Dexter's alignment (possible spoilers- discussing seasons 1&2)

[Hand of Evil]

I don't think that a personal code is enough to make a person lawful. Lawful types have to be integrated into a social network more than Dexter is. Mafia, thieves guild, evil empire: lawful evil types need something to belong to. At the very least a lawful evil type has to have (or want) minions to carry out his dreams of world domination. Dexter, on the other hand, is in a social organization only as camouflage.

So I don't think he is lawful. But he's not chaotic, either- he is trying to figure out how personal relationships work, but he just isn't getting very far.

As far as evil goes- well, he hungers for murder, even if he satisfies it by killing only bad people. Moreover in season two set out to frame an innocent man. I think that he has to count as evil, even though he is a very sympathetic, likable character.

So I'd classify him as Neutral Evil. But an appealing and socially useful neutral evil.

see page 105 of 3.5
-
a lawful evil villian methoddically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard to whom it hurts, He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.
-
so on...

 

[Joker]

You know, for a while there I thought the cartoon must have taken a very dark turn somewhere.

 

[sckeener]

So, if one ignores the dozens of people he's murdered, he's pretty much an okay guy.

murdered is probably the wrong word....assassinated is probably the better term.

and some organizations believe that assassination is fine for the good of society.

the Doakes issue this year probably highlights it. Doakes was taking out people, but he was doing it with the Law's blessing, military and then police.

Dexter just does it without a higher power making the call. No pope or president giving their blessing.

 

[Mark Chance]

murdered is probably the wrong word....assassinated is probably the better term.

Assassination is actually not a better term. To assassinate is to to murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. Dexter is not an assassin. He is, by his own admission, a killer of killers. He is a murderer. He has no noble intentions for his murders. He murders because he likes murdering. He limits himself to murdering murderers in order to better evade capture as trained by his morally questionable foster father.

Anything else is whitewash. Dexter is not a hero. He is not a good guy. He is a sociopathic serial killer who is incapable of feeling genuine compassion or attachment to anyone other than himself.

Alignment-wise, he is certainly evil.

 

[sckeener]

He is, by his own admission, a killer of killers. He is a murderer. He has no noble intentions for his murders. He murders because he likes murdering. He limits himself to murdering murderers in order to better evade capture as trained by his morally questionable foster father.

Anything else is whitewash. Dexter is not a hero. He is not a good guy. He is a sociopathic serial killer who is incapable of feeling genuine compassion or attachment to anyone other than himself.

At least in the second season, I'd have to argue he does have attachments (Rita, the kids, & Deb) and genuine feelings (since he has feelings I'd argue he does have compassion..it is just questionable how much...after all he doesn't torture his victims beyond just reminding them why they are about to die.)

I think his emotions caused most of the problems during the 2nd season and he would have been better off staying emotionless.

Now Lila...definitely a psycho (CE?) with no compassion and no real attachments to anyone.

Which I think is another counterpoint example to Dexter. He was willing to take some risk with Sgt. Doakes (CG?) by letting him live. Lila had no issues with killing or causing anyone pain to full fill her need. I think Sgt Doakes and Lila ending up in the same room was an example of the issues in Dexter.

At least in the show there is some mixed signals if Dexter is viewed as hero. Rita's son goes from fearing the BHB to thinking he is a super hero. Then there is the dark avenger comic...and the public's comparison of the BHB to Batman...toss in random people talking against and in favor of the BHB.....

what I take from that is in this fictional Miami there are plenty of people hurt who do not feel like they are getting justice.

The only reason we don't view him as a hero is because we know what is going on in his head, at least some of the time. I'm sure there are plenty of other heroes through out history that if we knew more about we wouldn't view as heroes.

I think most characters would fall into Dexter's mold...the big difference is we do it for gold & xp...and Dexter for blood. (dang, I'm going to have to make a Dexter-like vampire or ghoul sometime now as an npc...confuse my players)

 

[Felon]

So, if one ignores the dozens of people he's murdered, he's pretty much an okay guy.

Pretty well-put. He's an okay guy. If you dropped something on the ground and it rolled away, he'd stop and help you look...for a minute...if he wasn't busy. Just like most of us.

It's always interesting in these alignment threads to see that some folks think that actions define alignment, while others focus on motivations behind the actions. Likewise, some think one or two dramatic actions can make a character good or evil, while others take a holistic approach.

For me, motivations are key. A decent person might take horrible actions under duress. Dex murders people because he has a compulsion to do so. He's not motivated by morality, nor is he motivated by hatred or cruelty. I think neutral is a fair alignment.

 

[grimslade]

Pretty well-put. He's an okay guy. If you dropped something on the ground and it rolled away, he'd stop and help you look...for a minute...if he wasn't busy. Just like most of us.

It's always interesting in these alignment threads to see that some folks think that actions define alignment, while others focus on motivations behind the actions. Likewise, some think one or two dramatic actions can make a character good or evil, while others take a holistic approach.

