Alignmentness Alignment Thread

[alchemyprime]

Okay, here's the thing I was thinking when looking at the rational paladin thread:

A standard LG paladin, to me, is a combination of 5 6 archetypes.

1. The Cop. He's there to stop evil. He's Green Lantern. I'n brightest day and blackest night (and everything in between), no evil shall escape his sight (Detect Evil helps). Let those who worship evil's might (as detect evil would tell him) beware his power, Green Lantern's Light the kickass smite!

2. The Determinator. Oddly, the fact that paladin's MUST be paladinic reminds me of one character. Rorschach. One line, which sums up both Rorschach and paladins to me, is "Never compromise, not even in face of armegeddon." The paladin LIVES to be good because a god MADE him that way. He won't let crimes go unpunished. He is not always above the law of the land, but if he sees someone go off scott free, he won't give up like Kingdom Come Superman, he'll make sure the culprit pays like Rorschach or the Spectre. Speaking of Superman...

3. The Cape. The paladin is an example to people. He shows up, and people know they are safe. He is equal parts Batman and Superman like this: if you're a villain, you're gonna crap yourself seeing a paladin, like if Batman showed up. If you're a victim, a paladin is like Superman to you: he's gonna save you, no matter what.

4. The Cap. Yep. Captain America. Because of this.

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move." "
Paladins must be able to do this. When the rest of the party is doing something wrong, the paladin stops them. And when the rest of the party is doing something wrong ON PURPOSE the paladin still won't. This blends with the Cop (No Evil Shall Escape My Sight) and Rorschach (Never compromise). He is Loyal to nothing... except the Dream. For Cap, it's the American Dream (not the cute blonde Distaff Cap... I'd be loyal to her, but that's besides the point). For a paladin, its a world where children can sleep warm in their beds, no fear of barbarians raiding their towns, fathers beating their mothers, thugs in a back alley leaving their parents cold on the concrete riddeled with crossbow bolts or spell marks. This leads us into our fifth archetype.
5. The Knight. The Knight. The man who fights for honor, for protection, for everyone. The paladin fights to make sure that people can be truly happy. Now, if what makes them happy is slaughtering babies, that man must go down. If what makes them happy is eating Cinnamon Toast Crunch (or Cinnamon Grahams, as they are sometimes known...), the paladin will hand them a spoon. He's there to help. Why? Sometimes its because someone chose him (like Green Lantern), or because that's how he was raised (liek Cap, Rorschach and Superman). Sometimes is a vendetta. A vendetta aginst tragedy. This is Batman.

Don't you understand? I don't want to hurt you. I don't want either of us to end up killing the other. But we're both running out of alternatives, and we both know it. Maybe it all hinges on tonight. Maybe this is our last chance to sort this whole bloody mess out. If you don't take it, then we're both locked onto a suicide course. Both of us. To the death. It doesn't have to end like that. I don't know what it was that bent your life out of shape, but who knows? Maybe I've been there too. Maybe I can help. We could work together. I could rehabilitate you. You needn't be out there on the edge anymore. You needn't be alone. We don't have to kill each other. What do you say?

6. The Doctor. This one is named for the person it is of. The Doctor, from Doctor Who. Thinking on his feet, finding the third option when he can, taking up the burden when he can't. Whether it is drowning one million Racknoss with the River Thames to save the Earth or using logic to make robots short circuit, the Doctor is able to find the best way to fix a scenario. So should the paladin. He should be able to look into the face of the dalek fleet and have this dialouge.

Dalek 1: [glances at Rose] We have your associate. You will obey or she will be exterminated!
The Doctor: No.
[Pause. The Daleks glance at each other in confusion.]
Dalek 1: Explain yourself!
The Doctor: I said no.
Dalek 1: What is the meaning of this negative?
The Doctor: It means no.
Dalek 1: But she will be destroyed!
The Doctor: No! 'Cause this is what I'm going to do: I'm going to rescue her! I'm going to save Rose Tyler from the middle of the Dalek fleet! And then I'm going to save the Earth! And then, just to finish off, I'm going to wipe every last stinking Dalek out of the sky!
Dalek 1: But you have no weapons! No defenses! No plan!
The Doctor: Yeah! And doesn't that scare you to death? Rose?
Rose: Yes, Doctor?
The Doctor: I'm coming to get you.
and also this one

Dalek Sec: The Doctor will open the Ark!
The Doctor: Ha ha, the Doctor will not.
Dalek Sec: You have no way of resisting!
The Doctor: Mm, you got me there. [withdrawing the sonic screwdriver] Although, there is always this.
Dalek Sec: A sonic probe?
The Doctor: [with jocular bravado] That's screwdriver.
Dalek Sec: It is harmless.
The Doctor: Ohh, yes. Harmless is just the word: that's why I like it! Doesn't kill, doesn't wound, doesn't maim. But I'll tell you what it does do: It is very good at opening doors. [He pushes the switch and the doors explode inwards; Jake's squad and some Cybermen run in and open fire.]

The Doctor does things his own way, and he makes people better. The paladin must also try to find the best way to do something with the least force. He can USE force; thos esmites aren't just for show. But part of lawful GOOD is honoring life, and trying to protect it, as well as finding the third option.

So, to me, the best example of a paladin will:
1. Let no evil go unseen and no crime unpunished. Justice will be served. (Green Lantern)
2. Never compromise, not even in face of armegeddon. (Rorschach)
3. Duty roster's on the fridge door. Meeting adjourned. (Superman.)
4. Beleive in the dream (Captain America)
5. People think it's an obsession. A compulsion. As if there were an irresistible impulse to act. It's never been like that. I chose this life. I know what I'm doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it. Today, however, isn't that day. And tomorrow won't be either (Batman)
6. The man who makes people better, and makes himself better. Tge man willing to cry over his fallen comrade and enemy alike. The man who will do anything to protect life, but will try his damnedest to protect ALL life.

Why use that quote from DC #1000000 #4? Because I like the idea that a paladin is a leader, and a leader would get everyone back to business. I think it fits...

So there ya go. GO ahead an post your own thoughts, but that sums up all the little components of an LG paladin to me. Or at least the important ones.

[Agrippa]

I'm not sure if Roschach would be the best role model for paladinhood. I mean the "never comprimise with evil" philsophy fits up to a point. What would a paladin do in the aftermath of Viedt's attack on New York City? Yes 2,000,000 people were killed by the false alien Veidt teleported there. Yes Veidt deserved punishment for that. But really, what would happen if this were discovered? Would the US and USSR maintain a peace treaty bulit upon mass murder and deception? Couldn't we go back to the potentially apocolyptic nuclear arms race? Think for a minute.

