Batmans alignment

[Klorox]

Putting aside the fact that he won't kill (because heck, I'm trying to put him into D&D), what alignment would you give Batman?

He's working for the greater good, but he works outside the law. He also is smarter than every member of the JLA, and has contingency plans to take each one of them down.

[Kane0]

Chaotic Good.

Very strong moral principles that he sticks to, and he will do what he believes is right.

It varies slightly between different depictions though.

[Merellis]

http://gallery.burrowowl.net/images/59/599b2541b6e1fc324a403da63f682206

Answer.

Depends on the writer.

[Guancyto]

Mhm. Batman is 77 years old, out-of-universe; he's gone through so many writers, so many philosophies, so many iterations on the concept that you would really have to specify which Batman you're talking about.

[OldTrees1]

Even after you specify which Batman, you need to specify which of the 2+ Law vs Chaos axes you are using. Batman usually is written as an illegal vigilante that rigidly hold to his chosen code of conduct. So LG or CG depending on which Law vs Chaos axis you choose.

[Honest Tiefling]

Can I elect the Batman who kidnaps and drugs robin to be Chaotic Evil?

Through I am not sure why intelligence would matter. I assume all of the alignments have the potential to be equally prepared and educated. And to be far to Batman, it's not paranoia if most of JLA gets brainwashed every six months. Then its just being genre-savvy.

[Cazero]

Even after you specify which Batman, you need to specify which of the 2+ Law vs Chaos axes you are using. Batman usually is written as an illegal vigilante that rigidly hold to his chosen code of conduct. So LG or CG depending on which Law vs Chaos axis you choose.

What other Law/Chaos axis are talking about?
The Law/Chaos axis never had anything to do with legality. It's all about valuing rules, imperatives, consistency and principles, all of wich mortal laws happen to be based on. Seriously people, read the description of the thing.

[OldTrees1]

What other Law/Chaos axis are talking about?
The Law/Chaos axis never had anything to do with legality. It's all about valuing rules, imperatives, consistency and principles, all of wich mortal laws happen to be based on. Seriously people, read the description of the thing.

Both of those axes are used despite one's certainty in their own reading. When word/term usage evolves over time we would be imprecise & inaccurate to insist that only our meaning exists.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Batman says. "I am Batman, and your alignment system is stupid." and then your D&D books burst into flames.

[TheCountAlucard]

Putting aside the fact that he won't kill…Batman's killed plenty of times before. And that's without even touching the movies.

[Mastikator]

Rich man uses his enormous wealth to beat up on street crime meanwhile his own corporation perpetuates poverty.
He's lawful evil.

[CharonsHelper]

Rich man uses his enormous wealth to beat up on street crime meanwhile his own corporation perpetuates poverty.
He's lawful evil.

How does Wayne Corp perpetuate poverty? Doesn't it generally go out of its way to give to charity & do low income housing etc.?

Unless you're talking from a Marxian: rich = bad perspective.

[Mastikator]

How does Wayne Corp perpetuate poverty? Doesn't it generally go out of its way to give to charity & do low income housing etc.?

Unless you're talking from a Marxian: rich = bad perspective.

To be fair I only know Batman from the movies and series. In all of the the highest targets he goes for is mafia bosses. All evidence points to the batman being a revenge ritual to get back at the street thug who murdered his parents. Bruce Wayne could do a lot more to prevent crime but he spends far more money and effort as batman.
The comics go back several decades and are all over the place, you kinda have to be narrow in which batman you're talking about.

[CharonsHelper]

Bruce Wayne could do a lot more to prevent crime but he spends far more money and effort as batman.

I've heard that argument before, but it's simply not true when you do the math.

Assuming that Gotham is basically a fictionalized mix of Chicago & New York, lets put its population on the low end of the average - at 5 million people.

With the Batmobile, the Batcave, his suit, all his gadgets etc., there was probably a start-up cost of 10ish million (less in Batman Begins since most of the gear was already sitting Wayne Corp anyway), and a continued cost of perhaps a million $ a year at most. That's the equivalent of $0.20 in taxes from every person in the city if he gave that to the gov. treasury.

If he gave that directly to the police force, they would be able to initially renovate a station or two and then have another 6-10 police officers on payroll. (Pay/benefits/facilities/car etc. for a police officer in a high cost of living city averages at least 100k.)

I'm pretty sure that it's safe to say that Batman does the work of 6-10 average police officers himself, and more importantly he's got all that symbolism type stuff going for him, not to mention that when he starts (in most incarnations) he deals with a lot of police/gov corruption.

Note: This is not to say that someone in real life could be as effective as Batman is in the fiction, but within the fiction, he's better off being Batman than paying for another few cops.

[Strigon]

LG, maybe LN. Even LE is possible, I suppose, though I'd strongly contest that (or at least put an asterisk beside the E). But definitely Lawful, no question.
Of course, this does change version to version, but I think that there are enough that follow a certain theme to say what an "average" modern Batman is.

He follows his own code, no matter what. Even if it puts his life at stake - even when it puts innocent people's lives at stake, he follows his code not to kill. Sure, he might bend the rules in very, very harsh circumstances, or in certain versions he might not even feel particularly bad about killing, but this "average" Batman won't kill The Joker no matter how many times he escapes, won't use handguns (though apparently they're okay on the Batmobile?), et cetera, et cetera.

