Is Varsuuvius Lawful, Chaotic or True Neutral?

[Warmage]

He was True Neutral and keeps trying to be, but that familicide incident probably dumped him down to Neutral Evil, at least until he can atone for.

[rbetieh]

And handing a Bill to Miko explaining that since His original contract with Roy only implies that he needs to act to defeat Xykon, that Miko should provide recompense for services rendered doesn't smell lawful to anyone? Ok, yes the whole "try to blow Miko up, when she says no" doesnt smell lawful either.....you guys have nearly convinced me to swtich from lawful...im teetering on the edge now.

[Holy_Knight]

As I see it at the beginning V as squarly true neutral at the begining and after V dealings with the fiends he became neutral evil under the splice and after the splice and after he learns what he has done wrong I feel that V is at least trying to become neutral good.

This seems basically right. A lot of people seem to be acting as if his alignment must be static, but that's the wrong way to look at it. At first, V was probably neutral with more good than evil tendencies. But from the time that Azure City fell and the Order got split up, V began a descent into evil, which at its apex culminated in the Familicide. After losing the power and seeing that he had failed not only morally but intellectually, he's now trying to improve himself both as a wizard and as a person. This could lead to him moving toward neutral good in alignment, but its ultimate effects (and whether redemption is possible) have yet to be fully seen.

[zero]

Yeah, well, V's understanding of the wrongness of tampering with the fundamental natural order when bored is a strong indicator that (s)he's firmly on the lawful side, right?

[Domius]

Maybe he is True Neutral but I'd say -- although I'm not a big D&D fan -- that it's more like Chaotic Neutral, at least before recent events as now he's kind of trying to redeem himself. V isn't a thief like Haley or a sociopath like Belkar but he doesn't have any respect for laws per se. It just so happens that he mostly merely read books or something.

I don't think Varsuuvius has ever done anything lawful in the comic but there were some pretty chaotic acts. For example:

• He killed Kubota without even thinking about it, while Elan was going to take him to court.
• He left Durkon and Elan on the ocean. This was not an evil act, as he didn't make any harm to anyone, but a lawful character would stay just because for him or her it would seem like a right thing to do -- aiding community rather than escaping.
• He went with Miko to Azure City but only to find out more about gates and not because he was accused of a crime.
• He wanted Miko to pay him for magical components he used and other stuff -- so it's something iBear called a lawful act. But V didn't do it because he's some crazy anal bureaucrat but because he didn't like being used by Miko. I think it's quite chaotic -- he wanted to do whatever he wanted, not what Miko -- who was a paladin and could be taken as a authority figure -- was telling him.
• He was having this prank fight with Belkar, just to make the halfling hate him again -- but he also apparently liked it. I don't think he considered what was good for the team and he was also going to continue even though Roy told him and Belkar to stop.
• He went to the bandit camp to rescue Elan -- the fact that zimmerwald1915 used as an argument towards lawful alingment. But V, as zimmerwald noticed, did this because he didn't want to lose this "hard-earned friendship". He didn't do it because it was a man who needed help, or just because it was his friend -- but because he had to put an effort into this friendship and just didn't want to waste his own energy.

And so on...

I mean, imagine that the Order is in some country where some sort of knowledge is forbidden. It isn't evil knowledge, just something that people there think is a taboo subject. Maybe their religion forbids it. You think Varsuuvius wouldn't try to get these books and knowledge anyway? I bet he wouldn't even for a moment considered what he was doing to be something wrong.

[Warren Dew]

He was True Neutral and keeps trying to be, but that familicide incident probably dumped him down to Neutral Evil, at least until he can atone for.

As shown by the previously extensively discussed strip #11, Vaarsuvius was good at the beginning. I'm inclined to think Vaarsuvius might be neutral now, but not because of the familicide especially.

[Ninja Dragon]

V is True Neutral, but is trying to be Neutral Good. But unlike Roy (who can be what he wants to be, Lawful Good, because he tries hard), V has done a lot more evil things, so he/she is still struggling to become Good.

That's what I think.

