Anti-heroes and Alignment

[Xuldarinar]

Something that has been bugging me lately.

When it comes to standard characters of alignment, it is relatively straight forward. We know how each alignment is expected to act. We also have exalted characters, which sort of add another category to the good alignments.

But then, we have anti-heroes. The only real mention of them in 3.x, that I know of, is in the Book of Vile Darkness. While I have no problem with their example of an anti-hero (Elric of Melnibone), it doesn't really elaborate on what defines an anti-hero alignment wise. Are we to assume, being listed under the section "An Evil Party", that anti-heroes are generally Evil by D&D's definition? Further more, what would define anti-heroes of different alignments (CE, NE, LE, so on)?

[Flickerdart]

D&D alignment frowns on the whole "the end justifies the means" thing. An anti-hero is Evil or at best Neutral, even if the ends they work towards are the squeakiest Good.

[mabriss lethe]

I don't know if there would be any official wording, but I'd say that any Non-good alignment could easily fit the Anti-hero archetype. A case might even be made for a CG character if it were played carefully. I don't see too many options for exploring the anti-hero concept with either NG or LG characters, though.

[SciChronic]

i'd say its a case by case basis.

some could be considered CG due to their brutality such as Wolverine or The Punisher

others could be like Deadpool or Lobo who would probably be CN

anti-heroes could be on any spectrum of evil as they could take on anti-hero aspects whenever they have a tendency to do a variety of good things in their own way when it suits them.

[Flickerdart]

some could be considered CG due to their brutality such as Wolverine or The Punisher
I'm sorry, what? You think a guy who wears black except for the massive skull on his chest is CG?

[Scumbaggery]

i'd say its a case by case basis.

some could be considered CG due to their brutality such as Wolverine or The Punisher

others could be like Deadpool or Lobo who would probably be CN

anti-heroes could be on any spectrum of evil as they could take on anti-hero aspects whenever they have a tendency to do a variety of good things in their own way when it suits them.

Ill-fate is going to happen to your Pokemon character because of this statement, Science.

[SciChronic]

I'm sorry, what? You think a guy who wears black except for the massive skull on his chest is CG?

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWpK0wsnitc), I feel, captures the Punisher's character well. He tries to ignore injustice, but he still fights it. Brutally. Making himself judge, jury, and executioner. So yes, I'd say he is CG.


Ill-fate is going to happen to your Pokemon character because of this statement, Science.

Yes, he did murder his entire race, something very Evil, but it was out of self-aggrandizement. He's also now a bounty hunter. I'd say both of those are CN actions. I find intent more important than the actual action itself more important regarding alignment.

[Lvl45DM!]

There are a few kinds of 'anti-hero'. The ones relevant to this thread are
"Good but dickish" like Batman who is probably NG but has been accurately described by all alignments except the Evil ones
"Does good things for selfish reasons" Vegeta in DBZ started off this way. He wanted to kill Frieza and take on Cell for his own reasons. I'd peg this kind of Anti Hero as Neutral
"Fights bad guys, but is as violent as them in every way" Bryan Mills from Taken is an evil man who tortures someone for info, leaves him to suffer slow death by electrocution for no reason, shoots an innocent to get someone else to talk. He is Evil. But he is fighting for his daughter so we can still cheer him on.

[Red Fel]

I'd say it depends on what's so "anti" about your anti-hero.

Someone who breaks the laws, but never harms the innocent? I could see CG there.

Someone who will do terrible things, but follows a stringent code of honor and always strives towards the greater good? LN at best.

As Flickerdart pointed out, the "ends justify the means" mentality is an archetype of D&D evil, not good. Good in D&D will always have lines that it will not cross. These are not lines with regard to obedience, or law - those are on the L-C spectrum. These are lines of morality - certain acts which a Good character can simply not stomach, regardless of intent or motive.

Heroes don't all have to be Paladins, naturally. One can kill one's enemies dishonorably, can use poisons and traps, and manage to remain Good. But when one lowers oneself to certain levels, plumbs certain depths, it becomes impossible to stay on that side of the alignment spectrum.

That's why antiheroes are complicated in D&D.