[Mando Knight]

I'm not sure if Roschach would be the best role model for paladinhood. I mean the "never comprimise with evil" philsophy fits up to a point. What would a paladin do in the aftermath of Viedt's attack on New York City? Yes 2,000,000 people were killed by the false alien Veidt teleported there. Yes Veidt deserved punishment for that. But really, what would happen if this were discovered? Would the US and USSR maintain a peace treaty bulit upon mass murder and deception? Couldn't we go back to the potentially apocolyptic nuclear arms race? Think for a minute.

A Paladin would realize that it's too illogical a dichotomy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FalseDichotomy) to be a dichotomy. He would kick "reason" to the curb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption) and strive to go beyond the (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TengenToppaGurrenLagann)"impossible." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeyondTheImpossible) Punish Veidt for his arrogant villainy, and work with both the US and the USSR to bring about true peace.

[Zaydos]

I like. I always saw some of Cap in paladins ever since I read the Essential Avengers. Personally I'd say comic book heroes are a good place to go for paladins. Heck the Green Lantern Corp is pretty much a paladanic order. Sometimes they veer a little too far from Lawful, though (not in the Golden Age or most of the Silver Age though).

Edit: I'd say throw in a little bit of Gawain and even Roland (although he was closer to LN than LG) too for good measure and the whole knightly code.

[Harperfan7]

A Paladin would realize that it's too illogical a dichotomy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FalseDichotomy) to be a dichotomy. He would kick "reason" to the curb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption) and strive to go beyond the (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TengenToppaGurrenLagann)"impossible." (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeyondTheImpossible) Punish Veidt for his arrogant villainy, and work with both the US and the USSR to bring about true peace.

Yeah, Veidt sacrificed good for expediency. It worked (maybe), but it wasn't good, and he could have tried for actual peace (though the DC would have been higher).

[alchemyprime]

Yeah, Veidt sacrificed good for expediency. It worked (maybe), but it wasn't good, and he could have tried for actual peace (though the DC would have been higher).

But it's from DC Comics... surely THAT'S a Circumstance bonus!

But still, I think Mando Knight got the right idea. He'd go beyond the impossible!

GLC is actually how I think paladins should behave. Although, I agree, they read a little more NG sometimes.

[Zaydos]

I always saw Paladins more as Good first Lawful second. The whole LG thing, might have been because of the implication (from the original 3 alignments) that Lawful was more good than Chaotic. Then again that's what throwing in Gawain and Roland (the original paladin btw) are for. Although both are a little too glory seeking for a D&D paladin.

[Sewblon]

Rorschach is a bad example, not because of how he reacted to Viedt's plan, but because he was trying to fight crime, by committing crimes(assault, breaking and entering, two accounts of murder in the first degree.) So he was a hypocrite, which I don't think a Lawful Good person could consistently be.

[Atcote]

So he was a hypocrite, which I don't think a Lawful Good person could consistently be.

Yes. It was totally his hypocrisy that made him non-lawful good.

[Sewblon]

Yes. It was totally his hypocrisy that made him non-lawful good.

Are you agreeing with me or being ironic? I am to tired to tell right now.

[urkthegurk]

Are you agreeing with me or being ironic? I am to tired to tell right now.

I think breaking a man's fingers one by one is perhaps what he meant.

I'd lean the other way, though, and say the the character has a very defined turning point where he realizes that all the Law and Systems of the society are corrupt or weak, and he will keep working for Law himself. He's not chaotic, because he truly wants to uphold order, and he's good because he really cares about humans and wants to save them. Even in the face of Armageddon, he will oppose evil. He cannot stand injustice, whether witnessing it, or personally experiencing it.

The casual torture scene is one of the most startling in the book, because he's so casual. He has simply chosen this as the most efficent action to support good, and is following it. He is disappointed, and perhaps a little embarrassed, when the tactic turns up nothing. He's definitely gone insane, but he is for me the most sympathetic character in the book.

[Daefos]

The way I see it, Rorsach was trying to be Lawful Good, but I'd have a difficult time believing that he actually made it.

[Zaydos]

This is an intent versus methods question. Except I wouldn't even say Rorsach wanted to be lawful good. He didn't respect the law, but a basic code of you don't do X and believed heavily in vigilante justice. And I'd say his intent was closer to CG than LG. At which point it is still a question of whether his methods were to vile for good alignment, and that is something to ask your DM about.

[Roderick_BR]

I think breaking a man's fingers one by one is perhaps what he meant.

I'd lean the other way, though, and say the the character has a very defined turning point where he realizes that all the Law and Systems of the society are corrupt or weak, and he will keep working for Law himself. He's not chaotic, because he truly wants to uphold order, and he's good because he really cares about humans and wants to save them. Even in the face of Armageddon, he will oppose evil. He cannot stand injustice, whether witnessing it, or personally experiencing it.

The casual torture scene is one of the most startling in the book, because he's so casual. He has simply chosen this as the most efficent action to support good, and is following it. He is disappointed, and perhaps a little embarrassed, when the tactic turns up nothing. He's definitely gone insane, but he is for me the most sympathetic character in the book.
And deciding you can just torture people because you don't need to care about them is the source of the worst atrocities humanity did through the story.

But I agree with the OP on everything. I think he nailed it perfectly.

[CDR_Doom]

This is an intent versus methods question. Except I wouldn't even say Rorsach wanted to be lawful good. He didn't respect the law, but a basic code of you don't do X and believed heavily in vigilante justice. And I'd say his intent was closer to CG than LG.


I think he totally respected the idea of law.To him it appeared that the physical manifestation of the law, i.e. courts, police and the like, had failed to uphold the actual intent of law. By his reasoning that would make him lawful. In reality I think it put him solidly toward neutral good, using chaotic actions to uphold the spirit of the law when the actual law had failed him.

[Zaydos]

I can accept that one, I mainly disagreed that he was lawful. Still question his methods, but that's part of what makes me like the character. I will point out though the classic example of CG, Robin Hood, totally respected the idea of the law, just said that it had failed and that it's representatives (Prince John and the Sheriff) were corrupt. Then again it was 6 years ago I realized Robin Hood was not the best example of Chaotic Good and that there were many varying forms of the stories.

