# Dexter's alignment (possible spoilers- discussing seasons 1&2)



## sckeener (Feb 4, 2008)

My wife and I just finished watching season 2 of Dexter and have been talking about it for four days now....

one of the recurring topics...what alignment is Dexter?  

In the first season, my wife and I thought Neutral.  He breaks laws, but has a code.  He kills, but only the bad guys in a cold ritualistic blood sacrifice.  

In season 2,  my wife and I are arguing about it.  His emotionless personal appears to have some emotions and a small conscious.   His code is tossed around.  His private serial killer life starts to negatively affect people close to him.  

About the only thing my wife and I have agreed on...that bad news Lila...is Choatic Evil and the fact that Dexter gets along with her so well...probably should give some clue as to his alignment. 

Any suggestions...care to muddy the waters that my wife and I are considering?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 4, 2008)

Lawful Evil - because he has a code of conduct (lawful) and he is willing to be judge, jury and execution (murder by horrible means) people (evil).


----------



## Cheiromancer (Feb 4, 2008)

I don't think that a personal code is enough to make a person lawful.  Lawful types have to be integrated into a social network more than Dexter is.  Mafia, thieves guild, evil empire: lawful evil types need something to belong to.  At the very least a lawful evil type has to have (or want) minions to carry out his dreams of world domination.  Dexter, on the other hand, is in a social organization only as camouflage.

So I don't think he is lawful.  But he's not chaotic, either- he is trying to figure out how personal relationships work, but he just isn't getting very far.

As far as evil goes- well, he hungers for murder, even if he satisfies it by killing only bad people.  Moreover in season two set out to frame an innocent man.  I think that he has to count as evil, even though he is a very sympathetic, likable character.   

So I'd classify him as Neutral Evil.  But an appealing and socially useful neutral evil.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 4, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I don't think that a personal code is enough to make a person lawful.  Lawful types have to be integrated into a social network more than Dexter is.  Mafia, thieves guild, evil empire: lawful evil types need something to belong to.  At the very least a lawful evil type has to have (or want) minions to carry out his dreams of world domination.  Dexter, on the other hand, is in a social organization only as camouflage.
> 
> So I don't think he is lawful.  But he's not chaotic, either- he is trying to figure out how personal relationships work, but he just isn't getting very far.
> 
> ...



 What he said. On the one hand, Dexter is vicious (to his victims). On the other, he's very methodical. I'd peg him as NE, same as the killer in Se7en.


----------



## sckeener (Feb 4, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Moreover in season two set out to frame an innocent man.  I think that he has to count as evil, even though he is a very sympathetic, likable character.




Good point, but besides the killing people, the frame job is the first evil act I've seen.  And for awhile he was thinking about not going through with it...

 this is the first time Harry's code didn't prepare him for something like this...a crisis and one we'll never know if he could have gone all the way since Lila took the issue out of his hands...


----------



## Creamsteak (Feb 4, 2008)

I think Lawful Evil. In my game it would be. He seems to want to justify all of his evil acts and believes that the majority of them are for the greater good. In other words, he's willing to do whatever it takes to make things fit his belief system, but his actions are extrenuatingly evil. So I'm going with LE.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 4, 2008)

Well... Whether or not he is Lawful, is determinate on how you view Lawful, if his mental-state (I haven't seen the show, but it is coming to CTV soon ) is one where he is when murdering in his own isolated world, then Lawful could work.

It is something we discussed in Law class the semester, is the idea when one's one laws become practise when inside a wider-society. We decided that a "law" would be when people are isolated, or in this case when his mind is isolated.

In the wider-view of society, I would call him Neutral Evil, he doesn't kill EVERYONE. But he does do whatever he feels to serve his needs (killing murderers)


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 4, 2008)

Given what he is - a classic psychopath - I'd actually give Dexter no alignment. Not 'Neutral' but 'none'; he is literally like an animal or construct in this respect (Yes, I know D&D assigns 'Neutral' to animals and constructs - I just think that's silly). 

