I see your point but I could also make the argument of Spidy and Capt'n switchin' spots. That being said, I would love to see somebody do a 5 by 5 chart of Marvel, Video game characters, maybe DC. There's so many gray areas with these characters. Like I would put Deadpool Chaotic Impure.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm not familiar with the 5 by 5 chart.
As for Spidey's and Cap's placements. Cap has on two separate occasions given up his name because he didn't agree with the goverment, he helps people regardless of any law. He just happens to work with the law on occasion. Meanwhile Spidey has a tendecy to seek out the help of law forces whenever he can, the only problem is he has terrible publicity.
""Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — No, you move."
Or in a more succinct form
""I'm loyal to nothing, General... except the Dream."
Fairly accurate and on point with the exceptions that Punisher is more Chaotic than Lawful and Galactus is evil by virtue of extinguishing countless lives out of a selfish sense of self-preservation. That's Neutral Evil.
How is someone who follows a strict personal code and refuses to fight law forces chaotic?
Galactus doesn't kill out of a selfish sense of self-preservation, he does it because he has to survive. He keeps his word and is willing to allow beings to escape doomed planets and will leave them alone if they don't personally attack him. He shows disgust at those who cause pointless destruction and will personally do something if they're connected to him. In fact he only started focusing on inhabited worlds because the hunger became too strong for him to take time to find them.
His wanting to survive becomes selfish-self preservation when he decides that billions of lives are worthless if he can keep himself sustained. And where has Galactus displayed a willingness to give inhabitants time to escape a planet? Because I've never seen him do that.
Punisher is Chaotic because while he may not fight police, he does have total contempt for authority and works outside of it, being a killer vigilante who takes matters into his own hands even more than most superheroes do. He does have a moral code, but chaotic characters can have a code. It just doesn't involve respecting authority. And the Punisher does not respect authority beyond a basic moral standard.
I agree with your views on Punisher, I'd put him at chaotic good. He doesn't give half a fuck about the fact that he's not allowed to kill people, but the good in him makes him respect what the authorities stand for and subsequently refuse to tangle with them. The good in him is the only reason he's a hero.
I'd have to take gambit508's side on Galactus, however. I think Galactus, being so far above most humans in intelligence, power and just plain size, can't spare any tears for the lesser beings he kills, especially considering he needs to do it.
Just like your neutral good ranger can't spare tears for the game he hunts. Just like you, washing your hands and killing trillions of germs in the process before you prepare food for the homeless. (I assume) If you do it because you have to, it's neutral. If you do it because the death rattle of billions of humans amuses you, it's evil.
It's not about what they do, it's about why they do it.
False. Actions matter too, not just motives. The person who murders innocents but tries to excuse himself with the tried and true "I think I'm right!" crap is accountable for their crimes, same as the person who does it for fun. The latter may be worse, but only marginally, not exponentially. A person's being delusional about themselves and pulling the "I think I'm right!" card can't be used as a get-out-of-jail free card or a means of absolving someone of their acts. That's irresponsible and wrong.
And actually, I do hold it against Galactus for killing as many people as he does for several reasons: 1. Galactus has privately admitted that his whole "I'm above good and evil" is just rationalizing to quell his aching conscience. 2. The life Galactus snuffs out is sentient, germs are not. Your comparison is also bad because Galactus isn't feeding the homeless, he's feeding himself. 3. Galactus could sustain himself by devouring worlds that have no sentient life on them, but rather then take the time to find and eat only these worlds, he simply attacks worlds indiscriminately because he does not care about any life other then his own. In fact, when Silver Surfer tried to do this, Galactus became annoyed and forcibly altered Silver Surfer's morals so that he would not care what worlds he led Galactus to. Why did he do that? Simple; because it was inconvenient for him. Sounds pretty selfish and lacking in morals to me. 4. An entire planet's population is a much greater loss of life then the game a person kills in the forest at any given time. And again, much of this life is sentient. 5. The "I'm a superior being, so that makes it okay" is a bad argument, because going by that logic we would be exterminating all of the mentally and physically disabled in this country. Hell, given that I weigh only 120 pounds and am not gifted in Math or Science, an athlete or mathematician could kill me on the grounds that I was "inferior", and thus it made it okay. But that argument doesn't work because it's ridiculous. And even the "if you step on an ant, does it make you evil"? argument doesn't work, because if you were destroying entire ant colonies because you thought your being bigger justified you, I probably would think there was something wrong with you. And an entire planet's population is more substantial then an entire ant colony anyway.
Now, certainly I can sympathize with Galactus' desire to sustain himself, but what that means is that in all, I still don't believe Galactus is squarely True Neutral but would instead perhaps judge him to be in-between True Neutral and Neutral Evil, without being fully in one direction or the other.
As for Punisher, I'd judge him to be Chaotic Neutral, leaning towards Chaotic Good. I think that while his unwillingness to fight police is noteworthy and commendable, you can have moral standards without being straight up good. Punisher's consistent merciless and brutality (which gets pretty darn bad in the hands of certain writers) I feel makes him much too morally gray to be definitively good. If Punisher saved his murderous wrath for only the worst of the worst that would be one thing, but his belief of "kill all criminals without mercy" just does not come off as a "Good" mentality. Gunning down junkies, purse snatchers, and thieves/burglars doesn't seem all that good to me. He also mercilessly filled full of lead two minor supervillains who were offering to help Captain America during Civil War, and as far as supervillains go those chaps weren't exactly the Green Goblin or Bullseye. This is to say nothing for other brutal methods he is willing to employ regularly to get the job done.
So in the end I think Punisher is leaning towards the direction of good, but he's not quite there because his extreme ruthlessness and mercilessness keeps him back.
I think in the end though part of the problem is we have slightly differing perspectives: you seem to believe that motives are all that matters, whereas I believe that motives are important to consider, but that in the end actions are more important, because actions are what directly affects people and have long-lasting consequences. So ultimately I feel that's where we split.