Following your own code of conduct, while ignoring that of society/government, doesn't make you lawful
I think if that was the case, hardly any human being would ever be chaotic or neutral
Also...he is a serial killer....just because he preys on other bad people doesn't make him good. At best he is barely Neutral.
|
as per the PRD (emphasis mine):
Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful. He follows his own code and is very structured and orderly.
Evil. Hes a murderer, no better than those he chops up.
-S
With EM and MMCJ on the not lawful. That he follows is own moral compass and ignores the rules of society is very fitting with chaotic.
I'm leaning towards CN. He lacks the respect for life and other features of a truly good person, but wouldn't put him in the full evil camp, as he dedicates far too much of his energy to avoiding harming innocents, so CN seems the best fit. Also CN often used to represent characters suffering from insanity.
|
Definitely walks the line between LN and LE.
Keep in mind he only does it to the bad guys. Is it that dissimilar from a party who goes out and slays people on missions of justice?
The biggest argument to that will be "but he's taking the law into his own hands!" but the counter argument is to read the description of Lawful Neutral as DaWay posted above - you don't need to follow Law to be lawful.
The argument is whether he's good, neutral or evil. Nothing about him is chaotic (with very few exceptions).
Keep in mind he only does it to the bad guys.
So did Mark Brandon 'Chopper' Read, except Chopper also happened to be hillarious in a very dark way. Still evil through and through.
Dexter also doesn't only kill the bad guys. On multiple occasions he has killed to protect himself from capture... or at times just because he was a little pissed off.
He was planning on sparing Doakes in season 2. An evil character would have framed and killed Doakes but Dexter would have settled for framing if his crazy stalker hadn't interfered.
Said it before, saying it again: No matter what else, he is deeply and profoundly Evil. You don't get Good by killing Evil. At best you could get a few Goodie points for doing what you do to protect future victims. He specifically kills for himself. No go.
Neither is he Lawful. You might claim he follows a code, but that code is very far from Lawful. Remains if he is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. A case may, I believe, be made for either.
Note: I'm not talking about Doakes.
Neither is he Lawful. You might claim he follows a code, but that code is very far from Lawful. Remains if he is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. A case may, I believe, be made for either.
Personally, I think he probably started out Lawful Evil, but over the seasons his code and his orderly conduct has been slipping. A lot. He went from only hunting guilty murderers that somehow has escaped the justice system, to actively sabotage police investigations so he can get at the murderer first, to just randomly flipping out and beating a guy to death in a restroom.
I'm still not sure if this is an intentional metaplot that they are taking their sweet time acknowledging, or just sloppy writing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with Neutral Evil. He's got his 'code,' but he very pointedly refuses to call it *his* code, it's always 'Harry's code' or the 'code of Harry.'
He's a sociopathic serial killer who is just smart enough to realize that without that leash, he'll flame out spectacularly.
NE all the way.
A proper LE 'serial killer' living in Florida and with his resources would be more likely to arrange for his victims to die in the state of Florida's execution chambers (working behind the scenes to reveal, or create, evidence to get them in there in the first place), or end up being gunned down by police officers after a hilarious 'misunderstanding' set up to make it look like they were about to open fire on said cops.
His 'code' doesn't even strictly preclude him from being Chaotic, but he seems too obsessively orderly in his daily life to be Chaotic, just as his breathtaking disregard for the rule of law, other people's property, rights or value and human life in general makes it hard to peg him as Lawful or any flavor of Good.
That said, D&D style alignment doesn't even work for D&D. Applying it to media characters, or, even worse, us dreadfully inconsistent real people, is an exercise in honing one's debating skills, and little more.
I am going with Set on this one - NE.
|
LE: enjoys killing people, follows a code not via a belief, but out of practicality.
Seriously, though, you argue Dexter is good?
My thoughts on him having some sort of good alignment came from his actions earlier in the series where he is constantly arguing over moral dilemmas & how much he cares for his 2 adopted kids. ( going after aster’s friends’ abusive father another example)
|
|
With EM and MMCJ on the not lawful. That he follows is own moral compass and ignores the rules of society is very fitting with chaotic.
I'm leaning towards CN. He lacks the respect for life and other features of a truly good person, but wouldn't put him in the full evil camp, as he dedicates far too much of his energy to avoiding harming innocents, so CN seems the best fit. Also CN often used to represent characters suffering from insanity.
I did not think of this. I would have to say that aside from the killing thing he does also have conversations with his dead father and brother……I believe you have a strong point.
|
|
Said it before, saying it again: No matter what else, he is deeply and profoundly Evil. You don't get Good by killing Evil. At best you could get a few Goodie points for doing what you do to protect future victims. He specifically kills for himself. No go.
Neither is he Lawful. You might claim he follows a code, but that code is very far from Lawful. Remains if he is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. A case may, I believe, be made for either.
respectfully, I strongly disagree with “profoundly evil”. There are too many instances where he is talking to harry and trying or doing the right thing, not just for himself, but for others as well. I will try and look up some specifics if you are interested.
|
|
This question came up at a session and was hotly debated. the GM was confident dexter is LE. I argued that he was more CG. Out of the 6 of us that were present we could not agree on any alignment for him.
What do you think? It would be helpful if you explained your decision.He's chaotic evil, but with a pragmatic twist. The thing is that Dexter is a sociopath by his own admission.
Or to be perfectly honest. The Alignment system skews over what has become a basic truth in human psychology. We're not monolithic personalities, we're a mass of impulses frequently in conflict that put on an appearance of unity that we call fictiously a "unified personality".
