What's Vegeta Alignment?

[The Glyphstone]

The more I've thought about morality, the more I find the descriptive of "having a code" to be innapropriate for the lawful alignment.

Lawful is understanding that moral norms have value of their own, and that society sometimes takes precedence over what you may think is right.

But maybe that's just me.

Acceptance of an external code/set of norms versus dependence on an internal code, perhaps? Chaotic characters can have codes of behavior, and sometimes stick to them rigidly, but the distinction is that it's their personal code and no one else's. Whereas someone like a paladin follows the Paladin's Code, an oath and set of ideals followed by all paladins everywhere.

[Cikomyr]

Acceptance of an external code/set of norms versus dependence on an internal code, perhaps? Chaotic characters can have codes of behavior, and sometimes stick to them rigidly, but the distinction is that it's their personal code and no one else's. Whereas someone like a paladin follows the Paladin's Code, an oath and set of ideals followed by all paladins everywhere.

Precisely. Have you read the Practical Guide to Evil? There's a great description during the first part of Book 4, I think, where the main character describes Archer's unwillingness to ever go against her beliefs, no matter what allegiance or oath or authority that try to restrict her. That was the best description of a chaotic alignment I've ever read.

[The Glyphstone]

Precisely. Have you read the Practical Guide to Evil? There's a great description during the first part of Book 4, I think, where the main character describes Archer's unwillingness to ever go against her beliefs, no matter what allegiance or oath or authority that try to restrict her. That was the best description of a chaotic alignment I've ever read.

I'm still occasionally reflexively checking for updates before I remember it's on hiatus.

[Dienekes]

The more I've thought about morality, the more I find the descriptive of "having a code" to be innapropriate for the lawful alignment.

Lawful is understanding that moral norms have value of their own, and that society sometimes takes precedence over what you may think is right.

But maybe that's just me.

But then you fall into the "Paladin in the Underdark" problem. How does a lawful good character react when in a society where the law is not good? If society always takes precedence over personal morals, then the paladin starts accepting slavery, human sacrifice, and worse. And promptly falls.

In my opinion, Lawful just means that the character believes that a law code is the best way to govern themselves and society at large. A Lawful Evil will love those laws because they can warp them to become a tool for their own dominance. A Lawful Neutral will follow laws for the sake of laws, or stability. And Lawful Good will strive for laws that they believe will create the most good world they can.

That's usually why I always peg Princess Leia as pretty much the paragon of Lawful Good. Her entire goal is to bring about a just and lawful government. If she must rebel to do it, so what? The current regime is literally ruled by an evil wizard that ordered the death of children. In that situation one rebels, for the purpose of creating a better government. As opposed to the Chaotic Good, who would rebel because "screw those guys."

Anyway, as to Vegeta. He does not care for laws of any kind, though he follows a few just because it's convenient to not get killed for the moment. He believes he's above them. That's Chaotic. He definitely starts out Evil. And I'd argue he remained Evil at least through the Cell Saga. There's a reason during his fight with Andriod 18 he kills or endangers several passersby. And he's willing to risk destroying the entire world just to get a better fight and prove he's the best. Even attacking his own son to do so. That's Evil.

Honestly, I don't think he ever really goes to Neutral over the Buu saga. So he has a loved one. So what? He straight up tells Goku he let himself become Majin because he felt he'd gone soft. And then promptly kills more innocents. That's an evil person, who just hadn't done anything particularly note worthily evil recently. He still puts his whims above the lives of others.

For the D&D alignment, I tend to see the following as the split in the good vs evil.
Good: Tries to help others
Neutral: Tries to avoid harming others where possible
Evil: Doesn't care

Vegeta does not care about others. Just some small group he is attached to.

Though to go a step further, conviction, as is described by someone choosing not to go against their beliefs, is outside alignment. You can have conviction for law or individuality or good or self-interest or even villainy.

[Cikomyr]

But then you fall into the "Paladin in the Underdark" problem. How does a lawful good character react when in a society where the law is not good? If society always takes precedence over personal morals, then the paladin starts accepting slavery, human sacrifice, and worse. And promptly falls.

That's why he is Lawful *Good*, not merely Lawful.

A Paladin would simply acknowledge that the society he witnesses is self destructive and not in the interest of its own citizens, therefore explaining why he disregard that external sets of rules.

However, in a fair and square society, the same paladin might be willing to entrust moral judgement in that society 's legal or governing system.

