Couldn’t find any proper morality chart with Hitman characters, so decided to make one myself.
Since most of the characters in the franchise are evil itself, it took a lot of time to think.
4 Likes
Diana’s nowhere near neutral good. She serves an organization that kills people for a living, which completely rules out the “good” part and makes her more like lawful neutral.
People change.
This is her morality alignment by the time Hitman WoA ends.
She could have become the new leader of Providence, but instead she chose to destroy it. Shows us how much she has changed.
That’s still not neutral good. Lawful good at best. Neutral good wouldn’t even want to be associated with the ICA or Providence in the first place.
She didn’t want to be involved with it, that is why she destroyed it in the first place, by the end of the Hitman WOA franchise.
She destroyed it because she wanted their operations to cease and that required acting from the inside. If she really didn’t want to get involved with it (as a moral imperative, which should be the defining feature of neutral good characters), she would have left the whole dismantling it thing to someone else, or she’d have faced some serious moral dilemmas (which she shows no signs of).
Besides, a neutral good character wouldn’t willingly serve an organization of assassins like the ICA either.
Being a high member of a killer organization might not make her neutral, but boy is she far away from lawful. 
2 Likes
I feel like Edwards would be Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil. Mark Parchezzi III would fit that more accurately.
Diana would also be on the Neutral spectrum as well. Diana isn’t “good,” she just doesn’t like people who think they are untouchable and can get away with anything. That means she’s willing to have both evil and good people killed if they are using their power to escape people they’ve angered, righteously or not. That’s why she has all the escape plans that she has, because she knows that even she isn’t untouchable and someone is gonna come for her for something. She’d be Lawful Neutral, I think.
“Lawful” doesn’t mean “operating legally”, it’s more of a moral stance defined by loyalty to someone or something, and generally favoring social order over individuality.
Edwards using Providence to further his own goals over those of the Partners makes him lean towards neutral evil IMO. The Partners would be lawful evil.
But his ultimate goal with Providence, like the Partners, is to control the world. Now, he wanted to be more proactive with it, change the world, while the Partners just wanted to make the world secure and stable, with themselves at the top. That would make the Partners more Neutral Evil, not caring really about the state of the world so long as they are set, while Edwards would be more Lawful Evil in trying to directly bring the world under control and, admittedly, make it better through Providence’s power, but that would mean everyone obeying Providence, hence Lawful.
Yeah it kinda depends on whether you view Providence as a means of control or just a tool of powermongers. The organization itself basically checks all the boxes for lawful evil, while for its prominent members it’s more of a grey area. Edwards definitely has some lawful tendencies regarding Providence, as shown during his dialogue during Janus’ funeral. I think the Partners are too old-money and set in their ways to have the individuality needed for neutral evil, but they can certainly act for their individual benefit (at least, Alexa and Peter Marcus can - Ingram seems too stupid for that).
Eh, let’s say it can go either way. I still think Edwards is too proactive to properly fit the Nuetral label, however.
After thinking about it for a bit, yeah, I have decided to change the original post.
Yes, Diana is more “neutral” than “good”, as she constantly keeps reminding everyone that ICA has “been always neutral”. And she is stuck in the ICA’s rules, and her own moral code.
Next will be the Hitman character butthole chart.
Also putting only WoA characters now so that newer players don’t get confused.
If Campbell Sturrock isn’t top I’m gonna be fuming.
What makes Crest chaotic evil? The guy always felt like an opportunistic, self-serving chaotic neutral mercenary to me. Actually I can’t find many chaotic evil characters in WOA, most of the targets feel very lawful / neutral evil (mostly due to a lot of them being tied to Providence).
Alma could be chaotic evil? She’s very psychopathic at least. Dawood maybe? He’s a total ass on a power trip. Among ETs, the Entertainer definitely is, and maybe the Sensation?
(I don’t think Olivia fits neutral good either, she shares Grey’s beliefs and I’d put her in chaotic good too. In truth I don’t think there are any neutral good characters in WOA.)
Considering all that, this is the best and closest we can get then. .
Put Oybek Nabazov from Patient Zero as Chaotic Evil. No confusion there.
I dunno, he’s a cult leader, and cults are totally a lawful evil thing (brainwashing, controlling people, and all that). He probably actually believes in some of what he’s teaching, which would rule out chaotic behavior (he doesn’t kill people because he likes it, he does it for his beliefs).
Owen Cage could be chaotic evil? We don’t really know the extent of his involvement with the cult, and it seems that in Patient Zero he’s just trying to kill as many as he can with his virus for no reason since the cult’s in shambles after the three previous missions.