PDA

View Full Version : Rorschach's Alignment?



Fiery Justice
2008-02-06, 12:25 AM
Okay, so what is Rorschach's Alignment anyway?

I happen to be of the firm opinion he is a Lawful Neutral fellow.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-06, 12:29 AM
Oh my. I started...

Ack.

He's Chaotic Evil. No question.

Fiery Justice
2008-02-06, 12:35 AM
Chaotic? Rorschach? Have we read the same comics? Rorschach is systematic with an completely and totally unbending code of conduct. Why would he be chaotic?

kpenguin
2008-02-06, 12:36 AM
Lawful Neutral, maybe even Evil.

He's convinced he's Lawful Good, though.

John Campbell
2008-02-06, 12:37 AM
Rorschach doesn't need an alignment. He has a personality.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-06, 12:37 AM
he has a complete disregard for all rules.

Having a moral code doesn't make you lawful, contrary to popular belief, my main proof of this being: There are honorable barbarians.

kpenguin
2008-02-06, 12:39 AM
he has a complete disregard for all rules.

Having a moral code doesn't make you lawful, contrary to popular belief, my main proof of this being: There are honorable barbarians.

Having a moral code doesn't make you Lawful, no, but having a strict inflexible ethical code does.

Do the words "Never compromise, even in the face of apocalypse" sound Chaotic to you?

Zincorium
2008-02-06, 12:41 AM
I'd actually say chaotic good.

The people he goes after are criminals, for the most part rather sick and twisted criminals. He kills them specifically to stop them from hurting anyone else. He is *not* self serving in any way, he doesn't kill people he realizes are innocent, and his overall effect is to the betterment of society (people are afraid to commit crimes because there's a psycho targeting anyone who does).

He just completely disregards the legal/social/ethical framework that says you can't just kill someone because they happen to be, in his opinion, evil.

Admiral Squish
2008-02-06, 12:49 AM
Rorschach is obviously a modern-day paladin with full levels in the grey gaurd prestige class. He's lawful to his own code, his own rules of good, evil and there is no middleground.

On that note, he is also the scariest, most realistically-portrayed 'hero' I've ever seen.

Kojiro Kakita
2008-02-06, 01:00 AM
And also one of my favorite.

Buy yeah to me he is Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good.

It all depends on how you view his final quote.

Tengu
2008-02-06, 01:01 AM
Rorschach doesn't need an alignment. He has a personality.

You know that personality dictates alignment, not the other way around, and therefore if you try hard enough and have enough data you can assign a DND alignment to any person?

And I don't know a lot about Rorschach, having never read Watchmen, but from what I know he strikes me like a guy Lawful Neutral to the extreme.

Dragonmuncher
2008-02-06, 01:02 AM
There isn't even a question that he's Lawful (remember, Lawful doesn't have to mean "Laws of the country I'm in"). As kpenguin pointed out, "Never compromise, even in the face of apocalypse."

I'm not sure if I would classify him as "good," though. He seems to be compassionless, especially in his latter-day attitude, and had no compunction about lighting a cop on fire to escape pursuit.

Definitely lawful, for the rigid, inflexible personal code. I'd vote neutral on the good-evil scale, because he does still fight crime and the like.

Icewalker
2008-02-06, 01:29 AM
I'd call him Lawful Neutral. Follows a strict code, but seems to have lost himself to the point where he isn't doing it to 'make the world a better place.' And I think that the aforementioned quote pretty much proves his lawfulness.

I suppose he could be Good. Not evil though, as he is, at worst, crazy, and at best, a crusader.

SadisticFishing
2008-02-06, 01:51 AM
So a strict moral code makes one lawful?

I respectfully disagree. What if my strict moral code is that governments should not exist, and everyone should be free to do their own thing? No compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon.

A moral code is NOT lawfulness. A strong belief in hierarchy is.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 02:13 AM
So a strict moral code makes one lawful?

I respectfully disagree. What if my strict moral code is that governments should not exist, and everyone should be free to do their own thing? No compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon.

A moral code is NOT lawfulness. A strong belief in hierarchy is.
This is one of the problems with reducing everything to a two-dimensional system, even if it IS still better than the classic one-dimensional system. "Never compromise" is a lawful trait. "Anarchism" is a chaotic trait. A character who reconciles both would be difficult to classify (I'd tend towards lawful if they're logical and reserved, and chaotic if they're emotional and passionate, but that's just me).

