Wow lots of posts while I was out today. Yes the crit failure comment was an attempt at humor , I was worried about the thread heading over a xcliff with folks trying to claim things that imply the wording could use improvements while claiming that it did not. Admittedly though, I may have been a bit overly blunt in expressing that fear.
A number of folks have argued that he's a freaking serial killer who kills for pleasure & must be evil as a result... While I agree, it would be nice if the alignment rules made a larger issue out of intent, they pretty much gloss over it entirely beyond a couple specific words that are types of intent (leading to needless cross table arguments). A simple statement that intent is often the most important factor in judging where a given deed falls on the spectrum with a couple examples like giving a merciful & quick death to even a "saintly" person dieing a long and painful death with no hope of survival if done out of mercy rather than pleasure of malice... or things like burning down a village to help stop the spread of a plague.
As to the idea that "evil" people need to be freaking scary things to be evil.. it's not the case, there are plenty of potential archtypes that fit into it (especially LE) without being scary lunatics as described. A merchant that regularly does things like marks up the price on cure disease potions or food to extreme amounts as a plague/famine strikes could easily be classified as LE while still being a rather normal person in his day to day life.
If dexter is evil simply by virtue of the fact that he kills people, then his victims (who have all done the same) are also evil and killing them is a good action regardless of the reasons because intent/the reason behind it isn't even rated high enough to warrant a mention in the alignment section of the rules :(
It's also disappointing that the evil alignments clearly describe villains, while the good/neutral ones don't even acknowledge the possibility such as 3.5's detect evil>smite evil pelorian stormtrooper paladins (Or the golarian equivalent I haven't yet seen in attempted personally). It is an extreme simply not supported by the structure of LE societies like Cheliax that would destroy themselves if it were the case. Examples of more average Good/Evil types in the alignments rather (or in addition) than the extreme hero/villain types described would go a long way towards preemptively quelling those cross table arguments and potentially help avoid some of the lame "I just make all my characters neutral and ignore it" copouts by allowing alignment to truly be a more enjoyable addition to the game rather than the frequent annoyance & sticking point of confusion it often proves itself to be.
I'm kind of surprised at how many people jumped on the totally unjustified "he's lawful" point and filled with glee at the prospect of the entertainment this thread can bring. Since someone else mentioned enjoyment... Yes that was the intention of this thread, if it can help someone or lead to good things later, even better!
More than one person jumped on the fact that he ignores the local criminal code in favor of the Code of Harry and proved my point about the decision to use the actual word "Law" rather than some other similar word being a bad thing. If that logic were allowed to stand to the letter, it would cause serious problems for paladins in situations like those mentioned about Harry Potter's gang.. or simply almost any paladin visiting Cheliax given the wording of the Lawful Evil alignment, even if they are trying to improve things. Local Law says LE stuff and the logic presented would mean ignoring some or all of that law in favor of a code of his choosing> Paladin-Pink slip time!
"All my stuff is here and it would be damned inconvenient if someone were to wreck society by going too far in any direction" is a perfect reason for why evil types would not be interested in simple destruction or aim for preservation, LE easpecially. CE as written is just horrible because it basically describes an inept villain like Skeletor who is in it "for the Lulz" with no real reasons for doing so beyond "because"
Arguments against Dex's LE nature have to take into account the effect they would have on paladins in similar but different situations, or they are self defeating.
A couple people mentioned the neutral alignments and gave reasons for them being a good fit.. but the neutral alignments are poorly described and focus on maintaining balance rather than simply admitting they are an in-between spot in the middle of good/evil and law/chaos.
@Atavist I don't care about where Dexter fits in, He is simply a person who does all the "right" things (By RAW) for all the wrong reasons and makes a good example for debating the wording flaws. His higher familiarity in the general public than the punisher (I've only seen the movies myself & he didn't really develop enough in them compared to 5?+ seasons of the popular Dexter series), makes him a better choice for me. Sometimes Batman could be an example, but usually those sections are trying to show him as a monster lost to obsession rather than a monster trying for normalcy like Dexter. Yes he would have fallen before the show started hen he was gunning for animals & such, but I've not seen too many paladins that young still living at home either ;) The code of harry was embraced by him before he grew up and "picked a class". Simply updating it to account for things like intent, acknowledge the problems caused by the word Choice of Law to represent order, and show more average types in the alignments rather than the extreme ones they paint would wipe away a huge number of cross table debates without having to use the hairsplitting "not a straightjacket" can of worms that often causes people to try and "stick it to" anyone who is unlucky enough to have put LG on their sheet.
Dexter's sanity (or lack of) is specifically called out as something that doesn'y matter in the alignment rules where it says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice" in the Good/Evil section. I presume the law/chaos section has similar but lack access to the book/PDF right now, the nonchoice for Law/Chaos seems more applicable to someone like The Joker than Dexter though. It wasn't his "damaged" nature that led to him following The Code of Harry once that nature caused it to be introduced
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.
I agree with the Professor. Spells like those mentioned would be better off as just a generic grants these effects against opponents who are in opposition to a concept the caster ascribes to and chooses at the time of casting while the affected subject is working towards/against that concept. *Poof* The LE clerics in Cheliax can protect others against other LE types gone too far, just as the LG ones in most anywhere else can do the same against doogooders that are going too far wen helping the enemy of my enemy. In fact it's even better by allowing it to be both more and less inclusive by allowing individuals with a common enemy to assist each other against that enemy. The nearby goblin(or whatever) tribe with a food stockpile can visit the nearby famished village to trade some of it for things they need more than hearty & nutritious cave moss.
