PDA

View Full Version : What is V's Aligment



EvilElitest
2008-03-18, 11:16 AM
Well as i'm bedridden, i've been watching a lot of movies. I just watched V for Vendetta, and I wondered what V's aligment was.


now it has been a while since i read the comic, so i only barely remember it, but V was more brutal and killed more people in the comic I believe, he did torture the Voice of Fate. So i personally think in the comic V is most likely CE, maybe LE (a bit of an irony if the latter). In the movie he is far more moral and is less cruel, so i'm thinking CN, maybe N or LE.


What do other people think? Feel free to mention the aligments of other characters if you will

i think Creedy (movie) is NE
Adam Susan is LE
Adam Sultur is NE
The Detective is LN
The Voice of England/Fate is LE

What do you think?
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-03-18, 11:25 AM
I would have to go with CN for V.
Sutler and Creedy both LE.
The detective I'd put as NG, he did the right thing even though it was against the law, but not completely chaotic.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-18, 11:26 AM
Why are you bedridden?

Hope you get well soon.

V (in the film) was Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. Possibly more of the latter. He didn't actively harm innocents and was essentially trying to liberate England.

Most of the Gov't officials, cops and whatnot were CE, NE LE or LN, except the detective was definately LN. I suspect the actual vast bulk of the police forces would be LN.

EvilElitest
2008-03-18, 11:32 AM
Why are you bedridden?

Hope you get well soon.

I've been out for two 1/2 weeks with a series of really bad coughs, blood and all that. Explains how i find so much time for this thread.



V (in the film) was Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. Possibly more of the latter. He didn't actively harm innocents and was essentially trying to liberate England.

He did blow up the parlement and refused any pleas for mercy from his victims however. I'd say CN



Most of the Gov't officials, cops and whatnot were CE, NE LE or LN, except the detective was definately LN. I suspect the actual vast bulk of the police forces would be LN.
The head of the propaganda in the film seemed LE or LN, he seemed more NE in the comic (through to be fair, its been a while)
from
EE

Aquillion
2008-03-18, 11:51 AM
Hmm. First, he definitely isn't Chaotic Neutral; as written, I can say that with near-certainty (see lower down). I was going to say that he's obviously chaotic, but:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.He tells the truth, keeps his word, and honors tradition (after a fashion), and he definitely judges those who fall short of their duties.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Hmm, strange. Is he honorable? Is he trustworthy? He isn't obedient to authority, or particularly reliable. Is he closed-minded? He is, at the very least, judgmental, but some of the other things here are dubious.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.He follows his conscience, I think, and resents being told what to do. But he likes tradition, and one of his grievences against the regime is that they have abolished many traditional things. And he keeps his word.


"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. This is much more clear, though. By this paragraph, he's plainly chaotic.


Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.At the very least, he is not neutral.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.Hmm. Little or no respect for life, but a great deal of respect for dignity. He makes personal sacrifices, too.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.Does he have no compassion? He doesn't oppress, but he does hurt and kill.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.Again: While good or evil are both possible, neutral are not ("lack the commitment? compunctions against killing the innocent?" Both fail sharply.)

I would say that he is very definitely not neutral anywhere in his alignment; the official descriptions (as lacking 'driving purpose' and so on) almost strictly rule him out. The rest is less clear.

Now, examining the exact alignments, several might fit:

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[b]. She [b]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.Strangely, everything here fits.


A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.I wouldn't call him 'kind and benevolent', but overall this isn't so bad. Maybe he is, from a certain long-term perspective.

What about Chaotic Neutral? That seems like a popular choice. Well, sadly, if you read the D&D definition of it:

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Ok, not chaotic neutral, then. Very much not chaotic neutral.


A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for 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. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promisesNot lawful evil, since he does care a great deal about freedom and dignity, and condemns people only for their actions.


A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.There is some of him here (violent and unpredictable, possibly hatred), but his violence is certainly not arbitrary, and he isn't hot-tempered or driven by greed and lust. I don't think he could be chaotic evil.

...bizarrely, the listed alignment that seems to suit him best is Lawful Good. Which just shows that the D&D alignment system sucks. The Chaotic Neutral wording, though, implies that someone who wages a campaign of anarchy to liberate others would be Chaotic Good. So that would probably be a good choice, too.

The basic definition for evil isn't so bad, but the individual alignments seem closer to "cackling madly while devouring babies for cash and sexual satisfaction" rather than "overzealous revolutionary". I don't think he could fit any of the individual evil alignments.

TempusCCK
2008-03-18, 12:55 PM
I have to give you props, EE, you chose quite possibly one of the most complex characters for analysis with such a clumsy tool.

That being said, however, I am a fan of "intention dictates alignment." But this is a little fuzzy as well, if killing that baby will save the universe, is it a good act? Are we looking at the greater good or the good of each individual?

Generally, killing babies is bad, but if the only way to save existence is by slaying a baby, well, then we can forgive you.

I think the same goes for V. He's seen the path he must take to secure the greater good (freedom from an oppressive government) and is doing whatever he must to obtain that goal. Sure he kills all kinds of Government officials, but by making their choice in working for the Government, whether or not they may be personally evil, they are supporting an evil cause. Their death may be tragic, but it's for the greater good (at least in V's mind).

So, yeah, fuzzy argument, but you can justify him being good in that context.

Lazy Zomb
2008-03-18, 01:14 PM
The baby dies either way...


The problem with the character, at least in the movie, is he is evil and good (if I remember correctly). Doesn't he start off as a "bad guy" before the camera switches and he becomes the "good guy"?

Eh, was quite a time since I've seen the movie, maybe I'm remembering it wrong. And besides, never read the comic.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-03-18, 01:14 PM
Dammit, EE, you knew this was a bad idea. Seriously, alignment freaking sucks even within the confines of D&D, and you want to apply it to an Alan Moore character whose entire purpose is to be morally ambiguous?

I'll say he's Chaotic. That's all. I make no pretensions of moral judgment on a character that complicated. I bet someone can even come up with a good debate against Chaotic.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-18, 01:18 PM
Dammit, EE, you knew this was a bad idea. Seriously, alignment freaking sucks even within the confines of D&D, and you want to apply it to an Alan Moore character whose entire purpose is to be morally ambiguous?

I'll say he's Chaotic. That's all. I make no pretensions of moral judgment on a character that complicated. I bet someone can even come up with a good debate against Chaotic.

I think Aquillion already defeated you, pre-emptively. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, D&D alignments can justify anything you want them to. Skew it far enough and anything can be anything you want it to be...

One minor 4e aside; characters like V are why they decided to make "unaligned". :smallbiggrin:

Zincorium
2008-03-18, 01:45 PM
Allegiance: Freedom.

Blanks
2008-03-18, 01:50 PM
Actually I always thought the entire point of this movie was a CG morale - the taglines was (acording to IMDB):

"Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gun powder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot."

"An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of 'The Matrix' trilogy"

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

"Freedom! Forever!"

The first 2 doesnt tell us anything but the last two are (as i see it), the epitomy of CG.

