What Alignment is V?

[Graf]

I should say that I don’t buy “alignment relativism”.
I.e. Behavior is basically always a certain alignment, regardless of where you are.

So if doing something would be evil normally it doesn’t become good because the default alignment in some area is different than the mainstream.

In FR if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act.
In Ravenloft if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act (even if most of the townsfolk are evil themselves and would happly sell you into slavery if they get a chance).

Same thing with V.
Yeah the government in that movie is LE. And V opposes that government. But that doesn’t mean that he gets to become CG just because he opposes them.
His behavior, judged in a normal environment would be some screwed up version of Lawful.
Thus I’d say he’s still Lawful, even if you change his environment.

Personally I’d say that the extremes he goes to to fulfill his need to do the appropriate thing according to his code of conduct also make him evil (torturing Evy, etc).

It doesn’t mean he’s not a great (sympathetic) character.
He is.
He’s just not a “good” character in the DnD alignment system.

 

[Stone Dog]

In my reasoning...

First he is an anarchist. Anarchy, the absence of government and the perfect reign of the individual. Going back to a state before tyranny took over isn't enough. The complete and utter abolishment of state authority is what we are talking about here. Personal responsibility and authority taken to the utmost degree. Chaotic.

Second, he will hurt anybody who gets in his way. He will cause pain, ruin lives, shatter security and destroy anything if it will advance his cause of complete and perfect freedom. He may have some degree of compassion, but he continues on his path regardless of it. His conviction is complete and total. I do believe that if Evey hadn't withstood is torture he would have, sadly, killed her without hesitation. He casually wields pain, death and fear without regard for innocence or mercy and he tortures his allies to see if they can take it. Evil.

People with neutral on one of their alignment axis don't have strong impulses one way or another. In very general terms they enjoy the security of a state, but don't want to give up too much freedom. They avoid evil, but don't actually do much good.

 

[JohnSnow]

This whole thread is a constant reminder to me why the D&D alignment system needs to be chucked.

The problem is that V's alignment (like anyone else's) hinges so thoroughly on what his motivation is. Which we can only guess at from his actions.

On the whole good-neutral-evil thing, it comes down to a simple question (without, in this case, a simple answer)? Is he:

- Motivated by revenge? (evil) *yes*
- Simply trying to stop people who are abusing others? (neutral) *yes*
- Willing to sacrifice to help others? (good) *yes*

So that's a great big "Huh?"

At the end of the day, I'd call him "Neutral." Yes, he commits evil acts, but he does them for complicated reason. Truth to tell, he's got an evil motive (revenge: kill those who hurt me), a neutral motive (instinct: kill the would-be killer), and a good motive (altruism: stop others from suffering as he suffered).

The only thing he does that's truly "evil" is his torture and terrorism of Evie. The rest is...well...classic Robin Hood stuff. Is rebelling against tyrrany and oppression a good act? Only if freedom is an inherently good thing. But if the oppressive authority is commiting evil acts, resisting them is a good act. Violence? As a means of last resort, it may be okay.

So, what does V know?

- The authorities are corrupt and evil.
- They can't be stopped peacefully.
- The public is scared to resist authority.
- He can make the public unafraid.

He doesn't want to hurt innocents, but sometimes feels it's "necessary." Would he have let Evie die? Maybe, so he's clearly NOT a nice guy.

Basically, he's a really complicated version of true neutral. You can make an argument for him being lawful (because he's got a code), but he also places a high premium on personal freedom (which is chaotic). So, in essence, he's like Robin Hood (who's more neutral good than chaotic good) on the lawful-neutral-chaotic scale. He's got no problem with legitimate authority as long as it doesn't go too far.

So, true neutral. With complicated motivations.

 

[Aristeas]

I've got to say Chaotic Evil too.

He's clearly chaotic. He believes first and foremost in individual choice, in bucking any social convention or law that doesn't suit you. His ideal world is one in which nobody tells anybody what to do: anarchy. That's as chaotic as they come.

He's fairly evil, in D&D terms. He was happy to torture Evey in order to free her, and he would happily torture the whole world in order to free it. Killing people doesn't bother him in the slightest. We might sneak him by as Chaotic Neutral, but really, someone who seeks freedom without regard for the pain or death he causes is Chaotic Evil. It just goes to show that even evil people can do some good.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I like the argument for Lawful. Interesting.

In FR if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act.
In Ravenloft if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act (even if most of the townsfolk are evil themselves and would happly sell you into slavery if they get a chance).

Taking this arguement to its end point - nearly all D&D characters are evil. A den of blood thirsty XXXXs hidden in a cave is nothing more than a fancy location for a town. Players are routinely expected to go in and mop them up. The default premise of the game requires these "evil actions."


Personally, I'd go with CN with Good tendencies (yeah, call that straddling the fence).

 

[VirgilCaine]

So if doing something would be evil normally it doesn’t become good because the default alignment in some area is different than the mainstream.

In FR if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act.
In Ravenloft if you go into a town and start randomly killing townsfolk its an evil act (even if most of the townsfolk are evil themselves and would happly sell you into slavery if they get a chance).

No, it's not, it's neutral. Hurting, killing, and oppressing INNOCENTS is evil. Not killing EVIL PEOPLE.

 

[Felix]

Not killing EVIL PEOPLE.

Evil people can kill Evil people too, you know.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Evil people can kill Evil people too, you know.

One incident of torture does not an evil man make.

 

[Felix]

One incident of torture does not an evil man make.

Ostensibly good goals does not a good man make.

One incident of torture does not other incidents of torture preclude.

And again, evil people targeting good it makes you does not.

 

[Mark Chance]

If he's based on the movie version: Chaotic Boring.