I will reiterate my agreement with the OP, especially as he wasn't holding up Rorsach as a whole but specifically his unwillingness to ignore evil.

[CDR_Doom]

oh, definitely. I don't think he was lawful, but if you were to ask him, he would probably see himself that way.

[Nero24200]

Er...are we talking about the same Rosarch who dropped a person down an elevator shaft for pretty much just being an attention seeker? Who killed a person after surrendering and willing to go to jail even though he was begging for his life?

Characters as complex as Rosarch tend to be very difficult to determine the alignment of, but I think we can saftly say he isn't LG.

[Mystic Muse]

Roland

.........St. Jude? (I know nothing about the origin of the name and google has failed me. Apologies)

[Amphetryon]

.........St. Jude? (I know nothing about the origin of the name and google has failed me. Apologies)

Song of Roland (http://omacl.org/Roland/).

[Deth Muncher]

Song of Roland (http://omacl.org/Roland/).

I wondered if it was this being referenced, or perhaps the Stephen King character based on the poem.

[Zaydos]

Song of Roland, not the Stephen King character. Also called Orlando. He was the chief of Charlemagne's paladins, which is where the word comes from. Think French King Arthur and his knights. He also shows up in Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone series which is kind of cool, as well as DeCamp and Pratt's Harold Shea stories (I think that was the name...) in the third novella/story that makes up the Compleat Enchanter. What can I say old fantasy and legends always appealed to me.

[Devils_Advocate]

Rorschach set a living man on fire. And not in the service of a higher good. He clearly chose that means of killing precisely because it would be a painful way for the guy to die. Now, he was paying evil unto evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PayEvilUntoEvil) there, no question. But it was evil that he was paying.

This happened immediately after the point at which he "became Rorschach", according to him. So it should give you a pretty clear idea of the direction in which that change pushed him.

Rorschach is False Neutral (not Good, not Evil, not Lawful, not Chaotic, and damn well not dedicated to balancing opposing forces). His level of disregard for any authority but his own makes him non-Lawful. He's driven by a sense of justice that's too traditional for him to be Chaotic. His cruelty to the cruel is too extreme and too unnecessary for him to be Good. And I suspect that he has too much regard for the welfare of innocent people to be truly Evil.

That he apparently would willingly set the world back on the path to destruction is another hint that he's not a Good guy. Maybe even Evil in the end, if you think that a person's alignment can change based on circumstances even if his moral nature remains the same.

Or, to put it another way: Rorschach has no alignment. Rorschach needs no alignment. :smallamused:

[Solaris]

.........St. Jude? (I know nothing about the origin of the name and google has failed me. Apologies)

You make me sad. So very sad.

About the inkblotfaced dude, if Rorscharch's even remotely good-aligned then I'm a French hooker named Chloe. Just because he kills evil folks doesn't make him good.

[urkthegurk]

That he apparently would willingly set the world back on the path to destruction is another hint that he's not a Good guy. Maybe even Evil in the end, if you think that a person's alignment can change based on circumstances even if his moral nature remains the same.

Or, to put it another way: Rorsach has no alignment. Rorsach needs no alignment. :smallamused:

He wasn't actually going to do that. He wasn't going to not do that. Sure, if Dr. Manhattan had let him, he would have, but Rorschach knew that Dr. Manhattan wouldn't. Its more of a suicide than a defeat, although it is both. Defeat. Until the end bit. You know what I mean. He would never have given up, he would have damned the world, but he would not let it live Veidt's lie.

I don't think this means he has no alignment. I think he's lawful good. The man he lit on fire was a child molester who fed his victims to his dogs. So. I think that this is a reasonable reaction for a LG character to have. He does one 'chaotic' thing, by refusing to bow to the government when they tell him to stop punishing criminals. These people are evil, he has seen it, and he can stop them. This is something a chaotic person would do, but he does it for entirely lawful reasons. He just doesn't believe in the United States Government as an arbiter of the law.

The same people who employ the Comedian, by the way. I think this is, again, a reasonable reaction.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The answer is obvious. It's Rorschach.





About the inkblotfaced dude, if Rorscharch's even remotely good-aligned then I'm a French hooker named Chloe. Just because he kills evil folks doesn't make him good.

But why is he evil?

He does other things that are good. It is true, most of them involve killing. But he has dedicated his life to protecting the innocent from horror they could not imagine, and rooting that evil out, and destroying it. So his sanity has cracked a little. If any of the paladins in your game are as dedicated to making the world a better place, I'd be much surprised.

EDIT: I'd like to say that any well-rounded character cannot be defined by his alignment trait alone. I am not saying Rorschach is your typical 'Lawful Good' character. You wouldn't define a character based solely on their race or class, or on anything else specifically. Colour, in magic cards. But he has an alignment still. And it is LG. Of course, he is perfectly comfortable in a world with no alignment system too.

[Coidzor]

Of course, he is perfectly comfortable in a world with no alignment system too.

Funny, he never seemed very comfortable...

[Solaris]

But why is he evil?

He does other things that are good. It is true, most of them involve killing. But he has dedicated his life to protecting the innocent from horror they could not imagine, and rooting that evil out, and destroying it. So his sanity has cracked a little. If any of the paladins in your game are as dedicated to making the world a better place, I'd be much surprised.

EDIT: I'd like to say that any well-rounded character cannot be defined by his alignment trait alone. I am not saying Rorschach is your typical 'Lawful Good' character. You wouldn't define a character based solely on their race or class, or on anything else specifically. Colour, in magic cards. But he has an alignment still. And it is LG. Of course, he is perfectly comfortable in a world with no alignment system too.

He is evil not because of why he did it, but what he did. The ends do not and cannot justify the means. In attacking, torturing, and killing evildoers he imagines himself one of the Good Guys, doing Good Work, but in reality he's little better than they are. A real LG character wouldn't have "I set child molesters on fire" as his standard operating procedure in the absence of a just legal system. He would have "I would shoot child molesters" - death by fire being significantly less painful and torturous than death by shooting.
We are, after all, talking about the guy who dropped someone down an elevator shaft because they were desperate for attention and liked getting beat up.

[urkthegurk]

He is evil not because of why he did it, but what he did. The ends do not and cannot justify the means. In attacking, torturing, and killing evildoers he imagines himself one of the Good Guys, doing Good Work, but in reality he's little better than they are. A real LG character wouldn't have "I set child molesters on fire" as his standard operating procedure in the absence of a just legal system. He would have "I would shoot child molesters" - death by fire being significantly less painful and torturous than death by shooting.
We are, after all, talking about the guy who dropped someone down an elevator shaft because they were desperate for attention and liked getting beat up.