Alternatively, a Lawful Evil individual might be willing to compromise his own selfish desires to adhere to a ruling code of a society or a Tyrant because he knows it will be beneficial to him in the long run, whereas a Chaotic Evil will never compromise on his desires.

Ultimately, the Chaotic side of the alignment, truly followed, is the way of the Ubermench, regardless if its good or evil. It's the way of people who refuse have their actions dictated by a system outside of themselves. They can still be good or evil, or in between, but hell if they allow other people make them compromise.

[deuterio12]

There's a reason during his fight with Andriod 18 he kills or endangers several passersby. And he's willing to risk destroying the entire world just to get a better fight and prove he's the best. Even attacking his own son to do so. That's Evil.

That's pretty much also Goku to be fair, they'll both risk the world's destruction just to have a good scrap. And at least Vegeta isn't throwing full heal items at their enemies when they're about to fight his own son when he's still an underage kid.

[Lord Raziere]

But then you fall into the "Paladin in the Underdark" problem. How does a lawful good character react when in a society where the law is not good? If society always takes precedence over personal morals, then the paladin starts accepting slavery, human sacrifice, and worse. And promptly falls.

Simple.

They aren't a 21st century moral relativist made cynical by their awareness of the subjective nature of civilization. they're a fantasy person in an earlier age whose idea of "civilization" is strictly what they define it as and what they define it as, is what they grew up with, which just so happens to be a civilization that is good in all the way that matters to us, and to them whats evil is "uncivilized": slavery, human sacrifice is just barbaric to them and thus not worth humoring as civilized behavior in the slightest.

[Reddish Mage]

People saying Vegeta was ever lawful are misinterpreting his motives and forgetting his actions.

Saiyan Saga Vegeta is “working” for Freeza, but immediately thinks of getting the Dragon Balls for himself.

That alone is consistent with Neutral Evil but Vegeta also enjoys and relishes destruction for its own sake. He goes and kills Napa, his own ally, without a good reason. Throughout the entirety of both series Vegeta is given to acting on his whim and changing his mind without warning. We even see major changes to his character (like becoming a father...and a dedicated one) happen during time skips, which wouldn’t be so remarkable but consider how static the other characters are, or to the extent they change, how those changes are a sort of natural outgrowth of the character’s personalities.

Vegeta is chaotic, probably the one of the most chaotic characters you can find and we’ve seen what Majin Buu can do.

[rcom12]

He's just. At least what do I think.

[Psyren]

I'm with Reddish Mage on this one, he was never Lawful and probably not even Neutral. All his alliances and allegiances were matters of convenience, he's betrayed every single one of them at some point, and he readily cheats to get ahead even when he's with the good guys. And yes, when he did obey Freeza it was out of fear, which even demons do.

[deuterio12]

People saying Vegeta was ever lawful are misinterpreting his motives and forgetting his actions.

Saiyan Saga Vegeta is “working” for Freeza, but immediately thinks of getting the Dragon Balls for himself.

That alone is consistent with Neutral Evil but Vegeta also enjoys and relishes destruction for its own sake. He goes and kills Napa, his own ally, without a good reason. Throughout the entirety of both series Vegeta is given to acting on his whim and changing his mind without warning. We even see major changes to his character (like becoming a father...and a dedicated one) happen during time skips, which wouldn’t be so remarkable but consider how static the other characters are, or to the extent they change, how those changes are a sort of natural outgrowth of the character’s personalities.

Vegeta is chaotic, probably the one of the most chaotic characters you can find and we’ve seen what Majin Buu can do.

Although I do agree that Vegeta isn't lawful and quite probably chaotic, he did have valid reasons to get rid of Napa:
-Napa was even more of a psycopath than Vegeta. Notice how Napa's the one racking up all the kills on Earth while Vegeta doesn't actually kill anybody himself. Vegeta was probably looking for any opportunity to get rid of an unstable and dangerous "ally" that probably would've backstabbed him even faster if their positions were reversed.
-Vegeta often favors personal power above everything else. By being defeated, Napa had shown to have outlived his usefulness. Cull the weak just like they didn't care to ressurect the defeated Raditz (although Vegeta hadn't learned of the whole "sayans get stronger after being defeated", otherwise he may've probably spared Napa).

[Raimun]

During the whole show:

Chaotic *******.

