What Alignment is Rorschach?

[Celebrim]

They were probably misled by reading the DMG.

Indeed.

So ... Paladins are lawful in D&D because the Gods are occasionally physically apparent (and can be visited at-will by high level priests to be questioned on the finer points of catechism), but they would by Chaotic in the real world because they would "answer only to God" and ignore the "unjust laws" of King and Pope?

I think I've already answered enough real world religion questions for one thread.

Celebrim, you clearly have a very well thought out definition of alignment, and I'm sure the clarity and guidance you can provide benefit your campaign. But the D&D rules over the years haven't been nearly as clear. Occasionally they're downright contradictory.

Yes, they are. That makes them a very bad guide for creating an orderly system.

 

[Mallus]

re: Rorschach & alignment.

Inside the frame of the story Rorschach ends up being evil --he won't keep silent about the plot after it's clear it is working-- and Veidt is good --through his actions nuclear war is averted and billions are saved by the involuntary sacrifice of millions.

Outside --ie, for the reader-- this is supposed to sound downright crazy.

Watchmen can be seen as an engine built to grind up comic book morality (and the costumed freaks and uncaring gods who theoretically subscribe to it). Since D&D alignment is similar comic book morality, the correct answer to the original question is: sod off.

Actually, the correct answer wouldn't make it through the language filter...

 

[Obryn]

Watchmen is one of the main reasons I dislike alignment systems in general. (Or, generally, like 4e's loose alignments and the inclusion of Unaligned.)

I'd rather look at characters in terms of what their motivations are.

-O

 

[Umbran]

Rorschach clearly follows an extremely rigid code of ethics and will not compromise that code under any circumstances. So he is lawful.

Rorschach regularly disregards civil law and shows open disdain for legal authorities. So he is chaotic.

This makes him neutral, in the large balance.

Set aside, for the moment, that a character must rest at an extreme in order to me highly motivated, and it rather makes sense.

 

[davethegame]

Chaotic Awesome

Crap, that's what I was going to say.

Sadistic Neutral was another fake alignment a friend used to play, which might work as well.

 

[Klaus]

Alignment isn't personality. They're methods and beliefs. WHY you hold to those methods and beliefs varies from character to character.

In 3E, I'd peg Rorschach as Lawful Neutral, based on his beliefs, or True Neutral, based on his methods. He has an absolute moral code and sees the world as failing to live up to it. His moral code is so absolute, he's unwilling to compromise, not ever, even if it means the end of the world.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Inside the frame of the story Rorschach ends up being evil --he won't keep silent about the plot after it's clear it is working-- and Veidt is good --through his actions nuclear war is averted and billions are saved by the involuntary sacrifice of millions.

Many, many folks here would argue that you are too quick to define utilitarianism ("the ends justify the means") as good.

There are moral actions, and there are moral outcomes.

 

[FourthBear]

Is there any benefit to undertaking the assignment of alignment? It seems to me that once you've explored a character's motivations and actions to the point where you can assign an alignment tag to that character, you already have a far more understanding and grasp of that character that can ever be encompassed by something as broad and generalized as alignment. Does it really help storytelling, roleplaying or anything other to be able to put LN next to Rorshach's name? It seems the most likely outcome of doing such a thing would be leading to people falsely associating stereotypical Lawful Neutral traits to the character. Where's the benefit that outweighs the risk of stereotyping?

 

[Thasmodious]

I think we've seen Rorshach pegged as every alignment except NE (and I may have just missed it).

This just highlights that alignment is and has always been a poor system that has never managed to accomplish its purpose. I like that 4e removed mechanical effects based on alignment, but it would have been much better to just remove it entirely.

 

[Umbran]

This just highlights that alignment is and has always been a poor system that has never managed to accomplish its purpose.

Incorrect, I think - in that I don't think the purpose has ever been to make these things consistent across all gaming groups. So long as each DM can peg him as something within the interpretation that he uses, the thing serves its purpose.