Frank Castle (AKA The Punisher) LN or CG Alignment?

[Snig]

Hey guys, i'm starting a new character inspired by Frank Castle. I'm going to be a Vengeance Paladin, and i'm having a hard time trying to decide which is a more suitable alignment, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good.

I'm going to follow a similar backstory where I start out as possibly a regular soldier / guard, who's wife and child we're targeted and killed by some form of organized crime or possibly cultists. After getting off with the murders due to a corrupt justice system or corrupt judge, my character will take matters into his own hands and seek vengeance on the murderers, killing them as well as the judge and any others who's hands were bloody.

After this he will swear an oath to avenge his wife and kids, relying on his own form of justice to seek out and destroy corruption and evil before it can prey on the innocent.

So i'm not sure if i'll have him worship a deity or not. I thought about Tyr or Hoar, but i'm thinking more along the lines of his power coming from his oath and not his deity? I dunno, maybe after all this he'll choose a deity of justice / vengeance to pray to.

Any suggestions on alignment or otherwise would be helpful to flesh out this character.

[Shaofoo]

I would say neither, The Punisher is all about murdering anyone that is in organized crime without so much as a thought, I wouldn't call that good in any sense since destroying evil isn't inherently good and since he is a vigilante that doesn't even work with the law like Batman then Lawful is out of the question.

At best I would put Frank as Chaotic Neutral with some leaning towards evil.

A good thing to ask about your character is how far will he be willing to actually eradicate evil, would he be willing to step over innocents to be able to eliminate the evil? What if the innocent has accepted evil and corruption in their society, would he see that as just cause to destroy them all, would the innocent also have to resist corruption to be worthy?

Also probably the biggest question is how could this work in a group setting, having a killed family member is fine for a backstory but it seems that he will make his entire life's dedication to kill those who have wronged him and all evil and corruption, would the character be willing to put his past to the side to the party's benefit. Would he be willing to not kill a minion of an organization just so the party can use him later in a bigger scheme or does his bloodlust demand that his blood be spilled at the moment.

From my very superficial search I don't see the Punisher as ever having been admitted into the Avengers, even some X-Men and Spiderman is in at one point and I personally don't see the Punisher as ever being in any kind of group. That isn't to say that trying to avenge the death of family is a bad angle but maybe not to Punisher levels of avenging, at least if we are talking about a team game here.

[busterswd]

I'd throw my chit into Chaotic Neutral as well. Vigilantism is not a Lawful activity, even if it's against criminals. Chaotic Good is kind of a tough sell, since he's, you know, murdering people he deems are murder worthy. Unless there's a lot of collateral damage, though, I don't think you'd really be in Chaotic Evil territory. In my book, neutral can be pragmatic and efficient; mercy is for the good, inhibitions are for the neutral.

[CNagy]

I'd say True Neutral; Castle is not a chaotic character. He is methodical and he abides by a code (so there is the case for Lawful). He's not good, in my opinion, because the good he does is incidental to his actual intent--kill everyone who is evil enough to deserve it according to his code. Hard to make the case for evil, as Castle was willing to kill himself when he thought he killed an innocent girl by accident.

[Nifft]

Seems to be Lawful Neutral to me.

However, note that there's no real consensus as to what "Lawful" or "Chaotic" mean, so I'd expect that opinions will vary both about the character, and about the meaning of the terms.

[Naanomi]

I'd call him initially a Lawful Neutral character that slid into Chaos as he continued his vendetta

[Snig]

I'm struggling with calling him chaotic, simply because he follows his own law and does not deviate from it. He views socities laws as a flawed corrupt system where criminals slip through the cracks and so he does not abide by societies laws. Also he would never consider harming an innocent even in pursuit of a his own objectives, he goes out of his way to protect them, and i'm sure he'd take a bullet for an innocent. These are some of the reasons i'm leaning toward lawful neutral.

I don't consider him evil. He doesn't kill for pleasure, he kills for a misplaced sense of poetic justice.

[busterswd]

That, by some standards, is pretty textbook chaotic though. Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean your actions are inconsistent with themselves. It can also be a character that has eschewed society's rules to follow their own.

Robin Hood is classic chaotic good, and he follows his own code.

I'm with you on the good/neutral/evil thing. Punisher is kind of the gray area of morality.

[Daishain]

That, by some standards, is pretty textbook chaotic though. Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean your actions are inconsistent with themselves. It can also be a character that has eschewed society's rules to follow their own.

Robin Hood is classic chaotic good, and he follows his own code.

I'm with you on the good/neutral/evil thing. Punisher is kind of the gray area of morality.
Lawful alignment =/= following society's rules. Truly lawful individuals follow a code that governs appropriate actions in just about every aspect of their life. That code may have everything to do with the laws of society, or they may not. Neutrals on this scale tend to be more flexible, and are willing to bend rules if they feel it is necessary. Chaotic individuals just do whatever the hell they want. Robin Hood is closer to Neutral Good than Chaotic.

As for Castle, I'd rate him as True Neutral with a strong Neutral Evil bent. He's a murderous psychopath, and his choice of targets tending to be evil themselves only excuses so much. (probably closer to Lawful than chaotic on that scale depending on how strict that code of his is, I seem to recall differing versions being more or less flexible)

[Mara]

CG oath of vengeance.

[Malifice]

Lawful Evil to a tee.

Lol at those saying CG.

[busterswd]

Lawful alignment =/= following society's rules.

PHB disagrees, and lists adherence to society's rules as a central consideration to Lawful/Chaotic.


Truly lawful individuals follow a code that governs appropriate actions in just about every aspect of their life. That code may have everything to do with the laws of society, or they may not. Neutrals on this scale tend to be more flexible, and are willing to bend rules if they feel it is necessary. Chaotic individuals just do whatever the hell they want. Robin Hood is closer to Neutral Good than Chaotic.

As for Castle, I'd rate him as True Neutral with a strong Neutral Evil bent. He's a murderous psychopath, and his choice of targets tending to be evil themselves only excuses so much. (probably closer to Lawful than chaotic on that scale depending on how strict that code of his is, I seem to recall differing versions being more or less flexible)

Necessary caveat: alignment is incredibly subjective, and there doesn't tend to be one definitive source.

That being said, just about every source out there uses Robin Hood as an example of Chaotic Good. You'll find occasional forum disagreements, but even the PHB in this edition notes that Chaotic Good characters follow their own conscience, as opposed to "the right thing expressed by society."

Ironically, it also suggests that people that follow their personal code first and foremost are Lawful Neutral, meaning going by the PHB, Castle would probably start off as Lawful Neutral.



Chaotic individuals just do whatever the hell they want.

That sort of thinking is where really bizarre Chaotic Neutral behavior stems from. Chaotic characters are still quite capable of having inhibitions, but on an evaluatory level, though, the "rules" don't really matter to them.

By this definition, though, how is Castle NOT chaotic? If he thinks someone is evil, he wants to murder them, he murders them. If he thinks someone is innocent, he doesn't want to murder them, so he lets them live. If he thinks a good guy isn't killing evil hard enough, he tries to murder them. His "rigid code" is basically subject to his emotional whims. (http://i.imgur.com/MmBTzqz.jpg)

[NNescio]

Actual Punisher?

Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies.

He derives sadistic pleasure from torturing and killing criminals. The word "criminal" is often loosely defined according to his convenience, and would frequently include other vigilantes like Spider-Man (hypocrite, much). He shows a callous regard for life in general, and would stoop to harm even innocent people if they get in his way (he took a shot at Cap, remember?).

[Malifice]

He is LE:

The Punisher is a vigilante who employs murder, kidnapping, extortion, coercion, threats of violence, and torture in his war on crime.

He has a very clear code (fight crime, do not harm innocents, punish the guilty) and is as evil as they come emplying torture and murder (for what he percieves as good ends).

Im literally laughing at anyone who thinks he is CG.

[Malifice]

I don't consider him evil. He doesn't kill for pleasure, he kills for a misplaced sense of poetic justice.

Thats not what evil is.

[Naanomi]

Actual Punisher?

Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies.
Of course like many fictional characters with any history, it depends on the author. I don't follow Punisher per se but I'd wager he has swung between a whole host of alignments over the eras

[Malifice]

Hey guys, i'm starting a new character inspired by Frank Castle. I'm going to be a Vengeance Paladin, and i'm having a hard time trying to decide which is a more suitable alignment, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good.

I'm going to follow a similar backstory where I start out as possibly a regular soldier / guard, who's wife and child we're targeted and killed by some form of organized crime or possibly cultists. After getting off with the murders due to a corrupt justice system or corrupt judge, my character will take matters into his own hands and seek vengeance on the murderers, killing them as well as the judge and any others who's hands were bloody.

After this he will swear an oath to avenge his wife and kids, relying on his own form of justice to seek out and destroy corruption and evil before it can prey on the innocent.

So i'm not sure if i'll have him worship a deity or not. I thought about Tyr or Hoar, but i'm thinking more along the lines of his power coming from his oath and not his deity? I dunno, maybe after all this he'll choose a deity of justice / vengeance to pray to.

Any suggestions on alignment or otherwise would be helpful to flesh out this character.

LN - LE sounds about right.

You have a very strict personal code that stops you from harming innocents (and in fact in your eyes makes you a 'good and decent person') but aginst your chosen enemy (those you define as evil), no act (torture, extortion, murder, and even genocide) is too vile.

[NNescio]

Of course like many fictional characters with any history, it depends on the author. I don't follow Punisher per se but I'd wager he has swung between a whole host of alignments over the eras

There is some leeway on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, but Punisher has always been consistently portrayed as a vigilante who would go to excessive lengths to inflict disproportionate harm (read: death and maiming) to people he perceives as criminals. Capital E for Evil.

He's not like Batman.

[busterswd]

Of course like many fictional characters with any history, it depends on the author. I don't follow Punisher per se but I'd wager he has swung between a whole host of alignments over the eras

I don't follow him religiously either, but his WHOLE shtick is that he's pissed. It's why he's called the Punisher, because his goal is vengeance for transgressions. His violence is fueled by a cesspool of rage and uncontrolled emotions. The one constant for his actions is that they're based on his current feelings, as opposed to self reflection or consideration.

The authors changing his behaviors to match what THEY think he'd be feeling doesn't help this.

[djreynolds]

Frank wants to kill, he is not forced to kill because it is his job. He's a vigilante, not a cop or law enforcement. So he's not lawful, Chaotic good is Drizzt, free spirited playing the woods. Evil is tough to assign to man, but he has no remorse for what he does.

And again he is a vigilante, he's concerned with justice and not the law. But he's too intelligent to know he's not breaking the law, so he technically couldn't be lawful, but he's not going out of his way to hurt innocent people so he can't be evil. And though in spiritual pain and grief, he's not crazy. He has self control, so no chaotic neutral.

So he's neutral with good and evil tendencies.

[Malifice]

There is some leeway on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, but Punisher has always been consistently portrayed as a vigilante who would go to excessive lengths to inflict disproportionate harm (read: death and maiming) to people he perceives as criminals. Capital E for Evil.

He's not like Batman.

This. He uses torture, murder and extortion to punish those he deems 'criminal'. He has no mercy or compassion. He is evil.

He adheres to a strict code (protect the innocent, punish wrongdoers, no mercy for the wicked) that makes him Lawful (in his eyes it makes him less of a monster than those murderers he himself brutally tortures and murders).

He does it for ostensibly 'good' reasons (althought it's really just a personal vendetta). That in no way makes him 'good' though.

He is Lawful Evil (like Casey Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Jones_%28Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles%29) from TMNT)

Both Jones and Castle fit the 'Aberrant' alignment perfectly (Palladiums LE):

The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves." is false when dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good).

He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death. An aberrant person will always keep his word of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live by them, whether anyone else likes it or not.

[johnswiftwood]

Chaotic good with an evil bend. Frank is cold merciless and sometimes borders on falling of the slope into evil, but he is still a soft caring person underneath , and doesn't want anyone to experience the things he did, so he goes to extremes to keep that from happening and protecting possible victims.

[Malifice]

Chaotic good with an evil bend. Frank is cold merciless and sometimes borders on falling of the slope into evil, but he is still a soft caring person underneath , and doesn't want anyone to experience the things he did, so he goes to extremes to keep that from happening and protecting possible victims.

It doesnt matter if he is a nice person underneath. He is a cold blooded merciless killer who uses murder, torture and extortion to get what he wants. That makes him evil. Evil people love and care about their families and most genuinely think they are good people.

The nice guy that goes into his meth dealing neighbors house and terrorizes, tortures and murders him to 'protect the innocent' isnt good.

He is clearly lawful. He has a strict code that he follows. Despite being a sociopathic murderer with zero empathy for those he kills, he refuses to harm the innocent. He acts soley to protect the innocent from lawbreakers and criminals.

Jeeze. No wonder DnD has so many murder-hobos. Apparently murdering and torturing people with no mercy, remorse or compassion is 'good'.

[Warwick]

Frank Castle is a textbook case of why alignment descends into gibberish when subjected to scrutiny. You can make a cogent argument for Frank being LG, LN, LE, CN, CG, NE, or N. You could probably even make a case for CE.

However, the original question is about a Punisher-esque character, and for that, I'd say considering how the character perceives himself and how he perceives general principles of law and order. If he's decided that he thinks the system is not just rotten now, but will always be rotten, he's probably chaotic. On the other hand, if he views himself as correcting practical failings of a flawed system with good principles, he's probably lawful.

[Malifice]

Frank Castle is a textbook case of why alignment descends into gibberish when subjected to scrutiny. You can make a cogent argument for Frank being LG, LN, LE, CN, CG, NE, or N. You could probably even make a case for CE.

However, the original question is about a Punisher-esque character, and for that, I'd say considering how the character perceives himself and how he perceives general principles of law and order. If he's decided that he thinks the system is not just rotten now, but will always be rotten, he's probably chaotic. On the other hand, if he views himself as correcting practical failings of a flawed system with good principles, he's probably lawful.

It doesnt matter how he views himself in my view. Most evil people vew themselves as good people.

I say he's lawful becuase he sticks to a (twisted) code. Murder is bad (he reasons). And the law is ineffective at stopping it. So he goes about murdering people (ironically the very thing he hates, and the also against the law). Its his 'code' that (in his mind) sets him above the other people who use blackmail, extortion, torture and murder.

Most of the peeps in this thread calling him 'CG' would probably also call Dexter 'CG' as well (laughably).

Dexter is another example of an Evil person (someone who does evil deeds) who works towards good ends. Dexter even works with the police fighting crime. Also LE (he is only a serial killer against people he defines as 'evil').

How anyone can call someone who goes around at night brutally torturing and murdering 'criminals' with no mercy or compassion 'good' escapes me.

[johnswiftwood]

It doesnt matter if he is a nice person underneath. He is a cold blooded merciless killer who uses murder, torture and extortion to get what he wants. That makes him evil. Evil people love and care about their families and most genuinely think they are good people.

The nice guy that goes into his meth dealing neighbors house and terrorizes, tortures and murders him to 'protect the innocent' isnt good.

He is clearly lawful. He has a strict code that he follows. Despite being a sociopathic murderer with zero empathy for those he kills, he refuses to harm the innocent. He acts soley to protect the innocent from lawbreakers and criminals.

Jeeze. No wonder DnD has so many murder-hobos. Apparently murdering and torturing people with no mercy, remorse or compassion is 'good'.

I can see where you're coming from. However. The odds are you're only familiar with the works or garth ennis. At his absolute worst I'd afree with you. But he has too many moments of saving people, being compassionate and sympathetic. Rescuing rather then extorting. He's ultimately a good person who goes a bit far. Also he's most deffinately not lawful, lawful according to the book means one is respectful.gladly or begrudgingly, or manipulative of the law, where as frank doesn't cater to societies rules. Anyway. While the punisher may not be the best guy around I'd saw either chaotic good with evil leanings, or evil with so many good leanings that it's hard to distinguish between evil and neutral. He doesn't even view himself as a good person. No one does except for the people he's rescued. Most people, including himself, see him as a thug with a grudge. Also at one point when he shot an innocent he tried to kill himself, and evil person even if they were thoroughly disgusted by their own actions would attempt to justify what they did

[busterswd]

Frank Castle is a textbook case of why alignment descends into gibberish when subjected to scrutiny. You can make a cogent argument for Frank being LG, LN, CN, CG, NE, or N.

However, the original question is about a Punisher-esque character, and for that, I'd say considering how the character perceives himself and how he perceives general principles of law and order. If he's decided that he thinks the system is not just rotten now, but will always be rotten, he's probably chaotic. On the other hand, if he views himself as correcting practical failings of a flawed system with good principles, he's probably lawful.

Could you imagine a Punisher storyline where he actually actualizes his motivations as "I've made another step towards government reform!" It's almost funny to think of him saying that. His primary concern is destruction of what he doesn't like, not working towards a different future or upholding a system of personal ethics.

[Malifice]

His primary concern is destruction of what he doesn't like, not working towards a different future or upholding a system of personal ethics.

His primary concern is fighting (and ending) crime and punishing murderers.

He pursues this goal in a criminal manner, using murder.

[Warwick]

Could you imagine a Punisher storyline where he actually actualizes his motivations as "I've made another step towards government reform!" It's almost funny to think of him saying that. His primary concern is destruction of what he doesn't like, not working towards a different future or upholding a system of personal ethics.

Not as such, but I do think you can make a case for him being good, neutral, or evil, as well as lawful, neutral, or chaotic*. Though when I made that analogy, I was actually thinking something more long the lines of a more violent version of Nathan Ford from Leverage (or for that matter, Robin Hood) - he does illegal things with the justification that the system is imperfect, but still basically thinks law and order is a good thing even though he's not actively working for it.**

There are a lot of iterations of revenge-seeking vigilante heroes, operating under varying degrees and varieties of principle. A direct riff on Frank Castle would probably not be terribly worried about government reform - the Punisher doesn't think like that, for one - but it's not inconceivable that OP's character doesn't want to purge corrupt elements from the legal system they reside in.

*Exacerbated by Frank being a comic book character, so his characterization is all over the place.

**Which further highlights the weirdness of alignment, since I've seen people make arguments that such a character would qualify for LG, but others make equal arguments that they should be CG.

[Malifice]

Not as such, but I do think you can make a case for him being good, neutral, or evil, as well as lawful, neutral, or chaotic*. Though when I made that analogy, I was actually thinking something more long the lines of a more violent version of Nathan Ford from Leverage (or for that matter, Robin Hood) - he does illegal things with the justification that the system is imperfect, but still basically thinks law and order is a good thing even though he's not actively working for it.**

There are a lot of iterations of revenge-seeking vigilante heroes, operating under varying degrees and varieties of principle. A direct riff on Frank Castle would probably not be terribly worried about government reform - the Punisher doesn't think like that, for one - but it's not inconceivable that OP's character doesn't want to purge corrupt elements from the legal system they reside in.

*Exacerbated by Frank being a comic book character, so his characterization is all over the place.

**Which further highlights the weirdness of alignment, since I've seen people make arguments that such a character would qualify for LG, but others make equal arguments that they should be CG.

I think the problem comes down to 'murderhobo' ethics; where any act no matter how vile can be defined as 'good' as long as it's done in pursuit of 'good ends'.

Torture, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide. I've seen all these acts justified as 'good acts' or things a 'good' person would do, when of course they are not and never can be. They are all evil acts, whether one performs them for noble deeds or otherwise.

People also get confused between subjective alignment (how you view yourself) and the alignment you actually are.

As an example, Hitler and the Nazis are oft cited examples of a LE regime. Hitler (before he came to power) was working against the Weimar republic as a destabilising influence. Revolution, sedition, stand over tactics, outright thuggery with the SA. He was imprisoned as a criminal.

But even though he was working against the established law and powers that be, he wasnt chaotic. He was at all times 'lawful'. Just lawful to his own code (national socialism); and not the authority of the goverment.

A Lawful person just has a code. That code may not reflect the code of others around them, but it doesnt have to.

Of course then there is the argument of: 'My Code requires me to act chaotically at all times' also known as 'the Sith code fallacy'.

[djreynolds]

Killing is never good. A good person will seek an alternative if possible to death. Drizzt will let people live. Breaking laws, could be seen as chaotic. But not caring about the law is a neutral opinion. Castle is neutral, with tendencies towards good intentions and evil acts. He's not chaotic evil, the Joker is a good example of that, his underlying motivation is guilt, vengeance. Because he has personal laws, doesn't make him lawful.

He is neutral. He is actions are personal.

He's not a chaotic good man fighting evil, because he kills without remorse. He cries for his own pain, not for the pain he has caused.

Though he may be seen as lawful evil, Castle doesn't hide behind the law or twist it for his own ends.

Its a very good discussion.

[Malifice]

Killing is never good. A good person will seek an alternative if possible to death. Drizzt will let people live. Breaking laws, could be seen as chaotic. But not caring about the law is a neutral opinion.

Its not that Castle doesn care about the law. He's just seen the law repeatedly fail both himself and others.

So he becomes a vigilante - literally taking the law into his own hands. He becomes what the law should be, and makes sure those he considers 'evil' get punished.


Because he has personal laws, doesn't make him lawful.

I disagree. The world he lives in is chaotic. He has his own code. He is a sociopath who would torture and kill a gangsters wife with no remorse, empathy or compassion. He wouldnt do that to an innocent mans wife. This is not because he cares more about one life than the other; its becuase he has a code.


Though he may be seen as lawful evil, Castle doesn't hide behind the law or twist it for his own ends.

Yes he does. He literally takes the law into his own hands, and doles out punishment to the guilty.

He is LE.


Its a very good discussion.

Tis indeed. I had someone trying to convince me the other day that Darth Vader is LE (he is clearly CE).

I never would have thought I would have heard the Punisher defined as CG though!

Placing CG peeps like Robin Hood, Drizzt and John McClane alongside the Punisher is kinda... wow.

[djreynolds]

Fair enough, I'll go with Lawful Evil.

[Shaofoo]

Hard to make the case for evil, as Castle was willing to kill himself when he thought he killed an innocent girl by accident.


I would want to know what was the situation that lead to this outcome. Did he actually try to fire into a crowd and ended up striking the girl by accident or did he actually try to corner off a guy for death so that others don't get harmed but the girl still wandered in anyway.

Evil people can feel compassion, remorse, altruism and all other emotions one could categorize as good. Just because a person engages in acts of good doesn't make them good, Frank might have not wanted the girl dead but his actions could've lead to anyone looking in see that such an outcome was more than probable.

[Logosloki]

NE or LE. I actually favour LE as he strives for order. He believes that those who are supposed to keep and maintain order are not doing their job (which is true). His methodology is pure evil.

The problem with alignment is that they are treate as if they are from a view point of moral absolutionism. If someone is good to their friends or protects those they believe as innocents that doesn't make them lawful or good, that makes them a social creature.

[Kane0]

Thank god it doesn't matter in game.

[djreynolds]

Be happy you live in world where, Murder Hobo Paladin's Roam. Simply Awesome.

