Is Batman Lawful or Chaotic?

[Kai Maera]

One thing I have never seen on the internet is a debate on whether Batman is Lawful or Chaotic.

I mean, on one hand being a vigilante would qualify as being chaotic, but he never kills - only subdues - and turns in the people to lawful powers.

If Batman is immune to the vacuum of space (he can breathe in it) then maybe he's immune to D&D alignment judgements.

[Lord Zentei]

Batman is Lawful with a capital "L". Hands down.

Being a vigilante has nothing to do with being Chaotic... This is particularly true if you cooperate with the local authorities in your endeavors, and take such pains to gather evidence, subdue instead of killing, and leaving the crooks for the cops to pick up.

[Icewalker]

Probably not the right place to put this thread...

Yeah, I'd say he's lawful as well.

[Paladin29]

When Wayne begins his crusade, Gotham has laws but it didn´t apply. The cops were corrupted, the judges were corrupted and the politics was corrupted... Batman was the only true LAW in the first years.

[SilveryCord]

It's funny, because writers will often be accosted for having 2 dimensional characters, and that's exactly what DnD's alignment system is built to describe.

Literally. Good vs. Evil, Lawful vs. Chaotic.

In fact, if the main character of any story, novel, comic, movie, whatever, can be described easily in those terms, that's probably not such a well written character.

Batman does not follow the letter of the law. In some ways, that's chaotic. Batman follows his own personal moral code. In some ways, that's lawful. The list goes on and on.

[BardicLasher]

I've had this debate many times before. Taking a look at the Batman prestige class (Vigilante. Complete adventurer page 85) we see the only requirement is non-evil... First, I posit the secondary question: Which Batman?

Adam West's Batman, the one that Rich seems to enjoy using, is Lawful without a doubt. He regularly works with the police, and he's absolutely proper.

Compare to The Batman from the new Cartoon, who is painfully chaotic, willing to battle against the cops when he believes they're doing something wrong...

But that's the true Batman, isn't it? Batman has a long history of disagreeing with the police, and he does have a few kills under his belt, though he doesn't make a habit of it. A lot of the "Batman is Lawful" comments talk about his 'code' or working with the police... but he only works with the cops out of convenience, and he tends to avoid them when given the chance. More often than not, the cops are opposed to Batman.

But does hating the police make one Chaotic? The police seem to be Lawful Good, but does Lawful mean the local code or another code? So lets take a look at Batman's code... Batman doesn't kill often, but he's certainly killed in the past... He'll lie regularly to get what he needs. He'll break into buildings... His rules are those of a GOOD person, not a Lawful person. At no point does Batman say "I do this because this is how things are done," only "This is the right thing to do." He has no respect for tradition or the status quo...

Though note that killing is not a chaotic act. If it was, Paladins couldn't kill their enemies.

The point is... Batman's Chaotic Good. He follows no rules but his own (often arguing with the Justice League), adapts easily to situations, has no trouble lying or 'cheating' to get what he wants... But he does it all for the greater good.

...Or maybe he does it all out of a sick sense of revenge, trying to punish all criminals for the crime of one man, making them all feel the pain he felt when he lost his parents... Batman is Chaotic... But is he really Good?

[Kai Maera]

Hating the police doesn't make one chaotic.
Taking the law into one's own hands makes one chaotic.

And what's with the "following your own moral code is lawful" idea? If a chaotic person didn't follow a moral code, it could never be good - chaos, when let loose, almost always results in evil.


Edit: I like how there were about 7 posts on this in its first minute of life.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because it's an alignment debate, and you're a monster for opening it.

Also, what the hell does this have to do with OotS?

[Edanor]

Strictly speaking, chaos and law are by nature evil, and require moderation in order to bring good if you follow that theory.

However, that theory is flawed.

And who's to say that batman is Chaotic or Lawful in the first place? We do have middle ground you know!

[Klaz Eidron]

Batman often works against the law enforcement in Gotham, and after reading The Dark Knight Returns there's no way in hell that he's lawful... he's either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good (More likely Chaotic Good, taking into account Batman: Year One) Anyone has seen the wikipedia article of D&D Alignment? Batman is cited as an example of a Chaotic Good character.

EDIT: Typos

SECOND EDIT: Typos again.

[Porthos]

Lawful people can break the Law.
Chaotic people can follow the Law.

Therefore, Batman can be a vigilante and still be Lawful. A vigilante can also be Chaotic. It's just in this case, the Bats is Lawful to the extreme.

[Charles Phipps]

In fact, if the main character of any story, novel, comic, movie, whatever, can be described easily in those terms, that's probably not such a well written character.

Then you don't understand the alignment system.

Of course, alignment means something different to everyone. I use it to describe personality traits.

I've had Lawful Neutral terrorists. Deeply methodical, honorable, and fully committed to overthrowing every government in the world.

[Spiryt]

Also, what the hell does this have to do with OotS?

If we answer the OP question , we will know if Batman is cheating at cards right here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html)!

[Brady_Kj]

I don't believe vigilanteism by itself is illegal in the DCU, provided you do it responsibly and don't break any murdering or stealing laws or anything.

[Zoraciel Ivtel]

Agreeing with Edanor: If you can't decide whether some is lawful or chaotic, doesn't that generally mean they're neutral? He follows the lawful path sometimes and the chaotic path sometimes, and they balance each other out.

[SlightlyEvil]

Agreeing with Edanor: If you can't decide whether some is lawful or chaotic, doesn't that generally mean they're neutral? He follows the lawful path sometimes and the chaotic path sometimes, and they balance each other out.

Agreed. As The Giant himself so rightly put it: there is no such thing as a "tendency" towards one of the extremes. He said it in terms of Good vs. Evil, but it applies in Law vs. Chaos. Someone who does both Chaotic and Lawful deeds is not "Chaotic with Lawful tendencies", he is Neutral. In the end, it all depends on which version of Batman you are talking about. He varies wildly across the Law-Chaos spectrum, depending on who's writing.

On that note, I conclude by saying we can decide this once and for all. With a cage match between Adam West and Frank Miller.

[Matuse]

It saddens me to see so many people who don't understand what alignment describes.

Let's say it as simply as possible: Being Lawful has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with following "the law". Got that?

Being Lawful means generally being an ordered person who prioritizes the group over the individual.

Batman...follows a rigid code of personal behavior (in many, many ways), and has basically sacrificed his entire life to making the people of Gotham safer. He just about epitomizes Lawful Good.

This is not even a debate.

[BardicLasher]

Putting the group over the individual is just GOOD, not Lawful. Robin Hood worked hard to make people safer, and he's the poster boy for Chaotic Good. Robin Hood certainly followed a code for personal behavior, and as the leader of a rebel band, he was certainly organized.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I just wanted to say there may have been traces of irony in the OP quote.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Compare to The Batman from the new Cartoon, who is painfully chaotic, willing to battle against the cops when he believes they're doing something wrong...

That's more neutral good. Chaotic Good people should believe that any form of authority at worse tyranical and best oppressive.

I would say that he's Lawful Good.

His prime antagonist, the Joker, is text book Chaotic Evil. The Joker has no motivation to control the word (so he isn't Lawful Evil) and does things that don't benifit himself (so he isn't Neutral Evil). To have this relationship with the Joker, that would imply he's lawful good.

He never uses guns (discounting the original 1940s Batman), a Chaotic Good person wouldn't have a code against using certain weapons (but they wouldn't use weapons that caused unecesary harm, but guns can be quite precise weapons).

He has battled other heroes over ideological differances. A Chaotic Good person wouldn't force his ideals on other people.

[Edanor]

That's more neutral good. Chaotic Good people should believe that any form of authority at worse tyranical and best oppressive.

I would say that he's Lawful Good.

His prime antagonist, the Joker, is text book Chaotic Evil. The Joker has no motivation to control the word (so he isn't Lawful Evil) and does things that don't benifit himself (so he isn't Neutral Evil). To have this relationship with the Joker, that would imply he's lawful good.

He never uses guns (discounting the original 1940s Batman), a Chaotic Good person wouldn't have a code against using certain weapons (but they wouldn't use weapons that caused unecesary harm, but guns can be quite precise weapons).

He has battled other heroes over ideological differances. A Chaotic Good person wouldn't force his ideals on other people.

Battling the cops is lawful good, as he is fighting BAD laws, for the sake of GOOD laws.

[Fish]

Next question: is Batman a duck or a basketball?

He needn't be either Lawful or Chaotic. According to Rich's analysis, using Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends is Neutral. I agree with that.

This is one situation where GURPS can describe character behavior better than D&D: Batman would have Code of Honor, Compulsive Behavior (Fight Crime), Truthfulness (because he tends to tell the truth), and Workaholic. He would not have Honesty (because he doesn't always obey the law).

[Querzis]

Oh for...

Lawfull or Chaotic is mainly about attittude and intent and got pretty much nothing to do with actually following law, when will people get that!

Now then, I would say hes neutral good. His whole intent and attitude is about doing good as much as he can without any regard to the methods hes gonna use. The police are against him? Who cares. Now the police are with him and use a big projector to call him when there is trouble? Ok then. He doesnt care much. If it work better with chaos so be it, if it work better with order so be it.

But thats because I know Batman mainly from the movies and the cartoon. I never actually read the comic so I dont know the alignement of the real Batman. But if hes really as you guys all describe him I would definitly say hes Lawfull good (and the irony of it is that its mainly the people who say hes chaotic good who make me think hes Lawfull when they describe him).

And this should really be in Media discussion instead of the OOTS forum.

[factotum]

Let's be honest, Batman's true alignment is Fruitcake Insane. We're talking a guy who considers it relatively normal to dress up in a bat outfit and fight crime! :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Zentei]

Let's be honest, Batman's true alignment is Fruitcake Insane. We're talking a guy who considers it relatively normal to dress up in a bat outfit and fight crime! :smallbiggrin:

Well, judging by the bizarre fashion sense of most famous (and infamous) people in the DCU, he's right. :smallwink:

[Klaz Eidron]

Superman is unquestionably Lawful Good, and Batman (Post-Crisis Batman) has an uneasy relation of partnership with him, due to their different views on crimefighting and justice.


''Yes... you always say yes to badges... and to flags... that's a bad thing.''

Also, Frank Miller described Batman as:

"a dionysian figure, a force for anarchy that imposes an individual order."

[Zeku]

Recently, I've come to think that the alignment graph needs a third dimension. The problem occurs when the lawful/chaos axis is expressed as something related to selfishness or internal order. This means that it is really just a new variation on good/evil, which is already quite vague to begin with.


Law/Chaos: adherence to external, identifiable rules, as specified by the existing government the individual is subject to.

Good/Evil: Good=believes helping others produces more net benefit for self. Evil=believes helping self produces more net benefit for self.

Practical/Impractical: This would be the new one. One on end would be people who either live in a fantasy world, or wait for someone else to manifest their dreams, and the other end would be people who actually do it. For example, Gandhi would fall strongly on the impractical end, (please don't be offended) meaning that nothing he does has any effect until someone reacts to him, whereas a man who joins the army and learns to shoot is strongly on the practical end. Noone has to respond to him, he initiates and concludes a conflict.