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.
None of the things you (or Fozbek) state are important to the alignment system as worded, intent is not mentioned outside of a few specific words that are types of intent for a few specific deeds. The only one of those words is the bit about willing to make/risk self sacrifice for innocents, which he does for Doaks & Libby. The alignment system pretty much ignores the importance of intent. He doesn't really hurt them either given the quick death he commonly gives with a single blow/strike.Just about every battle in PF that lasts for more than one round hurts the losers more than Dexter.
Edit for Fozbeks post: The alignment section for good/Evil's axis only cares about harming/protecting innocent life for both good and evil in it's first point. Life that is not innocent are as irrelevant as his non-innocent victims.
Spells like those mentioned would be better off as just a generic grants these effects against opponents who are in opposition to a concept the caster ascribes to and chooses at the time of casting while the affected subject is working towards/against that concept. *Poof* The LE clerics in Cheliax can protect others against other LE types gone too far, just as the LG ones in most anywhere else can do the same against doogooders that are going too far wen helping the enemy of my enemy. In fact it's even better by allowing it to be both more and less inclusive by allowing individuals with a common enemy to assist each other against that enemy. The nearby goblin(or whatever) tribe with a food stockpile can visit the nearby famished village to trade some of it for things they need more than hearty & nutritious cave moss.This would dramatically increase the power level of alignment-based spells and effects. If Paladins could "smite opponent" rather than "smite evil", they'd be the most brokenly overpowered class ever.
And there's nothing preventing goblins from trading with human villages aside from the fact that they're a race of cowardly psychopaths who generally prefer to murder and steal rather than trade or buy.
They could only do so to opponents in opposition to a concept they themselves ascribe to. Someone could be the most horrible monster on any plane of existance and would be completely immune to a paladin while they are simply out doing some shopping for stuff not in opposition to one of the things the paladin themself is not opposed to. Kinda puts a crimp in that lame detect evil>smite evil action when the evil is just doing something to protect his stuff from the real big bad the paladin is ubaware of. In short it only makes them hugely better if your "opponents are two dimensional cartoons.
GM: Ok you hit him with your smite against [concept]... and.... nothing happens, infact your sword passes through them quite harmlessly and he starts running while yelling out how you don't understand and need to hear the things you don't knowPlayer: Hmm... *scratch chin* Interrrresting.... I chase after and call back explaining how "I'm willing to listen..."
Plus there is a lot of mindless stuff and things that players might facoff against that simply wants to be left alone to do its thing in peace that smite evil type spells/abilities already work against. But Get real, you don't often see Paladins facing off against good or neutral opponents that are not also mindless
Intent is irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. As Tolkien said in the Silmarillion, all evil deeds will ultimately work to the good, yet still be evil.
Truly evil people are the kind of people dogs bark at hysterically for no apparent reason. This merchant you describe, while being opportunistic and mean-spirited, is not evil. He is LN. If he was mixing razor bits or poison into the medicine, then you could call him evil.
The Code of Harry is not Law. It's just the best Dexter can do. This doesn't make him a Paladin, unless it's an anti-paladin. Which would make a lot of sense, since he's an anti-hero. Fox Mulder called evil a disease that creeps in when your "immune" system is weakened by tragedy. Part of the appeal of Dexter is wondering which way he'll turn. He's clearly infected with evil, but it hasn't overtaken him. He has it in check, in a way, because of the code. That's why he was given the code, and that's why he follows it, so he won't succumb to evil.
The local laws of Cheliax don't apply to Paladins who have sworn an oath to uphold Law. They didn't swear fealty to Cheliax. While they have some obligation to not go around deliberately breaking local laws, under the circumstances their obligations favor morality to law. Paladins, being the "Judge" archetype (proper definition of archetype), should have more leeway to adjudicate whether following Law or following Good is best under the circumstances, without getting their pink slip.
For the record, I would place Dexter in the True Neutral alignment. He follows Law when it suits him, and ignores it when it doesn't. He tries to be generally decent, is capable of doing good, yet is a secret serial killer. He's a vigilante who thinks he's "taking out the trash" the law missed. He takes both the Law and morality into his own hands, holding his judgment above both, justifying his addiction with the Code of Harry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Gosh, reading this makes me think Dexter=evil. He does not have respect for life. He is not altruistic. Not really concerned about dignity for sentient beings.
Hurting, oppressing and killing others. No compassion and kill without qualms when convenient. Hmmm, seems like ol' Dex to a tee. Killing for sport. I guess that would be for personal enjoyment. He kills because it gives him pleasure. He started with animals..but quickly became bored with that as he grew up and dreamt of killing people. yep. Evil. The whole torturing them and slicing them up while alive...not really compasionate.
Oh wait, they are serial killers. Yup, Evil torturing Evil to death does not equate to Good. At least to most people. Now if he were a quick death kind of guy...I could see a stronger element.