The fact is that Dexter has a major evil part of his personality that enjoys (or has the need to) kill for no particular reason other than to fulfill that need. Like most other serial killers, he has a taste for a particular type of target. But aside from the fact that his victims are Politically Acceptable Targets, he really is no different than any other serial killer out there.
I agree that the alignment system poses a challenge for this. With all respect though, I don’t fully agree with the rest of your comment. I see too many other facets to him that would argue differently.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Evil. He thinks himself as the "Dark Crusader", but his is just a psycopath if a very high intelligence and cold cannyness. He follows a "moral code", but this is not enough to make him lawfull. His erratic behavior and constant and obssessive doubts about his moral code points even further to a chaotic mindset. At least, he relishes at killing helpless people, masking his irremediable evil ways saying to himself he is hiddign the world from evil people. He is like a Bebilith, hunting and killing demons, but evil itself.
|
|
Neither is he Lawful. You might claim he follows a code, but that code is very far from Lawful. Remains if he is Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. A case may, I believe, be made for either.Personally, I think he probably started out Lawful Evil, but over the seasons his code and his orderly conduct has been slipping. A lot. He went from only hunting guilty murderers that somehow has escaped the justice system, to actively sabotage police investigations so he can get at the murderer first, to just randomly flipping out and beating a guy to death in a restroom.
I'm still not sure if this is an intentional metaplot that they are taking their sweet time acknowledging, or just sloppy writing.
I have seen this trend as well. I’m hoping this upcoming final season will help in defining this.
Keep in mind he only does it to the bad guys.
Yes, and what is the "it" that he does? Oh, yeah. He drugs people, kidnaps them, and takes them to his private workroom, where he proceeds to torture them to death before cutting up their bodies and dumping them in the ocean, because he enjoys it.
|
|
Lawful isn't necessarily about fulfilling "justice" or "the law". Sabotaging police investigations is a means to an end in fulfilling his code. That's still lawful.
There's exceptions to behaviours in any character regardless of their alignment, and they don't automatically switch over to a new alignment. A good character can perform an evil act, or a lawful character might perform a chaotic act, but alignment is about what their nature is (which may change over time if that behaviour becomes permanent).
I don't know guys, I think he's LG :P
On a more serious note, can't we all agree the alignment system doesn't really work all that well? I mean, here you have a character that no two people can agree on. Why is that? (I don't mean to derail the thread; just an observation.)
I think most people can agree that he's Evil. He kills because he enjoys it. The justice aspect of what he's doing is secondary to his "need" to kill (let's not forget that).
The tricky part of his alignment is the Law/Chaos axis. I'd say he's Neutral in this regard, but only because he seems to be equally Lawful and Chaotic. He has a code, and follows the law, but only when it suits him.
Pretty much narrows it down to NE, but hey--that's just my take on it.
Alignment works pretty well as long as you can understand that it deals with absolute, objective morality. In my experience, many people abhor that idea, often because it provides a measuring tape they don't like to bemeasured with themselves. They say things like "To have an evil alignment, you must be driven by a desire to hurt people", which relegates Evil to villains beyond the caricature of Dr Doofenschmirz. Willingly sacrificing any amount of others in pursuitof a goal, even if it is grabbing aburger at McDonalds, is still neutral to them. Note, however, that our dear, apparently CG Dexter still fulfills the Stupid Evil conditions of being driven by hurting others. As I said, he is utterly and irredeemably Evil on any scale you want, but a case can be made for either Chaotic or Neutral Evil.
Batman: Doesn't use guns.
Dexter: Carries a suitcase full of knives and deadly powertools.
Batman: Bad guys have to pay for their crimes (in jail).
Dexter: Bad guys have to pay for their crimes (on my table).
Yea, they're really similar. Wait, they're not? Carry on :)
|
|
I think most people can agree that he's Evil. He kills because he enjoys it. The justice aspect of what he's doing is secondary to his "need" to kill (let's not forget that).
What adds to the muddle is that he doesn't particularly seem to 'get off' on the killing. He just feels the need building up, and sates it the way he was trained to. The morality of the thing is of no consequence to him, which makes him amoral, not immoral, a sociopath, not somebody who kills because they 'want to,' since he more or less is convinced that he *needs* to kill.
Whether or not this is a self-delusion, or flimsy rationalization, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, or some sinister psychological land mine left behind by his bat**** insane stepfather, I could see the argument that he's no more a *murderer* than a man-eating tiger. He kills out of a need, even if that 'need' might turn out to be specious in the end.
I dislike the scorpion in the fable, but Dexter pretty much is that scorpion, or, at least, has been *convinced* that he is that scorpion.
The root of his problem is with his stepfather, who, instead of nipping that nonsense in the bud (or, at the very least reading up on trauma counseling, if he couldn't spring for a real therapist on his cops budget... I'm pretty sure that there isn't a counseling textbook on the planet that recommends encouraging a kid fascinated with dead animals to work up to killing *humans*...), encouraged it and channeled it towards criminals who had 'gotten away with it' from his law and order / thin blue line perspective.
Ultimately, the weird thing about Dexter is how he idealizes the step father that pretty much turned him into a weapon to eliminate those who frustrated him by 'getting away with it.'
Harry, not being a sociopath, but encouraging and empowering a child in his custody to kill targets that he wants killed, is more purely and unambiguously evil than Dexter.
That the morality of killing people through torture is of no consequence to him, IN AND OF ITSELF, means he is Evil with a capital E. Unless, of course, you do not see him as a moral agent at all. He could be much like an animal that kills, yes? No. He is a very intelligent human being, and as such understands what he does to other people. He just doesn't care.