Being a classic psychopath, he has no moral compass _of any kind_; even an evil person has a moral compass - it just points in a different direction. Instead, Dexter responds like an animals does: stimulus/response; he is driven to kill by his basic impulse. He wouldn't trip off alignment-based effects at all. Thankfully, _detect alignment _ would just _fail _ on him, which would raise alarm in any cleric 

I would look at 'The Code of Harry' as a survival mechanism rather than anything like an actual moral code; Dexter can understand the survival instinct. It's one of the few 'emotions' he can actually access (scare quote, because I'm not sure I consider an 'instinct' an 'emotion'  ).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 4, 2008)

Well obviously then Dexter supports 4e, since 4e has unaligned


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 5, 2008)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Good point, but besides the killing people, the frame job is the first evil act I've seen.  And for awhile he was thinking about not going through with it...




So, if one ignores the dozens of people he's murdered, he's pretty much an okay guy.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 5, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I don't think that a personal code is enough to make a person lawful.  Lawful types have to be integrated into a social network more than Dexter is.  Mafia, thieves guild, evil empire: lawful evil types need something to belong to.  At the very least a lawful evil type has to have (or want) minions to carry out his dreams of world domination.  Dexter, on the other hand, is in a social organization only as camouflage.
> 
> So I don't think he is lawful.  But he's not chaotic, either- he is trying to figure out how personal relationships work, but he just isn't getting very far.
> 
> ...



see page 105 of 3.5 
- 
a lawful evil villian methoddically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard to 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. 
-
so on...


----------



## Joker (Feb 5, 2008)

You know, for a while there I thought the cartoon must have taken a very dark turn somewhere.


----------



## sckeener (Feb 5, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> So, if one ignores the dozens of people he's murdered, he's pretty much an okay guy.




murdered is probably the wrong word....assassinated is probably the better term.  

and some organizations believe that assassination is fine for the good of society.

the Doakes issue this year probably highlights it.  Doakes was taking out people, but he was doing it with the Law's blessing, military and then police. 

Dexter just does it without a higher power making the call.  No pope or president giving their blessing.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 6, 2008)

sckeener said:
			
		

> murdered is probably the wrong word....assassinated is probably the better term.




Assassination is actually not a better term. To assassinate is to to murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. Dexter is not an assassin. He is, by his own admission, a killer of killers. He is a murderer. He has no noble intentions for his murders. He murders because he likes murdering. He limits himself to murdering murderers in order to better evade capture as trained by his morally questionable foster father.

Anything else is whitewash. Dexter is not a hero. He is not a good guy. He is a sociopathic serial killer who is incapable of feeling genuine compassion or attachment to anyone other than himself.

Alignment-wise, he is certainly evil.


----------



## sckeener (Feb 6, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> He is, by his own admission, a killer of killers. He is a murderer. He has no noble intentions for his murders. He murders because he likes murdering. He limits himself to murdering murderers in order to better evade capture as trained by his morally questionable foster father.
> 
> Anything else is whitewash. Dexter is not a hero. He is not a good guy. He is a sociopathic serial killer who is incapable of feeling genuine compassion or attachment to anyone other than himself.




At least in the second season, I'd have to argue he does have attachments (Rita, the kids, & Deb) and genuine feelings (since he has feelings I'd argue he does have compassion..it is just questionable how much...after all he doesn't torture his victims beyond just reminding them why they are about to die.)  

I think his emotions caused most of the problems during the 2nd season and he would have been better off staying emotionless.  

Now Lila...definitely a psycho (CE?) with no compassion and no real attachments to anyone.    

Which I think is another counterpoint example to Dexter.  He was willing to take some risk with Sgt. Doakes (CG?) by letting him live.  Lila had no issues with killing or causing anyone pain to full fill her need.  I think Sgt Doakes and Lila ending up in the same room was an example of the issues in Dexter.

At least in the show there is some mixed signals if Dexter is viewed as hero.  Rita's son goes from fearing the BHB to thinking he is a super hero.  Then there is the dark avenger comic...and the public's comparison of the BHB to Batman...toss in random people talking against and in favor of the BHB.....

what I take from that is in this fictional Miami there are plenty of people hurt who do not feel like they are getting justice.  