[TheMac04]

True Neutral. You know why? Mostly because I think V has sociopathic tendencies. Not a sociopath, mind you, but has some leanings towards it. See, for the most part, V operate on the "Do what is rational, not what is moral" system, until his own emotions eventually overcome him, like Spock. He usually does whatever he thinks will be the most efficient and effective, rather than what would be "right". However, he still has strong loyalties to his friends and mate. The tie to Inky is actually very important, because it shows that he is not completely devoid of emotion. When he got those divorce papers, he FELT it. It was emotionally hurtful. He has emotions, but he tries to hide them.

Furthermore, it sort of astounds me that people think he's evil. During the soul splice? Maybe, but certainly not now. You all realize that's sort of the whole point, right? He's trying to better himself, because he realized what he had become. Calling him still evil now is sort of...I don't know, it seems wrong to me.

[rbetieh]

TheMac, I think you have used sociopath wrong. A sociopath lacks the ability to empathize with others. That is they cannot put themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how they would feel if someone did something bad to them. We know that the elf has some level of empathy, he just puts mission before compassion (like Eugene Greenhilt actually).

Back to the discussion, Understand in DnD Lawfullness isnt about following the laws, its about your willingness to break your principles. Anyone that refuses to compromise on their beliefs is Lawful. V has never come down and said "I would never do ..." but as far as I can tell, she very much obeys contracts (something we know Belkar and Haley dont do). I couldnt go so far as take her into the chaotic bracket.

[TheMac04]

TheMac, I think you have used sociopath wrong. A sociopath lacks the ability to empathize with others. That is they cannot put themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how they would feel if someone did something bad to them. We know that the elf has some level of empathy, he just puts mission before compassion (like Eugene Greenhilt actually).

As far as my research (read: ten seconds on Wikipedia) has been able to tell, there is no clear consensus among psychologists about what exactly entails a sociopath. However, someone with sociopathic tendencies is generally regarded to be someone who has trouble empathizing with others, yes, which I do believe V has. It doesn't mean he's completely incapable of showing feelings towards others, but he has trouble understanding why the things he says could hurt people. Much like Belkar actually. Hooray for irony.

[Zevox]

Back to the discussion, Understand in DnD Lawfullness isnt about following the laws, its about your willingness to break your principles.

Actually, it's not about that, either. Law and chaos in D&D actually describe viewpoints that some would hold as principles in and of themselves. Law in D&D is about the values of order, stability, respect for authority, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, chaos in D&D is about the values of freedom, individualism, adaptability, that sort of thing. It is very possible for people to hold chaotic values as principles in and of themselves - for instance, that is precisely what I do when I argue about the treatment of mages in the Dragon Age setting in this forum's threads about those games.

Whether you're willing to break your principles has nothing to do with your particular alignment per se, but rather would indicate how strongly you ascribe to that alignment.

Zevox

[rbetieh]

As far as my research (read: ten seconds on Wikipedia) has been able to tell, there is no clear consensus among psychologists about what exactly entails a sociopath. However, someone with sociopathic tendencies is generally regarded to be someone who has trouble empathizing with others, yes, which I do believe V has. It doesn't mean he's completely incapable of showing feelings towards others, but he has trouble understanding why the things he says could hurt people. Much like Belkar actually. Hooray for irony.

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

[TheMac04]

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

Really, it could be either a psychiatric thing, or simply a defense mechanism of sorts. Maybe OOTS-verse elves are like Vulcans, and they frown upon showing feelings and praise rationalism and knowledge. Actually...that seems pretty plausible to me.

[rewinn]

At the beginning of the comic, V's interests were in gaining Ultimate Arcane Power - not with the intent of doing anything in particular with it, but just with that as a goal. Is that Good or Evil? Lawful or Chaotic? It sounds pretty much True Neutral to me.

The soul splice lead to the Big Character Change. As rbetieh said ...

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family. It took a knock in the face from jimini cricket (I mean blackwing) but the conscience was her guide in the end.

... so I think that, although V did a pretty evil Familicide, V's trying to be Good and in the end that will be what matters ... unless V's concealment of the IFCC's leash leads to complications.

On the Law/Chaotic axis V doesn't seem to have a strong alignment. V's big trick is telling the laws of physics to "sit down and shut up" which suggests an element of chaos, but that may just be a characteristic of wizardry in general.

[NNescio]

Neutral Evil trying to move back to True Neutral.

[rbetieh]

Actually, it's not about that, either. Law and chaos in D&D actually describe viewpoints that some would hold as principles in and of themselves. Law in D&D is about the values of order, stability, respect for authority, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, chaos in D&D is about the values of freedom, individualism, adaptability, that sort of thing. It is very possible for people to hold chaotic values as principles in and of themselves - for instance, that is precisely what I do when I argue about the treatment of mages in the Dragon Age setting in this forum's threads about those games.

Whether you're willing to break your principles has nothing to do with your particular alignment per se, but rather would indicate how strongly you ascribe to that alignment.

Zevox

I have a hard time with that particular interpretation (which I know is commonly used by even some in the Wizards boards). Some reasons

1) Orcs (chaotic evil) live in a society where the biggest-baddest Orc tells the rest what to do and they obey out of fear because thats what the orc gods tell them society should be like (might = right) (should be Lawful Evil by the above interpretation).
2) Elves love individuality above all else they shouldnt have cities, towns, or villages then as none could ever agree on how to form community and beyond that their insistance on doing things their own way should have gotten themselves killed in the monster-infested forrests of DnD. At the very most, you might get enough elves to agree to a confederacy style of government, which as students of US history might tell you, dont last too long. They certainly wouldnt choose Democracy as no one elf could accept the decision of the majority if they disagreed with it. Seems to me that for all that love of freedom, those elves have to break principle to survive.
3) Halflings, who favor the rogue class, tend to be lawful, not chaotic. They are said to have lazyness as a common trait, yet they live in exclusive halfling communities and dont all starve. Seem lawful enough to me, and yet tons of halling rogues running around....
4) We know Dwarves in this strip have a very different idea of what Lawful means than Humans do, because Durkon says so.

It just smells of Lawful = No Compromise, Chaotic = Be pragmatic.

[rbetieh]

Really, it could be either a psychiatric thing, or simply a defense mechanism of sorts. Maybe OOTS-verse elves are like Vulcans, and they frown upon showing feelings and praise rationalism and knowledge. Actually...that seems pretty plausible to me.

V's mate didnt show those characteristics. That elf was concerned for V's soul and family, not for V saving the world.

[Zevox]

I have a hard time with that particular interpretation (which I know is commonly used by even some in the Wizards boards).

You might want to consider that you've badly misinterpreted alignments in general, then. Re-read the basic description of them in the SRD/PHB - much of what I said was taken straight from there.

1) Orcs (chaotic evil) live in a society where the biggest-baddest Orc tells the rest what to do and they obey out of fear because thats what the orc gods tell them society should be like (might = right) (should be Lawful Evil by the above interpretation).

I have no idea where you come up with that notion. "Might makes right" is fundamentally chaotic evil, and more chaotic than evil at that. The strongest individual leads and holds power because the weaker individuals cannot stop them from doing so. It doesn't even really qualify as a society - it's the way things are without any real governing body to restrain things.

2) Elves love individuality above all else they shouldnt have cities, towns, or villages then as none could ever agree on how to form community and beyond that their insistance on doing things their own way should have gotten themselves killed in the monster-infested forrests of DnD. At the very most, you might get enough elves to agree to a confederacy style of government, which as students of US history might tell you, dont last too long. They certainly wouldnt choose Democracy as no one elf could accept the decision of the majority if they disagreed with it. Seems to me that for all that love of freedom, those elves have to break principle to survive.

It seems you badly misinterpret what valuing individuality means if you honest think that makes any sense. What you describe there is a ludicrous extreme worthy of a Slaad, not any mortal sapient.

3) Halflings, who favor the rogue class, tend to be lawful, not chaotic.

Actually, like Humans, Halflings have no particular alignment tendencies. Also, rogues can be any alignment as well - the class is not just a thief class you know.

4) We know Dwarves in this strip have a very different idea of what Lawful means than Humans do, because Durkon says so.

Not that I've ever seen. Dwarven society tends to be very lawful, as exhibited by what Durkon has told us of it, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the alignment changes between the races. Alignments are broad categories encompassing plenty of variations of their viewpoints, not a single viewpoint that everyone who falls into that alignment shares.

It just smells of Lawful = No Compromise, Chaotic = Be pragmatic.

