What alignment is a vigilante?

[Frathe]

If someone breaks the law to uphold the law, what alignment are they? Clearly they care about the pursuit of lawfulness, but are willing to break the law themselves to pursue it.

I was thinking of Batman as an example. He has a very strict moral code--for example, he refuses to kill anyone, even the worst criminals--so I was initially leaning towards Lawful Good. But after reading the d20SRD descriptions of the alignments, Chaotic Good ("A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him.") seems like a better fit, considering his willingness to break and go above the law.

[Chilingsworth]

This really depends on the vigilante.

For what it's worth, there's a PrC in complete scoundrel (Avenging Executioner) that is geared for vigilantes: it has a nongood alignment requirement.

[Lord_Gareth]

You seem to be doing the thing WotC does and conflating 'law' and 'good'. Batman, Spiderman, etc, break the law in order to protect the innocent. Batman chooses to cooperate with law enforcement and feels that open law is better than what he does; he is LG or NG because of this preference. Most 'normal' (is there a normal vigilante?) vigilantes would be NG or CG if they're looking to protect the innocent, LE or NE if they're punishing the guilty.

[GolemsVoice]

I'd say definitely Chaotic. They have a strict code of laws, but they don't mesh with the local, official laws, so they decide to follow their own laws.

[Gwendol]

Non-lawful? I think it's the disregard for proper authority here that is the determining factor.

[Ravenica]

Lawful does not mean you have to follow a nations laws, it means you hold to a standard or principle of your own so pretty much any alignment on the lawful/chaos axis is acceptable

how they go about dealing with perps will pretty much decide their final alignment

[Drelua]

I could see a vigilante of any alignment, though evil's a bit harder to explain. There is a PrC called Vigilante that requires any non-evil alignment.

I would see a LG vigilante as most likely to be either someone who sees that the law has weaknesses, such as requiring absolute proof, or that the law is unjust. They could have been witness to a terrible crime that the offender got away with because their testimony wasn't enough, or they could be a member of an oppressed race.

A CG vigilante would be someone with a more cavalier attitude, who doesn't care about the rules and just wants people to pay when they hurt other people.

Of course, Dexter could be called a vigilante, and he's quite clearly Lawful Evil. So really, any alignment could work depending on the character's motivation and method.

[Krobar]

Part of Tritherion's portfolio is Retribution, and he's Chaotic Good, so CG would definitely fit.

[Saidoro]

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.
…
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.
Read more here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?372544-Tome-of-Fiends&p=8284135#post8284135).

[Vaz]

To be a vigilante, they would need to have some inviolable rules that would need to be broken. At the least they would be neutral, while lawful would not be a stretch. While they might respect the law, they realise that breaking the laws to uphold them is occasionally a preferable action. However if there was not the need for vigiliantism, they would be upstanding citizen.

[Coidzor]

Batman, I imagine. http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/strangething/batman-alignment-chart.jpg

[snoopy13a]

You seem to be doing the thing WotC does and conflating 'law' and 'good'. Batman, Spiderman, etc, break the law in order to protect the innocent. Batman chooses to cooperate with law enforcement and feels that open law is better than what he does; he is LG or NG because of this preference. Most 'normal' (is there a normal vigilante?) vigilantes would be NG or CG if they're looking to protect the innocent, LE or NE if they're punishing the guilty.

Punishing the guilty is protecting the innocent. I suppose looking for an excuse to hurt people would be an evil motive. And it is possible, though difficult, for a vigilante to remain within the boundaries of law: citizen arrests and reasonable force to detain criminals are lawful in most jurisdictions.

In fact, I believe there was a real life "superhero" in Seattle a few years ago. The person dressed up in a costume and patrolled the streets. Although legal, it is rather foolish to do this; if one makes a mistake she can be civilly or criminally liable. Even if one's conduct is strictly within the law, the apprehended "villian" may make false accusations; he is a villian, after all.

So a vigilante may be "lawful good" like Superman and some versions of Batman (think Adam West). Or a vigilante may be on the evil side of the street.

[ngilop]

If someone breaks the law to uphold the law, what alignment are they? Clearly they care about the pursuit of lawfulness, but are willing to break the law themselves to pursue it.

I was thinking of Batman as an example. He has a very strict moral code--for example, he refuses to kill anyone, even the worst criminals--so I was initially leaning towards Lawful Good. But after reading the d20SRD descriptions of the alignments, Chaotic Good ("A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him.") seems like a better fit, considering his willingness to break and go above the law.

I myself have never felt that vigilantes broke the law to uphold it.. but rather broke the law to do what was right.

becuase what is lawful does not equal right.

ive alwasy thought batman as Neutral good, becuase he does have a very crtic code and does not 'break' the law as operate outside of it at times.

[Coidzor]

And law is not always lawful. And being law-abiding is not necessarily lawful.

Kind of tricky, really.

[Lord_Gareth]

Punishing the guilty is protecting the innocent.

The Nine Hells would like a word with you.

[Spiryt]

He can be anything from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, the very fact of vigilantism doesn't really tell enough.

Laws and it's enforcement can be a joke or straight up oppression and terror, obviously.

On the other hand, one can just as well organize criminal gang under 'vigilantism' label just as well.

[Frathe]

I myself have never felt that vigilantes broke the law to uphold it.. but rather broke the law to do what was right.

becuase what is lawful does not equal right.

ive alwasy thought batman as Neutral good, becuase he does have a very crtic code and does not 'break' the law as operate outside of it at times.

I guess by "upholding the law" I mean a higher law, but I definitely see what you mean about "right" vs. "law".

[Lord_Gareth]

I guess by "upholding the law" I mean a higher law, but I definitely see what you mean about "right" vs. "law".

Arborea objects to this 'higher law' and wants to talk to you about a higher chaos.

The trouble is that a lot of Western folks associate good with law and law with good, and the two really need to be separated better.

[snoopy13a]

The Nine Hells would like a word with you.

Punishing the guilty meets society's goal of deterring crime--both specific deterrence to the offender and general deterrence to the public at large. Deterring crime protects the innocent. Whether it is society or an individual who does the punishing is a law/chaos thing. If the punishment is cruel or disproportunate, then it is an evil thing.

[Flickerdart]

You could justify pretty much any alignment for vigilantism.

Good vigilantes emphasize saving lives - stopping muggings, catching runaway trains, that sort of standard superhero stuff. If there's a criminal responsible, they will probably enact some sort of non-lethal punishment that is aimed at rehabilitation.

Evil vigilantes, on the other hand, punish the guilty - embezzlers, forgers, smugglers - and don't terribly care about saving people except as a consequence of stopping the guilty. They probably kill or maim those they pass judgment on, often in ironic ways.

Lawful vigilantes believe that the police has failed to uphold the law - the law that the vigilante believes in, anyway. They might simply round up criminals and dump them by the police station, or act as the judge, jury, and executioner themselves - though it's very likely that they will do the same thing to pickpockets that they do to murderers.

Chaotic vigilantes don't do what they do because of some laws. They do it because, well, they can, and want to. They are likely to be inconsistent in how they deal with captured criminals, and probably let small fish go with a warning, while killing the really bad ones or at least making sure they can't harm anyone again.

[Jane_Smith]

Eh, this is the reason, like the very primary one that I have always removed the non-lawful alignment from barbarian and bard from 3.5/etc, because if you think about it several of the more legendary barbarians, vikings, etc or there tribes have had EXTREMELY strict morale codes, warriors codes, traditions, spiritualism, and the like - there enemies may have thought otherwise, same with the crusades. What they thought was "right" and "order" was was murder and chaos to everyone else. And many of the more honorable skalds, street performing bards, national secret agents, oriental geisha assassins, etc all had a very wide, very different set of philosophies and mindsets, not just chaotic.

In fact, I recently made a "terrorist" as a lawful good character for a game I will be playing soon. She is from a nation where slavery is openly practiced, her father was murdered defending her and her mother from slavers, and her mother was separated and sold off, leaving her alone for several years. She got lucky however when a group of thieves attacked the slavers and killed or ran off most of them, and at least allowed the slaves to go free. Branded/etc, they could not return to the city, and went into the crystal jungles (think like mineral oasis's the size of entire nations scattered threw out a magically warped desert wasteland) to set up a group called the Children of Kage, the elderly orc who rallied them together, and they now actively produce explosives and weaponry to raid slavers and attack the city for supplies. While the rest of her brethren are true neutral, there are many of different alignments, and she just wants to free as many slaves as possible, but is otherwise honorable/compassionate, but she would not think twice about gutting up to your throat if you owned a slave to free them, but has talked down the group from raiding average merchants and reducing collateral damage, such as striking at night when most civilians are asleep, not necessarily to hide there movements. They in turn take in any new slaves who have nowhere else to go and help them hide there brand, feed/cloth them, and train them to fight.

And of course, this will likely lead to them inciting a civil war to over throw the "god child", some machine/golem in the shape of a giant infant that has a quickly/wide spread cult of maniacs and machinists trying to become like viktor basically, lets just say the government in this land is in a desperate need for a civil war/overhaul. This "god child" has accused non-believers brought before him for judgement nonstop, if he deems you unworthy or a sinner to HIS eyes, he will disintegrate you on the spot, and has a army of drones/etc all under his direct control, but most are kept within the city.

[hamishspence]

This really depends on the vigilante.

For what it's worth, there's a PrC in complete scoundrel (Avenging Executioner) that is geared for vigilantes: it has a nongood alignment requirement.

There's also one in Complete Adventurer, actually called Vigilante, that has "Any nonevil"

And one in Underdark, a Faerun book, called Imaskari Vengeance Taker- "Any lawful"

Complete Scoundrel cites Batman as an example of a Lawful Good scoundrel- although that might only apply to the Adam West Batman or close equivalents.

[Frathe]

I think one question to ask here is this: is someone's alignment of Lawful vs. Chaotic determined by their internalized moral code, or does it depend on if that code agrees with the "law" of their society? Might someone break society's legal code because it was not sufficiently "lawful" to agree with the code in their own mind?

[Shining Wrath]

Vigilantes come in flavors.

The original vigilance committees were attempts to establish some law and order in unregulated communities like gold mining camps. Those might be true neutral or lawful neutral.

The KKK was in some times and places a vigilance committee, but concerned with maintaining a different sort of order, based upon race. I'd call them Lawful Evil.

A Batman type vigilante is someone who considers his Law to be above society's Law. That is almost the definition of chaotic, and I'd call Batman Chaotic good.

The vigilante is therefore characterized by which laws she upholds and which she breaks.

[Flickerdart]

A Batman type vigilante is someone who considers his Law to be above society's Law. That is almost the definition of chaotic, and I'd call Batman Chaotic good.
Lawful characters are not required to give a damn about the law of the society they live in, they just have to operate on a set of principles. There are few characters more principled than Batman.

[Shining Wrath]

Lawful characters are not required to give a damn about the law of the society they live in, they just have to operate on a set of principles. There are few characters more principled than Batman.

Huh. A chaotic character sets freedom to act as you think best above order; how is that unprincipled?

[Flickerdart]

I have no idea what that sentence is saying. Can you re-word it, please?

[Shining Wrath]

I have no idea what that sentence is saying. Can you re-word it, please?

Sure. Chaotic characters value freedom of action. That does not mean they have no moral code or rational means of choosing how they act.

I preferto think of law and chaos as a continuum. The more you care about society's rules compared to what makes sense to you, the more lawful you are. The more you care about what makes sense to you, the more chaotic you are. Some people finesse the deal by completely buying into society's rules and thus their choices are those which correspond to the rules, and there is no tension.

[Flickerdart]

Sure. Chaotic characters value freedom of action. That does not mean they have no moral code or rational means of choosing how they act.
Actually, it does.


A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.


...chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

It's pretty clear that a personal code is a Lawful trait, while lack of consistent actions is a Chaotic one. Chaotic characters can still have morals, but they'll re-evaluate everything as the situation demands. Batman will never kill. Not if it's convenient, not if it's right, not if it will stop many deaths. He just doesn't. How is that not Lawful?

[Ravenica]

Sure. Chaotic characters value freedom of action. That does not mean they have no moral code or rational means of choosing how they act.

I preferto think of law and chaos as a continuum. The more you care about society's rules compared to what makes sense to you, the more lawful you are. The more you care about what makes sense to you, the more chaotic you are. Some people finesse the deal by completely buying into society's rules and thus their choices are those which correspond to the rules, and there is no tension.

""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.""

Straight out of the PF Core book... nothing about "a lawful character cares or follows the laws of whatever pitiful secular government happens to be in power" :smalltongue:

""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.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable
without being a zealot.""

that "or" is pretty important, as it defines the fact that you can break laws and still be lawful if the personal code you hold to indicates that such an action is necessary

[hamishspence]

"Don't Tread on Me" from Unearthed Arcana did seem like a pretty typical code for Chaotic-leaning heroes- barbarians, rangers, and fighters are the examples given:


I won't be wronged.
I won't be insulted.
I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to others, and I require the same from them.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. I can't see vigilantism as a "Lawful" thing. By it's definition it is taking the law into your own hands, rather than trusting the system.

Beyond that, it could really be any alignment. It mostly depends on what motivates them and how they go about it.

For example, Charles Bronson in Death Wish? Probably in the True Neutral category. He's acting (somewhat) legally, abusing the systems that try to allow for self defense by making himself a target purposefully (So he cares a little about the system). He's not "GOOD" however, because the reason he's doing this is based purely on revenge for his wife and daughter. He has no higher purpose. And he's not "evil" in so far as he doesn't just go around gunning down anyone who crosses him, or acts in a typically evil manner. He's not doing this to get his personal rocks off or make some mad grab for power, fame, fortune, the typical "evil" goals.

Now by Death Wish III? He's gone from True Neutral towards Chaotic Good. He's given up all pretense of acting "inside the system" in any way. He's not even TRYING to be a normal person. He is wandering from town to town, helping people who are having trouble with gangs and such in true DnD Murderhobo fashion. He doesn't pretend to make himself a target, except when needed. He's not doing it for Revenge anymore. He's doing it to try and make the world a better place.

By the way, the "Batman Moral Code" is something of a newer invention out of the 50s and 60s. Before that Batman had no real problem carrying guns, killing criminals, etc. It's very much an artifact of the age of Paranoia Family Values against Comics and attempting to clean up Superhero comics.

I personally would list Batman as Neutral Good. He tries to work within the system, when he can. He will work with Gotham PD. He'll even work with the Justice League. But he's not a slave to the system either and will "go rogue" though not that often. His goals are more Good aligned, seems obvious. He's a "hero" and he's long since passed on from being motivated by Revenge for his parent's murder, and more towards making sure things that that don't happen to anyone else.

As Justice Lord Batman said, "I made it so no one in this world needs to be afraid of losing their parents to a thug with a gun."

[Seharvepernfan]

They can be any alignment.

There are two types of vigilante, justice-seekers and vengeance-seekers. How they go about seeking justice or vengeance depends on their alignment, regardless if they are breaking "the law" or not, because "the law" might not be "legitimate" - both "the law" and "legitimacy" being subjective terms.

A crime lord might have corrupted a city's government, making all kinds of unjust "laws" that aren't really lawful at all. Therefore, a LG vigilante might break "the law" in order to actually uphold the real "law".

Typically, justice seekers are trying to improve the world, whereas vengeance seekers are after some sort of personal gratification. Vengeance doesn't fix things, it just gratifies your cravings - that doesn't make the vengeful act necessarily bad, however. You could be seeking both, however, but you're going to be more loyal to one or the other.

LG/NG/CG/LN people are probably primarily justice-seekers, whereas the other alignments are probably primarily vengeance-seekers. IMO, at least.

A few vigilantes spring to mind for me:

Batman, who is clearly after justice.
The Punisher and Rorshach, however, are harder to pin down. I'd say they're both more motivated by vengeance, but they do seek justice as well.
The Bride from Kill Bill is all about vengeance.

[hamishspence]

There's also Dexter, who is all about self-gratification- but maintains a code against harming the innocent.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah. I can't see vigilantism as a "Lawful" thing. By it's definition it is taking the law into your own hands, rather than trusting the system.
Lawful characters don't have to trust the local authorities. A character who enforces the tenets of his god on a population of heathens in a foreign city is still Lawful, as is the character who holds to a personal code that doesn't match up with that of the government.

[hamishspence]

WoTC's Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic article concurs:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.
...
Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

[Seharvepernfan]

There's also Dexter, who is all about self-gratification- but maintains a code against harming the innocent.

I was going to mention him, but it's not justice or vengeance...he just likes to kill.

[hamishspence]

"After some kind of personal gratification" applies to him as much as to any vengeance-seeker.

Altruistic vigilantes and Selfish vigilantes could be the two categories.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, there is the rule about "just" laws and such.