With regard to the Punisher, I could see an arguable CG, and here's why: His methods are brutal and merciless. But as long as (1) he kills to protect the innocent, and (2) he never harms the innocent, he's not technically evil. He gets pretty close. For instance, if the Punisher engaged in torture, that would get him to CN pretty quickly, regardless of his motives.

As a rule, the line between "I kill them in a fight" or "I kill them in self-defense" or "I kill them to defend others," and "I torture them first," is the line between G and E. Similarly, the annihilation of an entire society, for any reason, or the destruction of a soul - these are pretty unforgivably evil.

[Scumbaggery]

Yes, he did murder his entire race, something very Evil, but it was out of self-aggrandizement. He's also now a bounty hunter. I'd say both of those are CN actions. I find intent more important than the actual action itself more important regarding alignment.

I would have to disagree. He became a bounty hunter because he felt like he had nothing better to do than literally kill people for money, regardless of their alignment.

Killing your race as a 'science project' is pretty evil, but it was more of a way for him to have no weakness ever again (Czarnians, are you should know, can only be killed by other Czarnians.)

More to the point of the thread, however, Sci has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Chaotic Good represents good intentions without boundries. Whenever I play one, I am usually the guy that will burn down a village to stop a plague. Chaotic Neutral might be more accurate, depending on your character, just because their end-goal might be incredibly selfish as opposed for the greater good.

[BrokenChord]

Uh, no, burning down a village to stop a plague is NOT chaotic good. That's a sillly notion to even consider. Kill any particular person who you've failed to constrain into the town with ranged weaponry to keep them from going to the next town? Fine. I'll accept that; it fits into, coincidentally, the anti-hero theme, and if the plague is dangerous enough that you can't let anyone leave that guy wouldn't have been alive much longer anyway. Burning down a village to prevent a plague spreading is strictly Evil no matter how you slice it.

Anti-Heroes working rely entirely on good DMs to have a realistic alignment. RAW DND doesn't support anti-heroism. Because that's just another Evil. And it's not like it balances out; remember, you can find bullet trains to Evil about as often as you can find another step on the Good staircase. The closest to Anti-Hero you can really get and stay good is to kill somebody to prevent the authorities from giving them life in prison, and going solo, beating anybody who tries to help you into fleeing or unconsciousness.

[Deophaun]

With regard to the Punisher, I could see an arguable CG, and here's why: His methods are brutal and merciless. But as long as (1) he kills to protect the innocent, and (2) he never harms the innocent, he's not technically evil. He gets pretty close. For instance, if the Punisher engaged in torture, that would get him to CN pretty quickly, regardless of his motives.
Now, I'm no comic book aficionado, but from what I've seen of the Punisher, he tortures all the time. For example, in that little video that was linked, he hobbles the gang leader, douses him with alcohol, and leaves an open flame available for any of the waiting witnesses to get some payback. He had a gun; he could have just shot the SOB. The additional pain he extracts from the villain is not just unnecessary. The Punisher actually has to go out of his way to inflict it. That's torture.

[Scumbaggery]

Uh, no, burning down a village to stop a plague is NOT chaotic good. That's a sillly notion to even consider. Kill any particular person who you've failed to constrain into the town with ranged weaponry to keep them from going to the next town? Fine. I'll accept that; it fits into, coincidentally, the anti-hero theme, and if the plague is dangerous enough that you can't let anyone leave that guy wouldn't have been alive much longer anyway. Burning down a village to prevent a plague spreading is strictly Evil no matter how you slice it.

Depending on if all other options are expended or nonexistent, it would be a necessary evil. Necessary evils fall upon an anti-hero to pull off because no one else has the guts. A single action doesn't determine alignment as a whole, and alignment itself is kind of a wonky system since it is really a point-of-view matter.

Regardless, it's an example.

[Xuldarinar]

To add on here. What about anti-villians?

[SciChronic]

Now, I'm no comic book aficionado, but from what I've seen of the Punisher, he tortures all the time. For example, in that little video that was linked, he hobbles the gang leader, douses him with alcohol, and leaves an open flame available for any of the waiting witnesses to get some payback. He had a gun; he could have just shot the SOB. The additional pain he extracts from the villain is not just unnecessary. The Punisher actually has to go out of his way to inflict it. That's torture.