Actually, that's what your previous description sounded like. You said lawful meant not compromising on your principles*, which would imply chaos involved being willing to do that, which many would argue is pragmatism.

*Which incidentally is further obviously wrong since it fails to specify what those principles tend to be - you could hold anarchism up as your principles and, as long you refused to compromise on them, be lawful by your interpretation.

Zevox

[SowZ]

And handing a Bill to Miko explaining that since His original contract with Roy only implies that he needs to act to defeat Xykon, that Miko should provide recompense for services rendered doesn't smell lawful to anyone? Ok, yes the whole "try to blow Miko up, when she says no" doesnt smell lawful either.....you guys have nearly convinced me to swtich from lawful...im teetering on the edge now.

This is more a case of V knowing that Miko is lawful and manipulating her. It doesn't mean V is lawful. Using laws when they benefit you is very neutral.

[rbetieh]

You might want to consider that you've badly misinterpreted alignments in general, then. Re-read the basic description of them in the SRD/PHB - much of what I said was taken straight from there.


I have no idea where you come up with that notion. "Might makes right" is fundamentally chaotic evil, and more chaotic than evil at that. The strongest individual leads and holds power because the weaker individuals cannot stop them from doing so. It doesn't even really qualify as a society - it's the way things are without any real governing body to restrain things.


It seems you badly misinterpret what valuing individuality means if you honest think that makes any sense. What you describe there is a ludicrous extreme worthy of a Slaad, not any mortal sapient.


Actually, like Humans, Halflings have no particular alignment tendencies. Also, rogues can be any alignment as well - the class is not just a thief class you know.


Not that I've ever seen. Dwarven society tends to be very lawful, as exhibited by what Durkon has told us of it, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the alignment changes between the races. Alignments are broad categories encompassing plenty of variations of their viewpoints, not a single viewpoint that everyone who falls into that alignment shares.


Actually, that's what your previous description sounded like. You said lawful meant not compromising on your principles*, which would imply chaos involved being willing to do that, which many would argue is pragmatism.

*Which incidentally is further obviously wrong since it fails to specify what those principles tend to be - you could hold anarchism up as your principles and, as long you refused to compromise on them, be lawful by your interpretation.

Zevox

Ah but Might makes right is the rule of dictatorships covered up with false elections. If you think Orc chief doesnt then start making rules to ensure he stays chief, then you fail to understand how societies are formed. Moreover, you know Orc chief is taking the best cuts of food, best treasure, and best magic items for himself - de facto taxation. And that is my point with Elves, their fervent belief in individuality and freedom should very much prevent them from forming any meaningful society at all. People give up some rights in order to gain the protections of society, elves find that kind of thinking repulsive. Of course that whole "elves share" thing also makes no sense, if they are as libertarian as they are made out to be, they should be strict defenders of property rights (which means they should also find the Robin Hoods of the world repulsive). I am sure Durkon telling hylgia that she thinks like a Human, when Durkon is traveling with a LG Human fighter and would know what a Lawful Human thinks like should be proof that there are various definitions of Lawfullness. How do you explain the WotC people repeatedly telling us that the Batman (a vigilante that only follows his own laws, and used to shoot people with the gun that killed his parents) is LG? I see no reason to not claim strict Libertarians, Anti-war Leftists, and Full-on Communists as all Lawful. I choose to make no value judgment on whether they are good/evil but respect their fervor in arguing their own philosophy even in situations where the idea sounds impractical to others, because they measure every situation with the same yardstick. And it would seem that an Anarchist would fit the bill depending on the kind of anarchist as well. One that acknowledges the government and seeks to destroy it isnt lawful (because he acknowledged something he believes shouldnt exists in the first place). One that refuses to accept the governments legitimacy (believer in the Sovereign Citizen concept) is Lawful. Again, without making Value judgements along the G/E scale. Same could be said of violent fundamentalists, also Lawful. Just because they dont obey your laws or your societies laws doesnt give you the right to call them chaotic. Lawful in the USA isnt the same thing as Lawful in China. It just isnt.

[rbetieh]

This is more a case of V knowing that Miko is lawful and manipulating her. It doesn't mean V is lawful. Using laws when they benefit you is very neutral.

Good point.

