What Are The D&D Alignments for The Guardians of the Galaxy?

A couple of posts ago I wrote an article questioning why there were no Guardians of the Galaxy board games. There were a few interesting results and comments that came off the back of it, including one comment (by iplayedthegame ) suggesting that it may be worth looking at the alignment charts for the Guardians of the Galaxy members. Instantly, like a schmuck, I accepted the challenge.

Looking at film characters over a story arc is difficult. Due to heavy character development, they are not static characters and this makes nailing their alignments down to a singular moment near impossible. In the great tradition of D&D blogs on this site, I have enlisted the help of my Dad, who played D&D every day during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

We have argued on almost every single one of these – so this should be interesting. Due to the fact we couldn’t agree, I’ve put both scores next to each other. It’d be interesting to see if you agree or disagree with either of us.

Please note, these are based solely on the films, not the comics. There are also SPOILERS so if you haven’t seen the movies…just go and see them…like right now…they’re amazing.

Star Lord

Paul: Chaotic Neutral

Star Lord, aka Peter Quill, starts of self-centered but becomes more of a “family man” as he develops. As such, especially during the first film, he has several “what’s in it for me?” moments and fairly flexible morals from his Ravager years. This argues more for neutral than good.

One thing I think we can both agree on is he is unpredictable as heck, so must be chaotic.

Luke: Chaotic Good

Yeah, we can agree he’s chaotic; however, there is no doubt he is good. He is a family centred man, who always tries to do what is right – especially later on in the films. Yes, he may start off as a bit of a questionable character, but he ends honourable. His main motivation in the second film is for friends and family, so he has to be good.

Gamora

Paul: Chaotic Good

Gamora is the typical “older sister”. She looks after the others and now has a kind of redemption-relationship with her sister, Nebula. Gamora is probably the most obviously honest of the team after Drax, and morally driven, so is arguably good.

Gamora is unpredictable and capable of taking off in a number of directions so must be chaotic.

Luke: Lawful Good

If we completely ignore her past, then yes, Gamora is good. That being said, I disagree that she is chaotic. If she is the “older sister” then she abides by her own law, and this makes her lawful. She is morally driven, but more in a lawful way than anything else. She does what needs to be done, but doesn’t cause any more chaos than needs be.

Drax the Destroyer

Paul: Neutral Good

Originally self-obsessed but now more a team player, Drax is more predictable than the others. That being said, he does have order and is sometimes considered headstrong. This means he is not fully chaotic.

In the second film, Drax risks his life to save Mantis and tells the truth even when it would be politic not to. This makes him good at his core.

Luke: Neutral Good

I kind of agree. We see some really chaotic moments from Drax, like when he takes on Ronan in the first film, and when he jumps into the quantum worm beast thing at the start of the second film.

That being said, we also see some incredibly lawful moments. He is brutally honest (a lawful trait) and honour driven (another lawful trait). He is violent, but he ultimately has a heart of gold.

Rocket

Paul: Neutral Good

Underneath it all, Rocket is the stereotypical good guy talking tough. He risks his life for friends on several occasions, and this ultimately makes him good.

He’s a planner (look at the boobytraps rigged to protect shipwreck from ravagers in the second film and prison escape plan in first) but does have unpredictable moments as well. This makes him neutral rather than lawful or chaotic.

Luke: Neutral Good

Rocket is probably the most difficult of all the Guardians to nail down to a single alignment. Where I agree he does a lot of planning, I believe his planning moments outweigh his chaotic ones.

The question about his specific alignment is interesting as it comes down to his motivations. Underneath it all he may do it all for friendship and honour; however, he also does a lot for money and profit. He steals the batteries, he needs his arm twisting in the first film to save the galaxy, he mentions they can charge more as “two-time galaxy savers” in the second film. I think this makes him neutral.

That being said, he does a lot of good. He joins in holding the Infinity Stone, he saves his friends on more than one occasion, and he has great moments of <insert massive spoiler here> following the latter half of Guardians 2.

Groot

Paul: Chaotic Good

Groot is capable of great altruism (“We are groot” at the end of the first film is a great example of this) and generally speaking he always does the right thing. This makes him good, especially because he is often helpful to everyone else.

He is unpredictable, and highly variable in his approach to situations, so is probably chaotic.

Luke: Neutral Good

I’m not so sure Groot is chaotic. Again, Groot can be difficult to understand as a character (not least due to the lack of dialogue), however, he seems to follow his own code. He will do anything to help his friends, and that is hugely admirable. He does have unpredictable moments, however, when taken on their own they seem to make perfect sense. I would have adult Groot as Neutral Good.

But what about Baby Groot?

Baby Groot

Paul: Chaotic Good

He is certainly chaotic, but always tries to do the right thing. Dancing around during the title sequence is chaotic, as is stealing an eyeball, and how he fights. He throws people off ledges. That is chaotic in its own right.

Luke: Neutral Good

Baby Groot doesn’t always understand what he is doing; however, he always tries to do the right thing. Yes, he has chaotic moments; however, he also has moments (like when releasing Nebula) where he actually acts in regards to his better judgement after the perceived weighing of options. This is a lawful moment, as is staying out of the fight rather than running in, and so could sway him to neutral.

That being said…does “adorable” count as an alignment?

In all seriousness, Baby Groot is an innocent being. It’s like trying to judge a two-year-old. He may be too naive for the system to really work on him.

SIMILAR ARTICLE: Why Is There No Guardians Of The Galaxy Board Game?

Wow, that was hard. As mentioned before, it is insanely difficult to figure out the alignments of characters who have huge big character arcs. So many of the Guardians (if not all) have moments that could fit under two or three main alignments, and so we have had to go with our gut as to where each character spends the majority of their time.

So, we need your help. What do you believe the alignments are? Do you agree with us (or agree with one of us over the other)? Let us know in the comments below.

4 thoughts on “What Are The D&D Alignments for The Guardians of the Galaxy?

Add yours

  1. I’ve never been a real big D&D guy, but I think one of the main things to bear in mind is that the structure of a film is fundamentally different to that of a comic series or even a TV series. Over the typical three acts covering 90-180 minutes, we typically see a character (or multiple characters) go through an entire arc that leaves them profoundly changed at the end of the experience.

    This is particularly so with superhero films, as the first film in a series typically spends at least half of the film taken up with the combination of introduction and The Hero’s Call. When this much is condensed into such a tight time frame, a superhero (in particular) will typically pass through several “D&D Alignments” in their journey through the narrative. So which version of the hero is it that we judge? Peter Parker when he lets Uncle Ben’s eventual murderer get away? Or Yondu towards the end of GotG V2 when he ***[REDACTED]***?

    I think concept is more applicable to TV series, as while the characters still undergo arcs and changes, the time allowed by the format allows more subtle and gradual story arcs as opposed to film. The entire first season of Daredevil on Netflix would pretty much be the first 60-90 minutes of a (rebooted) feature…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thinking retrospectively, I think it works in D&D because we align our character actions to the alignment we have chosen, but applying that to a character after-the-fact can be difficult (if not impossible), especially if that character goes through an arc and we don’t fully understand the motivation.

      You make a very good point about TV series. They may be better suited to basic alignments. It’s quite easy to work out the characters from Game of Thrones for instance, as they are all almost pantomime versions of real people. They have to come across as big characters as they are on screen for a shorter amount of time each, which makes them easier to figure an alignment out for each one. In other shows, characters can go through real arcs, like Daredevil (as you say). So yeah, lots of food for thought, great comment!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: