Dexter Morgan and the flaws in the alignment system

Wasn't sure where to stick this, general discussion seemed like a fit though

Introduction
The alignment system in both 3.5 & Pathfnder attempts to remove the subjective nature of things like good & evil, causing serious flaws in the process. It goes on to stumble further into a pit of failure due to how extreme and overly broad some of the alignments are and starts digging the hole deeper by making some of the neutral alignments into an extreme third pole rather than something between good/evil making them a poor choice for any kind of morally grey character that does not fit where they “should”.

While I think that using the word Law rather than Order is a flaw that causes many people to interpret it as following/ignoring a legal code of law even if that law is simply not the accepted code (a thief that follows guild rules and ignores the local legal code within the boundaries of the guild rules for simple example). Aside from that wording choice, I think law/chaos is not too bad overall because they do not represent things that are subjective by their very nature as good & evil.

The extreme and absolute nature of the alignment system causes many problems. Lawful a-Hole paladins, the enjoyment/game destroying Chaotic Evil alignment, or the fact that many GM’s refuse to allow evil alignments or players who simply dislike when they are allowed due to the past troubles they have seen it cause in games. The fact that the alignments as written are largely absolute and require quite a few insertions of wishy-washy words like “some”, “many”, or “for example” leads to needless debates between players and GM’s that should not be required any more than it is necessary to debate the realism of hitting someone four times with a big two handed greatsword in the time it takes them to hit you once with a dagger or something. The simple loosening of the absolutes belt would go a heck of a long way to fixing the problems in the system

My Example
In order to show just how deep some of these flaws run, I’ll be using Dexter Morgan from Showtime’s TV series Dexter. He is a serial killer who kills murderers for the catharsis it gives him. As a young child, Dexter witnessed his mother get killed with a chainsaw and was locked in the shipping container it happened in for days until a cop named Harry rescued and adopted him. To put it simply, he is “Damaged” (by his own admission).
His adopted parent Harry realized something was wrong with Dexter before he crossed too far over the line while he was still young, as a result of that realization there was a “Code of Harry“ that dexter follows to keep him safe from society by blending into it as the guy nobody would suspect and targeting victims who nobody will care too much about when they go missing (scumbag killers). He follows the Code of Harry even when doing so puts him at extreme risk of being discovered, not killing a cop he works with and attempting to save his life even though the cop in question discovered his secret, hates Dexter, and plans to arrest him for his crimes once he is able to for example.

Clearly Dexter should be Lawful ____. I think trying to peg him at Chaotic is so absurd that I (hopefully) won’t need to do a breakdown for Law/Chaos like good/evil will get.... But I’ll fill in the “____“ later when I get to that. I’ve been told that the Punisher from the comics is also a good example... but having only seen the movies, he’s bad for me. I’d be thrilled for another good example of the problems if anyone knows him better and cares to follow steps similar to mine below.

The Rules
Now adding rules seems silly at first glance, but they are designed to prevent illegal alignments like “not X” or “both X and Y”.Because the purpose is to expose the flaws in the wording of the alignment system, the alignment he “should” be is only acceptable if we can fit him into it using the exact wording of the alignment system. Clearly this would include the following

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from eachother. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

It’s great to admit that the alignment system is not a straightjacket and that it is ok to be outside the lines sometimes, but lets add a condition... specifically any logic train used to fit the subject into an alignment, or reject them from being some other alignment can not also give rise to an illegal alignment like the earlier mentioned “both X and Y” unless you can find a rule that explicitly allows such a strange thing.

The Obvious Choice
Lts start with the obvious choice for his alignment. I’ll be using spoiler tags liberally to keep this post from reaching a gigantic length

Lawful Evil

Good/Evil
You would expect this to be a freaking slam dunk, so lets find out where the non-subjective troubles put Dexter! Spoiler tags again for length

Lawful Good?
uhh.....Surely the wording on LG will exclude him from lawful good like LE did right... that should be an illegal alignment of “Not X” right?

The LN Straw
Well, lets grasp that last straw just in case

In traditional D&D fantasy, good, evil, law or chaos are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the multiverse/existence, so they are objective rather than subjective definitions of character behavior.

In other words, in Pathfinder, killing is not evil and dexter's is not a good example I think.

For a player, alignment should be a guideline and I don't feel it's an overly important aspect of the game anyway.

In traditional D&D fantasy, good, evil, law or chaos are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the multiverse/existence, so they are objective rather than subjective definitions of character behavior.

In other words, in Pathfinder, killing is not evil and dexter's is not a good example I think.

For a player, alignment should be a guideline and I don't feel it's an overly important aspect of the game anyway.

The only real problem with law/chaos is that it uses the word law instead of something like order & often confuses a lot of people into thinking it means the local code of laws or something as a result :(

....lots of stuff....

That is and impressive breakdown. I agree that by the RAW Dexter is in fact LG.

I am personally ready to chuck alignment, but I think that if one is to use it, one should add some gradation to the various poles, as well as fixing the Neutral 'third pole'.

The alignement system, flawed ?
Did you really just write a novel just to state the evidence ?

I would direct you to the following excellent post with a breakdown of alignments which i believe is superior to the one presented in the Player's Handbook.

Bob's Guide to Making Alignment work

The alignement system, flawed ?

Did you really just write a novel just to state the evidence ?

lol! To answer that question... Technically, yes and no. It mostly grew up organically in a thread over on the Another forum where someone kept missing the point and pounding on the "cant be LG" table over the course of a couple days while keeping me amused. When the dust finally settled I decided that I had had similar arguments with GM/Players in the past and gathering up all my points into one logic train in one place would be useful, plus I figured putting it here might eventually help someone else :)

Actually, we had the exact same discussion with my group recently - including huge Dexter fans with encyclopedic knowledge on the topic, and it didn't take a lot of time to classify Dexter as Loyal Evil.

First off, let me say that while it is a well-thought out and reasoned post (with quotes from the book to back it up), Dexter is not someone I am familiar with. I can take the gist of your post as this - Dexter is a serial murderer who only targets other murderers and he refuses to take an innocents' life under any circumstances. He takes joy in helping others, but attempts to hide his crimes and will avoid prison for as long as he can. That about right?

Secondly. I think your analysis about his alignment, while good, is incorrect.

But you said his alignment is irrelevant - your point is that he doesn't fit in the alignment system. I disagree. Everyone always looks at this the wrong way.

When newer players first start playing, the alignment system is a tool. Using it as a guide to their characters' actions, they decide which sounds coolest ("Man NG to the max! I help everyone!"), and play to that alignment's "rules" to the best of their ability.

Once a player begins to develop full on characters, with deeper goals, motives, and personalities, we can ignore what alignment says as examples for how people in that alignment act, and begin to worry about which alignment just fits best with that character.

I had a wizard who, after seeing her parents murdered along with her small village as a child, began wizard training, at first in pursuit of goodness, but then by the time she begins adventuring, cares less about good and evil and more about perfecting magic while pursuing revenge. She has a code of honor she follows at all times (not attacking innocents, accepting surrenders, etc), even to her detriment. After finishing her, I labelled her Lawful Neutral - she has a personal code of honor, and will act to protect people she knows, but not strangers most of the time without some expectation of compensation. She has no compulsion to obey laws (other than avoiding trouble), and also has a personal quest. Not unlike Dexter, honestly.

...I'm not sure where I'm going with this. But he can easily fit. And LG is probably suitable.

First off, let me say that while it is a well-thought out and reasoned post (with quotes from the book to back it up), Dexter is not someone I am familiar with. I can take the gist of your post as this - Dexter is a serial murderer who only targets other murderers and he refuses to take an innocents' life under any circumstances. He takes joy in helping others, but attempts to hide his crimes and will avoid prison for as long as he can. That about right?

Not really no. He's not as punisher-esque as you make him out to be. Pretty much the killing makes him feel whole for a time like a drug addict getting a "fix" even after the high wears off. He could gain the same enjoyment from killing innocents & even considers it once he starts looking into how trinity has been doing it for ~30 years without getting caught or even officially noticed as a serial killer. His foster father (Harry) was a cop and discovered that he was a bit "damaged" while he was still a kid that had not moved beyond animals. Harry instilled what dexter calls the "Code of Harry" in him to protect help him by forcing him to try and fit into society as that nice guy who helps everyone out & often brings donuts to work for everyone rather than that creepy suspicious guy. It's also the reason he targets murderers, cops are less likely to care enough to really dig if some scumbag turns up missing. The fact that he only kills murderers only matters to him as far as his code goes, but he follows it even if it means he could be arrested (Doaks) or personally knows the victim he chooses & is still able to enjoy the kill (his brother, Miguel, etc). Basically he really does fit Paladin to a T, but does so in the real world.

Let's not forget that alignment takes no consideration for mental health (no, not all "crazy" people are CN).

Dexter would take some serious DSM-X rulings to even begin to unearth what his inner being is up to…never mind the axial limits of our beloved alignment system. He's at war with himself and a very complex character, so trying to pin the faults of the alignment rules on Dexter is nearly impossible.

For my games, alignment is a function of the game world, much like the Elric stories where Law and Chaos are at war with one another. It doesn't dictate how a person should act or what the consequences are when they don't act accordingly, but rather it molds how the world and the character fit around each other and what big picture concepts they follow and promote.

Anything else is just going to cause a major headaches when players act human.

I suppose it boils down to whether you practice deontological ethics or utilitarian ethics.

To the utilitarian mind, Dexter Morgan(For the previous poster and any others not in the know, Dexter is the eponymous protagonist of the Showtime series whose schtick is killing serial killers. A fantastic watch if you've never seen it.) is absolutely Lawful Good. His actions show loyalty to code and family, while also smiting evil and protecting the innocent.

However, deontologically speaking, Dexter doesn't do so due to some personal moral compulsion. He goes over this several times in the series; he bends over backwards for Rita because she is necessary to maintain his facade of a normal human being. He occasionally makes off-hand statements about what the guilty deserve, not because of any personal compulsion but more as a conversation with himself about what a normal human being would feel. The books more capably demonstrate this than the show, but television requires a lead character we can at least somewhat root for.

In Dexter's heart/mind/soul (pick your metaphor), he doesn't do these actions because he's concerned for the victims. He does it because it satiates his need to kill. It's no more a morally driven act than when you or I drink to slake our thirst. Certainly, he's killing who we might deem the "right" people, but he's doing it for an evil end (the joy of killing) and for a practical reason. (Avoiding capture.)

The alignment system in both 3.5 & Pathfnder attempts to remove the subjective nature of things like good & evil, causing serious flaws in the process.

You appear to claim that there is a subjective nature to good and evil; you seem to claim this axiomatically. This is a meta-ethical judgement and not in keeping with the spirit of the game. The game assumes a different metaphysics than you're assuming.

While I think that using the word Law rather than Order is a flaw that causes many people to interpret it as following/ignoring a legal code of law even if that law is simply not the accepted code (a thief that follows guild rules and ignores the local legal code within the boundaries of the guild rules for simple example). Aside from that wording choice, I think law/chaos is not too bad overall because they do not represent things that are subjective by their very nature as good & evil.

The extreme and absolute nature of the alignment system causes many problems.

... or the fact that many GM’s refuse to allow evil alignments or players who simply dislike when they are allowed due to the past troubles they have seen it cause in games.

This is a meta-meta-game issue. DMs, like most human beings, are free to do what they want. The game cannot resolve such issues.

Philosophy (and one of its subdivisions: ethics) is a lot of fun, and has its place, but, the intersection of philosophy and D&D, or ethics and D&D, may lie outside the alignment system that's designed to cover material in the game.

Dave

Philosophy (and one of its subdivisions: ethics) is a lot of fun, and has its place, but, the intersection of philosophy and D&D, or ethics and D&D, may lie outside the alignment system that's designed to cover material in the game.

Dave

Agreed, I just think it requires an awful lot of unnecessary hairsplitting given the current wording of the rules.

The answer is to smash alignment.

First off let me say that I agree the way the alignment system is currently presented is dumb, though I think the two axises themselves are its tentpoles are pretty reasonable.

I'm not super familiar with Dexter but there are some things I think that might be worth considering.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Does Dexter's condition render him incapable of moral action? While some of his actions may appear to have a moral component, do they actually or are they just a result of his adherence to to the code that was given to him, his programming?

Secondly does Dexter actually have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" or is that just a function of following his code. Especially if you accept the first argument that his condition makes him incapable of moral action then, it's not really much different than having commanding a skeleton or summoned monster to behave in certain ways that their alignment would normally preclude. According to a little research on the internet, one of the rules of the Code of Harry is as follows, "Fake emotion and normality to fit in."

Finally if we do accept that doing good actions regardless of motivation is objectively good, then perhaps the Code of Harry is meant to eventually make Dexter good. There isn't to my knowledge any indication in the rules of just how many good actions it takes to make someone good rather than whatever their currently alignment is. Perhaps it follows the notion that if you go through the motions enough times, it will eventually take hold and become the real thing. Just like if someone fakes a laugh or a smile enough it will eventually become the real deal, or repeat an affirmation enough and it begins to take on weight.

I too have not watched the show nor care to but the topic is interesting. Based on the evidence put forward, I'd disagree with two out of two alignment axes proposed.

First, law versus chaos. With regard to these murders, while Dexter follows his own code, he's simultaneously disregarding the laws of the country he lives in, the laws that his employing agency exists to enforce, and the fundamental law most widely respected world-wide. As described he is a sort of autistic sociopath. He selects what laws he will follow and which he will not based on his own gratification. I'd say the description given so far in this thread comes down to Neutral, certainly not Lawful. The sheer scale of the anti-murder taboo/law is what denies him Lawful status in my mind's eye.

Second, good versus evil. Dexter's motivation in murdering isn't (as described) to free the world of evil. His target-selection criteria aren't for the benefit of mankind; they're for the preservation of his lifestyle. Intent matters, to me. Dexter isn't even a Kevorkian, killing for the purpose of granting mercy. His motivation is selfish and while the results may appear good that is coincidental. As described, this character is aware of his own mental illness. Knowing you are "damaged" to the point that you can't or won't keep yourself from murder and not seeking to resolve that urge to ensure an innocent never gets killed... evil. I'd admit this sounds somewhere between Evil and Neutral overall, but I'm a stick in the mud so I'd fall on Evil if I had to.

Neutral Evil. Maybe true Neutral.

I too have not watched the show nor care to but the topic is interesting. Based on the evidence put forward, I'd disagree with two out of two alignment axes proposed.

First, law versus chaos. With regard to these murders, while Dexter follows his own code, he's simultaneously disregarding the laws of the country he lives in, the laws that his employing agency exists to enforce, and the fundamental law most widely respected world-wide. As described he is a sort of autistic sociopath. He selects what laws he will follow and which he will not based on his own gratification. I'd say the description given so far in this thread comes down to Neutral, certainly not Lawful. The sheer scale of the anti-murder taboo/law is what denies him Lawful status in my mind's eye.

Second, good versus evil. Dexter's motivation in murdering isn't (as described) to free the world of evil. His target-selection criteria aren't for the benefit of mankind; they're for the preservation of his lifestyle. Intent matters, to me. Dexter isn't even a Kevorkian, killing for the purpose of granting mercy. His motivation is selfish and while the results may appear good that is coincidental. As described, this character is aware of his own mental illness. Knowing you are "damaged" to the point that you can't or won't keep yourself from murder and not seeking to resolve that urge to ensure an innocent never gets killed... evil. I'd admit this sounds somewhere between Evil and Neutral overall, but I'm a stick in the mud so I'd fall on Evil if I had to.

Neutral Evil. Maybe true Neutral.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point about the use of the word law causing bad interpretations of the law/chaos axis!

I was on my phone earlier but if I had to make a decision on Dexter's alignment I would say it would be Lawful Evil with leanings to Neutral Evil.

Dexter for the most part is an uncaring person that does what he does not for any greater good, but only to satisfy his own need to do it. He doesn't care for his victims or their victims (except children which i believe reminds him of his childhood). I think that the Harry Code and how it was driven into him is the only thing that makes him lawful, yet it is so much a part of who he is that it has become part of how he defines himself.

There is no way that Dexter is good in any way. Killing people because you need to is in no way good.

Okay, take the Law out of Lawful and you have order, community, and, in general, group consensus/being civil as top priorities.
Dexter may be civil (or not, he's a criminal), but he's most certainly acting by his own compass, not society's. He mirrors society's by targeting killers as a selfish (non-lawful) act to mask his hunger for murder.
Yes, hunger for murder. (Evil, nuf' said)
Personal moral compass rather than societal. (Chaotic, perhaps pushed back to Neutral by Code of Harry)
But, to explore Chaos vs. Law a bit more let's look at a Chaotic Good example, Drizzt. He certainly has a code, and often comments internally about its value, but he's CG.
Robin Hood, often cited as CG, works outside the system (like Dexter), but he too follows codes. Codes aren't enough.
So, yes, looking at Dexter's actions + Code of Harry, you might get LG, but looking at his motives + anybody can have a code, he's NE at best, and I'd vote CE. He's not the manic, demonic CE everybody envisions, but one that can plan and that accepts society's benefits (so fakes belonging, ala Belkar in later strips), but works outside of society's system.
LG? Pshah.

The problem with law and chaos is that both law and chaos have strong aspects to each that are not mutually exclusive with each other.

hmm... two "critical failures" in a row* on perception checks when it comes to understandng the point of citing rues that backup points you attempt to make. Who knows though... maybe you don't have the core rulebook or something

*Looks like Umbral Reaver squeezed in while I was typing ;)

I don't believe you need to go this far to show that alignment is far from perfect.
Really, I believe 99% of the people here know that you can't put an accurate alignment on everyone, my favorite person for that is the Punisher. Somehow quite similar to Dexter.

By the way, I would deem Dexter as LE, with a slight shift towards LN in the later show (I believe we are talking about the TV show, not the books, right?).
He punishes by a strict set of rules, he doesn' really care (at the beginning) what others think, or what harm he might do to the innocents.
To be more exact it would be like a NE person following LN rules by the book. Dexter just has the urge to kill, not much more, and his Father gave him a code that should keep him away from the electrich chair, and should find an outlet that was to him (father LN or LG) acceptable.

hmm... two "critical failures" in a row* on perception checks when it comes to understandng the point of citing rues that backup points you attempt to make. Who knows though... maybe you don't have the core rulebook or something

** spoiler omitted **There is no mention of a criminal code in there.... Thank you for proving my point about the use of he word Law rather than some other word like order or something.
I will assume you were both playing devil's advocate and will back up future posts with the wording of a rule to support your argument, or will be simply admitting the rule you are contradicting is poorly worded in your opinion

Wow, I hope you're trying for humor there. Read straight it smacks rude and condescending. And while I should just move on, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm fascinated in exploring Dexter's alignment with you, so I was addressing your argument and its holes:
1. Using 'Code of Harry' to equate with Dexter's lawfulness. You brushed by Lawful as if a given, not nearly giving it the same treatment you did Good. I addressed noted (and commonly accepted as Chaotic) characters who had codes. Can't really find those in the rules, no more than you can Dexter.
If you mean I have to break down Robin Hood and Drizzt and prove they're CG line by line with examples before contrasting with Dexter... uh, no? Get real.
2. You addressed Dexter's actions rather than motives, and while he had some good motivations, most were personal or very, very evil. Other posters focused on this issue too, but you have yet to address the substance of their argument (maybe because they also didn't abide by your unfun ground rules), but you do instead attack the 'form' of my argument rather than the content? Really? Did you expect people posting for amusement/mental exercise to spend as much research time as you did on this?

Lastly, to quote your spoiler: Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties
Dexter lives a perpetual lie (Lawful-fail) and appoints himself the authority over the killers he kills (disrespecting the real authority)(Lawful-fail two).
Is that what you wanted? And if so, how does this support or defy your attack on the alignment system?

Oh, and a new point, it doesn't really matter how much good one does if one has a singularly evil trait. I like the example of the charitable doctor who donates all his time and energy to orphans, kittens, and whatever other sympathetic critters strike your fancy. Oh, except once a year, on his birthday, out of deep remorse for his existence depleting the earth of resources, he kills somebody at random.
He's evil.
It doesn't matter how many checkmarks you put alongside the rules for Good, that one checkmark outbalances them toward Evil.
Does this make the alignment system faulty?
If you need a codified, quantified game stat mechanism for organized play... except, who wants that? "I'm 5 pts. Good, and 3 pts. Lawful?"

I recognize that the smartest philosophers over the course of human history have written tomes that fail to satisfactorily answer these questions, so am happy at the much briefer guidelines Paizo mapped out in this murky field, trying to enrich their cosmology with a sense of greatness, a sense that Good matters, and Evil matters, and even Law & Chaos matter in this fantasy world where heroes quest and turn the tide of history.
So is it perfect? It can't be. (See philosopher comment.)
Is it necessary? Yes, because enough people like that flavor.
Is it intrinsic? No, take it out if it causes you to waste hours posting such thorough arguments against it then cause you to rebuke others for posting comments in unacceptable ways that deserve belittling. Move on.

Really.
Posting this because it made my brain happy.
To make heart happy, I may not return.

Normally I hate these alignment threads, but I love Dexter, so I'll play along. Spoilers to follow.

Also, I think it's important to note that characters from books, TV, and movies are very hard to pin down on alignment because they grow and develop over time, or in some cases between different authors/directors.

I'm ignoring the "Lawful Evil/Lawful Good" entries because it's clear these are describing archetypal characters. If you deviate from the archetype, they obviously won't apply that well. It even specifically starts off with "A lawful evil villain....", Dexter is not a villain. He's an anti-hero, they play by different rules.

Here's the meat of it:

TL;DR - You're focusing far to much on the relatively few exceptions in Dexter's behavior. Yes, Dex was going to spare Doakes, that was decent of him. Dex also beat a stranger to death with an anchor and felt good about it (saying to himself that it was the first human thing he'd done since Rita's death). Dexter kills for sport, he abducts and tortures people for fun, and he has very little respect for the sanctity of life or the dignity of sentient beings. These are the trademarks of an Evil character.

The problems in the alignment system are almost too extensive to be broken down.

I don't think I've ever played a character that is the epitome of any of the alignments as described in the book.

Yet, if you asked 9 different people what alignment they should be you wouldn't be unlikely to hear 9 different answers.

Then you get the DM who is unhappy with which of the 9 alignments you've chosen, by some of the posts on these forums in the various alignment threads, I think some DM's heads would explode after forcing an alignment change 10 times in the same session for the same character, even though I'm playing them consistently.

I tend to go neutral now for every character concept, regardless of their alignment as I would subjectively define it. It's my little protest to the entire alignment system.

The exception would be the Paladin I'm currently playing in one campaign (which is straight-jacketed by one alignment choice), which I'm playing by my own personal moral code rather than the one in the book, which absolutely contradicts what is written in the book under "lawful good", but is hard to define as anything but lawful good (example: Rather than "will never see evil go unpunished", he would rather use unbounded optimism that they will make better choices in the future if someone believes in them...etc.)

Basically, I've come to despise the alignment system.

SRD wrote:

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

I'd say that Dexter is lacing in respect for life since he has a history of killing small animals and for the most part isn't affected by feelings regarding death of others. He doesn't care about the innocent people he saves, nor the people he sees hurt. And dignity? I hope that doesn't even need defended.

Just because someone's viewed as a hero in terms of either the society that they're operating in, or in the perspective of a remote viewer, I don't think that that automatically qualifies them for any particular alignment. It seems to me that heroes often arise in or are at least recognised in the context of some conflict, and often during conflict moral and ethical lines get blurred, if not disappear altogether. I would say that winning the conflict is often viewed as the ultimate goal, and heroes are often recognised as such for being people who 'won' (whatever that might mean in terms of the conflict in which they operate) despite the odds being (at least on paper) stacked against them in some way. Heroism seems to me to be more about bravery or cunning or skill or loyalty or physical strength or capacity to endure in some combination (and possibly some other things too). However, unless a conflict is one of morals and/or ethics, the moral and ethical choices a person makes (or chooses not to make) doesn't have anything to do (as I can tell) about whether they're a hero or not.
I'm reminded of the story in the AD&D 'Hellbound' boxed set about the cambion who aspires to be a hero...

Edit:
I'm not sure why this thread (about a TV character) isn't down in the TV forum; maybe someone will move it though...

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point about the use of the word law causing bad interpretations of the law/chaos axis!

As to the good/evil axis, by strict reading of the alignment rules (helpfully included in my post that started the thread!), his murdering is a good act and motive is entirely irrelevant by the rules because he does not kill "innocent" people.
I assume you...

Mmmmm. I think you're (entertainingly) interpreting the portions of the rules you want to, which is natural.

To requote what I think is important.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.

There's clearly an ethical intent basis present in the Good/Evil section of the rulebook. Dexter's purpose in killing is satisfying his own itch. There's also the circular-logic problem. If murder makes you a non-innocent and thus unilaterally makes killing you a Good act, then killing Dexter would itself be a Good act. If context doesn't matter, that's a truth.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

In 2011 Western society has evolved what can be viewed as a universally accepted method of law enforcement. Vigilante-ism isn't accepted as a valid option though it is often glorified in fiction. Batman isn't Lawful; he's outside the law. Dexter - Good or Evil - also acts outside the law. He betrays the trust of his employer and the society he lives in by following his own laws, not theirs. His actions can be considered arbitrary and irresponsible because they do not conform to societal norms, are not therefore predictable to others, and he doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) have the ability to use the eyes, ears, and minds of others to confirm his personal judgements. Trial by jury or trial by Dexter?

The rules are a framework. Just as it's possible to deliberately interpret them such that a slime like Dexter comes off as LG, one can do the same to arrive at CE. That isn't because the rules are vague or inadequate but rather that human motivations and actions are complex to the point that modeling them in a game isn't practical. The two-axis system does admirably well as long as nobody's trying to break it by sanctifying Saint Dexter The Rigid Upholder of Law.

Alignment system, albeit a little complicated, is an interesting concept and is not supposed to relate to real life fully.

Alignment is fundamentally objective, not subjective.

Example: A Lawful Evil ruler might be considered benevolent by his subjects. He might even consider himself working for the cause of greater good and freedom but he is ultimately aligned to the forces of evil and law (or more precisely order like tetrasodium suggests).

Alignment is an abstraction of morality and ethics given substance.

This means that your characters are not supposed to be "epitomes" of alignments or be characterized by descriptive alignment texts. A Lawful Evil aligned character is not necessarily a tyrant or a villain (subjective concepts), just like a Chaotic Good character is not necessarily a freedom fighter (subjective once again). The confusion stems from alignment description blocks in role playing books which were traditionally presented poorly, as abstract concept are usually somewhat hard to explain.

According to what you have described as I am not really familiar with a Dexter as a character I would judge Dexter as Neutral Evil.

the easiest way is to just shove neutral in there. But i think a quote might sum my position up on alignment...

"People are not simple. They cannot be defined for easy reference in the manner of: 'the elves are a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel at poverty." -Sten, Dragon Age: Origins.

Dexter Morgan is Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies. He performs evil, heinous deeds against other sentient beings, but he specifically targets people who have committed evil deeds themselves. Using Evil means to accomplish Good ends is not only a classic trope, but it definitely mulls out to a Neutral alignment (though I also believe that if Dexter were in a D&D campaign, he'd have to stand trial for his evil deeds all the same before his makers). In this sense, he's something of a vigilante. To that end, you can definitely give Harry a Lawful Good alignment and Deborrah is probably a strong Neutral Good at the beginning of the series, with stronger and stronger Lawful tendencies as you go on.

This is, of course, assuming that you are talking about Dexter Morgan from the books; I haven't made it all the way through the television series, but the longer the show runs, the larger the gap between the two Dexters grows.

Anyway, part of the problem is that you appear to be assuming that all people always act within their alignment. They do not. I'd like to make my cast and point with this Order of the Stick comic.

