Is Dexter Morgan Lawful Good?

[Kaliam]

The definition of lawful means to live by a set of morals, rather than doing things on the spur of the moment. And good in context of D&D means to keep in mind the betterment of others.

Thoughts? Discuss

[Lvl 2 Expert]

He's evil, and someone else found a clever way to make him not murder innocent babies all the time, thereby making him a little less evil, but still easily in the red zone.

In a D&D world you might be able to get away with his behavior (what else are you going to do about those goblins?), but in modern society it's evil. We have a better system of serving justice. As flawed as that system is, it's not "let the psychopaths and people who hear voices decide who are guilty and kill them all".

You do not become good by following a moral code if your moral code is immoral. The code in this case is in itself also a pretty chaotic thing, letting a mass murderer run rampant but kind of aiming him at other bad guys does not exactly scream paladin.

[Dienekes]

No. He's at best lawful neutral, but probably lawful evil.

Dude doesn't murder to better others. He murders to assuage his own bloodlust. He was just told to target those that were less lawful about their killings than he was.

Also over the course of the show (haven't read the books) we see him murder several people who didn't fit his criteria because he was told to put his survival above even his code. And even tamper with police evidence just so he gets the to murder the bad guys.

Now this isn't to say he doesn't do the occasional good deed. But that doesn't suddenly wipe away his primary motivation and actions.

He isn't some more murderous Batman. Hell he's not even a Punisher. Dex is just a somewhat intelligent murderer with a slightly stronger ability to rationalize his killings than most other psychopaths.

[Eldan]

I'd be willing to even argue for Neutral Evil. His code is an excuse.

[Mikemical]

Lawful Evil, in it's maximum expression. Sure, he follows certain rules, but is willing to tamper with evidence and twist the code slightly if it means he gets the kill. LE characters follow the rules that benefit them, and find loopholes around those that don't.

[JeenLeen]

Also over the course of the show (haven't read the books) we see him murder several people who didn't fit his criteria because he was told to put his survival above even his code. And even tamper with police evidence just so he gets the to murder the bad guys.

Yeah. If his goal was really to kill those who get through the cracks--that is, those who evade arrest either by keeping a low enough profile the cops don't suspect it or can't link it to crimes, or killing those who get an 'innocent' verdict due to loopholes--I could see an argument for neutral. Maybe good if you take a very 'ends justify the means' outlook (though I think most of D&D avoids that outlook on alignments). Like, he has an insanity (sociopathic need to murder) but manages to live with that handicap while doing 'good', even if by bad means and for non-good motivations. That sounds neutral to me.

However, while he might come off like that in season 1, it doesn't keep. Sure, plenty of the folk he kills fit that description, but a number don't as well.
EDIT: realized I never referred to the quote I used. The main evidence I see against him being neutral is that he doesn't keep to his code, in that he purposefully lets criminals slip through the cracks (at times allowing them to do more harm in the meantime) just to get the chance to murder them.

[Lacuna Caster]

Guys, the very willingness to constrain his bloodlust or look for an excuse kind of implies Dexter has some form of countervailing pro-social motivation. He could just behave like all the other serial killers on the show and cut people up for relatively petty reasons while the cops are largely powerless.

You can argue that it's absurd that the cops would be that powerless, while Dexter himself has such a low rate of false positives and is so effective at tracking them down, but... within the context of the show as presented, he is actually saving people more effectively than the law could. It's a bizarre premise, but that's a problem with the writers, not so much a problem with Dexter.

[Eldan]

I would argue that he is mainly following the code out of pragmatism and for his own survival. And there's multiple times where he hides evidence to prevent the police from arresting someone, so he can kill them.

[Lacuna Caster]

Again, I feel like the code-for-convenience Dexter would (A) probably move to some third-world country where people go missing more often and the cops rarely notice, (B) join a mercenary militia or spec ops force where killing the 'right people' is totally legal and expected, and/or (C) not target other lethal serial killers who are perfectly capable of killing him back. Dexter as a self-serving sadistic coward is hard to reconcile with observed behaviour.