Heck I'd like it if someone homebrewed, Oath of Chaos. You'd play the Joker and just wreak havoc and not even loot the dead.

[Malifice]

It doesnt get much more evil than this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3eVcMdxBI

(Punisher shoots a now defenceless henchman in the head with zero remorse, before ruthlessly tying a mine to a pinned and unarmed Saint jr. He then torments him, and then leaves him to die. Confronts the mans father)

Saint Sr: You killed my son!

(In the background, a scream and a boom as the mine goes off)

Castle: Yeah. Both of them.

(Castle shoots Saint, intentionally only wounding him so he can torment him further)

Castle (relishing Saints pain): I made you kill your friend. And your wife... and now Im going to kill you.

(Ties the now unarmed and sobbing Saint Sr to a the back of a car, dragging him screaming and crying into a flaming inferno to burn to death, as Castle walks off into the night)

'Chaotic good' Lol.

[Malifice]

Be happy you live in world where, Murder Hobo Paladin's Roam. Simply Awesome.

Heck I'd like it if someone homebrewed, Oath of Chaos. You'd play the Joker and just wreak havoc and not even loot the dead.

A LE Punisher/ Casey Jones type Vengance Paladin would be balls fun to play.

The Punisher is like the Batman. Both had their families killed and pursue a vigilante war against criminals. Both take monikers and dress in black, using fear as a weapon. They both seek to fill in the gaps where the law fails.

One uses murder, torture, extortion and worse. He's Lawful evil.

The other never kills, never tortures and values human life. He's Lawful good.

The Punisher sure as heck wouldnt hand the Joker over to Arkham asylum as Batman continuoulsy does. He'd torture and kill him, probably starting with the Jokers extended family.

[Mara]

He's textbook CG. Kills badguys. Rules of society be damned.

Even robinhood followed a code. A code doesn't make you L. Batman has one rule, after that he breaks any law he wants.

Chaotic characters place little value on stability or the law. They only respect their own rules.

Superman doesn't destroy darksides empire because it would cause all of his citizens to suffer. He doesn't arrest dictators and drop them off at the UN for similar reasons. He has his code but he values stability and the utility of law.

Punisher's overall goal is the destruction of evil. He is not judge dread or dr doom.

Note: CG can be very messy. You can argue CN but anything else is streching (to the point anyone is any alignment).

[Shaofoo]

He's textbook CG. Kills badguys. Rules of society be damned.

Even robinhood followed a code. A code doesn't make you L. Batman has one rule, after that he breaks any law he wants.

Chaotic characters place little value on stability or the law. They only respect their own rules.

Superman doesn't destroy darksides empire because it would cause all of his citizens to suffer. He doesn't arrest dictators and drop them off at the UN for similar reasons. He has his code but he values stability and the utility of law.

Punisher's overall goal is the destruction of evil. He is not judge dread or dr doom.

Sorry but killing bad guys doesn't make you good at all.

He doesn't kill bad guys because he wants to see society better, he wants to kill bad guys because he wants to replace his own law and for his neverending revenge for his dead loved ones. He doesn't care how far or how deep you are in the system if you are in then you are dead to him. He is evil because he kills evil for his own personal motives (I am using the definition of evil as someone who is willing to step above others for their own gain), he doesn't care about how this will affect others or even the future, his own personal catharsis is what is front and center and everything else is auxiliary at best.

Everyone follows a code, Chaotic isn't the absence of any control or formation but rather that your personal code doesn't mesh with the society and you make no effort to change or even meet half way so to speak. A Chaotic person can still follow the law and see the good in stability, just because a person values his own rules and freedom above other rules doesn't mean that he is inherently against it.

Batman might break the law but he works with law officials, Batman doesn't want to be above the law, he wants to be the law's ally and he wouldn't do anything that would upset the police. Punisher doesn't care about the police and will blindly throw them under the bus if he could. Of course it helps in Punisher's case that the justice is corrupt but then he just sees police as another target under his crosshairs, it is very easy when you paint your enemy in broad strokes and not wonder if the police officer you killed was just doing his job.

[Malifice]

He's textbook CG. Kills badguys. Rules of society be damned.

Hahahahahaha.

Killing bad guys doesnt make you good. Dexter (for example) is not good. Casey Jones is not good.

Robin Hood doesnt torture and murder the Sherrifs men. He accepts surrender, and avoids killing wherever possible. He avoids unecessary bloodshed, and upholds the value of life. He is CG.

John McLane is a police officer sworn to protect the law. Regardless, he breaks the law at will, rarely works within it, and disrespects authority, mostly working alone. He never employs torture, never kills the unarmed, and alway accepts surrender. He places himself in great personal harm to save the lives of innocents. He is CG.

The punisher uses torture, extortion, murder and blackmail. He has no respect for the dignity of human life that he deems as being 'criminal'. These are evil acts. He is not Robin Hood or John McClane. He employs evil acts (in pursuit of a good end mind you). This makes him evil.

And the Punisher kills to uphold the rules of society where the law fails. He is a vigilante. He acts to his own code.


Chaotic characters place little value on stability or the law. They only respect their own rules.

Not true at all.

A person who follows a personal code is Lawful.

Look at Sturm Brightblade. He was an outlaw, following the Solamnic Code in opposition of those around him, and even in violation of the laws that outlawed the Knights.

Are you trying to tell me he 'wasnt Lawful'?


Punisher's overall goal is the destruction of evil.

So was Hitlers. He did everything he did 'for the greater good'

Was Hitler good?

You can't justify an act of evil by doing it for a 'greater good'. The act is still evil. It may have been worth doing in your eyes, but it's still an evil act.

You look in the eyes of the thousands of widows of the Punisher or Dexters victims and tell them that their husbands were tortured and murdered tfor 'the greater good'.

[djreynolds]

I can see where you can view him as chaotic good, but he has no remorse when he kills. He is not a "free" spirit. Drizzt, Chaotic Good, is a philosopher who constantly searching his heart to justify his actions and questioning everyone's nature.

Castle is on a rampage, and with the discussion. I'd throw my hat in lawful evil. His moral code compels him to act and takes away any guilt, which Drizzt feels continually. Lawful people use the law as their moral compass and "guilt" reducer. And killing is evil.

Lawful evil.

But feel free to argue chaotic good its fun.

[Logosloki]

As an aside. Malifice believes Darth Vader is CE...I find this information good. I thought I was the only one, or at least I wouldn't meet many people who have this view.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Neutral evil.

Killing evil people doesn't make you a good person. He's a serial killer whose victims are those who he considers that are evil. Sounds pretty wicked to me.

[djreynolds]

Darth Vader is confused and tortured and without an "anchor." He is lost. He strikes out. Chaotic evil.

IMHO, neutral evil, is true evil. The emperor would neutral evil, Count Dooku is Lawful Evil. Look on his face when the emperor betrays him, I'm mean he was a loyal apprentice.

[Malifice]

As an aside. Malifice believes Darth Vader is CE...I find this information good. I thought I was the only one, or at least I wouldn't meet many people who have this view.

Its obvious to me.

He never keeps his word (he didnt even keep it as a Jedi), he brings into ruin every single organisation he belongs to (the Jedi, the Republic, then the Empire and the Sith). He always acts alone and plays by his own rules; disobeying orders is the norm

He betrays and ultimately brings down or kills:


The Jedi
The Sith (trains a secret apprentice, saves the last Jedi)
The Republic
The Empire (and the emperor)
His wife
His best friend and master
Lando Calrissian (im altering the deal, pray I dont alter it any further)


And all of this is notwithstanding he has no actual rank in the Empire, sitting outside the rank heirarchy and acting as an independent agent answerable only to the Emperor. He literally gets to fly around the galaxy acting as his hate, fear and anger compell him killing people at will.

He follows the 'Sith Code' but this is a code that states 'embrace your emotions and act however you want'. He even breaks its only actual rule by breaking the rule of two and getting himself a secret apprentice.

He mostly obeys the Emperor, but this is only out of fear, and he constantly seeks ways of overthrowing the emperor; even secretly disobeying him, before finally pegging him down a bottomless pit.

The bloke is CE. Not quite Joker level of CE, but he is CE.

[Cazero]

There are exactly three differences between the Punisher and Kira from Death Note.

1) The Punisher is a badass normal. He doesn't need magic mojo.
2) Kira is an egomaniac. He wants the world to know about him, he wants them to be grateful, and he wants to live to enjoy the glory. The only reason he isn't telling everyone from the start is because he isn't a badass normal who can live as a wanted criminal for the next three decades.
3) Death Note is not subject to the eternal continuity of comic books and ended whith Kira being killed.

None of those are related to alignement.
Kira tries to eradicate crime using the disproportionate retribution of murder because it's a guaranteed 0% recidivism rate, and that's the only valid point he has. He uses fear of death to it's full extent on a global scale. He has litteraly no rules, and use any means necessary to dispose of every serious threat to his personnal achievement of his twisted ideal of justice.
The Punisher tries very hard to do the exact same things (minus being worshipped as a god). He would love owning a Death Note. That would make his job so much easier and help minimize collateral damage. He would probably write down stuff like "drug cartel start a massive gunfight with each others, no survivors" in it, because an almost compassionate and clean heart attack doesn't fit his style.
Kira is Chaotic Evil. The Punisher is Chaotic Evil.

[Mrglee]

The answer is gonna depend a lot on your personal ethics. I am inclined to agree with Malifice, but voted in laws from around the US show plenty of people who think otherwise(I wish I could speak for elsewhere, but that would require more research for a forum argument than I am willing to make).
If you want a more by the books answer, take a look at the alignments on page 122 of the PHB. For me, four alignments there jump out with their brief blurb on what they mean. They are organized by order of appearance.
EDIT: Decided to remove the actual quotes, probably not good to just post word by word descriptions now that I think about it.
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Evil
At the top we have chaotic good, which I feel fits due to Frank's acting on his conscience, that his way is the right way to save the world. I will note before I get Godwin's law'd as well, most dnd worlds aren't exactly opposed to the murder of an entire race. I mean, there are entire races that are just evil cause they are evil, and if you just wiped them off the face of the planet, no one would miss them. I think it is personally stupid, but it is how the game works.
Lawful neutral is where I would personally put Frank I feel, as I tend to prefer the more gray alignments. It speaks to Frank's personal code, probably the character's second most defining feature after the murder thing.
Lawful Evil is the one I feel has the least justification going by the blurb, but if you interpret "taking what they want" as the lives of criminals and and order as his own personal code, well, the shoe fits. While not the closest by rules, this is the second most likely place I would place Frank.
And lastly, chaotic evil speaks directly to Frank's hatred. While his acts aren't quite arbitrary, it is the only of the evil that act strictly on hate(by the blurbs, the others are much more about greed). This might be an interesting thing to play if you GM agree with this interpretation.
Anyhow, hoped that helped and didn't just make things more confusing.

[Malifice]

Kira is Chaotic Evil. The Punisher is Chaotic Evil.

The Punisher has a code though. For all his murder, torture and evil, he doesnt harm those he deems innocent. He punishes the 'guilty' only.

He also doesnt act pre-emptively. It's only when the law fails, and evil gets away with it does he act.

Judge Dredd is LN. The Punisher is LE.

[AstralFire]

For clarification between "lawful personal code" and "chaotic with consistent principles and preferences", I'd say that it's best to consider the type of society they want to build with their actions (whether or not their actions actually accomplish this; law and chaos have intent matter a lot more than good v. evil, imo). The Punisher hates his society's perceived breakdown of law and order. While he may be sometimes inconsistent in his evaluations (due to emotions or different writers) he ideally wants a society where there are clear rules and people aren't breaking them.

LN, LE, NE, TN I think is a better quadrant.

I won't repeat the arguments against torture for why he's not Good. I don't think they need repetition nor can they be successfully rebut.

[Mara]

I won't bend on Chaotic. He clearly has no regard for order.

In some canons Frank is good. In others he is neutral. In his world he actually knows who is guilty. He knows who is making officals looking the other way. He knows this because most people know but are constricted by the law and ability. Frank is not.

You can argue that his methods are so abhorrent that it corrupts him, but his cause is just vengeance. He is the Punisher. Whether he is CG or CN depends on whether you see him as a serial killer with coping problems (vengeful father) or as an angel of wraith smiting the darkness (someone with a singular purpose, all that was human in them has long since died)

By no means is he evil. What some see as evil just speaks to their own lawful tendencies.

[Tarvil]

I'd go for CN. I have very similar concept of Vengeance Paladin who is basically madman, obsessed with smiting greater evil. He still thinks he is good guy, and sometimes cooperates with good people, but sooner or later he breaks the law to find evildoer.

But if you want to be a bit less fanatic, LN will be ok, PHB says that people with own personal codex are LN so...

[Shaofoo]

I think the moral of this story is don't try to remake Frank Castle in D&D.

[ThinkMinty]

Lawful Neutral.

Why?

Rorschach. That's why.

Some of these assumptions that Lawful characters are somehow more righteous, sane, or restrained are...well, unsulting to those of us on the more Chaotic side of things, and wrongheaded.

Also, stop conflating obeying the law with Lawful. Lawful's internal, not external.

[DivisibleByZero]

Also, stop conflating obeying the law with Lawful. Lawful's internal, not external.

This.
Some people seem to confuse the two.
Some people seem to think that the Law/Chaos axis is external, and that the Good/Evil axis is internal.
This is not the case. The opposite is true.
Good/Evil is external. Your views and motivations on things don't matter. What matters are your actions. Are they good actions or evil actions? How far are you willing to go to see things through to the end? What are you willing to do to make it happen? Are those things that you're willing to do good things, or bad things?
Law/Chaos is internal. Your views and motivations are the only things that matter. Do you have a set of guidelines that you adhere to, and will absolutely not deviate from? Do you keep your word and your vows? It doesn't matter if these things coincide with society's views or not. Do these things coincide with YOUR views?

Castle is LE, without any room for argument.

The people that are arguing CG are falling victim to the confusion described above.

[johnswiftwood]

It doesnt matter if he is a nice person underneath. He is a cold blooded merciless killer who uses murder, torture and extortion to get what he wants. That makes him evil. Evil people love and care about their families and most genuinely think they are good people.

The nice guy that goes into his meth dealing neighbors house and terrorizes, tortures and murders him to 'protect the innocent' isnt good.

He is clearly lawful. He has a strict code that he follows. Despite being a sociopathic murderer with zero empathy for those he kills, he refuses to harm the innocent. He acts soley to protect the innocent from lawbreakers and criminals.

Jeeze. No wonder DnD has so many murder-hobos. Apparently murdering and torturing people with no mercy, remorse or compassion is 'good'.


I can see where you're coming from. However. The odds are you're only familiar with the works or garth ennis. At his absolute worst I'd afree with you. But he has too many moments of saving people, being compassionate and sympathetic. Rescuing rather then extorting. He's ultimately a good person who goes a bit far. Also he's most deffinately not lawful, lawful according to the book means one is respectful.gladly or begrudgingly, or manipulative of the law, where as frank doesn't cater to societies rules. Anyway. While the punisher may not be the best guy around I'd saw either chaotic good with evil leanings, or evil with so many good leanings that it's hard to distinguish between evil and neutral. He doesn't even view himself as a good person. No one does except for the people he's rescued. Most people, including himself, see him as a thug with a grudge. Also at one point when he shot an innocent he tried to kill himself, and evil person even if they were thoroughly disgusted by their own actions would attempt to justify what they did


I think the problem comes down to 'murderhobo' ethics; where any act no matter how vile can be defined as 'good' as long as it's done in pursuit of 'good ends'.

Torture, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide. I've seen all these acts justified as 'good acts' or things a 'good' person would do, when of course they are not and never can be. They are all evil acts, whether one performs them for noble deeds or otherwise.

People also get confused between subjective alignment (how you view yourself) and the alignment you actually are.

As an example, Hitler and the Nazis are oft cited examples of a LE regime. Hitler (before he came to power) was working against the Weimar republic as a destabilising influence. Revolution, sedition, stand over tactics, outright thuggery with the SA. He was imprisoned as a criminal.

But even though he was working against the established law and powers that be, he wasnt chaotic. He was at all times 'lawful'. Just lawful to his own code (national socialism); and not the authority of the goverment.

A Lawful person just has a code. That code may not reflect the code of others around them, but it doesnt have to.

Of course then there is the argument of: 'My Code requires me to act chaotically at all times' also known as 'the Sith code fallacy'. by your logic any chaotic alignment is an oxymoron. Any Morality requires a code that a person lives by. So you pretty much rendered the idea of d&d alignments as kinda useless.

[johnswiftwood]

I can see where you can view him as chaotic good, but he has no remorse when he kills. He is not a "free" spirit. Drizzt, Chaotic Good, is a philosopher who constantly searching his heart to justify his actions and questioning everyone's nature.

Castle is on a rampage, and with the discussion. I'd throw my hat in lawful evil. His moral code compels him to act and takes away any guilt, which Drizzt feels continually. Lawful people use the law as their moral compass and "guilt" reducer. And killing is evil.

Lawful evil.

But feel free to argue chaotic good its fun.

His actions are incredibly selfless though while what he does is for personal vendeta, you can't disagree that putting your life on the line for innocent women and children is a good thing, over the course of this thread I realized he's more the variation of neutral that has heavy traits of both good and evil.

[AstralFire]

by your logic any chaotic alignment is an oxymoron. Any Morality requires a code that a person lives by. So you pretty much rendered the idea of d&d alignments as kinda useless.

This is a recurring issue and always will be ever since Chaos became differentiated from both Evil and Insanity.

As I mentioned a little bit upthread, I think the difference between the two is in their vision of an ideal civilization which they think their actions contribute to, at least a little bit: is it one ruled firstly by order which keeps peace and productivity, or is it one ruled by freedoms and liberties? I don't really imagine Frank Castle seeing himself as making a world that allows more of the latter.

Robin Hood's Chaotic Good not just because he breaks the laws of the society he's in -- in many variants of the legend, Prince John's an illegitimate ruler for one reason or another -- but because the society he works towards building is one focused on freedom and prosperity rather than peace and productivity.

Law and Chaos are very, very hard to argue concretely in most cases, though.

[Cazero]

Good/Evil is external. Your views and motivations on things don't matter.
Wrong.
If the only things restraining you from [random horrible atrocity that we can all agree would be morally wrong] are cowardice and logistics, you are a vile and despicable person even though you're technically innocent of the abominable crime you dream of.
Intent matters. It's difficult to say exactly how much compared to action, but saying intent doesn't matter is saying utilitarianism has no flaws.

[johnswiftwood]

I can see where you can view him as chaotic good, but he has no remorse when he kills. He is not a "free" spirit. Drizzt, Chaotic Good, is a philosopher who constantly searching his heart to justify his actions and questioning everyone's nature.

Castle is on a rampage, and with the discussion. I'd throw my hat in lawful evil. His moral code compels him to act and takes away any guilt, which Drizzt feels continually. Lawful people use the law as their moral compass and "guilt" reducer. And killing is evil.

Lawful evil.

But feel free to argue chaotic good its fun.


This is a recurring issue and always will be ever since Chaos became differentiated from both Evil and Insanity.

As I mentioned a little bit upthread, I think the difference between the two is in their vision of an ideal civilization which they think their actions contribute to, at least a little bit: is it one ruled firstly by order which keeps peace and productivity, or is it one ruled by freedoms and liberties? I don't really imagine Frank Castle seeing himself as making a world that allows more of the latter.

Robin Hood's Chaotic Good not just because he breaks the laws of the society he's in -- in many variants of the legend, Prince John's an illegitimate ruler for one reason or another -- but because the society he works towards building is one focused on freedom and prosperity rather than peace and productivity.

Law and Chaos are very, very hard to argue concretely in most cases, though.

The way I see it at the moment, is that frank does too much evil to be good, but too much good to be evil. Therefor I consider him within neutral territory as far as the good / evil axis goes.

[Nowhere Girl]

The Punisher is textbook Lawful Neutral in most incarnations, edging over to Lawful Good in other interpretations.

Remember, according to D&D alignments, "evil" is traditionally associated with intentionally causing harm to others for no other purpose than personal gain or pleasure, which therefore by definition includes harming innocents. An evil character may also cause harm to other evil characters, but he/she does it not because the target is evil or doing evil things but just for selfish reasons.

By contrast, "good" characters actively take risks to help others, and neutral (with respect to good/evil) characters neither specifically take risks to help others nor actively harm innocents for personal gain or pleasure.

What's important to realize here is that killing is often perfectly fine and good per the alignment system and is even often the preferred choice for extremely solidly good characters. Superhero morality, wherein killing is never ever ever ever ever okay no matter how ridiculous not killing would actually be does not have anything to do with how alignments work. And generally speaking, the problem superheroes have with Frank is not who he targets but simply that he kills them. Period.

Now that said, depending on the writer, Frank Castle is usually not that concerned with helping others specifically so much as with simply punishing the wicked. However, some versions of him do lean toward "he does it to protect those who can't protect themselves," and those versions are actually edging into "good" territory. The others, like Ennis's popular incarnation, are solidly "neutral" with respect to good and evil, being not particularly interested in helping people as such usually (Joan the Mouse notwithstanding) but also not harming innocents for personal gain. The Punisher targets very specific individuals and never goes after innocents, and he even takes great pains to ensure no innocents are harmed in the crossfire. Failing to do so, after all, is exactly what he called Payback out on in one of Ennis's runs.

But lawful? How can the Punisher be lawful? Isn't he breaking the law every day?

The answer to that lies in the fact that "lawfulness" in D&D does not always imply obedience to an external, codified law. Rather, it implies rigid, inflexible adherence to some form of code, be it the actual law or some sort of tradition or personal code of conduct. And when it comes to that, the Punisher is extremely lawful, as he has a very rigid set of rules that he follows and also that he imposes on others -- break the wrong rule, and you get punished.

And yet, while most would characterize Batman as Lawful Good, there is no way he and the Punisher (who waffles between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good) would ever get along. That really helps to underscore a particularly important point: there is a great deal of variation within alignments, and sometimes, being too alike creates more friction than being different. Men like Frank and Bruce have a strict set of rules they follow and impose on others, and it's always their way or the highway. While they differ in the particulars (killing vs. not killing, using guns vs. not using guns, etc.), they're actually scarily alike in a lot of other ways, and it's precisely the ways in which they are alike that ensure they could never, ever cooperate or get along. Because each is always going to insist that things are done his way, and neither will ever compromise.

But ... to get back to the point ... he's Lawful Neutral in most incarnations and Lawful Good in a few.

[AstralFire]

That's a good response, Nowhere Girl -- but while I can see how some variations of the Punisher might edge up to Good, many incarnations of the character do seem to take a sadistic joy in harming offenders, and he doesn't go for the non-lethal option even when it's often quite reasonable. Batman is no-killing taken to a pathological and impractical conclusion, and Punisher is the reverse. I don't think you can quite place D&D's toleration of lethal violence as a good response to handling things in dungeon crawls, into an urban and developed society which has other enforcement options.