Rorschach definitely seems on the Lawful side to me.

averagejoe
2008-02-06, 02:15 AM
So a strict moral code makes one lawful?

I respectfully disagree. What if my strict moral code is that governments should not exist, and everyone should be free to do their own thing? No compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon.

A moral code is NOT lawfulness. A strong belief in hierarchy is.

Good/evil relates to one's feeling about other people. Law/chaos relates to one's feeling about one's own actions. A person such as you describe could very well be lawful. It just depends on whether you subscribe to an absolutist or relativest point of view. In most absolutest stances, he wouldn't be. In a relativest stance, he would.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-02-06, 02:16 AM
God, people. We can't even figure out Batman's alignment, and you think you can do Rorschach? Seriously?

Don't try to apply alignment outside of D&D. It makes other fiction cry.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 02:36 AM
God, people. We can't even figure out Batman's alignment, and you think you can do Rorschach? Seriously?

Don't try to apply alignment outside of D&D. It makes other fiction cry.
I thought it was fairly well established that Batman was somewhere between LG and LN, depending on the version?

Dervag
2008-02-06, 02:58 AM
I just love how within the first volley of posts we had diametrically opposed alignment suggestions (CG vs. LE).

John Campbell
2008-02-06, 03:04 AM
You know that personality dictates alignment, not the other way around, and therefore if you try hard enough and have enough data you can assign a DND alignment to any person?
If you try hard enough and have enough data, you can assign any D&D alignment to any person. As this thread proves. That doesn't make it a useful or worthwhile activity.

And insofar as alignment is at all a useful tool, personality dictates alignment is the way it's supposed to work. In practice, alignment is more often used as a substitute for a developed character. That's where all these threads like, "I'm ordering a pizza. What toppings does my alignment dictate I get on it?" come from, and players saying, "I'm Chaotic Neutral so I can do anything I want!" (I long ago lost count of the number of times I've heard that exact phrase, from I don't know how many different people.)


And I don't know a lot about Rorschach, having never read Watchmen, but from what I know he strikes me like a guy Lawful Neutral to the extreme.

Read it. Seriously. Excellent writing, and some very interesting morality questions.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-06, 03:07 AM
If we can't figure it out, that probably means he's an interesting character.

The_Werebear
2008-02-06, 03:42 AM
At the beginning of his career, he is LG.
He saw Kitty be murdered, and snapped. He decided that he had to enforce the law even if the police and society wouldn't. He picked his mask because it was black and white, shifting, but never intermingling. At that point, he was still Kovaks. He was specifically attempting to do good.

At the start of the book, he is LN
After the incident with the girl, he has lost all faith in society and humanity. He now no longer fights for good, but against evil. Trust me, there is a big difference. He has almost no further care for collateral, and very little for scale of crime. His moral code has not decayed, but shifted. He views the judicious use of evil perfectly ok for the maintenance of society. He no longer values human life

By the end, I would say he has gone back to LG, if only by a little bit.
First of all, he begins to realize what he was acting like. He apologizes to his friend Nite Owl for causing him so much grief. He lets his landlady get away with her remarks, something the previous Rorschach would have never done. Furthermore, he sees what judicious use of evil can do, due to Ozymandias. At that point, he is torn to the point of being unable to act. If he tells the world, then those millions of people died in vain. If he lets it slide, he condones a very evil act. So, he promises not to compromise, and instead begs for death instead of violating his personal code of ethics. I think that early, he would have simply told the world because it was the "Right" thing to do. Justice for Ozymandias, no matter the cost.

Duke Malagigi
2008-02-06, 03:42 AM
From what I've heard I'd say Chaotic Evil. He’s Chaotic because of his strident individualism and anti-statism. Rorschach would be Evil due to his cruelty, sadism and murderous psychopathy. In my opinion Rorschach's strong convictions and beliefs don't make him any more Lawful. If any thing they make him less Neutral. Rorschach is Chaotic Evil at its most self-righteous.

Tengu
2008-02-06, 06:53 AM
And insofar as alignment is at all a useful tool, personality dictates alignment is the way it's supposed to work. In practice, alignment is more often used as a substitute for a developed character. That's where all these threads like, "I'm ordering a pizza. What toppings does my alignment dictate I get on it?" come from, and players saying, "I'm Chaotic Neutral so I can do anything I want!" (I long ago lost count of the number of times I've heard that exact phrase, from I don't know how many different people.)