Surgoshan
2008-03-18, 06:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that as he was written in the comic books (I've never read them, but I've read about them), V was a much more morally ambiguous character who didn't really care about innocents. He was definitely chaotic, despising all form of government, and while he didn't actively seek to harm innocents all the time, he didn't go out of his way to save them, either. He was on a personal quest to destroy all government in Britain.

Some of his ambiguous actions made it into the movie. Remember when he went into the British Television Network's broadcast tower? He dressed up a whole bunch of comparatively blameless employees as himself; one of them was shot and killed by police. He was going to blow up the tower, which undoubtedly would have led to a great deal of damage and death (it being a very large structure). When he sends out thousands of Fawkes masks, the result is a rise in crime in general, which means that many largely blameless people suffered.

In the end, though, he just didn't give a damn about anyone else. He hated the government for very personal reasons and all the law and order it represented. All he cared about was destroying it. Chaotic Evil.

However, Inspector Finch was willing to work for a corrupt and largely evil government because he believed that supporting law and order was best for the people. Yes, they tended to suffer from the overall machinations of government, but that suffering was fairly limited compared to the overall good that stability and peace brought them. He didn't support law and order for their own sake, but because it was best for the people. Lawful Good.


In the movie? V becomes much more moral. He's a freedom fighter rather than someone hell-bent on vengeance. I dunno. Chaotic Good.

Swiftblu
2008-03-18, 07:35 PM
But vengeance wasn't his only motivation in the comic. He was, in his own sick little way, fighting for the greater good. I like to think of him as the Joker and Batman combined: he's not even remotely sane, but if he was, he'd be a good guy, and that shows when he isn't murdering innocent people.

D&D's alignment system wasn't meant to model anybody who might show up in a postmodern comic, but if you want to pigeonhole him, I'd say that he's Chaotic Neutral.

Granted, this is all from the comic. Movie V was Chaotic Good, through and through.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-18, 08:35 PM
Considering that V is basically an individualist, arguably an anarchist, he must be chaotic. I'd see the movie V as Chaotic Good, possibly Neutral.

I don't see him as evil, even if his methods had been more brutal, because his motives aren't particularly selfish. His primary characteristic seems to be libertarianist, so I have to say I think his primary alignment component is chaotic. Good/Evil is secondary to him.

Haven't read the comic, but I'd have trouble seeing him as evil unless he's killing innocents. Things like torture are ok for a neutral character, as long as their target legitimately "deserves" it, or it's very necessary.

EvilElitest
2008-03-18, 08:51 PM
Hmm. First, he definitely isn't Chaotic Neutral; as written, I can say that with near-certainty (see lower down). I was going to say that he's obviously chaotic, but:

You certainly did your research here


He tells the truth, keeps his word, and honors tradition (after a fashion), and he definitely judges those who fall short of their duties.


He follows his conscience, I think, and resents being told what to do. But he likes tradition, and one of his grievences against the regime is that they have abolished many traditional things. And he keeps his word.

Does he tell the truth all the time? He seems liable to do what ever it takes to reach his goal
Also i don't think he does honor tradition. He admires tradition (more so in the movie), but he doesn't honor it, i mean he blew up many of Britain's historical landmarks, ones that symbolized government, not fascism (through they were twisted into showing that). He also (in the book) destoryed priceless dolls simply to torture a man (destroying art, one of the actions that he despises his enemies for doing) and most importantly, he makes Guy Fawkes a hero. Which is kinda weird, because Fawkes wasn't trying to destroy parliament because he was an anarchist, but because he was part of a Catholic plot right? Did that get expanded upon more in the comic? More to the point,
V believes in the destruction of government, not just the overthrow of teh fascist regime (through admittedly less so in the movie), which is certainly disregard for tradition.


Hmm, strange. Is he honorable? Is he trustworthy? He isn't obedient to authority, or particularly reliable. Is he closed-minded? He is, at the very least, judgmental, but some of the other things here are dubious.

I don't think he is that honorable. trustworthy maybe, but he plays very dirty, in a terrorist like fashion (which makes sense, because otherwise he would be killed). For example he
Infiltrates buildings, secretly blows up buildings and kills innocents who get in his way
He murders people without giving them a chance (more so in the books, he kills two fingermen after blowing out the train's lights before they know what is going on
Tortures a man to insanity (in the comic book)
Uses innocent people as human shields after launching a smoke screen
Kills police officers with impunity (not really that bad considering they are working for a fascist government but still)
murders people who are already defeated
Ignores pleas for mercy
Kills defenseless.



This is much more clear, though. By this paragraph, he's plainly chaotic.

fair enough


At the very least, he is not neutral.
Ok, i can accept that, unless he his main goal is his vendetta before overthrow of the government. I mean, does he value his own vengeance more than his hope to make a better world in place of the fascist. Certainly so in the book, less clear in the movie


Hmm. Little or no respect for life, but a great deal of respect for dignity. He makes personal sacrifices, too.

He does risk the harm of innocents with out a problem and has no respect for his enemies dignity. But he does value people's life in theory


Does he have no compassion? He doesn't oppress, but he does hurt and kill.

He has compassion, he just uses an "ends justifies the means" ideal


Again: While good or evil are both possible, neutral are not ("lack the commitment? compunctions against killing the innocent?" Both fail sharply.)

ok, i can accept he isn't neutral. However he certainly isn't good, he has committed plenty of evil acts, including lack of mercy, torture, murder and using human shields, along with other things


I would say that he is very definitely not neutral anywhere in his alignment; the official descriptions (as lacking 'driving purpose' and so on) almost strictly rule him out. The rest is less clear.

Fair enough


Now, examining the exact alignments, several might fit:
Strangely, everything here fits.

You forget however, that LG people cannot
Torture
Harm innocents
Murder people
Not accept surrenders
Risk the lives of innocents
Not give people chances of redeemption, mercy or surrendering.
Certainly not good

To be fair, he does less of those thing in the movie


I wouldn't call him 'kind and benevolent', but overall this isn't so bad. Maybe he is, from a certain long-term perspective.

Ends justifies the means breaks with LG. However i never considered LE, so maybe


What about Chaotic Neutral? That seems like a popular choice. Well, sadly, if you read the D&D definition of it:
Ok, not chaotic neutral, then. Very much not chaotic neutral.

I stand corrected


Not lawful evil, since he does care a great deal about freedom and dignity, and condemns people only for their actions.

Actually, i think LE works if you think of V as part of a different code of conduct. Because it really is V's code of code vs. Nosefire's code of conduct.


There is some of him here (violent and unpredictable, possibly hatred), but his violence is certainly not arbitrary, and he isn't hot-tempered or driven by greed and lust. I don't think he could be chaotic evil.
hmmm, you make a good argument


...bizarrely, the listed alignment that seems to suit him best is Lawful Good. Which just shows that the D&D alignment system sucks. The Chaotic Neutral wording, though, implies that someone who wages a campaign of anarchy to liberate others would be Chaotic Good. So that would probably be a good choice, too.

