00:12
I think we should hold off on trying to talk about the main character.
Okay.
Because I think the main main character might, might, I'm not sure, I haven't thought it through yet.
Might be an interesting one, there might actually be a change, I think, in his character.
And so, maybe we can hold off on that one.
But does any of them stand out to you, in particular, or any of these?
So let's think, outside of those four main characters, what about Professor Lovell?
Okay, I was just looking at the same name.
Yep, so Professor Richard Lovell.
For anybody's maybe reminder, I have the Wikipedia page up right now, I don't know what page you have.
But it has a one, a two sentence summary of them, which is Professor Richard Lovell, a professor of Chinese,
and a committed imperialist, cold and unyielding, fathered both Griffin and Robin to create bilingual Chinese students for Babel.
Pretty, pretty neutral statement, other than the sort of committed and like this cold unyielding thing, which might give some of it away.
But yeah, let's have...
Neutral statement, but like, if you think about what he did, it's like, what the fuck?
Yeah, so let's, let's...
That's true, I shouldn't actually use, I was like, the way Wikipedia described it maybe didn't lean in any particular direction, right?
But you're right.
To create bilingual Chinese students for Babel, no big deal.
Yep, so well, yeah, let's, okay, right, let's look at that.
Okay, so looking at, let's do the lawful verse chaos first.
Now that you've pointed out this, like, he fathered children to create bilingual Chinese students for Babel, right?
So do you think, does, do you think Professor Richard Lovell believes that individuals should be expected to give up freedoms for the benefit of society as a whole?
Like, he certainly thinks that his freedom is worth doing that, right?
Ah, his, ah, okay, his freedom.
I would, I would argue the position that he, he believes himself to be part of the engine that makes society better.
Right, right, right, he's very convinced about that.
Yeah, yep, yep.
And, and he thinks that he has, or he deserves a freedom in order to better the said society.
03:02
Whatever way he thinks is better.
Yes, yes, yeah, he isn't necessarily giving up freedoms.
He expects others to give up freedoms.
Yeah.
For the benefit of society.
So does that make him, what?
So I, I would argue, and I actually like this question that you've, the way you've posed it, because I would argue that I would put him as lawful.
Uh-huh.
But what we're seeing is that the position of, like, the viewer of this alignment matters, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Is it from his point of view or, like, in a meta, like, bird's eye view?
Yes, and I think, I think even in the meta version of his society, he would still be lawful, right?
So where he wouldn't be, perhaps, and maybe there's an argument for this, might be outside, right?
So back in, in China, for instance, you know.
Yes, yes, yes.
Ask the question, do you think individuals should be expected to give up freedoms to the benefit of society as a whole?
Well, if I'm considering society to be China.
Right, right.
And or even if I'm considering it to be the whole world, right?
Right, right, right.
Well, then to give up freedoms, I mean, you're taking our freedoms.
That's not the same.
Like, I'm not giving it up to make things better.
Right, right.
We're, we're making things worse, right?
And this becomes, I don't think it's chaotic, but I think we've lost the ability to judge that dimension.
As lawful.
Yeah, like in this way, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, maybe for, for the characterization purposes, I think we can go with lawful because, like, he, in his smaller world where he deems to be the worthy society to consider, he is lawful, very lawful, actually.
And whether he actually is in a larger perspective is a different story.
But for him and his characterization purposes, I think we can say he's lawful.
I would agree.
Especially because lawful, at least in other definitions, comes with kind of, it's not that chaotic doesn't have like a rule set per se, but like lawful is kind of an adherence to the rule or the, the, the origin of that without much questioning, right?
I mean, he is a committed imperialist.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
And there's an order and there's a hierarchy to this imperialism, and he knows where he stands in it.
And he acts accordingly.
06:00
So.
Now, I think, I think we're on to something.
I think lawful.
Yes.
Now, from an outside perspective, from our perspective, at least I would judge him as lawful evil.
However, I think he would consider himself.
I'm not sure if he would consider himself good.
I feel like he might even be more aware of that.