Hmm, I haven't actually stumbled upon this issue in my games - characters always had personality first, alignment later. But then, I haven't played DND apart from NWN1&2 servers, and the games I play usually don't even have an alignment system at all.



Read it. Seriously. Excellent writing, and some very interesting morality questions.

Unfortunately, probably too much of it was spoilered for me to be enjoyable now, or at least surprising.

Saph
2008-02-06, 07:15 AM
I've always had an odd sort of sympathy for Rorschach. Partly because he's a normal human dealing with a bunch of superheroes, and somehow manages to be more intimidating than any of them. Of course, that's probably something to do with the fact that he's a certifiable nutcase.

But what tips it for me is his final scene. Every other character - even the couple who've been mostly presented as the good guys - is willing to help cover up Ozymandias' mass murder. Rorschach's the only one who refuses . . . and gets killed for it. I actually found it quite touching.

Lawful Neutral fits him pretty well, now that I think about it.

- Saph

Karma Guard
2008-02-06, 08:25 AM
He's Lawful Neutral. He kills people in the name of laws, kills them in horrible ways. He disregards people's feelings, and never compromises (See: the ending.)


I thought it was fairly well established that Batman was somewhere between LG and LN, depending on the version?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v70/Lakidaa/dd5953f2.jpg


:V

Worira
2008-02-06, 11:24 AM
So a strict moral code makes one lawful?

I respectfully disagree. What if my strict moral code is that governments should not exist, and everyone should be free to do their own thing? No compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon.

A moral code is NOT lawfulness. A strong belief in hierarchy is.

That's great and all, but it's a complete strawman. Rorschach's moral code isn't that governments shouldn't exist, so why bring it up?

kjones
2008-02-06, 11:32 AM
Lawful Neutral, for the same reasons that Batman is. Remember that "Lawful" does not necessarily mean "Adheres to laws." In this case, Rorschach holds his own "laws" above those of the United States. (Whether he's just in doing so is another matter entirely.)

Also, the person that he lights on fire isn't a cop, but rather the hired gun of a private detective.

The real question here is, what about Veidt? I don't even want to touch that one.

Fiery Justice
2008-02-06, 11:38 AM
Ahahah, yes, thats rather scary Veidt debate.

Aquillion
2008-02-06, 11:45 AM
Let's quote the RAW, just to see.


Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Ok. He protects innocent life, and doesn't debase or destroy innocent life... so in that regard, he leans towards good. But...


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.No altruism, no respect for life, no concern for the dignity of sentient beings. He does make personal sacrifices, but it'd hard to describe him as "good" under all that.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.I don't think this really describes him well. He lacks compassion, sometimes, but he fails all the other points...

Probably neutral, maybe good.

Now for the hard one...


Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.He tells the truth and keeps his word, rigidly on both. His positions on authority are complex (he seems to have a fanatical hero-worship for an idealized authority embodied in his father and Truman, but hates the debased modern world.) He does seem to honor tradition (or at least admire the past, which is similar.) His life is completely, totally dominated by judging people who fall short of their duties. Overall, very lawful.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.He follows his conscience, but notice the scene with the hooker -- he doesn't want to. There's an implication that he isn't usually guided by his conscience in the way that the term is used here... he's obsessed with his rigid view of the world, usually, and wouldn't let mercy for one person get in the way of that.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Hoo boy. Honor? Who knows, it's not an honorable world. Trustworthiness? For a certain definition of 'trustworthiness'... obedience to authority? See above, he doesn't recognize any modern authority, but there's an implication that he has an underlying authoritarian viewpoint. Close-mindedness? Yes. Judgementalness, again, is his primary character attribute. Lack of adaptability? Yes, in the way it's meant here. And the ideal, while too idealisic for him, is fairly close to his view...


"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.Freedom? Sort of. Adaptability/flexibility? No. Not in terms of his view or morals, no, which I think is what is meant here. Recklessness? Not really. Resentment towards legitimate authority? Debatable. Arbitrary actions? No, he is very precise. Irresponsibility? No. While he might not believe the lawful ideal is possible, he would find the chaotic ideal described above to be detestably naive.

Overall, I'd say lawful neutral, possibly lawful good.

Revlid
2008-02-06, 12:04 PM
Lawful Neutral.