He left the gang leader's victims to decide whether or not the gang leader should have died, not just witnesses. He was making sure that A) the gang leader received pain for the people he victimized B) let the victims carry out judgement and decide the gang leader's fate C) made it so that the victims wouldn't have to defend himself while carrying out judgement. So he's an advocate of eye for an eye.

@BrokenChord
I think you aren't grasping the larger picture. When you are leading a kingdom and news of a plague that is spreading reaches your ears, what is more important: the lives of 200 people in a village of people who if they don't have the plague already, they are likely to contract it in the coming weeks or the lives of the thousands you have to protect in your kingdom? When you also have rival kingdoms surrounding you that are more than willing to take your land the moment you show weakness, having to move troops to quarantine a village is dangerous. Hell, the people who are quarantining the village may contract the plague themselves. Burning down a village = Evil. Burning down a village w/ collateral damage in order to protect a kingdom = CG

[Red Fel]

Now, I'm no comic book aficionado, but from what I've seen of the Punisher, he tortures all the time. For example, in that little video that was linked, he hobbles the gang leader, douses him with alcohol, and leaves an open flame available for any of the waiting witnesses to get some payback. He had a gun; he could have just shot the SOB. The additional pain he extracts from the villain is not just unnecessary. The Punisher actually has to go out of his way to inflict it. That's torture.

Admittedly, I don't read Punisher, either. Nor did I watch the entire video clip. I'm speaking of hypotheticals, and only limited general knowledge of the character.

A guy who goes around with his own personal armory, shooting the crap out of criminals? Brutal, but not technically evil.

A guy who tortures them first? Evil.

From the description you give, he's definitely non-good.

EDIT:

To add on here. What about anti-villians?

As I understand it, an antihero is a character who does bad things, but is nonetheless a good guy in the overall scheme. An antivillain, then, would be someone who is capable of good, but is ultimately evil. Is that the definition you're using?

I would argue that an antivillain, despite doing individual acts of good, remains evil. Unlike heroes, for whom the ends cannot justify certain means, for villains, the opposite is true - any ends can justify the means. A villain can do tremendous acts of good, may even be capable of compassion and mercy, all in the name of a greater evil goal. For heroes, actions matter; for villains, intentions do. (I seem to remember something about paving roads.)

Thus, an antihero who engages in truly evil acts ceases to be good; an antivillain who engages in good acts may nonetheless remain evil if his motives are corrupt.

[Deophaun]

HHe was making sure that A) the gang leader received pain for the people he victimized
Torture, right there. Done.

And he could have offered the gun to any of the bystanders. Instead, he chose immolation.

[Flickerdart]

Burning down a village w/ collateral damage in order to protect a kingdom = CG
Nope. Still evil. A CG king would truck on over to Celestia and badger Solars until they fixed his plague for him.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't understand how so many people think adventurers are mainly Good. Let's face it: PCs are almost universally bad guys: they spend their time killing folks and stealing their stuff.

Embrace your Evil alignment, and get on with playing the game!

[Angelalex242]

Who said anything about Solars? The biggest boys of Heaven have bigger fish to fry then plagues.

If you've got a plague, you wanna hightail it to the nearest Pelor temple, and maybe get as many Paladins as are available (and at level 6 or better) to help. CG wants to cure the disease, not nuke everyone dead who has it.

Anyways...Batman would function as an Anti-Hero in D&D. He is definitively good, but he will BEAT THE **** OUT OF YOU (good is not necessarily NICE...) if you don't tell him where your boss is. (For Batman, subdual damage for the greater good is okay, killing absolutely is not.)

[BrokenChord]

"Moving your troops"? If it's a 200 person village, it probably takes no more than four guys on each side to strike down anybody who tries to leave. Considering the necessity to take shifts, that's sending over, what, twenty four guys, not counting the guards you probably already had stationed there? "Moving your troops" isn't exactly the right term unless they start a full-blown rebellion and kill your guys to escape, at which point just send a messenger to cities near that (horses or magic will make your guy much faster than them) and tell them not to let any civilians into their cities until you can more properly correct the situation, which may or may not involve burning, which would be at this point justified.