[Peelee]

Lawful Evil, in it's maximum expression. Sure, he follows certain rules, but is willing to tamper with evidence and twist the code slightly if it means he gets the kill. LE characters follow the rules that benefit them, and find loopholes around those that don't.

See, I'd use this exact argument to claim him as Neutral Evil. Since the rules he finds loopholes around are his own self-imposed rules. Also, I wouldn't use the word "slightly."

[Tyndmyr]

I'd be willing to even argue for Neutral Evil. His code is an excuse.

The code makes him lawful.

Evil/good is entirely separate. You can follow a code to the letter, and still be evil.

[Vogie]

I always felt he would either fall into Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.

I can see the argument for Lawful Evil in the sense that while he is following Harry's code by only intending to kill those who have escaped justice, he's also doing it for evil reasons, and will occasionally kill those who are in the way, such as Oscar Pardo and Doakes. The entire Season 3 Arc with him "using" Miguel Prado, which gets out of hand, and his later relationship with Hannah McKay in seasons 7 & 8. He'll often point the police in the 'wrong' direction, or use the system to let a mark "go" so he can eliminate him or her himself. I wouldn't put him in Neutral evil category because of that code, and his Harry-fueled desire to "right the wrongs" of the existing legal system. He isn't just going to kill someone just to make his life easier (such as his sister or other normal cops), nor is he going to change directions because he's gotten a better offer. He also isn't killing to instill fear in others - even other criminals. It happens, by accident, in Season 2, but it was never his intention.

That's why I think he'd fall into Chaotic Good in the sense that while he does have a murderous urge, that is channeled into the good of others. That entire arc of Season two, the Bay Harbor Butcher initial outcry and then quick acceptance of his vigilantism reinforces (to him, at least) that he's doing the "right thing". For example, people are coming to identify the bodies solely to know that they are now going to be safe because "the Butcher" has freed them from living their lives in terror. It wasn't a surprise that he discovered a Bay Harbor Butcher comic near the end of the season, as the public (not the police, mind you) viewed him in the same light as an antihero similar to a Punisher. Dexter isn't going after people who cheated on their taxes, nor stole from neighbors, or were just generally bad - he specifically hunted down repeat killers, from downright serial killers to those who left bodies in their wake (the pedophilic choirmaster and the state-switching serial DUI hit & run guy come to mind).

[BWR]

The code makes him lawful.

Evil/good is entirely separate. You can follow a code to the letter, and still be evil.

No, codes do not make people lawful. Chaotic people can have codes too. Lawful means one works within a system and society of other beings with the belief that rules are for everyone, not to be broken when convenient. Chaotic means you value personal freedom and choice above the restrictions of society.

Dexter is thoroughly NE.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Depends on which Dexter Morgan you mean.

Book Dexter is Lawful Evil. He's almost physically incapable of killing someone who doesn't fit the code and requires a high level of proof before he'll act. He'll also leave people he doesn't care about to their fates and his highest priority is satisfying his urges and eating...eventually protecting his infant daughter.

Show Dexter is very much Neutral Evil because he does tamper with evidence, he does let criminals slip through the cracks so he can deal with them personally, and he does kill people outside of his code just for his own sake.

[Knaight]

He's a sadistic serial killer who's not nearly as selective about his targets as he likes to pretend he is (e.g. Doakes), and is pretty much textbook lawful evil.

