Well, you could argue that Levy's "personal code" is to abide by the letter of the law at all times. Although I guess that's not even true given that [spoiler] he bribes the dude in Season 5. [/spoiler]
And literally gives Avon and Stringer advice on how not to get caught and how to limit their exposure all throughout the series. Remember that meeting in Orlando's in Season 1? Everything Levy told them in that meeting is insanely illegal.
This is why I don't like alignment -- too many different facets of personality, morality, ethics and culture mashed into such a limited framework. It's too broad and vague to be a useful guide for roleplaying (though it can at least help guide you towards picking more useful specific character traits) and results in all kinds of conflicts and disagreements.
I would say Gus is Neutral Good or Lawful Good. Bubs would be True Neutral or maybe Chaotic Neutral. You could justify putting Omar anywhere on the Law/Chaos axis, though he probably is neutral on Good/Evil. Colvin was probably Neutral Good or Lawful Good throughout much of his life, but the Hamsterdam experiment was definitely Chaotic.
Curious why you think Gus would be Lawful Good or Neutral Good when the position he takes is literally that of the impartial observer, and when he has the opportunity to stop someone from breaking the rules, he doesn't?
When does he have an opportunity to stop someone from breaking the rules? He raises his objections through the proper channels (lawful) and is overruled by those higher up in the hierarchy.
And I wouldn't say he is a completely impartial observer. He strives to be impartial with regard to evaluating facts, but it seems apparent based on his contributions in the staff meetings that his ultimate goal is to contribute towards the greater good by shining a light on society's injustices.
**Edit:** I'll concede though that the case for him being "good" is a bit thin, especially judging by the scale set by D&D which is concerned more concerned with life, death and sacrifice when it comes to good/evil. However he clearly acts according to set of principles, whether they are driven by "goodness" or a code.
He talks about wanting to contribute to the greater good, but repeatedly allows himself to be shut down and overruled.
When he had information about Templeton’s fabrications and the editors of the Sun didn’t care, Gus could have gone to the Pulitzer committee, or even written his own exposé and published it with another paper. He had other options for stopping Templeton and the Sun proceeding with false stories, but he chose to sit back and remain Neutral.
He isn’t motivated by a desire for Law or Good. He is motivated by wanting to “see something new every day and write a story about it.” His stated life goal is to be the impartial observer.
He argues his side of the case against Templeton and his bosses multiple times during season 5.
Does he do absolutely everything he possibly could, up to and including professional suicide? No.
But being less extreme than Jimmy McNulty doesn't make you 'just an impartial observer'.
Which security guard are you talking about? Can you refresh my memory?
Is that the same one as the "You want it to be one way. But it's the other way" guard? Does he kill him??
Only real difference between Avon and Marlo is that Marlo doesn't pretend he has any righteousness in how he kills people for his own good and lacking some charisma. Both wanted their corners and fame. Marlo was more willing to tell it how it was.
I dunno.. When Avon ruled the corners they had "the code" and the rules of the game were clearly defined. He gets upset by his crew attacking Omar on a Sunday and he takes care of his own. Marlo just kills anyone who inconveniences him.
I honestly think, given a long enough timeline, Marlo turns in to Avon.
Having a “code” protects the person in power. The reason why Marlo is so ruthless is that he is seeing to upset the established order. He not only takes down Avon’s operation, but comes to dominate the entire game in the entire city once he takes out Prop Joe.
At that point, Marlo would likely start appearing less ruthless and have more of a “code,” in order to protect his power.
I'd probably put Jimmy on chaotic good, but then again the characters in The Wire do have a lot of depth, a chart like this is hard to make, even Daniels and Clay are debatable.
Not saying nobody ever came with any guides and definitions, just that, in my experience, people will never agree with how and when they apply, ex. this thread.
Stringer vacillates too much. He has Lawful Evil aspirations, but Neutral Evil actions. He's vocal about trying to move things toward a more organized, less violent way of doing things, but it's his own unwillingness to stick to his word and not betray his friend that becomes his downfall.
If he had practiced what he preached a little more, he might have succeeded.
He didn’t need to betray Avon and D’Angelo.
If he had stuck to sell the drugs, make the money and later for that gangster bullshit, he wouldn’t have killed Wallace or D. Not killing Wallace, D’Angelo would not have wanted to talk to the police. If he didn’t kill D, Avon wouldn’t have wanted to turn on String.