However my view was always that if you were say, Lawful Good, and you were in a non-good society, you don't take up vigilantism necessarily. Or rather you do it more as a spur of the moment, "I just witnessed a (insert horrific crimes and such here)", rather than pursuing it as a lifestyle like we typically think of vigilantes.

I personally see Lawful Good as having a higher goal than merely "Do what my code tells me" in that situation of a corrupt law. They are more tasked with "MAKE the system just". They aren't going on one man vigilante crusades. They are going after the Mob Boss, the Evil Baron, the local Warlord, Necromancer, whatever is making things evil. And removing that from being an issue and trying to make the society as a whole Lawful, Just, Good.

Where as vigilantism is less about the "system" and the big picture. It's about immediate, personal things. It's not really "Chaotic". But I'd mark it as "not Lawful", for the given reason I stated.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Punishing the guilty meets society's goal of deterring crime--both specific deterrence to the offender and general deterrence to the public at large. Deterring crime protects the innocent. Whether it is society or an individual who does the punishing is a law/chaos thing. If the punishment is cruel or disproportunate, then it is an evil thing.

While this line of thinking exists, studies the world over have consistently shown that the cause-effect relationship between punishing crimes commited and deterence of future crimes is inconclusive.

In lay terms, maybe that's true and maybe it's not in any society that has punishments proportional to the crimes.

It's reasonably effective if the punishment heavily outweighs the crime. Losing a hand for petty theft tends to deter petty theft pretty well, but fines and fees tend to lead to -more- theft to cover the cost of those fines and fees.

Jail-time is seen by many prisoners as preferable to starving on the street since it means shelter and food are guaranteed though, again, the conditions of a prison are a major factor in making that decision.

The point being: the causal link between punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent is, at best, murky or, at worst, false.

This makes conflating the two shaky at best.

[hamishspence]

It's reasonably effective if the punishment heavily outweighs the crime. Losing a hand for petty theft tends to deter petty theft pretty well

That might be because it's hard to shoplift or cut a purse, or pick a pocket, with your non-dominant hand.

[Deophaun]

If I was going to spec a lawful evil vigilante, I'd probably go with someone like the Operative from Serenity. Granted, he is actually an agent of the Alliance, but he would still make a good template as someone who kills not because the target actually harmed someone, but because the target represents a threat to the social order.

[hamishspence]

4E actually cites "kills threats to justice" as a good rationale for Lawful Good assassins:

Dragon Magazine Annual page 144

The lawful good alignment can also permit slayers, though of a specific kind. These characters embrace order as the ultimate means of combating evil. A slayer who operates in the interest of maintaining order and good by targeting those who would dismantle justice and subvert or corrupt the good is not at all outside the context of what a lawful good character might do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That might be because it's hard to shoplift or cut a purse, or pick a pocket, with your non-dominant hand.

Whatever works, right?

[hamishspence]

One problem with highly retributive responses (yet still short of death) is that they tend to leave a character unable to make a living the honest way.

Result- they probably turn to begging, and end up as runners and informants for the underworld.

[Seharvepernfan]

"After some kind of personal gratification" applies to him as much as to any vengeance-seeker.

Altruistic vigilantes and Selfish vigilantes could be the two categories.

Yes, but he's not a vigilante, he's just a killer. He might only kill badguys, but I suspect if there were no badguys, he'd still kill people.

[Kane0]

Non-Evil and Non-Lawful.

Edit: Although that coudl be stretched if the reason was entirely personal (Evil) or criminals were excluded from the law like in our own history. (Lawful)

Damn, Batman is one complex character. I guess it's cause of the number of iterations he's gone through over the years.

/2Cents.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, but he's not a vigilante, he's just a killer. He might only kill badguys, but I suspect if there were no badguys, he'd still kill people.

If there were no bad guys, he wouldn't exist. He may be the protagonist in his show, but he's still a "bad guy" by most people's measure.

Not that it matters, there can't be a situation in which there are no bad guys since, as long as different people have different values, somebody will be painted as the bad guy.

He definitely fits the criteria for being considered a vigilante though. He opperates outside the law to punish those he believes deserve punisment. That he happens to enjoy it and that his enjoyment is his primary motivation are inconsequential to that.

[limejuicepowder]

He definitely fits the criteria for being considered a vigilante though. He opperates outside the law to punish those he believes deserve punisment. That he happens to enjoy it and that his enjoyment is his primary motivation are inconsequential to that.