[Nowhere Girl]

That's a good response, Nowhere Girl -- but while I can see how some variations of the Punisher might edge up to Good, many incarnations of the character do seem to take a sadistic joy in harming offenders, and he doesn't go for the non-lethal option even when it's often quite reasonable. Batman is no-killing taken to a pathological and impractical conclusion, and Punisher is the reverse. I don't think you can quite place D&D's toleration of lethal violence as a good response to handling things in dungeon crawls, into an urban and developed society which has other enforcement options.

Well, what's interesting about that is that if we're going to use the alignment system, we're by definition using a system that does not specifically concern itself with killing vs. not killing for the most part. Remember, D&D campaigns can take place in highly urban environments as well, and yet, the alignment system is still the alignment system.

I maintain that Superhero Morality (tm) is the primary point of contention between the Punisher and other heroes in most incarnations, and that has less to do with him being evil (per alignments) and more to do with them being against all killing ever. Well, of other humans, at least. It's usually suddenly okay if they're not human, even if they're still obviously sentient.

You have a point, though, that Frank skirts the line more toward evil in his more sadistic moments. I guess if we take all incarnations and produce an aggregate alignment for him, I'd say he's just straight Lawful Neutral.

[MadBear]

and this thread ladies and gentlemen is why the alignment system is worth about as much as a yellow snow cone in a blizzard.

We have people using different definitions of what makes someone lawful vs chaotic. This leads people putting Frank into either the Lawful or the completely opposite Chaotic category. The entire problem here is that there is a complete break down on the different definitions that people are using when they use these categories. Because there's no consistent definition being used, we're stuck with either mocking people who disagree, or people ignoring other people's point entirely. In that regard we have Robin Hood who follows his own moral compass and fights the evil sheriff. Is he lawful for following his own moral compass, or chaotic for following his own moral compass? I've heard and seen it both ways.

Then even worse, we have people using different definitions of what they mean when they say good/evil. This one get's even more complex because we all bring our own baggage into the discussion. Then to top it off, we throw the craziness that is the D&D world, where actual evil exists (races that are inheritantly evil and cannot be good), plus the fact that killing in the game is encouraged while still somehow maintaining being a good person is possible.

This isn't to say the system isn't usable, but rather each tables use of the system can be so wildly different that people can talk past each other without realizing it.

I most closely side with Malifice, although I could be persuaded to call in LN depending on what the parameters for good are in a given group. In my group we simplify it as follows:

Good: Goes out of your way to help innocents even if it gets in the way of your goals.
Neutral: Won't harm innocents, but won't prioritize them over your own goals.
Evil: Will willingly harm innocents to accomplish goals.

[Nowhere Girl]

and this thread ladies and gentlemen is why the alignment system is worth about as much as a yellow snow cone in a blizzard.

I maintain that the problem is less that the alignment system is difficult to understand and agree on and more that many people just make emotionally driven choices when choosing how to label a character's alignment rather than really looking at what the alignment says and assigning accordingly.

3.x especially did a wonderful job of really spelling alignments out, and this:


Good: Goes out of your way to help innocents even if it gets in the way of your goals.
Neutral: Won't harm innocents, but won't prioritize them over your own goals.
Evil: Will willingly harm innocents to accomplish goals.

... is almost exactly a perfect summary of how they defined good vs. evil. Conversely, the lawfulness vs. chaos axis has long been defined as "inflexible, strict code vs. flexible and lacks a specific code." The problem is not alignments being unclear or poorly defined but rather people seeing Frank Castle breaking the law and killing people and immediately thinking "oh he must be Chaotic Neutral/Evil!" without actually examining what the alignment terms really mean. While killing and breaking the law may seem intuitively "chaotic" in nature, that isn't what the alignment term "Chaotic" means at all.

If you look at them carefully, though, they're really not difficult to understand. You're more lawful the more defined and inflexible your code of conduct is, and you're more chaotic the more you regard rules as things that exist to be broken. Conversely, you're more good the more you actively help others at some potential cost or risk to yourself, and you're more evil the more you actively exploit others (particularly innocents) for your personal gain.

The waters are only muddied because people don't RTFM.

[CNagy]

That's a good response, Nowhere Girl -- but while I can see how some variations of the Punisher might edge up to Good, many incarnations of the character do seem to take a sadistic joy in harming offenders, and he doesn't go for the non-lethal option even when it's often quite reasonable. Batman is no-killing taken to a pathological and impractical conclusion, and Punisher is the reverse. I don't think you can quite place D&D's toleration of lethal violence as a good response to handling things in dungeon crawls, into an urban and developed society which has other enforcement options.

But if we're talking about his overall spot in the axis between good and evil, you have to contrast the way he doesn't take the non-lethal option (though he has, on a few occasions, Bullseye and the Kingpin being a couple of examples) with the way that he is devoted to non-lethal force against anyone who isn't a target under his code--even (especially) in cases of his own self-defense. The Punisher will opt for non-lethal force even at great personal risk in such cases, as when dealing with police officers (even corrupt ones) and special operators tasked with bringing him in. Even your typical good character doesn't hesitate to use lethal force if attacked abruptly and with lethal force, but Castle doesn't take that step unless he is sure that the people gunning for him aren't the good guys.

And from a psychological point view, one of the things that works in Frank's favor (doesn't make him good, but keeps him from being evil) is that he understands the razor-fine line that he walks. As mentioned earlier, he was ready to commit suicide when he thought one of his errant bullets killed an innocent girl; the only thing that kept him from it was the possibility that it wasn't him and then later the ballistic evidence of that fact. Had the slug in the body been his own, Castle would have eaten his own gun.

[AstralFire]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Castle is evil. I put my vote for LN earlier, in aggregate (and the TN to LE quadrant as a general 'zone' for that character.)

Up until Eberron, there wasn't really a campaign setting that one could argue was mostly focused on being urban*, and 4E in particular went for points of light in the wilderness. Eberron is still something of a backseat in my opinion (as much as I love it) and still facilitates pretty wild dungeoncrawling in Xen'drik, the Mournlands and other places -- so I would argue that the alignment rules are predominantly written w/r/t when it's okay to kill under the notion that there isn't really a legitimate authority that one can easily turn many minor villains in to.

I do think Law and Chaos are pretty confusing when you get into the meat of them with any complicated character. It really depends on what you want from an alignment system; I thought 4E's "expressed philosophy" alignment system was interesting, and the distinguishing points were very, very clear.

On the other hand, the dual-axis alignment grid is really useful as a place to start considering a character, which is part of why I delivered a quadrant (TN to LE) that I think best encapsulates the most memorable moments of the character in different ways, since the OP is ultimately looking to make their own character, not just a carbon copy. Alignment is only a straitjacket if you let it be, and since it's largely uncoupled from mechanics now, there's no reason to let it be. Go ahead and let yourself get lost, it's okay if things are unclear and fuzzy, it makes for a better character if you feel that out.

* Planescape's central city is a little-c chaotic mess and the only overarching authority in the city is a cardboard cutout for the GM smacking factions that get too strong.

[Naanomi]

A cosmological way to look at it: which flavor of outsider could Frank be? I say I could see an Archon acting as the Punisher, perhaps causing it to fall... This is a tick in the LG category for me (but not definitive) or at least inclined me to take such answers more seriously on an objective 'real alignment' sense.

Another push for Lawful is how much he fights corruption in the justice system, he is not just replacing it but would also like to fix it. Now he may feel that it is a hopeless battle but morally he would rather the law work so he wasn't necessary... A more chaotic individual would be in favor of abandoning or destroying a corrupt law enforcement system than to expose and reform it

[Ashen Red]

Perhaps re-examine the Punisher and the values he embodies you'd like to transpose on a Paladin. This discussion on Frank Castle's alignment is one that is echoed throughout comic shops for several decades.

Is Frank a hero? The way Marvel frequently pairs him with the Avengers or markets him to mainstream would say yes, he's a good guy that uses guns and military training, but that inst who or what the Punisher is conceptually. He is an Anti-hero. He is antagonistic to the forces of crime and corruption, but the value set he champions is one of zero tolerance condemnation. Now back to D&D land. The alignment chart as well as D&D's overall interpretation of Evil and Good are interesting in that they try to supersede the moralistic perspectives that drive the contemporary ethical categorizations we as modern people use. D&D fosters a world where the inherently malevolent exist alongside the ethically reprehensible, and the blanket notion evil encapsulates everything from a corrupt king to most monsters to a genocidal sorcerer.

To avoid this trap, rather than fixate on Frank Castles alignment, focus on what defines him.

The time in war diluted Franks belief in humanity, his patriotism, etc. His foundation to become the Punisher is laid in the horrors he endured fighting for his country.

When Frank returns, in whichever version of his origin you choose, he sees a home where the side of good and evil are one and the same. The police work for the politicians who are in bed with crooks. Everyone form the mayor to the traffic cop to the drug pusher to the sleazy accountant are grouped into this sickening mass, the criminal, the GUILTY.

Then Franks family gets killed, either inadvertently or because of the trouble he is causing now that he is back home. At this point, the disillusioned man, who fought a war to protect something he doesn't even believe, has his last semblance of humanity taken from him. The death of his family is the death of frank castle. No longer is there time for right and wrong, good or bad. There is the guilty, and they need to be, deserve to be, Punished!

Frank doesn't see himself as good, and he doesn't see the world as good vs evil. He sees the world as corrupted so deeply, Punishing the guilty and racking up a significant body count is his only genuine contribution to make. He isn't getting his family back, hes not going to change the world or make a better tomorrow. He also acknowledges he cant kill all the people he would / should / desires too. He simply accepts the task of racking up as high a body count of the supremely guilty as he can before he is gone. Its much like the cathartic guilt Batman fosters, yet Frank embraces and channels his rage into destruction, while Batman writhes with frustration and exhausts himself with restraint.

I hope some insight into the nuance of Punisher as a concept helps. To me the question is less alignment and more "What do you mean when you say I want to play a character inspired by the Punisher... and its a Paladin?"

I think vengeance is a start, however, Paladin seems real far out of Franks wheelhouse. There's a Hemmingway-esque element of fallen and irredeemable. Perhaps fallen Paladin, and murder is his way back into the good graces of heaven?

[Malifice]

I love how 'Frank only tortures and Murders evil people' is seen as evidence he is good.

Dexter likes this thread.

[Naanomi]

I love how 'Frank only tortures and Murders evil people' is seen as evidence he is good.

Dexter likes this thread.
Meh I'd say it more like 'Frank only tortures and murders evil people' is more of a sign he *just might* not be Evil himself; it still steers him away from Good pretty firmly.

Then again murdering evil people indescriminately without remorse is part of being an Archon or the right flavor of Angel and they are definitionally 'good' in the alignment system

[Shining Wrath]

Lawful Evil who considers himself Chaotic Good.

[Shaofoo]

Meh I'd say it more like 'Frank only tortures and murders evil people' is more of a sign he *just might* not be Evil himself; it still steers him away from Good pretty firmly.

Then again murdering evil people indescriminately without remorse is part of being an Archon or the right flavor of Angel and they are definitionally 'good' in the alignment system

The problem is that it uses Frank's version of evil, not just the commonly accepted version of it. Just cause you kill evil doesn't mean that you are doing good. An example is the Simpson's Bible Stories in Bart's dream, Goliath II could be considered some form of evil yet he was considered to be the best king because he developed social infrastructure and was mourned by the people when he was killed and as a result David was sent to jail for killing him. Just because a person is evil doesn't mean that his eradication is good inherently. Evil people are capable of good deeds and sometimes they are needed to keep stability. Is it good to make others suffer for the sake of removing evil.

Amd I never heard of Archons being active participants in eradicating evil. I used to think that they are just servants of the god of their choice, not scouring the lands to get rid of evil. I can imagine an Archon being tasked to eradicate a great evil with adventurers but not something that happens on a weekly basis. There is such a thing as the Stupid Good alignment, you can go too far where in trying to be good you do something that no one would ever consider doing.

[Nowhere Girl]

This is kind of what I was talking about when I say people make emotional judgments about this. There's a lot of stuff that really boils down to "I don't like/agree with what Frank does, so he's evil."

RTFM. In the alignment system (as established very clearly in 3.x -- 5e's descriptions are more succinct and less informative):

"Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Whereas,

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others."

Now they do fail to specify that evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing innocents specifically, which could lead to a literal interpretation that assumes it's an evil act every time you kill a marauding orc. However, the next bit picks up and clarifies the omission by implication:

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

So we can extrapolate the logical intent from this and go back to slightly edit the bit about evil, which obviously really means, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing innocents."

And we're done. Evil and good are clearly and unambiguously defined. Does Frank harm innocents? No. Does he make sacrifices to help others? In most incarnations, no, or at least not very often and not very much. Ergo, Frank is neutral with respect to good and evil.

Simple. The end.

[Mrglee]

I love how 'Frank only tortures and Murders evil people' is seen as evidence he is good.

Dexter likes this thread.

Turns out, according to the 5e's alignment system, yeah, basically. The requirements for being chaotic good is to act according to your conscience. That is literally the only requirement in this edition.

[Naanomi]

Angels generally work for Good Powers but Archons largely have their own hierarchy parallel to the Gods of Celestia; one that regularly engages in military action against fiends (albeit mostly in the Outer Planes). Fighting and Killing evil beings is at least one way to be Lawful Good

[Shaofoo]

Turns out, according to the 5e's alignment system, yeah, basically. The requirements for being chaotic good is to act according to your conscience. That is literally the only requirement in this edition.

The problem with this stems that no one is the bad guy in their own story. You can do all sorts of evil things and still have a clean conscience and you might even be convinced that you are doing good.


Angels generally work for Good Powers but Archons largely have their own hierarchy parallel to the Gods of Celestia; one that regularly engages in military action against fiends (albeit mostly in the Outer Planes). Fighting and Killing evil beings is at least one way to be Lawful Good

When I said that Archons don't fight against evil beings I was talking about the D&D equivalent of the mafia basically, Archons are not going to make an incursion into the Material Plane to eradicate non-elemental evil because it is there unless he was tasked by a higher power or maybe the adventurers are able to convince him or the higher power to help out. I don't think we could make much of an argument that killing demons and devils is evil, mostly because I don't think we can kill them, don't they eventually reincarnate in the specific lower planes so you are just staving evil rather than truly eliminating it.

Killing fiends is Lawful good (or chaotic good if you are killing devils), Killing evil humans is debatable since humans are capable of remorse while fiends are not.

[Mrglee]

The problem with this stems that no one is the bad guy in their own story. You can do all sorts of evil things and still have a clean conscience and you might even be convinced that you are doing good.

I don't disagree with this(my preferred placement is LN or LE, with a possible CE). However, with the way the book describe things, it doesn't actually care as long as you just act on your conscience.

[Mara]

I'll apologize, I've ignored every post calling Frank lawful. To me, consistently doing whatever you want to do does not make you lawful regardless how much doing whatever you want seems like a lawful code.

You can argue evil, good, and neutral depending on how you view the weight of certain things. But if Frank is lawful then no one is chaotic aside from the insane.

Sure alignments aren't intrinsically different. But neither are rocks and people. At some point you make a distinction for normal discourse. You can argue that Frank is lawful but you can also call Frank a slab of rock with such definitions.

This post is a chance for people to ignore mine based off the first sentence like I did.

[Nowhere Girl]

I'll apologize, I've ignored every post calling Frank lawful. To me, consistently doing whatever you want to do does not make you lawful regardless how much doing whatever you want seems like a lawful code.

You can argue evil, good, and neutral depending on how you view the weight of certain things. But if Frank is lawful then no one is chaotic aside from the insane.

Sure alignments aren't intrinsically different. But neither are rocks and people. At some point you make a distinction for normal discourse. You can argue that Frank is lawful but you can also call Frank a slab of rock with such definitions.

This post is a chance for people to ignore mine based off the first sentence like I did.

Well, you're objectively incorrect.

But the awesome thing is you're free to be if you wish!

[Malifice]

This thread is amazing.

People trying to argue that torture, murder, genocide and extortion are 'good' or 'neutral' acts when done on those you deem (or objectively are) 'evil'.

Murderhoboism 101.

[Kane0]

Such is the magic of the alignment debate.

[Mara]

This thread is amazing.

People trying to argue that torture, murder, genocide and extortion are 'good' or 'neutral' acts when done on those you deem (or objectively are) 'evil'.

Murderhoboism 101. It is silly to call murder inherently evil.

Genocide is not something Frank does unless you consider violent criminals to be a persecuted ethnic group.

Torture is the tricky one. This is where you can argue Frank from as good, neutral, or evil. Simply, there is no noble reason for him to do this. It is also why he is the Punisher. He is punishing criminals not just cleaning the streets. In his mind they need to suffer. Frank's goodness depends on how moral you view his need to make criminals suffer and the justice boner he gets from it.

[Mrglee]

It is silly to call murder inherently evil.

I highly disagree with this, assuming the concept of evil is a thing. Killing is not inherently evil, but the premeditated killing of a person would be. There are clearly people who disagree on this, as shown by the death penalty still being a thing, though only in a handful of countries.
Though again, DnD sorta assumes a very clear cut morality. Orcs are always evil and such, thus it is okay to kill them if you are good, because evil.

[Malifice]

It is silly to call murder inherently evil.

Genocide is not something Frank does unless you consider violent criminals to be a persecuted ethnic group.

Torture is the tricky one. This is where you can argue Frank from as good, neutral, or evil. Simply, there is no noble reason for him to do this. It is also why he is the Punisher. He is punishing criminals not just cleaning the streets. In his mind they need to suffer. Frank's goodness depends on how moral you view his need to make criminals suffer and the justice boner he gets from it.

I'm not arguing with you that Frank thinks he's a good person. Hitler thought he was a good person.

But people that murder other criminals are not good people. Otherwise youve just morally OKd every drive by shooting, revenge killing by a gangster, mob war and so forth ever.

Murder is evil. Frank may very well be doing it for (in his mind) noble reasons, but it's still an evil act.

As to him being 'chaotic' he has a very strict code. He only murders those he sees as criminal. He acts as an extension of the law, and to protect (in a twisted way) people from the predations of criminals. Being lawful does not mean 'following the laws of the land' (although it may). It also means following a code of conduct, honor or discipline, and not simply acting according to your own whims.

Neutral people don't emply murder and torture, even on their enemies. Good people most definately don't.

Judge dredd is textbook LN. The Batman is LG. The Punisher is LE.

[MadBear]

I'm not arguing with you that Frank thinks he's a good person. Hitler thought he was a good person.(1)

But people that murder other criminals are not good people.(2) Otherwise youve just morally OKd every drive by shooting, revenge killing by a gangster, mob war and so forth ever. (3)

Murder is evil (4). Frank may very well be doing it for (in his mind) noble reasons (5), but it's still an evil act.(6)

As to him being 'chaotic' he has a very strict code. He only murders those he sees as criminal. He acts as an extension of the law, and to protect (in a twisted way) people from the predations of criminals. Being lawful does not mean 'following the laws of the land' (although it may). It also means following a code of conduct, honor or discipline, and not simply acting according to your own whims.

Neutral people don't emply murder and torture, even on their enemies. Good people most definately don't.

Judge dredd is textbook LN. The Batman is LG. The Punisher is LE.

Now while I generally agree that a strong case could be made for LE, I think you're glossing over the important part of the conversation that would really matter in regards to pinning down Frank's alignment.

As you say in 1, people can be evil even if they think they're good. If we take your statement in 2, a strong case could be made that the vast majority of adventurer's are definitely not good, and very likely due to your statement 4, they are evil (they commit a lot of murder).

Now what I find interesting is that in statment 3, you point out that if murder was ok, then drive-by's could also be considered "good".

Now, obviously there are times when murder is justified and the right thing to do in D&D (evil wizard about to call down the apocalypse, and killing him is the only way to stop it). There are also times that committing murder is definitely evil (killing the local bartender for no reason).

The part of the conversation that I think would be worth having is a few things.

1. At what point do bad deeds outweigh good deeds (what scale do you use to judge?)
2. Do evil acts automatically cancel out any good acts? (if not, can you never atone?)
3. What makes the knight slaying an orc/zombie/demon/etc. less evil then the gangster doing a drive by (if both are evil, does that mean most adventurer's are evil and just don't know it? If there's a difference, what metric do you use to separate the two? What if the knight wasn't slaying a monster, but instead another human for a cause we deemed just?)
4. While not positive, I'm pretty sure that Judge Dredd would accept civillian casualties in bringing a criminal to justice. If that's the case, wouldn't that make him equally LE?

(note that I actually agree with most of what you've said, I just think in your rush to call out other's you've glossed over a ton of the details).

[Kane0]

I'm actually not that well versed in the Punisher.

What does his strict moral code entail? What does he allow and deny himself to do?
Does he actually care about innocents, or is it a case of avoiding messy collateral? Does he go out of his way to help, or to harm?
Is he impulsive and contradictory, or calculated and consistent?
Does he enjoy what he does, or is it a necessary part of the job?

[Malifice]

Now while I generally agree that a strong case could be made for LE, I think you're glossing over the important part of the conversation that would really matter in regards to pinning down Frank's alignment.

As you say in 1, people can be evil even if they think they're good. If we take your statement in 2, a strong case could be made that the vast majority of adventurer's are definitely not good, and very likely due to your statement 4, they are evil (they commit a lot of murder).

Now what I find interesting is that in statment 3, you point out that if murder was ok, then drive-by's could also be considered "good".

Now, obviously there are times when murder is justified and the right thing to do in D&D (evil wizard about to call down the apocalypse, and killing him is the only way to stop it). There are also times that committing murder is definitely evil (killing the local bartender for no reason).

The part of the conversation that I think would be worth having is a few things.

1. At what point do bad deeds outweigh good deeds (what scale do you use to judge?)
2. Do evil acts automatically cancel out any good acts? (if not, can you never atone?)
3. What makes the knight slaying an orc/zombie/demon/etc. less evil then the gangster doing a drive by (if both are evil, does that mean most adventurer's are evil and just don't know it? If there's a difference, what metric do you use to separate the two? What if the knight wasn't slaying a monster, but instead another human for a cause we deemed just?)
4. While not positive, I'm pretty sure that Judge Dredd would accept civillian casualties in bringing a criminal to justice. If that's the case, wouldn't that make him equally LE?

(note that I actually agree with most of what you've said, I just think in your rush to call out other's you've glossed over a ton of the details).

It boils down to a question of 'do the ends justify the means'? DnD has always been clear that the answer to that queston is unequivocally 'no'.

A Paladin (historically) falls when he willingly commits an evil act (even if his intentions are pure, or the act was to thwart a greater evil). Assume a scenario where a captured princess has 24 hours to live, and the Paladin has a mook in front of him that knows where she is. He can't emply torture on the mook in order to find her location. If he does, he falls.

A good discussion of this topic was in the book of vile darkness where they discussed 'anti heroes' like the Punisher, Elric of Melinbone etc. While anti heroes may very well have noble goals, they willingly employ evil acts to achieve them. This makes them evil.