The only reason we don't view him as a hero is because we know what is going on in his head, at least some of the time.  I'm sure there are plenty of other heroes through out history that if we knew more about we wouldn't view as heroes.

I think most characters would fall into Dexter's mold...the big difference is we do it for gold & xp...and Dexter for blood.  (dang, I'm going to have to make a Dexter-like vampire or ghoul sometime now as an npc...confuse my players)


----------



## Felon (Feb 6, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> So, if one ignores the dozens of people he's murdered, he's pretty much an okay guy.



Pretty well-put. He's an okay guy. If you dropped something on the ground and it rolled away, he'd stop and help you look...for a minute...if he wasn't busy. Just like most of us.

It's always interesting in these alignment threads to see that some folks think that actions define alignment, while others focus on motivations behind the actions. Likewise, some think one or two dramatic actions can make a character good or evil, while others take a holistic approach.

For me, motivations are key. A decent person might take horrible actions under duress. Dex murders people because he has a compulsion to do so. He's not motivated by morality, nor is he motivated by hatred or cruelty. I think neutral is a fair alignment.


----------



## grimslade (Feb 6, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Pretty well-put. He's an okay guy. If you dropped something on the ground and it rolled away, he'd stop and help you look...for a minute...if he wasn't busy. Just like most of us.
> 
> It's always interesting in these alignment threads to see that some folks think that actions define alignment, while others focus on motivations behind the actions. Likewise, some think one or two dramatic actions can make a character good or evil, while others take a holistic approach.
> 
> For me, motivations are key. A decent person might take horrible actions under duress. Dex murders people because he has a compulsion to do so. He's not motivated by morality, nor is he motivated by hatred or cruelty. I think neutral is a fair alignment.




  I think he is motivated by cruelty. He doesn't just euthanize his victims; it is a prolonged and torturous activity. There is a pleasure in the hunt and in the 'taking out the trash'. The real mitigating factor is that, so far, Dexter is never wrong. He always kills the guilty. It makes him a much more sympathetic character.
  In Season 1, (sorry no season 2 until Netflix) he is intrigued by the Ice Truck Killer, his little friend. He is appreciative of ITK's methodology and ITK's tweaking of the police. I think this leans him towards evil. Likeable evil, but evil none the less. Think of it this way. IF Dex cleaned up Miami and there were no more murderers, would he stop killing?


----------



## sckeener (Feb 7, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> IF Dex cleaned up Miami and there were no more murderers, would he stop killing?




I think he'd move to a higher crime rate city with decent areas to dispose of the 'trash'.  

Without giving much away of season 2, he does get one scene where he cleans up in a foreign country.


----------



## Merlion (Feb 8, 2008)

I've not seen the show, but I've heard of it. Theres still some things under discussion here I'd like to comment on though.

  You hear a lot of talk, especially regarding movie/television characters, about "pyschopaths", "sociopaths" and people supposedly having no moral compass, no emotions, no attachments to people, or being essentially animals.

  I dont buy it, personally.

All sentient beings have emotions. As far as I'm concerned, sentience/conciousness and emotion are largely inseperable (this is also why I dlsilike the sci fi notion of aliens or sentient machines without "human emotion.") Human beings are concious, aware of themselves and their enviroment, and possessed of free will. 

  I'm also not big on the D&D concept of "neutrality" as regards Good and Evil, with sentients. D&D alignment only allows for Good and Evil as extremes, and labels most people "Neutral." I believe most people are Good...their intentions are good, they bear no one ill will without reason and are generally willing to do at least a little to help others, but they arent crusaders.

  People choose their actions. The type of character being discussed here, to me, is going to be one of two things: a person with a compulsion to kill, but who is basically a decent person and so only kills those who probably need killing, or someone with a compulsion to kill who does not care who they kill, but kills those that need killing to make it easier for them. 


Obviously the exception to all this is people who are so totally insane they truly dont know or understand what they are doing and cant distinguish reality...but these are, I believe extrremely rare. I consider most or all serial killers to be evil people who realize what they are doing is wrong, and choose to do it anyway because they wish too.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 8, 2008)

Good, in the eyes of many philosophers, is a desire to aid others at the expense of oneself. 