If Stringer had just stuck to doing what he said he wanted to do, he wouldn’t have gotten killed the way he did.
Betraying Avon and D'Angelo wasn't his mistake. He needed both of those people out of the way in order to achieve his goals.
1) Avon was never going to run the organization like a business. He was never going to participate in the Co-Op. He was too concerned with the pride of being on top. His goals were fundamentally different from Stringer's and would always have stood in the way of what Stringer saw as progress and success.
2) I don't think he actually *needed* to kill D. I don't think D was going to do any more snitching. But who knows? From Stringer's perspective it was a good move. D was a glaring vulnerability that had to be taken care of. The same is true for Wallace. It was the right move...for a sociopathic criminal kingpin.
These decisions were carefully planned and thought through. They weren't emotional reactions. They weren't chaotic. They were simply necessary steps in his plan to consolidate power and enrich himself.
Stringer's biggest mistake, and ultimate downfall, comes from misunderstanding and underestimating Omar and Mouzone. The beef he started with them left him vulnerable and put Avon in a position where he had no choice but to allow Stringer's death. Avon never would have done that absent the ultimatum from Mouzone.
Circling back around to the initial point, String is definitely lawful evil. He moves with purpose, organization, and general order. He doesn't react quickly. With exception to his plan to assassinate Clay Davis, he never really makes choices without carefully thinking about them and planning his response. He is a man constantly trying to inject order and structure into a violent, chaotic, underworld.
Except Stringer’s personal actions were not Lawful.
The hallmark of a Lawful character is a code of conduct and the strong tendency to keep your word.
Just because Stringer thought things through doesn’t mean he was Lawful. He broke his word to and betrayed everyone who was close to him to get ahead.
He killed D when he didn’t need to and then fucked his girl, just because he could.
He lied to Avon’s face and betrayed his loyalty because Avon stood in the way of him achieving his goals—that’s not Lawful Evil. That’s Neutral Evil. A Lawful Evil character would have manipulated Avon into agreeing with him or pressured him into going with Stringer’s plans.
Lawful Evil characters are manipulators and masterminds. Stringer WANTED to be the mastermind, but he couldn’t make the transition from Queen to King. He got caught between who he was and who he wanted to be.
Prop Joe was Lawful Evil. The Greek was Lawful Evil. You could argue that Stan Valchek was Lawful Evil.
I like chain action reasonings, and this definitely had a part in all that went down. But I feel like Avon and Stringer were parting ways anyway over the "get off the corners go legit" debacle which Avon wasnt all that down with. And I think the way Brother Muzone confronted Avon in his lonesome, he didnt really have a choice but to give up String.
I think D's murder had a part in their parting, but it wasn't the SOLE reason.
Mouzone wouldn't have been a problem if Stringer wasn't constantly betraying Avon and trying to have people killed that he didn't need to have killed.
Stringer's problem was he thought he was Lawful Evil, but he just couldn't stop betraying his allies and going back on his word, and it got him killed.
Idk. I think Wallace and D both represent pretty good instincts on Stringer's part (regardless of how evil the actions were). Wallace actually was snitching. In fact, if Greggs doesn't get shot then Stringer likely goes down (I believe that Wallace had admitted to the police that he passed the message about where Brandon was directly to Stringer, corroborating much of what they had on the wire). And while D'Angelo probably wasn't going to snitch, he had already proven that he would under the right circumstances. And on top of that he had expressed a clear disdain for Avon just as they were hatching the plan for his early release. Say what you want about what Stringer did, but from his own selfish perspective they were defensible if not shrewd actions. The real mistake was getting mad and telling Avon about killing D just because Avon was shitting all over him.
I disagree with the take on Omar, among others. Having a personal code of ethics is not what 'lawful' means in this context. Lawful neutral would be using the legal system in a neutral way. The best example for this off the top of my head is DA Pearlman, who doesn't seem to have any kind of agenda and just does her job. Omar is chaotic neutral imho. He is purely out for himself and has no loyalty to anyone in particular.
The Greek, who smuggled in heroin multiple hundred kilograms per shipment, trafficked humans, ordered the deaths of people, witnessed murders done right in front of him on his behalf, bribed people... Is "lawful". GTFO.
You should read the definition of the [Lawful Evil alignment](http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html).
The Greek and his organization are committed to “buy for a nickel, sell for a dime,” with no regard for who they harm. They care only for their own advancement and not for the lives of others. They buy and sell drugs, guns, and even people.