Now, as far as Good, Neutral or Evil? This varies far more with the version, and the GM's own decisions. He's decidedly selfless, devotes his entire life to a decidedly Good ideal and is quite happy to continue doing so without recognition. Well, as far as Batman can actually be happy, that is.
However, he can certainly go down some dark paths to get there. Light torture isn't outside his scope when necessary (perhaps physical coercion is a more apt term; it's usually quick and no more severe than a few broken bones), and he will beat up good guys when he has to - though he will try to limit damage.
He'll also deliberately limit himself, even when fighting decidedly Evil opponents, ones who he could certainly kill without it being an Evil act, and that may weigh in on a GM's decision.

Personally, I'd put him at LG, just because of the weight I put on various factors, but I could definitely see some people going all the way down to LE - though I hope they'd willingly concede that he's not evil just because he's Evil.

[Nightcanon]

I've heard that argument before, but it's simply not true when you do the math.

Assuming that Gotham is basically a fictionalized mix of Chicago & New York, lets put its population on the low end of the average - at 5 million people.

With the Batmobile, the Batcave, his suit, all his gadgets etc., there was probably a start-up cost of 10ish million (less in Batman Begins since most of the gear was already sitting Wayne Corp anyway), and a continued cost of perhaps a million $ a year at most. That's the equivalent of $0.20 in taxes from every person in the city if he gave that to the gov. treasury.

If he gave that directly to the police force, they would be able to initially renovate a station or two and then have another 6-10 police officers on payroll. (Pay/benefits/facilities/car etc. for a police officer in a high cost of living city averages at least 100k.)

I'm pretty sure that it's safe to say that Batman does the work of 6-10 average police officers himself, and more importantly he's got all that symbolism type stuff going for him, not to mention that when he starts (in most incarnations) he deals with a lot of police/gov corruption.

Note: This is not to say that someone in real life could be as effective as Batman is in the fiction, but within the fiction, he's better off being Batman than paying for another few cops.

Not an expert on Batman, by any means, but I think that the value of a prime-location city mansion plus ensuite Batcave comes to more than $10m, nevermind the prototype armoured car, ground-attack jet, unique body armour and controlling interest in an industrial organisation that designs and builds these things.

[Douche]

To be fair I only know Batman from the movies and series. In all of the the highest targets he goes for is mafia bosses. All evidence points to the batman being a revenge ritual to get back at the street thug who murdered his parents. Bruce Wayne could do a lot more to prevent crime but he spends far more money and effort as batman.
The comics go back several decades and are all over the place, you kinda have to be narrow in which batman you're talking about.

If you're talking about the Dark Knight series, he actually successfully creates a military state in Gotham where the police have unlimited power thanks to the Dent Act. So that's doing quite a bit more than a revenge ritual.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you're talking about the Dark Knight series, he actually successfully creates a military state in Gotham where the police have unlimited power thanks to the Dent Act. So that's doing quite a bit more than a revenge ritual.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Anyone who creates that sort of police state is lawful evil.

[Strigon]

Not an expert on Batman, by any means, but I think that the value of a prime-location city mansion plus ensuite Batcave comes to more than $10m, nevermind the prototype armoured car, ground-attack jet, unique body armour and controlling interest in an industrial organisation that designs and builds these things.

The thing is, he isn't just Batman. He has billions of dollars, and ridiculous amounts of power that he could use to bolster the police force, reduce poverty, and help the city out in countless ways.
And he does.
He gives away to charities, supports people with integrity (like Harvey Dent, before he became Two Face), helps the police, creates jobs, and does everything he can do as Bruce Wayne.

But he also realizes that Gotham is corrupt, that half the police are on a mob boss' payroll, and just throwing money at the problem won't make it go away - it needs a catalyst, it needs someone to spark the city out of inaction, and it may even need somebody unidentifiable. Someone who can't be assassinated, or threatened, or bribed, because you don't know who he is. You just know he's powerful, he's terrifying, he's beyond the law, and he's right behind you. That's what Batman is.

[CharonsHelper]

Not an expert on Batman, by any means, but I think that the value of a prime-location city mansion plus ensuite Batcave comes to more than $10m, nevermind the prototype armoured car, ground-attack jet, unique body armour and controlling interest in an industrial organisation that designs and builds these things.

I didn't say that his net worth was 10m, just the start-up cost of being Batman. Bruce Wayne is going to own the mansion & industrial organization whether or not he's Batman.

[Douche]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Anyone who creates that sort of police state is lawful evil.

Yes, but you cannot deny that he did a lot to prevent crime!

[Guancyto]

Can I elect the Batman who kidnaps and drugs robin to be Chaotic Evil?
Yes. Frank Miller's The Goddamn Batman is solidly Chaotic Evil (find criminals, burn them alive, have sex on top of their corpses? Yeeeeah). And a fair argument that even within the CE alignment there are shades of... well, black. His single virtue is that the bad guys are worse. (Sometimes.)

Contrast with Paul Dini's Batman (Animated Series), who is so Lawful Good that his robot duplicate has a massive breakdown because it thinks it's taken a life.

[Mastikator]

I've heard that argument before, but it's simply not true when you do the math.

Assuming that Gotham is basically a fictionalized mix of Chicago & New York, lets put its population on the low end of the average - at 5 million people.

With the Batmobile, the Batcave, his suit, all his gadgets etc., there was probably a start-up cost of 10ish million (less in Batman Begins since most of the gear was already sitting Wayne Corp anyway), and a continued cost of perhaps a million $ a year at most. That's the equivalent of $0.20 in taxes from every person in the city if he gave that to the gov. treasury.

If he gave that directly to the police force, they would be able to initially renovate a station or two and then have another 6-10 police officers on payroll. (Pay/benefits/facilities/car etc. for a police officer in a high cost of living city averages at least 100k.)