So most people aren't good. They don't want to hurt anyone if they can avoid it, but they don't put much effort into helping people, and when they do it is usually out of a sense of obligation or reciprocation. 'I help you move into your new apartment, you'll help me some day.'

A good person would look for ways to help people who don't ask him. He'd offer his money to the poor, rather than guiltily handing some over when asked. He'd volunteer to give books to underprivileged children, or offer rides to people walking in the rain, or fly to another country and risk his life to provide medical aid.

An evil person, on the other hand, desires to harm other people, particularly if he does it alone, rather than at the urging of society. If someone gets off on torturing people, he's evil. If someone tortures because he's been told to by his superiors, he's not necessarily evil. If you spread gossip and try to get people in trouble because you like it, you're evil. If you're just bad at keeping secrets when people ask you questions, you're not.

The weird thing here, though, is that hurting a group your society doesn't consider 'people' doesn't make you evil. Shooting your enemy in a war is fine. So is terrorizing people you think are threatening your way of life. It's misguided, but it's what your society considers right.

Really, a good bellwether would be how you'd act in a completely foreign environment, without someone to approve or force your actions, and without societal connections to any local group. Assume you have enough money to take care of yourself. You come across someone who looks sad or sick. Do you stop to offer help? You pass a car that has run out of gas. Do you offer a ride to a gas station? You hear shouts down an alley. Do you go see if someone is being attacked?

Now, ask those same questions, but you're in a hurry to get some place. How much are you willing to inconvenience yourself to help others?

Dexter? I have no bleeping idea. He acts out of the bounds of society, and disposes of dangerous people, but he enjoys hurting them. He could become a cop or a detective and track down bad guys as part of society, but he doesn't, because he wouldn't be able to fulfill his desires.

The best I can say is that he's not Lawful, because he's not working within the bounds of society, and he's not Chaotic because he's not working to undo society. I'd say he's Neutral on the law-chaos axis.

He's not Good, because the only magnanimous thing he does is kill people. His life, in general, is not motivated by a desire to help others. But is he Neutral, because he's only killing people who don't count as people, or Evil, because regardless of who he's doing it to, he enjoys causing harm?

I'd say Evil. Neutral Evil.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 8, 2008)

> The weird thing here, though, is that hurting a group your society doesn't consider 'people' doesn't make you evil. Shooting your enemy in a war is fine. So is terrorizing people you think are threatening your way of life. It's misguided, but it's what your society considers right.




"Society" considering the target people or not has no bearing on D&D alignment. You're Evil if you torture people, and you are evil if you torture animals.

And the person who tortures when ordered to? Evil. Even if he does Evil in the name of Good, the action is Evil and he bears the burden of it.


----------



## Merlion (Feb 8, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Good, in the eyes of many philosophers, is a desire to aid others at the expense of oneself.
> 
> So most people aren't good. They don't want to hurt anyone if they can avoid it, but they don't put much effort into helping people, and when they do it is usually out of a sense of obligation or reciprocation. 'I help you move into your new apartment, you'll help me some day.'
> 
> A good person would look for ways to help people who don't ask him. He'd offer his money to the poor, rather than guiltily handing some over when asked. He'd volunteer to give books to underprivileged children, or offer rides to people walking in the rain, or fly to another country and risk his life to provide medical aid.





I disagree. D&D is pretty much the only thing I've ever seen use this definition of a "Good person."  In real life, by the definitions used by most people, most people are good people. Because as I said, being basically a good person doesnt have to include being a crusader or spending most of your time going out of your way to help others...and also because in my experience most people will go out of their way to help others, to at least some extent.





> An evil person, on the other hand, desires to harm other people, particularly if he does it alone, rather than at the urging of society. If someone gets off on torturing people, he's evil. If someone tortures because he's been told to by his superiors, he's not necessarily evil. If you spread gossip and try to get people in trouble because you like it, you're evil. If you're just bad at keeping secrets when people ask you questions, you're not.
> .