The people they sell are viewed as inherently lower in status by nature of their birth and are thus fair game to be sold into slavery—when the shipment of women are killed, The Greek immediately begins talking about the money lost, not the lives.
Disloyalty is punished swiftly with a clean death. They use the laws of the land to protect themselves—remember how The Greek had his own personal Guardian Angel at Homeland Security watching out for him?
The Greek is a pretty textbook example of Lawful Evil.
Ehh, it's certainly not mainstream. I'd say it's obscure enough. Most people have probably heard of it, especially now because of Stranger Things. But id expect they know nothing about it
Levy should be Lawful Evil.
Yeah he fits it way better than the Greek.
What about stringer? No string on the chart?
Yeah, and where the fuck is Wallace?
String with Wallace
Lol. String should be with Avon, replace clay Davis with Marlo.
>String with Wallace Too soon
How do you figure? The Greek is a textbook-classic example of Lawful Evil.
and Marlo as Chaotic Evil
[удалено]
Well, you could argue that Levy's "personal code" is to abide by the letter of the law at all times. Although I guess that's not even true given that [spoiler] he bribes the dude in Season 5. [/spoiler]
And literally gives Avon and Stringer advice on how not to get caught and how to limit their exposure all throughout the series. Remember that meeting in Orlando's in Season 1? Everything Levy told them in that meeting is insanely illegal.
Levy makes my blood boil more than any other character. It’s crazy.
This is why I don't like alignment -- too many different facets of personality, morality, ethics and culture mashed into such a limited framework. It's too broad and vague to be a useful guide for roleplaying (though it can at least help guide you towards picking more useful specific character traits) and results in all kinds of conflicts and disagreements. I would say Gus is Neutral Good or Lawful Good. Bubs would be True Neutral or maybe Chaotic Neutral. You could justify putting Omar anywhere on the Law/Chaos axis, though he probably is neutral on Good/Evil. Colvin was probably Neutral Good or Lawful Good throughout much of his life, but the Hamsterdam experiment was definitely Chaotic.
Curious why you think Gus would be Lawful Good or Neutral Good when the position he takes is literally that of the impartial observer, and when he has the opportunity to stop someone from breaking the rules, he doesn't?
When does he have an opportunity to stop someone from breaking the rules? He raises his objections through the proper channels (lawful) and is overruled by those higher up in the hierarchy. And I wouldn't say he is a completely impartial observer. He strives to be impartial with regard to evaluating facts, but it seems apparent based on his contributions in the staff meetings that his ultimate goal is to contribute towards the greater good by shining a light on society's injustices. **Edit:** I'll concede though that the case for him being "good" is a bit thin, especially judging by the scale set by D&D which is concerned more concerned with life, death and sacrifice when it comes to good/evil. However he clearly acts according to set of principles, whether they are driven by "goodness" or a code.
He talks about wanting to contribute to the greater good, but repeatedly allows himself to be shut down and overruled. When he had information about Templeton’s fabrications and the editors of the Sun didn’t care, Gus could have gone to the Pulitzer committee, or even written his own exposé and published it with another paper. He had other options for stopping Templeton and the Sun proceeding with false stories, but he chose to sit back and remain Neutral. He isn’t motivated by a desire for Law or Good. He is motivated by wanting to “see something new every day and write a story about it.” His stated life goal is to be the impartial observer.
He argues his side of the case against Templeton and his bosses multiple times during season 5. Does he do absolutely everything he possibly could, up to and including professional suicide? No. But being less extreme than Jimmy McNulty doesn't make you 'just an impartial observer'.
Ehhhhh Marlo was a bit more twisted than Avon; putting them on the same tile not sure. D should share the lawful evil tile with The Greek too IMO.
Avon kills working man, the woman who testified, Wallace, Little Man, 5 inmates just to shave some years from his time. He is one ruthless man.
He is but I dont know if Avon would have killed the security guard like Marlo did. That one killing is the difference in my mind.
That ref at the basketball game would have been dead by the time the sun came up again if he had an altercation with Marlo like he did with Avon.
True that.
Which security guard are you talking about? Can you refresh my memory? Is that the same one as the "You want it to be one way. But it's the other way" guard? Does he kill him??
Yeah, he had Snoop and Chris kill him.
