Morality Alignment Chart of Assassins and Serial Killers

[Robin_2024]

Putting some of the best known assassins and serial killers here, not just from games, but also books, and TV shows.

=Altair Ibn-La’Ahad= Assassin’s Creed 1, Assassin’s Creed Revelations

Altair initially starts off with a rebellious mindset. Over time, he evolves, and his core belief in maintaining order through strict adherence to the Assassin’s Creed fits Lawful Good. He fights for justice, but always through a disciplined and structured system.

---

Ezio Auditore - Assassin’s Creed 2, Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR

Ezio is driven by personal morality rather than strict laws or chaos. He fights for what’s right in his own eyes, regardless of political or social order. He operates within established rules but is flexible and pragmatic when necessary, fitting Neutral Good perfectly.

---

The Punisher - Marvel Comics, MCU Series The Punisher

Frank Castle goes after criminals with brutal methods and without the authority or rules of the law behind him. His intention is to bring justice, but he does so through violent and unregulated means. His lack of respect for established laws while trying to do good fits Chaotic Good.

Dexter Morgan- Dexter TV show, Dexter game

Dexter is driven by a strict moral code, which he follows to the letter—killing only those who he deems “worthy” based on their crimes. His commitment to his own code of justice, while not aligned with traditional law enforcement, places him firmly in Lawful Neutral, as he adheres to his own set of rules. Although he has saved thousands of innocent lives as well, we can’t call him “good” because his primary motive is his lust for blood.

---

Agent 47 - Hitman gaming franchise, Hitman novels (Movies are trash, let’s not count them)

Agent 47 is a cold, calculated assassin who doesn’t involve personal emotions, morality, or grand ideology in his actions. He does his job with precision and efficiency. His neutrality, with no moral inclination, makes him a Pure Neutral character.

---

Joe Goldberg- You series (Not the novel, as he might fall more into the evil category)

Joe Goldberg operates on his own whims, justifying his actions as a means of achieving what he thinks is right. His actions are often impulsive and usually guided by self-interest, with little to no regard for laws, order, or even consistency, though he usually tries to protect others, usually kids. His chaotic nature, combined with personal motivations, fits Chaotic Neutral. Some might argue that he is evil, but his motivations are not really evil- he is just obsessed with being “the protector” and finding “true” love, but his ways only end up in chaos.

---

Light Yagami - Death note manga and anime

Light Yagami seeks to reshape the world by enacting his personal idea of justice, and create a New World Order where he is a god. He follows his own code (his vision of “Kira”) and uses the power of the Death Note to rid the world of criminals. His belief in his version of law and order, combined with his cruel methods of dealing with his own allies, and even innocents, who defy him, puts him in the Lawful Evil category.

---

Scott Shelby - Heavy Rain

Scott Shelby is manipulative, cold, and self-serving serial killer. He carries out his actions of kidnapping innocent kids with the pure motive to torture fathers whom he finds “unfit”. Eventually, the innocent kids he kidnaps are killed, regardless of the father’s actions. His methods may appear to serve a larger purpose, but they are ultimately driven by selfishness and sadism. This makes him Neutral Evil.

Victor Zsasz - Batman comics, Batman Arkham games

Victor Zsasz is a sadistic serial killer who kills for the sheer thrill of it, leaving tally marks for each victim. His actions are erratic, unpredictable, and destructive, fitting Chaotic Evil perfectly. He has no higher purpose other than to indulge in chaos and bloodshed.

[Heisenberg]

Technically, The Joker fits chaotic evil even better, but he goes beyond the definition of a serial killer, so I understand why he’s not included in this list. Narrowing the definition, Zsasz is the runner up.

[Swangtheugly]

Spoilers

[Norseman]

@Robin_2024

Agent 47 - Hitman gaming franchise, Hitman novels (Movies are trash, let’s not count them)

Agent 47 is a cold, calculated assassin who doesn’t involve personal emotions, morality, or grand ideology in his actions. He does his job with precision and efficiency. His neutrality, with no moral inclination, makes him a Pure Neutral character.

The idea of 47 is a neutral character and he’s designed that way by Ort-Meyer. Yet that is only on the surface.

In all most every game except Blood Money and Contracts to a degree. 47 is shown to pick sides, protect friends, protect a clone girl. He’s willing to betray a client, if it’s about protecting a person he cares for. Calling him neutral doesn’t really fit his character, he’s often motivated by personal interests.

That is what sets him apart from 48 series of clones. Frankly calling him neutral, is misunderstanding his character and all his actions from c47 to the latest games show that he isn’t neutral and far from it.

[Swangtheugly]

He’s on a spectrum. Definitely not True Neutral. His allegiance is very much conditional and Absolution and the WOA’s Narrative only supports that.