For me, motivations are key. A decent person might take horrible actions under duress. Dex murders people because he has a compulsion to do so. He's not motivated by morality, nor is he motivated by hatred or cruelty. I think neutral is a fair alignment.

I think he is motivated by cruelty. He doesn't just euthanize his victims; it is a prolonged and torturous activity. There is a pleasure in the hunt and in the 'taking out the trash'. The real mitigating factor is that, so far, Dexter is never wrong. He always kills the guilty. It makes him a much more sympathetic character.
In Season 1, (sorry no season 2 until Netflix) he is intrigued by the Ice Truck Killer, his little friend. He is appreciative of ITK's methodology and ITK's tweaking of the police. I think this leans him towards evil. Likeable evil, but evil none the less. Think of it this way. IF Dex cleaned up Miami and there were no more murderers, would he stop killing?

 

[sckeener]

IF Dex cleaned up Miami and there were no more murderers, would he stop killing?

I think he'd move to a higher crime rate city with decent areas to dispose of the 'trash'.

Without giving much away of season 2, he does get one scene where he cleans up in a foreign country.

 

[Merlion]

I've not seen the show, but I've heard of it. Theres still some things under discussion here I'd like to comment on though.

You hear a lot of talk, especially regarding movie/television characters, about "pyschopaths", "sociopaths" and people supposedly having no moral compass, no emotions, no attachments to people, or being essentially animals.

I dont buy it, personally.

All sentient beings have emotions. As far as I'm concerned, sentience/conciousness and emotion are largely inseperable (this is also why I dlsilike the sci fi notion of aliens or sentient machines without "human emotion.") Human beings are concious, aware of themselves and their enviroment, and possessed of free will.

I'm also not big on the D&D concept of "neutrality" as regards Good and Evil, with sentients. D&D alignment only allows for Good and Evil as extremes, and labels most people "Neutral." I believe most people are Good...their intentions are good, they bear no one ill will without reason and are generally willing to do at least a little to help others, but they arent crusaders.

People choose their actions. The type of character being discussed here, to me, is going to be one of two things: a person with a compulsion to kill, but who is basically a decent person and so only kills those who probably need killing, or someone with a compulsion to kill who does not care who they kill, but kills those that need killing to make it easier for them.


Obviously the exception to all this is people who are so totally insane they truly dont know or understand what they are doing and cant distinguish reality...but these are, I believe extrremely rare. I consider most or all serial killers to be evil people who realize what they are doing is wrong, and choose to do it anyway because they wish too.

 

[RangerWickett]

Good, in the eyes of many philosophers, is a desire to aid others at the expense of oneself.

So most people aren't good. They don't want to hurt anyone if they can avoid it, but they don't put much effort into helping people, and when they do it is usually out of a sense of obligation or reciprocation. 'I help you move into your new apartment, you'll help me some day.'

A good person would look for ways to help people who don't ask him. He'd offer his money to the poor, rather than guiltily handing some over when asked. He'd volunteer to give books to underprivileged children, or offer rides to people walking in the rain, or fly to another country and risk his life to provide medical aid.

An evil person, on the other hand, desires to harm other people, particularly if he does it alone, rather than at the urging of society. If someone gets off on torturing people, he's evil. If someone tortures because he's been told to by his superiors, he's not necessarily evil. If you spread gossip and try to get people in trouble because you like it, you're evil. If you're just bad at keeping secrets when people ask you questions, you're not.

The weird thing here, though, is that hurting a group your society doesn't consider 'people' doesn't make you evil. Shooting your enemy in a war is fine. So is terrorizing people you think are threatening your way of life. It's misguided, but it's what your society considers right.

Really, a good bellwether would be how you'd act in a completely foreign environment, without someone to approve or force your actions, and without societal connections to any local group. Assume you have enough money to take care of yourself. You come across someone who looks sad or sick. Do you stop to offer help? You pass a car that has run out of gas. Do you offer a ride to a gas station? You hear shouts down an alley. Do you go see if someone is being attacked?

Now, ask those same questions, but you're in a hurry to get some place. How much are you willing to inconvenience yourself to help others?

Dexter? I have no bleeping idea. He acts out of the bounds of society, and disposes of dangerous people, but he enjoys hurting them. He could become a cop or a detective and track down bad guys as part of society, but he doesn't, because he wouldn't be able to fulfill his desires.

The best I can say is that he's not Lawful, because he's not working within the bounds of society, and he's not Chaotic because he's not working to undo society. I'd say he's Neutral on the law-chaos axis.

He's not Good, because the only magnanimous thing he does is kill people. His life, in general, is not motivated by a desire to help others. But is he Neutral, because he's only killing people who don't count as people, or Evil, because regardless of who he's doing it to, he enjoys causing harm?

I'd say Evil. Neutral Evil.