But I think he'd be something like maybe a lawful neutral sort of feeling.
Like, this is interesting, because you immediately said, oh, he's the worst character.
He's like so cold and there's no good redeeming qualities about him.
And you thought that the author portrayed him as such.
And I thought this is just me personally.
I was waiting for the moment where he kind of, you know, reckons with what he has done or tries to be the father he never was.
Yeah.
With Robin.
Yeah.
And I don't know, but I carry that hope and gave him a lot of benefit of doubt until the very end of his life.
You did.
Yep. Yep.
So I was kind of shocked.
It's like, oh, oh, that's how you're going to solve this problem.
You know, instead of like wrestling with this, like, emotional dilemma.
Like, oh, bam.
Like, bye bye.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, for Lovell, I think even if there was and there may have been, right.
We never got like the really inside look at his personality.
There might have been a struggle.
But I think that adherence to like sort of his view of the world, that reinforcement of the lawful nature of what he like sort of held up.
Yeah.
And he was very unwilling to change that.
He would not change that.
And I don't know.
Because I did.
I definitely and I still do because I think back and I'm like, nah, he was the minute.
From very early on, I was like, something is amiss.
And this character doesn't have an emotional center to rely on.
And then he trigger warning for brutality of violence and abuse.
He absolutely brutalized Robin like as a child.
And I was like, not that you not that technically in the grand scheme of things, there is not a way to achieve penance and like recompense and growth from being such a hideous version of a human being in my opinion.
But that was not what he experienced.
Right.
It was like that was the mechanic by which he imparted his lawful scripture.
09:04
Right.
It was this way or nothing.
Right.
Yeah.
But that is why I also think there's a maybe more of a neutral quality on the other side of that, because there's like, are you willing to harm others for your own benefit is a question for the evil.
Right.
Yeah.
Which he totally did.
And he totally did.
But my hang up is on your own benefit.
Because his intent is for him, but it's not as much for him as it was that other guy.
What was that other professor's name?
Playfair?
Yes.
Him.
Him.
I would, if we started on the question of good or evil for him, I think it's evil.
He's definitely very evil.
He's definitely evil.
Almost one dimensionally evil.
Yes.
He was evil when he first appeared on a page and he was evil on the last page.
Yeah, exactly.
Like that just, I don't know if I'd lean him into lawful or chaotic because I feel like he's kind of just doing whatever he wants, but he's also staying in line with the societal structure.
Yeah, the imperial system.
So, yeah.
So he's like, he's sitting in the middle.
He's on the fence on whether, you know, he does things kind of in a gray area.
But he definitely does it for his own benefit.
And he is not afraid to just take things if they are up for grabs.
Yeah.
Because he just took Anthony's work, right?
After Anthony had to fake his death, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
He was not the first person to have his invention stolen by Playfair.
Right.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
So, all right.
Okay.
That was easy, yeah.
We've done two of them.
Professor Lovell is probably lawful, neutral.
And Clayfair, Professor Clayfair is maybe neutral evil would be a leaning I'm going for here.
What do we say about Griffin?
Griffin.
Oh, he's chaotic.
That is my first.
He's chaotic for sure.
For sure chaotic.
And very good.
Yeah.
In that he is, like, his chaotic acts were always for never to protect himself, but for the society at large.
Yes.
I am, for listeners that cannot see, I am nodding my head, although I am considering something.
Yes.
Yes.
I do share the same reservation about just calling him chaotic good.
Because, like, was he good?
Yeah.
I don't know.
This is why neutral is a bit of a trap on the alignment chart.
Yeah.
Yeah.
12:00
Okay.
So, I know I complained about RFKwon's, like, character developments, and I still stand
by that she didn't spend nearly enough time that these characters deserved the way she
set them up.
Yeah.
However, Griffin is, like, one of the more nuanced character, I think, that I liked the
portrayal of as a foil to Anthony, as a foil to Robin.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because, basically, his mode of action was there's only so much talking and intellectualizing
you can do to better the society, only with destruction we move forward kind of thing.
Right.
Exactly.