[JeenLeen]

That's why I think he'd fall into Chaotic Good in the sense that while he does have a murderous urge, that is channeled into the good of others. That entire arc of Season two, the Bay Harbor Butcher initial outcry and then quick acceptance of his vigilantism reinforces (to him, at least) that he's doing the "right thing". For example, people are coming to identify the bodies solely to know that they are now going to be safe because "the Butcher" has freed them from living their lives in terror

While I admit he does (except for a couple notable incidents) make the world a better place through his actions, that doesn't mean he is good. At least, not in my understanding of D&D alignment. His lack of empathy and concern for all but those closest to him, his letting crooks go (and potentially letting innocents die in the meantime) so he can hunt him, his willingness to break his code to get a kill or protect himself--all of that says non-good to me. If he killed for the sake of making the world a better place, I could see some sort of Good. But I think it's rather that he chooses a 'Good' outlet for killing so that he has a way to kill for the sake of killing. That it makes the world a better place is nice.

Spoiler: Spoiler: On Doakes

Show

Dexter didn't kill Doakes, and it seemed like he didn't intend to. He was in a lot of conflict about what to do with him, and might've found up killing him for convenience, but it was that arsonist chick he was kinda dating who killed him.

Imprisoning someone who knows your secret, instead of killing them to protect it, shows some restraint.

[Dragonus45]

Something to keep in mind when we talk about Dexter is that literally everything we know about him, every last thing he says to us even in his deepest internal monologues is a lie. The ending showed that pretty clearly.

[Dr.Samurai]

The definition of lawful means to live by a set of morals, rather than doing things on the spur of the moment. And good in context of D&D means to keep in mind the betterment of others.

Dexter is evil.

I have difficulty lumping him into the Lawful end of the spectrum because he doesn't promote anything remotely "lawful". Meaning, in adhering to his code, he undermines his own community, corrupts the people around him, and puts his loved ones in danger. Routinely. His "code" is a blight on Miami. So it's like... yeah, you can argue that Dexter is "lawful" to himself, but he doesn't create order and harmony and stability. He creates the exact opposite. He lies. He cheats. He gaslights people. This, to me, isn't lawful.

Doakes, Maria, Deborah, Miguel, Rita... I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting, but Dexter sends people's lives hurtling in crazy directions that ultimately lead to their suffering and death.

Yes, he kills bad people. But we have a system in place to deal with those people without corroding the system and the people within and around it.

Dexter does it because he likes it. His code exists simply to keep him from getting caught. It wouldn't exist if someone else hadn't imposed it on him.

If I look at law and chaos as "collective" and "liberal", I would peg Dexter as Chaotic Evil. He is in it for himself. *Maybe* you can argue that he had a change of heart at the end, because of how he reacted to Deborah. But it took seven (or eight?) seasons of that happening for him to finally say "Wow, I really need to stop this because I have a negative impact on everyone around me."

[Darth Credence]

Depends on which Dexter Morgan you mean.

Book Dexter is Lawful Evil. He's almost physically incapable of killing someone who doesn't fit the code and requires a high level of proof before he'll act. He'll also leave people he doesn't care about to their fates and his highest priority is satisfying his urges and eating...eventually protecting his infant daughter.

Show Dexter is very much Neutral Evil because he does tamper with evidence, he does let criminals slip through the cracks so he can deal with them personally, and he does kill people outside of his code just for his own sake.

Isn't book Dexter possessed? I stopped reading when the dark passenger went from metaphor to actual being.

[Dragonus45]

Isn't book Dexter possessed? I stopped reading when the dark passenger went from metaphor to actual being.

That got undone super fast when just about everyone did like you did.

[gomipile]

This thread reads like gods of the various afterlives arguing over who gets to claim his soul.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yes, he kills bad people. But we have a system in place to deal with those people without corroding the system and the people within and around it.

Dexter does it because he likes it. His code exists simply to keep him from getting caught. It wouldn't exist if someone else hadn't imposed it on him.

I haven't seen the later seasons of the show, so I can't really comment much on his later actions, but the person who imposed the code on Dexter is currently dead, so there was nothing forcing Dexter to follow the code beside himself. I also fail to see how it particularly reduced his chances of arrest, compared with, e.g, picking off hobos and prostitutes at random.