Its a matter of intentions and motivations. The person who is bad at keeping secrets isnt bad or evil if they arent setting out to do harm. However also eventually you hit the point of evil by indifference...even if you arent actively setting out to be malicious, if you know your causing harm and do it anyway, its much the same.






> The weird thing here, though, is that hurting a group your society doesn't consider 'people' doesn't make you evil. Shooting your enemy in a war is fine. So is terrorizing people you think are threatening your way of life. It's misguided, but it's what your society considers right.






This depends on the circumstances, and again on intentions. Someone joins the army because they want to defend their country, and ends up killing others in a war that is (or that as far as they know is) to further that end is not evil. However a person still has a responsability to use their own judgement.





> Really, a good bellwether would be how you'd act in a completely foreign environment, without someone to approve or force your actions, and without societal connections to any local group





With most of the important stuff it shouldnt make much difference. I'm not a big believer in subjective right and wrong when it comes to major stuff....there are some things, such as ettiquette and relationship rules and stuff that vary, but otherwise its all pretty much the same.





> Dexter? I have no bleeping idea. He acts out of the bounds of society, and disposes of dangerous people, but he enjoys hurting them. He could become a cop or a detective and track down bad guys as part of society, but he doesn't, because he wouldn't be able to fulfill his desires.





To me a character like that rides the line. What really makes the difference to me is the intention. Even if they enjoy the killing, if they understand that killing the innocent is wrong and refrain from doing so, I wouldnt necessarily call them unequivically evil.


----------



## Merlion (Feb 8, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Society" considering the target people or not has no bearing on D&D alignment. You're Evil if you torture people, and you are evil if you torture animals.
> 
> And the person who tortures when ordered to? Evil. Even if he does Evil in the name of Good, the action is Evil and he bears the burden of it.






In D&D terms yea, probably. And often in real life. However in real life I think their are exceptions depending upon particular circumtances. And D&D should reflect real life as much as possible...the alignment system isnt done very well. 

Actions can be evil to a point, but intent and motivation are, to me, still the biggest factor in many cases.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 8, 2008)

Merlion said:
			
		

> In D&D terms yea, probably. And often in real life. However in real life I think their are exceptions depending upon particular circumtances. And D&D should reflect real life as much as possible...the alignment system isnt done very well.
> 
> Actions can be evil to a point, but intent and motivation are, to me, still the biggest factor in many cases.



 Well, no one asks about alignment "IRL". If the question arises "what alignment is X", it is in D&D terms. And in D&D terms, certain actions are Good and some are Evil, and no ammount of justification will change them.

Jack Bauer tortures a terrorist's wife to get him to reveal where the Weapon of Mass Destruction is, so he can save thousands of life. Evil act. Some may think it's a necessary Evil, but it is Evil nonetheless. Jack can be a hero and still do Evil things. But he'll never be a Paladin (well, maybe in 4E  ).


----------



## sckeener (Feb 11, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> He's not Good, because the only magnanimous thing he does is kill people. His life, in general, is not motivated by a desire to help others.




He does one 'good' act frequently...he buys donuts....breakfast for the kids....snacks for work.   He goes out of his way for that...spending money and devoting time. Definitely 'good qualities'

He helps out Rita frequently...leaving work to help...donating a car.....etc

(the first part is tongue in check...though I would consider it a good act if my co-workers regularly bought food for me...I don't think it out weighs his other activities)


----------



## grimslade (Feb 12, 2008)

sckeener said:
			
		

> He does one 'good' act frequently...he buys donuts....breakfast for the kids....snacks for work.   He goes out of his way for that...spending money and devoting time. Definitely 'good qualities'
> 
> He helps out Rita frequently...leaving work to help...donating a car.....etc
> 
> (the first part is tongue in check...though I would consider it a good act if my co-workers regularly bought food for me...I don't think it out weighs his other activities)




The donuts are a bribe for information on dead cases to feed his habit. And with rise in obesity and heart disease in America, he is just slowly killing all his fellow workers. ;P

Stronger case for what he gives to Rita and the kids though. He is the most 'normal' with Rita and the kids. He actually 'feels' with them. He has empathy with the son not knowing about his father.