Good people don't employ torture or murder in pursuit of their goals (no matter what those goals may be). Evil people have no such qualms. Neutral people have no strong convictions either way.

My current Vengance Paladin seeks to bring about a utopian theocratic (fascist) society under the auspices of Bane. One God, one nation, one people. He sees himself working for the greater good of all mankind where the intrests of the nation override those of the individual. He employs pogroms, torture, terror, holy war, deicide and even genocide to achieve this lasting golden age of peace and prosperity for fellow man. He has qualms about killing children (he won't do it) and has a soft spot for orphans (being one himself). He is loyal to those that deserve his loyalty and punishes traitors with death.

He is also LE.

Batman and Superman don't go around murdering people. It would make their lives so much easier if they did. How many times has the Joker and Lex Luthor escaped now exactly? Just break into his lair and snap his neck for the greater good of mankind - while you're at it, torture him first to set an example for other villians (is something the Punisher would say, and something Batman and superman would be repulsed by).

Batman and the Punisher have similar backgrounds, style and motivations. They both have the same goals. It's just the Punisher uses evil ends to get there.

He is LE.

[Mrglee]

It boils down to a question of 'do the ends justify the means'? DnD has always been clear that the answer to that queston is unequivocally 'no'.

I disagree with this. DnD is pretty big on the murder whole bunches evil doers theme. The only time it tends to stray from it is when innocents get in the way. The Paladin doesn't fall when it kills an orc, because orcs are evil, despite its only crime being existence. Back in 3.X exemplar's of evil there was a villain who wanted to start a kingdom for orcs because he feels they were treated poorly by the world and was starting to doubt his smarter mentor who wanted to genocide all humans, but you were still expected to murder both of them cause orcs are evil and should have no rights to land or civilized society. In 4e there was literally a race of sentient creatures who when you crit them, the primal energies of the universe would rise up and heal you cause the primal energies of life apparently really hate frog people. Dnd's alignment has always been good guys against bad guys, with the people who just want to get paid in the middle.

[Malifice]

I disagree with this. DnD is pretty big on the murder whole bunches evil doers theme. The only time it tends to stray from it is when innocents get in the way. The Paladin doesn't fall when it kills an orc, because orcs are evil, despite its only crime being existence. Back in 3.X exemplar's of evil there was a villain who wanted to start a kingdom for orcs because he feels they were treated poorly by the world and was starting to doubt his smarter mentor who wanted to genocide all humans, but you were still expected to murder both of them cause orcs are evil and should have no rights to land or civilized society. In 4e there was literally a race of sentient creatures who when you crit them, the primal energies of the universe would rise up and heal you cause the primal energies of life apparently really hate frog people. Dnd's alignment has always been good guys against bad guys, with the people who just want to get paid in the middle.

Of course a paladin can kill an Orc. He can use force (even lethal force) in defence of himself and others. He is specifically trained for just such actions.

Using force (even lethal force when reasonably needed) in self defence is not an evil act.

Accepting rhe Orcs surrender then torturing it before brutally murdering it as an example to others, is.

[Mrglee]

Accepting rhe Orcs surrender then torturing it before brutally murdering it as an example to others, is.

Except in DnD, that is not really established. I mean, I agree with you, I feel torturing is clearly an evil act, and depending on writer and incarnation, Frank fits into a LE to LN mode. However, even in editions with more clear alignment rules, the idea of the one true way of alignment doesn't exist, and is often defined by the reader's moral compass. 3.5 defined chaotic good as someone who falls their own moral compass that does not agree with societies, and then uses the example of a ranger who murder tax collectors. Even BoVD doesn't list torture as an evil act, only arguably being under the using others for personal gain section, while the murder section gives you a pass on going out and slaughtering evil creature unprovoked because they are objectively evil.
It isn't super clear cut is the point, the whole reason why people argue over this stuff for years is because of personal mortal compasses and it is even worse this edition cause the descriptions are disgustingly vague about it.

[Malifice]

Except in DnD, that is not really established. I mean, I agree with you, I feel torturing is clearly an evil act, and depending on writer and incarnation, Frank fits into a LE to LN mode. However, even in editions with more clear alignment rules, the idea of the one true way of alignment doesn't exist, and is often defined by the reader's moral compass. 3.5 defined chaotic good as someone who falls their own moral compass that does not agree with societies, and then uses the example of a ranger who murder tax collectors. Even BoVD doesn't list torture as an evil act, only arguably being under the using others for personal gain section, while the murder section gives you a pass on going out and slaughtering evil creature unprovoked because they are objectively evil.
It isn't super clear cut is the point, the whole reason why people argue over this stuff for years is because of personal mortal compasses and it is even worse this edition cause the descriptions are disgustingly vague about it.

It is established. 'Good' is traditionally defined as respect for the sanctity of life.

From 3E:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

The Punisher (unlike the Batman) harms, oppresses and kills people. He has no compassion for those he deems deserve this punishment. He kills without qualms as a method of fighting crime. He actively pursues a regime of murder to grant vengance to those in society who have been wronged by criminals.

He is (quite literally) a serial killer. He chooses his victims based on his perceptions of them as 'criminals'.

His LE alignment doesn't detract from the fact he commits this evil in the name of a 'greater good'. This makes him an anti-hero in the truest sense. He is prepared to use the very tools of those he fights (murder, extortion, torture and terror) against them. It's evil when they do it (they probably think they're good people too) and it's evil when he does it.

What do you think Batman would do if Castle started torturing a criminal in front of him? He would stop him (just like he did when Azrael/ Batman went LE and started doing the same thing). That's because Batman is Good.

A Neutral person wouldn't use torture in all but the most dire of situations, but he wouldnt stop Castle either. He lacks the moral convictions to oppose torture, but he equally lacks the vaccum of empathy required to torture a living being.

The evil person has no such qualms.

[Malifice]

Dexter and the Punisher hold a subjective moral relativism to their actions. They reason that by only killing 'bad people' this justifies their actions, and makes them less monstrous.

This moral relativism has no place in determining DnD alignments. It's an entirely objective exercise. Torture and murder are defined as evil regardless of the subjective reaoning of the person doing it.

[AstralFire]

Dexter and the Punisher hold a subjective moral relativism to their actions. They reason that by only killing 'bad people' this justifies their actions, and makes them less monstrous.

This moral relativism has no place in determining DnD alignments. It's an entirely objective exercise. Torture and murder are defined as evil regardless of the subjective reaoning of the person doing it.

Just to be clear, the reason I put Punisher as being LN leaning NE is because -- based on the incarnation -- he does these things more rarely and actively does more good work. That the acts are unambiguously evil doesn't mean that the characters is definitively evil for performing them.

[Malifice]

Just to be clear, the reason I put Punisher as being LN leaning NE is because -- based on the incarnation -- he does these things more rarely and actively does more good work. That the acts are unambiguously evil doesn't mean that the characters is definitively evil for performing them.

True that. He has swung from LN-E depending on the writer and medium.

Let's not mention the Dolf Lungren version.

[DivisibleByZero]

Wrong.
<snip>
Intent matters.
<snip>

No, intent does not matter. Evil acts, even in the name of what you personally perceive as the greater good, remain evil acts regardless of your intent. If you are willing to commit said evil acts, and have zero remorse for committing them, then no amount of good intentions makes these evil acts somehow transform to become acts of good.
It isn't the road to heaven that's paved with good intentions.

If you are willing to employ murder, torture, and a whole host of other undeniably evil acts with an attitude of "the ends justify the means," then you are evil. No matter your intentions. No matter how much you fool yourself into thinking you're good. You are evil. Period.

If the question "what alignment is this?" has to be posed at all, the the answer is almost certainly going to be: EVIL. If it weren't, then you probably wouldn't have to ask in the first place.

[Nowhere Girl]

What kills me is that nothing you guys are arguing about is remotely relevant, but you're arguing about it with incredible gusto all the same.

The question, just to clarify for you, is not, "Do you think Frank is right?" or, "Do you personally, according to your view of good and evil, regard Frank as good or evil?" It's just, "What does the alignment system say his alignment is?"

And that's obviously Lawful Neutral because he adheres rigidly to a strict code (lawful), doesn't harm innocents (not evil), and also generally doesn't make sacrifices to help others (not good).

I mean, that's it. The end. Everything else you're injecting into it is completely irrelevant to the question posed.

[AstralFire]

What kills me is that nothing you guys are arguing about is remotely relevant, but you're arguing about it with incredible gusto all the same.

The question, just to clarify for you, is not, "Do you think Frank is right?" or, "Do you personally, according to your view of good and evil, regard Frank as good or evil?" It's just, "What does the alignment system say his alignment is?"

And that's obviously Lawful Neutral because he adheres rigidly to a strict code (lawful), doesn't harm innocents (not evil), and also generally doesn't make sacrifices to help others (not good).

I mean, that's it. The end. Everything else you're injecting into it is completely irrelevant to the question posed.

I mean, if we're pulling in previous edition work -- which I think most people are -- it's entirely unambiguous that torture is an evil act, as-is the entire concept of extremely disproportionate retribution (such as execution for minor crimes). BoVD/BoED are extremely clear on that, so I'm not sure why you think the people arguing for E are imposing their personal morality on it.

[Malifice]

What kills me is that nothing you guys are arguing about is remotely relevant, but you're arguing about it with incredible gusto all the same.

The question, just to clarify for you, is not, "Do you think Frank is right?" or, "Do you personally, according to your view of good and evil, regard Frank as good or evil?" It's just, "What does the alignment system say his alignment is?"

And that's obviously Lawful Neutral because he adheres rigidly to a strict code (lawful), doesn't harm innocents (not evil), and also generally doesn't make sacrifices to help others (not good).

I mean, that's it. The end. Everything else you're injecting into it is completely irrelevant to the question posed.

By this logic Dexter isn't evil.

Try again.

[Malifice]

But.. But.. He obly murders 'bad' people. He must be 'good' right?

Lol.

[Nifft]

By this logic Dexter isn't evil.

Try again.

I watched most of Dexter season 1, and I'd have no problems with Dexter not being evil in D&D.

D&D is a game full of good people who murder evil people and yet remain good.

[DivisibleByZero]

I watched most of Dexter season 1, and I'd have no problems with Dexter not being evil in D&D.

D&D is a game full of good people who murder evil people and yet remain good.

Wrong.
DnD is a game full of evil people claiming to be good because they want to see themselves as good.
Storming into the home of a bunch of people that you disagree with and immediately attacking them is not a good act. Good characters would attempt to offer them surrender, or an ultimatum, or a compromise. But players don't do that. They just run in, roll initiative, and slaughter everything.
Very few PCs in an average party are actually playing Good characters, regardless of what they wrote on their character sheet or how they attempt to justify their Good alignment.
There's a big, huge, gaping difference the size of the Grand Canyon between what most people write on their sheets and how they act in the game world.

If you have zero remorse for using murder/torture/whatever to meet your ends, then you are evil.
I don't care what two letters you wrote on your sheet. You are evil.
Just accept it.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'd say True Neutral; Castle is not a chaotic character. He is methodical and he abides by a code (so there is the case for Lawful). He's not good, in my opinion, because the good he does is incidental to his actual intent--kill everyone who is evil enough to deserve it according to his code. Hard to make the case for evil, as Castle was willing to kill himself when he thought he killed an innocent girl by accident.

I would also say TN, he has a code and he isn't evil but he kills people and it's clear he isn't lawful.

[Nifft]

Wrong.
DnD is a game full of evil people claiming to be good because they want to see themselves as good. ... and who objectively know that they're Good because Detect Evil does not ping them as red.

Sorry, you're totally wrong about D&D morality, and D&D has tools to measure such things, so it's not even a matter of opinion on which we could reasonably differ.

Paladins walk into dungeons, stab Evil humanoids and dragons in the face, and walk out smelling like roses. (This is literally true only because the party Wizard uses prestidigitation to make everyone smell nice, of course, but the metaphorical meaning is also entirely true.)

[Malifice]

... and who objectively know that they're Good because Detect Evil does not ping them as red.

Sorry, you're totally wrong about D&D morality, and D&D has tools to measure such things, so it's not even a matter of opinion on which we could reasonably differ.

Paladins walk into dungeons, stab Evil humanoids and dragons in the face, and walk out smelling like roses. (This is literally true only because the party Wizard uses prestidigitation to make everyone smell nice, of course, but the metaphorical meaning is also entirely true.)

You're claiming Dexter - the serial killer - is 'not evil'?

Jesus. You really need to understand the difference between moral relativism and objective good and evil.

[AstralFire]

Dexter's interesting -- bear in mind, I've never watched the show, so I'm only going off the broadest sense of pop culture knowledge. From what I understand, he kills in significant part because of personal gain (an overriding compulsion to kill and enjoyment of the act). Per BoVD and BoED, killing is justifiable against the evil to prevent harm to others, which he does, but they also caution against using this justification heavily with redeemable creatures. It's arguable that Dexter's targets are not redeemable (they're also not all that realistic) from what I've heard of the show. I would say that whether he falls into N or E on the moral axis for the purposes of D&D depends primarily on how much he works against his nature to restrict the harm done to others as opposed to simply sating his bloodlust on acceptable targets.

[Nifft]

You're claiming Dexter - the serial killer - is 'not evil'? In D&D? Sure.

In real life? Not so sure. Real life is an ambiguous place.

In super-hero comic books? Assuredly not, because super-hero comic books have "killing = evil" as one of the central moral pillars.


Jesus. You really need to understand the difference between moral relativism and objective good and evil. Disagreeing with your personal comic-book morality does not imply any lack of understanding on my part.

[DivisibleByZero]

In real life? Not so sure. Real life is an ambiguous place.

So what you're saying is that, in real life, serial killers can not certainly be said to be evil?

And here's a fun fact: Evil is evil is evil. It doesn't matter if we're talking about DnD or real life or super hero morality.
That's a fictitious line that you've drawn in the sand to justify playing an evil character in a game and calling him good because: reasons.

[Malifice]

In D&D? Sure.

In real life? Not so sure. Real life is an ambiguous place.

In super-hero comic books? Assuredly not, because super-hero comic books have "killing = evil" as one of the central moral pillars.

Disagreeing with your personal comic-book morality does not imply any lack of understanding on my part.

Dexter would GLOW with detect evil.

Good lord. Not even serial killers are evil in your book.

Torture and murder are ok then. What about other abhorrent acts. What about rapists and paedophiles? If I only commit paedophillia on Kobold and Orc and other 'evil' children.

Is that OK also?

Or is it only Ok if I justify it as well as only doing it to 'evil' kids?

[Nifft]

So what you're saying is that, in real life, serial killers can not certainly be said to be evil? IMHO Dr. Jack Kevorkian wouldn't, so yeah, it's possible.


Dexter would GLOW with detect evil. Citation needed.

[Malifice]

Seriously.

By this logic my LG Paladin can do what I want to an Orc child. Torture it, rape it, murder it. Whatever.

As long as it's 'evil' and I can justify my actions in my own mind.

[MadBear]

You're claiming Dexter - the serial killer - is 'not evil'?

Jesus. You really need to understand the difference between moral relativism and objective good and evil.

I'd point out again Malifice that you're confusing someone's specific definition of good & evil in a game, with the actual morality that they hold.

If we go with the simplistic model that I outlined earlier:


Good: Goes out of your way to help innocents even if it gets in the way of your goals.
Neutral: Won't harm innocents, but won't prioritize them over your own goals.
Evil: Will willingly harm innocents to accomplish goals.

Then under this definition Dexter & Frank could make arguments that they are not evil under that specific definition of good & evil.

That isn't to say that if we use a different definition (one that's more comprehensive, better fleshed out, etc.), that we can't say Frank & Dexter are both evil.

Again, this is why I pointed out early on that D&D alignments are fairly meaningless online. If a group wants to have a simple outline for good/evil they can. In that world you get Frank and Dexter being neutral if not good.

If you run a campaign where you use a more complex and realistic definition of good/evil then Dexter and Frank are certainly evil.

The thing is you've repeatedly acted as if others online are petitioning for calling Frank "good" under our normative use of the word, when others have made it quite clear that they are using it in their version of the D&D system.

On a side note, if you break into an enemy stronghold and use lethal force against anyone, how is that ever good? Sure you can say you were defending yourself, but they're acting in a completely rational way considering you are the one who broke into their home.

(hence why I've repeatedly said I agree with you that under our normal use of good/evil Frank is LE, although if we use a simple definition of good/evil that I provided we can make a case from anything from CG, LN, etc.. Using a simpler definition also makes for an easier beer and pretzel night of D&D where you can kick in the door, kill the baddies, and be the HERO!!!)

[Malifice]

I'd point out again Malifice that you're confusing someone's specific definition of good & evil in a game, with the actual morality that they hold.

If we go with the simplistic model that I outlined earlier:



Then under this definition Dexter & Frank could make arguments that they are not evil under that specific definition of good & evil.

That isn't to say that if we use a different definition (one that's more comprehensive, better fleshed out, etc.), that we can't say Frank & Dexter are both evil.

Again, this is why I pointed out early on that D&D alignments are fairly meaningless online. If a group wants to have a simple outline for good/evil they can. In that world you get Frank and Dexter being neutral if not good.

If you run a campaign where you use a more complex and realistic definition of good/evil then Dexter and Frank are certainly evil.

The thing is you've repeatedly acted as if others online are petitioning for calling Frank "good" under our normative use of the word, when others have made it quite clear that they are using it in their version of the D&D system.

On a side note, if you break into an enemy stronghold and use lethal force against anyone, how is that ever good? Sure you can say you were defending yourself, but they're acting in a completely rational way considering you are the one who broke into their home.

(hence why I've repeatedly said I agree with you that under our normal use of good/evil Frank is LE, although if we use a simple definition of good/evil that I provided we can make a case from anything from CG, LN, etc.. Using a simpler definition also makes for an easier beer and pretzel night of D&D where you can kick in the door, kill the baddies, and be the HERO!!!)

That's not the definition of good and evil in DND. That's your definition.

Oddly you seem to think that as long as a person can justify an act, that makes the act 'good'.

That's not what makes things good or evil.

I deal with murderers on a daily basis. They all justify thier actions. Hitler justified his actions as 'good' man

Look. It's your game. If you're happy with LG heroes employing torture, murder and rape 'for the greater good against the forces of evil' them be my guest.

[Doug Lampert]

Wrong.
DnD is a game full of evil people claiming to be good because they want to see themselves as good.
Storming into the home of a bunch of people that you disagree with and immediately attacking them is not a good act. Good characters would attempt to offer them surrender, or an ultimatum, or a compromise. But players don't do that. They just run in, roll initiative, and slaughter everything.
Very few PCs in an average party are actually playing Good characters, regardless of what they wrote on their character sheet or how they attempt to justify their Good alignment.
There's a big, huge, gaping difference the size of the Grand Canyon between what most people write on their sheets and how they act in the game world.

If you have zero remorse for using murder/torture/whatever to meet your ends, then you are evil.
I don't care what two letters you wrote on your sheet. You are evil.
Just accept it.Yep, this comes up anytime there's a "can I have an Evil party" or "can I allow an Evil character in the party" discussion.

The "generic" D&D game is a group of Evil murder-hobo thugs. Given this it's blatantly obvious that the game works with Evil characters and Evil parties.

If you feel any need to ask, "can it work with Evil characters" it's probably because you're so confused about the definition of Good and Evil in game that mass murderers don't ping on your personal detector as Evil, and so you think Evil has to be Stupid Evil. And the only reason to be that confused is because you keep INSISTING on writing "G" down on character sheets where "E" is plainly correct.

If you ever feel the urge to claim a remorseless assassin isn't Evil because he gets paid (and I regularly see this sort of argument), then you've completely lost the actual definition (both from real life and from the game).

If a vigilante who kills for minor offenses, tortures, and attacks people's families doesn't ping in your mind as Evil, then you've completely lost the actual definition (both from real life and from the game).

The actual question these people need to ask is, "Can you manage a game with a GOOD character or party?" Because that's the spot they've failed to demonstrate (the answer of course is "yes", but you don't get to kick the door down and kill everyone inside the room just because you are in something you call a "dungeon" and there's a rumor that someone from this area might once have stolen a sheep from someone else).

[Malifice]

Yep, this comes up anytime there's a "can I have an Evil party" or "can I allow an Evil character in the party" discussion.

The "generic" D&D game is a group of Evil murder-hobo thugs. Given this it's blatantly obvious that the game works with Evil characters and Evil parties.

If you feel any need to ask, "can it work with Evil characters" it's probably because you're so confused about the definition of Good and Evil in game that mass murderers don't ping on your personal detector as Evil, and so you think Evil has to be Stupid Evil. And the only reason to be that confused is because you keep INSISTING on writing "G" down on character sheets where "E" is plainly correct.

If you ever feel the urge to claim a remorseless assassin isn't Evil because he gets paid (and I regularly see this sort of argument), then you've completely lost the actual definition (both from real life and from the game).

If a vigilante who kills for minor offenses, tortures, and attacks people's families doesn't ping in your mind as Evil, then you've completely lost the actual definition (both from real life and from the game).

The actual question these people need to ask is, "Can you manage a game with a GOOD character or party?" Because that's the spot they've failed to demonstrate (the answer of course is "yes", but you don't get to kick the door down and kill everyone inside the room just because you are in something you call a "dungeon" and there's a rumor that someone from this area might once have stolen a sheep from someone else).

This.

Some of the arguments in this thead are surreal. Apparently no act is too vile for a good person to perform as long as its carried out on an 'evil' person.

And no matter how vile the act, you yourself don't become evil in the process as long as you can justify it as 'working towards the greater good'

It really shakes my faith in humanity.

[AstralFire]

Yep, this comes up anytime there's a "can I have an Evil party" or "can I allow an Evil character in the party" discussion.

The "generic" D&D game is a group of Evil murder-hobo thugs. Given this it's blatantly obvious that the game works with Evil characters and Evil parties.

Overplaying your hand a bit, I think -- I would say that yes, Evil murder-hobo thugs work in a kick-in-the-door monty haul style which is not uncommon, but more diverse campaign types are overrepresented on forums like these, in my experience. Usually when I see this question raised on this forum, it is not a monty haul dungeoncrawl, though I freely admit I am absent from these forums for long periods of time.

A good deal of the disagreement on whether Frank Castle is Neutral or Evil comes from varying portrayals of the character which people are exposed to -- not all of his incarnations are as bloody and bloody single-minded as the others -- and I hope people keep this in mind when making comments about the character of those who disagree with them. I don't think it's particularly useful to try to pin him down to one alignment on the nine-point grid as much as it is to discuss the alignment of the actions he takes and where that usually ballparks him.

And lastly, I would like to point out that over five editions (and especially in the first three) that D&D morality has frequently divorced from real-world morality in many key ways. People also have a harder time dealing with character abstractions than with something they or other real people have experienced. I'd be cautious about estimating people on their feelings about D&D alignment.

[Nowhere Girl]

By this logic Dexter isn't evil.

Try again.

See, you guys are still missing the point. The question is, "What does the D&D alignment system say?"

