a situation... and what he might get out of it Mwhahaha seems Chaotic to me Mwhahahahaha
Zero... You really should check out Pitch Black so that you can find out who Kira is. . . Mwhahahaha
At the End of Chronicals I felt like... I didn't know what he would do. He could take over the Necromongers and do good or evil...
He could have just walked away and let them destroy each other... or risk an even more powerful leader
Chaos baby!
-
I really don't think DnD alignments can describe sufficently the actions of a well built and complex character (movie, game, book, or other). Seems to me there could be a hundred arguments going in different directions and many of them valid, it really depends on the sense of reason behind it... and of course there will be a bias that goes with every opinion/theory, whether we're aware of it or not.
Excellent point Milton, I still have to stick with my Chaotic Neutral theme, however if I absolutly had to pick another one I'd probably go for TN.
-
Exactly, Zero. That's why I brought this up- to take a look at the complex within the confines of a DnD alignment.
And Derrick, yeah, the fact that we don't know what he's going to do with his new power can certainly be seen as chaotic.
-
oh, and yeah, ZV, watch Pitch Black. It will give you a lot more insight into Riddick. Dark Fury isn't bad either, but doesn't really offer much more in the way of his character than the other two.
-
Haven't seen Dark Fury yet, chronologically, it's between Pitch Black and Chronicles, right? But is it a new movie, or was out before Chronicles?
And yeah, i'd say Chaotic Neutral is what classifies him best. Despite being accurate on his actions, the whole thing doesn't go as he plans, he just has to adapt quickly to most situations that he finds himself on, and chaos is what suits him best. :)
-
And don't forget The Pacifier. Hmmm, wonder what his alignment was in that one...
-
right, Dark Fury came out just before the movie Chronicles of Riddick. It's about an hour long cartoon that bridges the two movies.
-
0.o ..... the Pacifier... not Riddick.... same actor... different character...
-
Yea definately not Riddick in Pacifier... he would have just gutted everyone... Bah! Wait thats Derrick not Riddick
-
Milton & Cappyra both failed save vs. bad joke.
*chuckles*
-
I have a -10 to all saves versus bad jokes. It's the Curse of the Analytical.
;)
-
*holds out a rubber chicken*
TASHA'S HIDEOUS LAUGHTER!
*bows*
-
Hey Doc,
Where did ya get your "Rubber Chicken"?
-
Ozy gave it to me
-
Riddick is True Neutral.
He listens to no one and follows his whims/instincts which is normally all about self-preservation.
The fact that he was protective towards Kira is due to what happened at the end of Pitch Black. The so-called Captain of the freighter wasn't supposed to die for Riddick but for the others instead. Yet in the end she gave her life so that Riddick (and the rest) could survive. So instead of just taking off Riddick was forced into a guilt trip regarding the holy man and child whom everyone thought was a boy. That personal debt to the martyr pilot is what drove Riddick to bend his True Neutral character and look out for someone other than himself.
As for whether or not Riddick is/was a real criminal has yet to be seen. All we know is that he's done some bad things in his time but given that his home world was obliterated, his race was all but exterminated (remembering the imagery of the Lord Marshall hanging children by their umbilicle chords) and that his race in-general has a deep seated issue with authority ("Furians, defiant to the end.") I see no other plausible outcome for his character.
The whole Riddick saga that's unfolding is one of those types of things that I am eagerly awaiting each installment. The tale is of epic proportions and is generally very well written with excellent special effects and a coherent plot.
In truth I feel that George Lucas failed with Star Bores where David Twohy succeeds with Riddick.
-
OneST8... I am leaning towards your thoughts that he is True Neutral, as I can argue so many alignments for Riddick, it only makes sense, then, that he is the alignment that encompasses everything: True Neutral. Still not positive, but leaning that way. Unless someone has a really great argument in support of another alignment, and we've all heard those in support of CN.
As far as the tale goes, yeah, I am so hoping there is more to the Chronicles of Riddick. You're right on about the situation from Pitch Black.
-
A truly and deeply complex character can often enough only be defined by a Neutral alignment on the Law/Chaos axis, and usually there is also a tendancy towards fitting into the Neutral for Good/Evil as well. Why?
Being "Neutral" can mean one of two things: That the person or party is neither one nor the other, or that the person/party is both, more or less equally.
In Riddick's case...
He is a Furion, to start with. Furions are, from my understanding, at once Chaotic and Lawful, in a sense; they are considered violenly defiant, while they will always hold to thier own personal code of honor, whatever that may be. To me, this smacks of Law more than anything. It is something they hold very strictly to, that they are defiant against any sort of opposition or opression, and they hold to the other strictures of thier personal honor just as strongly. In general, Furions, due to thier strong sense of honor, are more Good than Evil, yet thier lust for violence pushes thier actions further from Good than if they were a more peaceful race. The mix of Good and Evil (a general urge to protect the innocent or helpless, in combination with the bloodlust) sets them, in my mind, at Neutral on a Good/Evil axis.
Lawful Neutral.
However, this is from the perspective of the Furions themselves, so to speak; basing it on thier actions as interperated by other races might set them at Chaotic Neutral, or even Chaotic Evil. That interperatation would not be true to the Furions' own drives, motives, and natures, though, and I thusly consider it to be less than fitting.
Considering, though, that the actions of the Furions we've seen in the Riddick movies (all two of them? Sorry, but I've only seen Chronicles) would be considered greatly Chaotic, regardless of motive, the outward actions in terms of alignment must still be taken into account. Thusly, True Neutral would be a fitting alignment for them, as a race, with equal tendancies towards all extremes of alignments.
-
You should have made this a vote =P
HAR!
-
hmmmm... you're right. I did want some "why's" though...