He's quite a bit better than they are, thanks very much. So your saying that if he shot the villains rather than lighting them on fire, that would be LG? Strange place, IMO, to draw that particular line in the sand. If killing people at all fits into your concept of good, then these are the people paladins would be killing. If not, well have fun playing D+D.

And if anyone deserves to be lit on fire, it was that guy. Sure, I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to condemn him for it. I think that scene was meant to illustrate the lengths people would go to hurt other people, but how little they would actually inflict upon themselves, even to save their own lives. And in the absence of a just legal system, that's exactly what he should do. In a just legal system, though, Rorschach would have to be sent to jail for that same thing.

The man in question was not just a child molester, it's unfair to downplay his crimes. He was possibly the foulest specimen that humanity has to exhibit.

And, although the book is unspecific, I think Rorschach dropped Captain Carnage down the elevator shaft because he mistook him for an actual villain, not because he was annoyed by him.

As a side note, he doesn't carry an actual gun, which would make shooting people awfully hard. Although I take your point.

And I disagree.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think that this is a reasonable reaction for a LG character to have.
I suppose that if I had to pick the type of unambiguously Evil action that a Lawful Good character would be most likely to commit, inflicting needless suffering on the perpetrator of a horrible and senseless atrocity would probably be near the top of the list. Still, inflicting suffering on someone for the purpose of inflicting suffering on him is unambiguously Evil, even if he did something really, really bad. Oh, and when your government and society -- rightly -- won't inflict such extreme punishment on the worst of criminals, but you go ahead and decide to do it on your own authority anyway, that's Chaotic too.

Again, I'll admit that this is a Chaotic Evil action that could be in-character for a fairly normal Lawful Good character. Nevertheless, it is Chaotic Evil, and thus detracts from Lawfulness and Goodness. Detract enough, and you're not LG anymore. In other words, this a path by which a LG character might shift alignment.

My suspicion is that Rorschach has done things along these lines often enough to detract from his Lawfulness and Goodness enough that he isn't LG anymore.


The same people who employ the Comedian, by the way. I think this is, again, a reasonable reaction.
Notably, Rorschach seems to have considered the Comedian one of the good guys.

And if Rorschach indeed "would have" caused/allowed millions to billions of people to die in a massive exchange of nuclear firepower so long as it meant that he could punish someone for his wrongdoing... well, then that indicates that retribution means more to him than human lives.

Veidt strikes me as a lot more Good-aligned than Rorschach.

As an eleven-year-old, Walter Kovacs wrote "I like President Truman, the way Dad would of wanted me to. He dropped the atom bomb on Japan and saved millions of lives because if he hadn't of, then there would of been a lot more war than there was and more people would of been killed. I think it was a good thing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan."

I wonder whether Rorschach since revised his opinions, or whether he feels that Truman was justified in a way that Veidt wasn't.

My sneaking suspicion is that he's really just a lot more comfortable with massive civilian casualties being inflicted on non-Americans, though I also suspect that he would vehemently deny this if anyone said it to his face.

[urkthegurk]

And if Rorschach indeed "would have" caused/allowed millions to billions of people to die in a massive exchange of nuclear firepower so long as it meant that he could punish someone for his wrongdoing... well, then that indicates that retribution means more to him than human lives.


Because he wouldn't stand for a world based on a monstrous lie. Neither would he want people to die, but in the end he has faith in humanity. He hates them, but he rather they get to fight their battle than have the autonomy stripped from them by arrogant, manipulative, corporate super-men.

Who would benefit most in this world? Veidt, the re-builder. Who do you think becomes the world's leader? Precisely because he set it up so that no true 'hero' would oppose him. The means (World Peace at the cost of many human lives) is supposed to justify the end (Veidt gets richer! Also, World peace.)

I agree that Rorschach commits some actions that would be evil and chaotic. I think that he stays close enough to his ideals and his goals that he remains LG.




As an eleven-year-old, Walter Kovacs wrote "I like President Truman, the way Dad would of wanted me to. He dropped the atom bomb on Japan and saved millions of lives because if he hadn't of, then there would of been a lot more war than there was and more people would of been killed. I think it was a good thing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan."

I wonder whether Rorschach since revised his opinions, or whether he feels that Truman was justified in a way that Veidt wasn't.

My sneaking suspicion is that he's really just a lot more comfortable with massive civilian casualties being inflicted on non-Americans, though I also suspect that he would vehemently deny this if anyone said it to his face.

Maybe, but its impossible to say. Really, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was exactly the same lie that Veidt is telling him, and his reaction to that is pretty poor. Just because he fell for the lie the first time doesn't mean that, if he understood, he wouldn't be equally outraged by it. Really, I think that the whole novel is about that, the lies that are the foundation of our world. And those lies are Evil. So what's a good person to do? You can live in a world that is evil, or you can try to change it. And Rorschach thought he was the guy who'd seen the worst, and he thought that he could stand up to it. And he had been tricked, like everyone else.

I try to live in my Evil World, but I'm not Lawful Good. (I don't agree with his outlook, and I think its a perfect example of why LG is scary.)


He respects the comedian, mostly, and regards him as an ally. He's one of the only people who 'get' it, in Rorschach's opinion. He did think he was wrong to become a caricature of that, though, rather than spitting it in the face like Rorschach did.

[Devils_Advocate]

Because he wouldn't stand for a world based on a monstrous lie.
"Evil must be punished. People must be told."

I guess we disagree on which one of those Rorschach sees as more important.


He hates them, but he rather they get to fight their battle than have the autonomy stripped from them by arrogant, manipulative, corporate super-men.
Ah, better that people's fates be determined by the governments that they constructed for themselves than that that control be usurped by someone who... won't blow up half the world.


I think that he stays close enough to his ideals and his goals that he remains LG.
I don't think his ideals and goals are LG, though. For starters, I think that he believes in punishing wrongs for the sake of punishing them, not just to achieve good ends. I also don't imagine him to be generically altruistic even to innocent people.

I think that his ideal society is probably something like "Decent, hardworking people get rewarded, people who take advantage of others get punished, and no one gets a free ride." I suspect that socialism bugs him so much largely because the idea of people having it easy for free is deeply offensive to him. If it proves to be disastrous for everyone who tries to implement it, then so far as he's concerned, that's a good thing: poetic justice. If the government could actually successfully allow everyone to be both lazy and prosperous, I imagine that that would actually anger Rorschach.