This would make Batman a Neutral Good Practical.

[Lord Zentei]

Superman is unquestionably Lawful Good, and Batman (Post-Crisis Batman) has an uneasy relation of partnership with him, due to their different views on crimefighting and justice.



Also, Frank Miller described Batman as:

Frank Miller's Batman is of course a whole lot darker than most. In my first post here, where I described him as being Lawful with a capital "L", it was more the older versions of the character I was going by. Post-crisis... I have less experience with. In any case, he's universally depicted as being highly disciplined, methodical and driven by a unyielding desire for justice to prevail... whether or not he goes with the authorities or not in that endeavor.

[Klaz Eidron]

Maybe we could make some distinctions... Earth's-1 and 2 Batmans are Lawful or Neutral, Adam West Batman is Lawful Good, while Post-Crisis, 90's cartoon Batman, and Batman Begins/New Cartoon are Chaotic Good.

[silvadel]

He has the monk's and magician's discipline. He imposes order over chaos.

OTOH

He is very very resistant to authority. He is not the best leader of men but he is a LOUSY follower. He is the second most conspiracy oriented character behind Question.

---

I would say his bushido and magician's background but ninja-like application of such probably puts him as lawful with a lower case l.

[Alfryd]

This topic will be moved.

I mean, on one hand being a vigilante would qualify as being chaotic, but he never kills - only subdues - and turns in the people to lawful powers.
Stop confusing 'Legal' with "Ordered'. There is a vague tendency for the two to overlap, but 'Lawful' encompasses far more than legislative semantics.

Batman is intensely lawful, it's just that the Laws he obeys are not, primarily, the laws of the land. He never behaves in a random or impulsive fashion, plans ahead exhaustively, analyses each scenario in a methodical and consistent fashion, and carries out long-term goals with scrupulous efficiency. He has a rigid personal honour-code which he absolutely will not violate, come hell or high water, and a healthy dose of respect for the spirit of the Law, if not neccesarily the finer attendant details.

As mentioned, Lawful with a Capital L.

Compare to The Batman from the new Cartoon, who is painfully chaotic...
That show is crap and you know it!

The DCAU Batman is Lawful to the core and always has been.

Being Lawful means generally being an ordered person who prioritizes the group over the individual.
Not quite. Lawful means Consistent/Predictable.
Honesty- consistency between words and actions.
Tradition- consistency between past and present.
Ethics- consistency between ends and means.
Planning- consistency between intent and action.
Logic- consistency in analysis.
Legality- consistency with social dictum.
Hierarchy- consistency with superiors' expectations.
Discipline- consistency in application and focus.

The list goes on. Chaotic behaviour means taking some pre-existing Order and smashing it to bits for it's own sake. If the police are corrupt, then they do not represent Order and may be freely opposed without ethical penalties (not that Batsy does so with any regularity.)

Putting the group over the individual is just GOOD, not Lawful.
Not if the group happens to be in the wrong and the individual happens to be in the right. Goodness consists of serving the welfare of others (and not just a selected group) rather than yourself.

Robin Hood certainly followed a code for personal behavior, and as the leader of a rebel band, he was certainly organized.
This is correct. And there is a strong argument to be made that Robin Hood was, in fact, not Chaotic at all. He did, however, indulge in wine, women and song, often made things up on the fly, and was much more inclined to lie, cheat and steal than Batsy ever was. I'd personally call him NG.

The point is... Batman's Chaotic Good. He follows no rules but his own...
This is irrelevant provided he follows those rules in a consistent and comprehensive fashion.

If a single Paladin were to somehow materialise on a planet inhabited exclusively by CE or even LE monsters, the fact that no-one else there shares his personal sense of duty and morals would not make him one shred less Lawful.

"a dionysian figure, a force for anarchy that imposes an individual order."
Exactly and precisely.

[Klaz Eidron]

From Wikipedia:

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific" or "Rebel" alignment. A chaotic good character favors change for the greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom. Most elves are chaotic good, as are some fey.

[kpenguin]

From Wikipedia:

And we're to trust wikipedia on alignment issues?

Anyway, Wizards of the Coast pegs Batman as Lawful Good in Complete Scoundrel, I believe, and although they're not the most consistent on alignment issues, they are a better source than wikipedia.

[Klaz Eidron]

That wikipedia text is directly taken of the definition in Player's Handbook.

[kpenguin]

I highly doubt that. It doesn't match my PHB. However, the SRD definition does.

From the SRD:


Chaotic Good, "Rebel"

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

[Klaz Eidron]

Second Edition... the one in the 3rd Edition still fits Batman, too, except for the intimidation part.

[Porthos]

Recently, I've come to think that the alignment graph needs a third dimension. The problem occurs when the lawful/chaos axis is expressed as something related to selfishness or internal order. This means that it is really just a new variation on good/evil, which is already quite vague to begin with.


Law/Chaos: adherence to external, identifiable rules, as specified by the existing government the individual is subject to.

So one changes alignment when they go from country to country? I think you may want to rethink that. :smallwink:

You see, that is where the whole Lawful = Follows the Law mindset disintegrates. It presupposes that the character in question wants to follow the law of the country he is in. That is perfectly reasonable (at least to a degree) in the country said character grew up in. But what if he is forced to spend a long period of time in a society whose very laws are utterly corrupt? That's where the 2nd Edition definitions break down.

Are you really telling me that a Lawful Good character should engage in Ritual Sacrifice just because the local country he is in wants him to? Are you telling me that a Lawful Good person would be perfectly okay with the type of country that thinks that a Mind Flayer society (to pick a random monster culture at random) is a perfectly wonderful culture to copy? Or a hobgoblin one?

Heck no. If a Lawful Good character was forced to spend any time in that sort of society, you can bet he would do something about it. If he could. :smallsmile:

[Kish]

I just wanted to say there may have been traces of irony in the OP quote.
Shouldn't your line be, "My God, what have I done?"

:smallwink:

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I'm sorry but this thread is a trick question:

Batman is Neutral Good.

As quoted from the DoD which is a copy of the PHB 2nd edition:


Neutral Good characters are just and noble, but generally keep to themselves and try to avoid becoming entangled in the affairs of others. They see that a balance between laws and freedom is important, but care must be taken to ensure that an ultimate good comes out of any compromise. The classic Robin Hood is a fine example of Neutral Good.

Anyone who's ever read Nightwing, and paid any attention to the Target storyline, would notice that Batman revoked permission from "Richard" Grayson to use his Nightwing Persona even though Batman knew he wasn't guilty, for the sole purpose of not sticking it too much to the cops, and as a sort of punishment for not taking extra care of the "honor" of the Nightwing Mantle.

This is an action of a Neutral Good vigilante. Batman is always work with the system while stepping outside of the laws. That's a balance of law and chaos that = neutral.


y'all need to brush up on your alignment checks :tongue:

(edit: nightwing's name is censored -_-)

Edit: except these people, I believe all of these people said he was Neutral Good (you're right on the money)

Klaz Eidron
Zoraciel Ivtel
Edanor
SlightlyEvil
Zeku
Fish? (or did I misread your post?)

[MCerberus]

In any case, we have to ask ourselves one simple question: does this REALLY have anything to do with OotS?

But anyway it depends on the Batman in question. Dark brooding loner batman is likely CG, the "golly gee" campy Batman from the Adam West era is a lot more prone to working with authority and such... likely LG.


Bat-tank driving old Batman killing people in a post-apocalyptic setting is... lets just say open to debate.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

In any case, we have to ask ourselves one simple question: does this REALLY have anything to do with OotS?

But anyway it depends on the Batman in question. Dark brooding loner batman is likely CG, the "golly gee" campy Batman from the Adam West era is a lot more prone to working with authority and such... likely LG.


Bat-tank driving old Batman killing people in a post-apocalyptic setting is... lets just say open to debate.

ok I'll agree that Adam West was hitting hard on the Lawful Good spectrum :biggrin:

As for Michael Keaton's Batman, I still say he's NG, although he would be dangerously close to CG and I could see people arguing for CG even if I didn't agree.

B:TAS - Definitely NG.

[Serenity]

Batman? Lawful? No. I'll buy the argument that he's not Chaotic and peg him as Neutral Good. A vigilante who primarily works by terrifying the **** out of people, who is pretty much the default 'gray' hero of the DCU, frequently contrasted with the squeaky-clean boy scout image of Superman--this is supposed to be 'Lawful to the extreme?'

Lawful Good isn't about following the law of the land, true, but to simplify it to 'consistent' is to rob it of all meaning, and pretty much to deny that sane human beings can be chaotic.

[Spiky]

42 posts when I read this, and only 5 people understand the alignment system, EVEN WHEN READING/QUOTING THE DAMN DEFINITION!

Reading. Comprehension. Do they even bother teaching this anymore?

Batman is mostly Lawful Good. I haven't watched/read every version, but the Adam West series and 90s movies are all very LG. I only say mostly because, as with any other character NOT based on D&D, pinning them into one D&D alignment is very tricky to do. But that does not make every character Neutral, it just means that other stories don't fit into this one.

(btw, Porthos, Alfryd and others are among the 5)

[Setra]

He's Neutral Good!

*flee*

Edit: Okay I'll explain my logic, yes Batman is very logical etc. etc., and he's also a bit of a playboy as Bruce Wayne. In the end it doesn't really matter, he doesn't care about being Lawful, or Chaotic, he cares about helping people. So to me he is Neutral Good.

[Superglucose]

My vote? Batman is NG.

He works with the police, yes, but almost out of necessity. How could he deal with all the criminals he captures without the use of the police?

As for the killing argument, how does taking a moral stance against killing make him lawful over chaotic? Why can't a CG or CN character be against killing? Maybe the CN or CG character saw someone close to them die, and ever since swore that killing was wrong. And by the same token, LN or LG characters might love the death penalty. Not killing because it's against the law is lawful, not killing because he doesn't think it's right is either good, neutral, or evil (depending... does he think letting them live is worse punishment? then he's evil. Does he believe they can be redeemed? Then he's good. Does he not care but just doesn't like killing? then he's neutral.)

And Batman is far too rogue to be lawful.

[sun_tzu]

Add my vote for LG. He's self-disciplined as all hell, sticks to his duty like crazy, has dedicated his entire life since freaking childhood to an oath made on his parents' grave, and takes his own no-killing policy so seriously that he has, on occasions, saved the lives of such individuals as the Joker.
If that's not lawful, I don't know what is.

[kpenguin]

This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)WotC article explains in more detail the concepts of Lawful and Chaotic.

The article on Law:


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

The article on Chaos:

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

[ReproMan]

...Resisting urge...

...Giving in...

*sigh* I know I'm in the serious minority here, but, aside from Lawful/Chaotic... I'm not even sure Batman's Good.

I'm not saying he's Evil; I'm not saying he's solidly Neutral; I'm just saying that with the sheer amount of blatantly evil acts he does on a regular basis, he might have gotten karmatically knocked down a peg to the Good end of Neutral terrority.