I'm pretty sure that it's safe to say that Batman does the work of 6-10 average police officers himself, and more importantly he's got all that symbolism type stuff going for him, not to mention that when he starts (in most incarnations) he deals with a lot of police/gov corruption.

Note: This is not to say that someone in real life could be as effective as Batman is in the fiction, but within the fiction, he's better off being Batman than paying for another few cops.

Batman has a jet fighter, as a point of comparison a Saab JAS 39 Gripen costs 40-60 million USD.
Add in the batcave, a dungeon would easily cost about as much as an expensive mansion. That's another 50 million USD.
The gadgets and the car is probably another few million. We're easily up to 100 million USD.

That's more than enough to offer education and jobs to combat poverty and social disintegration (two big factors behind street crime).

Bruce Wayne also has many political connections that he could pull on to affect policy change that would reduce crime.

Instead he goes the Batman route and Gotham never gets any better. It's always depicted as a crime ridden hell hole.

[Strigon]

Batman has a jet fighter, as a point of comparison a Saab JAS 39 Gripen costs 40-60 million USD.
Add in the batcave, a dungeon would easily cost about as much as an expensive mansion. That's another 50 million USD.
The gadgets and the car is probably another few million. We're easily up to 100 million USD.

That's more than enough to offer education and jobs to combat poverty and social disintegration (two big factors behind street crime).

Bruce Wayne also has many political connections that he could pull on to affect policy change that would reduce crime.

Instead he goes the Batman route and Gotham never gets any better. It's always depicted as a crime ridden hell hole.

That one word is what ruins this whole argument.
I've never seen any version of Batman where he exclusively fights crime as Batman. As far as I've seen, he's hosted fundraisers, built homeless shelters and schools, donated to charity, and has been a major player on the political field, always throwing enormous amounts of support to those who deserve it.

[CharonsHelper]

Batman has a jet fighter, as a point of comparison a Saab JAS 39 Gripen costs 40-60 million USD.

Or an old MIG-21 can be purchased for well under 100k. Batman doesn't get into dogfights, so he doesn't really need air superiority.

Even IF it was a total of $100 million (I don't think so - but for argument's sake) that would be a drop in the bucket to "combat poverty and social disintegration". The US welfare and Medicaid programs alone spent over $700 BILLION in 2015 alone. The proportion of that spent in Gotham (based only on % of population at approx 5 vs 300 million) would be nearly $12 billion welfare/Medicaid dollars already streaming into Gotham. Not to mention all other gov programs and charities etc.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: No one's crossed it yet, but be aware of the delicacy of discussing political issues.

[Guancyto]

In keeping with the "depending on the writer" theme, Batman has been both of those things. Those writers focused on the "caped crusader, superhero" side of things generally do play up his philanthropy as Bruce Wayne (in the Animated Series it's about 95% of how he gets into trouble as Wayne).

The ones who go with the "psychotic thug working out his issues by beating people up" or the "BATMAN IS AWESOME AND MUST ALWAYS DO AWESOME THINGS" aspect tend to gloss over it (and in fairness, it pretty much gets entirely forgotten in the Justice League cartoon of the same universe as BTAS just because the problems Batman is faced with are always so much bigger than Gotham).

Either way he's doomed to failure by the script, because you can never clean up Gotham City or it'd be the end of Batman comics. (Also, the city is alive or something? I was never really clear on that.)

[McNum]

Why does Batman need a jet fighter, anyway? I mean, I get breaking it out for Justice League level threats where keeping up with Superman and the like is important, but for Batman's usual street crime and general urban level patrolling, it seems like it'd be bad for his usual mission profiles. A Bat-copter would probably work better if he needs air-power.

Or am I missing something that only the Bat-wing can do? If it can hover, I'll admit it reduces the need for a Bat-copter, but that also makes it a lot more expensive since making a jet hover like a helicopter is not an easy feat of engineering.

[Cealocanth]

I would actually say Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. He kind of spans the grey area between those.

He is extremely lawful, not that he respects the laws of the land, but that he has a very, very strict moral code that he will stick to come hell or high water. In a world that is quite chaotic, Batman's moral code is about as strict as it gets. He won't even break his code to do what's right, that's how unbelievably lawful this guy actually is.

He's Neutral because of his particularly brutal tactics and strategies. He's not above breaking bones, torturing people, and punishing villians with brutal force simply because they're beyond insane. However, he fights strongly for the greater good, stands as a paragon of righteousness, and has evil as his sworn enemy. Given that many paladins are allowed to be LG while still brutally dismembering their enemies with a massive greatsword, Batman could actually be considered LG in that regard. He's like a modern day paladin. Fighting for good with a strict moral code.

[Max_Killjoy]

Batman has a jet fighter, as a point of comparison a Saab JAS 39 Gripen costs 40-60 million USD.
Add in the batcave, a dungeon would easily cost about as much as an expensive mansion. That's another 50 million USD.
The gadgets and the car is probably another few million. We're easily up to 100 million USD.

That's more than enough to offer education and jobs to combat poverty and social disintegration (two big factors behind street crime).

Bruce Wayne also has many political connections that he could pull on to affect policy change that would reduce crime.

Instead he goes the Batman route and Gotham never gets any better. It's always depicted as a crime ridden hell hole.


Bruce Wayne is noted to be a billionaire, isn't he?

It's almost as if he could afford the Batman stuff, AND (especially via the various foundations and charities with fund drives and other donors) drive at least an equal amount of funding for charitable works.