Some of the worst roleplaying that I have ever seen is from people who play boring, one dimensional characters. Many aspects of the "game," most notably alignment and what deity one worships, have a tendency to stick players into the role of "my character is completely devoted to this idea, so this is what they HAVE to do." Real people RARELY stay completely focused on their moral ideas. People live in the moment and make mistakes, whether because they're angry, sad, depressed, happy, feeling guilty, etc.

Back to Dexter, Dexter certainly makes some out-of-alignment decisions, but that's because his author is a GOOD author. He knows how to portray people as realistic. Someone who just randomly ran around butchering people without any shreds of humanity is not a compelling character to read about. And besides, I like to think that one of the effects of Dexter's "human disguise" is that he is slowly becoming more and more like human. I think 'Dexter in the Dark' does a good job of displaying this, for example.

Note that you're omitting one of the strongest pointers on Dexter's alignment.
If he just found serial killers (and other criminals) and killed them then he might have a case not to be evil.
However when he finds them, drugs them, ties them down and tortures them to death then he's not exactly on the side of light...

The code in itself is not enough to make him lawful, it is the only thing keeping him more or less functioning in society. Yet he is very meticulous in what he does, law certainly seems closer than chaos.

Dexter is mostly devoid of compassion and morality, he embraces is evil ways and relishes the taking of life even though his killing is not a random act of savagery.

NE or LE would fit nicely, Dexter might be an evil sociopath and serial killer but he is in fact a fairly nice guy, evil characters are rarely plain evil and repulsive persons and one reason why paladins can't just kill every person that detects evil. Rather than call him neutral I will settle for Interesting Evil.

I think this is pointless overcomplicating. I'd say Dexter is mostly lawful evil, but also crazy.

Another thing, Alignments isn't that important imo. Just choose one and play the character as you want too.

You had me until you said Dexter was Lawful. Seriously, he's a serial killer. Whether he's evil is subject to debate; whether he's lawful is certainly not. Dexter obeys the law when it suits him, and doesn't when it doesn't. This is the definition of neutral on that axis.

What I find to be the case about alignment in general is that most people (including developers) do not really understand the system. There is nothing wrong with the system. What is flawed is people's black & white ideas about what each step in the system constitutes, and what it takes to get there.

The system is built on one axis of your personal morals. This is the good/neutral/evil axis. What people seriously don't get about this axis, as the forums attest, is WHAT IS EVIL? There is rampant foolishness that killing the wrong person once, or engaging once with anything to do with undead, or casting a bad spell once, makes you evil. This is simply ridiculous. This is tantamount to saying, "Making a mistake makes you evil." Ever read A Wrinkle in Time? Is Charles Wallace evil? Certainly not.

Think about the people in history who are really, truly evil. Got a few? Now compare them to the average inmate on death row. Kill one guy, get on death row. Kill dozens of people in horribly brutal, disgusting ways, end up on death row. The guy who shot a shopkeeper during a robbery is messed up. Ted Bundy is evil.

When people say "My character is evil" or "This guy is evil" they should mean "This guy is so freaking scary, you don't even need detect evil to tell from a mile away that he would just as soon eat you as look at you." Instead, people mean "My character doesn't have much concern for good vs evil." This is the definition of a neutral character.

On the other axis, we have people's respect for the social contract. The reason this axis is Law/Chaos instead of Order/chaos is because the axis reflects social agreement of behavior, not some abstract ideal. It has the liberty to say "chaos" rather than the more specific "lawlessness" because chaos by definition includes lawlessness. Order doesn't necessarily include Law, nor does it necessarily denote anything good.

Similarly to the evil example above, people have serious misunderstandings about what makes a person unlawful. Break the smallest law one time? Get stuck in a moral dilemma? Sorry Pally, here's your pink slip. Come back when you've atoned. It shouldn't work like that. Lawfulness needs to be seen as almost always doing the lawful thing. If the kids from Harry Potter had the paladin mentality, they would have failed. If the government is taken over by corruption and laws become unjust, "lawfulness" cannot simply fall in line. A Paladin doesn't need to follow in the footsteps of Socrates and drink their kool-aid. There must be a measure of morality worked into the Lawful alignment--an alignment loophole, if you will, a perfect example of legality--that allows you to defer to morality in instances of legal/moral dilemmas, without costing you your alignment. It is "Lawful Good" for a reason, and people need to realize that the law requires constant adjudication.

As an example, it's illegal to speed, but if a cop pulls you over for speeding and discovers your wife is in labor, he will give you an escort rather than a ticket. Too many people have the mentality that the Paladin in such circumstances would get the ticket. Was Martin Luther King Jr. a perfectly lawful person? No, he frequently engaged in civil disobedience. But was he a Paladin? Absolutely.