Interesting that Dex refers to himself quite often as a monster. He knows he is evil. He just doesn't wanna die. He likes killing too much.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Dex doesn't really hate to see the guilty go unpunished. He sees it as an opportunity to feed his obsession (torturing, killing, and dismembering). Telling the truth? Com'on, his whole life is lies. Oppose evil? Heck no, he looked upon his brother as inspired. And often he seeks to expand the CODE to kill a greater group. Nor does he seem to upset by the killing outside of his code of harry.
Nah, Dexter is great show, with a really twisted way of making us look at our values. But Dex is EVIL. He may benefit society...but so would a person killing off the elderly and infirm during a famine situation.
Evil.
Greg
Anyone who's ever had an argument about alignment needs to read this.
If you aren't familiar with Kantian Ethics, or other modern ethical philosophies, I highly recommend doing some personal research or taking an ethics course at any college. Pretty awesome stuff, especially when you think of it from a fantasy-world perspective.
Dexter's sanity (or lack of) is specifically called out as something that doesn'y matter in the alignment rules where it says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice" in the Good/Evil section. I presume the law/chaos section has similar but lack access to the book/PDF right now, the nonchoice for Law/Chaos seems more applicable to someone like The Joker than Dexter though. It wasn't his "damaged" nature that led to him following The Code of Harry once that nature caused it to be introduced
Except it very well might as I pointed out on the first page of this thread. If his condition renders him incapable of understanding right and wrong, if it renders him incapable of moral action, then the rules in fact do specifically call that out as making him neutral. He's not making the conscious desicion to be good, he's making the decision to follow a set of rules that have been handing to him, it's just that in following those rules he takes on the appearance of moral action, the appearance of choosing to do good. But he's not, he's choosing to follow the rules that were handed to him.
The best solution that I've heard that compensates between the two is to drop alignment as it is. Only Paladins, Clerics, Undead and Aligned Outsiders have alignment. You can call it Good and Evil (I prefer to call it Divinity and Taint). Paladins and Clerics follow the tenets set by their god.
I don't believe true alignment can fit into the 2 axis grid presented. Although the designers try to remind the players and GMs that alignment should not be a straight jacket and is supposed to be a tool to aid roleplay, it often fails to fulfill its intended purpose. Many bind their character into a perceived preset or instead use alignment as an excuse for their disruptive actions. When a GM tells a player to not play an evil character, the alignment grid is irrelevant to how the the player actually plays. Some GMs disallow "Evil" because it they think it will prevent the players from arguing, but it doesn't always, especially when people have differing views about the alignment of other party members. Players who want to cause problems will do it regardless of what alignments are available. The players who respect the game and the DM will act accordingly whether or not they have to put an alignment on their sheet; the players who don't will act out regardless of what alignment is on their sheet. I've seen players claiming to play "Good" characters set fire to public buildings. I've seen "Neutral" characters who do evil acts to balance out all the good they've done. :/ The truth is that Good and Evil are subjective unless you can somehow prove what is good and what is evil, or at the very least get everyone to agree with you on what's good and evil.
Anyone who's ever had an argument about alignment needs to read this.
If you aren't familiar with Kantian Ethics, or other modern ethical philosophies, I highly recommend doing some personal research or taking an ethics course at any college. Pretty awesome stuff, especially when you think of it from a fantasy-world perspective.
I like that article.
It's important to note that while that's an awesome alternate alignment system, it is not compatible with the alignments as written in the core book.
None of the things you (or Fozbek) state are important to the alignment system as worded, intent is not mentioned outside of a few specific words that are types of intent for a few specific deeds. The only one of those words is the bit about willing to make/risk self sacrifice for innocents, which he does for Doaks & Libby. The alignment system pretty much ignores the importance of intent. He doesn't really hurt them either given the quick death he commonly gives with a single blow/strike.Just about every battle in PF that lasts for more than one round hurts the losers more than Dexter.
Everything I was going to write...
I'm curious about your comment " intent is not mentioned outside of a few specific words that are types of intent for a few specific deeds. "
as the the pfrsd20 says...
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.
No compassion... killing for sport.
YES, the Alignment rules have very limited comments about motivation and intent. However the few they DO have... fit the situation to a T.
Honestly, the 'lawful/neutral/chaotic' I can almost see some debate on that... but when people try to attribute serial killers who lust for the thrill of the kill as 'Good or Neutral'.... then Seriously, there's something very wrong.
People should stop trying to re-invent the alignment system. It's NOT that complicated.
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.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
There isn't NEARLY as much gray area as people want there to be. Good = Good... Evil = Evil.
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.
I think this is oversimplifying Dexter. He has also shown to be capable of compassion for others: his wife, his children, his coworkers, a woman who was victimized that he goes to great personal risk to help, among others. He also only kills those who are murderers themselves, and though he has made a couple of mistakes, they were accidental misjudgments, not deliberate killing of people he knew at the time to be innocent. Dexter walks a fine line, fully aware of his "dark passenger" and always struggling to balance it against the greater good (at least as he sees it). For these reasons, I would put him at N on the good-evil axis.
As for the law-chaos axis, Dexter takes the law into his own hands, which is, by definition, chaotic behavior. He does, however, follow a rigid personal code, which is a lawful mentality. So I would put him at N on the law-chaos axis as well, making his total alignment true neutral.