And again, there is really nothing in the show to suggest that the multitude of serial killers that Dexter disposes of would have been caught by regular cops without many more fatalities. (The psychiatrist who brainwashed women into killing themselves, for example.) You can argue about how realistic that is, but... within the context of the narrative, the System Is Broke, Yo.

[Vogie]

Spoiler: Spoiler: On Doakes

Show

Dexter didn't kill Doakes, and it seemed like he didn't intend to. He was in a lot of conflict about what to do with him, and might've found up killing him for convenience, but it was that arsonist chick he was kinda dating who killed him.

Imprisoning someone who knows your secret, instead of killing them to protect it, shows some restraint.

That's exactly right. If he was evil, in my reading of the alignments, then Doakes would have been gone right off the bat, potentially even in season 1 ("Surprise Mothe..." *stab-stab*). But he doesn't. In fact, he does the exact opposite, bending over backwards and setting himself up to potentially fail by keeping his (effectively) arch-nemesis alive. That's not something a evil person does.*

I would almost guarantee that if, given the chance, Dexter had the option to perform his killing ritual whilst acting as the official executioner of the state of Florida, he would do so.

He's an interesting character for this reason. It would be like if a person got off to, or got rich by, using slave labor... by digging water wells, building public hospitals, schools, and other public infrastructure in third or fourth world countries, cutting through whatever red tape or other barriers that was halting people from doing so. They're doing something undeniably evil, for the good of their society.

Spoiler: *

Show

The killing of Doakes by arson-happy French girl whose name escapes me was one of those things that felt both natural to the story arc, but also kind of an ex machina way to just tie up the season. Which was a bit off-putting in the critical sense.

[Knaight]

I have difficulty lumping him into the Lawful end of the spectrum because he doesn't promote anything remotely "lawful". Meaning, in adhering to his code, he undermines his own community, corrupts the people around him, and puts his loved ones in danger. Routinely. His "code" is a blight on Miami. So it's like... yeah, you can argue that Dexter is "lawful" to himself, but he doesn't create order and harmony and stability. He creates the exact opposite. He lies. He cheats. He gaslights people. This, to me, isn't lawful.

This seems like defining lawful such that it must be good though.

[Olinser]

That's exactly right. If he was evil, in my reading of the alignments, then Doakes would have been gone right off the bat, potentially even in season 1 ("Surprise Mothe..." *stab-stab*). But he doesn't. In fact, he does the exact opposite, bending over backwards and setting himself up to potentially fail by keeping his (effectively) arch-nemesis alive. That's not something a evil person does.*

I would almost guarantee that if, given the chance, Dexter had the option to perform his killing ritual whilst acting as the official executioner of the state of Florida, he would do so.

He's an interesting character for this reason. It would be like if a person got off to, or got rich by, using slave labor... by digging water wells, building public hospitals, schools, and other public infrastructure in third or fourth world countries, cutting through whatever red tape or other barriers that was halting people from doing so. They're doing something undeniably evil, for the good of their society.

Spoiler: *

Show

The killing of Doakes by arson-happy French girl whose name escapes me was one of those things that felt both natural to the story arc, but also kind of an ex machina way to just tie up the season. Which was a bit off-putting in the critical sense.

Except that's not what happened.

Doakes remaining alive for that long was simply Dexter pragmatically realizing that disappearing Doakes would be a HUGE DEAL to the PD.

The bulk of his other victims weren't particularly well known or influential. Few people would miss them when they vanished.

The disappearance of a homicide Sergeant would be a BIG DEAL. We're talking massive manhunt, investigation of every case he ever worked, and anybody that might have been connected - including the lab tech with whom he had a very public and well-known feud. Dexter is smart enough to realize that having that much scrutiny of him would be a VERY bad thing.

So he plays it out, gaslights Doakes until Doakes loses it in front of the entire department and gets himself suspended, and only actually kidnaps Doakes when Doakes was dumb enough to convince Lundy that he was the Butcher before trying to take out Dexter himself.