I'd call that LN, not LG. But I'm speculating a lot here.


Really, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was exactly the same lie that Veidt is telling him, and his reaction to that is pretty poor. Just because he fell for the lie the first time doesn't mean that, if he understood, he wouldn't be equally outraged by it.
"Lie"? Precisely what claim are you saying is false?

[Coidzor]

^: We'd say Rorshach is more like Asmodeus before Asmodeus realized that Asmodeus was evil. :smallwink:
"Lie"? Precisely what claim are you saying is false?

We think that there's something circulating about country Y having surrendered to country X, under surrender conditions A, who would not tell country Z for whatever reason. But country Z only wanted only surrender conditions B anyway.

[Zaydos]

If the government would have executed the people Rorschach killed would he have turned them over? No, because he believed they deserved pain and a more severe punishment and that he thought they deserved. That's not lawful even in ideology. He believed that he was the only man suited to arbitrate justice. He either believed that men's right to choose was more important than peace (definitely a chaotic mindset) or else that evil being punished was more important than good (which is Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good strange how alignments work that way). He saw himself above the law, and ultimately that society was flawed. Rorschach was fairly thoroughly chaotic even in beliefs, a chaotic character has a strong sense of personal justice, like he did, a disregard for organized justice, which he did, a contempt for governing bodies, which he did (with good reason). I could list more (an idea that everyman should pull their own weight can be as easily chaotic as lawful), but his ultimate chaotic act is his final one. The right to choose was more important than peace and there is where CG and LG differ and that is what scares me about LG.

[alchemyprime]

I'm liking the Rorschach discussion, but is it me, or does this seem that you all agree that GL/Supes/Cap/Bats are all LG? If anyone were going to draw ire, I'd expect Batman, as Rorschach seemed more to be the Law aspect of a paladin.

(And I'm the "Personal Law/Chaos" type DM over "Social Law/Chaos" type, because I see CG PCs as being there to help people be liberated, not to undermine society because it is teh evulz. I see CG PCs as the sort who do some things the lawfuls wouldn't, and are a bit more relaxed, but when the CG character or the LG sees some great evil, they both take care of it. Good is a case of DOING good, or at least TRYING. Law and Chaos is how you do it. Do you FEEL it, or do you KNOW it?
But, again, I am saying LG paladins are
Cap
Superman
Rorschach
Batman
Green Lantern
in some combination.)

[Coidzor]

I'm liking the Rorschach discussion, but is it me, or does this seem that you all agree that GL/Supes/Cap/Bats are all LG? If anyone were going to draw ire, I'd expect Batman, as Rorschach seemed more to be the Law aspect of a paladin.

(And I'm the "Personal Law/Chaos" type DM over "Social Law/Chaos" type, because I see CG PCs as being there to help people be liberated, not to undermine society because it is teh evulz. I see CG PCs as the sort who do some things the lawfuls wouldn't, and are a bit more relaxed, but when the CG character or the LG sees some great evil, they both take care of it. Good is a case of DOING good, or at least TRYING. Law and Chaos is how you do it. Do you FEEL it, or do you KNOW it?
But, again, I am saying LG paladins are
Cap
Superman
Rorschach
Batman
Green Lantern
in some combination.)

To a certain extent, yeah, that's at least what the ideal, rightly-done Pally would be envisioned to be by us. Or possibly your write up was compelling enough to convince us that it was so.

[urkthegurk]

"Lie"? Precisely what claim are you saying is false?

That it was a necessary to end WWII, and that that end justified that particular means. Among other, more metaphorical, lies. I suppose that that's technically getting into the 'no politics' restriction zone. Oops. Do you think because pretty much everyone from that administration is dead that its inert, and therefore safe to talk about?

For the above, I don't think expecting people to work for what they get is strictly neutral rather than good It is certainly Lawful, though, and its certainly why he hates socialism too. Despite your disclaimer about merely speculative, I'd say its a fairly good portrait of his political views. There are certainly some scenes that would support that. I think we would have to know how he felt about other areas of altruism. He certainly does his 'job' of being a vigilante, to which he dedicates his entire life, out of a feeling of altruistic purpose. He is looking for no reward. In fact, he knows he will be ostracized for his mission. That is an excellent example of altruism.

He seems a lot less altruistic, since he is so socially cut off. You know that persona he has, the sign-guy? Thats not entirely a persona, he knows that the world is going down, and it is his responsibility to warn them.

He thinks of himself as a monster, but he also know he is doing good things. Or hopes he is. But LN people don't keep diaries, which is what his journal is, really. No one is that monosyllabicly poetical, or talks so much about themselves and their thoughts, and is worried so much about the long-term consequence of their actions, and is still only neutral. He's LG, he's just severely messed up. Being LG is one of the only things he has left, hes even pretty much lost his humanity. He's not loosing that last thing, even if it kills him. And it does.

[Zaydos]

I'm liking the Rorschach discussion, but is it me, or does this seem that you all agree that GL/Supes/Cap/Bats are all LG? If anyone were going to draw ire, I'd expect Batman, as Rorschach seemed more to be the Law aspect of a paladin.

(And I'm the "Personal Law/Chaos" type DM over "Social Law/Chaos" type, because I see CG PCs as being there to help people be liberated, not to undermine society because it is teh evulz. I see CG PCs as the sort who do some things the lawfuls wouldn't, and are a bit more relaxed, but when the CG character or the LG sees some great evil, they both take care of it. Good is a case of DOING good, or at least TRYING. Law and Chaos is how you do it. Do you FEEL it, or do you KNOW it?
But, again, I am saying LG paladins are
Cap
Superman
Rorschach
Batman
Green Lantern
in some combination.)

Not sure on all incarnations of any of them. With the Cap, Superman, and GL I'm familiar with? Definitely lawful. Batman? Well the 60s(?) from the live-action tv show? He wouldn't even go a mile over the speed limit if he could help it so yeah definitely. At points he's been a badge carrying officer, and at other times he seems more of a vigilante that takes the definition of the law into his own hands for his own ego. Never seen the later, though, so I'm rather largely inclined to say yeah, they're all lawful and good.

[Devils_Advocate]

evil being punished was more important than good (which is Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good strange how alignments work that way).
I would love to know how you think that that could conceivably work out to be CG. Stereotypically, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."