In some ways he can even be Lawful, but 47 is way too complex of a character that his own morality will shift. Dependent on the situation of course.

[Norseman]

@Swangtheugly

He’s on a spectrum. Definitely not True Neutral. His allegiance is very much conditional and Absolution and the WOA’s Narrative only supports that

H2SA is one big revenge/ rescue story. 47’s confessions in the opening level, he talks about his motivations, that he killed others out of greed and anger. That he’s torn about his own agency in the world, that he’s not a child of god.

BM is the game that removed most of 47 agency and made him a neutral force. 47 is the least interesting character in that game. He’s a more or less terminator in BM. I would call BM a betrayal of his character.

It seems to be this version a lot of players focus on when they argue that 47 is cold and only cares his payday. Ignoring that a lot of 47 story is about his humanity in a dark twisted world.

[Heisenberg]

@Norseman

BM is the game that removed most of 47 agency and made him a neutral force. 47 is the least interesting character in that game. He’s a more or less terminator in BM. I would call BM a betrayal of his character.

It seems to be this version a lot of players focus on when they argue that 47 is cold and only cares his payday.

No more untrue statement has been made about the character. 47 has always been neutral, unless the situation is something personal. Every time, every game, there’s always some kind of personal story taking place, something that revolves around his origins as a product of a mad scientist. Each game gives him some kind of personal story to make it about more than the contract, presumably because the writers can’t think up anything else other than relying on tropes such as Dark and Troubled Past. When that part of the story is being directly addressed, 47 is never concerned about what’s right and wrong while he’s on the job. Blood Money committed no betrayal; it emphasized what was already there and made clear where 47 stands whenever something doesn’t involve him directly.

Even in the first two games, the only reason why he rescued Mei Ling and Smith was because they could get him to his targets. In the second game, 47 went back to murdering people in order to save Vittorio, despite having confessed his crimes in doing that very thing to Vittorio, showing that he wasn’t feeling guilty about it, just trying to in order to avoid the possibility of Hell. In Absolution, the only reason he goes rogue and saves Victoria is because A) Diana asked him, and B) he’d had the same experience as her; he didn’t give a damn up until that moment, when he realized that the entire first mission was Diana’s contract and it was t about business. WoA, it only mattered to 47 when he realized who Grey was and that he’d already made a promise once to destroy Providence.

47 has always been cold, emotionless, utterly professional, unless the situation personally affects him, making him somewhat selfish in a way. And Blood Money wasn’t even the game that showed us how far that goes. Contracts did that with the Meath King’s Party, which is why it is such a fantastic mission, as that ruthless professional neutrality is never shown better than there.

[Norseman]

@Heisenberg

No more untrue statement has been made about the character

No not really, this isn’t fact base debate, like 2+2 = 4. This is an opinion on 47 personality and his alignment in a very narrow view of morality and so is yours. Also spare me of your inflammatory rhetoric.

@Heisenberg

Every time, every game, there’s always some kind of personal story taking place, something that revolves around his origins as a product of a mad scientist.

and that is why he isn’t a “True neutral”. He is on the surface, within the context of the universe he was created to be obedient tool. However he the protagonist, he needs agency. If 47 was a “true neutral” he would have killed Diana and handed Victoria over to the I.C.A. This idea of 47 fits much more of his Blood Money portrayal, where he’s unconcerned about the Diana and the I.C.A.

@Heisenberg

Each game gives him some kind of personal story to make it about more than the contract, presumably because the writers can’t think up anything else other than relying on tropes such as Dark and Troubled Past.

And this trope is becoming dull. It’s basically the same retelling of the character development he went through in H2SA. I hope they are able to tell a story with personal stakes that doesn’t rely on the same tropes. The same goes for how the I.C.A and 47 is always played a client who seeks to destroy them.

@Heisenberg

Even in the first two games, the only reason why he rescued Mei Ling and Smith was because they could get him to his targets.

I don’t disagree about them, they where a means to an end. However he breaks with his contract when he confronts Dr. Odon Kovacs and kills him out of spite, this spite sets him on a path to kill Ort-Meyer. Of course it a setup, there is swat team waiting. However 47 could have just killed his target and escaped by any means. He wouldn’t care about Ort-Meyer, if he was neutral. His job is done and the motivation behind why he’s there doesn’t really matter as long as he gets paid.

@Heisenberg

In the second game, 47 went back to murdering people in order to save Vittorio, despite having confessed his crimes in doing that very thing to Vittorio, showing that he wasn’t feeling guilty about it, just trying to in order to avoid the possibility of Hell

This is an assumption that 47 believes in a higher power and that he think that confession will save his soul. Yet his words to Father Vittorio, about how he’s killed out of anger directly means that he isn’t neutral. He isn’t indifferent.