[KillianHawkeye]

Although I do agree that Vegeta isn't lawful and quite probably chaotic, he did have valid reasons to get rid of Napa:
-Napa was even more of a psycopath than Vegeta. Notice how Napa's the one racking up all the kills on Earth while Vegeta doesn't actually kill anybody himself. Vegeta was probably looking for any opportunity to get rid of an unstable and dangerous "ally" that probably would've backstabbed him even faster if their positions were reversed.

Note: The ONLY reason that Vegeta didn't kill anyone on Earth is because even Piccolo and the other warriors (except Goku) were just so weak that they weren't even worth fighting. Vegeta, at that time, did not squash pathetic ants himself. He's an aristocrat. Squashing ants is what the help is for.

The reason he killed Nappa was that he failed to kill Goku and had therefore outlived his usefulness. There is no reason to think that Nappa is any more psychopathic or unstable than Raditz or Vegeta or Freeza. They all equally killed whoever was in their way (until they couldn't anymore). Freeza also had no compunctions against killing his own minions, and also did not fight until he ran out of underlings because he was so much more powerful than his enemies.

[Ramza00]

Vegeta, at that time, did not squash pathetic ants himself. He's an aristocrat. Squashing ants is what the help is for.

Bingo...

[Cikomyr]

Note: The ONLY reason that Vegeta didn't kill anyone on Earth is because even Piccolo and the other warriors (except Goku) were just so weak that they weren't even worth fighting. Vegeta, at that time, did not squash pathetic ants himself. He's an aristocrat. Squashing ants is what the help is for.

The reason he killed Nappa was that he failed to kill Goku and had therefore outlived his usefulness. There is no reason to think that Nappa is any more psychopathic or unstable than Raditz or Vegeta or Freeza. They all equally killed whoever was in their way (until they couldn't anymore). Freeza also had no compunctions against killing his own minions, and also did not fight until he ran out of underlings because he was so much more powerful than his enemies.

But it's a bit silly. There has to be a middle ground between "Nappa is there to crush those beneath me" and "I will kill Nappa the second he is beaten, since it demonstrated his uselessness"

Those Nappa can't beat are not beneath Vegeta. Why kill Nappa because of it?

[Peelee]

But it's a bit silly. There has to be a middle ground between "Nappa is there to crush those beneath me" and "I will kill Nappa the second he is beaten, since it demonstrated his uselessness"

Those Nappa can't beat are not beneath Vegeta. Why kill Nappa because of it?

You're absolutely correct. Of course, if we were to ask him...

Sucks to be Nappa.

[Battleship789]

But it's a bit silly. There has to be a middle ground between "Nappa is there to crush those beneath me" and "I will kill Nappa the second he is beaten, since it demonstrated his uselessness"

Those Nappa can't beat are not beneath Vegeta. Why kill Nappa because of it?

I don't think it's made explicit in the anime, but Goku breaks Nappa's back, paralyzing him. So it isn't that Nappa lost to Goku, but that Nappa can't fight anymore (ignoring the possibility that those healing pods could heal Nappa's back.)

[deuterio12]

Note: The ONLY reason that Vegeta didn't kill anyone on Earth is because even Piccolo and the other warriors (except Goku) were just so weak that they weren't even worth fighting. Vegeta, at that time, did not squash pathetic ants himself. He's an aristocrat. Squashing ants is what the help is for.

Vegeta crushes an anthill blows up a whole world himself on the way to Earth. He didn't go "Napa please kill them all", he got his own hands dirty.

The reason he killed Nappa was that he failed to kill Goku and had therefore outlived his usefulness. There is no reason to think that Nappa is any more psychopathic or unstable than Raditz or Vegeta or Freeza. They all equally killed whoever was in their way (until they couldn't anymore). Freeza also had no compunctions against killing his own minions, and also did not fight until he ran out of underlings because he was so much more powerful than his enemies.

Freeza also enjoys blowing up planets full of ants (like the sayan one) even when he has minions remaining.

Although as pointed out in my previous post and that you ommited, I also support the "you've outlived yoursefulness" reason.

I don't think it's made explicit in the anime, but Goku breaks Nappa's back, paralyzing him. So it isn't that Nappa lost to Goku, but that Nappa can't fight anymore (ignoring the possibility that those healing pods could heal Nappa's back.)

Speaking of which there's also the matter of warrior's pride. Better to fall in battle than crawl back home with your ass beaten. Return with your shield or on top of it, death before dishonor, etc, etc. Sayan society was quite full of it (doesn't stop Vegeta from being an hypocrite when it's his own ass beaten though, but that's royalty for you, fighting to the death is for minions, the king/prince should survive at all costs).