Yes.
Yep.
Which is certainly one school of thought when it comes to making changes in a world.
Yeah.
And I don't fully agree, but it was interesting to see him giving this perspective to our
main character, Robin, who were more coddled and, like, you know, more in, like, a safety
of the system until the very end.
Yeah.
Yep.
Yep.
I think we've shifted a little too right into his.
But it's hard to judge whether it's good or evil.
I think this is another, right, where if we're relying on, perhaps, like, the Angry GM's,
you know, sort of questions, which, again, not perfect, are mainly intended for, like,
the player or, like, to play that.
But you see, you have explained, essentially, that gray shift where good, because, yeah,
it is actually, he will suffer harm and make sacrifices to benefit others.
However, he's also willing to harm others, which is part of the other question.
Right.
Because he believes it will benefit the rest.
Right.
Right.
Right.
And that sort of slowly tips you out of good territory.
Right.
Yes.
Yes.
But, like, he's also, like, is there a way to define, like, a schizophrenic good evil?
Because, like, he doesn't stay in a middle ground.
I think he would have been a happier person if he knew how to stay in the middle and balance
it out.
Yeah.
He was, like, swinging wildly between the good and the evil in this regard, always chaotically.
And, like, it's, it's, I feel like we've seen both of him.
Yeah.
And, like, both of them being chaotically good and chaotically evil.
And.
Well, let's.
So then why don't why don't we mention Anthony Ribbon, then?
15:02
Let's talk about Anthony.
Then we'll talk about Robin, because they are.
You mentioned them as foils, all sort of the three of them.
Right.
So, like.
Yeah.
Maybe we can talk about them and see how they maybe play off each other.
And then we can also see that transition or change in alignment that I think I was.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Anthony, on the other hand, is, like, diametrically opposite to Griffin, who is definitely lawful
in his behavior.
Right.
Like he his strategy is to, like.
Find the loopholes in a rule book rather than, like, destroying the rule book.
Yeah.
And so so he's definitely lawful.
And I would say he's good in that he seemed to he he seemed to risk a lot for the others.
But at the same time, it's just like a different kind of risk.
Right.
Like, it's not the same kind of risks that Griffin took, like being physically on the
spot, on the ground doing things.
Anthony, in a very scholarly way, kind of at least convinced himself from what I could
see that his best contribution comes from intellectualizing the problem, like being
the brain of the Hermes society rather than the foot soldier of it.
Yeah.
The way Griffin was.
Yeah.
Like one could say that's a very sort of cowardly move if you were more of a Team Griffin person.
And that can make you more like self-preserving rather than self-sacrificial, you know.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
But I think in general, we can agree that he was good.
I would.
I would agree.
Right.
That if you're going to put him anywhere, good is the right place to put Anthony Griffin.
I think there's a question here about like the scale to which you sacrifice yourself.
Yeah.
By the way.
It's not like he did it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But like he did it in a very controlled way.
Which.
OK.
So note to all the listeners.
Right.
Yeah.
I believe I can speak for both of us.
We recommend sacrificing yourself or your well-being for us.
We recommend that you find a way to do this in a way that is a controlled, like sort of wholesome, experiential.
We are completely speaking 100 percent fictional setting.
This is not advice.
Like for in any way.
Right.
18:00
Like this is fictional analysis.
I think I think we've already talked about this.
Right.
Like anyway, it doesn't matter.
The important part.
Anthony.
Good, lawful.
And which.
So the reason I want to point him out and show that foil is, yeah, the opposition you mentioned,
the opposing force would technically push Griffin if you wanted to be at the opposite
ends of this chart.
Right.
Towards chaotic evil.
But he's but he's not evil unless the definition of like his own benefit is the only definition.
Right.
Right.
If he and I think in some cases he has sort of replaced the benefit of the whole for simply
him getting what he believes needs to happen.
Right.
Like the thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm about to make a conjecture.
That's it for the show today.
Thanks for listening.
And find us on X at Ego de Science.
That is E I G O D E S C I E N C.
See you next time.