What blatantly evil acts, you ask? Well, off the top of my head/bookshelf:

-Kidnapping Lois Lane and throwing her off a 20-story building to get Superman's attention. ("Even more than Kryptonite, [Superman]'s got one big weakness. Deep down, Clark's essentially a good person... and deep down, I'm not." Hush, Vol 1)
-When confronted by a soldier who knows he will not kill any of the men under his command, detailing explicitly exactly how he'll cause them so much pain they'll wish they were dead if he doesn't help him ("Goldman, Eli. 31. Allergic to Penicillin. Joint wounds are slow to heal and prone to infection." Bruce Wayne, Fugitive Vol 2)
-Jury-rigging a corpse with incendiary explosive booby traps, targeted at the GCPD (Dark Knight Returns)
-Literally countless beatings, thefts, violent threats (legitimate, no less), torture sessions, lies, extortions...

Is there any violent crime that Batman has not committed over the years? Is there any he wouldn't do, aside from killing, to fight crime? That's not the mark of a 'G', that the mark of an 'N'...

[kpenguin]

Again, interpretation of each individual writer is key here. In general, I'd say that Batman is LG, but there are quite a few comics with him as LN or at least borderline LN.

[Charles Phipps]

My answers can be summarized in the following two posters...

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f350/Willowhugger/motivator9659699.jpg

and

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f350/Willowhugger/motivator2326312.jpg

[turkishproverb]

Maybe we could make some distinctions... Earth's-1 and 2 Batmans are Lawful or Neutral, Adam West Batman is Lawful Good, while Post-Crisis, 90's cartoon Batman, and Batman Begins/New Cartoon are Chaotic Good.

Actually, 90's cartoon one was drastically different from New Cartoon/Batman Begins ones, and would probably qualify as Lawful Good, or at lowest Neutral Good.


New Toon one is definitelly Chaotic.

Batman (60s) was LG.

Batman (89) Batman Returns: was probably Chaotic Neutral, with the obsession of "Punishing" people.


Batman Begins is difficult to argue because Lawful has to be defined in terms of the corruption in the city. I'd probably say NG or CG, though.


Comics interpretations are all over the place, so I'll have to say any argumetn could be made, depending upon the source material your looking at.



...Resisting urge...

...Giving in...

*sigh* I know I'm in the serious minority here, but, aside from Lawful/Chaotic... I'm not even sure Batman's Good.

I'm not saying he's Evil; I'm not saying he's solidly Neutral; I'm just saying that with the sheer amount of blatantly evil acts he does on a regular basis, he might have gotten karmatically knocked down a peg to the Good end of Neutral terrority.


Interesting argumetn, And I've heard it stated befure. I even stated it for the Burton Batman films.

But lest look at your arguments:



-Kidnapping Lois Lane and throwing her off a 20-story building to get Superman's attention. ("Even more than Kryptonite, [Superman]'s got one big weakness. Deep down, Clark's essentially a good person... and deep down, I'm not." Hush, Vol 1)

I always loved that quote, even if I think he's just being dark to himself. As to the action though, it was Batman being SURE it would work. As terrible as that sounds, he WAS using it to free superman from poison Ivy's mind control. I think he has an argument for N or even Good there, given he knows clark THAT well, and had salina, a well trained, skilled individual, drop her, hinting that she could be saved.


-When confronted by a soldier who knows he will not kill any of the men under his command, detailing explicitly exactly how he'll cause them so much pain they'll wish they were dead if he doesn't help him ("Goldman, Eli. 31. Allergic to Penicillin. Joint wounds are slow to heal and prone to infection." Bruce Wayne, Fugitive Vol 2)


Ah, but is merely threatening Evil? Did he do that? No? Then we have to figure on that role. His action DID allow for greater good in that instance.

And really, thats a matter of survivial "Alright men, open fire. HE won't kill you."

Mind you, I'm not sure about Good, but its not necissarily Evil.


-Jury-rigging a corpse with incendiary explosive booby traps, targeted at the GCPD (Dark Knight Returns)
-Literally countless beatings, thefts, violent threats (legitimate, no less), torture sessions, lies, extortions...

Is there any violent crime that Batman has not committed over the years? Is there any he wouldn't do, aside from killing, to fight crime? That's not the mark of a 'G', that the mark of an 'N'...

The incidiaries didn't do any real harm. Your forgetting that Bats had been at that for YEARs. if he'd wanted them to go down, they would have. He was buying himself time with a fairly nonthreatening action.

Beatings arent, especially in D&D terms evil. Or even neutral. They can be good.

Thefts: Not inhernetly evil: see entry: Robin Hood.

Threats: Not necissarily evil, especially depending on which ethical system you look into.

Torture: harder to justify. But not impossible. Save a roomful of people from joker by twisting a guys arm?

Lies: Not necissarily unlawful or evil. Go ahead and tell a sick man he looks horrible when you KNOW telling him he's looking better might improve things. Not so easy is it? and not necissarily good.

Extortions: First one that comes to mind is Lex Luthor. That is, at worst, a neutral action. And not even likely that. Depending on ethical viewpoint, it could be very good to use extortion to keep getting info out of the penguin at iceburg lounge.

Besides, the D&D alignment system allows for a good deal fo leeway, as someone can always "Make up" for evil deeds with good ones, especially when they don't have ranks in palidin. OR even if they do, what with their divine mandates and stuff.


Once again, the thing about batman is, it is really hard to tell, given the unusual environment and varied writting styles..

[Charles Phipps]

FYI, my stats for Batman's analogue in the Forgotten Realms were this.

The Shadow Dragon
CR 14
Male Human Paladin 3/Monk 4/Gray Guard 2/Rogue 5
LG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Listen +10, Spot +10
Aura courage (10 ft., Allies +4 against fear)
Languages: Common, 4 Other Local Campaign Tongues

AC 26, touch 15, flat-footed 14; Deflect Arrows, Dodge, Mobility
(+2 Dex, +2 class, +1 deflection, +1 natural)
hp 87 (14 HD)
Immune disease, fear
Resist evasion
Fort +17, Ref +14, Will +14; +3 against enchantments

Speed 40 ft. (8 squares)
Melee unarmed strike +14/+9 (1d8+2) or
Unarmed strike +12/+12/+7 (1d8+2) with flurry of blows.
Base Atk +11; Grp +13
Ranged Attack Melee unarmed strike +14/+9 (1d8+2, +2 bonus for Boomerangs of Subdual)
Atk Options Combat Intuition, Stunning Fist 6/day (DC 16), flurry of blows, ki strike (magic), smite evil 1/day (+2 attack, +3 damage)
Special Action: Debilitating touch (DC 14), Lay on hands 10 points/day
Combat Gear: Utility Belt (Contains Spells equivalent to Dazzle, Stinking Cloud, Obscuring Mist, Rope Trick)

Rogue Abilities: Evasion, Sneak Attack, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge

Paladin Spells Prepared (CL 1st):
1st -- Bless
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 14th)
At Will -- Detect evil

Abilities Str 14, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 16, Wis 15, Cha 14
SQ sacrament of trust, slow fall 20 ft.
Feats: Blind Fighting, Combat Intuition*, Deflect Arrows, Dodge, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Boomerang) Improved Toughness**, Improved Unarmed Strike, Mobility, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
Skills Balance +10, Bluff +7, Heal +4, Hide +10, Intimidate +13, Jump +13, Knowledge (Criminal Behavior) +11, Knowledge (Home City) +10, Listen +10, Move Silently +10, Sense Motive +10, Spot +10, Swim +5, Ride +10, Tumble +11, Use Rope +10
Possessions: 3 Boomerangs of Stunning, Cowl of Resistance, Cloak of the Bat, Gloves of Dexterity +2, Bracers of Defense +2, Costume of Damage Resistance +5

Combat Intuition (Ex) The Shadow Dragon gains a +1 insight bonus to melee attacks against an opponent he made a melee attack against during the previous round. Additionally, he can, as a free action, use Sense Motive (+10) to assess the challenge presented by a single opponent (Complete Adventurer pg. 102).

Exalted: The Shadow Dragon has taken a Vow to never take a Life.

Note: The Shadow Dragon does not follow a deity in his opinion but believes he solely serves the cause of justice on his own sake. In truth, he was selected by the avatar of a Lawful Good Deity in the form of a Bat. His supernatural abilities manifest in a manner that he shrugs off as simple coincidence despite the tremendously potent abilities he occasionally displays.

This, ironically, means he can only heal himself as he attributes his supernatural ability to go into battle night after night solely to a phenomenonal fitness program.

[Kai Maera]

I just wanted to say there may have been traces of irony in the OP quote.

Naw, it's a good old fashioned discussion.

My only regret is that they thought that it didn't have to do with the OotS threads. My counterpoint: it's not about Miko or whatever lies under V's robe, so it's needed.

[turkishproverb]

FYI, my stats for Batman's analogue in the Forgotten Realms were this.

The Shadow Dragon
CR 14
Male Human Paladin 3/Monk 4/Gray Guard 2/Rogue 5
LG Medium humanoid (human)

ONly level 14? Batman deserves batter. Nightwing would be level 14 by now.

Heck the current robin would proably be level 7 or 8.

I hope this doesn't mean your the guy who was on here way back with a level 50 or so Superman. That was insane.

All superman has is a bunch or racial bonuses, not class stuff. Superman would be like level 10-14 tops. OR really badly optimized.

Other than that, intersting build, though I'm not entirely sure I agree wtih teh 4 class split. I've never really tried stating batman for D&D.

[Charles Phipps]

ONly level 14? Batman deserves batter. Nightwing would be level 14 by now.

Take note, this is "Classic" Batman. It's the Batman that reflects the Animated Series and the "Middle Period" of Batman's career before he's at the top of his game or facing down individuals like Darkseid on a weekly basis with a Mother Box plus the rest of the Justice League.

DC Comics current Batman is probably at 18th level.

It's probably a bit underpowered but I think it's important to take a somewhat minimalistic approach to these sorts of things. I think level fourteen is able to fulfill most of what we think "Batman" is capable of if he's operating just in Gotham City.

My choice of a four class split is mostly to make use of the Gray Guard prestige class but frankly, you could probably handle Batman with just a Fighter/Rogue mix if you really wanted to. When stating characters, its important to remember that there's no PERFECT way to do it and there's a lot of right answers.

I just like the Paladin Batman.

And level 50? Goodness.

[Klaz Eidron]

Batman should be done with Gurps, that's better suited for Superhero RP.

[Charles Phipps]

I did have a Superman character for my Eberron game as well (though he was actually an Outsider). I never got him accurately crunched up, but I did have the Template Ready. As a note, the template was also with the "minimalist" style I did the Shadow Dragon with.

Man of Steel Template

* AC Bonus +10

* Damage Reduction 50/1 or magical weapon to hit

* Immunity to Non-Magical Fire and Heat Damage

* Immunity to Non-Magical Cold Damage.

* +10 adjustment to Listening checks.

* Jump Spell at Will.

* Fly Spell at Will.

* Haste Spell at will.

* Can Scry through line of sight, barring lead.

* +20 to Strength Score.

* +10 to Constitution Score.

* Cone of Cold Three times per Day (as level)

* Fireball Three Times per day (as level)

* May perform "Feats of Strength" with the expenditure of an Action Point that are far above his normal strength level.

* In the presence of Kryptonite, all Special Abilities dissappear and the subject takes 1d6 damage per round of exposure. An Action Point may be expended to overcome this weakness temporarily.