(an idea that everyman should pull their own weight can be as easily chaotic as lawful)
Well, yeah, but from that angle it's more about disliking people being controlled for the benefit of others. ... Hmm. Now I'm pondering whether Rorschach despises exploitation more because of the detriment to the exploited or more because of the benefit to the exploiters. He hates both ends of the transaction, anyway, that's for sure.


I'm liking the Rorschach discussion, but is it me, or does this seem that you all agree that GL/Supes/Cap/Bats are all LG?
I don't see Batman as especially Lawful (nor Chaotic), though I'm not all that familiar with his many incarnations. I've heard that his specifics depend on the writer a fair bit.


And I'm the "Personal Law/Chaos" type DM over "Social Law/Chaos" type, because I see CG PCs as being there to help people be liberated, not to undermine society because it is teh evulz.
To liberate individuals from social control is to undermine society's control over them, and to undermine society's control over individuals is to liberate them from social control. I'm unclear on what distinction you're making here.


That it was a necessary to end WWII, and that that end justified that particular means.
I doubt that anyone believed or tried to get anyone else to believe that World War II would have gone on forever if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped. I think that the dubious proposition related to that decision is the claim that it was the best available alternative.


Do you think because pretty much everyone from that administration is dead that its inert, and therefore safe to talk about?
Sadly, no. Not because it's too recent, but because, unlike with Adolf Hitler or hereditary slavery, you can't just plonk down an ethical analysis that pretty much everyone is gonna agree with. You can produce a contentious analysis that will spiral into a big ol' debate, and that's what the no-politics rule is there to prevent, so... yeah. Sorry. PM me about it, maybe, if ya want.


I don't think expecting people to work for what they get is strictly neutral rather than good
Well, making it so that someone has to work for something that he would otherwise get for free is, all else being equal, not very nice at all. Now, all else is very much not equal here, but I'm not sure that that's all that's determining Rorschach's feelings on the matter.


He certainly does his 'job' of being a vigilante, to which he dedicates his entire life, out of a feeling of altruistic purpose. He is looking for no reward. In fact, he knows he will be ostracized for his mission. That is an excellent example of altruism.
I think that he's motivated by spite for "scum" as much as, and maybe more than, out of a desire to protect honest people from their depredations.

[Piedmon_Sama]

On Rorschach: What kind of "faith" does he have in people? He hates pretty much everyone. All his monologues dwell on the scummiest parts of humanity, it's all he sees in the world. Rorschach only belatedly realizes that Dan has been a true friend to him in the last hours of his life. Rorschach despises and mistrusts pretty much everyone except the Comedian, of all people, and his father/Harry Truman, neither of whom he met.

I think most everyone agrees that intentions, especially deluded intentions, don't make you good. Neither does violent retribution, even against those who genuinely deserve it. It's a good action to remove a threat, it's not if it's just to avenge the dead or make yourself feel better.

Rorschach would be willing to let Armageddon happen rather than compromise his principals, because he's a monomaniac. He seems to see himself as the last good man on earth; not only does that show his total lack of faith in humanity, it leads to him appointing himself fit to judge, torture and kill.

Adrian is equally monomaniacal, the key difference is that he appears more effective.

Throughout the whole story, Rorschach never even gets close to solving the Comedian's murder, let alone learning about the conspiracy. He is the only one who suspects something, but he's completely ineffectual in trying to solve it. Part of the point Alan Moore was trying to make with the comic is that busting into dives and beating the **** out of random thugs only works in movies and comics, and Rorschach lives in a world closer to our own. It's only when Dan puts the pieces together and tracks down that guy that they get anywhere (and I personally think that Adrian planted those leads specifically so Dan and Rorschach would leave New York, he still thought of them as his friends in some twisted way).

This is the point of Watchmen, as I see it: Ozymandias and Rorschach have much more in common than either would care to admit. What Rorschach is trying to do with his fists, Adrian merely does on a much grander scale. He's trying to force people to behave, using fear. For all his big talk about the glorious history of mankind, Adrian betrays a fundamental lack of faith in humanity--why else would he appoint himself to protect them? Then, when the subplots with all the ordinary people reach their end, Alan Moore makes his point. The "fat, well-fed" psychiatrist goes out to help two complete strangers. Bernie the newstand guy sacrifices himself trying to save Bernie the kid. Adrian and Rorschach both get proven wrong in an instant--they are nihilists at their core, with no faith whatsoever in mankind's goodness. What the "superheroes" don't want to admit is that they're unecessary--humanity can find its own way out of the darkness, they can be heroes themselves.

There's a moment where Nite-Owl I outright says in Under the Hood, something like: "maybe it was a fantasy world we lived in. Well, wouldn't you rather, if you had the choice?" At the moment of his death, he lapses into a hallucination of his glory days--the point being, I think, that a superhero is fundamentally incompatible with the way the real world works. Adrian and Rorschach aren't "good." They're not even effective at what they're trying to do. They are, in their hearts, fascists who want to lead mankind by the nose.

[Saintjebus]

I have to throw my vote in for Rorschach being LE or LN. He's lawful because he has a personal code and sticks to it no matter what. Whether he's neutral or evil depends on your point of view regarding punishment of criminals.(Did he deserve to die/be tortured? Is killing/torturing admissable if it is justified by the criminals actions? etc.)

[urkthegurk]

I doubt that anyone believed or tried to get anyone else to believe that World War II would have gone on forever if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped. I think that the dubious proposition related to that decision is the claim that it was the best available alternative.

Yes. And the most moral, that it was O-K.



Well, making it so that someone has to work for something that he would otherwise get for free is, all else being equal, not very nice at all. Now, all else is very much not equal here, but I'm not sure that that's all that's determining Rorschach's feelings on the matter.

Probably not. LAWFUL good. He wouldn't want people to starve, but he would want them to work. He sees socialism as chaos, and is rather spiteful about it. Lawful characters can dislike chaos and still be lawful. And Lawful Good.

I think if there was a genuine source of free stuff, not just government hand outs that he probably considered bribes to a cheated populace, then he'd want that everyone got a share of it. He just doesn't believe that'll happen, and doesn't believe that evil can be defeated by apathy.

I don't think he'd keep poor people hungry just because they're poor, so that's not LN. And he wouldn't use the system to deprive the poor at all, so that's not LE.



I think that he's motivated by spite for "scum" as much as, and maybe more than, out of a desire to protect honest people from their depredations.