@Curmudgeon: Yeah, a lot of PCs do that, and yeah, for the most part that's not Good (though not necessarily Evil either). However, there are certainly Good PCs. Conversely to your statement about people thinking most PCs are Good, I wonder why so many people think every group of PCs are ravenous murderhobos! Admittedly, I've never had a character who owns a house of their own, but most of my characters don't kill without a very good reason. And before you say anything, no, neither "they have green skin and fangs and I don't" nor "I want their stuff" are good reasons.

... Well, maybe it is to other groups' PCs. But they should really be Evil or at best the balancing edge of Neutral, like you suggested.

[Matticussama]

I think the anti-hero usually tends to fall into the Chaotic Neutral category. Good doesn't believe in "neccesary evil" except in the most extreme of circumstances, and sometimes not even then. The Punisher, Rorschach, etc commit far too many heinous acts to be considered "Good" in any sense; however, they do follow their own personal code for how they think the world should be and say to hell with the rest of society, which I think fits Chaotic Neutral pretty well.

[Flickerdart]

I think the anti-hero usually tends to fall into the Chaotic Neutral category. Good doesn't believe in "neccesary evil" except in the most extreme of circumstances, and sometimes not even then. The Punisher, Rorschach, etc commit far too many heinous acts to be considered "Good" in any sense; however, they do follow their own personal code for how they think the world should be and say to hell with the rest of society, which I think fits Chaotic Neutral pretty well.
Following any code, whether personal or set by a higher authority, is a Lawful behaviour.

[Matticussama]

Perhaps code is too strong a word, then. But the main aspects of the anti-hero that make me think Chaotic Neutral is this specific description under the alignment descriptions: " He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions."

That sounds like most anti-heroes to me.

[hamishspence]

Following any code, whether personal or set by a higher authority, is a Lawful behaviour.

The Giant has some interesting things to say about the "personal code" form of Lawfulness:



In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

[ben-zayb]

I don't think that the antihero archetype itself can be tied down to one specific alignment type. People just have to be more imaginative. I mean, heck, even the poster boy Batman can be defended to be tied to each of the 9 alignments. (Yep, including chaotic evil)

In d&d though, I have to agree with Curmudgeon. It's not even special for a barkeep or townguard to ping *evil*. Good and evil can easily coexist with each other in harmony. It's the Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid that are, ironically, the iconic annoying evil and good archetypes

This article (http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2011/10/19/dd-alignments-vs-real-characters/) is kind of spot on, IMO, including the bit about peopke arguing whether their character X is of alignment Y or Z.

[GameSpawn]

For the record, Complete Scoundrel has a section called "Scoundrels of any alignment", with examples and descriptions. I wouldn't say all their examples constitute anti-heroes, but some do. They offer Batman as an example of a lawful good scoundrel, and James Bond as an example of a lawful neutral one.

[ben-zayb]

For the record, Complete Scoundrel has a section called "Scoundrels of any alignment", with examples and descriptions. I wouldn't say all their examples constitute anti-heroes, but some do. They offer Batman as an example of a lawful good scoundrel, and James Bond as an example of a lawful neutral one.

Yes. There's one little problem there, though. There are many takes on batman from very different authors. He breaks laws to further his cause. Consistently. You could pick any of the nine alignments, and you could find at least one reasonable internet post defending why batman is of that alignment.

If we could take anything from Complete Scoundrel, is that the antihero archetype can produce all sorts of character that can vary in all sorts of alignment.

[hamishspence]

It's not even special for a barkeep or townguard to ping *evil*.

Certainly this is true in 3rd ed- in Eberron especially, but in Faerun as well- though editions prior to 3e may have had slightly different rules- with only people actively intent on something evil, or very malevolent as a whole, pinging.

[ben-zayb]

Certainly this is true in 3rd ed- in Eberron especially, but in Faerun as well- though editions prior to 3e may have had slightly different rules- with only people actively intent on something evil, or very malevolent as a whole, pinging.

But... isn't that just what some of them are?

That one barkeep is intently blackmailing this one crook into serving him, and definitely isn't above lying/cheating whenever some poor customer loses their stash of money in the local pub.