Sure they used Lilia as a plot device but it was pretty obvious that at the end Dexter was working himself up to killing Doakes himself.

Dexter's actions practically scream Lawful Evil, he manipulated the police and his own Code to get what he wanted, and framed an innocent man for his crimes.

[tomandtish]

I would argue that he is mainly following the code out of pragmatism and for his own survival. And there's multiple times where he hides evidence to prevent the police from arresting someone, so he can kill them.

The code makes him lawful.

Evil/good is entirely separate. You can follow a code to the letter, and still be evil.

Yes and no. His code is not something he actually subscribes to because he believes in it for its own sake. And even Harry didn't totally seem to believe that.

Rule 1: Don't get caught.

And even though Rule 2 is don't kill an innocent, it's arguable that violating it makes Rule 1 harder to follow. Harry himself sdaid that people were less likely to look hard for victims who were criminals.

The big question, which we have no real way of answering, is: Would he bother with the "no innocents" part if he KNEW he couldn't get caught (and for a sub-question, if there were NO people around who met the profile.

[Mechalich]

D&D alignment struggles to handle severe mental illness, because they simply don't acknowledge it as a thing that happens. Thus pathology becomes morality which is messy.

Dexter is a serial murderer, that is not in doubt at any point. His murders are not part of fanatical devotion to a greater cause - which can be used as argument for lawful neutral - or out of complete inability to recognize murder as wrong - which can be used as an argument for chaotic neutral. He knows what he's doing and is by no means forced into doing it. His actions are undertaken to satisfy his personal urges. The evil portion of the alignment axis is therefore extremely clear.

Dexter is methodical, organized, and capable of elaborate long term coordination, planning, and setup. His is capable of suppressing and overcoming his emotional urges at least temporarily. This disqualifies him from being chaotic. Dexter outwardly obeys the law, but he does so out of a considered understanding that being caught would have detrimental consequences for him, not because he naturally fits within a lawful framework. His considers his own judgments totally superior to that of society's and he is completely uninterested in shaping society in anyway. A murderous tyrant would have ideological goals, Dexter does not.

Neutral evil is therefore the best fit. In fact, Dexter - a classic psychopath - is the pretty much neutral evil type case.

[deuterio12]

D&D alignment struggles to handle severe mental illness, because they simply don't acknowledge it as a thing that happens. Thus pathology becomes morality which is messy.

They don't need to aknowledge since D&D alignment is based on what you do rather than what you believe. In particular in Fiendish Codex we have several conditions for somebody descending into the evil side, and they are all actions.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plenty of evil people believe what they're doing is good (or were "just following orders").

[Keltest]

This seems like defining lawful such that it must be good though.

A lawful individual believes, fundamentally, that there needs to be structure and order in the world. While this isn't inherently good, it is more often than not stable, which tends to be good for society in general. Lawful Evil societies that are rigidly controlled and enforced in can potentially be quite advanced, more so than the good societies that deliberately restrain themselves.

Spreading chaos, fear and instability isn't especially lawful even if you have a specific pattern you follow when you do it.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Something to keep in mind when we talk about Dexter is that literally everything we know about him, every last thing he says to us even in his deepest internal monologues is a lie. The ending showed that pretty clearly.

How do you figure? Been a long time since I watched, but I don't really remember the ending doing that.

Isn't book Dexter possessed? I stopped reading when the dark passenger went from metaphor to actual being.

It never really stopped being a metaphor, because as far as I read (Dexter by Design I think) there was always something 'off" about Dexter the entire time. Thing is, each book had hints and shadows of different kinds of murder stories and book three was cult killings and 'supernatural' killings. So yeah, there's the implication that Dexter COULD be possessed...but nothing is ever confirmed or denied and its basically left up to the reader to decide which it is.

Considering the above and the course the latter books took (as far as I read before I had to wait for new ones to come out and forgot to keep up with the series), I think its very much a 'no, Dexter was never possessed he just got caught up in the Cult of Baal's beliefs and superstitions'.