For my answer, I cited information directly out of the 3.5e and 5e D&D Player's Handbooks. For your rebuttal, you cited an unrelated television show. Do you understand where you went wrong yet?

Let's try this another way. Suppose two students are presented with an exam question in the form of a polynomial with the instructions "solve algebraically." One goes ahead and proceeds to factor and solve the problem, while the other writes an epistemological argument taking the position that we cannot be certain the answer is knowable at all. While the second student's answer is perhaps a creative approach and may even be considered valid from a certain perspective, do you understand why the instructor is correct in marking it wrong?

Simply put: you are doggedly trying to answer the wrong question. I am, by contrast, answering the question that was asked. That's why you don't even have a case that bears addressing.

[Nifft]

And lastly, I would like to point out that over five editions (and especially in the first three) that D&D morality has frequently divorced from real-world morality in many key ways. People also have a harder time dealing with character abstractions than with something they or other real people have experienced. I'd be cautious about estimating people on their feelings about D&D alignment.

Bingo.

D&D morality is not real-world morality, just like comic book morality is not real-world morality, and also just like comic book morality is not D&D morality (except for in some D&D comic books).

Evaluating a comic book character with the D&D morality scale is thus doubly divorced from reality.

I really hope that the people who keep trying to draw real-world parallels are just using (deplorable) rhetorical tactics rather than actually confusing fantasy and reality. Neither super-hero comic books nor D&D games are the same as reality. Things that are okay in D&D are not okay in reality -- fantasy and reality are different, and that's okay.

The truly scary thing would be someone who couldn't tell the difference.

[Nowhere Girl]

The truly scary thing would be someone who couldn't tell the difference.

I don't think it is quite as dramatic as being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, honestly. It is just people letting their emotional responses to related moral questions override their reason such that they answer the question they are passionate about rather than the one actually asked. That is not unusual behavior or indicative of delusion.

[Doug Lampert]

Bingo.

D&D morality is not real-world morality, just like comic book morality is not real-world morality, and also just like comic book morality is not D&D morality (except for in some D&D comic books).

Evaluating a comic book character with the D&D morality scale is thus doubly divorced from reality.

I really hope that the people who keep trying to draw real-world parallels are just using (deplorable) rhetorical tactics rather than actually confusing fantasy and reality. Neither super-hero comic books nor D&D games are the same as reality. Things that are okay in D&D are not okay in reality -- fantasy and reality are different, and that's okay.

The truly scary thing would be someone who couldn't tell the difference.
The definitions of Good in the rulebooks include "Respect for Life", this doesn't mean you can't kill anyone ever, but it does mean that killing is the last resort and that you accept surrenders. Not true for the Punisher.

The definitions of Evil in the rulebooks include things like racism, and someone who kills someone because they're an orc is doing what? (In game terms orc is a race. In "realistic" terms orcs can and do interbreed viably with humans and thus are a part of the same species and are a different race. It is blatantly racism to be prejudiced against orcs, and killing due to this prejudice is unquestionably Evil).

Similarly, torture has been repeatedly defined, in rulebooks as ALWAYS EVIL, it's one of the few things to get that tag actually.

The Punisher is Evil by the rulebook definition, because the rulebook definition is pretty durn close to the real world modern definition (having been written by real world modern people and all).

[DivisibleByZero]

See, you guys are still missing the point. The question is, "What does the D&D alignment system say?"

For my answer, I cited information directly out of the 3.5e and 5e D&D Player's Handbooks. For your rebuttal, you cited an unrelated television show. Do you understand where you went wrong yet?

Do we understand where we supposedly went wrong? Are you kidding me? Do you understand where YOU did?
Let me explain it for you, since you clearly don't.
You see, you didn't cite information directly out of the 3.5 and 5e PHBs. What you did was cite that information, and then change it to suit your own needs at the time before incorrectly "clarifying it" for us.

Let me show you. I'll color code it to make it easy for you to follow along with me.


This is kind of what I was talking about when I say people make emotional judgments about this. There's a lot of stuff that really boils down to "I don't like/agree with what Frank does, so he's evil."

RTFM. In the alignment system (as established very clearly in 3.x -- 5e's descriptions are more succinct and less informative):

"Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Whereas,

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others."

Now they do fail to specify that evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing innocents specifically, which could lead to a literal interpretation that assumes it's an evil act every time you kill a marauding orc. However, the next bit picks up and clarifies the omission by implication:

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

So we can extrapolate the logical intent from this and go back to slightly edit the bit about evil, which obviously really means, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing innocents."

And we're done. Evil and good are clearly and unambiguously defined. Does Frank harm innocents? No. Does he make sacrifices to help others? In most incarnations, no, or at least not very often and not very much. Ergo, Frank is neutral with respect to good and evil.

Simple. The end.

The green portion is where you cited the source.
The blue portion is where you changed it to suit your own needs.
The red portion is where you incorrectly "clarified it" for us. You had to add words to your description, claiming that they were implicit, and then called it unambiguously defined.
Umm.... if you had to change it to you you perceived as implicit, then how can you possibly call it unambiguously defined?

You see, they described evil exactly the way that they wanted to describe evil.
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others."
Not: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing innocents."
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing OTHERS."
The part about innocents was included ONLY in neutral's description. Not in evil's.
You changed that description to suit your own needs, and then you asked us if WE understood where WE went wrong.
That's so backwards I don't even know where to begin with it.

[Nowhere Girl]

The definitions of Good in the rulebooks include "Respect for Life", this doesn't mean you can't kill anyone ever, but it does mean that killing is the last resort and that you accept surrenders. Not true for the Punisher.

The definitions of Evil in the rulebooks include things like racism, and someone who kills someone because they're an orc is doing what? (In game terms orc is a race. In "realistic" terms orcs can and do interbreed viably with humans and thus are a part of the same species and are a different race. It is blatantly racism to be prejudiced against orcs, and killing due to this prejudice is unquestionably Evil).

Similarly, torture has been repeatedly defined, in rulebooks as ALWAYS EVIL, it's one of the few things to get that tag actually.

The Punisher is Evil by the rulebook definition, because the rulebook definition is pretty durn close to the real world modern definition (having been written by real world modern people and all).

Actually, the book definition does reference respect for life under good, but it doesn't reference it under neutral (which instead calls out not harming innocents, which Frank doesn't), nor does evil call out everyone who lacks respect for life as among its ranks. Frank probably can't make a solid argument for being good, but he also can't make a solid argument for being evil.

Oh hey! Look at this third option I found between good and evil! I think I have it, guys!

[Nifft]

I don't think it is quite as dramatic as being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, honestly. It is just people letting their emotional responses to related moral questions override their reason such that they answer the question they are passionate about rather than the one actually asked. That is not unusual behavior or indicative of delusion.

You snipped a line where I expressed hope that this was the case -- that people were just using (deplorable) rhetorical tactics which conflated fantasy and reality, and weren't actually confusing the two.

That continues to be my hope.

But, I'll ask this: if you think that their emotional responses can override their reason, isn't that some kind of delusion?


EDIT:

Oh hey! Look at this third option I found between good and evil! I think I have it, guys!
Lawful Neutral: Neutral Harder With A Vengeance

[AstralFire]

...Alright, I'm abandoning thread. I don't see the tone shifting calmer anytime soon. This was a really interesting discussion for the first few pages, thank you, I appreciated it.

[johnswiftwood]

Okay the thing is, morality is subjective to the dm. In my book

Fighting and maybe even killing killing for the defense of innocents or showing mercy to evil with no concern for your own safety,=good Aka not frank

Fighting and maybe killing for revenge or self defense, or showing mercy because it's to your advantage=neutral Aka Frank

Commiting atroops acts such as murder or rape, or showing mercy because it'll make the recipient of such mercy suffer more and you get off on that even against evil creatures.=evil aka Garth Ennis frank.

[Osrogue]

See, you guys are still missing the point. The question is, "What does the D&D alignment system say?"

For my answer, I cited information directly out of the 3.5e and 5e D&D Player's Handbooks. For your rebuttal, you cited an unrelated television show. Do you understand where you went wrong yet?

Let's try this another way. Suppose two students are presented with an exam question in the form of a polynomial with the instructions "solve algebraically." One goes ahead and proceeds to factor and solve the problem, while the other writes an epistemological argument taking the position that we cannot be certain the answer is knowable at all. While the second student's answer is perhaps a creative approach and may even be considered valid from a certain perspective, do you understand why the instructor is correct in marking it wrong?

Simply put: you are doggedly trying to answer the wrong question. I am, by contrast, answering the question that was asked. That's why you don't even have a case that bears addressing.

They aren't really answering the question anymore. They are discussing the alignment system in general, and alignment of Frank Castle as they would judge him in their own games.

Secondly, not everyone uses the PHB as the end all of alignment discussion, and that isn't really something you can blame people for. While that is probably the most objective answer, morality and alignment aren't measured quantitatively and requires interpretation.

As for the OP, I'm a huge fan of making Paladins pseudo-revenants. Especially since they already have a connection to the undead through Death Knights and Oathbreakers.
You don't need to make them redirected dead. This is just what I think is pretty cool.

Say your paladin was killed along with the rest of his family, but then woke up a few hours later, fully healed and sporting some divine powers. A variation of the concept is that the paladin wears a scar from the wound that killed him. Bonus points if that wound glows faintly with a divine light as a constant reminder of what he is. He could question why he was spared, or decide that his drive for vengeance is from divine mandate.

Since oaths aren't chosen until level 3, he could start without a clear idea of why he was brought back, but he could become more sure of his mission until you can actually choose the oath.

How dark you choose to play it is up to you. The vengeance oath already has a no mercy policy for villains, but doesn't force you to kill every criminal you come across (though I don't think it stops you from doing so) and using any means necessary is part of the oath. You could play it as a LN character, but alignment is pretty subjective, so you can pick one and probably make it work. It would probably be better if you asked your DM or your table what they think, since they are the ones you will be playing with.

It would be cool if you reskinned a halberd or greataxe as a big executioner's axe. Vengeance Paladin's are also called black/dark knights, and playing with black armor, perhaps with skull motifs would probably add to the look you are going for. Very menacing.

[Cazero]

No, intent does not matter. Evil acts, even in the name of what you personally perceive as the greater good, remain evil acts regardless of your intent. If you are willing to commit said evil acts, and have zero remorse for committing them, then no amount of good intentions makes these evil acts somehow transform to become acts of good.
I never said Good intents would negate the Evilness of actions. I said it might tip the balance sometimes and that ignoring intent create strange implications, such as a very very Good person instantly turning Evil when he decides that he can actually act on [heinous atrocity that he was dreaming of doing forever].
For example, someone killing the Joker because he's a complete unrepentant monster can get a fair case of still being Good. The same person torturing the Joker for a couple hours, murdering whatever passes as his loved ones, disfiguring him, then literally boring him to death because that's definitely how he wouldn't want to die? The Good intent of cleaning the world of a monster is counterbalanced by the Evil intent to cause needless suffering, and the atrocity of the actions don't help.
Another example. The new president bans being black. If intent doesn't matter, he was Good before being elected because he never acted on his blatant atrocious racism.

You know what? Play that game. (http://socratesjones.com/game.html) It's awesome and educational.

[DivisibleByZero]

I never said Good intents would negate the Evilness of actions. I said it might tip the balance sometimes and that ignoring intent create strange implications, such as a very very Good person instantly turning Evil when he decides that he can actually act on [heinous atrocity that he was dreaming of doing forever].

If someone has been dreaming of committing an heinous atrocity, and finally decides "he can actually act on" it, then he was never a GOOD person to begin with. He was simply holding back before.
He was never a "very very Good person" in the first place, or he wouldn't have been dreaming of committing an atrocity to the point where he finally decided that it WAS OK to do it.
The difference is that a GOOD person would NEVER decide that committing an heinous atrocity was OK.
Everyone has random thoughts, and not all of them are pleasant.
No matter how good you thought you were before, if you EVER get to the point where you decide that committing an heinous atrocity that you've been dreaming of is acceptable, then you are not, and probably never truly have been, a good person.
That's the entire point which you and many others seem to be missing.
We all have random thoughts which aren't so pleasant. The difference is that Good people DO NOT ACT ON THEM, EVER.
Nope. Not even then.

[Nifft]

If someone has been dreaming of committing an heinous atrocity, and finally decides "he can actually act on" it, then he was never a GOOD person to begin with. He was simply holding back before.

I dunno.

I feel like people who hold back murderous impulses can be pretty good people.

I mean, I've driven a car in heavy traffic before. I know what it's like to feel frequent murderous impulses which are never acted upon.

[Cazero]

I dunno.

I feel like people who hold back murderous impulses can be pretty good people.

I mean, I've driven a car in heavy traffic before. I know what it's like to feel frequent murderous impulses which are never acted upon.
Yeah. If you hold back because you know it's wrong, then you're probably not Evil. But if you hold back because you don't want to deal with consequences like a trial for murder, then you're probably not a Good person.
But in either case, no actions happened. There is an obvious internal component to alignement, therefore intent matters.

Edited to add :

No matter how good you thought you were before, if you EVER get to the point where you decide that committing an heinous atrocity that you've been dreaming of is acceptable, then you are not, and probably never truly have been, a good person.
I don't get it allright. Your point here is basically the same as mine, yet you present it as contradictory.

[DivisibleByZero]

Intent does not matter.
It doesn't matter why you held back. The point is that you did.
The one time that you finally decide: "Hey, it's OK to rape or torture or murder this person, because, well.... I have my reasons." then you are FIRMLY NOT A GOOD PERSON, and probably never truly were.
Had you truly been a good person, you would never have gotten to the point where you suddenly thought it was justified.
Intent makes no difference.
The fact that you were willing to do horrendous and horrible acts of evil, and felt no remorse for it, is all that matters.
If you commit murder/rape/torture/whatever, and you feel nothing afterward, no remorse, nothing, no matter who the victim was (*and yes, they are victims) and worse yet you actually believe that they got what they deserved, then your heart and soul are as black as they come.
Period.
That's what Castle/Punisher does. He is as evil as they come. He just fools himself (and apparently many of you) into believing that he's on a righteous path.


Edited to add :

I don't get it allright. Your point here is basically the same as mine, yet you present it as contradictory.

We're not saying the same thing at all.
You seem to think that intent matters. It doesn't.
You seem to think that good intentions somehow "tip the balance" so that evil acts aren't evil. They don't.

If you commit a crime in the pursuit of doing the right thing, do we let that transgression go or do we prosecute the offender?
Intentions mean nothing. Only actions matter.
If you commit evil and feel no remorse, no matter who you killed/raped/tortured/whatever, then you are not and probably never were a good person. Not even remotely.
That's all there is to it.
And if you do it frequently, then you are plainly across the line from 'neutral' as well, and firmly in the evil camp.

[-Jynx-]

Intent does not matter.
It doesn't matter why you held back. The point is that you did.
The one time that you finally decide: "Hey, it's OK to rape or torture or murder this person, because, well.... I have my reasons." then you are FIRMLY NOT A GOOD PERSON, and probably never truly were.
Had you truly been a good person, you would never have gotten to the point where you suddenly thought it was justified.
Intent makes no difference.
The fact that you were willing to do horrendous and horrible acts of evil, and felt no remorse for it, is all that matters.
If you commit murder/rape/torture/whatever, and you feel nothing afterward, no remorse, nothing, no matter who the victim was (*and yes, they are victims) and worse yet you actually believe that they got what they deserved, then your heart and soul are as black as they come.
Period.
That's what Castle/Punisher does. He is as evil as they come. He just fools himself (and apparently many of you) into believing that he's on a righteous path.



We're not saying the same thing at all.
You seem to think that intent matters. It doesn't.
You seem to think that good intentions somehow "tip the balance" so that evil acts aren't evil. They don't.

If you commit a crime in the pursuit of doing the right thing, do we let that transgression go or do we prosecute the offender?
Intentions mean nothing. Only actions matter.
If you commit evil and feel no remorse, no matter who you killed/raped/tortured/whatever, then you are not and probably never were a good person. Not even remotely.
That's all there is to it.
And if you do it frequently, then you are plainly across the line from 'neutral' as well, and firmly in the evil camp.

Intent and context are everything. Especially when looking at something as grey as morality. What if you killed someone while defending yourself in your home or on the street? What if it is in your profession (military for example) to kill another person? Are you evil by default because you are killing another individual?

Say you're in a group, and someone now has a very deadly disease. It's transmittable, and there is no way you can get said person help. So do you keep them in the group knowing full well you could contract the same disease to the other members? Do you kill that sickly person to protect the group? Maybe you send them away, but they refuse to leave. Now what do you do?

I can give you a million examples of situations where killing another person is not inherently evil. You may not like it, but it could be rationalized as the best decision in a given situation.

That obviously is just murder, is theft wrong if you're stealing just enough food to survive? Does it matter if you're stealing from a rich corrupt person or a middle-class honest person? What if you had to steal medicine to save someone you loved? Are you now an evil person because you made the decision to commit an unlawful act?

There is a HUGE difference between lawful/unlawful and good/evil. Make no mistake that just because you break the law does not mean you are an evil individual.

[DivisibleByZero]

That obviously is just murder,

No, it isn't.
None of what you just described is murder.
There is a huge difference between killing someone in self defense, and justifiable homicide, and murder.
We're talking about murder.
Murder is evil.
Just because you fancy yourself a vigilante doesn't make it any less wrong nor any less evil.

[Cazero]

Intentions mean nothing. Only actions matter.

Let's take brains in jars with eyes as examples. Brain in a jar A is always thinking stuff like "I wish I wasn't such a burden for all those people who take care of me". Brain in a jar B is always thinking stuff like "It's their fault ! I want to kill them ! To make them suffer !". Brain in a jar C is always thinking stuff like "Man, having a body must be awesome." None of them can act on their intent or influence the world around them in any way. They never receive the opportunity to do so in their entire existence.
I say that the first one is morally decent, probably Good, while the second one is clearly Evil, and the third one is pretty neutral. Just by analysing their intents. What one would do given the power to act is just as important as what one actually does. How can intent not matter at all when it's the main difference between Stuntman Mike and an accidental roadkiller?

Just because morality is objective in D&D doesn't mean it has to base itself on material objects, actions and consequences. Thoughts and opinions have an objective existence too.


No, it isn't.
None of what you just described is murder.
There is a huge difference between killing someone in self defense, and justifiable homicide, and murder.
We're talking about murder.
Murder is evil.
Just because you fancy yourself a vigilante doesn't make it any less wrong nor any less evil.

Hu, that difference is
1) purely legalistic and
2) purely based on intent.

The murderer has the intent to kill. The self-defending person has the intent to live. The justified homicidal person has the intent to save lives or whatever the local law consider enough to justify homicide.
The three of them commited the exact same action : deliberately taking the life of another human being.

But intents don't matter. Right?

[DivisibleByZero]

]But intents don't matter. Right?

You're splitting hairs and turning the discussion on its head.
Your REASONS for committing evil acts don't matter. All that matters is that you decided to do it. If you continue to decide to do it repeatedly, you are evil.
It doesn't matter if your REASONS (or, in other words, intent) were somehow following an higher calling or not. It doesn't matter if you think you're making the world a better place. It doesn't matter if you can justify it to yourself or not.
If you continually commit atrocities, as Castle does, then you are evil, just like he is.
Evil that fancies himself as justice maybe. Evil that thinks he's working for a greater good maybe. But evil none the less.

[MadBear]

That's not the definition of good and evil in DND. That's your definition.

Oddly you seem to think that as long as a person can justify an act, that makes the act 'good'.

That's not what makes things good or evil.

I deal with murderers on a daily basis. They all justify thier actions. Hitler justified his actions as 'good' man

Look. It's your game. If you're happy with LG heroes employing torture, murder and rape 'for the greater good against the forces of evil' them be my guest.

wow.... way to miss the entire point of my post. Let's try again.


That's not the definition of good and evil in DND. That's your definition.

Yes, I was giving an example of how a simplistic definition of good and evil can change what we end up calling good and evil. By the way this isn't what I actually consider to be good and evil since that's a much bigger topic. To make it more clear, here is Pathfinders definition of good and evil:

"Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. "

Under this definition you could argue that Frank is neutral. The main point however is that depending on how you define your terms you can end up with different results.


Oddly you seem to think that as long as a person can justify an act, that makes the act 'good'.

No. Again, I have not given my actual definition of what I consider to be good/evil. I find morality to be a topic that's bigger then a D&D discussion thread. I was simply pointing out that if you use a more simplistic definition (like many people playing fantasy games do), then you can come to wildly different conclusions.

You seem to be mistakenly conflating my actual position, with me proposing different possible situations.



That's not what makes things good or evil.

I deal with murderers on a daily basis. They all justify thier actions. Hitler justified his actions as 'good' man

I agree, but this statement misses the point of my reply entirely. You seem to have your definition of what good/evil is, and you don't seem to recognize that others can use either their own differing versions of said morality. I'm not asking you to accept their definitions as correct (which would be silly since definitions can never be right or wrong, they can only be useful or useless), but I am asking that you at least acknowledge that different uses of a concept can lead to different results.


Look. It's your game. If you're happy with LG heroes employing torture, murder and rape 'for the greater good against the forces of evil' them be my guest.

And finally, I'll again point out that you're confusing my actual position on morality with how I might define it for a simple game of D&D. I say "might" because it depends entirely on the group, the tone, and what we want to accomplish. If we're doing a role play heavy game that utilizes a lot of choice, then good and evil may be defined in a very realistic way.

If we're playing a one-shot of "Hero's saving the world", then we might have our fighter lop off the heads of the Orc's we cast sleep on, and still call him a "good" character.

In the end, you've grossly misrepresented my entire post. Rather then responding to this one, if you're going to respond, I'd ask that maybe you look over my original post and try seeing what I was actually arguing (not that you have to respond, or that you can't respond to this of course).

[Nowhere Girl]

Do we understand where we supposedly went wrong? Are you kidding me? Do you understand where YOU did?

Oh boy. No, I don't need you to explain what I did, because I know full well. I also explained why, but let's recap anyway before I offer the alternative. No, in fact, let's expand on and clarify the "why" of it. First, let me quote, word for word, three passages:

"'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

You'll notice I bolded two parts: "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (for evil) and "have compunctions against killing the innocent" (for neutral). Now, yes, if you want the most strict, literal, uncritical reading of all of this, then every form of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" ever is evil. Please note: every form ever.

Now let me post two more small passages from the same book:

Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.

Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron’s tax collectors, is chaotic good.

Do you begin to see the problem? Even if you want to claim that Alhandra and Soverliss never kill (which I think we both know is highly unlikely), there is absolutely no wiggle room to get out of the fact that they arguably oppress (keep in mind that even capturing and imprisoning a criminal can still be called a form of oppression, even if it's deemed rightful) and definitely hurt others. That those others they hurt may completely deserve it is irrelevant from a strictly literal reading, because the strictly literal reading just uncritically takes "hurting, oppressing, and killing others," ticks off "hurting," perhaps "oppressing," and probably "killing" as well, and then defines Alhandra and Soverliss as evil. Except the book says they're good, and now we have a logic error because both things cannot be true at the same time. Oops.