I think this is oversimplifying Dexter. He has also shown to be capable of compassion for others: his wife, his children, his coworkers, a woman who was victimized that he goes to great personal risk to help, among others. He also only kills those who are murderers themselves, and though he has made a couple of mistakes, they were accidental
Another example was when he Let the rape victim that killed his rapist go when he found out that last bit of the story just as he was about to drug the kid. I Seem to remember a beaten wife that killed her abusive husband or something as well, but not sure on that one.
He definitely shows compassion from time to time and has no trouble knowing the difference from good & evil. He simply makes the choice to kill murderers in order to fill the void in his heart with the catharsis it grants. His "damaged" nature does not loophole him out as mindless or animal. :)
His "damaged" nature does not loophole him out as mindless or animal. :)
Absolutely not. He is more of the Intelligent Monster archtype.
Greg
Lawful Evil feels like the right alignment to me.
No man is as bad as his worst day, but when you're a serial murderer (even if you have a code that focuses you on evil targets) who kills more for his own pleasure/fix than any other reason, you have enough "bad" days to live comfortably in evil country.
It's also seemed to me that in the event that Dexter went long enough without a "righteous kill" fix, eventually he'd kill someone else because he needs to kill. That ain't good.
Not every evil character is or should be a cartoon villian. They're people with somewhat understandable motives and choices that, nonetheless, for one of a few reasons can't fairly qualify as good or even neutral.
~well said stuff~
What the DM dun said.
Greg
Lawful Evil feels like the right alignment to me.
No man is as bad as his worst day, but when you're a serial murderer (even if you have a code that focuses you on evil targets) who kills more for his own pleasure/fix than any other reason, you have enough "bad" days to live comfortably in evil country.
It's also seemed to me that in the event that Dexter went long enough without a "righteous kill" fix, eventually he'd kill someone else because he needs to kill. That ain't good.
Not every evil character is or should be a cartoon villian. They're people with somewhat understandable motives and choices that, nonetheless, for one of a few reasons can't fairly qualify as good or even neutral.
Players don't get to level 2+ without killing anything very often unless the game starts at level 2+ to begin with. If you ignore the "innocent" bit in the good/evil section of the alignment rules and simplify it to simply killing people, no matter who is evil, you will generate a lot of undeservingly fallen paladins in the process
]
Players don't get to level 2+ without killing anything very often unless the game starts at level 2+ to begin with. If you ignore the "innocent" bit in the good/evil section of the alignment rules and simplify it to simply killing people, no matter who is evil, you will generate a lot of undeservingly fallen paladins in the process
I just stress greater emphasis on the compasion part. Just because it is killed...doesn't mean you start off by putting it to sleep, tying it down to a table, removing its ability to speak,waking it, begin slicing it to pieces slowly while filling your emotional void with happiness over this process.
Greg
Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it’s merely a two-letter description, while for others it’s a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters, and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game.
Alignment exists primarily to define and summarize the moral and ethical tendencies of characters in a game, for both PCs and NPCs, and finds its roots in the fantasy literature that inspires most roleplaying games. Many characters in such stories easily fall into the camps of good or evil, but others straddle the line and seem good in one instance and evil in the next. Additionally, the relationship and outlook of these characters toward matters of law, justice, freedom, and anarchy further divides them. Just as one character might ignore society’s rules in order to do what he knows is right, another might work great evil by manipulating laws to his own ends. Alignment interpretations are endless, and ultimately lie with you as the GM at a mechanical standpoint, and with your players in how they define their characters’ morality. Some gamers favor strict alignments and black-and-white judgments, while others prefer a gritty, “realistic” game in which morality is relative, and well-intentioned “good” characters are capable of terrible atrocities.
Many of the debates spawned by alignment arise as the system moves beyond mere description to taking on a role that affects the game’s rules. While no real-world humans can say they’re entirely good or law-abiding, there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and some magic depends on judging a character by its alignment. Because game effects are associated with an ultimately subjective system, you should make sure your players understand your interpretation of alignment ahead of time. The following are a few ways you might handle alignment in your game or use it to help players develop their characters.
< From the Gamemaster Guide.
Also, the Pathfinder SRD is open and available to all at http://www.d20pfsrd.com
To the OP:
You make the same mistake as many others, you assume that killing in D&D/Pathfinder is automatically evil, which is really not (or every adventurer would be evil).
So "real-world" (as in modern world) comparisons do not work because in the modern world killing is strongly connected to evil, even if the victims were "evil" themselves.
If you see Dexter as a Sword swinging Fighter cutting down evil members of the local Assassins Guild left and right - indeed Dexter could be LG.
To the OP:
You make the same mistake as many others, you assume that killing in D&D/Pathfinder is automatically evil, which is really not (or every adventurer would be evil).
So "real-world" (as in modern world) comparisons do not work because in the modern world killing is strongly connected to evil, even if the victims were "evil" themselves.
If you see Dexter as a Sword swinging Fighter cutting down evil members of the local Assassins Guild left and right - indeed Dexter could be LG.
Thank you.. But Yes... I've been pointing out making it evil would result in hoards of evil PC's and nearly every paladin falling in the process of getting to level 2+ problem. According to the letter of the rules, it is only evil (or good) when done to innocent life and avoids the problem of fallen level 2+ paladins as a result :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yay.
Another Moral Absolutism vs Moral Relativism thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few underlying misconceptions that give us these threads:
* Everyone who follows any sort of code is automatically Lawful, everyone else does precisely anything they feel like, all the time.