As for Gotham... it's depicted that way because in episodic fiction, nothing ever really changes.

[Guancyto]

Plus, I don't really think it's fair to ding someone on the alignment chart for pursuing good suboptimally?

I mean, a Good-aligned spellcaster can probably do more for people making magical water purifiers than throwing fireballs at zombies, but nobody takes an alignment change for that.

(Now, if it's an iteration of Batman that has considered the philanthropy angle and rejected it because it won't do anything for his daily subscription of issues, that could have legs.)

[LudicSavant]

First you'd have to determine which Batman you're talking about, otherwise he'd ping on all 9 alignments.

Second you'd have to determine which version of alignment you're talking about, otherwise any given Batman could ping on all 9 alignments.

...This is why so many "what alignment is this?" threads are a total mess.

[JeenLeen]

Either way he's doomed to failure by the script, because you can never clean up Gotham City or it'd be the end of Batman comics. (Also, the city is alive or something? I was never really clear on that.)

I think I read something in Media Discussions by another forum-goer, about how the city is cursed or alive or something, and that basically forces it to stay in a state of perpetual social ruin (high levels of crime, poverty, etc.)

Not to say it wouldn't be worse if not for Wayne Corp. charity and Batman crime-busting--but it limits how much good can be done (I guess--I'm just referring to another source I barely remember.)

[CharonsHelper]

Either way he's doomed to failure by the script, because you can never clean up Gotham City or it'd be the end of Batman comics. (Also, the city is alive or something? I was never really clear on that.)

Though I know some comics imply that he got rid of the worst of it in his first few years, at least on the police/gov corruption side of things.

Plus - I don't think that there has ever been a human community of more than a few hundred people without some amount of crime. (Maybe in a fictional Star Trek style utopia.) Does anyone really expect Batman to stop 100% of it?

[Max_Killjoy]

There's only so much that one man can do, Bat or otherwise.

[CharonsHelper]

The Mod Wonder: No one's crossed it yet, but be aware of the delicacy of discussing political issues.

Sorry - I didn't mean to touch those issues, I just wanted to get across the scales involved in such pursuits.

[hewhosaysfish]

As for Gotham... it's depicted that way because in episodic fiction, nothing ever really changes.
Agreed.

I feel the need to link to this article by Shamus Young:
Part 1 (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27382)
Part 2 (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27397)
It's primarily about why Batman doesn't kill the Joker but it does also address the issue of why throwing bat-dollars at the problem doesn't help any more than batarangs do (and why Arkham's security is so porous).


These are all valid questions, but they can’t be answered because they stem from our inherently bent world: We need a hero to punch famously dangerous and unrepentant criminals in the face, and we need him to do it basically forever.

[The Glyphstone]

From Reddit:


The modern age Batman stories (POST-COIE onwards) introduced the idea that Gotham is basically cursed to a supernatural degree.

The story "Dark Knight, Dark City" explained that a 18th century group of demon worshippers (including Thomas Jefferson for some reason) summoned a Bat-demon named Barbatos and locked it in the center of Gotham for a few centuries (which Grant Morrison would later sort of reference in his Batman run).

In Dennis O'Neil's short story "Cityscape", he goes back even further and says Gotham was built around a makeshift asylum co-founded by a serial killer who wanted a 'home' in the New World for himself and equally insane spiritual 'brothers and sisters' (the story also invoked the real life legend of the "Wise Men of Gotham" for the reason the city in the comics got it's name).

And within Gotham, it's been suggested that Arkham Asylum exists within another nexus of crazy. In the miniseries 'Living Hell', it was explained that in the asylums' early days an occultist was sacrificing inmates to open an actual portal to hell which was barely sealed by Jason Blood. While the portal was closed, it actively called on inmates and people in Gotham to open it back up for a couple hundred years.

Going off sort of tangentially, there was a literal 'there's something in the water' explanation was used in a Legends of the Dark Knight story called "The Wise Men of Gotham", the novel "Wayne of Gotham", and the Arkham series of videogames.

In the both of the first stories it was suggested that Bruce's dad, Thomas, was indirectly responsible for releasing some faint psychoactive drugs into Gotham's water supply many years ago, which could be blamed for created both Batman and his villains. In the former story Bruce mostly ends up debunking it, but in the "Wayne of Gotham" novel it's presented as the actual fact.

And in the Arkham videogame continuity, it's reveraled that that are a cluster of Lazarus Pits deep under Gotham, and it's implicitly suggested that the chemicals from the pit have always been seeping into Gotham's water and soil, and it's psychotic properties are responsible for Gotham's specific brand of eccentricity.

Obviously all pre-Nu-52, though.

[LibraryOgre]

From Reddit:



Obviously all pre-Nu-52, though.

And New 52 has the Court of Owls as a shadowy group that's been guiding Gotham to its current crazy state for centuries.

[Mastikator]

That one word is what ruins this whole argument.
I've never seen any version of Batman where he exclusively fights crime as Batman. As far as I've seen, he's hosted fundraisers, built homeless shelters and schools, donated to charity, and has been a major player on the political field, always throwing enormous amounts of support to those who deserve it.

I think we might be talking about different Batmans.

[Lord Raziere]

Mhm. Batman is 77 years old, out-of-universe; he's gone through so many writers, so many philosophies, so many iterations on the concept that you would really have to specify which Batman you're talking about.

Indeed.

DCAU Batman legitimately tries to reach out to any villain that he sees as having a chance to recover aside from The Joker and could be Neutral Good

Miller's All-Star Batman aka Crazy Steve is written so badly that he is legitimately Chaotic Evil.