This I disagree with. As you said, his primary motivation is killing (an evil, and in this case extremely selfish act). His adopted father recognized Dexter's base need and decided to try and channel it to something good (or not as bad as it would be otherwise).

Dexter would be a killer regardless; but he justifies it by only killing evil people. Since he is not motivated by justice or vengeance,* or any other more abstract cause, I would not call Dexter a vigilante at all.

*It should be noted that when it comes to vigilantes, these terms are nearly synonymous, and can basically be used interchangeably. Righting a perceived wrong can be as noble as "justice" or as personal as petty revenge. Both are vengeance.

[hamishspence]

"Legal vigilantes" don't focus on righting wrongs, or punishing crime- but preventing crime- searching for crimes in progress so they can intervene and stop them.

[Coidzor]

Vigilantes come in flavors.

The original vigilance committees were attempts to establish some law and order in unregulated communities like gold mining camps. Those might be true neutral or lawful neutral.

The KKK was in some times and places a vigilance committee, but concerned with maintaining a different sort of order, based upon race. I'd call them Lawful Evil.

A Batman type vigilante is someone who considers his Law to be above society's Law. That is almost the definition of chaotic, and I'd call Batman Chaotic good.

The vigilante is therefore characterized by which laws she upholds and which she breaks.


Lawful characters are not required to give a damn about the law of the society they live in, they just have to operate on a set of principles. There are few characters more principled than Batman.

And here I thought I'd pre-empted this.


Batman, I imagine. http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/strangething/batman-alignment-chart.jpg

limejuicepowder: "I am vengeance. I am the night."

[limejuicepowder]

limejuicepowder: "I am vengeance. I am the night."

What? I don't understand how that is a response to what I said

[Coidzor]

What? I don't understand how that is a response to what I said

You just made me feel like referencing the opening to the 90s cartoon Batman: The Animated Series.

[The Glyphstone]

And here I thought I'd pre-empted this.



limejuicepowder: "I am vengeance. I am the night."

"Batman" should totally be a valid thing to write down as a character's alignment.:smallsmile:

[Frathe]

My brother thought of another vigilante-related question, this one about a trope used more in modern-day settings. If you have a group of eco-terrorists who believe that the Earth must be saved from human pollution, and go about achieving this by trying to kill almost every human on Earth, what alignment are they? After this thread, my answer is Lawful Evil, Lawful because they have a strong consistent belief and code, and Evil because they're trying to kill everyone on Earth. However, this seems to contradict the Wizards article, which says that Good and Evil describe ideals and Chaos and Order describe means. In this case, the ideal seems to be arguably an ultimately good one—that humans should stop messing up the Earth. Other, good, people also share this ideal, and go about trying to accomplish it through non-evil means like reducing emissions. The evil part in this situation is the means—killing all humans. I think the means is Lawful; it's done in pursuit of a very zealous belief (following a code of belief is Lawful).

[Deophaun]

In this case, the ideal seems to be arguably an ultimately good one—that humans should stop messing up the Earth.
To answer your question, I propose another: Why is not messing up the Earth considered good?

[TuggyNE]

To answer your question, I propose another: Why is not messing up the Earth considered good?

This may be getting into real-world religion/politics. :smallsigh:

[ArcturusV]

I think this is something where your WotC source wasn't aware of how things actually work when they answered it?

I can't really say what they were thinking. I will point out that things like the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness clearly point out that these people would be unequivocably evil. No question. Even "EVIL". Law and Chaos are up in the air. As a "Terrorist" they are by nature anarchists. Meaning Chaotic. You can argue that they are seeking to establish an order or something. In the end I'd probably go with Neutral Evil. Their means are anarchist in regards to Law/Chaos. Their goal is arguably Law/Chaos depending on what you feel about the dominance of the natural world (And it is questionable in DnD terms).

[Deophaun]

This may be getting into real-world religion/politics. :smallsigh:
Which is why I only provided a question as an answer.

As a "Terrorist" they are by nature anarchists. Meaning Chaotic.
Meanwhile, I don't know how to answer this without crossing that line. :smalleek:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Batman's alignment is He's the Goddamn Batman.

[Frathe]

To answer your question, I propose another: Why is not messing up the Earth considered good?