That one town-guard keeps all the townsfolk safe by as mandated by his duty, yet is enjoying every moment of slowly and painfully torturing the vile fiends that he fought. I don't think it's uncommon to meet plenty of NPCs with similar agenda/motives/intentions.

Going explicitly by what D&D considers evil (there's a thread for that I think), it isn't unthinkable (and it makes more sense, on some) for a functional society to have a fair distribution of good and evil.

[hamishspence]

But... isn't that just what some of them are?

That one barkeep is intently blackmailing this one crook into serving him, and definitely isn't above lying/cheating whenever some poor customer loses their stash of money in the local pub.

That one town-guard keeps all the townsfolk safe by as mandated by his duty, yet is enjoying every moment of slowly and painfully torturing the vile fiends that he fought. I don't think it's uncommon to meet plenty of NPCs with similar agenda/motives/intentions.The 2e DMG specifically stated that an evil-aligned mage in a bar, concentrating on his beer rather than any Evil Plans, probably won't detect as Evil.

Whereas, in 3e, they will.

[Red Fel]

The thing is, there's commonplace evil, and then capital-e Evil.

About a third of the ordinary folks you'll encounter in a given settlement (maybe fewer in a religious or very organized society, or more in a savage or brutal place) are going to be the mundane kind of evil. You know, liars, cheats, misers, people who will start a barroom brawl or kick a guy when he's down. Not complete monsters, just jerks.

But when you start talking PCs, you have to address matters of scale. Deeds and intents are greater; alignment gaps become correspondingly greater.

The average commoner has simple deeds, like doing his job or getting into a brawl, and simple goals, like owning his own shop or traveling to the big city. He's not likely to step foot out of town in his life, he's not destined for anything spectacular, and his dreams and actions have little impact on the world around them.

But the average PC becomes larger than life almost overnight. His goals are massive and overarching, his actions cross continents and even planes. Even at low levels, he is facing challenges which would thwart a platoon of villagers. Accordingly, what he intends has more meaning, what he accomplishes has more impact.

Thus, a commoner can be a decent guy who gets his hands dirty, or a jerk with a heart of gold. But when a PC does it, it becomes magnitudes more complicated.

[Flickerdart]

About a third of the ordinary folks you'll encounter in a given settlement (maybe fewer in a religious or very organized society, or more in a savage or brutal place) are going to be the mundane kind of evil.
There is much literature and research (which I have no desire to go into on this forum for obvious reasons) that shows how regulations can be used to justify Evil acts that would be unimaginable without them. Organization is neither Good nor Evil. It is Lawful, though particular methods of organization might encourage more Good or more Evil behaviour. Religion in D&D can be of any alignment.

[Cheiromancer]

I don't understand how so many people think adventurers are mainly Good. Let's face it: PCs are almost universally bad guys: they spend their time killing folks and stealing their stuff.

Embrace your Evil alignment, and get on with playing the game!

That's what I think makes the question of anti-heroes so relevant - it's what PCs are. D&D is not often a game of heroes vs. villains - rather it is a game of anti-heroes vs. villains.

But this still leaves open the question of how to describe anti-heroes in terms of alignment. Maybe reserve the neutral alignments for anti-heroes? Evil for villains, and good for those rare characters (and NPCs) who don't kill people and take their stuff.

[Red Fel]

There is much literature and research (which I have no desire to go into on this forum for obvious reasons) that shows how regulations can be used to justify Evil acts that would be unimaginable without them. Organization is neither Good nor Evil. It is Lawful, though particular methods of organization might encourage more Good or more Evil behaviour. Religion in D&D can be of any alignment.

Valid. On the other hand, in a lawful society, it is also easier to enforce morality through morally-objected laws. But I will concede that order is Lawful, not Good, and may provide cover to Evil.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't see any problem with Evil-aligned antiheroes (They are "anti"-heroes, after all). I think they can have the same amount of diversity in alignment as traditional heroes, only their distribution favors evil more than good.


Besides, I think the alignment system is unnecessarily simplistic and restrictive for many types of games. It works much better to model the cut-and-dry heroic fantasy archetypes which D&D was built to represent, but gradually breaks down the farther you go from the genre. The cracks begin to show at "small evils for the greater good", and it's reduced to a smoldering wreck somewhere around the Batman-Rorschach region.