That is true. I think the desire to smite the evil is as important to a paladin as the desire to do good. The want to enforce good. Otherwise, they're just NG.

[Harperfan7]

They're not even effective at what they're trying to do. They are, in their hearts, fascists who want to lead mankind by the nose.

Didn't Adrian accomplish exactly what he set out to do? Or are you referring to Rorschach's journal?

[Piedmon_Sama]

Didn't Adrian accomplish exactly what he set out to do? Or are you referring to Rorschach's journal?

I think Moore makes it pretty clear, when Dr. Manhattan tells Adrian "nothing lasts forever," that he sacrificed 1.5 million people as a stopgap at best. What happens when ten years go by with no new extraterrestrial? Twenty? After Adrian's not around? He wanted to create a world with complete stability. I think Adrian is so arrogant, he really thought he could manipulate people into creating permanent world peace. He's incredibly brilliant, and at the same time naive. Yes, Adrian completely fools and outmaneuvers everybody, but at the same time what he was trying to do was impossible to begin with.

And Rorschach's journal would create a few new conspiracy theorists at best, but I think at one point they actually say the journal is barely legible. It's not going to affect anything.

[Friend Computer]

I find it rather interesting that people consider this homophobic, sexist, and anti-sex bigot (and, iirc, racist) to be...

Lawful Good.

Seriously, do people decide that because someone is a compelling character that they are now Good? Or is it a reflection on the morality that such people hold? I know the SRD says nothing of it, but I'm pretty sure that blaming rape on the victim is most probably not Good.

But hey, she was a slut, right?

[Devils_Advocate]

That is true. I think the desire to smite the evil is as important to a paladin as the desire to do good. The want to enforce good. Otherwise, they're just NG.
But the thing is that punishing Evil doesn't necessarily always enforce Good. "The guilty should be punished in order to protect the innocent", "The guilty should be punished even if it doesn't protect the innocent", and "The guilty should be punished even if it endangers the innocent" are plainly not all the same philosophy. The first of those is the one appropriate to a paladin, and the last one seems to be where Rorschach comes down in the end.


He's lawful because he has a personal code and sticks to it no matter what.
What code would that be? All I can think of for him is "Evil must be punished", which is a goal, not a code. If that's what he's devoted to above all else, then he's The Unfettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered), not The Fettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered).


I know the SRD says nothing of it, but I'm pretty sure that blaming rape on the victim is most probably not Good.
He didn't blame the victim (and it was "only" attempted rape), he just said that he's "not here to speculate on the moral lapses of men who died in their country's service." Rorschach was clearly not entirely unaware that some of the Comedian's behavior was, shall we say, less than ideal. But he doesn't seem to have been all that bothered by this, probably because he avoided thinking too hard about which accusations about Blake were true and/or how badly they spoke of him if they were.

Frankly, maintaining a black-and-white worldview requires that you not look at things closely enough to see the shades of gray. If you come across something decidedly gray, then you classify it as black or white as quickly as possible, actively ignore the details, and hope that no one notices what you're doing, least of all yourself.

[Zaydos]

I have to point out "having a personal code and following it" does not make you lawful. Robin Hood had a personal code and followed it, but he is the chaotic good archetype, Snake Plissken (an example of CN even) had a personal code he didn't deviate from. Both of these gave their word and followed it because it was their code, Robin Hood refused to kill to prove he was better than his enemies, he wouldn't refuse a challenge because that was cowardly and dishonorable. Chaotic doesn't mean without honor. It means what code you do have supports chaotic actions. In the case of Roschach his code is anarchic and twisted and leads straight to psychosis... which is the hallmark of CN. Even elves tend to have strong personal codes of honor, they just see these as things that are their own to hold and keep and it not being society's place to enforce them on them. Having a code does not say Law or Chaos it is if your code supports Law or Chaos. Roschach, while he'd love to be LG, has a chaotic code that allows him to repay evil with evil; and in the end shows he's willing to do it even if that would mean dooming everyone. This isn't lawful good, or even lawful evil, it's chaotic behavior and on more detailed thought he's probably Chaotic Neutral, a complicated and interesting case of Chaotic Neutral and ultimately that's because his means are neither Lawful nor Good. His intended ends are Good but not even necessarily Lawful and his actions are such that he probably fell a long time ago.

[Friend Computer]

He didn't blame the victim (and it was "only" attempted rape), he just said that he's "not here to speculate on the moral lapses of men who died in their country's service." Rorschach was clearly not entirely unaware that some of the Comedian's behavior was, shall we say, less than ideal. But he doesn't seem to have been all that bothered by this, probably because he avoided thinking too hard about which accusations about Blake were true and/or how badly they spoke of him if they were.

I was referring to his immediate reponse to the act, unless I'm putting him in someone else's place. He effectively said 'That's what you get, whore.' And this is entirely in character for him, with his warped view on sex and sexuality. While most people these days see promiscuity as distasteful, they don't see it as evil, like he does.

Someone with such a warped sense of evil cannot be good, if only because
they will punish non-crimes. And this ignores him going into random places and torturing people for information with the justification that they have engaged in imagined and assumed crimes.

[Sewblon]

I really didn't mean to turn this into a Watchmen thread, so sorry. Rorschach's intention and basic philosophy are both noble, but his methods are about as far removed from the concept of the paladin as you can get.

I think that Veidt was insane, not like Rorschach but his basic thought process went, "humanity will destroy itself with nuclear weapons unless someone does something" lots of people thought that at the time, so that isn't strange at all. What is strange is his solution was "destroy half of New York with a giant squid to trick humanity into thinking that extra-dimensional aliens are invading."

This part is insane for two reasons, one, what happens when humanity gets ready for more aliens, and nothing happens? All things follow the path of least resistance so the world would eventually return to the pre-squid status quo, that is, on the brink of mutual destruction. Two, I am 99.9 percent certain that international politics don't work the way Veidt thought they work, at least not in a long-term sense. Now that I think of it, Rorschach and Veidt both basically thought "The world will only work right if someone forces it to, and I am the only one willing and able to do so, so I will." I guess the lesson is that society always relies on some sort of monstrosity to stay afloat, the question is which monstrosity can you personally live with?