I did say "arguably". Can we at least agree that it's not necessarily Evil?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Personally, I find that in most cases, if society needs a vigilante of some kind, the person is probably not working with the system, so much as they are working in spite of the system. The system failed them or someone they cared about, and so they take in on themselves to ignore the standard rules and procedure of the government to fight crime and evil.

In that sense, I would say that most vigilantes are nonlawful. They are fighting against the rules of society in order to try and stop crime, make the world a better place, or simply get revenge. That doesn't necessarily mean they are chaotic. I'll use two examples of a "vigilante to show the difference."

- A private detective: A vigilante. He helps people by sneaking around people's houses, dealing with some dirty people, and finding out information for them. Every so often he might even stop a crime using a weapon of some kind.

Here he is nonlawful, but he's not chaotic either. The PI is simply taking cases and solving them when the police cannot. He's not working with the city guard, and may do some dirty things to solve the case, but he's probably just going to bring in the criminals to the guard for trial.

- An avenger of injust past: A vigilante. He helps people by attacking criminals in the night. He does not turn them into the police, he attacks those he sees committing a crime. If someone knows what he does, and asks him for help he will not bring them closure by telling them what happened and bringing the criminals to justice but by personally stopping the crime himself.

I would say that this is chaotic. He is dictating his own rules for how criminals should be treated, regardless of existing laws/regulations.

Note that those changes are based only on the laws/regulations of the land at large, not the morality of the place. If an avenger arrested his enemies, after beating them up, then he may be good. He is going fully outside the law to protect people (in fact committing crimes himself). If an avenger killed all, or many criminals, he is probably chaotic neutral.

Certainly he is working towards a better goal, but it comes at a hefty price. It may also be that a chaotic neutral avenger does not kill every opponent, but treats good and evil criminals the same. He goes after those who uphold the law and break it as evenly as he does the scum of the city.

So yeah, alignment of the vigilante is pretty indeterminate based on their profession of vigilantism. It depends more on how they carry out their business and why they carry out their business. In general, though, I would say that they are nonlawful.

[Deophaun]

I did say "arguably". Can we at least agree that it's not necessarily Evil?
You are missing the point of the question. It's not there to be argumentative, and I am not looking for you to post an answer. Just think about it, and the answer you come up with may or may not answer your dilemma.

[Chilingsworth]

You are missing the point of the question. It's not there to be argumentative, and I am not looking for you to post an answer. Just think about it, and the answer you come up with may or may not answer your dilemma.

I'm guessing the point you're trying to make is something along the lines of "messing up the earth is considered bad because it can cause harm to people/make the planet unhabitable to us." Destroying all humans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egdqD6-zPLw) would make this point moot.

[Frathe]

You are missing the point of the question. It's not there to be argumentative, and I am not looking for you to post an answer. Just think about it, and the answer you come up with may or may not answer your dilemma.

Okay, now I think I see what you were getting at, but I think you're misunderstanding the radical views of the classical trope-y eco-terrorists. To them, saving the planet and nonhuman animals is good for its own sake, as it might be for a Druid. For them, at least, the point of stopping pollution is not just for the benefit of habitability for humans. They'd probably consider that view anthropocentric.

[Chilingsworth]

Okay, now I think I see what you were getting at, but I think you're misunderstanding the radical views of the classical trope-y eco-terrorists. To them, saving the planet and nonhuman animals is good for its own sake, as it might be for a Druid. For them, at least, the point of stopping pollution is not just for the benefit of habitability for humans. They'd probably consider that view anthropocentric.

The bolded part offers a good guess at the alignment of a group like that in a D&D setting: Any non-good neutral, heavily leaning towards neutral evil. Think the Children of Winter and the more extreme members of the Ashbound (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Druidic_sects) from Eberron.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Genocide is evil, period. I don't see how the motivation for it matters in the least.

Your eco-terrorists may be deluding themselves into thinking they're doing it for the greater good, but their still indiscriminately killing intelligent beings for their own ends. Under 3.5's objective alignment system the organization is unquestionably evil. Individual members may or may not be evil, themselves, but they're on a fast track to that end of the alignment scale, since upholding the organization's goals -requires- them to commit evil deeds.

Almost sounds like something the Baatezu cooked up to try and snare a few druid souls.

[Frathe]

Genocide is evil, period. I don't see how the motivation for it matters in the least.