* If you kill something Evil, you are Good, if you kill something Good, you are Evil.
* Morality must be relative to the culture and situation you're in to be relevant.
None of these apply. Law (with a capital L) means focusing on things like security, duty, honour, truth, justice and protection of the weak. Laws that do not do this are not Lawful. A law that makes it illegal to feed children of a minority, for example, is not Lawful, nor is a law that makes the police act as judge, jury and headsman. When faced with a deteriorating society, where the laws themselves are used to breed insecurity, lies and injustice, Lawful people are the ones who rebel first against the laws.
Killing is not a Good act. Given the situation, it can be more or less excused, however. In self-defense, there will be no blot on your soul. If not killing would mean lethal danger for you or others, it's generally okay, but still not Good. As was brought up earlier: A demon lord who kills another demon lord doesn't suddenly become Good because of it. I believe it comes down to the motivation. Good kills to protect and defend. Evil kills to further ambition and reach goals, or for its own sake.
Morality is commonly thought of as relative these days, because it's hard to stand up and criticise other cultures. It's just that morality in D&D/Pathfinder is entirely objective. There are actions that are Good, and there are actions that are Evil. If you do those actions, your alignment takes note. If you're a paladin or the like, you measure up, or you fall. You do not torture people, whatever the possible gain. You do not kill innocents, no matter what. You keep to your ideals and are fully prepared to fight, suffer, and die if that is necessary. It's not a question of "the greatest good for the greatest number" or anything otherwise close to utilitarianism: It's how you act in every single situation. The hard part comes when the law says one thing, and the principle of Good says another. In such a situation, it's often all you can do to either fight the law (because it has become unjust and no longer Lawful), or fall.
As for Dexter: He is utterly, purely, unrepentantly Evil. He could have gotten off this by killing scum to protect others from them, but he doesn't. He kills because he enjoys it, and they are the least missed. He is also clearly Chaotic. The code of Harry is a PERSONAL code of honour, and he willingly and knowingly disregards the law when it suits him. It's not even an unjust law, it's the law about how murdering people is forbidden.
There is one more argument here that must be met:
"But he's nice to his kids/wife/coworkers!" Certainly. Just because you're Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you torture your own kids or kill anyone who looks at you. If it did, a similar caricature of Lawful characters would mean that they always HAD to follow every law there is, even if it meant to stop breathing, to be Lawful.
So: Use the alignment system without pushing one or more alignments into parody, and you will find it's a useful shorthand that can help you make sense of what a certain character would do in a certain situation. Demand utter compliance with your own coloured glasses, and you will always find it deeply flawed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is Dexter the new Batman?
|
This is one of those discussions that comes up so often and proves so divisive that I they not to sucked in, but I liked the OP's thesis so much I wanted to chime in anyway.
Alignment is tricky specifically because it has a role in character development AND the mechanics of the game. I'm sure I'm not the only DM who sometimes changes NPC alignment on the fly to something that better matches expectations, especially with Evil-by-Statblock creatures like Kobolds, who are evil mechanically but behave much as Lizardfolk(for whom eating sentient races is not evil if they have a pretext).
The way I reconcile the mechanics of alignment with character development is to consider alignment an average of one's actions over time, with certain acts overwhelmingly evil and others altruistic and good. Honorable and whimsical acts, I tend to slip I to Law/Chaos, but those are more deeply ingrained. Someone living by a certain code sometimes abandons it, but not usually. In this way, I still allow for acts of compassion when an evil character is borderline, and not every good PC who decides to be vindictive and merciless starts edging toward evil. Others may be more strict, but I'm a big believer in letting the characters define themselves, rather than their alignments.
My personal take on Dexter Morgan: Lawful Neutral. Mileage may vary, and at times he almost seems Neutral Good to me, by his behavior.
First of all, the premise of the show is to explore moral grey area. This is NOT the kind of character that alignment was ever meant to address.
Secondly, Dexter would be best represented by a Lawful Evil player-character. Just because he's a sympathetic character doesn't make him any less evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Reading/skimming through the thread, I think people find themselves hung up on the 'code of Harry' making him lawful.
My issue is a code != Lawful.
Take a (generic) serial killer. Normally, very Chaotic evil. Now lets say he doesn't kill redheads. Does this one exception to his random killing suddenly make him Lawful evil?
Or look at another group of fictional Miscreants, the Secret Six. They're all clearly evil, varying from Chaotic Evil (Ragdoll) to Lawful Evil (Bane) and maybe trying to get to neutrality (Catman*, Black Alice)
(That they're all frakked up is what makes them an enjoyable read, but that's a different story)
The RPG says the following about Lawfulness.
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.
Now, the closest I see of Dexter in that is 'reactionary adherence to tradition (Harry's code).
Honor? No, as others have pointed out, he lies, cheats, steals and kills.
Obedience to Authority? Nope, he takes 'justice' into his own hands, ignoring the results of society (right or wrong)
Reliability? Again, no.
On the negative traits, Dexter is adaptable, I don't see him as self-righteous (he admits that what he's doing is wrong, not that he's better than everyone else).
Even most of the RL organizations pegged as Lawful Evil are organizations that have their own hiearchy of rules and punishments for breaking those rules, from the Mafia to the IRA to the Nazi party. Someone who belongs to and follows the rules would be Lawful.