Batman in Superman: Red Son is Chaotic Good, fighting against Superman's empire.

Batman in Brave And The Bold is such a strange mix, but given that its Silver Age based, probably Lawful Good by default

A lot of depictions of Batman working with Superman can be seen as a contrast of Lawful Good Superman working with a Chaotic Good Batman without any trouble between them, as Batman is the one has to use all the lies, trickery and creative solutions he can possibly think of to save the day while Superman has to worry about holding to his principles.

There are a few comics where Batman outright starts revolutions against the government and could be anything Chaotic depending on your interpretation.

The Batman in Batman Vs. Superman movie is honestly probably Lawful Evil for ruthlessly killing criminals for breaking the law.

Basically? the more you focus him on vengeance and hate of criminals the more Evil he becomes. The more you focus on his ability to resort to any measure to win the more Chaotic he becomes. The more you focus on his principle to not kill and his attempts to reason with villains the more good he becomes. The more you focus on his willingness to work with Gordon and plan things ahead of time the more Lawful he becomes.

[Lacuna Caster]

Batman says. "I am Batman, and your alignment system is stupid." and then your D&D books burst into flames.
Well said.

As always, I refer people to The Tome of Fiends (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends#Law_and_Chaos:_Your_Rules_or_M ine.3F)- Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules. Is rebelling against the empire chaotic if doing so is mandated by your holy book? Is 'keeping your word' lawful when you promise to visit Las Vegas? Does following a detailed plan that you adjust and revise pragmatically make you anything other than sane?

Batman's alignment is Batman, and he needs no justification for his actions.


<Stuff about Gotham being supernaturally cursed>

Obviously all pre-Nu-52, though.
Not that any of this should be intrinsically impossible to fix for someone who has Zatanna, Etrigan and possibly Dr. Fate on speed-dial. But yeah, while Batman's financial philanthropy tends not to get nearly as much screentime as it deserves, it is canonically a non-trivial aspect of his War on Crime.

[Knightofvictory]

Of course, like others have said, every Bat is different, alignment is subjective... etc. But. I'll make an argument for funsies. Of course, it's personal opinion and preference.

The Batman most of us know and love, specifically from the 90's Animated Series and more recent Arkham games is Chaotic Good.

Good points- he values every single life, and constantly without hesitation risks his own life to save not only innocents, but criminals as well. Saving innocents is always priority one with him. He uses resources and time funding the Justice League, on the belief they can do more good together, even though he prefers to work alone. Everyone from Alfred, Gorden, Superman, and countless others considers him one of the Good Guys. He spends ridiculous amounts of time and effort saving individual strangers. He believes all life has value, and sacrifices his life daily to keep others from the pain of losing someone.

Chaotic points- he does not work with the law, only individual people he trusts. Batman will not harm police officers, but his chaotic vigilante crime fighting constantly puts him at odds with them. The only rules he takes seriously are the ones he makes. He doesn't do fair fights. He brutally electrocutes, concusses, and breaks the bad guys. His MO is being unpredictable and doing the unexpected. He helped fund a super team, but he is not beholden to them, nor does he always follow their rules. Lawful types, like Gorden or Superman are often unhappy with his methods. He trusts nothing and no one: he has elaborate plans on how to take out all of his allies (and himself) just in case. There is a lot of evidence suggesting his dedication to crime fighting borders on the insane. He believes no one is incorruptible- not even himself.

I like Batman the most when he is CG, and feel that 'fits' him the most.

[CharonsHelper]

Chaotic points- he does not work with the law, only individual people he trusts. Batman will not harm police officers, but his chaotic vigilante crime fighting constantly puts him at odds with them. The only rules he takes seriously are the ones he makes. He doesn't do fair fights. He brutally electrocutes, concusses, and breaks the bad guys. His MO is being unpredictable and doing the unexpected. He helped fund a super team, but he is not beholden to them, nor does he always follow their rules. Lawful types, like Gorden or Superman are often unhappy with his methods. He trusts nothing and no one: he has elaborate plans on how to take out all of his allies (and himself) just in case. There is a lot of evidence suggesting his dedication to crime fighting borders on the insane. He believes no one is incorruptible- not even himself.

I like Batman the most when he is CG, and feel that 'fits' him the most.


That gets into the argument of whether "Lawful" actually means following the law of the land, or being more about order & codes. I lean to the latter category, otherwise you couldn't have stories of paladins dethroning tyrants etc.

[Strigon]

That gets into the argument of whether "Lawful" actually means following the law of the land, or being more about order & codes. I lean to the latter category, otherwise you couldn't have stories of paladins dethroning tyrants etc.

Even worse, you'd have people who could change alignment by crossing national borders, which is ludicrous. Plus it would be theoretically possible to have a place where it's impossible to be LG, as following the laws would be Evil.

[oxybe]

Batman's alignment is whatever he wants it to be, as long as it puts the villain of the week in Arkham for an indefinite time, usually long enough for the writer to realize the villain exists and either let them out on parole or have them be broken out.

[Knightofvictory]

That gets into the argument of whether "Lawful" actually means following the law of the land, or being more about order & codes. I lean to the latter category, otherwise you couldn't have stories of paladins dethroning tyrants etc.

A fair point.

To me, Lawful means following something larger than yourself. A government, an organization, a cause with others, and rules and hierarchy that keeps everyone accountable. Everyone is part of the system, and has a place in it. A rebellion can be lawful, because it can be an organized group. Paladins share a faith, and maybe an Order that they answer to. Captain America, and Superman show up in courtrooms when summoned, and work closely with governments and their respective teams, and such.