I have no idea what the ECL adjustment would be on a template like that but it seems about accurate. I'd also put Kal El's Level as Lawful Good, Male Outsider, Paladin 10/Expert 4 to reflect his ability skills.

I'd also rule his Costume a Costume of Resistance and Protection +2 (like he needs any more protection bonus)

[sun_tzu]

Batman should be done with Gurps, that's better suited for Superhero RP.

Better yet, Mutants&Masterminds.

[Klaz Eidron]

Batman is not a mutant, is he?

[Shades of Gray]

What alignment is Robin?

[Closet_Skeleton]

AC 16, touch 15, flat-footed 14; Deflect Arrows, Dodge, Mobility

...

His AC is only 2 higher than his level.

...

[Klaz Eidron]

I have noted that Batman is fairly easy to recreate in the CRPG Fallout, just take the traits ''Bruiser'' and ''Gifted'' and you can be very strong, max intelligence, max agility, downgraded his luck a bit (He got his parents and a Robin killed, inbetween other disgraces), and then I took Unarmed, Sneak and Science as favored skills.

[Serenity]

@kpeguin:

I cannot accept that someone is Lawful merely because of 'planning and procedures'. That is a gross misstatement which implies that a Chaotic character cannot use strategy or tactics. I don't think Batman is Chaotic anymore, but I'll never buy him as Lawful. He does whatever he has to do to fight crime short of truly evil acts. Neutral Good.

[Rethorn]

Batman is Neutral Good.

End of discussion. He breaks away from the law in order to uphold it. He threatens, deceives, and tricks the crooks (Who hasn't seen Batman hold someone off a building and pump them for information?) without intent of actually killing them. He breaks the law in many situations, and often is seen as a problem by the police force with the exception of Commissioner Gordon. Yet, he serves the police force and upholds the law. If the law is corrupt or wrong, he breaks it.

Batman is the prime example of Neutral Good. One who forgoes affinity to either Law or Chaos specifically, and instead pursues good. He uses deception and trickery for good, yet isn't afraid to work with the police for the sake of good.

Neutral Good.

If you honestly consider Batman to be Lawful Good, what the hell do you consider Superman? Lawful^Good? Lawful Lawful? Good Good?

[Charles Phipps]

...

His AC is only 2 higher than his level.

...

I may have crunched his armor class wrong. Frankly, I'm not very good at this. But yes, he's not exactly wearing platemail is he?

[Querzis]

I may have crunched his armor class wrong. Frankly, I'm not very good at this. But yes, he's not exactly wearing platemail is he?

Well...unless there is something deeply wrong about the little I know about Batman his armor can actually stop bullets...so yeah, its probably a lot higher then that, especially with his great dex.

[Tirian]

Well...unless there is something deeply wrong about the little I know about Batman his armor can actually stop bullets...so yeah, its probably a lot higher then that, especially with his great dex.

As far as I know, the only part of Batman's costume that can deflect bullets is the chest insignia. (As Batman notes in TDKR, it is precisely why he wears a big gold target on his chest.) Alfred has pulled a lot of bullets out of his shoulders and legs over the years. Also, while it is arguable whether it is a "magical" effect or just awesome skill, many "good" shots pass through his cape without hitting him.

[Mordokai]

Well...unless there is something deeply wrong about the little I know about Batman his armor can actually stop bullets...so yeah, its probably a lot higher then that, especially with his great dex.

Damage reduction? I'd say, oh, around 25/master craft? And now that Tirian mentions it, I too seem to recall that only his insignia can actually stop bullets.

On subject, I'm also in "Batman is neutral good" camp, for reasons presented already. I would also agree that his alignment fluctuates wildly over the years, but I never read many of Batman comics, or seen his movies. A shame really, he is one of my favourite characters.

[Closet_Skeleton]

What alignment is Robin?

I'd say he's neutral good. Even if Batman is Lawful or Chaotic Good, Robin is less extreme than him.

[Selrahc]

Batmans entire costume is bullet proof material. Only his insignia is reinforced heavily.

That means that the insignia is a really stupid place to aim for.


Damage reduction? I'd say, oh, around 25/master craft?

Well its just doing what all armour does. If its represented as AC in DnD at large, then it should stay as AC for Bats's armour.


Oh, and I also agree with the Neutral Good crowd. He does some chaotic stuff, and some lawful stuff. A bit of evil, and a lot of good. Just because he does extreme stuff at times, doesn't mean he has to be on one of the extremes(As other people have said)

[Charles Phipps]

I added ten to his AC.

In any case, I tend to choose Lawful Good for Batman only when I consider Bruce Wayne to be important to Batman's persona. Specifically, Lawful Good Batman is the one who envisions a day when Gotham City's legal system is repaired, the economy is restored, and the police system is cleaned out of corruption.

The LG Batman BELIEVES in the Police and Criminal Justice System. He also believes in the Reformation of Criminals as well as the fact that the insane can be treated.

Likewise, he's also a guy whose TORMENTED by the Chaotic. Catwoman is probably Neutral at most times. She steals from the rich and doesn't really hurt anyone in the process. Frankly, she's still a Thief though and that bugs the Hell out of Lawful Good Batman whereas Neutral Good Batman probably would be more flexible regarding the fact that she's really not a threat to anyone.

Can I name a Neutral Good Superhero? Oh hell yes, Spiderman. Spiderman, like Batman, breaks the law all the time but there's a big difference in how they interpret it.

[kpenguin]

Can I name a Neutral Good Superhero? Oh hell yes, Spiderman. Spiderman, like Batman, breaks the law all the time but there's a big difference in how they interpret it.

Coincidentally, Complete Scoundrel thinks Spider-Man is Neutral Good as well.

Anyway, I think Batman would work best as a prestige class. Maybe I'll draw it up some time.

[Lemur]

I was gonna say, if you can't decide between the two, he's probably neutral. So I'm with the neutral good crowd. Various incarnations of Batman may have been more lawful or chaotic based on who was writing, but there's always some ambiguity regarding his law/chaos axis.


Batman is not a mutant, is he?

He's quite the mastermind, though. He's got a secret lair, with tons of special gadgets and information gathering equipment.

[Charles Phipps]

I was gonna say, if you can't decide between the two, he's probably neutral.

Yes and no.

Batman is sometimes lawful (Animated Series) and sometimes Chaotic (DKR & ASB)

But he's never MODERATE.

He's either EXTREMELY Lawful or EXTREMELY nuts.

Neutral is the alignment for guys with no real strong opinion on the Law vs. Chaos access.

[turkishproverb]

Batman is Neutral Good.

End of discussion. He breaks away from the law in order to uphold it. He threatens, deceives, and tricks the crooks (Who hasn't seen Batman hold someone off a building and pump them for information?) without intent of actually killing them. He breaks the law in many situations, and often is seen as a problem by the police force with the exception of Commissioner Gordon. Yet, he serves the police force and upholds the law. If the law is corrupt or wrong, he breaks it.

Batman is the prime example of Neutral Good. One who forgoes affinity to either Law or Chaos specifically, and instead pursues good. He uses deception and trickery for good, yet isn't afraid to work with the police for the sake of good.

Neutral Good.

If you honestly consider Batman to be Lawful Good, what the hell do you consider Superman? Lawful^Good? Lawful Lawful? Good Good?

Sigh, lets try this.

Lawful does not necissarily mean obeying the law.

Would a Lawful good person in the soviet union have to turn people over to the gulags and firing squads for political reasons, or Stalin's paranoia? No. Law is about more than that, when combined with good. Your acting like Lawful neutral is Lawful good, or maybe even that Lawful Evil is, really.

[Charles Phipps]

Lawful NEUTRAL people don't necessarilly follow the Law of a foreign land. Lawful Neutral people follow ONE type of law, unerringly.

[turkishproverb]

Lawful NEUTRAL people don't necessarilly follow the Law of a foreign land. Lawful Neutral people follow ONE type of law, unerringly.

I was making a point about his using batman breaking laws as proof he was Neutral or chaotic, because that's not the point and its not accurate to the alignment system. Lawful can break laws. For instance, Princess Lea from star wars would probably qualify as Lawful good, despite beign a leader of a fight against the government.


According to his argument, unless you were WORKING WITH, and following the laws of the empire, you would be chaotic or neutral..

[Dalboz of Gurth]

What many people seem to be neglecting is that Laws themselves can be Good, Neutral or Evil

If the alignment of a Kingdom has Evil Laws, then a Lawful Good player would be allowed to refuse to follow those laws without losing standing. Although they would still probably try to use the system to defeat itself, there would be no penalty for disobeying an evil law.

For example: Princess Leia is clearly Lawful Good, and the laws of the Empire are clearly Evil (Lawful Evil), therefore she is allowed to break the laws of the Galactic Empire and retain her alignment, since those same laws are inherently designed for Evil purposes.

But in a society where the laws are essentially Good, a Lawful Good character would be obligated to follow the laws.

That's why Batman cannot be considered Lawful Good, because he doesn't show as much obligation to follow laws as a Lawful Good character should/would. But likewise, he cannot be considered Chaotic Good, because he uses his abilities to facilitate the laws of society i.e. he doesn't act as judge jury and executioner, he allows the legal system to process offenders.

Also, according to a variety of OFFICIAL SOURCES on what each alignment stands for: Batman clearly falls into the Robin Hood category of Neutral Good.

[turkishproverb]

But in a society where the laws are essentially Good, a Lawful Good character would be obligated to follow the laws.

That's why Batman cannot be considered Lawful Good, because he doesn't show as much obligation to follow laws as a Lawful Good character should/would. But likewise, he cannot be considered Chaotic Good, because he uses his abilities to facilitate the laws of society i.e. he doesn't act as judge jury and executioner, he allows the legal system to process offenders.

Also, according to a variety of OFFICIAL SOURCES on what each alignment stands for: Batman clearly falls into the Robin Hood category of Neutral Good.

Actually, I've heard Robin hood fall into Lawful a number of times, though I agree with neutral.

Furthermore, Once again,t his depends on your definition of lawful, and which batman you are using. The msot common usages of the character are Lawful in attitude, even if he doesn't obey every law. (IE: He obeys HIS rules, even when he shouldn't (letting joker live, for example...)

[Charles Phipps]

But in a society where the laws are essentially Good, a Lawful Good character would be obligated to follow the laws.

Yes, however, I think most people are going with the Gotham City where the legal system is effectively non-functional. Batman is a vigilante (in the loosest sense of the word) because the cops are utterly incapable of defending society against the Joker. Batman still, however, turns the Joker over to the cops.

Of course, this is also a society where the Justice League is officially sanctioned and we also have had Batman deputized in the past before.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Yes, however, I think most people are going with the Gotham City where the legal system is effectively non-functional. Batman is a vigilante (in the loosest sense of the word) because the cops are utterly incapable of defending society against the Joker. Batman still, however, turns the Joker over to the cops.

Of course, this is also a society where the Justice League is officially sanctioned and we also have had Batman deputized in the past before.