Now if we take the bit for neutral that says "have compunctions against killing the innocent," we can reasonably extrapolate the intent of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as actually being "hurting, oppressing, and killing innocents," and if we do that, the logic error vanishes, and everything fits perfectly, because everything else is completely consistent with that reading. However, you have a fair point: the most literal reading associates "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" with evil without any form of qualification, which of course makes Alhandra and Soverliss evil, but the book also says they're good, so their alignments end up being "undefined/no solution." And that's also what happens to Frank's alignment depending on whether you're using the most literal reading or looking at everything else and making a reasonable inference about intent: it's either "undefined" ...

Or Lawful Neutral.

But I'll grant you that the most literal, uncritical reading assigns him "undefined" as his alignment, along with nearly all PCs ever, including all paladins.

[Nowhere Girl]

But, I'll ask this: if you think that their emotional responses can override their reason, isn't that some kind of delusion?

Honestly, the answer to that is simply "no." It isn't.

You can argue that it's irrational, but we all behave irrationally at times, whether we like to believe it or not. I behave irrationally at times. You behave irrationally at times.

Getting it wrong, especially when you're emotionally invested, is just part of being human. If we're going to call people delusional every time they make a poor judgment due to bias or some sort of emotional involvement, we may as well call every person ever delusional.

[Squeak]

This has been an extremely interesting read from a philosophical point of view.

My 2 cp though is that from reading some of the posters it appears that (certain incarnations of) the Punisher kills or tortures the criminals family. I am pretty sure that this would push the Punisher pretty clearly into LE from LN. Given that the Punisher has a (completely twisted perhaps but still a) clear internal code I would feel he is probably Lawful though.

[Nowhere Girl]

This has been an extremely interesting read from a philosophical point of view.

My 2 cp though is that from reading some of the posters it appears that (certain incarnations of) the Punisher kills or tortures the criminals family. I am pretty sure that this would push the Punisher pretty clearly into LE from LN. Given that the Punisher has a (completely twisted perhaps but still a) clear internal code I would feel he is probably Lawful though.

Oh, I should address this. Frank does torture sometimes, yes, though he doesn't really do it as a regular matter of course. However, he's also been known in some cases to go out of his way to help others, especially Joan the Mouse, but by no means just her, and this help included in some cases such things as risking life and limb and giving away money as well. In every such case, he helped people without any expectation of compensation whatsoever.

That's making sacrifices to help others, which by the same logic that says torture should push him into LE territory would push him into LG territory.

But personally, I still think it's best to split the difference and leave him at LN.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's making sacrifices to help others, which by the same logic that says torture should push him into LE territory would push him into LG territory.

But personally, I still think it's best to split the difference and leave him at LN.

That's not how it works.
Someone else posted this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442050-Discussion-Debate-Alignments&p=19821227&highlight=cannibal#post19821227) in another thread, and I made a note of it. I'll repost here.

From the Tome of Fiends:
Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

[Osrogue]

That's not how it works.
Someone else posted this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442050-Discussion-Debate-Alignments&p=19821227&highlight=cannibal#post19821227) in another thread, and I made a note of it. I'll repost here.

From the Tome of Fiends:
Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

You're joking right? People fix roofs all the time. It's not every day someone eats another person.

If Jimmy was in a society where cannibalism was either an occasional necessity or common/accepted, Jimmy would be known as Jimmy the helpful thatcher.

[Nowhere Girl]

That's not how it works.
Someone else posted this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?442050-Discussion-Debate-Alignments&p=19821227&highlight=cannibal#post19821227) in another thread, and I made a note of it. I'll repost here.

From the Tome of Fiends:
Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

You're going pretty far out of the way for that. I don't recall ever even seeing the Tome of Fiends! Or even hearing of it. Does that mean that every gaming group ever that didn't happen to read an obscure splat book is wrong about alignment?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "If it isn't in the core book, it's irrelevant." To me, at least. At least when it comes to something as basic to the game as alignment. I mean, really, the notion that we were all wrong about alignment until the day that splat book finally came out is pretty silly.

Anyway, it isn't as though torture is a huge part of the Punisher's MO, unless you happen to have played a particular game that delighted in it. You could read a pile of his comics without ever finding a single torture scene.

In fact, I am struggling to recall a single torture scene in the actual comics. I imagine there was one, but it doesn't spring to mind.

[DivisibleByZero]

You're joking right? People fix roofs all the time. It's not every day someone eats another person.

If Jimmy was in a society where cannibalism was either an occasional necessity or common/accepted, Jimmy would be known as Jimmy the helpful thatcher.

Right. And if we lived in a society where murder and rape and torture were acceptable.... nay, encouraged activities, then maybe Castle would be revered as a hero.
Alas, we do not, and he is not.
He's an anti-hero. He's just about as evil as they come.

Noweher girl, you can drop the torture line. It's irrelevant. We're talking about murder. Cold, heartless, cold blooded murder. Not killing in self defense. Not manslaughter. Not justifiable homicide.
Murder, plain and simple.
Maybe for what he feels is the greater good, but murder none the less.
He's evil. Period.

[Nowhere Girl]

Right. And if we lived in a society where murder and rape and torture were acceptable.... nay, encouraged activities, then maybe Castle would be revered as a hero.
Alas, we do not, and he is not.
He's an anti-hero. He's just about as evil as they come.

Um, I should correct you. If we lived in a society where rape was encouraged, Castle would be killing a lot of people. Like every single rapist without exception.

Also, he'd kill everyone who murdered any innocent. Ever. Even one. Or tortured any. Even one.

So you're a little off, because his targets are very specific, and not only does he not harm innocents, he also absolutely does not tolerate anyone else harming innocents.

[Osrogue]

Right. And if we lived in a society where murder and rape and torture were acceptable.... nay, encouraged activities, then maybe Castle would be revered as a hero.
Alas, we do not, and he is not.
He's an anti-hero. He's just about as evil as they come.

That has nothing to do with anything I said. Your argument for evil deeds far outweighing good deeds is that cannibals are less common than roof workers, and thus more notable.I never even mentioned Castle. Or rape. Or murder. Or torture.

It's a ridiculous argument.

But if you want murder, torture, and rape, I raise you the Assyrian Empire as a fully functioning warrior society with some amount of all of those being perfectly acceptable in some form or another. Just for fun.

[-Jynx-]

From the Tome of Fiends:
Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

To touch on this for a moment (and it has been stated already) roofing =/= cannibalism. However lets look at some more real examples. Ghandi was remembered for his universal practice of peace, though he was an extreme racist and while there are no reports that he actually touched little girls it's probable. He however is not remembered for his racism (which is universally evil from the vibe of this thread) he is instead remembered for his teachings and practices.

Now moving on to the murder bit. If you the PC just decides "Ya know what sounds like fun!" and you shank a small girl wandering the streets everyone is on the same page (I think) in that such actions are evil. However killing is very dependent on the situation/intent. Any time I choose to take someones life, the situation dictates whether that was evil, good, or neutral. Not the act itself.

[DivisibleByZero]

I never even mentioned Castle. Or rape. Or murder. Or torture.

It's a ridiculous argument.

I'd like to direct you to the top of the page, where the thread title can be found.
Hi.
Welcome to the discussion.

[comicshorse]

In fact, I am struggling to recall a single torture scene in the actual comics. I imagine there was one, but it doesn't spring to mind.[/QUOTE]

In 'The Slavers' story Frank douses the boss of the slaving group in petrol then films him being burned alive so he can send the disc to the guy's allies back home as a message to stay out of New York

[Osrogue]

I'd like to direct you to the top of the page, where the thread title can be found.
Hi.
Welcome to the discussion.

The thread is about a vengeance paladin who lost his wife and kids, so he takes up arms to fight evil outside of the law. Standard Vengeance Oath fare really. Use any means necessary is right in the oath.

We were then given an example of the actions his character would take and asked for help to determine the alignment of the paladin, as well as for any thoughts on how to flesh out the character. Pretty solid Lawful Neutral according to the PHB by the way, but not everybody uses that.

I already put my thoughts on the matter into an earlier post.

Aside from that, I responded to your post about cannibalism and pointed out that the argument was ridiculous.
(If Frank Castle is a cannibal, I wouldn't know)

you then argued that Frank would be a hero in a society where murder and rape was the norm to push the point that Frank is not a hero.

I told you that Frank Castle doesn't have anything to do with Jimmy the cannibal.

You told me to educate myself.

Now that you're on the page of what I said and what you replied, could you tell me how cannibalism, torture, and rape apply to a vengeance paladin who has done none of the above, or how that somehow makes the nonsensical position I responded to any stronger?

[DivisibleByZero]

*points at thread title.
Nothing more to say, dude.

[Malifice]

Oh boy. No, I don't need you to explain what I did, because I know full well. I also explained why, but let's recap anyway before I offer the alternative. No, in fact, let's expand on and clarify the "why" of it. First, let me quote, word for word, three passages:

"'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

You'll notice I bolded two parts: "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (for evil) and "have compunctions against killing the innocent" (for neutral). Now, yes, if you want the most strict, literal, uncritical reading of all of this, then every form of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" ever is evil. Please note: every form ever.

Now let me post two more small passages from the same book:

Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.

Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron’s tax collectors, is chaotic good.

Do you begin to see the problem? Even if you want to claim that Alhandra and Soverliss never kill (which I think we both know is highly unlikely), there is absolutely no wiggle room to get out of the fact that they arguably oppress (keep in mind that even capturing and imprisoning a criminal can still be called a form of oppression, even if it's deemed rightful) and definitely hurt others. That those others they hurt may completely deserve it is irrelevant from a strictly literal reading, because the strictly literal reading just uncritically takes "hurting, oppressing, and killing others," ticks off "hurting," perhaps "oppressing," and probably "killing" as well, and then defines Alhandra and Soverliss as evil. Except the book says they're good, and now we have a logic error because both things cannot be true at the same time. Oops.

Now if we take the bit for neutral that says "have compunctions against killing the innocent," we can reasonably extrapolate the intent of "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as actually being "hurting, oppressing, and killing innocents," and if we do that, the logic error vanishes, and everything fits perfectly, because everything else is completely consistent with that reading. However, you have a fair point: the most literal reading associates "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" with evil without any form of qualification, which of course makes Alhandra and Soverliss evil, but the book also says they're good, so their alignments end up being "undefined/no solution." And that's also what happens to Frank's alignment depending on whether you're using the most literal reading or looking at everything else and making a reasonable inference about intent: it's either "undefined" ...

Or Lawful Neutral.

But I'll grant you that the most literal, uncritical reading assigns him "undefined" as his alignment, along with nearly all PCs ever, including all paladins.

Bear with me. Let me get this straight.

Occasionally, my LG Paladin heads out into town and brutally tortures and murders several NPCs. Surgical kit, a drill and some acid. I'll let you fill in the blanks. I'll detect evil on them first, just to make sure they aren't innocent.

I may commit other vile atrocities on these villians as well. I'll leave that up to your imagination. I don't enjoy this torture and depravity. Its important to deter other evil people and ensure other evil monsters dont continue with their evil doing.

When I finish with my depravity, I head out of town to the local Orc tribe who have been raiding local outposts. I burn the villiage to the ground, and proceed to put them all go the sword. Every single man, woman and child. Many try to run, but I round them up from their hiding spots, and toss them, still screaming and begging for mercy, on to the fire to burn and atone for their sins.

I make sure to detect evil on them first. Just to be sure.

It's for the greater good after all.

None of these are 'evil acts' according to you, am I correct? None of these people are innocent? I'm doing it for good reasons so it's OK? My Paladin in your campaign doesn't fall?

[Nowhere Girl]

In 'The Slavers' story Frank douses the boss of the slaving group in petrol then films him being burned alive so he can send the disc to the guy's allies back home as a message to stay out of New York

Well there you go. Frank is nothing if not extremely practical (once you accept mass killing). He wouldn't waste time on torture for pleasure, but I can see him doing this, sure.

[Nowhere Girl]

None of these are 'evil acts' according to you, am I correct? None of these people are innocent? I'm doing it for good reasons so it's OK? My Paladin in your campaign doesn't fall?

How are you placing an orc village where every single orc pings as "evil" in "my" campaign?

Apart from that, why are you bringing me into it at all? All I did was point out what the books say about alignment. If you want to discuss how people would handle morality in their own personal campaigns or whether Frank Castle is actually right to do what he does, I suggest you start a separate thread to discuss those off-topic topics.

[Osrogue]

*points at thread title.
Nothing more to say, dude.

That's okay. You can't have conversations with people who don't listen.

[Mara]

Bear with me. Let me get this straight.

Occasionally, my LG Paladin heads out into town and brutally tortures and murders several NPCs. Surgical kit, a drill and some acid. I'll let you fill in the blanks. I'll detect evil on them first, just to make sure they aren't innocent.

I may commit other vile atrocities on these villians as well. I'll leave that up to your imagination. I don't enjoy this torture and depravity. Its important to deter other evil people and ensure other evil monsters dont continue with their evil doing.

When I finish with my depravity, I head out of town to the local Orc tribe who have been raiding local outposts. I burn the villiage to the ground, and proceed to put them all go the sword. Every single man, woman and child. Many try to run, but I round them up from their hiding spots, and toss them, still screaming and begging for mercy, on to the fire to burn and atone for their sins.

I make sure to detect evil on them first. Just to be sure.

It's for the greater good after all.

None of these are 'evil acts' according to you, am I correct? None of these people are innocent? I'm doing it for good reasons so it's OK? My Paladin in your campaign doesn't fall?
Not 3.5 dude. No more pinging evil. Paladins can't fall either. They either become fighters or badass Oathbreakers.

[Kane0]

Pretty much that. You cast Detect Good and Evil and you ping aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead within 30'. Orcs don't ping, nor do humanoids no matter how evil they are.

If you continue to do the rest of your stated actions after that, it seems pretty damned evil to me. Not that I'm actually following a lot of what you guys are going on about at this point.

[Malifice]

Not 3.5 dude. No more pinging evil. Paladins can't fall either.

Are you saying the 3.5 alignment rules allow a Paladin to walk into tavern, ping a guy in the corner, walk over to him and drag him screaming into a private room for a bit of torture and other depraved acts straight from the BoVD... before finally murdering him (in full view of the rest of the patrons to set an example to other evil people)?


All I did was point out what the books say about alignment.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Lets break that down with Castle:

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

Pretty much all he does. Even unarmed and defenceless people, he tortures, murders, extorts and kills with no remorse or empathy.

As long as they are 'criminal'.

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up.

Frank clearly has zero compassion for a large swathe of people (criminals) and murders them with no qualms at all.

Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Frank doesnt fit neatly into this category; he actively pursues his evil (murder), killing people to provide vengance because of his own loss.

[Kane0]

Are you saying the 3.5 alignment rules allow a Paladin to walk into tavern, ping a guy in the corner, walk over to him and drag him screaming into a private room for a bit of torture and other depraved acts straight from the BoVD... before finally murdering him (in full view of the rest of the patrons to set an example to other evil people)?


Nay, though I obviously cannot speak on her behalf.

[Mrglee]

Are you saying the 3.5 alignment rules allow a Paladin to walk into tavern, ping a guy in the corner, walk over to him and drag him screaming into a private room for a bit of torture and other depraved acts straight from the BoVD... before finally murdering him (in full view of the rest of the patrons to set an example to other evil people)?

Technically torture is not classified as an evil act(as set by BoVD and BoED). I personally would not allow it still, but I also don't like the "all orcs are evil" thing or the alignment system in general.

[Malifice]

Technically torture is not classified as an evil act(as set by BoVD and BoED). I personally would not allow it still, but I also don't like the "all orcs are evil" thing or the alignment system in general.

When did all orcs become evil?

[Mrglee]

When did all orcs become evil?

That will teach me to double check SRD, it isn't Orcs(I forget the usually tag). It is Lycanthropes and Dragons with always set alignments, and I don't like it there either. Don't mind it on outsiders from planes of alignment, but elsewhere I feel it is silly.

[-Jynx-]

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

Evil really doesn't imply harming or killing especially in a fantasy world. When you are [insert hero] with [insert save the world/city/whatever idealism] harm comes to those whom you are delivering justice. You will neither in DnD or any fantasy world just talk every bad guy into submission. It is not by any means evil just to harm another person, depending on your intent. Now if you go beat up grandma because those chocolate chip cookies didn't turn out just so then yea you're evil.

Also killing (depending on the context) also is not an evil action. There are plenty of situations where killing another person is your only (or best) option that does not make one inherently evil. Unlawful? Maybe, but not evil.

[Nowhere Girl]

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

I already addressed this. Please read back to find the reply wherein I address a literal, uncritical reading of this in detail.

Hint: it is the one where I concluded that the other possibility for Frank's alignment is "undefined" due to a logic error resulting from a completely literal reading of the above quoted line.

I am not going to write another lengthy post just to repeat myself.

[endur]

In Spiderman #128, the Punisher was introduced sort of as a villain, but not really, instead he was someone tricked by the Jackal into attacking Spiderman.

On Law vs. Chaos, I believe it is pretty clear that your personal view is not as important as society's view (I.e. external authority). Robin Hood, who fights Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, is chaotic. Not because he randomly decides what to do, but because he is outside societies laws, an outlaw. That would make the Punisher also chaotic, since he also violates society's laws in his one man crusade against organized crime. On Good vs. Evil, that would really depend on how he follows his crusade. Different authors of punisher have had him as CG and CN.

[Nowhere Girl]

On Law vs. Chaos, I believe it is pretty clear that your personal view is not as important as society's view (I.e. external authority).

There is nothing wrong with believing this as a personal view of the world. Many (though not all) lawful characters would also agree that external authority is more important.

However, as a reading of the rules, it is simply incorrect.

[Snig]

If any of you have had the pleasure of reading "The Punisher" (MAX series vol. 1 - 60), it's a more realistic gritty version of the punisher. That is what i'm currently reading, and what inspired me to create my Vengeance Paladin.

Anyhow I just finished vol.18, Mother Russia pt.6, and in it Frank goes to great length to save an innocent child. He seems to generally care about her well being, even chastising another character for cursing in front of her. He puts himself in harms way to protect her, and near the end he is even willing to die to see that she is safe.

I have a hard time believing that Frank is evil after reading this. If anyone else has read this i'd love to hear your opinions.

[Knaight]

Where, exactly are we getting the idea that he never kills "innocents"? The guy's MO is to go into areas and kill just about everyone there, with next to no information ahead of time. He habitually goes after groups that are basically guaranteed to have a core of hardened killers who are willing to murder at the drop of a hat, while also having people on the periphery who have never done anything for which killing is even slightly proportionate, and he habitually kills everyone in said groups. He's been explicitly tricked into going after Spiderman, precisely because he's known to be sloppy with information.

The only way he hasn't killed innocents is if he's been extremely lucky with the results of his habitual negligence in deciding who to go after, and even getting that generous of a reading involves going out of your way to assume the worst about many of the people he murders. I'd call him evil even if all he was doing was murdering other murderers. I just don't buy for a second that that is the case.

[Hawkstar]

When did all orcs become evil?
Every edition except 3rd, with a few Very Special Snowflake exceptions.

[Malifice]

If any of you have had the pleasure of reading "The Punisher" (MAX series vol. 1 - 60), it's a more realistic gritty version of the punisher. That is what i'm currently reading, and what inspired me to create my Vengeance Paladin.

Anyhow I just finished vol.18, Mother Russia pt.6, and in it Frank goes to great length to save an innocent child. He seems to generally care about her well being, even chastising another character for cursing in front of her. He puts himself in harms way to protect her, and near the end he is even willing to die to see that she is safe.

I have a hard time believing that Frank is evil after reading this. If anyone else has read this i'd love to hear your opinions.

My LE paladin does the same thing. Has a soft spot for kids. Particularly orphans.

[Malifice]

Every edition except 3rd, with a few Very Special Snowflake exceptions.

Been playing for over 30 years. News to me.

Got a reference for 'all orcs are inherently and irrevocably evil' from AD and D or BECMI or 2nd?

[Nifft]

Been playing for over 30 years. News to me.

Got a reference for 'all orcs are inherently and irrevocably evil' from AD and D or BECMI or 2nd?

How about the AD&D Monster Manual?

http://i.imgur.com/GVRXgDv.jpg

[Malifice]

How about the AD&D Monster Manual?

http://i.imgur.com/GVRXgDv.jpg

That says nothing of the sort?

It just gives a three paragraph summary of 'standard' Orc society and culture.

Where does it say Orcs are irrevocably and irredeemably evil?

[Hawkstar]

Second paragraph. The book says what orcs are using a definitive tone.

It gives a definition and description of orcs (Not 'standard" orcs. Orcs. As in all Orcs. If they don't match that, they're not orcs). The mention of their culture and society is tangential to the description of orcs themselves (But relevant to describing the orcs).

Orcs aren't brutish and evil because they have a brutish and evil culture - they have a brutish and evil culture because they're brutish and evil.

The only traits mentioned in there that aren't universal to orcs are their ability to speak languages other than Orcish and Lawful.

The structure of the second paragraph could be misconstrued to say they only 'generally' hate life and other living creatures, but it clarifies the exception isn't in orcs not hating life, but that they hate Elves even more than other life.

[Malifice]

Second paragraph. The book says what orcs are using a definitive tone.

It gives a definition and description of orcs (Not 'standard" orcs. Orcs. As in all Orcs. If they don't match that, they're not orcs). The mention of their culture and society is tangential to the description of orcs themselves (But relevant to describing the orcs).

What? It makes no such claims. It's just an abbreviated snippet of 'standard' orc culture. It makes no claims that orcs are 'genetically' or otherwiser fundamentally evil, and that this evil canot be changed, redeemed or revoked.

Go look at the entry for Dwarves, Elves etc.

Are you saying that all Dwarves are 'gruff, dour, miners'?

[Vogonjeltz]

Hey guys, i'm starting a new character inspired by Frank Castle. I'm going to be a Vengeance Paladin, and i'm having a hard time trying to decide which is a more suitable alignment, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good.

I'm going to follow a similar backstory where I start out as possibly a regular soldier / guard, who's wife and child we're targeted and killed by some form of organized crime or possibly cultists. After getting off with the murders due to a corrupt justice system or corrupt judge, my character will take matters into his own hands and seek vengeance on the murderers, killing them as well as the judge and any others who's hands were bloody.

After this he will swear an oath to avenge his wife and kids, relying on his own form of justice to seek out and destroy corruption and evil before it can prey on the innocent.

So i'm not sure if i'll have him worship a deity or not. I thought about Tyr or Hoar, but i'm thinking more along the lines of his power coming from his oath and not his deity? I dunno, maybe after all this he'll choose a deity of justice / vengeance to pray to.

Any suggestions on alignment or otherwise would be helpful to flesh out this character.