That would, except Good rejects him because he does evil. Personally i'd say

Just to put it out there, the D&D aligment system is quite good, you just need to buy 2 or 5 books before it makes sense, if your only going by the PHB we just get confused. it is going to be even worst in 4E, because alignments are no longer absolute (why even bother keeping them)



The basic definition for evil isn't so bad, but the individual alignments seem closer to "cackling madly while devouring babies for cash and sexual satisfaction" rather than "overzealous revolutionary". I don't think he could fit any of the individual evil alignments.
To be fair, he can still fit into those molds as other villains have, just haphazardly

very nicely thought out, well done


I have to give you props, EE, you chose quite possibly one of the most complex characters for analysis with such a clumsy tool.

It seems like an interesting discussion


Generally, killing babies is bad, but if the only way to save existence is by slaying a baby, well, then we can forgive you.
If we go by good rules, you can't. You might keep your aligment if you do it only once, but it is condemned by good.



Dammit, EE, you knew this was a bad idea. Seriously, alignment freaking sucks even within the confines of D&D, and you want to apply it to an Alan Moore character whose entire purpose is to be morally ambiguous?

Personally i think the aligment is quite good, i just wish WotC made it clear to everyone instead of making us by half a dozen books and reading closely to even understand it.


I'll say he's Chaotic. That's all. I make no pretensions of moral judgment on a character that complicated. I bet someone can even come up with a good debate against Chaotic.
A very good one was made


One minor 4e aside; characters like V are why they decided to make "unaligned".

It doesn't help through, we still have alignments. Alignments only work in absolutes, without absolutes, it is up to personal option and quite frankly the entire system becomes Personal options (IE, it will soon be impossible to draw the lines between unaligned and good/evil. WotC needs to make up their mind, ether have absolute alignments (IE the same system, just better defined) or no alignments at all


Just to put it out there, V is plainly not good, he has committed many evil acts and has no signs of being upset about them
from
EE

GammaPaladin
2008-03-18, 09:20 PM
I dunno EE. I think Chaotics are allowed a bit more leeway in "Ends justify the means" practices.

EvilElitest
2008-03-18, 09:33 PM
I dunno EE. I think Chaotics are allowed a bit more leeway in "Ends justify the means" practices.

chaotic yes, good i don't think so
from
EE

GammaPaladin
2008-03-18, 09:55 PM
Well, I mean chaotic good is allowed much more leeway in it's methods than Lawful Good. It's part of being chaotic.

TheOOB
2008-03-18, 11:51 PM
I'd place V at neutral good, leaning in the direction of lawful good.

A chaotic person is someone who cares about the here and the now, they do whatever they think will work best right now, and they tend to adapt their behavior for the situation, rather then following a rigid set of traditions or ideals. They are the most adaptable alignment, but have a tendency to be too short sided, not always considering the far reaching and long term effects of their actions. They are also subject to more moral alignment drift, as they are more likely to use "evil" means to accomplish "good" goals if they believe that will be beneficial in the current situation.

V is not chaotic. All of his moves are carefully planned ahead to fairly exacting detail. He has almost everyone dancing to his tune, doing what he wants to achieve the goal he set. He has a little too much flexibility to be strictly lawful, but he knows exactally what he is doing and exactally what the consequences of his own actions will be.

Dode
2008-03-19, 12:33 AM
Transcends simplistic 2-dimensional alignment system that is D&D.


V is not chaotic.
Yet he's an anarchist.

Tura
2008-03-19, 01:02 AM
Seriously, alignment freaking sucks even within the confines of D&D, and you want to apply it to an Alan Moore character whose entire purpose is to be morally ambiguous?
+1.
But since V for Vendetta happens to be my favorite comic book of All Time, let's explore further. I won't repeat anything that has been said already, and sadly I won't give you a 2-letter summary of V's "alignment". But I'll tell you why I won't. :smallsmile:

The phrase that epitomizes V's "personality" has nothing to do with governments and people, or anarchy or liberty or anything like that. V's character can be described by three words.
Ideas are bulletproof.

Who was V? We don't know. We have no idea why he was arrested, we don't know if he is young or old, black or white, heck, we don't even know if he's a man or a woman. (Hugo's voice wasn't in the book's balloons and captions.)

You see, V is not a person. On the (obvious) symbolic level, he is an idea, a torch that remains lit in the darkest times, and passes from one person to another. But in reality too, V has willingly shed all aspects of his human personality, like an old cloak. Sure, much of his humanity had already been taken from him in prison. But he finished the job. He gave away, sacrificed if you like, his human self, to become a living Idea. He allows himself no emotions (the movie failed to show that), no wants, no needs, no individuality. And when the book ends, V dies, but the torch passes on. To the next person who will, inevitably, stop being a person at all, and will become an Idea.

And if you are not a person, how can you have alignment?
(Another Alan Moore character who simply doesn't qualify for having an alignment is Dr Manhattan, who transcends human morality for all intends and purposes.)

And some notes about basic themes in the book that were cut or twisted in the movie:

V didn't fall in love with anyone. He just doesn't do that.
V is an anarchist, probably on the bottom left corner of the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).
Anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with chaos and chaotic alignment.
Fighting the establishment does, but V wouldn't fight the establishment if it wasn't oppressive.
The government didn't cause a million deaths to come to power. Slashing civil liberties and creating a modern apartheid in the name of safety is reason enough for V to fight them.
Finch, the detective, is a willing tool of an oppressive government. It takes him a while before guilt finally catches up with him, but it does.
There's no such thing as a "good cop" in such situations.
V took up the torch from Valerie.
V didn't send out a million Guy Fawkes masks for no apparent reason.
V chose and trained and passed the torch to his sole successor.
Rumors of V's death were exaggerated. You see, ideas are bulletproof.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-19, 01:07 AM
Anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with chaos and chaotic alignment.

This is not the kind of statement you can just make, friend. This kind of statement requires support. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but the burden of evidence is on you to defend a statement like "anarchy has nothing to do with chaos or the chaotic alignment".

If you are going to make a counter-intuitive statement like that, you need to support it with an argument, or at least some kind of explanation.

If you want it to stick, you need to make it a good one.

Tura
2008-03-19, 01:15 AM
This is not the kind of statement you can just make, friend. This kind of statement requires support. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but the burden of evidence is on you to defend a statement like "anarchy has nothing to do with chaos or the chaotic alignment".
Ah, I'd love to, but the forum rules disallow political discussion. Why don't you check "anarchism" in wikipedia? Focus on the "theoretical social state" definition, of course. And go ahead and pm me if that doesn't convince you. :smallsmile:

GammaPaladin
2008-03-19, 01:23 AM
Anarchy is simply the extreme of individualism. Individualism = chaotic. Collectivism = Lawful.

Therefore V is chaotic. He supports individual choice, not collectivism. He is in fact, the absolute extreme of the chaotic alignment.

Methodical planning has nothing to do with the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

Tengu
2008-03-19, 04:49 AM
I've been out for two 1/2 weeks with a series of really bad coughs, blood and all that. Explains how i find so much time for this thread.


Nooo, tuberculosis! Please don't die, Rutee will be sad.