Batman follows no one but Batman. His code is his alone.

[TheCountAlucard]

*cough, cough, Civil War, cough!*

[Frozen_Feet]

That gets into the argument of whether "Lawful" actually means following the law of the land, or being more about order & codes. I lean to the latter category, otherwise you couldn't have stories of paladins dethroning tyrants etc.

It's actually both.

An ethically lawful character honors traditions, practices & laws of other countries as long as they're compatible with their moral nature (good/neutral/evil).

However, it should be noted "laws of the land" are not, necessarily, ethically lawful as described in D&D. A law which neglects honesty, honor etc. (Such as "might makes right" or some forms anarchy) would be neutral or even chaotic.

Typically, when you get a Paladin fighting against law of the land, it's because it's both leaning evil AND in place illegitimately (ie. the ruler rose to their position in violation of tradition and/or honor).

I bring this up because in many incarnations, Batman works with the police, even going as far as being a registered detective (registered as Batman, naturally), and leaves the actual judgement of criminals to the local justice system. Those versions are blatantly Lawful Good.

Then we have versions like Affleck's in Batman versus Superman, where Batsy is mildly off the rails and acting as the judge, jury and executioner, veering towards Neutral Evil.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread should function mainly as ongoing proof of the faults in "alignment" as a thing, and prompt further questioning as to what it actually adds to a game.

[CharonsHelper]

This thread should function mainly as ongoing proof of the faults in "alignment" as a thing, and prompt further questioning as to what it actually adds to a game.

*shrug* It's fine as a jumping off point for characters so long as none of the players take it too seriously.

[Max_Killjoy]

*shrug* It's fine as a jumping off point for characters so long as none of the players take it too seriously.


Perhaps.


It see it go "too serious" a lot... see as example, almost any paladin discussion.

[Vitruviansquid]

The alignment system works better when you look at alignments and then create your character rather than taking a pre-existing character and then trying to figure out which alignment he/she belongs to.

[CharonsHelper]

It see it go "too serious" a lot... see as example, almost any paladin discussion.

At least online. I've never seen people in person do that sort of craziness. (Other than people using CN as an excuse to actually be evil/jerky once.) I think it's mostly an internet thing moreso than an alignment thing. :P

[Vrock_Summoner]

At least online. I've never seen people in person do that sort of craziness. (Other than people using CN as an excuse to actually be evil/jerky once.) I think it's mostly an internet thing moreso than an alignment thing. :P
How I wish this were true. In one campaign, I had to make alignments as much a matter of in-setting propaganda as morality (as in, certain actions boost the proliferation of particular "alignment" energy, but those actions don't necessarily technically hold moral weight, people just started calling them Good/Evil/Law/Chaos because the actions that produce those energies mostly conformed to society's definitions of those ideals) because the planning session of the campaign almost devolved into a massive shouting match of moral judgments.

[OldTrees1]

How I wish this were true. In one campaign, I had to make alignments as much a matter of in-setting propaganda as morality (as in, certain actions boost the proliferation of particular "alignment" energy, but those actions don't necessarily technically hold moral weight, people just started calling them Good/Evil/Law/Chaos because the actions that produce those energies mostly conformed to society's definitions of those ideals) because the planning session of the campaign almost devolved into a massive shouting match of moral judgments.

I think that was a foreseeable consequence of your intentional misnomers.

Calling Blue team "Law" and Red team "Chaos" is going to make your players think you are saying Blue team is an example of "Law" rather than just being misnamed "Law". There are enough different classifications of Law vs Chaos that some people can expect that, but when you also do it to Good vs Evil then you are begging for arguments about moral judgements.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think that was a foreseeable consequence of your intentional misnomers.

Calling Blue team "Law" and Red team "Chaos" is going to make your players think you are saying Blue team is an example of "Law" rather than just being misnamed "Law". There are enough different classifications of Law vs Chaos that some people can expect that, but when you also do it to Good vs Evil then you are begging for arguments about moral judgements.


I read it as the "team blue" thing resulting from the argument, not causing it.

[OldTrees1]

I read it as the "team blue" thing resulting from the argument, not causing it.

Upon rereading I think your reading is correct.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The alignment system works better when you look at alignments and then create your character rather than taking a pre-existing character and then trying to figure out which alignment he/she belongs to.

Which makes for shallower characters.

[Spore]

Batman has all alignments. Depending on interpretation, author, universe and point in the story it differs too much for a big entity like the Caped Crusader.

Plus he can disprove your pitiful alignment system singlehandedly.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I read it as the "team blue" thing resulting from the argument, not causing it.
This is correct.

[RedMage125]

The 3.5e book The Complete Scoundrel defines a "scoundrel" type of character as one who is defined by their tactics and methods, which is completely independent of alignment. It gives plenty of fictional characters who are "scoundrels" as examples, and what their alignment is.

Batman is Lawful Good.

That is the official answer in D&D. If he existed in a D&D universe, with moral and ethical absolutes existing as objective values by which everyone is judged, Batman is Lawful Good.

[Jay R]

The nine-way alignment system, with a firm line between Good and Neutral, and betrween Beutral and Evil, and the idea of Lawful or Chaotic as "alignments", is a D&D construct, not related to any real-world system of ethics, morality, philosophy, psychology, or sociology, and not used by authors unless they are writing D&D-based stories.

Batman is not D&D, and does not have a D&D alignment, for the same reason that he doesn't have a Will Saving Throw, a class level, a Rod of Lordly Might, or a ThAC0.