Now that's not to say that Evil can't find meaningful lasting relationships.**
Reflections on my past evil characters:
I also had a NE Tiefling, whose name I can't remember because I got to play her so briefly. She 'defaulted' to Neutral evil because of her childhood. Abused and bullied, she took power as a matter of self defense and didn't let anyone close. However in one campaign she spared a band of Kobold women and children, because she had a soft spot for children. The experiment was to see if I could play a character designed to become good because of the actions of the good members in the party. The experiment failed, she drug everyone down to her level.
*
Later in the Cat's Craddle storyline, Deadshot also points out to the team that there were lines that Thomas hadn't crossed that the rest of them (excepting Black Alice) had several times before. He (correctly) predicted that Thomas would end up crossing those lines.
**
Alignments are not, nor need to be, mutually exclusive.
Good and Evil both can wake up in the morning and scratch their respective butts without it being evil or good.
Law and Chaos both can wake up in the morning and scratch their respective butts without it being lawful or chaotic.
The trap is in thinking that everything has to fit into an alignment, when in fact it fits multiple.
To pick an alignment, the difference is in the pattern of either (a) behavior, or (b)intent. DM's call on that, really.
If it's behavior, then a perverted psychopathic anarchist can be LG by just submitting (out of fear, for example) to the standards of a LG society.
If it's intent, then a paladin can be fooled by an illusion and slaughter an orphanage, thinking them all demons, and still be acting LG.
Just remember - if you forcefeed a rabbi a porkchop, are they tainted?
Dexter can be...
LG - kills badguys, adheres to a code, helps the innocent
LN - adheres to a code
LE - adheres to a code, driven to kill, kills by victimizing and not just through combat
N - insane and a product of his insanity and contitioning; exempt from morality or ethics
CG - believes in doing what's right, but stomps all over conventions and laws to use his insanity for the sake of good
He doesn't HAVE to be one of those, but could be any one, depending on the DM and the gaming table.
|
|
There's no benefit to prices on gear, either. Just smash it or remove the mechanical enforcement!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.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.
but isn't crafting broken? and so not quite a benefit. isn't it more beneficial to allow PCs to have the items they want/need and be done with it?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If it's behavior, then a perverted psychopathic anarchist can be LG by just submitting (out of fear, for example) to the standards of a LG society.
If it's intent, then a paladin can be fooled by an illusion and slaughter an orphanage, thinking them all demons, and still be acting LG.
Just remember - if you forcefeed a rabbi a porkchop, are they tainted?
Actually, in the Rabbi's case, yes. IIRC
I think this is oversimplifying Dexter. He has also shown to be capable of compassion for others: his wife, his children, his coworkers, a woman who was victimized that he goes to great personal risk to help, among others. He also only kills those who are murderers themselves, and though he has made a couple of mistakes, they were accidental misjudgments, not deliberate killing of people he knew at the time to be innocent. Dexter walks a fine line, fully aware of his "dark passenger" and always struggling to balance it against the greater good (at least as he sees it). For these reasons, I would put him at N on the good-evil axis.
I think this is oversimplifying Evil.
MOST of his 'compassion' is an act to try to look 'normal'. That's what most of his relationship with Rita was... He even admitted that 'Husband and Father of three... Sounds a lot better then, Loner and kept to himself..'
Personally I think that was one of the biggest flaws in the show/writing...They CONSTANTLY go on and on about how he has no emotions... completely detatched... But on outward appearance he USUALLY looked like he DID care... I'm not 100% sure wha tthe truth of the matter is.
Did dexter care more than he thought? or was Michael C Hall having trouble PLAYING true sociopath... I imagine it's one of the hardest things to truly act.
BUT REGARDLESS... Even if Dexter DOES love his kids and wife... that doesn't bump him to neutral. Joker has feelings for Harley, Skeletor has a soft spot for his pet Panthor... Being Evil doesn't mean that you eat children every single day...
Fact one. Dexter kills people for fun.
That makes him squarely in the evil catagory. Just because he chooses NOT to kick a girl scout as he crosses the street doesn't redeem him.
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.
And that's only early in the series. Later on he goes out of his way to falsify evidence and make sure the cops don't catch the suspect, just so he can get the kill rather than risk the legal system.
The problem with alignment is not the system itself, it's the players/GMs. Alignment is only meant as a shorthand description of a character, it's not meant as a straitjacket for defining each and every one of the characters actions.
Cookie cutter alignments are obviously not going to fit a complex character like Dexter. (Or most human beings in moments of stress for that matter.)
Arguments for his character could span all of the alignments. I'd actually call him CN because he doesn't follow societies rules (he plays by his own rulebook) but clearly will not harm innocents (the question is his intent, WHY he doesn't harm innocents, is it because he has a greater chance of getting caught?). Maybe he's even CG (kills to protect innocent) or CE (kills for pure enjoyment, his victims are only chosen for his own convenience), but I don't know his character well enough to comment further.
I think chaotic is a very misunderstood alignment, it's doesn't mean you do crazy random things, it just means you don't wish to fit into societies norms, you "make up your own mind" about things.
Anyway, I think alignment is a great way to quickly describe the general attitudes of an NPC, but terrible when you place each and every action under a microscope.