[Serenity]

Not trying to defend Rorschach here, but if you're going to call Rorschach evil, you can't call Ozymandias good without engaging in a pretty staggering hypocrisy. Rorschach is a sociopathic violent maniac, a monster of the 'stared too long into the Abyss' type, you'll have no argument from me. But Veidt killed orders of magnitude more people than Rorschach ever did, the majority of them far more innocent of serious wrongdoing than Rorschach's victims. Veidt is a mass murderer on a scale that outranks Hitler, and it's childishly obvious that the peace he brokered on the lives of millions is tenuous at best. In my opinion, Rorschach's refusal to buy into Veidt's plan is the one unambiguously admirable thing that he does--and I agree with the original poster that it is something worthwhile for a paladin to take away from it.

[Deme]

In my opinion, Rorschach's refusal to buy into Veidt's plan is the one unambiguously admirable thing that he does--and I agree with the original poster that it is something worthwhile for a paladin to take away from it.

I'm not sure how unambiguously anything that action actually was (though I do agree it was admirable) -- but that's neither here nor there. But I agree that there's something for a paladin in that burning, entirely sincere conviction Rorshach had, and carried through with in the most dire of situations: but not completely. I think being too convicted is something that could be a trap for a paladin if it's not tempered with other things. I mean, look at Rorshach himself. Or Miko. Both of them were basically made of pure, uncompramising conviction. Both of them were absolutely nuts, destroying whatever good they did as a result.

As for what to use to keep that conviction from destroying a poor paladin, I'm not sure. Compassion seems like a nice choice.

[Saintjebus]

Not trying to defend Rorschach here, but if you're going to call Rorschach evil, you can't call Ozymandias good without engaging in a pretty staggering hypocrisy. Rorschach is a sociopathic violent maniac, a monster of the 'stared too long into the Abyss' type, you'll have no argument from me. But Veidt killed orders of magnitude more people than Rorschach ever did, the majority of them far more innocent of serious wrongdoing than Rorschach's victims. Veidt is a mass murderer on a scale that outranks Hitler, and it's childishly obvious that the peace he brokered on the lives of millions is tenuous at best. In my opinion, Rorschach's refusal to buy into Veidt's plan is the one unambiguously admirable thing that he does--and I agree with the original poster that it is something worthwhile for a paladin to take away from it.

Oh, I don't think that anyone disagrees with you. I'm of the opinion that Ozymandias is extreme LE.

[hamishspence]

"no compromise over certain acts" isn't something unique to Rorschach- its a quite common theme in fantasy.

David Gemmell's Druss The Legend novels, and many others, mention it.

[Deme]

Point (heck, one of the two "Captain America" examples at use worked there) But this all spilled out of the examples given the by OP, so we're working off of that.

[hamishspence]

I've seen the film but not (yet) read the comic.

I would say that Rorschach and Veigt are both deeply flawed, but in different ways. They have some virtues, but often, its those, that drives them to atrocity.

Rorschach's is outrage at the evil that people are capable of- his response is extremely violent vigilantism.

Veigt's is concern for humanity and the risk that it will destroy itself- his response is atrocity in order to "unite" it.

[urkthegurk]

Okay, he's CN. Whatever was I thinking, I'll never know.

WELL, I guess I could go back and read it.

[Sewblon]

Oh, I don't think that anyone disagrees with you. I'm of the opinion that Ozymandias is extreme LE. His entire plan hinged on the ultimate act of deceit, I don't see how he could have been Lawful.

[Ormur]

I think those that said Rorschach and Ozymandias are very similar make a good argument. Both appoint themselves are judges juries and executors but on a different scale and for different reasons. Ozymandias because of he wants to save humanity and minimize suffering and thinks he's fit to take it's fate into his own hands. Rorschach because he despise the moral failings of people and thinks "evildoers" deserve his particular brand of violent vigilante justice.

Even if Ozymandias ends up doing far more evil his goals are laudable. It's the arrogance of believing himself capable of preventing greater suffering by killing millions that makes him evil, not his motives. Motives don't matter as much as actions and I don't think that even the worlds smartest man is capable of predicting actions accurately enough to justify his action of killing millions.

Unlike many here I don't see Reproach's motives as good in any way. He's a very repugnant character. He's a prejudiced, violent misanthrope with little or no empathy. His view of society and it's flaws is very skewed and since that's what he bases his actions on they're bound to be out of all proportion. He kills people that don't deserve is while admiring a sociopath like The Comedian. I'm certain he does more harm than good, or a person like him would.
By itself the resolve to uncover Ozymandias' scheme might be viewed as admirable but impractical dogmatism but only if the dogma is any good (I'm thinking of Kant's categorical imperative). Rorschach just says evil must be punished. I'm not so sure that's a good thing considering his definition of evil (even though he was right in that particular instance).

In the end Ozymandias is definitely evil despite his goals and I'd be tempted to make Rorschach evil too if this weren't a D&D alignment thread. Considering the standards of the cutthroat vigilante justice often meted out, even in good D&D campaigns, he could pass as neutral. Chaotic might be a good description too. Ozymandias probably shot up the middle row of the D&D alignment chart from NG to NE with his actions.

[alchemyprime]

On The Determinator (Rorschach):

I purely meant his resolve. A paladin will NEVER disobey his code of contduct. If his code says:
Stop all evil, even if killing must occur.
Children are innocent. Protect them at all costs.

And he is faced with the half-human son of Demogorgon himself, what would he do?

1. Paladin sees the fate of becoming the Antiilmater as something too horrible to comprehend and kills the child. He falls because he killed a child.

2. He won't kill the child because it is a child. He then leaves the problem alone. He falls from inaction.

3. He doesn't kill the child, but does come back when the child is older to take him as a ward. The paladin raises the boy to be a good person. If he succeeds, he has just given the forces of Evil a huge middle finger. If he fails, he will kill his ward himself, in order to protect the world, tears streaming down his face.

I like the third option myself. But all are determined to the code.

Now then... that was just me tired and with a headache thinking, of course.

Another archetype I want to add: The Doctor. He who makes people better. All good paladins should have a bit of the Doctor in them. Read the OP for more info.

[Zaydos]

I love the Doctor :) I always saw him as the model for a Paladin of Freedom, but the portion you listed, his unwillinglyness (not a word so sue me) to do evil and his finding a different way out, is completely necessary for a paladin. So yes I agree that portion of the Doctor is useful for a paladin.

[Yukitsu]

I always viewed Rorschach in the same manner as grey guards. As evil pointed at other evil, and as such, considered a "good guy" by contrast to other people who do what they do. Incidently, I always thought grey guard would have been better if it simply allowed them to keep their paladin abilities, even if their alignment changed.