The legal system is Good, the people inside the system are corrupt. IF Batman were Lawful Good he would not have dropped out of the police academy. Instead, he would have remained in the police academy, and ferreted out corruption from within - i.e. Like Commissioner Gordon.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Actually, I've heard Robin hood fall into Lawful a number of times, though I agree with neutral.

Yes, I know people try to say he was lawful good, but TSR took the official stance that he was Neutral Good and have doccumented it on several occasions - using him as a basis to help people understand how the alignment system was meant to work.


Furthermore, Once again,t his depends on your definition of lawful, and which batman you are using. The msot common usages of the character are Lawful in attitude, even if he doesn't obey every law. (IE: He obeys HIS rules, even when he shouldn't (letting joker live, for example...)

yeah yeah I know ok let me do it this way:

Adam West = Lawful Good (he's as good as the Lone Ranger)
B:TAS and most of standard DCU = Neutral Good
Tim Burton = Neutral Good with tendency toward Chaotic vengeance.

Psychotic alternate universe Batman - Chaotic Good with tendency toward CN.

there :D

[Charles Phipps]

The legal system is Good, the people inside the system are corrupt. IF Batman were Lawful Good he would not have dropped out of the police academy. Instead, he would have remained in the police academy, and ferreted out corruption from within - i.e. Like Commissioner Gordon.

I'm not so sure that it's that simple. Batman seems to be following the SPIRIT of the law even if he can't follow it's letter. Batman is a vigilante only in the broadest of sense because he's not actually executing or even administering to the punishment of criminals.

Almost invariably, Batman's role is to stop crimes in progress and lead the police to existing crimes.

Of course, I firmly believe the Punisher is Lawful Neutral. He specifically follows Frank Castles' legal code that takes a great deal of its sense of justice out of a single passage of the Bible.

I have a little list off the top of my head.

DC Comics


Heroes

Superman: LG
Batman: LG
Wonder Woman: NG
Green Arrow: CG
Green Arrow II: LG
Flash II: LG
Flash III: CG (the irony being that the Policeman is Chaotic while the vigilante is Lawful Good)
Nightwing: NG
Robin: NG
Batgirl: NG
Green Lantern I: LG
Green Lantern II: LG
Green Lantern III: CG/CN
Green Lantern IV: NG

Villains

Lex Luthor: LE (Silver Age is NE)
Joker: CE
Riddler: CN
Two Face: LN/CE
Brainiac: LE
Darkseid: LE (this was a hard one)
Catwoman: N
Sinestro: LE then slowly moves to CE
Ra's Al Ghul: LE

Marvel Comics

Heroes

Captain America: LG
Iron Man: LG, LN during the events of Civil War
Mister Fantastic: LG, LN during the events of Civil War
Thor: Chaotic Good (he tries but Thor is dominated by his emotions more than anything)
Professor Xavier: LG
Wolverine: CG/CN back and forth
Iron Fist: LG
Luke Cage: CG
Spiderman: NG
Hawkeye: NG
The Punisher: LN, CN, and LE at various times since it's fairly clear Frank Castle does not always play with a full deck.
Namor: LN
Daredevil: CG
Black Widow: LN
Nick Fury: The only LG man in the spygame

Villains

Doctor Doom: The quintessential LE
Magneto: Ditto
Apocalypse: NE or CE (I had difficulty here)
The Red Skull: NE or CE (much the same, Red Skull is a brilliant planner but he's also clearly insane)
Doctor Octopus: LE
The Kingpin: NE (I always liked the fact that Wilson Fisk thinks he's LE but he's really a horrible sadist first)

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I'm not so sure that it's that simple. Batman seems to be following the SPIRIT of the law even if he can't follow it's letter. Batman is a vigilante only in the broadest of sense because he's not actually executing or even administering to the punishment of criminals.

Almost invariably, Batman's role is to stop crimes in progress and lead the police to existing crimes.

yeah, no, Non-Adam West Batman has done some pretty major, and I mean serious major infractions against the law. Adam West Batman acts the way you say and I have little problem saying he's LG.

But seriously talking about B:TAS and standard DCU here -- breaking and entering secured military installations, highjacking military satellites and information networks, assault and battery against elected officials, the only way you could be Lawful Good and get away with that is if the system itself was evil with evil laws.


Of course, I firmly believe the Punisher is Lawful Neutral. He specifically follows Frank Castles' legal code that takes a great deal of its sense of justice out of a single passage of the Bible.

Yeah, that's ... yeah ... dude, please tell me you're joking :smalltongue:

I made comments with blue text, I agree with most displayed down below. There are some I removed from the list because I didn't know the characters or I disagreed.


I have a little list off the top of my head.

DC Comics


Heroes

Superman: LG

Flash II: LG (B.A.?)

Nightwing: NG
Robin: NG
Batgirl: NG

ok I've got absolutely no clue how you can call the above three NG and batman LG :tongue:

Green Lantern I: LG Alan Scott? yeah ok I can see tha
Green Lantern II: LG Hal Jordon? No, I'm sorry, they had him massacre an entire planet of people. He lost his LG status a long time ago
Green Lantern III: CG/CN Carrot Top? Yeah he's definitely CG, how many times has he had his powers suspended for flippin off TPTB? If you're talking about Jhon Stewart then I'm sorry, he's LG tried and true.
Green Lantern IV: NG Kyle? I don't recall him ever really breaking any laws...

Villains

Lex Luthor: LE (Silver Age is NE) DC recently downgraded him to Chaotic Evil, although I do admit his status as being lawful/neutral/chaotic is in flux depending on the writer. I mean, it's really hard to keep him lawful when he routinely involves himself with intergang

Joker: CE

Riddler: CN if this were the 90s I'd agree with you, however, they've since butchered this character and I don't know anymore

Two Face: LN/CE When harvey dent is in control he's LG. When Two Face is in control he's definitely LE. Two Face does follow a very harsh set of laws - the laws of probability. He can never ever obey these laws, ever. That's a pretty strong case for Lawful Evil

Brainiac: LE
Darkseid: LE (this was a hard one)

Catwoman: N ---Depending on the decade she has gone from CN, TN, to Chaotic Good
Sinestro: LE then slowly moves to CE

Marvel Comics

Heroes

Captain America: LG

Iron Man: LG, LN during the events of Civil War ---I'm sorry, but the dude conspired to commit an assassination. He's now Neutral Evil since it's all for his personal gain.

Mister Fantastic: LG, LN during the events of Civil War
Thor: Chaotic Good (he tries but Thor is dominated by his emotions more than anything) --- I just don't know about him anymore
Professor Xavier: LG
Wolverine: CG/CN back and forth
Spiderman: NG
Hawkeye: NG
The Punisher: LN, CN, and LE at various times since it's fairly clear Frank Castle does not always play with a full deck.
Namor: LG --- Namor is lawful good as far as he's concerned, since he always tries to do what's best for his people. His status as a kingdom ruler grants him some leeway I believe, as his first duty is to uphold the welfare of his subjects, not the welfare of another country.
Daredevil: CG

Nick Fury: The only LG man in the spygame

Villains

Doctor Doom: The quintessential LE
Magneto: Ditto
Apocalypse: NE or CE (I had difficulty here) --I'd go with CE
The Red Skull: NE or CE (much the same, Red Skull is a brilliant planner but he's also clearly insane)

The Kingpin: NE (I always liked the fact that Wilson Fisk thinks he's LE but he's really a horrible sadist first) -- It's pretty hard to justify he's NE, bud, specifically because he owns his own massive criminal syndicate - or did he lose it again?

[Closet_Skeleton]

Darkseid: LE (this was a hard one)

This should be really easy. He controls an entire planet in a massive dictatorship.


Thor: Chaotic Good (he tries but Thor is dominated by his emotions more than anything)

Mythological Thor should be Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. The Asgardians in Myth are pretty much universaly chaotic but the marvel ones are scewed anyway.


Nick Fury: The only LG man in the spygame

He doesn't always succeed in following the right option though.


The Kingpin: NE (I always liked the fact that Wilson Fisk thinks he's LE but he's really a horrible sadist first)

I think that the point has been made several times in the Marvel Universe that if you replaced Fisk with another gangster, New York City would be a far worse place.

Fisk is evil, but he brings law to evil.

[Charles Phipps]

But seriously talking about B:TAS and standard DCU here -- breaking and entering secured military installations, highjacking military satellites and information networks, assault and battery against elected officials, the only way you could be Lawful Good and get away with that is if the system itself was evil with evil laws.

Animated series Batman I put as Lawful Good (the DCU proper is an up and down craziness scale) primarily because he's always working WITH Comissioner Gordon in a very public fashion. Batman is scrupulous in keeping his nose clean in the animated series and that's what allows him to have a big Bat Signal on the rooftop.

Hence why there's all the episodes about him being framed.


ok I've got absolutely no clue how you can call the above three NG and batman LG

Because it's the ongoing theme of their relationship? Seriously, Nightwing's whole stichke is the fact that he has less emotional baggage about being a vigilante than Batman. I liken this to the fact that Nightwing doesn't really sweat the moral compromises that torture Batman so much because he keeps his eye focused on the "good" as opposed to the lawful.

Tim Drake is much the same way.


Hal Jordon? No, I'm sorry, they had him massacre an entire planet of people. He lost his LG status a long time ago

To be fair, even in Emerald Twilight, Hal Jordan just had the DCU's Los Angeles analogue be destroyed on his watch (which he's from). I liken that to temporary insanity. However, he's been retconned as being possessed.

FYI, I was starting from Hal. I made a mistake there.


Kyle? I don't recall him ever really breaking any laws...

Kyle, I put as Neutral Good because he's like Nightwing in that he doesn't particularly sweat the legalties of his position.


When harvey dent is in control he's LG. When Two Face is in control he's definitely LE. Two Face does follow a very harsh set of laws - the laws of probability. He can never ever obey these laws, ever. That's a pretty strong case for Lawful Evil

Maybe, maybe not. One of the ironies of Two Face is Harvey Dent isn't that nice of a guy by comparison to Two Face's evil. We don't ever see Harvey donating money to charity or hugging kittens when he's in control, he's mostly just not doing evil.


It's pretty hard to justify he's NE, bud, specifically because he owns his own massive criminal syndicate - or did he lose it again?

I rule he's Neutral Evil because while he's usually a well and methodical planner, Kingpin throws all of that out the window whenever Daredevil or Spiderman gets involved. He's an utterly honorless and monstrous piece of trash.


I think that the point has been made several times in the Marvel Universe that if you replaced Fisk with another gangster, New York City would be a far worse place.

Ironically, the reverse has also been made a point that the Kingpin is a much WORSE gangster than most since he murders the whole families of people who fail him and has ties to everything from Hydra to god knows what else.

Of course, that's what makes Kingpin cool. Don Fortuna and Hammerhead just don't have Fisk's evil.

[Charles Phipps]

My argument for "Frank Castle is Lawful Neutral" is built around the idea that while the Punisher is 'insane' in a conventional sense, it's only in the fact that he's using his training as a Green Beret to wage a war on what he percieves to be the enemy (specifically; organized crime).

Take note that we're using D&D Logic here where there's nothing intristically wrong with hunting down and executing evil doers so long as they're murderers. In Frank's case, I hesitate to say he's evil because of his unwillingness to compromise the set of rules that he's established for himself. I also state he's not good because he's utterly lacking in any form of mercy for people involving themselves in crime (executing his friend Microchip for his part in large scale drug trafficking).