@Heisenberg

In Absolution, the only reason he goes rogue and saves Victoria is because A) Diana asked him, and B) he’d had the same experience as her; he didn’t give a damn up until that moment, when he realized that the entire first mission was Diana’s contract and it was t about business.

If he was a true neutral as suggest, he would have killed Diana and handed over Victoria. His contract would be the only thing that matters, not here life, not Victorias fate. It would all just be a job. But it isn’t.

@Heisenberg

47 has always been cold, emotionless, utterly professional

Cold and utterly professional yes. But he’s never been emotionless, he has the ability to sympathize with others. It might a very narrow line of people he actually cares for. He cares about Diana, Vittorio, Grey and Victoria. Some of them he might sympathize with due to similar upbringing and others due to them being there for him.

I would agree that in 90% of the time he’s fits the true neutral category. However there are plenty of instances through out the games that talks against this.

@Heisenberg

And Blood Money wasn’t even the game that showed us how far that goes. Contracts did that with the Meath King’s Party

That is why I said Blood Money and Contracts to a degree. In my original post. The reason why I don’t included Contracts fully, is because there is no character development. It’s 47 bleeding out and hallucinating. The game is just a setup to why 47 leaves the EU and travels to the US. It was litterally created due to Eidos wanted a game between H2SA and Hitman 3 aka. Blood Money. Contracts wasn’t planned and only took form while IO was working on BM.

[Heisenberg]

@Norseman

and that is why he isn’t a “True neutral”. He is on the surface, within the context of the universe he was created to be obedient tool. However he the protagonist, he needs agency. If 47 was a “true neutral” he would have killed Diana and handed Victoria over to the I.C.A. This idea of 47 fits much more of his Blood Money portrayal, where he’s unconcerned about the Diana and the I.C.A.

I’m gonna skip the rest of that post, for now, as it’s been discussed before, and focus on this part.

@Norseman

and that is why he isn’t a “True neutral”. If 47 was a “true neutral” he would have killed Diana and handed Victoria over to the I.C.A.

Nobody is “true neutral” when things become personal. The question is, what is their default setting? Is what they are involved in something they believe in, for good or ill, or are they just there and doing what they are supposed to do irrespective of any moral or philosophical stance on the matter. In virtually all things in his life, and especially his work, 47 is the latter. Only when things directly impact the small bubble of his personal life and the few people in it, does he move beyond neutral. But that’s true of any character.

@Norseman

He is on the surface, within the context of the universe he was created to be obedient tool. However he the protagonist, he needs agency.

No he doesn’t. He’s a Hitman; he does what others tell him to do. His agency is displayed in his continued pursuit of that lifestyle despite multiple opportunities to leave it behind, and that he requires compensation on his terms in return. Beyond that, his very nature is to do the work that others have decided for him. He is neutral, because those who use him are not.

@Norseman

This idea of 47 fits much more of his Blood Money portrayal, where he’s unconcerned about the Diana and the I.C.A.

Yes, exactly. A much purer, more true version of what 47 is, knowing that others must deal with their own consequences while he tends to his own affairs. If anything, his lack of care about Diana and ICA shows not only that he is true neutral, but also that he does have the agency you suggest he should have, making the choice to not concern himself with them.

Also, keep in mind, this is a point in 47’s life where he’s in a relatively bad place. He had just recently been shot and nearly killed, shaking his whole image of himself as being so much better than others that he was untouchable, nobody knowing who he was or where he was. Someone did, and almost ended him. 47 came closer to facing his own mortality than he ever had, became more vulnerable than he ever remembered being, and it made him, in a word, grumpy. This contributed to his behavior in Blood Money, rather than it being some sudden change from how he was before, as you suggest.

You can tell in his voice and actions that he is in a bad mood most of the time because of these events. His lack of concern for Diana beyond a few words, his killing of the priest and reporter for knowing who he is, it all demonstrates a 47 who is, at the moment, still scared at the idea that he might be taken out in the way he has taken out others, and is trying to keep himself even more emotionally distant than he already had been from any ties or sense of morality, for the sake of his own survival, because he is still in a state of shock over his near death experience.

[Norseman]

@Heisenberg

Nobody is “true neutral” when things become personal. The question is, what is their default setting? Is what they are involved in something they believe in, for good or ill, or are they just there and doing what they are supposed to do irrespective of any moral or philosophical stance on the matter. In virtually all things in his life, and especially his work, 47 is the latter. Only when things directly impact the small bubble of his personal life and the few people in it, does he move beyond neutral. But that’s true of any character.