----------



## Felon (Feb 12, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I think he is motivated by cruelty. He doesn't just euthanize his victims; it is a prolonged and torturous activity. There is a pleasure in the hunt and in the 'taking out the trash'. The real mitigating factor is that, so far, Dexter is never wrong. He always kills the guilty. It makes him a much more sympathetic character.
> In Season 1, (sorry no season 2 until Netflix) he is intrigued by the Ice Truck Killer, his little friend. He is appreciative of ITK's methodology and ITK's tweaking of the police. I think this leans him towards evil. Likeable evil, but evil none the less. Think of it this way. IF Dex cleaned up Miami and there were no more murderers, would he stop killing?



"Prolonged and torturous activity"? He kills them quickly and cleanly. he hates messes. 

He's always right because he makes sure he's right. He sets targets up to incriminate themselves. He catches them red-handed.

If there were no more murders in Miami, Dex would move to somewhere else where the crime rate was sky high. Miami's high crime rate is a great asset to him.


----------



## Asmo (Feb 12, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> "Prolonged and torturous activity"? He kills them quickly and cleanly. he hates messes.




You mean besides slowly cutting their faces while talking to the victims at great length?

Asmo


----------



## sckeener (Feb 12, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> The donuts are a bribe for information on dead cases to feed his habit. And with rise in obesity and heart disease in America, he is just slowly killing all his fellow workers. ;P




I knew my boss was trying to incriminate and kill me....those accursed free donuts before the meeting!  I can't resist....
Calgon, take me away!


----------



## Felon (Feb 13, 2008)

Asmo said:
			
		

> You mean besides slowly cutting their faces while talking to the victims at great length?
> 
> Asmo



He makes a little nick, like a shaving cut. The amount of time he spends talking to them is varied, but it's generally apparent (to me anyway) that he's not being sadistic but rather is trying to understand what makes people like them--and him--tick.


----------



## grimslade (Feb 13, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> He makes a little nick, like a shaving cut. The amount of time he spends talking to them is varied, but it's generally apparent (to me anyway) that he's not being sadistic but rather is trying to understand what makes people like them--and him--tick.




He also dismembers them while they are alive. That is why there is so much plastic, he is not neat, he just cleans up well. If he didn't want to torture them, he would off them while they were nice and unconscious. Nope, Dexter is not just an executioner, he is a torturer as well.

He is also human, which means he is not infallible. I don't think a sociopath is the best person to decide what the burden of evidence is. The hunt for evidence is part of his ritual for now, but he is not above planting evidence to save his hide. What if he misinterprets evidence and kills an innocent man? I think it would make an interesting plot arc.


----------



## Serendipity (Feb 13, 2008)

Lila struck me more as chaotic neutral to me - but then the genuinely insane tend to.  
While I don't think Dexter would fit (easily) into a d20 style alignment system per se, if I had to call it, pro'lly Lawful (somethingsomething) - but it's that somethingsomething that makes the debate so interesting.


----------



## Felon (Feb 13, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> He also dismembers them while they are alive. That is why there is so much plastic, he is not neat, he just cleans up well. If he didn't want to torture them, he would off them while they were nice and unconscious. Nope, Dexter is not just an executioner, he is a torturer as well.



Dismembered alive? No, I'm pretty sure his preferred method is a quick, clean throat cut, with a tube to suction away the blood. He's as neat as he can reasonably be, given his time constraints. As to waking them up, I think he figures that while he has them captive, he may as well get some free therapy out of it. He certainly has no regard for their distress, but that's cold-blooded indifference, not sadism.



> He is also human, which means he is not infallible. I don't think a sociopath is the best person to decide what the burden of evidence is. The hunt for evidence is part of his ritual for now, but he is not above planting evidence to save his hide. What if he misinterprets evidence and kills an innocent man? I think it would make an interesting plot arc.



Well, there is no "best person" to decide the value of a life, as it's a purely speculative matter. It would indeed be interesting to see him have to deal with mistakenly killing someone who doesn't deserve it. But it would take some pretty extraordinary circumstances, since Dexter always searches until he finds hard evidence.