And on the actual topic, I haven't read the comics so I cannot comment, but I think Nerdo spoke well - V is supposed to be an ambigious character, so it's extremely hard to give him a DND alignment, especially since they are so badly defined.

Tura
2008-03-19, 11:32 AM
Anarchy is simply the extreme of individualism.
No, it isn't. It covers a wide spectrum from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Wikipedia is your friend.


Individualism = chaotic.
Collectivism = Lawful.
Why? Is a lawful person in, say, a democracy, obliged to support a dictatorship after a coup d'etat has succeeded, because "now they are the Law" ? Or, to bring this to V's world, is a lawful person obliged to support a democratically elected government that becomes oppressive?
It has nothing to do with the law/chaos axis.


Therefore V is chaotic. He supports individual choice, not collectivism.
Collectivism is NOT the opposite of choice. It also covers a wide range from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian systems. V can very well oppose a fascist collectivism and be at the same time all for collectivist anarchism.


Methodical planning has nothing to do with the lawful/chaotic spectrum.
True. :smallsmile: But then, with what does the law/chaos axis have to do, anyway?

It has to do with the Blood War. And it has to do with a generic fantasy "medieval" or more often "Iron Age" society. Applying it to a post-Age of Enlightenment world produces a paradox that merrily explodes into space. :smallsmile:

GammaPaladin
2008-03-19, 07:50 PM
I totally disagree with that. I firmly believe that "Lawful" doesn't mean blindly obeying laws, it means believing that security is better than freedom. Chaotic means believing that individual freedom is more important than the security of the collective. Simple as that.

This means that lawful people believe that an orderly, rules based society is best, even if it disenfranchises some people, abuses certain classes of person, or involves other evils. They believe that it's essential for people to be controlled by some powerful authority. At heart, lawful people are cynics, they believe humans are naturally destructive and cannot be trusted to rule themselves.

Chaotic people are the opposite. They believe that individual liberty is important enough that it's worth sacrificing security for the collective. The extreme of this view is opposition to all forms of governance. Some chaotics are optimists who believe people are wise enough to govern themselves. Others simply believe that the evils of authoritarian structures outweigh any potential good.

This is of course not considering the Good-Evil spectrum's effect on things.

Dervag
2008-03-19, 08:16 PM
This means that lawful people believe that an orderly, rules based society is best, even if it disenfranchises some people, abuses certain classes of person, or involves other evils. They believe that it's essential for people to be controlled by some powerful authority. At heart, lawful people are cynics, they believe humans are naturally destructive and cannot be trusted to rule themselves.How is it thinking people cannot be trusted to rule themselves to trust a dictator, though? And are there not lawful people who do that?


Chaotic people are the opposite. They believe that individual liberty is important enough that it's worth sacrificing security for the collective. The extreme of this view is opposition to all forms of governance. Some chaotics are optimists who believe people are wise enough to govern themselves. Others simply believe that the evils of authoritarian structures outweigh any potential good.So why are the physical embodiments of Chaos such lunatic-like beings?

mikeejimbo
2008-03-19, 08:18 PM
And some notes about basic themes in the book that were cut or twisted in the movie:

V didn't fall in love with anyone. He just doesn't do that.
V is an anarchist, probably on the bottom left corner of the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).
Anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with chaos and chaotic alignment.
Fighting the establishment does, but V wouldn't fight the establishment if it wasn't oppressive.
The government didn't cause a million deaths to come to power. Slashing civil liberties and creating a modern apartheid in the name of safety is reason enough for V to fight them.
Finch, the detective, is a willing tool of an oppressive government. It takes him a while before guilt finally catches up with him, but it does.
There's no such thing as a "good cop" in such situations.
V took up the torch from Valerie.
V didn't send out a million Guy Fawkes masks for no apparent reason.
V chose and trained and passed the torch to his sole successor.
Rumors of V's death were exaggerated. You see, ideas are bulletproof.


A lot of those changes bothered me. Especially how he falls in love with Evey.

Actually, even the minor changes (Like Gordon's job and Evey now working in the Tower, not to mention being older (which made the scene with the Bishop make absolutely no sense), and even her being a brunette, and the removal of Fate) bothered me.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-20, 12:54 AM
Ah, this is why discussions on 'what alignment is X character" get locked. Most people view good/evil in terms of religion, and law/chaos in terms of politics. Both of which are disallowed topics of conversation.

Here is a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) to the wikipedia article, btw.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say anarchism is in no way related to the chaotic alignment, Tura's point does have merit. Anarchism is very misrepresented in common thought. It strikes me as an extreme form of capitalism, more than anything else. Which is as much as I can say on the matter, given the forum policy on political discussion. But please, be informed, read the article.

skywalker
2008-03-20, 01:31 AM
This is funny, Tura said something really intelligent up there about how V gives up his individuality to become the embodiment of individuality. I think that's brilliant.

For my part, I think people are having hang-ups at the troubling divide between D&D alignment and real-world alignment. In D&D, good is defined as caring, sharing, not hurting innocents, the ends do not justify the means, etc; while evil is the opposite. The people who are having trouble classifying V as chaotic neutral or even evil are having issues with the fact that someone who is "evil" in D&D is not necessarily "evil" in our world. Like nerd-o-rama said, V plays with our heads, because we want to like the evil bastard, but he does some very "evil" things(one thing I'm surprised nobody mentioned so far is all the crap Evey goes through in the movie, that was evil). Moore is, of course, forcing us to come to terms with the limited scope of our views of "good and evil."

I think lawful good, more than any other alignment, suffers from being the "correct" alignment. There are a lot of things categorized there that I would not have categorized there.

Screw the alignment descriptions, I classify V as chaotic neutral. He's not evil, he's not a selfish person(although this too is ambiguous, he seems to be protecting the rights of others to be selfish), but he's not really out to help anyone else, either. He's very plainly chaotic, though.

sonofzeal
2008-03-20, 01:40 AM
I vote for LN. He's too darn principled to be Chaotic. He's extremely dedicated, almost to the point of being singleminded, very organized, very careful, and very deliberate. Whatever your definition of Law and Chaos are, these traits seem to me to be pretty thoroughly on the "Law" end of things. The only thing I can think of weighing on the other side is that he's against the government. And I have a feeling St Cuthbert would approve of his actions.