Frank is extremely methodical, thorough, and businesslike in his handling of his business. He is tightly controlled and doesn't let any emotions cloud his thinking. You could say he's got a samurai like mentality with the only way he releases his emotions being in the execution of criminals. Everything is dictated by his particular Code of Ethics.

Hence, LN.

[Mordokai]

Castle is definetely not Good, in fact I would say he is getting dangerously close to Neutral. He respects no law but his own, and while that is the definition of Lawful character it would also be mandatory to respect at least some of the city laws. Frank does no such thing. He threads a gray zone between LN and N, but he is definetely not Good.

[TheMeanDM]

I'll throw my 2 cents in.

I think Batman is Lawful Good because:

1) he adheres to a strict code of honor (no killing, no guns, etc)
2) he works for the greater good (keeping Gotham safe)

Now, yes, he may be a "vigilante" but *why* do you think he is such (beyond the whole parents killed thing)?

My answers:

1) because the Gotham PD isn't staffed to deal with the amount of crime in Gotham
2) because the Gotham PD isn't equipped to handle *super* human villains, or villains with crazy, high-tech gadgets that make the PD's weapons look like cap-guns.

YES, Batman "breaks" the Gotham laws by aprehending the criminals. However, if Gotham were better staffed and better equipped to handle all the villains and criminals---then there would be no need for Batman.

Let's face it...who in Gotham could have *ever* stood up to Bane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_%28comics%29) or, for that lesser matter, Killer Croc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Croc). I also seriously doubt that the Gotham PD would be able to contend with Mister Freeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Freeze).

So you see, Gotham PD *needs* Batman. They need him to bring the law (and it's justice) to those whom they can't "touch". Unfortunately, the GPD doesn't want to (officially) admit that they need him to maintain law and order in Gotham. Because, if they did, then they would lose what faith the people of Gotham have in them (for starters).

[Wolf53226]

When Two Face is in control he's definitely LE. Two Face does follow a very harsh set of laws - the laws of probability. He can never ever obey these laws, ever. That's a pretty strong case for Lawful Evil


Wait....WHAT!!!!

He lets a random event determine how he will act, and what he will do, the fact that he always follows what this event decides doesn't make him lawful, at best rigidly following a random event could be neutral. I don't get it, you think a man that flips a coin to determine if you live or die is lawful, but Batman, who follows a strict moral code is neutral???

Sure, I can grant that there have been times that Batman has broken said code, but by enlarge he follows certain rules to an extent that boggles the mind.

[Klaz Eidron]

1) he adheres to a strict code of honor (no killing, no guns, etc)
2) he works for the greater good (keeping Gotham safe)

What? Chaotic Good people can't do this?

[kpenguin]

What? Chaotic Good people can't do this?

They do #2, but generally not #1. Honor is an ethical code, not a moral one.

[Klaz Eidron]

So Drizzt Do'Urden is not chaotic good?

[kpenguin]

So Drizzt Do'Urden is not chaotic good?

Besides generally not being evil and upholding good, what ethical code does Drizzt display?

[Serenity]

Ah, but Two-Face never deviates from the decision he makes from the coin. He lets the 'Great Equalizer' the Law of Averages decide, and he abides by those rules. Batman does whatever is necessary to achieve justice short of certain tactics like killing. His primary tactic is fear and intimidation--his two primary tactics are fear, intimidation, and surprise--(now this is really degenerating...)

At any rate, Batman breaks and enters on a regular basis, very nearly tortures criminals for information. His 'strict code' is simply lines he will not cross--not killing, not using guns due to the first line, as well as personal experience. Short of that, anything is acceptable. He uses both Lawful and Chaotic means as necessary. Neutral Good.

[Klaz Eidron]

Besides generally not being evil and upholding good, what ethical code does Drizzt display?

Extreme pacifism, mostly (He even tries to avoid fighting with the evil races, and killing them, as said before, is not an evil or chaotic act, otherwise paladins wouldn't be good)

[turkishproverb]

Ah, but Two-Face never deviates from the decision he makes from the coin. He lets the 'Great Equalizer' the Law of Averages decide, and he abides by those rules. Batman does whatever is necessary to achieve justice short of certain tactics like killing. His primary tactic is fear and intimidation--his two primary tactics are fear, intimidation, and surprise--(now this is really degenerating...)

At any rate, Batman breaks and enters on a regular basis, very nearly tortures criminals for information. His 'strict code' is simply lines he will not cross--not killing, not using guns due to the first line, as well as personal experience. Short of that, anything is acceptable. He uses both Lawful and Chaotic means as necessary. Neutral Good.

Actually two face does deviat frome the coin occasionally, usually when the result would be a GOOD thing to do. Like in Arkam Asylum, he flipped the coin and lied about it saying batman could be set free

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Charles Phipps - ok I still don't agree with some of your assertions, but at least I can see a method to your madness ;D (I meant that as a playful remark not as a flame)


Wait....WHAT!!!!

He lets a random event determine how he will act, and what he will do, the fact that he always follows what this event decides doesn't make him lawful, at best rigidly following a random event could be neutral. I don't get it, you think a man that flips a coin to determine if you live or die is lawful, but Batman, who follows a strict moral code is neutral???

Sure, I can grant that there have been times that Batman has broken said code, but by enlarge he follows certain rules to an extent that boggles the mind.

I underlined the important part of that statement.

Batman's MORAL CODE is what determines the second portion of the alignment (Neutral Good Evil). While he rarely breaks his code of "Morality", he holds absolutely 0 respect for any sort of behavioral law.


NON-MORAL Laws of Society or Laws of Nature determine the primary portion of alignments: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic.


When Two Face breaks the Law of Nature (Law of Probabilities), then he tends to have emotional and physical break downs. Yes he has broken the law of probabilities before, but that's been explained as a deterioration of his coin. Because he carved away at the coin he uses to flip, it has caused the law of probabilities to be bent. Subconsciously he is trying to rectify this (this has been portrayed in both the comics -Shadow of the Bat before cancellation- and the animated series).

While Two Face can definitely break the laws of society, the fact he is so stringent for the laws of probability make up for this. Laws of Society and Laws of Probability are NOT complimentary and always at odds. Although it would be fine to argue he's Neutral Evil, and I can see that support, his extreme and intense fanatical devotion to obeying the Laws of Probability outweigh any other laws he might break.


Meanwhile Batman could care less if he breaks any kind of law, so long as he's morally justified (ends justify the means in most situations as far as Batman is concerned). That's why people like Robin Hood and Batman are Neutral Good.

[turkishproverb]

Meanwhile Batman could care less if he breaks any kind of law, so long as he's morally justified (ends justify the means in most situations as far as Batman is concerned). That's why people like Robin Hood and Batman are Neutral Good.

If that were the case, batman would be killing his entire rogues gallery. And fighting the cops left and right. He's very strictly adherent to his code, whether or not you think that code is just. sounds like your problem is with the Good scale, rather than the lawful scale.

[Charles Phipps]

Take note that judging the alignment of Batman villains is hard because they're lunatics.

I put Two Face as Chaotic Evil primarily because he's Harvey Dent's Id and does everything nasty he can with no regard to consequences or what it will get him. The only thing the coin does is make his ability to express that even more random.

[turkishproverb]

Take note that judging the alignment of Batman villains is hard because they're lunatics.

I put Two Face as Chaotic Evil primarily because he's Harvey Dent's Id and does everything nasty he can with no regard to consequences or what it will get him. The only thing the coin does is make his ability to express that even more random.

Actually, given his desire to falsify evidence and take things into his own hands, frame people, and act against his own claimed "moral code." harvey is probably NG at best, NN/CG at worst. I do think Face is LE though...

[Tirian]

That's why people like Robin Hood and Batman are Neutral Good.

If you don't think that Robin Hood is CG, then you need to recalibrate your sense of alignment. He is the quintessential embodiment of Chaotic Good. Chaotic good was created so that people could role-play Robin Hood.

[turkishproverb]

If you don't think that Robin Hood is CG, then you need to recalibrate your sense of alignment. He is the quintessential embodiment of Chaotic Good. Chaotic good was created so that people could role-play Robin Hood.

Dude? He didn't rebel until the law went loopy. IE: the phony king of england and all that.

[nephtis]

Not related to Batman (and I only read a few comics of the Elseworld series which shouldn't really figure into this discussion)



Besides generally not being evil and upholding good, what ethical code does Drizzt display?

Understanding the concept of mercy, friendship/loayalty and willingness to judge people by action not background comes to mind.

But since Dri'zzt goes back way back to second edition, being chaotic good is almost a given by simple looking at the rules.
In those good old days, being good was a requirement for becoming a ranger, being chaotic meant being able to function without a organisation behind you and since it was also in the job describtion to differ with a paladin not on the general goals but on the method to reach it, I'd wager 99% of 2nd edition rangers were c/g - at least on the paper, no matter how they were actually played.

[hamishspence]

Chaotic is partly to do with how you approach the whole Freedom issue. Batman claims the freedom to act when the law cannot, which is somewhat Chaotic, but only where the Law is hamstrung by the fact that the Villain is using it to defend itself.

However, when the Law is impotent, in the sense that its agents simply lack the resources, knowledge, numbers, and weaponry to confront the Villain on his home turf, who are you going to turn to, apart from the formidable vigilante?

This is, in fact, the whole rational behind D&D style adventuring in the first place. City Watches, even Local Militas, are no match for the Monsters in their home environment, so you call out the specialist guys who hunt Monsters for a living.

Using this guideline, Batman going after supervillains is not Chaotic after all. In fact, the Adam West Batman is actually asked by the police to take on those villains which they lack the power to deal with.

The Bat is mostly Lawful in his approach to crimefighting: a planner, organizer, with at least some respect for the law enforcement agencies. He will capture, but rarely if ever punish. In fact, there are legal Vigilante organizations in the real world who take a similar approach: if they witness a serious crime, they try to restrain the criminal until they can call in the Law.

On the Good front, from what I can tell, it is incredibly rare for the Bat to commit truly Evil acts. Threats are dubious, but he almost never uses real pain as an interrogation tool. Also, I do not think he is one for killing, unless innocents are in real danger, or there is no easy way to render the villain helpless. Similarly, he doesn't use violence against non-combatants, and in fact restrains his own violence in the face of extreme provocation.

So, with few Evil acts, and many Good ones, the Bat, except maybe in the darkest comics, is Good. His very heavy Lawful bent means that the majority of versions of the Bat are Lawful.

So, LG, but not Exalted LG, is your traditional Batman, through most versions.

[Serenity]

If that were the case, batman would be killing his entire rogues gallery. And fighting the cops left and right. He's very strictly adherent to his code, whether or not you think that code is just. sounds like your problem is with the Good scale, rather than the lawful scale.

Er, no, he wouldn't because those are evil actions. What's Batman's code, exactly? "Don't kill, don't use guns" seems to be most of it. That's not enough to call someone Lawful, methinks.

And Robin Hood is totally Chaotic Good. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" is not Lawful Good behavior.