[Lord Raziere]

Vegeta crushes an anthill blows up a whole world himself on the way to Earth. He didn't go "Napa please kill them all", he got his own hands dirty.

....actually I looked it up, Terror on Arlia is filler. there is no corresponding chapter in the manga where Vegeta does that.

[KillianHawkeye]

But it's a bit silly. There has to be a middle ground between "Nappa is there to crush those beneath me" and "I will kill Nappa the second he is beaten, since it demonstrated his uselessness"

Those Nappa can't beat are not beneath Vegeta. Why kill Nappa because of it?

Goku was supposed to be a lower-class warrior, so Vegeta still considered him unworthy but decided to fight him to teach him a lesson on why you don't challenge your betters. If he had any other minions besides Nappa, he probably still wouldn't have fought Goku himself.

In other words, Nappa is himself so far beneath Vegeta that there is a gap between people who can beat Nappa and people who are actually worth Vegeta's time to fight. And to be honest, without Kaio-ken multiplying his power level, Goku wouldn't have stood any chance at a toe-to-toe fight with Vegeta at that time.

Vegeta crushes an anthill blows up a whole world himself on the way to Earth. He didn't go "Napa please kill them all", he got his own hands dirty.

Freeza also enjoys blowing up planets full of ants (like the sayan one) even when he has minions remaining.

It may be a minor point, but there's a big difference between blowing up an entire planet of ants and stomping on individual ants directly. Vegeta is more of a planet guy.

I also wouldn't consider blowing up a planet from space to be "getting your hands dirty" as such.

....actually I looked it up, Terror on Arlia is filler. there is no corresponding chapter in the manga where Vegeta does that.

Also, this.

Then again, if you ignore all the filler, you never get Garlic Jr or that one time where Goku and Piccolo have to get their driver's licenses.

[Peelee]

Then again, if you ignore all the filler, you never get... that one time where Goku and Piccolo have to get their driver's licenses.

Which is the greatest argument ever for filler, I tells ya!

[Tvtyrant]

On Vegetas' rank: as far as Vegeta knows, he is already the third strongest thing in existence. His Oozaru is stronger then Ginyu, only Cold and Frieza are stronger.

Heck if he had Oozaru on Namek it would have been stronger then second form Frieza, and if after little green healed him Frieza would have had to go to 50% to best him. He has every reason to be arrogant, his species is pure hacks.

[deuterio12]

It may be a minor point, but there's a big difference between blowing up an entire planet of ants and stomping on individual ants directly. Vegeta is more of a planet guy.

I also wouldn't consider blowing up a planet from space to be "getting your hands dirty" as such.

Ha, but before blowing up the planet Vegeta still got his hands full of gross slime fighting some of the natives along Napa. The prince was enjoying stomping individual ants side by side with his minion until he got bored and went "I'll just kill them all myself in one swoop".

And the first time we actually see Vegeta, he's getting his hands quite dirty chewing on some alien corpse.

[KillianHawkeye]

My momma always told me that filler is as filler does.

[deuterio12]

If the main manga is filler, then everything is filler.

[Lord Raziere]

If the main manga is filler, then everything is filler.

That is not the episode Terror on Arlia. and therefore not filler. do not mistake one for the other. eating an alien's arm is not blowing up a planet.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm not even sure Vegeta can blow up a planet at that power level. The lowest we ever see do it is Frieza at first form, which is 200k+. Only over 10 times as strong.

I know he says he can, but we never see if that is true.

[Peelee]

I'm not even sure Vegeta can blow up a planet at that power level. The lowest we ever see do it is Frieza at first form, which is 200k+. Only over 10 times as strong.

I know he says he can, but we never see if that is true.

Roshi can blow up the moon, and is significantly lower power level than Vegeta.

[Lord Raziere]

Roshi can blow up the moon, and is significantly lower power level than Vegeta.

piccolo has also blown up the moon in the manga, so Piccolo blowing up a planetoid is more canon than Vegeta blowing up a planet.

so yeah, its perfectly possible at the hundreds PL digits, the moon has been blown up twice with PL's lower than Raditz, and the moon is only a quarter size of the earth. its perfectly possible for Raditz or Nappa to do it, before we ever get to Vegeta.

[Tvtyrant]

DBZ moons aren't reality moons though. For instance they have atmospheres that can sustain gangster rabbits, and only require as much effort to destroy as a mountain.