Serpentine
2008-03-20, 02:03 AM
I haven't seen the movie or read the comic, but I just wanted to throw in a note on anarchy. From what I gather an anarchic society would be the ultimate democracy - democracy is "rule of the people", and an anarchic society (or at least one model of one) involves every person having a direct role in a community's decision-making. By necessity, all the democracies of the world are not true democracies, as everyone has to entrust their own say to someone else. In an anarchic/truly democratic society, every person has their own voice.
Not sure whether that will help this discussion much...
Oh, that quote that said that a chaotic neutral character wouldn't actively try to bring about the destruction of a government... What about whim? What about personal vengence against the leader of that government for some slight in the past? What if he just somehow takes a personal dislike for that particular authority?
On V in particular, I just had another thought... What about circumstance-dependent alignment? For example, my tiefling ranger is Chaotic Good normally. If ever she finds herself in the Abyss or the Hells, though, she's going to suddenly turn into Chaotic Neutral, as she shifts into survival mode (and lots of unpleasant memories resurface), becomes hard, brutal and devoted to surviving at all costs. Could V's alignment, perhaps, be broken into "time of oppression" and "time of peace"? Perhaps, say, CE or CN by necessity but CG or LG by choice?

kc0bbq
2008-03-20, 01:55 PM
On V in particular, I just had another thought... What about circumstance-dependent alignment? For example, my tiefling ranger is Chaotic Good normally. If ever she finds herself in the Abyss or the Hells, though, she's going to suddenly turn into Chaotic Neutral, as she shifts into survival mode (and lots of unpleasant memories resurface), becomes hard, brutal and devoted to surviving at all costs. Could V's alignment, perhaps, be broken into "time of oppression" and "time of peace"? Perhaps, say, CE or CN by necessity but CG or LG by choice?
In the comic book he has no "time of peace". His whole existance is to take down the authority which, like him, was morally ambiguous. The people were in "survival mode", which brought out the aspect of aryanism in the story, they were the dominant group and fell in place. People fall into that trap when faced with unimaginably bad situations. There isn't even any idication V knew of his own past prior to the drugs effects. There's no way to judge if he was even rational. The only way Finch found to get into V's mindset was to go to the camp and take a ton of LSD.

V existed to destroy the lynchpins of that society in poetic ways. He didn't care about collateral damage. Whatever triggered the V persona came out of a need to destroy, and at first it wasn't targeted at the government. He claimed truth but used lies to get there - his imprisonment of Evey, his control of Fate, getting people to dress up in the masks. V was in leadership of the country he was destroying. The Leader made no decisions, he relied on Fate for that, and Fate was controlled by V.

Whether he was noble in his end goal (getting people to think for themselves again), just about anything that was done by the word of Fate was done with the knowledge and normally at the direct behest of V. He could have reformed the government subtly, but no, he had to torture each one of the figures he deemed evil to death.

He was more of a Lucifer figure, but viewed from a morally ambiguous direction. Everyone's moral compass was spinning freely, that was the point.

EvilElitest
2008-03-20, 04:33 PM
This is funny, Tura said something really intelligent up there about how V gives up his individuality to become the embodiment of individuality. I think that's brilliant.

For my part, I think people are having hang-ups at the troubling divide between D&D alignment and real-world alignment. In D&D, good is defined as caring, sharing, not hurting innocents, the ends do not justify the means, etc; while evil is the opposite. The people who are having trouble classifying V as chaotic neutral or even evil are having issues with the fact that someone who is "evil" in D&D is not necessarily "evil" in our world. Like nerd-o-rama said, V plays with our heads, because we want to like the evil bastard, but he does some very "evil" things(one thing I'm surprised nobody mentioned so far is all the crap Evey goes through in the movie, that was evil). Moore is, of course, forcing us to come to terms with the limited scope of our views of "good and evil."

I think lawful good, more than any other alignment, suffers from being the "correct" alignment. There are a lot of things categorized there that I would not have categorized there.

Screw the alignment descriptions, I classify V as chaotic neutral. He's not evil, he's not a selfish person(although this too is ambiguous, he seems to be protecting the rights of others to be selfish), but he's not really out to help anyone else, either. He's very plainly chaotic, though.

You know, i've been saying that for years
from
EE

Peregrine
2008-03-20, 07:52 PM
Heh, I've been meaning for quite a long time to compose "Peregrine's List of Popular Media Characters' Alignments", and movie-V was already in there, so I've already got my answer. :smallsmile: (Movie-V because I haven't read the original, and I've already run into the complaint that they differ sharply, so I make no guarantees that my assessment will be valid for any other incarnation of V.)

<standard pro-alignment boilerplate>
I like the alignment system. It's part personality test ("I'm an INTP." "Really? I'm a CN."), part roleplaying aid (but never a straitjacket unless you let it be), and in large part a tool for giving the classic fantasy "sense of evil" a place in the game. Now, all three of these things have limitations, but generally I find that it works. (Oddly enough, I've observed that its loudest opponents often have the most rigid views of it; if you treat it like a spectrum rather than a set of pigeon holes, it works better.) Admittedly, I take issue with several of WotC's own uses and descriptions of alignments, but that's because I see alignment as a good system that underlies what WotC publishes, but which also transcends what they publish. (And this means that those who take WotC's descriptions to be The Authoritative Word will disagree with me outright in many cases.)
</standard pro-alignment boilerplate>

That said, V is definitely one of the most challenging characters to fit into the alignment spectrum. To analyse him in alignment terms, you have to not just do away with the idea of "alignment as pigeon holes" and use it like a spectrum; you also have to do away with the idea of plotting people as points on the spectrum and describe them as fuzzy areas. Then you find which descriptor fits best.

My answer to the question of V's alignment is... *drumroll*

Lawful Neutral.
V pursues his cause with single-minded determination. His cause may be a Chaotic ideal*, but just as many a "dark hero" has "upheld" good without actually acting Good, V fights for Chaos with Lawful methods. He is neither Good nor Evil, as he does not sway from the most brutal methods of effecting his aims (murder, torture, terror), with either his enemies or allies -- but he does not pursue or relish suffering, he merely uses it as a tool. Those he has marked for death for their crimes may gain his sympathy, but their sentence is absolute, proportionate, and always carried out (even if he stops for a chat first).

* Or maybe it's not. I'll let the rest of you debate whether anarchy is Chaotic or not. :smallsmile: My point stands regardless.

Serpentine
2008-03-20, 09:06 PM
In the comic book he has no "time of peace". His whole existance is to take down the authority which, like him, was morally ambiguous. The people were in "survival mode", which brought out the aspect of aryanism in the story, they were the dominant group and fell in place. People fall into that trap when faced with unimaginably bad situations. There isn't even any idication V knew of his own past prior to the drugs effects. There's no way to judge if he was even rational. The only way Finch found to get into V's mindset was to go to the camp and take a ton of LSD.I didn't think there was, I meant more hypothetically - if we were to meet V in a time of peace, what would he be like? If the world were set up in his own utopian ideal, what would it look like?

Waffles
2008-03-20, 11:13 PM
What is V's Aligment


Sometimes friendly

Question answered. Next?

EagleWiz
2008-03-21, 06:52 PM
No-one cares about V's aligment. The question is: What is V's gender.
And shouldnt this be in the media discussion?

Edit: That was a joke. I know what V you are talking about and hes TN

sonofzeal
2008-03-21, 07:30 PM
No-one cares about V's aligment. The question is: What is V's gender.
And shouldnt this be in the media discussion?
I think you're thinking of the wrong V. We're talking "Vendetta" V, not "OotS" V. I made the same mistake when I first saw the thread.

EvilElitest
2008-03-21, 09:27 PM
V can't be LN because of the amount of evil acts he has commited. LE makes sense however
from
EE

Ryusacerdos
2008-03-21, 11:08 PM
Anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic - but it most likely is.

Paraphrasing the Federalist Papers, if men where angels, no government would be needed.