Your eco-terrorists may be deluding themselves into thinking they're doing it for the greater good, but their still indiscriminately killing intelligent beings for their own ends. Under 3.5's objective alignment system the organization is unquestionably evil. Individual members may or may not be evil, themselves, but they're on a fast track to that end of the alignment scale, since upholding the organization's goals -requires- them to commit evil deeds.

Almost sounds like something the Baatezu cooked up to try and snare a few druid souls.

No, no, I definitely agree. They're Evil. The thing I was questioning was the Wizards article, which said that ideals were evil or good and means were chaotic or orderly, and that determined alignment. In this case it's the means that are evil.

[Chilingsworth]

Genocide is evil, period. I don't see how the motivation for it matters in the least.

Your eco-terrorists may be deluding themselves into thinking they're doing it for the greater good, but their still indiscriminately killing intelligent beings for their own ends. Under 3.5's objective alignment system the organization is unquestionably evil. Individual members may or may not be evil, themselves, but they're on a fast track to that end of the alignment scale, since upholding the organization's goals -requires- them to commit evil deeds.

Almost sounds like something the Baatezu cooked up to try and snare a few druid souls.

What, never heard of Omnicidal Neutral (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmnicidalNeutral)? :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, no, I definitely agree. They're Evil. The thing I was questioning was the Wizards article, which said that ideals were evil or good and means were chaotic or orderly, and that determined alignment. In this case it's the means that are evil

I haven't read that article. It doesn't really matter anyway. The actual rules that describe how alignment works are in the books. That article is only the understanding of the person that wrote it and is just as subject to misinterpretation as anyone here.

My understanding was that both the ethical and moral axes of alignment considered ends, means, and motivation of any bit of behavior to determine the alignment of that instance and the overall pattern of behavior of a character to determine their alignment.

Whether the example ecoterrorism organization is a lawful or chaotic one depends on how its organized and how it goes about achieving its goals.

A loose collection of like-minded individuals that act in more or less independent cells would be a chaotic organization.

An organization with a detailed ranking system and clear chain of command that executes carefully planned operations would be a lawful organization.

A neutral organization would blend features of both, having a less clearly structured ranking system and chain of command with loosley organized cells of auxilliary units or a series of tightly knit units of roughly equal standing and clearly described entry guidelines that conducts carefully executed operations on a regular basis.

[TuggyNE]

No, no, I definitely agree. They're Evil. The thing I was questioning was the Wizards article, which said that ideals were evil or good and means were chaotic or orderly, and that determined alignment. In this case it's the means that are evil.

And there are other cases where the ideals are chaotic or lawful.

The way I'd personally peg the L/C axis (which doesn't jive perfectly with WotC) is that Lawful characters are about organizing society for cooperation (willing or unwilling), and the idea that laws and principles and guidelines and best practices and so on and so forth are not only potentially useful, but always useful; in some cases they may consider them inherently worthwhile. Chaotic characters, on the other hand, consider that the value and usefulness of freedom, creativity, individualism, etc is far higher than any attempts to formalize things, and that everyone should do their own thing.

There are also, of course, a lot of people who are less high-minded about it, and only care about (in Lawful cases) doing what they're supposed to, keeping their head down, working within the system, and that sort of thing; and similarly in Chaotic cases, there are quite a few that don't worry about others much at all: they only care that they themselves are free to do as they choose.

Under this scheme, curiously, Good characters lean a bit more toward Law and Evil characters toward Chaos, though LE and CG are still perfectly possible: only an Evil character can have the utter disregard for others full Chaos entails, while only Good characters can really make cooperation with others utterly complete and selfless. In fact, this seems to have (to some extent, at least) been the idea early in D&D history, and it's hard to be sure it ever fully left.

The extent to which this reflects my own inclinations in alignment is left as an exercise for the reader.

[ArcturusV]

Which makes sense considering in 4th they cut down alignments so it was linear from Lawful Good - Good - Neutral - Chaotic - Chaotic Evil. So that was probably more or less their view for a lot longer. And in some of the ways they wrote up alignment descriptors in some books I think they were trying to stress that more in 3.0/3.5 and purposefully ignore or marginalize the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil. At least the perceived bias towards that set up that I seemed to see in what I read.

Though reading their alignment descriptors I'd say despite the article the closer truth to it would be that Good - Evil axis is more about how your character interacts with the outside world. And Law - Chaos is more about where your character sees their place in the world.