This I agree with. No body is a true neutral, other than the 48 series clones. If they even can be described as a person to begin with. That is why I have said on multiple occasions that he’s only a “true neutral” on paper, for the most part his professionalism. If you want to split the hair with no one is a true neutral, fine. I objected to the notion that o.p that described 47 as a character that doesn’t let emotion affect his neutrality. Which has happened on multiple occasions for various reason.

@Heisenberg

No he doesn’t. He’s a Hitman; he does what others tell him to do. His agency is displayed in his continued pursuit of that lifestyle despite multiple opportunities to leave it behind

I strong disagree with this, 47 has agency outside his the life that cast upon him. Yes he has chosen the life of a Hitman. He is also a character who’s willing to rebel against his creator and employer when things get personal. He is a “rebellious” character, there is more to him than just a man who takes pride in his work.

@Heisenberg

Yes, exactly. A much purer, more true version of what 47 is, knowing that others must deal with their own consequences while he tends to his own affairs. If anything, his lack of care about Diana and ICA shows not only that he is true neutral, but also that he does have the agency you suggest he should have, making the choice to not concern himself with them.

This is where I think that the Blood Money characterisation ruined his character and remove past character growth. Where in H2SA 47 was willing to upend his life of tranquillity and put his life on the line, to save a friend. However i Blood Money he has no desire to help Diana and cares little for her fate. There is a disconnect between these two portrayal of 47.

@Heisenberg

Also, keep in mind, this is a point in 47’s life where he’s in a relatively bad place. He had just recently been shot and nearly killed, shaking his whole image of himself as being so much better than others that he was untouchable, nobody knowing who he was or where he was. Someone did, and almost ended him.

You know what you almost convinced me that 47’s portrayal in BM is justified. Even if don’t really like this more removed version of him. But when you put it that way it makes more sense, that he as a character would regress in his personal development.

[Heisenberg]

@Norseman

I strong disagree with this, 47 has agency outside his the life that cast upon him. Yes he has chosen the life of a Hitman. He is also a character who’s willing to rebel against his creator and employer when things get personal. He is a “rebellious” character, there is more to him than just a man who takes pride in his work.

Not at this point in the series. 47 barely understands who he even is at this point. Keep in mind, at the start of BM, he’s only been out of the asylum for five years, which as far as his memories go, is the moment of his “birth.” And he’s only understood that he’s an artificial human for four of those, cutting the knowledge of his nature down further. All he knows is that he’s physically better than anyone else he’s met aside from the 48s, that he’s better at stealth killing than seemingly anyone else in the world, and that he doesn’t really have any feelings beyond himself.

He has a small amount of attachment for Vittorio after he takes him in and tries to help him achieve redemption, but keep in mind how quickly he writes him off as dead after a few missions without finding him, and doesn’t mention him or do anything in regards to losing him until the end, so even his one bit of connection at that time is limited and almost superficial. 47 immediately goes back to his work and doesn’t even consider leaving it until the situation with Victoria. There’s no indication of the “rebellious” character you describe, other than when he is personally inconvenienced in a significant way, such as threatening Diana that he’ll find another employer if she can’t get a handle on who is targeting the agency. Aside from that, 47 is not yet at his stage of being against executive authority like we later see in WoA, except when he is being hindered by the corruption or incompetence of others. That makes him rebellious in a reactionary manner, not as part of his character.

@Norseman

This is where I think that the Blood Money characterisation ruined his character and remove past character growth. Where in H2SA 47 was willing to upend his life of tranquillity and put his life on the line, to save a friend. However i Blood Money he has no desire to help Diana and cares little for her fate. There is a disconnect between these two portrayal of 47.

Keep in mind, at this point, 47 barely considers Diana a friend. I think he genuinely meant it that he was sorry to hear that she didn’t think she’d live much longer with the Franchise after her, but it didn’t go very deep. She’s just the person he’s known the longest, and now at the end of BM and closer to being six years out of the asylum, he’s known her for five years now, although only worked with her for three. After she saves him with the funeral ambush on the Franchise, and the subsequent seven years leading up to Absolution where they presumably continue working together all that time, that is when he starts to really see her as a friend, as shown by his actions at the end of A Personal Contract.

But in BM, she’s just his handler, a coworker, at best he considers them assigned partners. She might mean more to him than others, but that doesn’t say much, and going back to him being more on edge and angry due his near-death experience, and knowing that Diana operates in a similar way, his lack of trust and demand for payment even when she comes to him begging for help, it shows how closed off he’s trying to make himself, so he can never be hurt again. The fact that Diana helped him out when she literally had him cold and could have saved herself by letting him die is what earned his trust and let him start opening up more.