And how the hell do people justify Batman being Evil?

Tengu
2008-02-06, 02:08 PM
And how the hell do people justify Batman being Evil?

Visit www.superdickery.com for some "very good" examples.

sonofzeal
2008-02-06, 02:40 PM
Lawful Neutral.

And how the hell do people justify Batman being Evil?
At one point early in his career, Batman ran around shooting people with the same gun that killed his parents. How messed up is that?

Seriously though, Batman has been around in various forms since 1926 (although most people go by 1939). In that time, he's had hundreds of people writing for him, and each brings their own take on the character. I've no doubt that some were Evil (bitter angry Bruce seeking vengeance), or Chaotic (vigilante Bruce operating outside the legal system and often breaking more laws than he protects). However, the core character has always had a strict moral code, wants the best for society, supports the legal authorities even if he operates outside them, and is doing his part to make the world a better place even at his own risk.

Even in that 9-panel inspirational poster, you can visibly see the justifications getting increasingly flimsy as they approach CE.

averagejoe
2008-02-06, 02:57 PM
Lawful Neutral.

And how the hell do people justify Batman being Evil?

I dunno, seems pretty evil to me. (http://www.superdickery.com/****/41.html) One of the good guys would never do that.

Edit: huh, I guess I can't link to that one because the boards censor part of the url.

Tengu
2008-02-06, 03:00 PM
To make averagejoe's link work, replace the four stars in the internet address with a shortening for Richard.

Trog
2008-02-06, 03:07 PM
Neutral Evil. Rorschach's code holds him on his course to...
... defy doing the "right" thing to do in the end which would save millions of lives. He chooses to stick to his code and reaps the consequences. Valuing his own beliefs over the lives of others. Not exactly good. He kills without remorse, tortures innocents to extract information, enacts vengance on those who have wronged, etc.
He is concerned only with his own interests. He does show sympathy to a kid that reminds him of him when he was little, true, but that doesn't really make up for other actions. He holds to his own rigid code, yes, but he also defies actual authority and lawfulness. Therefore he falls in the middle of the two extremes for L vs. C.

Ascension
2008-02-06, 04:17 PM
Unfortunately, probably too much of it was spoilered for me to be enjoyable now, or at least surprising.

Really, only stuff relating to Rorschach himself has been spoiled. He's only one character, and he doesn't even get all that much "screen time" since he's operating outside of the main group. Go ahead, read it. Although when it comes to Alan Moore I still prefer V for Vendetta. People argue about V's alignment about like they argue about Batman... except for the lawful part, that is. Neutral maaaaaaaaaybe. But definitely not lawful.

Tengu
2008-02-06, 04:24 PM
Really, only stuff relating to Rorschach himself has been spoiled. He's only one character, and he doesn't even get all that much "screen time" since he's operating outside of the main group. Go ahead, read it.

I don't mean this thread only, I mean in general. I know the vague (and spoilerific) profiles of all the main characters, I know the surprising ending. Though it's probably a spoiler from the "Aeris dies" category, seeing as every geek and his dog knows it.

Mewtarthio
2008-02-06, 04:59 PM
Rorschach is Lawful Good with levels in Grey Guard. Just like Veidt. :smallwink:

Re: Spoilers:

I'm not sure if Watchmen is really the kind of story you can spoil. It's not a suspense story in which all the emotional impact comes from not knowing what's going to happen next. It shows a dystopic world, and the emotional impact comes from watching people living in that world. Take the story-within-a-story of Tales of the Black Freighter, for instance: The novel itself spoils every detail of that story in a faux interview shortly before the guy reading the comic gets to the major plot twist, but the value of that story itself isn't diminished at all, and the significance it has to the overall plot is something you'd have to read yourself to understand.

Think about it this way: Have you ever seen a good production of one of Shakespeare's great tragedies, like MacBeth or Hamlet? Odds are you know the plot beforehand (maybe even read the script in a high school English class), and even if you don't it's not hard to figure everything out, but people still do productions of those plays, and people still watch them.

LibraryOgre
2008-02-06, 11:59 PM
Aberrant .


Aberrant characters will . . .
1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable)
2. Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe
4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly a child
5. Never kills for pleasure
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information.
7. Never torture for pleasure
8. May or may not help someone in need
9. Work with others to attain his goals
10. Respect honor and self-discipline
11. Never betray a friend