[derfenrirwolv]

My analysis says LN (and evil after that bit with the dragons)

My sense of story says TN (evil after the drakes)


-Analysis: V actively likes order. He loves the rules of magic, the intricate patterns of doilies, and is personally affronted when chaotic things happen (like the 1 in a million chance of a Devil being summoned) His entire belief in rationality requires a logical, orderly universe to make sense out of.

-Sense of story: roy is trying to be LG. Durkon is lawful good. Haley is Chaotic (and now good) Elan is Chaotic Good, and Belkar is chaotic evil. Without V being TN there's NO neutrality in the party.

[MoonCat]

I would disagree; Roy's officially and unarguably Good, yet his file almost got chucked into the Neutral bin... in the exact same way, even if V's still Neutral post-splice, the Neutral afterlife (assuming such a thing exists -- I'm a D&D n00b) personnel could decide that V's file should end up in the Evil bin.

Just a wee bittie correction, I don't really intend to get involved with v's alignment, but Roy was being possibly considered Neutral not Lawful, not Neutral not Good.

[VanBuren]

Since the issue of Law/Chaos invariably comes up, I'll just quote what I usually quote when this happens.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[Zevox]

Ah but Might makes right is the rule of dictatorships covered up with false elections.

Not at all. Dictatorships certainly require force - usually military - to ensure their rule isn't overthrown, but so do all governments. That is not the same as a true "might makes right" situation, where the physical power of the individual (or group) that leads is all that allows them to lead.

If you think Orc chief doesnt then start making rules to ensure he stays chief, then you fail to understand how societies are formed. Moreover, you know Orc chief is taking the best cuts of food, best treasure, and best magic items for himself - de facto taxation.

And those rules and "taxation" remain in place only because the Orc in chief cannot be stopped by those under him, not because anyone submits to his authority voluntarily. Big difference from actual societies, wherein the people agree to follow a governing body in exchange for the benefits it provides (or out of manipulated loyalty to the nation/leader in question, or a few other reasons).

And that is my point with Elves, their fervent belief in individuality and freedom should very much prevent them from forming any meaningful society at all. People give up some rights in order to gain the protections of society, elves find that kind of thinking repulsive.

And you are taking that notion to an extreme that only a pure incarnation of chaos (i.e. Slaad) would. Of course chaotic individuals are still going to be perfectly fine with forming a basic society - for instance, giving up one's right to kill others in exchange for protection from being killed by others (i.e. agreeing to outlaw murder) is pretty much the most basic purpose of societies, and is something that almost no one, regardless of alignment, wouldn't agree to. The difference is that chaotic societies would favor minimizing restrictions on individuals' personal rights - the idealized chaotic good society, for instance, would more or less be one that allows individuals to do anything they want so long at it doesn't harm anyone else (or their property) against their will.

Of course that whole "elves share" thing also makes no sense, if they are as libertarian as they are made out to be,

This perhaps is part of your problem - equating D&D alignments to real-world political ideologies. Unfortunately it's also one that we cannot discuss here, since real-world politics is a forbidden topic on these boards.

I am sure Durkon telling hylgia that she thinks like a Human, when Durkon is traveling with a LG Human fighter and would know what a Lawful Human thinks like should be proof that there are various definitions of Lawfullness.

No, that would be evidence that Durkon thinks of Humans in general as being chaotic, or at least not as lawful as Dwarves. The latter would even be correct.

How do you explain the WotC people repeatedly telling us that the Batman (a vigilante that only follows his own laws, and used to shoot people with the gun that killed his parents) is LG?

I don't explain it, since I don't know much about Batman (don't care for the character), but have seen enough alignment debates about him to know that his alignment is probably very debatable.

[An anarchist] that refuses to accept the governments legitimacy (believer in the Sovereign Citizen concept) is Lawful.

And that is absolutely preposterous. Anarchism, by its very definition, is obviously a very extreme chaotic philosophy, because it rejects all government in favor of total liberty for individuals. Again, re-read the PHB/SRD definition of the chaotic alignment - this is about as cut-and-dry as alignment assignment gets.

Edit: Heck, here's one for you to think about: if the alignment definitions you advocate here were correct, Girard would be Lawful. I don't think you'll find anyone on these boards willing to support a viewpoint like that.

Lawful in the USA isnt the same thing as Lawful in China. It just isnt.