[turkishproverb]

Er, no, he wouldn't because those are evil actions. What's Batman's code, exactly? "Don't kill, don't use guns" seems to be most of it. That's not enough to call someone Lawful, methinks.

And Robin Hood is totally Chaotic Good. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" is not Lawful Good behavior.

It is if the rich are abusing the law, or even surcumventing the rightful laws to get their wealth.

And how would, especialyl by d&D definitions, KILLING THE JOKER an evil action? Same with fighting law enforcement, not EVIL necissarily, even if their good, just not LAWFUL. but wait...he's not performing these non lawful actions...hmm...

Its more complex than don't kill, don't use guns. His code is about getting justice done. You're using the equivilant of cereal box logic here, and within a fictional universe, thats more like ketchup packet logic. He has strict regulations for exactly HOW FAR his behavior goes. Hence why DKR batman was so out there. The (*(*&) he was ACTUALLY doing to criminals was well passed his limits.

[Thanatos]

Lawful doesn't mean you always follow the laws of the society you're in.

I guess the term "Lawful" was used as an homage to Moorcock, but it's such a misnomer that many end up confused. A better term would be "Ordered". The character prefers order and structure, and tends to be consistent and disciplined. In a just and well crafted system of laws, they will likely follow them, but in a corrupt, unjust, or ineffectual system, they'll follow their own sense of justice.

Batman is Ordered. Some versions are also lawful in the legal sense, but at least one is very close to Ordered Evil.

[Charles Phipps]

Er, no, he wouldn't because those are evil actions. What's Batman's code, exactly? "Don't kill, don't use guns" seems to be most of it. That's not enough to call someone Lawful, methinks.

Batman's Code actually seems to be "Don't kill, Don't use guns, Turn Criminals over to the Police with enough evidence gathered to legitimately convict them, and send the genuinely insane to Asylums as opposed to allowing them to be executed for behavior beyond their control."

He also lives a totally regimented lifestyle of "Wake up, eat some Prize Fighter Egg Drinks, Read Paper, Train in Awesomo Kung Fu, Patrol, Investigate, and get into fistfights, go home to Alfred, go to sleep, repeat."

And once every seven days or so; he wakes up during the day to appear as Bruce Wayne to attend some charities, act like a complete yutz, make sure he's giving money to the right people, and have sex with a supermodel that he never calls again.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a few Tabloids owned to spread false rumors about trips the Riveria and other stuff that he doesn't do.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

If you don't think that Robin Hood is CG, then you need to recalibrate your sense of alignment. He is the quintessential embodiment of Chaotic Good. Chaotic good was created so that people could role-play Robin Hood.

No, I don't think Robin Hood is Neutral Good. I KNOW he is Neutral Good, because I actually READ the rules on alignment.

Rules which are reiterated in more than a handful of 2nd edition handbooks, such as page 281 of the Domains of Dread:


Neutral Good
~snip~
The classic Robin Hood is a fine example of a neutral good character.



Disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the rules.

[kpenguin]

Indeed. While the traditional image of Robin Hood as the noble bandit stealing from the rich to give to the poor is essentially chaotic good, one must remember that Robin is fighting an illegitimate authority and awaiting the return of the true king.

[Dark Tira]

No, I don't think Robin Hood is Neutral Good. I KNOW he is Neutral Good, because I actually READ the rules on alignment.

Rules which are reiterated in more than a handful of 2nd edition handbooks, such as page 281 of the Domains of Dread:

Disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the rules.

Not an approach you should probably take. According to the rules newer materials supersede older materials and so Complete Scoundrel is the source that takes precedence. That would mean that current D&D alignment ordering puts Robin Hood as Chaotic Good along with Malcom Reynolds and Starbuck.

[Charles Phipps]

Indeed. While the traditional image of Robin Hood as the noble bandit stealing from the rich to give to the poor is essentially chaotic good, one must remember that Robin is fighting an illegitimate authority and awaiting the return of the true king.

Which, ironically, the Eroll Flynn version of Robin Hood is one that's devoted to whismical nature of being a bandit as a primary inspiration for Chaotic Good. There's multiple versions of nearly every major character.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Indeed. While the traditional image of Robin Hood as the noble bandit stealing from the rich to give to the poor is essentially chaotic good, one must remember that Robin is fighting an illegitimate authority and awaiting the return of the true king.

Robin Hood is trying to restore the law of the King by fighting against a man who is unlawfully abusing the powers of the Royal Throne.

The rich who supported King John were Normans, who made up Evil Aligned "Laws" to tax the celts/picts/exromans etc... into submission as well as to support Prince John's unlawful claim to the throne.

Because these laws Robin Hood was breaking were illegal to begin with, he actually wasn't breaking any real laws. ^_^

IF he were Chaotic Good then he wouldn't have been trying to restore england to glory for King Richard.

[hyperfreak497]

I'm going to comment without having read any of the posts so far. I call it, "commenting without taint".

Chaotic. Easy call. He goes outside the law, and, in one of the few Batman comics I read, he said that the law will not interfere with his personal justice. I think that qualifies as chaotic.

[Thormag]

Like in Arkam Asylum, he flipped the coin and lied about it saying batman could be set free

Actually he didn't "lie" because it was April's Fools. Logic is reversed, hence the results were reversed

[Serenity]

No, I don't think Robin Hood is Neutral Good. I KNOW he is Neutral Good, because I actually READ the rules on alignment.

Rules which are reiterated in more than a handful of 2nd edition handbooks, such as page 281 of the Domains of Dread:



Disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the rules.

Ah, of course, anyone who disagrees with you is a D&D illiterate. How can we counter such brilliant debate tactics?

For the record, here's the 3.5 Players Handbook definition of Chaotic Good: "A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right, but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society." Textbook Robin Hood.

[TerraThom]

so lawful it hurts. he never works
outside the law, unless there's
corruption involved.

[Serenity]

I'm almost willing to buy that he's Lawful--almost--but 'so Lawful it hurts?' Please. Superman is so Lawful it hurts. Batman works outside the law regularly by his very nature. He's the goddamn Batman; when he needs information, he gets it by torturing crooks.

[kpenguin]

I dunno, Superman strikes me as someone more concerned with morality and goodness than ethics and order.

I'm not much of a Superman fan, so I wouldn't know.

[Charles Phipps]

I dunno, Superman strikes me as someone more concerned with morality and goodness than ethics and order.

I'm not much of a Superman fan, so I wouldn't know.

Superman=Mount Celestia.

US Agent= Arcadia

[sun_tzu]

Indeed. While the traditional image of Robin Hood as the noble bandit stealing from the rich to give to the poor is essentially chaotic good, one must remember that Robin is fighting an illegitimate authority and awaiting the return of the true king.

Ironically, in real life, prince John was a perfectly legitimate stand-in, whose heavy taxes were put in place to pay for Richard Lionheart's war. If anyone was responsible for the population's plight, it was Richard...but all the blame went to John.
...
Why am I suddenly reminded of Tyrion Lannister?

[Thormag]

I believe in Batman as a LG character. The Devil's Advocate made me believe in that.

Also, remember even though Supes and Bats are LG, they don't act the same way. Not every LG character is a paladin!

[kpenguin]

I believe in Batman as a LG character. The Devil's Advocate made me believe in that.

Also, remember even though Supes and Bats are LG, they don't act the same way. Not every LG character is a paladin!

Nor is every paladin the same!

[turkishproverb]

Nor is every paladin the same!

Superhero Palidin personalities

Batman: Miko

Superman: hinjo.

[kpenguin]

Superhero Palidin personalities

Batman: Miko

Superman: Hinjo.

I wouldn't say Bruce is bad as all that.

[Duke Malagigi]

Superhero Palidin personalities

Batman: Miko

Superman: hinjo.

I see it more like this.

Batman: Solomon Kane or Malagigi from the Legends of Charlemagne.

Superman: Hinjo.

[Charles Phipps]

Miko: The Specter.

[Koga]

Batman and Superman prove you can be lawful good, and be completely differant, even to the point of not liking eachother.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Ironically, in real life, prince John was a perfectly legitimate stand-in, whose heavy taxes were put in place to pay for Richard Lionheart's war. If anyone was responsible for the population's plight, it was Richard...but all the blame went to John.
...
Why am I suddenly reminded of Tyrion Lannister?

Richard caused a lot of problems but John did some pretty stupid and bad things during both stints on the throne (before Richard's death). John was skimming from the top, and he did try to have Richard deposed from the throne. John also initiated some rather nasty punishments from some taxes that were not Richard's.

He pissed Richard off so much that Richard did give John a sound pimp slapping.

Let's not forget that during his Second stint on the throne, John did have his nephew Arthur executed (which ticked off France), and the only reason the Magna Carta was signed into law, was due to a revolt.

[Wardog]

Oh for...

Lawfull or Chaotic is mainly about attittude and intent and got pretty much nothing to do with actually following law, when will people get that!



When WotC rename the alignment axis to Ordered/Chaotic?

[Wraithy]

....I would say something about alignment not being real, but if you could have been converted it would have happened by now, you lovable rogues you!
erm.. ah yes! the discussion at hand! according to wizards of the coast Sir batters is LN, and considering they controll alignment, we may not dispute it, regardless of personal opinion.
however you could work around this by creating a specific alignment (http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=ralign) for batsy

[Tirian]

When WotC rename the alignment axis to Ordered/Chaotic?

That would be a start, but it wouldn't do a whole lot. You still have problems with people like Robin Hood and Batman who lead very ordered militias that are either antagonistic or at least non-allied with the established order of their communities. Or someone like Thor, who is personally a wild card but stands firmly against the global chaos inflicted by Loki and the giants.

I think that the solution is for WotC to take alignment out of the system and replace it with a specific philosophical outlook in the very small number of cases in which that is needed. It would take a little retooling around defining what you actually mean by the effects Detect Good and Unholy Blight, I suppose, but the output could only be much more playable.

[vivi]

I think hes Neutral good.

[Klaz Eidron]

Hmm... (This is about the Batman Begins version)
http://www.anchordeep.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3023&sid=30017b85d9ee70fd51ef1c6f55a702fa

EDIT: Other interesting pieces: http://www.mguinc.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=7&t=2480
http://dav.sadowl.com/archives/5/
http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?=&p=85299
http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-54864.html
http://www.treasuretables.org/forum/index.php?topic=520.45;wap2
http://coa.ender.com/viewtopic.php?t=20028&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=33a448937b3c158e8604f2cbd9502c1b(This one has a good Batman analysis)

[Thanatos]

so lawful it hurts. he never works
outside the law, unless there's
corruption involved.

Is that a freeform poem?
Intentional or not, it could work as one.

[Tirian]

according to wizards of the coast Sir batters is LN, and considering they controll alignment, we may not dispute it, regardless of personal opinion.

Lord have mercy. On behalf of DC Comics, let me offer a "What comic are you people reading?!" to WotC. Batman is good, get over it.

There are going to be debates on the other axis. I mean, heck, for fifty years there have always been two Batmans in the DCU, the one that operates outside of the law to do what the Gotham City police can't do, and the one that is a senior member of the nigh-globally deputized Justice League, and these two guys have very different alignments and we probably aren't being clear about which one we're talking about at any moment.