I'd say Lawful Neutral if you believe that he's adhering to a specific personal code. Chaotic Good would mean acting on his conscience...which doesn't exactly mesh with his total lack of conscience.

[Nowhere Girl]

Where, exactly are we getting the idea that he never kills "innocents"? The guy's MO is to go into areas and kill just about everyone there, with next to no information ahead of time.

Actually, he generally does his homework, his debut notwithstanding. He's extremely meticulous.

[Malifice]

Actually, he generally does his homework, his debut notwithstanding. He's extremely meticulous.

And he confirms there are no down on their luck good aligned family men employed as henchmen for the BBEG first?

That's some amazingly detailed homework.

[Mara]

Are you saying the 3.5 alignment rules allow a Paladin to walk into tavern, ping a guy in the corner, walk over to him and drag him screaming into a private room for a bit of torture and other depraved acts straight from the BoVD... before finally murdering him (in full view of the rest of the patrons to set an example to other evil people)? In PF a Paladin can fall for literally any act. 3.5 has some wiggle room but a DM could rule that you must torture the guy or fall because you can't show mercy to evil and must punish it in all forms.

Some run Good as inherently oppressive. But the paladin's code has little to do with lawful or goodness. The 5e version is infinitely better.

[Mara]

Actually, he generally does his homework, his debut notwithstanding. He's extremely meticulous.
In the movies he gets really hung up on killing innocents. He once killed an undercovered cop and nearly quit is crusade, until others begged him to keep up the fight.

Comic book Frank avoids it, but if it happens by accident it's barely a speed bumb. He will never stop.

[Malifice]

In PF a Paladin can fall for literally any act. 3.5 has some wiggle room but a DM could rule that you must torture the guy or fall because you can't show mercy to evil and must punish it in all forms.

The 3.5 Paladin code says nothing of the sort:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

'Punish evil' does not mean 'It is now OK for you to willingly commit an evil act' or override the prohibition on willingly doing evil deeds.

The 'evil' guy in the bar is not harming or threatening innocents. He may have done so in the past, and may do so in the future. You cant jut walk up and brutally start torturing him (not if you expect to retain your Paladin status).

How about leading by example? Showing charity, mercy, kindness, compassion and pity. Offering him a chance at redemption? Thats a good act.


Some run Good as inherently oppressive. But the paladin's code has little to do with lawful or goodness. The 5e version is infinitely better.

I watched Watchmen last night.

Rorsach is another example of a LE anti hero vigilante. His best friend the Nite Owl is LG (they are both brought together by a desire to fight crime and chaos in society). Both see things in black and white terms.

Ozymandias is also LE in my book (but a very different LE than Rorsach). Silk Spectre is NG. The Comedian in CE. Dr Manhattan is N (he is too distanced from human emotion to care).

[Malifice]

In the movies he gets really hung up on killing innocents. He once killed an undercovered cop and nearly quit is crusade, until others begged him to keep up the fight.

Comic book Frank avoids it, but if it happens by accident it's barely a speed bumb. He will never stop.

That is not a good (or even Neutral) position to take.

You dont gun an innocent father or mother down and not care if you are anything other than evil.

[Mrglee]

I have a hard time believing that Frank is evil after reading this. If anyone else has read this i'd love to hear your opinions.

3.5 definition of Lawful Evil specifically mentioned this in the character morals, stating that a LE character might not be willing to let children come to harm as it is against their code. 5e take on it doing evil things within the limits of code of tradition, loyalty, or order, which could be codes his places on himself.

Anyhow, this thread has thrown out a bunch of interpretations of both the alignment system, and The Punisher as a character. And clearly, not everyone is in agreement. Ultimately though, the decision is going to be up to you and your DM for this, and those interpretations are far more important than anything here. A couple good questions to think about are, how far is he willing to go for his justice? Is it every crime? Just murder? How does he feel about other vigilantism? Does he employ foul play or is he about honorable combat? Does he wrestle with himself over if what he does is right? Does his sympathize with the families of those he kills? Does he offer repatriations to help a family that may have been blind to his target imperfections? Does he grieve? Does he worry he is turning in the monster he wishes the fight? Does he research those he kills first, or just arbitrarily decide punishment? Is he willing to let any innocent come to harm if they try to stand between him and his target, or does that make them guilty too?
A lot of these questions are gonna decide where he ends up, as well are you and your DM's personal moral compass.

[Mara]

That is not a good (or even Neutral) position to take.

You dont gun an innocent father or mother down and not care if you are anything other than evil.
Guilt is Frank's existence. Guilt from not being able to protect his family. Guilt prevents him stopping. The one's who murdered his family are long since dead. He keeps fighting to prevent more people from becoming like him. He feels obliged to put in the ground all the scum. He does not let the others live just because they haven't harmed him personally.

And should Frank ever truly stop. Should all the scum vanish from the earth. He will take his own life. He has nothing left to live for and guilt won't let him find another reason.

[Malifice]

Guilt is Frank's existence. Guilt from not being able to protect his family. Guilt prevents him stopping. The one's who murdered his family are long since dead. He keeps fighting to prevent more people from becoming like him. He feels obliged to put in the ground all the scum. He does not let the others live just because they haven't harmed him personally.

And should Frank ever truly stop. Should all the scum vanish from the earth. He will take his own life. He has nothing left to live for and guilt won't let him find another reason.

That's EVIL.

[Mara]

That's EVIL.
I'd say it is tragic flawed but noble. He's CG in my book.

[Malifice]

I'd say it is tragic flawed but noble. He's CG in my book.

Clearly evil. And clearly lawful. He is disciplined, focussed, has a code, and fights crime. He only kills lawbreakers (ironically).

I'm a little weirded out how you can't see how a person who we both agree is a mass murdering sociopath who employs torture, blackmail and extortion... is evil.

I'm not sure exactly what acts I would have to do in a game you ran that would make me evil.

Actually; I don't want to know.

[Killer Angel]

I'd say it is tragic flawed but noble. He's CG in my book.

The only good part of Frank Castle, is his aim.

[Malifice]

The only good part of Frank Castle, is his aim.

Heh!

What's chaotic about him? He's an incredibly focussed, driven, stoic operator with a strict black and white personal code who devotes his life to eradicating criminals and crime.

[dps]

Most of the peeps in this thread calling him 'CG' would probably also call Dexter 'CG' as well (laughably).

Dexter is another example of an Evil person (someone who does evil deeds) who works towards good ends. Dexter even works with the police fighting crime. Also LE (he is only a serial killer against people he defines as 'evil').


Actually, I think if you contrast and compare him to Dexter, it shows why the Punisher isn't Evil.

Dexter kills for pleasure. He only kills other serial killers because he was taught to channel his evil urge to kill toward a "useful" goal. I'd probably classify him as LE in DnD terms.

The Punisher is different. He doesn't kill for pleasure; he kills to punish criminals and to protect the innocent.

If both found themselves stuck in a idyllic small town with no crime, Dexter would eventually start killing innocents; Frank wouldn't.

I'd consider the Punisher probably NG in DnD terms.

Caveat: I'm basing this off of what I'd call the typical classical portrayal of the Punisher. Some writers portray him differently.

[Malifice]

Actually, I think if you contrast and compare him to Dexter, it shows why the Punisher isn't Evil.

Dexter kills for pleasure. He only kills other serial killers because he was taught to channel his evil urge to kill toward a "useful" goal. I'd probably classify him as LE in DnD terms.

The Punisher is different. He doesn't kill for pleasure; he kills to punish criminals and to protect the innocent.

If both found themselves stuck in a idyllic small town with no crime, Dexter would eventually start killing innocents; Frank wouldn't.

I'd consider the Punisher probably NG in DnD terms.

Caveat: I'm basing this off of what I'd call the typical classical portrayal of the Punisher. Some writers portray him differently.

I have no idea why peope keep attempting to justify murder as a good act.

It's not a good act. The motivation for murder doesn't matter. Who you murder doesn't matter. It's still an evil act.

It's just really creepy that people can claim a person who walks the street at night murdering people by the dozen is a good man.

I mean, if it's such a good thing to do, why aren't we just murdering all criminals? Why doesn't the government just sanction some death squads to take care of the crime problem? It's morally OK (apparently).

I'm actually genuinely concerned by some of the responses in here.

[Mara]

Clearly evil. And clearly lawful. He is disciplined, focussed, has a code, and fights crime. He only kills lawbreakers (ironically).

I'm a little weirded out how you can't see how a person who we both agree is a mass murdering sociopath who employs torture, blackmail and extortion... is evil.

I'm not sure exactly what acts I would have to do in a game you ran that would make me evil.

Actually; I don't want to know.The notion that someone should not be judge jury and executioner is a lawful one. You are aghast at Frank's disregard of the rule of law and decided that it makes him evil.

To Frank there is no social order. There is no law. Just bad people that need to be punished.

To you torture is irredeemable. To Frank it is justice. To Abrahamic faiths it is what the divine Lord does to sinners after death via Hell. You are either saying an overwhelming amount of people believe in an evil God or that Frank is evil because he is not backed by sovereign law.

[Malifice]

The notion that someone should not be judge jury and executioner is a lawful one. You are aghast at Frank's disregard of the rule of law and decided that it makes him evil.

To Frank there is no social order. There is no law. Just bad people that need to be punished.

To you torture is irredeemable. To Frank it is justice. To Abrahamic faiths it is what the divine Lord does to sinners after death via Hell. You are either saying an overwhelming amount of people believe in an evil God or that Frank is evil because he is not backed by sovereign law.

I'm not aghast at his disregard of the rule of law - I'm aghast at his disregard for the lives of his victims.

And I agree Frank thinks there is no social order and chaos reigns. That's why he does what he does. To bring order and punishment to chaos.

Again. It DOEST MATTER how frank justifies his evil. Evil is not (in DND) subjective. It is objective. It does not matter why or who the rapist rapes, the torturer tortures or the murderer murders. It's evil. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks.

He could be murdering babies out of a genuine concern for the greater good of society. Or maybe because he doesn't like babies. Or maybe because any of a million reasons. It don't matter in DnD. He goes to hell on his death (or whatever outer plane corresponds tk his type of evil). He pings.

And you know what? Frank wouldn't care one iota he pinged. He knows he's a monster.

He embraces it.

[comicshorse]

Ultimately though, the decision is going to be up to you and your DM for this, and those interpretations are far more important than anything here. A couple good questions to think about are, how far is he willing to go for his justice? .

Murder, Intimidation, lies but not the harm of the innocent


Is it every crime? Just murder?

Major crimes. He's killed drug dealers, rapists and kidnappers


How does he feel about other vigilantism?

As long as they're professionals (i.e.) aren't likely to murder innocents by mistake he's fine with them. His relationship with Daredevil is particularly interesting as although he always objects to DD's non-killing stance he does respect the fact DD is actually a better person than he is


Does he wrestle with himself over if what he does is right? Does his sympathize with the families of those he kills? Does he offer repatriations to help a family that may have been blind to his target imperfections?

No, no and no


Does he worry he is turning in the monster he wishes the fight?

Yes


Does he research those he kills first, or just arbitrarily decide punishment?

He meticulously researches


Is he willing to let any innocent come to harm if they try to stand between him and his target, or does that make them guilty too?

He is not willing to harm the innocent at all

And Garth Ennis's Punisher series from the Max imprint of Marvel is excellent and well worth a read

[Malifice]

Murder, Intimidation, lies but not the harm of the innocent



Major crimes. He's killed drug dealers, rapists and kidnappers



As long as they're professionals (i.e.) aren't likely to murder innocents by mistake he's fine with them. His relationship with Daredevil is particularly interesting as although he always objects to DD's non-killing stance he does respect the fact DD is actually a better person than he is



No, no and no



Yes



He meticulously researches



He is not willing to harm the innocent at all

And Garth Ennis's Punisher series from the Max imprint of Marvel is excellent and well worth a read

If evil = 'only murdering those you view as not guilty' you might be onto something.

[comicshorse]

If evil = 'only murdering those you view as not guilty' you might be onto something.

Did you really mean to put NOT guilty there because I fail to see the sense in that

[Mara]

I'm not aghast at his disregard of the rule of law - I'm aghast at his disregard for the lives of his victims.

And I agree Frank thinks there is no social order and chaos reigns. That's why he does what he does. To bring order and punishment to chaos.

Again. It DOEST MATTER how frank justifies his evil. Evil is not (in DND) subjective. It is objective. It does not matter why or who the rapist rapes, the torturer tortures or the murderer murders. It's evil. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks.

He could be murdering babies out of a genuine concern for the greater good of society. Or maybe because he doesn't like babies. Or maybe because any of a million reasons. It don't matter in DnD. He goes to hell on his death (or whatever outer plane corresponds tk his type of evil). He pings.

And you know what? Frank wouldn't care one iota he pinged. He knows he's a monster.

He embraces it.
Your really just hung up on the whole murder thing.

You know the thing every PC and fantasy literature figure does. Do you worry about the orcs in Mordor? Why is it OK for Aragon to break into Mordor and murder orcs but Frank can't bust into the den of raping murderers and kill them?

Do you object to murdering Red dragons in their lair? How many innocent people have to die before you muster up the moral outrage to kill the beast?

Would you not waid into Hell and murder devils. Are Lamashtu's children too precious to murder? How many mortal souls must they devour before action is morally allowed?

Murder is always evil? No, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Your scruples are meaningless to me.

[Malifice]

Your really just hung up on the whole murder thing.

You know the thing every PC and fantasy literature figure does. Do you worry about the orcs in Mordor? Why is it OK for Aragon to break into Mordor and murder orcs but Frank can't bust into the den of raping murderers and kill them?

Do you object to murdering Red dragons in their lair? How many innocent people have to die before you muster up the moral outrage to kill the beast?

Would you not waid into Hell and murder devils. Are Lamashtu's children too precious to murder? How many mortal souls must they devour before action is morally allowed?

Murder is always evil? No, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Your scruples are meaningless to me.

Aragorn doesn't murder orcs. He defends himself against them when he is attacked. And he doesn't employ torture.

We're not talking about murdering Devils here. Devils don't exist. We're talking about murdering people. And torturing them.

That has always, near universally, been considered evil.

And yes. Murder is evil. You might be able to justify it personally (heck - all murderers do) but that doesn't make it objectively good. The PHB is clear that a person who employs murder with no remorse or qualms is evil - no matter what your reaons for it.

You're arguing murderhobo logic 101 - where no act is too vile or depraved as long as it can be justified by the person committing it.

[Mr.Moron]

Executions are inherently evil.
Summary executions are chaotic.

The entire character is about performing summary executions.

[Knaight]

Guilt is Frank's existence. Guilt from not being able to protect his family. Guilt prevents him stopping. The one's who murdered his family are long since dead. He keeps fighting to prevent more people from becoming like him. He feels obliged to put in the ground all the scum. He does not let the others live just because they haven't harmed him personally.

And should Frank ever truly stop. Should all the scum vanish from the earth. He will take his own life. He has nothing left to live for and guilt won't let him find another reason.

So he's a dangerous fanatic who has dedicated himself to an endless killing spree. That he feels guilt about not being able to protect his family doesn't make him less bad, and all the fanaticism does is make him more dangerous.

[Malifice]

So he's a dangerous fanatic who has dedicated himself to an endless killing spree. That he feels guilt about not being able to protect his family doesn't make him less bad, and all the fanaticism does is make him more dangerous.

By Maras reaoning ISIL are chaotic good. As are any terrorist or fanatic who can justify their atrocities, and who act according to the state they reside in.

I can't accept that reaoning. Particularly not in light of a DND world where actions are objectively good or evil - not the justifications for them.

[comicshorse]

Aragorn doesn't murder orcs. He defends himself against them when he is attacked. And he doesn't employ torture.


So Faramir is evil as he lays ambushes for the Orcs ?


By Maras reaoning ISIL are chaotic good. As are any terrorist or fanatic who can justify their atrocities, and who act according to the state they reside in.

This is blatant straw manning and against forum roles for dragging real world politics into the debate

[Mara]

Aragorn doesn't murder orcs. He defends himself against them when he is attacked. And he doesn't employ torture.
Oh really? Marching an army on Mordor was purely self defense?

"Oh but he was defending the people. Evil was overtaking the land. He needed to help Frodo destroy the ring"

Aside from endangering innocent hobits, that's Frank's MO. Kill evil because they are doing bad things.

You're jumping between torture being awful (the thing Jesus and his Dad made hell for to do to sinners) and murder just always being bad (What Aragorn does to the orcs. Or Gandalf did when he didn't let Sauron take over. Or what Harry Potter did to Voldemort several times when he was just trying to revive and not directly harming Harry. Whenever a Soldier shoots someone only attacking civilians not soldiers, that's murder not self defense.)

[Mr.Moron]

This is blatant straw manning and against forum roles for dragging real world politics into the debate

Straw manning is when you assign someone position, and then argue against it. Not when you point out an implication of their statement.

"By X's reasoning one would have to agree that killing kittens is good"
is very different than saying
"X says killing kittens is true, clearly X doesn't know what they're talking about" <- This is straw manning.

If you make the argument that guilt absolves someone of what would otherwise be a crime, it's a fair game to point out that anyone else with guilt is absolved of their crimes lest your position be inconsistent or the guilt not actually being the thing doing the absolution, thus rendering the original position void. You can argue it is a jump to go from "Guilt Absolves" to "Emotional Distress or Feelings of Victimization" absolve, which is what being put forward in quoted text, but it's not a huge jump.

That the Punisher's feelings (guilt) can render his actions good, was the argument being made or at least that was the only argument I could read from the quoted text.

[Dienekes]

Eh, the Devil himself told Frank that he has killed between 10-100 innocents and Franks response was to shrug and just not care. Also, same comic, the Devil said Frank was one of his own.

Putting Frank as Neutral Evil to me. In a very do evil unto evil way. Plus his frequent use of torture is pretty much an evil act whenever he uses it.

And Mara, are you really comparing an organized assault on a military base that has just tried to destroy your home and has threatened to do it again, to murdering innocents? Really?

[comicshorse]

Straw manning is when you assign someone position, and then argue against it. Not when you point out a logic implication of their statement.

"By X's reasoning one would have to agree that killing kittens is good"
is very different than saying
"X says killing kittens is true, clearly X doesn't know what they're talking about"

If you make the argument that guilt absolves someone of what would otherwise be a crime, it's a fair game to point out that anyone else with guilt is absolved of their crimes lest your position be inconsistent or the guilt not actually being the thing doing the absolution, thus rendering the original position void. You can argue it is a jump to go from "Guilt Absolves" to "Emotional Distress or Feelings of Victimization" absolve, which is what being put forward in quoted text, but it's not a huge one.

That the Punisher's feelings (guilt) can render his actions good, was the argument being made or at least that was the only argument I could read from the quoted text.

But Mara isn't, as I read it, arguing that Frank's guilt absolves him of his crimes. Mara is arguing Frank is justified because he targets those who destroy the lives of the innocent and so need to be executed


Posted by Dienekes

Eh, the Devil himself told Frank that he has killed between 10-100 innocents and Franks response was to shrug and just not care. Also, same comic, the Devil said Frank was one of his own.


I don't remember that at all. Are you referring to the Punisher of the Ultimate universe ? If so that hardly counts as the signature 'thing' of the Ultimates line is to turn everybody evil because its more 'gritty'

[Mara]

By Maras reaoning ISIL are chaotic good. As are any terrorist or fanatic who can justify their atrocities, and who act according to the state they reside in.

I can't accept that reaoning. Particularly not in light of a DND world where actions are objectively good or evil - not the justifications for them.
So Frank is raping and murdering innocents or are you calling Shi'a Muslims murdering drug dealing rapists criminals? Either way you have a perspective problem.

Frank is not lawful, so state laws are meaningless. He would follow the same principles in any country on any planet. He isn't judge dread, punishing law breakers for breaking the law. He is punishing people for being bad even if they didn't technically break the law.

[Mara]

And Mara, are you really comparing an organized assault on a military base that has just tried to destroy your home and has threatened to do it again, to murdering innocents? Really?
Murdering. Not murdering innocents. I object to saying murdering is inherently evil.

[Mr.Moron]

But Mara isn't, as I read it, arguing that Frank's guilt absolves him of his crimes. Mara is arguing Frank is justified because he targets those who destroy the lives of the innocent and so need to be executed

The root quote being addressed here is this:


Guilt is Frank's existence. Guilt from not being able to protect his family. Guilt prevents him stopping. The one's who murdered his family are long since dead. He keeps fighting to prevent more people from becoming like him. He feels obliged to put in the ground all the scum. He does not let the others live just because they haven't harmed him personally.

And should Frank ever truly stop. Should all the scum vanish from the earth. He will take his own life. He has nothing left to live for and guilt won't let him find another reason.

Mara is making many arguments, one of which is by all appearances that even if we could consider his actions a crime (Mara Doesn't), that his guilt would absolve him. Otherwise, why bring up his guilt? Motivations would be a total non-sequitur unless they directly related to the issue at hand of him being evil or not. That argument can be addressed and the implications examined independent of the incorrect and dangerous belief that executions aren't evil.

[Mara]

Frank's actions are most certainly a crime.

[Malifice]

So Faramir is evil as he lays ambushes for the Orcs ?



This is blatant straw manning and against forum roles for dragging real world politics into the debate

I'm not suggesting anyone supports the political view espoused by ISIL and I make no comment on thier politics or religious views. Please don't misingerpret me. I use them only in context of peope who (like punisher) subjectively view people as evil, and employ torture and murder against them 'for a greater good' much like the Nazis or anyone else that employs torture and murder - to highlight that by the reaoning put forward in this thread anyone and everyone can be considered good - no matter how vile the acts they perform.

It doesn't work that way.

Re Faramir, he is engaged in a defensive war with the Orcs (who have invaded his lands, and seek to commit genocide on him). It's no different to defending yourself against a home invader. He is not engaged in a genocidal war - he is protecting himself from one.

Faramir doesn't have a choice. It's defend his land or die. Orcs in ME can't be reasoned with or redeemed (unlike the people Frank murders).

Frank has a choice to murder. Faramir does not.

If Frank was at home minding his own buisiness and his house was invaded by peope that sought to kill him and he had no choice, he could kill those peope. But then it wouldn't be murder would it?

[comicshorse]

The root quote being addressed here is this:



Mara is making many arguments, one of which is by all appearances that even if we could consider his actions a crime (Mara Doesn't), that his guilt would absolve him. Otherwise, why bring up his guilt? Motivations would be a total non-sequitur unless they directly related to the issue at hand of him being evil or not. That argument can be addressed and the implications examined independent of the incorrect and dangerous belief that executions aren't evil.

I really don't see that quote as supporting the suggestion that Mara is arguing Frank's guilt absolves him of his crimes, its just (IMHO) pointing out that Franks guilt is what drives his actions



I'm not suggesting anyone supports the political view espoused by those lunatics. I use them only in context of peope who (like punisher) subjecticely view people as evil, and employ torture and murder against them 'for a greater good' - to highlight that by the reaoning put forward in this thread anyone and everyone can be considered good - no matter how vile the acts they perform.