In a world of only lawful good people, government would not be needed.

However, the presence of evil would turn anarchy into chaos.

Thus, anarchy may be the epitome of both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil governance.

skywalker
2008-03-22, 02:17 AM
You know, i've been saying that for years
from
EE

Which part, exactly? If it's the part I'm thinking, yes, you have, but I felt particularly eloquent that evening, and had that post directed at myself as much as anyone else. Kinda weird that I would talk to myself on a forum, huh?

@Peregrine: According to D&D ethos, as much as he has used torture, terrorism and the like, he is evil. Neutral characters can occaisionally dip into these activities, but cannot make a career of them without becoming evil, regardless of whether they enjoy it or not.

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 08:40 AM
Which part, exactly? If it's the part I'm thinking, yes, you have, but I felt particularly eloquent that evening, and had that post directed at myself as much as anyone else. Kinda weird that I would talk to myself on a forum, huh?

The part about good and evil not being equal to our perception of god and evil.




@Peregrine: According to D&D ethos, as much as he has used torture, terrorism and the like, he is evil. Neutral characters can occaisionally dip into these activities, but cannot make a career of them without becoming evil, regardless of whether they enjoy it or not.

Yeah What he doest with Evee is pretty evil as well, along with many of his other nasty actions
from
EE

Peregrine
2008-03-22, 09:29 AM
Fair enough. I would put LE as a second runner to LN, and can fully accept the perspective that would put it in first place. I just don't see him as Evil; he uses evil methods as tools, not because he thinks they're worth doing in themselves.

But then, I'm one to carry on about how alignment is in thought and intent and deed, whenever I see someone argue that it's only "really" about one of those, so I could also get behind him being LE as a result of his evil actions. :smallsmile:

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 03:18 PM
Fair enough. I would put LE as a second runner to LN, and can fully accept the perspective that would put it in first place. I just don't see him as Evil; he uses evil methods as tools, not because he thinks they're worth doing in themselves.

But then, I'm one to carry on about how alignment is in thought and intent and deed, whenever I see someone argue that it's only "really" about one of those, so I could also get behind him being LE as a result of his evil actions. :smallsmile:

Well Kore also uses evil methods and what not, and he i still evil, along with Goblinslayer. Or Miko and redcloack to a lesser extent
from
EE

Querzis
2008-03-22, 06:23 PM
Well we really shoudnt use the PHB for this discussion. The PHB definition of alignement was really restrained and precise which is why pretty much no character fall in just one alignement but got some part of every alignement. If we use the very first definition of chaotic and lawfull : «Lawful characters believe in the value of order and social structure, whereas chaotic characters are strong individualists who tend to distrust authority and dislike being ordered around» then V is definitly chaotic. Now this definition is...kinda bad, if only because most characters dont think about those things (yes, I know V think about it a lot but I'm talking about characters in general).

Most players never really liked the definition of Lawfull and Chaotic. So the PLAYERS, not the one who actually write the book (or at least I never saw it in the old books while some players already described Lawfull and chaotic like that), decided to associate Lawful and Chaotic to trait of personnality. Lawful = Thrustworthy, honorable, close-minded, conformist and, sometimes, racist. While Chaotic = Wild, open-minded, adaptable, reckless and, sometimes, totally mad. This was actually better, since most of these traits imply the other traits associated to it and it made it a lot easier to recognize neutral character. By this definition, V is Lawfull.

And then they did what I consider to be to biggest mistake they ever made in the PHB: They decided to try to mix the old definition and the trait of personnality thing...which is really stupid since someone can fight for freedom and anarchism while having a lawfull personnality like V while a really mad and wild man can very well be in the king royal guard.Its time to realize that there is two very different definitions of Chaotic or Lawful (respect authority vs trait of personnality) and that those two definitions just cant work together.

Now they changed that in some other books and their description of Lawful and Chaotic is a lot better now...but please, lets never use the PHB in a debate on alignement ever again.

Anyway, all that to say that if we use the old definition of Chaos and Law, V is Chaotic. But like most of the people here I like to describe Lawfull and Chaotic behavior as trait of personnality a lot more and it just make more sense that way. So V is Lawfull because he got a Lawfull personnality. Sometimes, he almost get to neutral but he is still overall Lawfull both in the comic and the movie.

As for good and evil, its a lot easier: Hes evil. People who think he might be anything else is just because V is a master of the Draco in leather pant (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPants) effect and because the one he fight are actually more evil then himself. Sure he doesnt kill people for fun or try to hurt people for no reason...but almost nobody does! Its not because most of D&D players like to play evil character like that, since its a lot more fun, that it change the fact that people dont have to eat babies to be evil. He has no problem with using innocent and random people as human shield. He torture lots of people in gruesome ways. He has no mercy. Hes evil. Now you can agree with his goals if you want but you dont become good or evil because of your goals or intentions but because of your methods. Almost every evil people had good intentions, that doesnt make it less evil when they murder and torture people. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a really good proverb.

Redcloak isnt less evil for turning people into slave, torturing them and killing them just because is goal is to save his species. But I would consider him less evil then the humans who destroyed his village and killed goblins childrens and babies. Maybe this is whats confusing some people. V is less evil then the people he fight but that doesnt forgive the evil hes doing willingly and without regrets.

V is LE. If you use the old definitions (like Gammapaladin) then hes CE. But just dont try to mix the two definitions, it never work.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-22, 06:38 PM
«Lawful characters believe in the value of order and social structure, whereas chaotic characters are strong individualists who tend to distrust authority and dislike being ordered around»
I actually prefer this, and when I'm GMing I expect my players to think about this, and where their character falls on this scale. Chaotic != insane in my games, and if you play one that way you're probably going to get slapped with my rulebook.

Now, if you want to be insane, that's fine, but don't try to claim it has anything to do with a chaotic alignment. Not in my game.

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-22, 07:29 PM
I think one of the biggest problems people have is with automatically associating LG with "Paladin" and occasionally "Monk." just because someone is LG, it doesn't mean that person must have a strict moral code, cannot commit evil acts, etc etc. My alignment compass that my group of gamers and I use (loosely) is this:

LAW: personally, this is reliability, honesty (usually), and sometimes indicates a moral code of some sort. More broadly, this is respect for authority and feelings of duty or obligation. Lawful characters are methodical, calculating.
CHAOS: simply, disrespect, or at least lack of respect, for authority, duty, obligation. A chaotic character is much less likely than a lawful one to allow people to tell him what to do, and also tends to be spontaneous.
GOOD: placing others' well-being over your own. Will do things "for the greater good" (legitimately, though)
EVIL: placing one's own well-being over that of others. "Look out for number one."
NEUTRAL: neutral on one alignment does not mean that the person feels "indifferently good/evil//lawful/chaotic," because that doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, I view neutral as an accentuation of the other alignment. So, neutral evil means that a person is evil to the exclusion of nearly everything else. This person will always protect himself first and foremost, and won't look twice at the toddler crying in the corner of the sinking ship (sorry, they're watching Titanic in the next room over). This person will do whatever he has to to protect himself, and feel no qualms, nor even consider what might benefit other people, or what they may need.
TRUE NEUTRAL: This alignment is reserved for the certifiably insane. These people do not appear to have any governing principles whatsoever.