[Logic]

Lord have mercy. On behalf of DC Comics, let me offer a "What comic are you people reading?!" to WotC. Batman is good, get over it.

There are going to be debates on the other axis. I mean, heck, for fifty years there have always been two Batmans in the DCU, the one that operates outside of the law to do what the Gotham City police can't do, and the one that is a senior member of the nigh-globally deputized Justice League, and these two guys have very different alignments and we probably aren't being clear about which one we're talking about at any moment.
If you base Batman off of the version that was created by Bob Kane, Batman seems to almost be True Neutral. The reason I say this, is Bob Kane himself despised the direction that DC went with Batman at one point, claiming "[Batman] is not a good person." And Batman seems to side with the underdog on the law and chaos axis (while he doesn't usually throw the law out the window unless it is a huge inconvieniance, he isn't out acting wantonly disobeying laws either.)

If you base him off of the "JLA/JSA versions of Batman that has been portrayed over the years, he seems a little more lawful, and a touch more good.

Unfortunately, there are two primary camps of alignment (as a system) haters. Either it is too "one-dimensional" or it "allows too much freedom."

If any of you decide to include Batman as an NPC in your games, roleplay him as you percieve him. Otherwise, arguing his alignment is of little value.

[Fay Graydon]

Chaotic Good? mabey?

[Caledonian]

I'm almost willing to buy that he's Lawful--almost--but 'so Lawful it hurts?' Please. Superman is so Lawful it hurts. Batman works outside the law regularly by his very nature.

Do not confuse the legal system with alignment Lawfulness.

Batman is disciplined, orderly, distinguishes himself from the monsters he fights only by the control he imposes upon his actions, and is driven by a single-minded obsession.

He's Lawful Neutral.

[Gungnir]

Yes, he is.

[Revlid]

DCAU/Timmverse is the only true DC canon (and anything in the latest Blue Beetle series). Batman's Lawful Good.

[T.Titan]

This one's so easy... Batman most certainly has levels in Monk (and Rogue too)... which is restricted to Lawful. Next question.

[SquireJames]

My gut feeling says Bats is Lawful Good, near the Neutral Good line. He's crossed the line in the past, and he will again in the future. His main objection to the Justice League is all those Chaotic Good people the League accepts. He gets upset at the wise-crackers more often than he does at the "straight arrows".

[Caledonian]

C'mon, he's called the "Dark Knight" for a reason. He's not all smiles and sunshine.

Batman is motivated to fight not so much because he wants to spare innocents suffering, but more because he hates the criminals and corruption. He may be Good, but only weakly so - he's devoted to Lawfulness. Like a paladin whose focus is Law instead of Good. Indeed, he avoids harming the innocent more because they're not criminal than because of true concern.

[Marek]

Just stating an opinion, but I and my gaming group have always portrayed Batman as a Lawful Neutral character. Just my 0.02$.

[Finn Solomon]

I believe the bottom line is that Superman fights to protect the innocent, whereas Batman fights to punish the guilty. At their most basic level, that is what they are programmed to do.

[Mr. Mud]

Batman "breaks the rules" for the Greater Good. SO doesnt that make him some variation of Neutral/ Neutral Good? This is Confusing :smalleek:

[Wardog]

From reading all these posts (and some of the ones on the linked forums as well), I get the impression that a lot of people think there are only two positions on the Law/Chaos axis.

(The worst example was on one of the linked forums, where someone said that if a Lawful person breaks one law, they become Chaotic).

If there is a great deal of controversy about whether someone is Lawful or Chaotic, isn't that a good indication that they are Neutral?

To go into more detail:

I would say that - from my understanding of the alignment definitions - that a Chaotic character is essentially an anarchist (at least partly). A chaotic character doesn't merely break the rules or ignore the wishes of the authorities. A chaotic character thinks that rules and laws are a bad thing. A CG character, in a LG society, might "tolerate" the laws, but will probably be continually claiming that while these laws are currently being used for Good, they will none the less have a stifling effect on individuality, weaken people's ability to think or look after themselves, and could easily by turned to evil if the wrong people gain power. A CG character in a Lawful Non-Good society will probably be trying to tear it down and replace it with (or more likely, allow to develop) a chaotic (or at least neutral) society.

On the other hand, a LG character thinks that rules and laws are a good thing in themselves. A LG character will therefor attempt to stick within the established procedures, even when trying to change laws he disagrees with. However, I can still imagine that a a LG char could break the rules, or even take part in a revolution, if the society he was in was sufficiently broken. Provided he still believe that laws were a good thing in themselves, and was trying to restore or establish a (good) lawful society, he wouldn't lose his alignment.


So having established that, I would say:

Batman is not an anarchist. When he sees the corruption and failure of the law in Gotham, he doesn't say "See - Law is at best useless and at worst actually harmful. We should tear it down and allow the natural goodness of freely-acting people to establish a better society".

Instead, he acts outside the system to apprehend criminals that the lawful authorities are either too corrupt or too ineffective to catch themselves, often finding himself at odds with those authorities as a result.

At the same time, he is quite happy to work with those authorities that are competent and upstanding, and he lets the authorities deal with the trail and punishment of those he catches.


So based on that, I would say he could either be LG driven to desperate measures, or NG. Given that he isn't (AFAIK) continually agonizing about whether or not his rule-breaking will undermine the law and the authority that he is trying to restore, I would say he is NG. (With a "Lawful" personality in the sense that he himself is meticulously disciplined).

[Caledonian]

Given the very different presentations of Batman in various media over the years, I think we can reasonably say that his alignment has varied from Neutral Good to Lawful Neutral.

I consider the most iconic representation of Batman to be Lawful Neutral with slight Good tendencies. The most popular representations seem to be Lawful Good, with a strong emphasis on Lawful. (Superman might be considered Lawful Good with a strong emphasis on Good, hence the conflict between the two characters.)

There was an excellent episode of the animated series in which Batman was exposed to a substance (made by the Scarecrow) that removed all fear. He functioned perfectly normally, if a little bit more carelessly, and once or twice his lack of fear caused him to take extraordinary physical risks that he would have normally avoided. But his treatment of the criminals he hunted down was unusually cruel and vicious, and he came very close to intentionally murdering several of them.

Batman's fear of becoming like the people he works against is what keeps him more-or-less on the straight and narrow path. Without it, he quickly becomes utterly monstrous in the pursuit of his obsession.

[T.Titan]

(Superman might be considered Lawful Good with a strong emphasis on Good, hence the conflict between the two characters.)


Superman is Paladin Lawful Good... which is why he doesn't much agree with Bats methods. Also Supes is more "doing good pays" while Bats is more "crime doesn't pay" in their approaches to preventing crime imo.


And anarchy isn't necessarily Chaotic, as there are plenty of forms of anarchism that require rules to be followed, they just don't think there should be a hierarchy enforcing them rules. People not obeying those rules anymore is what usually brings anarchism communes down.

[turkishproverb]

Also Supes is more "doing good pays" while Bats is more "crime doesn't pay" in their approaches to preventing crime imo.

And these do go back to life experiences.

Growing up on a farm, clark learned hard work pays off with results in crops, profits, etc. His discovery of his origins taught him that His father's good works and protecting of his son led to earth recieving a champion, and him being raised by the Kents.


It'd be a little harder for batman to have that outlook.

His parents were the kindest, strongest, most noble, loving people in gotham city. His father an enormously skilled surgion, both great philanthropists.

He was a young, happy good natured child.

This got his parents shot and him nearly insane.

Then, years later, his current assistant tries to protect a group of people, including his mother, whom batman works hard to help him find, and Dies at the hands of the joker.

Yea, that'll show you that goodness pays.

Batman's alot like Milton's lucifer. He deep down believes he's LOST the war, but fights anyway.

[Tiberian]

Then, years later, his current assistant tries to protect a group of people, including his mother, whom batman works hard to help him find, and Dies at the hands of the joker.

...And then the assistant comes back from the dead to fight against him.

[turkishproverb]

...And then the assistant comes back from the dead to fight against him.

Ugh.. bad..storyline...sheilds...activate...

[Charles Phipps]

Batman "breaks the rules" for the Greater Good. SO doesnt that make him some variation of Neutral/ Neutral Good? This is Confusing :smalleek:

I think most people who argue Batman is Lawful Good are pointing out that he doesn't believe in a Balanced worldview. Batman actively seems to hold Happy Go Lucky Nightwing's worldview in contempt. Batman hates the fact that society is non-lawful and beats himself up constantly over the lawless state of society. He's also ridiculously disciplined.

Neutral Good recognizes that Law is optional. To Batman, the Law is everything and he's annoyed as hell that he has to break it to repair it.

[T.Titan]

To Batman, the Law is everything and he's annoyed as hell that he has to break it to repair it.

Again, Lawful isn't really about legislation, so i doubt that he much cares about what laws he's breaking. He most likely doesn't much like the Chaotic aspects of what he does (required to keep the cowardly superstitious lot in their place).

[Charles Phipps]

Again, Lawful isn't really about legislation, so i doubt that he much cares about what laws he's breaking. He most likely doesn't much like the Chaotic aspects of what he does (required to keep the cowardly superstitious lot in their place).

Actually, I think Batman is very much annoyed he has to work outside the law. He has a deep and abiding respect for the Spirit of the Law. You could say Batman is a firm believer in JUSTICE. He's very much a believer in the Law.

Remember, he's always brooding about SOMETHING. I prefer to think about how deplorable that it has come to this.

[gatitcz]

Batman's an authority with a lot of respect for the law. I vote lawful.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Batman is an indvidual whose feelings and morals change over time. Grant Morrison's Batman of Arkham Asylum begins very lawful, and ends fairly chaotic. In the rather hard-to-find Batman vs. Anarky, his stance on the issue gets taken into question. Batman claims to support the law, but he exists entirely due not to the failure of society, but the failure of Law to regulate society. He also, certainly, doesn't enforce the law. You see Batman pull over a speeder or a few kids passing a joint? No. He fights the people he disagrees with and he has a problem with, whatever the law says.
Batman's sort of a Mike type character, from my view, but on the Law/Chaos axis instead of Good/Evil. Instead of, in truth, acting in a generally Evil way out of the belief he is Good, Batman acts in a very Chaotic way with the idea/intent of serving the law. Such is all vigilantism. So it all depends on if Alignment is based upon action or intent. Which is one of the central debate in Ethics, so good luck solving it about Batman.

[Nizaris]

To quote Complete Scoundrel pg 8 "LG scoundrels have their own personal, impeccable, code of honor and righteousness. They have good intentions but aren't above breaking minor rules that get in the way of the greater good, especially when helping the downtrodden.... who challenges a corrupt government... Examples: Batman, **** Tracy, Indiana Jones"

Lawful is not following the law, it's sticking to a code or ethos

CG "uses their skills to help others regardless of the consequences. They act as their conscious dictates without concerns for the laws, traditions, or beliefs of others."

Lawful should be easy, the hard part is justifying that he's LG and not LN.

[kpenguin]

Oh hey, I remember this thread. This was made back when we had a subforum for comics. Neat.

The Modguin: Unfortunately, reviving it is a pretty big act of threadomancy. Thread locked.