The problem with alignment is not the system itself, it's the players/GMs. Alignment is only meant as a shorthand description of a character, it's not meant as a straitjacket for defining each and every one of the characters actions.
This. Use alignment descriptively, not prescriptively. Keep open communication between the player and GM regarding what actions will imply which alignment. Do this and alignment causes fewer problems, and can even be a source of *gasp* fun!
Actually, in the Rabbi's case, yes. IIRCIf it's behavior, then a perverted psychopathic anarchist can be LG by just submitting (out of fear, for example) to the standards of a LG society.
If it's intent, then a paladin can be fooled by an illusion and slaughter an orphanage, thinking them all demons, and still be acting LG.
Just remember - if you forcefeed a rabbi a porkchop, are they tainted?
I planted that in there to (not so) discreetly make a case for behavior, and not intent, being what defines alignment.
This means that you can have the most evil mind in the world, fantasizing about the most vile and horrid things, but if you don't act on it, and instead play nice, you're a good guy.
Even if you try to do evil things, but the outcome is always helpful, you're doing good.
This also points to Paladin questions - if a Paladin screws up or is manipulated or tricked into doing evil, it's like forcefeeding a Rabbi a porkchop. Choice or not, intent or not, the taint is there. Devout characters (paladins, clerics, druids) can fall from grace by accident, trickery, enchantment or force. Good thing they all have strong Will, and likely have friends who can cast Atonement.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
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.
Then, wouldn't this add an element of Chaos to his alignment? If he's just killing to feel "whole" (read: better), then he's in essence, killing for no reason other than enjoyment. His Code of Harry just provides a justification for his behavior, and is not necessarily an honor code that he will never break.
I'm sorry, but I feel Dexter is closer to Neutral (with evil tendencies) than anything else. He has elements of Order to his life (Code of Harry), elements of Chaos (kills because it makes him feel whole, damn the consequences), elements of good (protects friends) and elements of Evil (kills people). Like most people/characters, Neutral seems to fit him the best. Unlike most people, it seems he will always give in to his base desires of murder, regardless of any other driving force, which lends to the Evil Tendencies label.
The problem with alignment is not the system itself, it's the players/GMs. Alignment is only meant as a shorthand description of a character, it's not meant as a straitjacket for defining each and every one of the characters actions.
Cookie cutter alignments are obviously not going to fit a complex character like Dexter. (Or most human beings in moments of stress for that matter.)
I disagree, this sort of rewording would be a heck of a lot cleaner & solve a heck of a lot of the problems resulting from people interpreting the system poorly
Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He likely cares about concepts such as tradition, loyalty, and order but not necessarily those like freedom, dignity, or life. He typically attempts to play by the rules but without mercy or compassion . He is comfortable in a hierarchy and may prefer to rule, but is willing to serve while it suits him. They often condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral or ethical grounds.
Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They may imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is lawful evil.
[u]Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good.[/u] Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character attempts to act and believe as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly as often as reasonable. She typically tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice when possible; But experiences things like remorse when they can not. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines concepts such as honor and compassion.
The two are virtually unchanged but include armor against hairsplitting by accounting for exceptions and simply allowing for more extreme interpretations rather than starting off in the extreme and allowing the unacknowledged less extreme examples to hairsplit themselves into properly fitting. that LG soundly rejects Dexter & most antiheroes while LE still allows for the extreme of more evil "villains" without painting a picture tailored specifically for them and neglecting the possibility of LE people that are simply people. the fact that characters like Roy Greenhilt are trying is suddenly "important" (as linked earlier). Even the forcefed Rabbi and tricked/dominated paladin are accounted for with a nonspecific problem. Not showing "enough" remorse for killing that cleric while tricked/dominated?> Pinkslip. is a heck of a lot better than dominate>pinkslip because then it remains up to the paladin (rather than a die roll) if they avoid that oncoming pinkslip or embrace it by forcing them to behave as they should rather than as if they have a stick up their rear end for crushing coal into diamonds
All of the alignments could use similar treatment. Doing so would resolve a lot of cross table debates before they even consider hairsplitting territory.
LE
I think this is oversimplifying Evil.MOST of his 'compassion' is an act to try to look 'normal'. That's what most of his relationship with Rita was... He even admitted that 'Husband and Father of three... Sounds a lot better then, Loner and kept to himself..'
That was his objective at first, but over time he came to actually care for his family. His wife's death deeply shook him. If he didn't care about her, why would it have bothered him at all? He also went out of his way to help his step daughter in an episode where she ran away. He could have just taken her back to her grandparent's house and still kept up appearances. Instead, he felt bad for her. When he found the battered and raped woman in the house of one of his victims, he could have just killed her to keep her from telling anyone about him. Instead, he went to great risk to help her. Those aren't the actions of an evil person.
Personally I think that was one of the biggest flaws in the show/writing...They CONSTANTLY go on and on about how he has no emotions... completely detatched... But on outward appearance he USUALLY looked like he DID care... I'm not 100% sure wha tthe truth of the matter is.
I think it instead shows how having a family has changed him, more than even he realizes. He's very conflicted, and that's why he's an interesting character.
Did dexter care more than he thought? or was Michael C Hall having trouble PLAYING true sociopath... I imagine it's one of the hardest things to truly act.BUT REGARDLESS... Even if Dexter DOES love his kids and wife... that doesn't bump him to neutral. Joker has feelings for Harley, Skeletor has a soft spot for his pet Panthor... Being Evil doesn't mean that you eat children every single day...