By this assessment, I say that V is NG. His goals are clearly GOOD-oriented (destroying an oppressive government, freeing Evey from her fear, etc), and his fervor to accomplish them overrides everything else, so he pursues his goals in whatever way he deems necessary (murder, torture, etc).

EvilElitest
2008-03-22, 09:34 PM
V is evil, ends justifies the means, he does many evil deeds. Intentions doesn't excuse actions
from
EE

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-22, 11:02 PM
V is evil, ends justifies the means, he does many evil deeds. Intentions doesn't excuse actions
from
EE

Were that true, paladins would be evil. Both they and V kill many evil people without mercy. However, paladins have the most strictly defined alignment anywhere in D&D (that I know of). Therefore, what V does cannot cause him to be evil any more than what a paladin does causes him to be.

Querzis
2008-03-22, 11:56 PM
Were that true, paladins would be evil. Both they and V kill many evil people without mercy. However, paladins have the most strictly defined alignment anywhere in D&D (that I know of). Therefore, what V does cannot cause him to be evil any more than what a paladin does causes him to be.

Dude if you ever see a paladin like V make him fall right now. Paladin cant torture people, use other people as human shield, kill someone except if its in self-defense or to save someone else, have no mercy whatsoever and have absolutely no regrets and no hesitation about doing all of this. Either you had some really bad experience with really dumb paladin or you just never read the comic because there is no way a paladin could do what V do without falling and having no chance of redemption. Except, of course, if we are talking about fantasy settings where paladin can be evil without losing their powers like in Warcraft, Goblins and OOTS.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-23, 12:31 AM
Or 4E.

But I reiterate that "Ends justifies the means" is not an evil philosophy. It's a chaotic philosophy.

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-23, 12:38 AM
Dude if you ever see a paladin like V make him fall right now. Paladin cant torture people, use other people as human shield, kill someone except if its in self-defense or to save someone else, have no mercy whatsoever and have absolutely no regrets and no hesitation about doing all of this. Either you had some really bad experience with really dumb paladin or you just never read the comic because there is no way a paladin could do what V do without falling and having no chance of redemption. Except, of course, if we are talking about fantasy settings where paladin can be evil without losing their powers like in Warcraft, Goblins and OOTS.

I did not say V was a paladin. I classed him as NG earlier in this thread. What I was doing by comparing V to a paladin was comparing him to something that is, by definition, very, strongly, good-aligned. Obviously a paladin would not be able to get away with doing the things V does; as you said, he would fall immediately. However, a paladin is a champion of good. I am using the example of a paladin to define the idea of Good as it relates to D&D: A paladin clearly cannot torture, etc: but I think that falls under the fact that the paladin is also the paragon of Law. The paladin champions ideas that are good, and the way he carries them out--namely, by Smiting Evil-- are neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic (because really, if only chaotic/lawful characters could morally kill people, the game wouldn't work).

What I'm saying is, your intentions and your mindset make your alignment, not each individual action as, say, NWN models alignment (and it's very hard to model this any other way, so that's perfectly reasonable).

V's intentions are Good. The people he kills are Evil. He would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to become a paladin. But though his methods are different, his goal is still the same.


NOTE:
The obvious counter-argument to this is "well this evil dictator or other kills thousands of people for some reason HE considers to be Good. So he's good-aligned too?"
I direct you to a quote by Jean Genet:

Here there's no possibility of doing evil. You live in evil. In the absence of remorse. How could you do evil?
This is something that I need to get out of the way first. The point of this quote is that (with very few exceptions) *no one thinks he is doing evil.* "But Henry," you may ask, "Doesn't that just prove that V is evil?" I will answer you: no, it does not. It means that we cannot look just at someone's actions or their proclaimed intent to determine Goodness or Evilness. We must look at who is intended to benefit from their actions, or plan of actions.

In the case of the evil dictator, the person hoping to gain from it is almost always the evil dictator: he has been climbing in rank his whole life, rising in power, and is generally only branded as an Evil Dictator because in one way or another, he's trying to expand his own power by subduing others.
In V's case, however, we find that the only people who could possibly have to gain from his actions are:
The people at large (from his destruction of the government)
Evey (for instance) (yes, he tortures her: but she lives and is stronger for it, and she's the only one who could benefit from this)
The only people who CANNOT benefit from his actions are:
Everyone he kills
V himself

If you go back to my original post in this thread, you will see that I defined Good vs Evil as, respectively, looking out for others vs looking out for yourself. Therefore, the Evil Dictator is Evil because he's only looking out for himself. V is Good because he's looking out for everyone else.

skywalker
2008-03-23, 03:30 PM
Or 4E.

But I reiterate that "Ends justifies the means" is not an evil philosophy. It's a chaotic philosophy.

Mmmm, perhaps not to you. Not to myself, either. But as D&D(and indeed our culture) goes, it is an evil philosophy.

BTW, it is not useful to say "don't use the PHB to discuss alignment." Tell me, if we shouldn't use that, what should we use? There is very little discussion of alignment in any other book besides the books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, which are even more fervent in defining alignment the way the PHB does than the PHB itself. When someone asks the question, "What alignment is V?" it is assumed they mean, "What is V's D&D alignment?" Yes, alignment can be described in many other ways, but since we are on a D&D board, D&D alignment must at least be part of the yardstick.

Lordhenry, not everyone V kills is known to be evil. As well, he depends on torture and killing innocents on a consistent basis, which drives him towards what we consider evil.

The crux of it all is that you don't want to see V as evil.

This does not change the fact that he is.

Tura
2008-03-23, 05:24 PM
His whole existance is to take down the authority which, like him, was morally ambiguous.
With that, I'll have to disagree. If there's one NOT morally ambiguous entity in V for Vendetta, it's the government. Let's put this in its correct historical context.

England, the 80s, Margaret Thatcher, cold war, fear of nuclear destruction.
Skinheads, the National Front, police brutality.
Falklands, arms race, unemployment, low wages, welfare cuts.
And strikes, protests, squatters, punk-rock, guns of Brixton, white riots, immigrants' civil rights.

For Alan Moore, there is no such thing as "safety Vs freedom? umm, I'm not sure, lemme think..." It's plain and simple. Authority uses the people's fear of external danger (realistic or not, it doesn't matter) to crush internal opposition. And racists use people's fear of unemployment and low wages to gain ground. Put those two together: fascism. And that is just wrong.

As he has said himself in an interview, when he wrote V for Vendetta, surveillance cameras all over the place weren't a fact. They were science-fiction. An orwellian rip-off, dystopian and disturbing as it can get, used as a powerful metaphor. And then, to his surprise, lo and behold, the government does install surveillance cameras all over the place.

Now, I'm the first to admit that, once a work of art is released, the artist's intentions come second, and how this work is perceived comes first. But it is useful to know that, say, for Salvador Dali, the melting clocks symbolize time's relativity, as Einstein's work had been recently published and proved very influential. And similarly, it's useful to know that for Alan Moore (at least at the time) surveillance cameras symbolize complete and ruthless totalitarian control.