----------



## sckeener (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> He makes a little nick, like a shaving cut. The amount of time he spends talking to them is varied, but it's generally apparent (to me anyway) that he's not being sadistic but rather is trying to understand what makes people like them--and him--tick.




I get that feeling too...it must have been a big loss for him when his dad died.  His dad being the only person he could talk to about the 'feelings' he was having.  

Whenever he is talking to his victims he usually is trying to understand his inner demons or expose theirs.  

(I'd don't believe this but) one could say he is just trying to become a better serial killer...he asked the car sales man how he lies so easily....he asked the married couple how they stayed together (i.e. had relationships while being killers)


----------



## Mort (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Dismembered alive? No, I'm pretty sure his preferred method is a quick, clean throat cut, with a tube to suction away the blood. He's as neat as he can reasonably be, given his time constraints. As to waking them up, I think he figures that while he has them captive, he may as well get some free therapy out of it. He certainly has no regard for their distress, but that's cold-blooded indifference, not sadism.




It's been a few weeks but I'm pretty sure dismembers and tortures is correct. In one of the final episodes of season 2 he has a witness to one of his "sessions." Doakes (the witness) is a seasoned soldier and has been shown to have no qualms about killing people - yet after witnessing what Dexter does (It is implied to take some time) he is shown distressed and retching on the floor (not just angry at the killing but actually disgusted and distressed). This is clearly not a quick, clean kill.




			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Well, there is no "best person" to decide the value of a life, as it's a purely speculative matter. It would indeed be interesting to see him have to deal with mistakenly killing someone who doesn't deserve it. But it would take some pretty extraordinary circumstances, since Dexter always searches until he finds hard evidence.




They actively duck this question in season two - it's clear that despite being a sociopathic killer they want dexter to remain likeable. Still when dealing with another killer (say the ice truck killer) he actively admires the work with no regret whatsoever (even though the victims are relatively innocent) - I'd say by D&D standards he is Neutral Evil - he just happens to be likeable.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 14, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I don't think that a personal code is enough to make a person lawful.




It is if we are using the D&D definitions of alignment.


----------



## tlarham (Feb 15, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Dismembered alive? No, I'm pretty sure his preferred method is a quick, clean throat cut...*snip*




They shy away from it in the series with fades and camerawork as to his penchant for torture. In the novels he is most certainly tortures them -- often removing limbs while they are alive.

The best evidence that I can recall for the fact they he does torture is that when he kills the couple in season one, and his bro pulls the wife back to the surface -- she only has the one cut on her neck -- but the voiceover states that he wasn't able to do his usual work because of a time restraint. I take that as an implication that he normally does "more."

-- T.


----------



## Felon (Feb 18, 2008)

tlarham said:
			
		

> They shy away from it in the series with fades and camerawork as to his penchant for torture. In the novels he is most certainly tortures them -- often removing limbs while they are alive.



Yes, from what I understand, the show is considerably tamer than the novels. I don't know if that's good or bad.



> The best evidence that I can recall for the fact they he does torture is that when he kills the couple in season one, and his bro pulls the wife back to the surface -- she only has the one cut on her neck -- but the voiceover states that he wasn't able to do his usual work because of a time restraint. I take that as an implication that he normally does "more."



Even that requires some inference. He does typically go through some elaborate procedures, with all of the candles and victim photographs.


----------



## Felon (Mar 6, 2008)

Check it out: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/856/856254p1.html


> Darkly Gaming Dexter
> Showtime's conflicted serial killer coming to a platform near you.
> by Jeremy Dunham
> 
> ...




Now if only they announce that a mission involves Dexter taking down a Jack-Thompson-look-alike...or better yet, Chuck


----------



## sckeener (Mar 6, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Check it out: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/856/856254p1.html




Dang...I might have a reason to get an xbox360.  I guess it'll depend on the engine they use though.  

I'm not sure they can do that game multi-player and that is all I play now.   Though I guess there could be moments...such as at the police station...

and then there is the no playing it around the kids.  I'm sure the game will get an M rating.


----------