[vasilidor]

i disagree or agree pending which batman we are discussing. original batman, or animated series or adam west sure. but it has not been specified which is which so how about we catalogue each batman by era? starting with the original.

[Max_Killjoy]

The nine-way alignment system, with a firm line between Good and Neutral, and betrween Beutral and Evil, and the idea of Lawful or Chaotic as "alignments", is a D&D construct, not related to any real-world system of ethics, morality, philosophy, psychology, or sociology, and not used by authors unless they are writing D&D-based stories.

Batman is not D&D, and does not have a D&D alignment, for the same reason that he doesn't have a Will Saving Throw, a class level, a Rod of Lordly Might, or a ThAC0.


i disagree or agree pending which batman we are discussing. original batman, or animated series or adam west sure. but it has not been specified which is which so how about we catalogue each batman by era? starting with the original.

You'd both get a +1, if I could give.

For truth.

[The Glyphstone]

Don't forget to include the 1943 black and white serial Batman.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Don't forget to include the 1943 black and white serial Batman.
Is that before or after his "busting open coffins to shoot vampires" days?

[5a Violista]

So I was about to list out the different versions of Batman there are, so we could go through them and assign whatevers to each of them. However, then I found this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_Batman) on Wikipedia, and counted out all the different versions of Batman there were: nearly 100 different versions of Batman.

I mean, we could go through them one-by-one, and it would be interesting, nearly 100 is a lot. It would be a lot easier to go through all the versions of a less-proliferated character, like Harley Quinn, or someone, simply because there's less versions of her.

But, yes. There's nearly a hundred different alt-Batmen. Some of them we know more about than others. (edit: and that's not even getting into fanfiction, or the times where the Joker pretended to be Batman.)

[The Glyphstone]

We can narrow down the list a lot by only using the Bruce Wayne Batmen, rather than his many imposters/successors. And I suppose Batman Beyond, because it was awesome. Cut out the various parallel-universe Batmen too from Earth-whatevernumberisn'ttheregularone.

That leaves Original Comics Batman, Post-Crisis Batman, Nu 52 Batman, the various Animated depictions, and the live-action depictions. A much smaller list once you trim out the Alt-universe variants in particular.

[Vknight]

Batman's killed plenty of times before. And that's without even touching the movies.

Humans
Aliens and Robots don't account
Batman has threatened to blow up a planet after all

[Klorox]

The 3.5e book The Complete Scoundrel defines a "scoundrel" type of character as one who is defined by their tactics and methods, which is completely independent of alignment. It gives plenty of fictional characters who are "scoundrels" as examples, and what their alignment is.

Batman is Lawful Good.

That is the official answer in D&D. If he existed in a D&D universe, with moral and ethical absolutes existing as objective values by which everyone is judged, Batman is Lawful Good.
I need to find a copy of this. Thanks!

[Cazero]

Humans
Aliens and Robots don't account
Batman has threatened to blow up a planet after all
Comics have thousands of ridiculously human-like aliens and robots. Why exactly wouldn't they count?

[Vknight]

Comics have thousands of ridiculously human-like aliens and robots. Why exactly wouldn't they count?

Because Batman says they don't?
I mean lets be honest that is it. Batman has no problems killing robots or aliens but he won't kill people is a thing with him. Its just part of that code of ethics he follows.

[The Glyphstone]

I suppose we'd have to evaluate pre- and post-CCA Batman separately then, since back in Bat's earliest comic days when they were still getting a handle on the character, he had no problem killing criminals, with guns even sometimes. I think it was the institution of the CCA that caused his formal no-killing policy to become part of the character.

[Kantaki]

Because Batman says they don't?
I mean lets be honest that is it. Batman has no problems killing robots or aliens but he won't kill people is a thing with him. Its just part of that code of ethics he follows.

So Batman doesn't consider aliens people?
Yes, sounds like a genuinely good person.
I mean where is the difference between the Joker and a generic alien killer? Aside the fact that one looks weird and the other is from another planet.

[LibraryOgre]

We can narrow down the list a lot by only using the Bruce Wayne Batmen, rather than his many imposters/successors. And I suppose Batman Beyond, because it was awesome.

And since Terry is a clone of Bruce, one could argue that Batman Beyond is another case of the Bruce Wayne Batman...

[CharonsHelper]

And since Terry is a clone of Bruce, one could argue that Batman Beyond is another case of the Bruce Wayne Batman...

I thought that Terry was just Bruce's genetic son. They gave his dad a shot which made his guys... Bruce's guys. Otherwise they probably would have noticed that they look the same, especially in the episode when Bruce became young due to short-term use of Lazarus pits.

[Kantaki]

I thought that Terry was just Bruce's genetic son. They gave his dad a shot which made his guys... Bruce's guys. Otherwise they probably would have noticed that they look the same, especially in the episode when Bruce became young due to short-term use of Lazarus pits.