So, in V for Vendetta, the government (and only the government) has a defined alignment. Lawful Evil, pure and simple.

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-23, 07:07 PM
not everyone V kills is known to be evil. As well, he depends on torture and killing innocents on a consistent basis, which drives him towards what we consider evil.

The crux of it all is that you don't want to see V as evil.

This does not change the fact that he is.

I realize that not everyone he kills is evil, that he uses torture, etc. This is why he'd never be a paladin.

My point is that the only people who can benefit from his methods of doing whatever it is he happens to do are the people of his society, the ones who can't (well, won't) stand up to the government on their own. Yes, he kills and tortures innocents. However, I was not trying to justify his methods; they are what they are. We are trying to determine his alignment, and the only way to do that is by determining who he intends to benefit. Were he torturing people for the pleasure of it, then yeah, he'd be evil. However, he is using them as a means to an end. Saying he shouldn't be able to torture innocents is like saying that, in war, you may only shoot those specific people who have already killed someone, and then you must always shoot them in the head, so that they don't suffer.

Sure, it feels better to say "torture is Evil. People who engage in it are Evil." But if you really follow that philosophy, you come to a very, impossibly impractical standpoint as a paladin who may only deal nonlethal damage and will only participate in a fair fight, after all the terms have been declared, never striking an enemy in the back, etc. Worse, you're fighting against people perfectly willing to lie and cheat and abuse the rules as much as they have to in order to beat you at any cost. You're never going to win that way. You're going to die in your first battle.

As to

The crux of it all is that you don't want to see V as evil.
If I were the kind of guy who could delude himself into making these arguments for V's goodness just because I want him to be good, I would not simultaneously be okay with saying "Torture of innocents is okay in certain situations, and may be performed by good-aligned individuals without an automatic alignment shift." Which I am. V is up against incredible odds, and must be willing to use every underhanded, "Evil" trick that the government is in order to have a prayer of survival, let alone any sort of real victory.

I don't think V is an admirable character necessarily (of course not, he's meant to be ambiguous). Personally I wouldn't have done some of the things he did. But then I guess that's why you don't see me bringing down governments.

EvilElitest
2008-03-23, 10:37 PM
Were that true, paladins would be evil. Both they and V kill many evil people without mercy. However, paladins have the most strictly defined alignment anywhere in D&D (that I know of). Therefore, what V does cannot cause him to be evil any more than what a paladin does causes him to be.

No paladins, according to BoED cannot refuse mercy, kill innocents, murder, torture, abuse or use ends justifies the means.
from
EE

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-24, 09:34 AM
No paladins, according to BoED cannot refuse mercy, kill innocents, murder, torture, abuse or use ends justifies the means.
from
EE

But paladins do kill people. V does kill people. The argument that V is evil is hinging (at least currently) on some kinds of killing being good, and some kinds of killing being evil. This is grossly inconsistent.

Also, again, I am not trying to say V is a paladin. I've said in each post that he could never be. I am saying that both V and paladins kill people as champions of Good (V just happens to engage in other things as well, which apparently confuse the issue).

GammaPaladin
2008-03-24, 09:42 AM
The BoED is a piece of crap, btw.

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-24, 08:20 PM
The BoED is a piece of crap, btw.

Agreed, though I wasn't even going to go there.
What EE and the BoED are describing sounds more like the Knight class, anyway, rather than a class whose key ability is called Smite Evil.

EvilElitest
2008-03-26, 03:06 PM
But paladins do kill people. V does kill people. The argument that V is evil is hinging (at least currently) on some kinds of killing being good, and some kinds of killing being evil. This is grossly inconsistent.

Sign, paladins only kill people using good methods. They only kill in self defense or protection of others, they don't hurt innocents or murder people, nor do they resort to torture



Also, again, I am not trying to say V is a paladin. I've said in each post that he could never be. I am saying that both V and paladins kill people as champions of Good (V just happens to engage in other things as well, which apparently confuse the issue).

V kills innocent people, and uses extremely cruel and evil methods to achieve his ends. He is nothing more than a zealot who uses ends justifies the means, admittedly to destroy evil people, he uses evil methods for a vendetta.

And WFT about hte knight, have you read BoED? How does that have anything to do with a knight? A knight follows any code, not an alignement tied one
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-03-26, 03:40 PM
a knight (PH 2) has a very strict combat code, and is Lawful alignments only. However the penalties are low (losses of 1 challenge per day per breach of code)

Paladins default to strong good, with Lawfulness, and may not commit evil acts. Exalted deeds does state that for them Good trumps Law. (personally I like the concepts in Exalted and Vile, and the limitations they put on acts, but the rules for some things could have been better designed.

However there is the Grey guard, which through most of the levels still loses powers for evil acts, its just that when they atone, the caster of the spell doesn't lose XP. Not as free to act as some people make out. at least, not without consequences: Fiendish codex 2 makes it clear atonement is a big thing, not just a spell.

As for V, I find he has some traits like Vergere from Expanded star wars universe. Both put their "apprentice" through hell with the excuse that it toughens them up and opens their eyes to the nature of the world. He is an anti-hero, much too dark to be good, and arguably over the border into evil. Plenty of characters can be evil but dedicated to a cause which is not evil.

Chaos/Law bit is harder. Does he commit any truly lawful acts like following orders of a superior, swearing fealty, carrying out lawful sentences of establishment? No. Is he dedicated to bringing it down? Yes. Is he whimsical? Not sure. I would go with Chaos, any methodical tendencies out outweighed by his anti-authoriation goals and acts.

So, CE, but approaching CN, maybe.

EvilElitest
2008-03-27, 06:40 PM
I could see him being LE however
from
EE

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-27, 08:08 PM
I am giving up this paladin thing, since it is a separate argument and I have no idea why it's even being argued; it's totally off-topic from my point.

My point being that V is a good-aligned person who uses misguided methods, ends justify the means, etc.
Consider the end of the 16th century, in Spain. The country is controlled wholly by the Catholic Church: probably the organization with the most Paladins associated with it ever. What is the Catholic Chuch, a powerful, good-aligned organization, doing with Spain? Smiting Evil. And just how are they smiting evil[Protestants, Jews, etc]? Through the apparatus known as the Spanish Inquisition, of course, which at this point in time is at the height of its power in terms of the amount of torture it uses to extract confessions from the accused. The rack was the most popular of their torture methods, and its use (and that of other torture methods) was meted out indiscriminately to even the very young and very old.

Why do I point this out? It was the first example that came to mind of an organization that is considered (at least by itself and the God they believe in, which honestly is all that matters in this context) Good, but is doing something like torturing innocents, etc.

My point is that someone can be good-aligned, and still be misguided and doing the wrong thing. Like the Catholic Church, V is not granted his power by God, and therefore he (like the Catholic Church) doesn't get struck down from on high (like certain paladins), so the fact that he doesn't is not valid evidence that he is not Good.