The solution to the problem is, people need to curb their desire to take things away from, or try to "stick it to," lawful and good characters. As discussed in another recent thread, it is incredibly difficult for an evil character to become good; the converse should also be true.

I think you are looking to closely at the alignment system. It is not intended to be a straight jacket. It's just a roleplaying aid. I've never had any problems with it. I don't think anyone is every truly 100% any alignment, but your general actions and intentions will be within some alignment boundaries. I think the earlier editions of D&D did a better job of explaining alignment as a roleplaying tool rather than a roleplaying limitation.

Then you get the DM who is unhappy with which of the 9 alignments you've chosen, by some of the posts on these forums in the various alignment threads, I think some DM's heads would explode after forcing an alignment change 10 times in the same session for the same character, even though I'm playing them consistently.

Which at that point strongly suggests something in a Neutral categories. Possbly even true neutral. If you keep bouncing between Good acts and Evil acts the character should settle out at Neutral. If you keep bouncing between breaking the law/order and upholding it, again Neutral.

This is what Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Lawful Neutral are for. Let's not forget True Neutral. I feel these get overlooked way to often in "alignment" debates.

For me personally I still like the Neverwinter Nights point ratings. 1-100.
1-32 is Evil
33-66 is Neutral
67-100 is Good

Same on Law/Chaos. While I don't advocate putting it in the game as a "this is the rules" and "actions have alignment points". It does help to highlight that you can have some wiggle room.

The answer is to smash alignment.

.

There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

The answer is to smash alignment.

.

Spoken like a true chaotic PC :)

There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

Smash alignment or remove the mechanical enforcement.

Fozbek wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

There's no benefit to prices on gear, either. Just smash it or remove the mechanical enforcement!

I can appreciate that OP likes Dexter so wants to see the best in him, but the guy only follows the Code so he can fit in, and his struggle is mostly about not wanting to fit in.

Bald face lies to friends, family, 'loved ones', coworkers, killing people through dishonorable means (he ambushes them with drugs, then they wake up in a kill room, frequent (especially in later seasons) abuses of the 'Code of Harry,' including beating a random man to death because he was angry.

If he was a paladin, he would have fallen before his tv show started.

Yes, the alignment system is flawed. Mostly because, I believe, as the game has become more widespread it has gone beyond 'Go deeper into this dungeon.' So things are more complicated than 'killing evil is good, killing good is evil.'

And maybe it should be updated, but until something comes out that can satisfy everyone as to 'What is evil.' (ha) while also maintaining the Fantasy aspects of Good vs Evil, I think the current system is pretty easy to follow in terms of what is most likely to occur in the game.

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

Strongly disagree.

The system has serious benefit; everything from smite evil through protection from law can only exist while there's such a system. Just because a few people play devil's advocate (literally) and make an argument for nonsensical alignments on real-life or TV figures doesn't change that in-game the system works remarkably well. It's only when we drag it off of the gaming table that things really fall apart.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

There's no benefit to prices on gear, either. Just smash it or remove the mechanical enforcement!

Sure there is, it helps determine wealth by level, it helps determine crafting times. It allows you to subtract gold from your PC's character sheets. Those things make the game easier to run.

While alignment has mechanical bits to it, I'm not really sure they actually enhance, or make the game easier to run. I mean when summoning celestial creatures to slay orphans is actually ever so slightly less evil than summoning demons to do the same thanks to the mechanics, then you kind of have to wonder.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

Strongly disagree.

The system has serious benefit; everything from smite evil through protection from law can only exist while there's such a system. Just because a few people play devil's advocate (literally) and make an argument for nonsensical alignments on real-life or TV figures doesn't change that in-game the system works remarkably well. It's only when we drag it off of the gaming table that things really fall apart.

You could limit those spells and abilities to supernatural incarnations of alignment and the game would work much smoother IMHO.

You could limit those spells and abilities to supernatural incarnations of alignment and the game would work much smoother IMHO.

How does it work roughly now, except in absurd, never-actually-get-used corner cases?

Strongly disagree.

The system has serious benefit; everything from smite evil through protection from law can only exist while there's such a system.

That stuff is dumb though, you're just making my argument for me.

Seriously read up on paladin myth. They aren't all lawful good all the time. Mechanically enforced alignment is constricting more then anything else - it kills potentially amazing character ideas and great plot hooks.

Evil. He enjoys hurting and killing people. He isn't interested in saving innocents or helping people... he kills because he LIKES to. He NEEDS to... His entire motivation is selfish.

Personally I put him at 'NE'. 90% of the time, he lets the legal system do it's work. If the cops get someone, He's happy for them and lets them go... If the law does NOT get them... then he takes the law into his own hands.

There have been a few exeptions when he broke his 'code'... but that's always been what the code was. 1) make sure they're guilty... 2) don't get caught. 3) Only get the ones that the cops can't/don't.