What is V's Aligment

[EvilElitest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [b]fight relentlessly[b]. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

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 promises

Not 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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".

[Zincorium]

Allegiance: Freedom.

[Blanks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I dunno EE. I think Chaotics are allowed a bit more leeway in "Ends justify the means" practices.

[EvilElitest]

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]

Well, I mean chaotic good is allowed much more leeway in it's methods than Lawful Good. It's part of being chaotic.

[TheOOB]

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]

Transcends simplistic 2-dimensional alignment system that is D&D.

V is not chaotic.

Yet he's an anarchist.

[Tura]

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.

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.
• 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]

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]

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.

[GammaPaladin]

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]

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]

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. 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.

[GammaPaladin]

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]

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]

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.
• 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]

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 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.