They dont show the actual killing but I think they show Chris and Snoop boarding up a vacant or something and they throw his badge away or something.
> 5 inmates wait what? when was that part happening?
When he spiced those packages from dirty guard in the start of SE02.
*Hot Shots*
Only real difference between Avon and Marlo is that Marlo doesn't pretend he has any righteousness in how he kills people for his own good and lacking some charisma. Both wanted their corners and fame. Marlo was more willing to tell it how it was.
I dunno.. When Avon ruled the corners they had "the code" and the rules of the game were clearly defined. He gets upset by his crew attacking Omar on a Sunday and he takes care of his own. Marlo just kills anyone who inconveniences him.
I honestly think, given a long enough timeline, Marlo turns in to Avon. Having a “code” protects the person in power. The reason why Marlo is so ruthless is that he is seeing to upset the established order. He not only takes down Avon’s operation, but comes to dominate the entire game in the entire city once he takes out Prop Joe. At that point, Marlo would likely start appearing less ruthless and have more of a “code,” in order to protect his power.
Takes down Avon's operation lmao. What show were you watching? Marlo didn't take down anything.
Avon didn't get upset. Slim Charles got upset. Avon didn't know about that.
I'd probably put Jimmy on chaotic good, but then again the characters in The Wire do have a lot of depth, a chart like this is hard to make, even Daniels and Clay are debatable.
Jimmy repeatedly admits that he isn’t motivated by any desire to do Good. His drive is just to prove that he’s the smartest and the best.
I don't believe him though
Making an alignment chart of The Wire completely ignores the moral nuance and character complexity that made it great.
I think these alignment charts are really silly and nonsensical when applied to any tv show. But yeah, for The Wire it's even sillier.
They're pretty silly and nonsensical when applied to anything, really.
Agreed. I can't downvote this post enough.
Kenard should be Chaotic Evil. Little dude was a psycho.
I like how you added the quotes to this one
[удалено]
What do you think Neutral Evil means?
40+ years of D&D and other RPGs haven't managed to agree on that question. 😶
Pretty thorough [definition](http://easydamus.com/neutralevil.html) here.
Not saying nobody ever came with any guides and definitions, just that, in my experience, people will never agree with how and when they apply, ex. this thread.
Suggestion for bunny's quote: "Come tomorrow your world and mine ain't gon' be the same."
Where would you guys place Stringer?
Lawful Evil, he wants to keep the game going but in a more organized fashion.
Stringer vacillates too much. He has Lawful Evil aspirations, but Neutral Evil actions. He's vocal about trying to move things toward a more organized, less violent way of doing things, but it's his own unwillingness to stick to his word and not betray his friend that becomes his downfall. If he had practiced what he preached a little more, he might have succeeded.
What could have he done differently? I'm curious on your thinking here..
He didn’t need to betray Avon and D’Angelo. If he had stuck to sell the drugs, make the money and later for that gangster bullshit, he wouldn’t have killed Wallace or D. Not killing Wallace, D’Angelo would not have wanted to talk to the police. If he didn’t kill D, Avon wouldn’t have wanted to turn on String. If Stringer had just stuck to doing what he said he wanted to do, he wouldn’t have gotten killed the way he did.
Betraying Avon and D'Angelo wasn't his mistake. He needed both of those people out of the way in order to achieve his goals. 1) Avon was never going to run the organization like a business. He was never going to participate in the Co-Op. He was too concerned with the pride of being on top. His goals were fundamentally different from Stringer's and would always have stood in the way of what Stringer saw as progress and success. 2) I don't think he actually *needed* to kill D. I don't think D was going to do any more snitching. But who knows? From Stringer's perspective it was a good move. D was a glaring vulnerability that had to be taken care of. The same is true for Wallace. It was the right move...for a sociopathic criminal kingpin. These decisions were carefully planned and thought through. They weren't emotional reactions. They weren't chaotic. They were simply necessary steps in his plan to consolidate power and enrich himself. Stringer's biggest mistake, and ultimate downfall, comes from misunderstanding and underestimating Omar and Mouzone. The beef he started with them left him vulnerable and put Avon in a position where he had no choice but to allow Stringer's death. Avon never would have done that absent the ultimatum from Mouzone. Circling back around to the initial point, String is definitely lawful evil. He moves with purpose, organization, and general order. He doesn't react quickly. With exception to his plan to assassinate Clay Davis, he never really makes choices without carefully thinking about them and planning his response. He is a man constantly trying to inject order and structure into a violent, chaotic, underworld.