Would Skeletor risk his life for his pet panther? Simply liking a "pet" is a far cry from being willing to risk oneself for others.
Fact one. Dexter kills people for fun.
He only kills those who have committed heinous crimes. He never goes after people he believes to be innocent. If he were truly evil, innocence wouldn't matter to him. He'd just kill anyone he could get away with killing.
If killing murderers and other evil people is evil, then EVERY character in DnD is evil. The difference between good and evil killing according to DnD alignments is whether or not the person you're killing is innocent.
-Am I the only one who finds the argument of alignment posts to say more about the moral relativity of modern society than it does about the failure of a RPG rule system?
-Case in Point, the novel "Brothers Karamzov" isn't even concerned with the concept of law or order, but with good and evil. A list of characters goes from absolute selfish and vindictive buffoon to plotting murderous illegitimate son. Each and every character in the book at one time thinks "am I evil?" Even the sainly Zozimov admits some serious sins from his youth.
-Dexter isn't evil because he kills people. Dexter is evil because he is sadistic. To kill someone who threatens your dog, your family, or even another person is NOT evil. To be sadistic is 'evil'. Yes. It is. Why? Because you enjoy the suffering of others. That's morally wrong. And can you do something wrong once and still be good? Of course. But if you keep doing something wrong...that means you enjoy it!
Again: Killing is NOT A GOOD ACT. You don't get Good by killing, even if it's the worst scum there is. Killing Evil people might be less of an Evil act, depending on what they're doing, but it won't be a Good act. This is a sensitive point regarding quests. If the PCs set out to rescue a kidnapped child, or prevent a war, or stop the evil overlord before the legions of doom sweep the land, that's acceptable motivation to kill. If they set out because they get 1500 gp for doing so, then killing will be very questionable, and might have the consequence of seeing their alignments shifted somewhat.
And also: You don't murder your family because you're Evil. You are invested in them, in their success and their well-being. It's not a Good act to help those you are invested in. Helping a stranger or an enemy, now, that's better.
There is nothing discussed so far in this thread that makes Dexter anything other than Chaotic Evil. As I wrote above, so many don't like to think of alignment and morality as absolute and objective, but in these games, it is. Like it or not.
I have watched, with morbid fascination, episodes of Dexter from the 1st and 2nd seasons. I stopped watching when it was apparent what the writers were promoting. Dexter Morgan is, in my opinion, irredeemably evil. That goes without variation from watching the character. Is Dexter Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil? He doesn't murder like the Joker of Batman fame, he doesn't murder because he has no choice like a Lawful Evil person. Dexter chooses people based on a criteria and murders them with surgical precision, hiding the bodies and the remains. He removes them from society as best he can. He doesn't obey Biblical law or societal law, just the "Code of Harry" and his own feelings. He doesn't stop his murders, he won't stop his murders, he doesn't feel remorse at all but he also has a finely-tuned level of control to mask himself from others.
Dexter is Neutral Evil by my opinion. There's no difference in alignment between Dexter the human serial killer and a druid who murders anyone entering "his" forest. Dexter is the wolf in sheep's clothing, the serial killer hiding as a police lab analyst. He cannot be True Neutral, nor Lawful by any definition. He controls himself from normal human tendencies to have his murderous spree spiral out of the hidden harvesting, so he is not Chaotic.
In a normal sane society Dexter Morgan would eventually be caught, either by investigation or happenstance. Dexter is the best reason for a totalitarian surveillance state I can think of. Having a psychopathic protagonist as an entertainment media speaks volumes as to the degradation of our society. In roleplay scenarios, Dexter would not have the technology and situations that enables him to mask his killing tendencies quite as easily as is protrayed. Magic, either divine or arcane, would find him by spying or divination, and justice would not be blind.
Dexter is the best reason for a totalitarian surveillance state I can think of. Having a psychopathic protagonist as an entertainment media speaks volumes as to the degradation of our society.
Whoa there! Talk about the cure being worse than the disease. And "the degradation of our society?" Please.
You made a decent argument for Dex being NE, though. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Dexter is the best reason for a totalitarian surveillance state I can think of. Having a psychopathic protagonist as an entertainment media speaks volumes as to the degradation of our society.Whoa there! Talk about the cure being worse than the disease. And "the degradation of our society?" Please.
You made a decent argument for Dex being NE, though. :)
That's because he *is* NE :-)
And yeah, squelching the freedoms of the many because of what *might* happen is always a slippery slope, but a 'totalitarian surveillance state'? Um, East Germany* much?
jhpace1, stop making Bugley agree with me! You want the universe to explode or something?
That's because he *is* NE :-)
And yeah, squelching the freedoms of the many because of what *might* happen is always a slippery slope, but a 'totalitarian surveillance state'? Um, East Germany* much?
jhpace1, stop making Bugley agree with me! You want the universe to explode or something?
** spoiler omitted **
Ha!
I definitely see the case for neutral evil. It's the suggestion that Dex is Lawful Good that I find baffling. He murders people for kicks. LG? Really? :P
BTW, in the interest of full disclosure I have only seen though the end of Season 3. It's possible he's since had a change of heart...but I kinda doubt it.