Didn't they mess further with Terry’s genes? I don't recall that much of that Episode.
All I remember is that they tried to create Batman 2.0 by making some kid as genetically identical to Bruce as possible and recreating the murder of Mr. & Mrs. Wayne with the parents.
Because that's how you create heroes.
(Un)fortunatly- depending on your point of view -the assassin had a conscience.
Not that it helped in the long run...
In the end Waller got lucky and got her new Bat.
Still a silly plan in my opinion, to many moving parts.
But calling Terry a second Bruce isn't entirely inaccurate based on this, especially since he learned from - and follows the teachings of - the original

[Red Fel]

Didn't they mess further with Terry’s genes? I don't recall that much of that Episode.
All I remember is that they tried to create Batman 2.0 by making some kid as genetically identical to Bruce as possible and recreating the murder of Mr. & Mrs. Wayne with the parents.
Because that's how you create heroes.
(Un)fortunatly- depending on your point of view -the assassin had a conscience.
Not that it helped in the long run...
In the end Waller got lucky and got her new Bat.
Still a silly plan in my opinion, to many moving parts.
But calling Terry a second Bruce isn't entirely inaccurate based on this, especially since he learned from - and follows the teachings of - the original

On the one hand, he isn't a clone, he's a biological son; his father's DNA was overwritten by a SCIENCE he received at work, but his mother's genetics remain intact in her son. On the other hand, his organs are a perfect genetic match for Bruce's, and I'm pretty sure even family doesn't get a 100% compatibility match.

That said, the whole point of that episode was that Terry wasn't a close of Bruce - at least, not in the ways that count. To quote Waller, "There are similarities, mind you, but more than a few differences too. You don't quite have his magnificent brain, for instance. You do have his heart, though. And for all that fierce exterior, I've never met anyone who cared as deeply about his fellow man as Bruce Wayne, except maybe you." And then, in the resolution of the episode, we learn two things. One, like Bruce, he plans to keep the mantle for as long as is needed. Two, unlike Bruce, he plans to live a real life and have relationships. The point of Epilogue was that, despite being Bruce's son, Terry is not Bruce. Not a "second Bruce," not a "Bruce" of any kind. Terry isn't Bruce. Terry is Batman.

[CharonsHelper]

On the one hand, he isn't a clone, he's a biological son; his father's DNA was overwritten by a SCIENCE he received at work, but his mother's genetics remain intact in her son. On the other hand, his organs are a perfect genetic match for Bruce's, and I'm pretty sure even family doesn't get a 100% compatibility match.

That said, the whole point of that episode was that Terry wasn't a close of Bruce - at least, not in the ways that count. To quote Waller, "There are similarities, mind you, but more than a few differences too. You don't quite have his magnificent brain, for instance. You do have his heart, though. And for all that fierce exterior, I've never met anyone who cared as deeply about his fellow man as Bruce Wayne, except maybe you." And then, in the resolution of the episode, we learn two things. One, like Bruce, he plans to keep the mantle for as long as is needed. Two, unlike Bruce, he plans to live a real life and have relationships. The point of Epilogue was that, despite being Bruce's son, Terry is not Bruce. Not a "second Bruce," not a "Bruce" of any kind. Terry isn't Bruce. Terry is Batman.

That's the gist of what I remembered. It's good to know I wasn't wrong.

I think that the organ match thing was just to make Terry investigate further and figure out that he was Bruce's son genetically, though I think I might have missed the beginning of that episode anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

Looks like I misremembered.

[Kyberwulf]

Again with that stupid meme. You could take 9 different snapshots from any characters stories, and make them "ping" any alignment.

It doesn't matter what you ping. You aren't your pings. You are the sum of your parts.

In the end, Batman always returns to whatever alignment he was at the beginning of the story.

He is Lawful. Being a vigilante doesn't automatically make you chaotic. He knows the laws, and he respects the laws. That is an important distinction. Chaotic people don't care about them at all. Batman does. He works outside the laws, because he has to. What with the corruption and the weird things that happen that the legitimate law enforcement can't handle.

He is neutral, he doesn't believe anybody is above rules. Not even other superheroes and even himself. He has plans in case anyone should ever cross the line. Even him. He isn't good though, because he is to touched by Indifference. He has seen too much for him to believe blindly in good for goodness' sake. He is a cynic, a broken Idealist. He tends to lean towards good though..

Which I think is the coin that he and Superman share, the good axis. Superman/Batman, isn't a Law/chaos thing. It's a Good/Evil thing. They both believe in rules are good things. Superman is the Epitome of what a Paladin should be (unless you make a stupid 9 paneled meme). Whereas Batman was an Idealist, since then as I have said, he has seen to much. He doesn't believe in the purity of humanity anymore. Everytime he is about to slip past the point where he cares about good. Something always happens to ignite a spark again and keep him limping. Whither it be some act of good, or seeing someone he respected slip past that point.

[AMFV]

Again with that stupid meme. You could take 9 different snapshots from any characters stories, and make them "ping" any alignment.

It doesn't matter what you ping. You aren't your pings. You are the sum of your parts.

But that isn't exactly what we're discussing. Frank Miller's Batman is VERY VERY different alignment-wise, from Alan Moore's Batman for example. And he's still different from Dini's Batman. Batman is the sum of a series of very different parts depending on which author has their mits on him. And frankly, even that's not always consistent because some of the comic authors are better or worse at characterization. Batman doesn't even fit enough to be a single character really, much less a single alignment.

Now if you were discussing how to model Batman, then you might have to decide on an alignment, but you'd have to start by picking which version you wanted to emulate, and then deciding what parts you felt were most important. In the end, it's just going to be your judgement call.

Of course, Evil is probably difficult to argue for (although ASBAR might come close on occasion). Personally I like LG, because the stories where Batman is closest to that are the ones I most enjoy reading about him, and watching about him. That's what Batman is for me, so that's Batman's alignment for me.

[TheCountAlucard]

Also, as has been established, "Lawful" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone - apparently even D&D authors. :smalltongue:

[AMFV]

Also, as has been established, "Lawful" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone - apparently even D&D authors. :smalltongue:

True, we'd have to discuss what Edition we were modelling and then go into that matter if we wanted a truly accurate model.