Then I'm afraid you've badly misread D&D rules on the matter. One thing D&D definitely wants its alignments to be is objective - even the gods themselves get categorized that way. Each alignment is a broad category, but an unchanging one which gets applied to the whole D&D setting equally, and does not change no matter where you are, what you're doing, what you believe, etc. Again, by D&D's definitions of them.

Just a wee bittie correction, I don't really intend to get involved with v's alignment, but Roy was being possibly considered Neutral not Lawful, not Neutral not Good.

Actually he was specifically told that he would have been judged True Neutral had he not made up for abandoning Elan to the bandits by rescuing him and learning his lesson from the experience.

Zevox

[SadisticFishing]

I'll tackle the Batman problem! ooh, ooh, I love this one.

Batman is LG because he cares about the ideas of Law and Good more than anything else in the world.

But that does not mean one must uphold a broken law.

The reason Batman is often considered the Law in Gotham isn't because he's made his own law - it's because the other law officers do not uphold the law. It's a broken system, so he is attempting to fix it in the best way possible.

Even Kant, potentially the most Lawful man to have ever lived, believed that it is everyone's DUTY to fix a broken law by acting outside it.

Basically, Batman is LG because he's as LG as he can possibly be in the system that he is in. He uses Fear as a weapon not because he's Evil, but because... There are no other weapons that are nearly as effective, considering the sizes of the armies.

Oh, and him shooting and killing people was retconned away. Not at all a part of the Batman we all know and love.

[Burner28]

As I see it at the beginning V as squarly true neutral at the begining and after V dealings with the fiends he became neutral evil under the splice and after the splice and after he learns what he has done wrong I feel that V is at least trying to become neutral good.

This is similar to what I think.

Now though, it's arguable whether her actions during the soul splice were sufficient that her alignment now qualifies as evil in spite of the rest of her life. Given how she has reacted to the soul splice events, I doubt she'll remain such if it does, however.

Yeah, V could still make up for the Familicide he did, though it obviously won't be easy.

[ThePhantasm]

I'll tackle the Batman problem! ooh, ooh, I love this one.

Batman is LG because he cares about the ideas of Law and Good more than anything else in the world.

But that does not mean one must uphold a broken law.

The reason Batman is often considered the Law in Gotham isn't because he's made his own law - it's because the other law officers do not uphold the law. It's a broken system, so he is attempting to fix it in the best way possible.

Even Kant, potentially the most Lawful man to have ever lived, believed that it is everyone's DUTY to fix a broken law by acting outside it.

Basically, Batman is LG because he's as LG as he can possibly be in the system that he is in. He uses Fear as a weapon not because he's Evil, but because... There are no other weapons that are nearly as effective, considering the sizes of the armies.

Oh, and him shooting and killing people was retconned away. Not at all a part of the Batman we all know and love.

This post gets two Phantasm thumbs up! Great analysis.

Also, has anyone noticed there's a lot of "alignment" threads lately? I thought we used to have one big thread for alignment questions. Maybe we should just have one for all the characters instead of having one each for Girard, Haley, V, Durkon, etc....

[Warren Dew]

Well he knew signing those divorce papers were the best thing for the well-being of his family.

To the contrary, the divorce papers were signed because it was the best thing for the world, not because it was best for the family. Freedom from family meant Vaarsuvius wouldn't have split loyalties between family and saving the world from the god eating abomination.

[lio45]

My analysis says LN (and evil after that bit with the dragons)

(...)

-Analysis: V actively likes order. He loves the rules of magic, the intricate patterns of doilies, and is personally affronted when chaotic things happen (like the 1 in a million chance of a Devil being summoned) His entire belief in rationality requires a logical, orderly universe to make sense out of.

I agree with everything but your conclusion: to me, extreme rationality is Neutral, not Lawful.

I will offer the following anecdotal evidence... during the two years I spent as an Army reserve officer, I've often heard my uni friends (all of them physicists) say they could NEVER stand a system in which you're expected to obey without being first given rational reasons (and explanations) for it, and, if need be, have the possibility to discuss those orders before executing them.

I just know that V wouldn't last long in the Army. On the other hand, characters like Durkon or Miko would be like a fish in water there. Roy, also somewhat.