It doesn't work that way.

Re Faramir, he is engaged in a defensive war with the Orcs (who have invaded his lands, and seek to commit genocide on him). It's no different to defending yourself against a home invader. He is not engaged in a genocidal war - he is protecting himself from one.

Faramir doesn't have a choice. It's defend his land or die. Orcs in ME can't be reasoned with or redeemed (unlike the people Frank murders).

Frank has a choice to murder. Faramir does not.

But here's the rub Frank doesn't kill people he views as evil, Frank kills people who ARE evil. He gathers intelligence and recons to ensure that he kills people who are committing major crimes ; rape murder, large scale drug dealing, etc
You don't make Franks list by being a certain ethnicity or nationality, you make the list because your actions are hurting people
Frank's feelings are he is engaged in a war. Criminals have invaded his home city and are hurting innocent people (like his family). He has made the choice to fight them

[Mr.Moron]

Frank's actions are most certainly a crime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crime

I'm using the word "Crime" here in the sense of:"


4.
any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.
5.
a foolish, senseless, or shameful act:

Not in the sense of "Against a particular set of codified laws".


I really don't see that quote as supporting the suggestion that Mara is arguing Frank's guilt absolves him of his crimes, its just (IMHO) pointing out that Franks guilt is what drives his actions

If that is the case it's a total non-sequitur and only serves to confuse the argument, as it did for me and 2 other posters.

[hamishspence]

Or what Harry Potter did to Voldemort several times when he was just trying to revive and not directly harming Harry.

I would say Harry's killing of "Quirrellmort" qualified as self-defence (He was "raising his wand to perform a deadly curse" when Harry grabbed his face and hung on) and Harry's killing of "Diarymort" qualified as defence of himself and Ginny Weasley (it was pretty crystal clear that Diarymort was draining Ginny dry, had been attacking Harry with the Basilisk for most of the scene, and was raising his wand to attack Harry again when Harry killed Diarymort with the Basilisk fang.)

[Dienekes]

Murdering. Not murdering innocents. I object to saying murdering is inherently evil.

But Frank has murdered innocents. Somewhere between 10-100 of them. And that was over 10 years ago, so I'm sure the number has gone up.

Also there's a difference between killing and murdering. While neither are considered good, killing can at times be necessary. And technically speaking, an army moving forward in a battle doesn't fit the definition of murder.

Though a lot of the actions of a murder hobo does. So you have us there.

[Mara]

The root quote being addressed here is this:



Mara is making many arguments, one of which is by all appearances that even if we could consider his actions a crime (Mara Doesn't), that his guilt would absolve him. Otherwise, why bring up his guilt? Motivations would be a total non-sequitur unless they directly related to the issue at hand of him being evil or not. That argument can be addressed and the implications examined independent of the incorrect and dangerous belief that executions aren't evil.

Guilt was brought up because someone was miffed at Frank not being crippling devestated should an innocent be killed. The point was that Frank is full of guilt. More guilt doesn't apparently phase him like it would a normal person because he has resolved to keep acting regardless of the guilt. He feels guilt. More guilt just isn't a notable change with him.

[Mara]

But Frank has murdered innocents. Somewhere between 10-100 of them. And that was over 10 years ago, so I'm sure the number has gone up.

Also there's a difference between killing and murdering. While neither are considered good, killing can at times be necessary. And technically speaking, an army moving forward in a battle doesn't fit the definition of murder.

Though a lot of the actions of a murder hobo does. So you have us there.
Let's not argue definitions. The person I was talking to considers all of Franks kills murder not just the innocent ones that range fron 0-100 depending on canons.

[Malifice]

Guilt was brought up because someone was miffed at Frank not being crippling devestated should an innocent be killed. The point was that Frank is full of guilt. More guilt doesn't apparently phase him like it would a normal person because he has resolved to keep acting regardless of the guilt. He feels guilt. More guilt just isn't a notable change with him.

What act could Frank perform on his victims (short of torturing them and murdering them, because apparently that's OK) that would convince you he is evil?

[Malifice]

Let's not argue definitions. The person I was talking to considers all of Franks kills murder not just the innocent ones that range fron 0-100 depending on canons.

Yes. I consider killing another person not in self defence murder.

As in: if Frank did what he did to someone you knew, you would also call it murder.

Just because its not murder in Franks eyes doesn't matter.

[comicshorse]

But Frank has murdered innocents. Somewhere between 10-100 of them. And that was over 10 years ago, so I'm sure the number has gone up.


I'm remarkably unconvinced by that argument. Partially because you've yet to actually say where it happens because I'm a big Punisher fan and I don't remember it at all and also 'cause if it is true you're taking at face value the word of the Devil who isn't generally known for being a honest guy, Father of Lies and all that

[Mara]

I would say Harry's killing of "Quirrellmort" qualified as self-defence (He was "raising his wand to perform a deadly curse" when Harry grabbed his face and hung on) and Harry's killing of "Diarymort" qualified as defence of himself and Ginny Weasley (it was pretty crystal clear that Diarymort was draining Ginny dry, had been attacking Harry with the Basilisk for most of the scene, and was raising his wand to attack Harry again when Harry killed Diarymort with the Basilisk fang.)
Murder in this content is defined as all of Frank's kills. Thus saving Ginny was murder because Harry went into that situation purposefully and wasn't defending himself.

Same as when he went after the sorcerer stone. He didn't need to do that.

Towards the end Harry is constantly contemplating on how to murder horocruxes which are basically separate people. Before he defends hinself from the only truely hostile to him Voldemort.

[Mara]

Yes. I consider killing another person not in self defence murder.

As in: if Frank did what he did to someone you knew, you would also call it murder.

Just because its not murder in Franks eyes doesn't matter.
Who says it is not murder in Frank's eyes?

I'm saying murder is not objectively evil.

[Mara]

What act could Frank perform on his victims (short of torturing them and murdering them, because apparently that's OK) that would convince you he is evil?
Letting them live.

We are talking about raping drug dealing murderering criminals that the law can't touch right?

[Malifice]

Murder in this content is defined as all of Frank's kills. Thus saving Ginny was murder because Harry went into that situation purposefully and wasn't defending himself.

Same as when he went after the sorcerer stone. He didn't need to do that.

Towards the end Harry is constantly contemplating on how to murder horocruxes which are basically separate people. Before he defends hinself from the only truely hostile to him Voldemort.

Contemplating. Not 'murdering'.

We've all seen red or contemplated all sorts of heinous acts. Frank acts on this darkness. He justifies it to himself as 'righteous vengeance' and maibtaining law and order.

But justifying a monstrous act to yourself does not make the act less monstrous.

If frank is good aligned, just what kind of atrocities would get you an E alignment exactly?

[Mr.Moron]

Who says it is not murder in Frank's eyes?

I'm saying murder is not objectively evil.

This is a statement of a moral absolute, not an argument to be made or a debate to be had.

You say murder is not objectively evil.
Others say murder is inherently evil.

That's it. The two sides are opposed on a fundamental premise, there is no room for further discussion. It's like trying to have debate what color something is when you don't agree about what "Red" or "Blue" look like. It's pointless.

[Malifice]

Letting them live.

We are talking about raping drug dealing murderering criminals that the law can't touch right?

What?

So batman is evil then for not murdering the Joker? Superman is evil? Cops are evil when they arrest suspects and don't murder them? Soldiers are evil when they capture POWs and don't gun them down?

If you murder a murderer - you become a murderer yourself. You become the very monster you hate.

The good person rises above it. They do the right thing. They lead by example.

Seriously. I'm totally weirded out we're having this debate.


Who says it is not murder in Frank's eyes?

I'm saying murder is not objectively evil.

Cold blooded Murder in DND is objectively evil. It's slightly irrelevant (and a little scary) that you don't agree with this premise.

The question is 'what is his DND alignment' not 'does Mara condone cold blooded murder'.

Evil in DND:

Evil Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

That translates to 'cold blooded murder is evil'. If it stands that the punisher objectively employs cold blooded murder in pursuit of his subjective goals (however noble they may be) he is 'evil'

He can't wriggle out of it with any subjective justification for his evils acts. He may think he's good (and you may agree with his reaoning - and it seems you do) but he is still objectively speaking - EVIL.

[Dienekes]

I'm remarkably unconvinced by that argument. Partially because you've yet to actually say where it happens because I'm a big Punisher fan and I don't remember it at all and also 'cause if it is true you're taking at face value the word of the Devil who isn't generally known for being a honest guy, Father of Lies and all that

1990s (older than I thought) comic "Jigsaw Puzzle" Punisher heads to South America to hunt down Jiggsaw, who is killed and then resurrected by Lucifer. Then the Devil just toys around with Frank for awhile, drops the line about him being a servant to him and all the innocents he's killed. Then Frank gets away, I honestly do not remember how, it's been a long time. As to honesty, it's more that if Frank wasn't in part a servant of Lucifer, he would have just died. That and I don't think Lucifer ever lied in that comic, but again, it's been a long time since I read it.

[Malifice]

1990s (older than I thought) comic "Jigsaw Puzzle" Punisher heads to South America to hunt down Jiggsaw, who is killed and then resurrected by Lucifer. Then the Devil just toys around with Frank for awhile, drops the line about him being a servant to him and all the innocents he's killed. Then Frank gets away, I honestly do not remember how, it's been a long time. As to honesty, it's more that if Frank wasn't in part a servant of Lucifer, he would have just died. That and I don't think Lucifer ever lied in that comic, but again, it's been a long time since I read it.

Even Lucifer himself is high fiving Frank and saying well done, were one and the same.

Do we need more of a red flag than that?

[comicshorse]

1990s (older than I thought) comic "Jigsaw Puzzle" Punisher heads to South America to hunt down Jiggsaw, who is killed and then resurrected by Lucifer. Then the Devil just toys around with Frank for awhile, drops the line about him being a servant to him and all the innocents he's killed. Then Frank gets away, I honestly do not remember how, it's been a long time. As to honesty, it's more that if Frank wasn't in part a servant of Lucifer, he would have just died. That and I don't think Lucifer ever lied in that comic, but again, it's been a long time since I read it.

I remember that one. That's not Lucifer that's a sorcerer named Belasco pretending to be Lucifer to get the Rev. to work for him

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Belasco_(Earth-616)

If you check that page it even mentions that particular encounter in his history


As to honesty, it's more that if Frank wasn't in part a servant of Lucifer, he would have just died.

Frank's a popular comic book character that's all the protection he needs :smallsmile:

[Dienekes]

I remember that one. That's not Lucifer that's a sorcerer named Belasco pretending to be Lucifer to get the Rev. to work for him

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Belasco_(Earth-616)

If you check that page it even mentions that particular encounter in his history

Huh, good catch. I do not remember him ever revealed to be anything other than Lucifer. I just remember it as "Punisher fights the Devil... comics are weird."

Thank you for correcting me.

[Malifice]

As to Frank being chaotic:

They laugh at the law. The rich ones who buy it and twist it to their whims. The other ones, who have nothing to lose, who don't care about themselves, or other people. All the ones who think they're above the law, or outside it, or beyond it. They know all the law is good for is to keep good people in line. And they all laugh. They laugh at the law. But they don't laugh at me.

-- Punisher

[comicshorse]

Huh, good catch. I do not remember him ever revealed to be anything other than Lucifer. I just remember it as "Punisher fights the Devil... comics are weird."

Thank you for correcting me.

To be honest I'm not sure they ever revealed it in the comic you just have to be a big enough comic nerd to recognize Belasco :smallcool:

Posted by Malice

As to Frank being chaotic:

They laugh at the law. The rich ones who buy it and twist it to their whims. The other ones, who have nothing to lose, who don't care about themselves, or other people. All the ones who think they're above the law, or outside it, or beyond it. They know all the law is good for is to keep good people in line. And they all laugh. They laugh at the law. But they don't laugh at me.

-- Punisher

A good point. Frank exists in a world where the Kingpin is pretty much untouchable by the law because he has money and connections. Where Doctor Doom has diplomatic immunity. From Frank's point of view a law that can't be enforced on the powerful guilty is no law at all, its just a piece of paper
This is where Frank and Daredevil part. Frank feels the law is worthless and so its up to him and others like him to enforce justice where it can't reach. Daredevil feels the law may not be perfect but it is still the best tool to ensure justice

[Mara]

As to Frank being chaotic:

They laugh at the law. The rich ones who buy it and twist it to their whims. The other ones, who have nothing to lose, who don't care about themselves, or other people. All the ones who think they're above the law, or outside it, or beyond it. They know all the law is good for is to keep good people in line. And they all laugh. They laugh at the law. But they don't laugh at me.

-- Punisher

Ok. I thought you were saying he wasn't chaotic.

Also like to point out. Frank does not consider himself a good person.

[Malifice]

To be honest I'm not sure they ever revealed it in the comic you just have to be a big enough comic nerd to recognize Belasco :smallcool:

Posted by Malice


A good point. Frank exists in a world where the Kingpin is pretty much untouchable by the law because he has money and connections. Where Doctor Doom has diplomatic immunity. From Frank's point of view a law that can't be enforced on the powerful guilty is no law at all, its just a piece of paper

And Frank views himself as an extension of the law. Ironic seeing as he is actually a criminal and murderer himself.

I see him as lawful because of his actions in adhering to a strict code of conduct and his amazing self discipline. Importantly his actions In breaking the law are a reflection of him seeking to establish order where there is none (unlike the Joker who seeks to throw the world into chaos).

Robin Hood seeks to overthrow the sheriff and defy his laws. The Punisher acts as an extension of the law where it (in his eyes) fails.

That's why he does what he does after all. Eradicate corruption and crime. With lethal force.


Ok. I thought you were saying he wasn't chaotic.

Also like to point out. Frank does not consider himself a good person.

I am saying he isn't chaotic.

You would struggle to find a man more disciplined or more committed to acting as an extension of law and order than he is (outside of the batman).

If Frank had a button he could push to bring about a fascist society where all criminials were killed and corruption wiped out in its entirety, and the world was free from crime and chaos, he'd push it.

[Mara]

You took Frank ranting about how the law is only useful in making good weak to evil as him channeling Lawful feelings.

Most Chaotic characters would love for the Law to be what they want. That doesn't make them lawful. Robinhood is a commie but I still put him as chaotic.

[hamishspence]

saving Ginny was murder because Harry went into that situation purposefully and wasn't defending himself.

Same as when he went after the sorcerer stone. He didn't need to do that.

That's not how it works. In neither situation did Harry go in with "intent to kill" - and "defence of another from an aggressor" is, like self-defence, exculpatory.

[dps]

I have no idea why peope keep attempting to justify murder as a good act.

It's not a good act. The motivation for murder doesn't matter. Who you murder doesn't matter. It's still an evil act.

It's just really creepy that people can claim a person who walks the street at night murdering people by the dozen is a good man.

I mean, if it's such a good thing to do, why aren't we just murdering all criminals? Why doesn't the government just sanction some death squads to take care of the crime problem? It's morally OK (apparently).

I'm actually genuinely concerned by some of the responses in here.

First, let me clarify or highlight my position--the Punisher is NG by DnD standards. He goes around smiting the evil--that's pretty much what Good-aligned PC do in DnD. I'm not taking any stand here on whether a person like that is good or evil by real-world standards; as I understand the forum rules, we're not even supposed to discuss a question like that.

Second, let me address this: " I mean, if it's such a good thing to do, why aren't we just murdering all criminals? Why doesn't the government just sanction some death squads to take care of the crime problem? It's morally OK (apparently)." OK, technically, if it was government sanctioned, it wouldn't be murder, but that's not even the main point. The main point is that we don't do that because we think that the existing criminal justice system, whatever its flaws and shortcomings, is a better way to handle the problem. The Punisher's whole thing is that the system doesn't just have some flaws, it's that the system is completely broken and doesn't deliver justice at all. And in the fictional comic-book world he exists in, he's right.

[hamishspence]

First, let me clarify or highlight my position--the Punisher is NG by DnD standards. He goes around smiting the evil--that's pretty much what Good-aligned PC do in DnD.

They don't go around torturing the evil though - that's a principle that goes right back to the Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D, and has been repeated in many splatbooks.

[Mrglee]

I have no idea why peope keep attempting to justify murder as a good act.

It is not a good act, it is in fact called out as evil in BoVD. However, BoVD also gives it a clause: "In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act." The example given is adventuring into a green dragon's lair and stabbing it is not evil.

Yes, it is literally stated killing an evil creature is not a bad thing in 3.5. I don't agree with it, but it is stated.


I mean, if it's such a good thing to do, why aren't we just murdering all criminals? Why doesn't the government just sanction some death squads to take care of the crime problem? It's morally OK (apparently).

Part of this is going to depend on where you are and your personal morals. Like, a good chunk of the United States still has the death penalty, and invokes it pretty liberally. It at the very least shows that the taking of another life as punishment is an accepted view point in a chunk of a civilized world.

[hamishspence]

It is not a good act, it is in fact called out as evil in BoVD. However, BoVD also gives it a clause: "In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act." The example given is adventuring into a green dragon's lair and stabbing it is not evil.


It also comes with the proviso (with respect to killing dragons "for personal gain") "Such a justification only works for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil".

And the later BoED also says that, even for evil creatures, "just cause" is still required if this violence is to be "in the name of good".

[Alikat]

Frank Castle is how I imagine a lawful good vengeance paladin should be played. Morality is relative and changes over time. In a more primitive world anyone from another religion or culture might be considered evil, and that's the kind of world D&D campaigns tend to be played in. The Punisher smites evildoers and has unwavering believes. Man's so holy he could be a saint. I'm sure Miko agrees with me.

[Killer Angel]

First, let me clarify or highlight my position--the Punisher is NG by DnD standards.

If we go by D&D standards, then we can say he's certainly not LE.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for 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. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank."

We can pick the other definitions, and see what happens.
(I'll let you do it, otherwise how could debate improve? :smalltongue:)

[Squeak]

If we go by D&D standards, then we can say he's certainly not LE.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for 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. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank."


If you think about it though, the italicized statement is a very weird way to describe a Lawful character. IMO a Lawful character, even a Lawful Evil one, should cares about (others) breaking the rules but not about any other details.

So my idea of a Lawful Evil character would be one that "condemns others according to their actions but NOT according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank" unless the discrimination against race, religion, homeland, or social rank are explicitly codified.

[Killer Angel]

If you think about it though, the italicized statement is a very weird way to describe a Lawful character. IMO a Lawful character, even a Lawful Evil one, should cares about (others) breaking the rules but not about any other details.

So my idea of a Lawful Evil character would be one that "condemns others according to their actions but NOT according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank" unless the discrimination against race, religion, homeland, or social rank are explicitly codified.

Yes, probably they were thinking to outcasts in the caste system, or a similar social order.
But yeah, it's weird. :smallwink:

[Nowhere Girl]

And he confirms there are no down on their luck good aligned family men employed as henchmen for the BBEG first?

That's some amazingly detailed homework.

I guess I'll have to admit that I can't confirm that Frank has never killed a down-on-his-luck, good-aligned murderer or rapist. I'm going to go ahead and say "probably not," though.

You were aware that the Punisher doesn't gun down jaywalkers and the like, right?

[Nowhere Girl]

I'd say it is tragic flawed but noble. He's CG in my book.

What's interesting is that you and I have a fairly similar take on the character for the most part, and I agree with a lot of what you say, yet we've reached wildly different conclusions.

I do understand why you've arrived at "chaotic." You're basing it on the position that opposing the rules of society in favor of your own is chaotic. However, the problem that I see with that interpretation is that "lawful" specifically calls out personal codes and gives no indication that following actual external laws is any more "lawful" than following an internal code.

So I do grasp your reasoning, but I still think it's an incorrect interpretation of the written definition of "lawful."

As for Frank being good, again, I can see why you might think that -- for all that he can be terrible, he's also been known to go out of his way to protect and help people as well. There are definitely many occasions wherein he engages in explicitly good acts (and it's worth noting that most people most of the time don't actually engage in good acts, even if they also don't commit evil ones ... most people will keep walking and consider it "someone else's problem"), and of course the people he kills are evil ... again, very much like a crusading paladin mercilessly bringing justice to the wicked.

However, apart from those side trips into genuinely good territory, I don't see Frank as doing what he does primarily to help others and make the world a better place. To me, he reads more like a serial killer whose choice of victims is monsters, and the only thing saving him from the big E is his absolute refusal to harm any innocent person (or even knowingly allow an innocent person to come to harm!) and more than that, his willingness to even go out of his way and make sacrifices to help people at times. He's a tragic mess, but he's not quite evil ... but I wouldn't quite call him good, either.

Chaotic good? Again, I can see how you arrived there, but I simply can't agree, and I don't think the rules as written support your position, especially on the "chaotic" part. For a chaotic good hero or heroine, I'd more likely call out such individuals as Monkey D. Luffy or Lina Inverse (in her later incarnations ... she started out more along the lines of CN). These are people who really do say "screw the rules" -- it's not so much that they feel society's rules have failed as they just don't want rules to begin with, or at least they sure don't plan to follow them. If you wanted to define Luffy's or Lina's personal codes, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with more than "support your friends, don't be evil, and eat lots of food."

Basically, the Punisher's ideal society would probably look a lot like Mega City One. He'd actually probably be quite happy as a Judge there, and I don't think he'd feel the need to do his crusade as a vigilante there -- instead, he'd become a Judge and do his crusade the Dredd way. Neither Lina nor Luffy have an ideal society as such, apart from a general preference for good over evil, because they're going to just keep on doing whatever they feel like regardless.

[Malifice]

First, let me clarify or highlight my position--the Punisher is NG by DnD standards. He goes around smiting the evil--that's pretty much what Good-aligned PC do in DnD. I'm not taking any stand here on whether a person like that is good or evil by real-world standards; as I understand the forum rules, we're not even supposed to discuss a question like that.

Second, let me address this: " I mean, if it's such a good thing to do, why aren't we just murdering all criminals? Why doesn't the government just sanction some death squads to take care of the crime problem? It's morally OK (apparently)." OK, technically, if it was government sanctioned, it wouldn't be murder, but that's not even the main point. The main point is that we don't do that because we think that the existing criminal justice system, whatever its flaws and shortcomings, is a better way to handle the problem. The Punisher's whole thing is that the system doesn't just have some flaws, it's that the system is completely broken and doesn't deliver justice at all. And in the fictional comic-book world he exists in, he's right.

You think the only reason we don't have worse than the Gestapo state sanctioned death squads roaming the street is...

Ah nah. Screw it. I'm out. This argument just totally jumped the shark.

[Mara]

I don't believe the Punisher wants people to follow his MO. He views himself as a bad person and will in the movies prevents cops from joining him on killing sprees.

I don't see him as trying to bring order to anything. Nor does his code seem any more defined than "don't kill innocents, kill bad people". After that he just has a lot of work ethic.

[Envyus]

NE.

Don't know why you are arguing about lawful vs chaotic here with castle. Given that he is clearly too far in the middle to be ether.