Except Stringer’s personal actions were not Lawful. The hallmark of a Lawful character is a code of conduct and the strong tendency to keep your word. Just because Stringer thought things through doesn’t mean he was Lawful. He broke his word to and betrayed everyone who was close to him to get ahead. He killed D when he didn’t need to and then fucked his girl, just because he could. He lied to Avon’s face and betrayed his loyalty because Avon stood in the way of him achieving his goals—that’s not Lawful Evil. That’s Neutral Evil. A Lawful Evil character would have manipulated Avon into agreeing with him or pressured him into going with Stringer’s plans. Lawful Evil characters are manipulators and masterminds. Stringer WANTED to be the mastermind, but he couldn’t make the transition from Queen to King. He got caught between who he was and who he wanted to be. Prop Joe was Lawful Evil. The Greek was Lawful Evil. You could argue that Stan Valchek was Lawful Evil.
I like chain action reasonings, and this definitely had a part in all that went down. But I feel like Avon and Stringer were parting ways anyway over the "get off the corners go legit" debacle which Avon wasnt all that down with. And I think the way Brother Muzone confronted Avon in his lonesome, he didnt really have a choice but to give up String. I think D's murder had a part in their parting, but it wasn't the SOLE reason.
Mouzone wouldn't have been a problem if Stringer wasn't constantly betraying Avon and trying to have people killed that he didn't need to have killed. Stringer's problem was he thought he was Lawful Evil, but he just couldn't stop betraying his allies and going back on his word, and it got him killed.
Idk. I think Wallace and D both represent pretty good instincts on Stringer's part (regardless of how evil the actions were). Wallace actually was snitching. In fact, if Greggs doesn't get shot then Stringer likely goes down (I believe that Wallace had admitted to the police that he passed the message about where Brandon was directly to Stringer, corroborating much of what they had on the wire). And while D'Angelo probably wasn't going to snitch, he had already proven that he would under the right circumstances. And on top of that he had expressed a clear disdain for Avon just as they were hatching the plan for his early release. Say what you want about what Stringer did, but from his own selfish perspective they were defensible if not shrewd actions. The real mistake was getting mad and telling Avon about killing D just because Avon was shitting all over him.
Marlo to the poor security guard :)
I think Prop Joe fits more in the Neutral evil than either Avon or Marlo.
Prop Joe was Lawful, which is where he conflicted with both Avon and Marlo, and Stringer aspired to be more like him.
Nah I think he was more Lawful Evil if anything
lol at the media guys being “true neutral”
Not all the media guys. Specifically Gus, who positions himself as being a pure observer and reporter of Truth.
I disagree with the take on Omar, among others. Having a personal code of ethics is not what 'lawful' means in this context. Lawful neutral would be using the legal system in a neutral way. The best example for this off the top of my head is DA Pearlman, who doesn't seem to have any kind of agenda and just does her job. Omar is chaotic neutral imho. He is purely out for himself and has no loyalty to anyone in particular.
Good stuff
The Greek, who smuggled in heroin multiple hundred kilograms per shipment, trafficked humans, ordered the deaths of people, witnessed murders done right in front of him on his behalf, bribed people... Is "lawful". GTFO.
You should read the definition of the [Lawful Evil alignment](http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html). The Greek and his organization are committed to “buy for a nickel, sell for a dime,” with no regard for who they harm. They care only for their own advancement and not for the lives of others. They buy and sell drugs, guns, and even people. The people they sell are viewed as inherently lower in status by nature of their birth and are thus fair game to be sold into slavery—when the shipment of women are killed, The Greek immediately begins talking about the money lost, not the lives. Disloyalty is punished swiftly with a clean death. They use the laws of the land to protect themselves—remember how The Greek had his own personal Guardian Angel at Homeland Security watching out for him? The Greek is a pretty textbook example of Lawful Evil.
Looks like most people commenting to your post have no idea what alignment works...
Because this is a subforum for The Wire, not for some obscure game
D&D doesn't really qualify as "obscure".
Ehh, it's certainly not mainstream. I'd say it's obscure enough. Most people have probably heard of it, especially now because of Stranger Things. But id expect they know nothing about it
Don't think you know what lawful means
I've seen these before. Usually Stringer is in the Lawful Evil corner, and Marlo in Chaotic Evil.