What Alignment is Rorschach?

[howandwhy99]

Frankly, I doubt that even Gygax had a good conception of what alignment was supposed to be doing for him in D&D. He likely just included his adaptation of it because he thought it was cool - just as he was inspired to include a lot of other bits and pieces from an entire cavalcade of fiction. But once included it DID seem to serve a purpose even if not even Gygax could put into writing at the time what that purpose was.

I just have one minor quibble about this. Gygax didn't define the term in Dungeons & Dragons as Alignment was already a ubiquitous term throughout the wargaming community. He was writing a small wargame (per the original title) and he didn't need to define it as wargamers already knew what alignment was.

And then with every version of D&D alignment has been REwritten to attempt to make it conform to a new authors misunderstanding of its purpose.

I totally grok what you're saying here though.

 

[WalterKovacs]

On Good v. Evil. Rorschach is evil. I believe that good and evil are about means and ends. Rorschach chooses evil methods like murder and torture, even to those who pose no threat to him. Remember the story of the crook who wanted to be punished that Rorschach dropped down an elevator shaft. Thus I class him as evil, just like Ozymandias. Both of them chose evil means for a good end.

So Chaotic Evil. I think a lot of the ambivalence towards labelling Rorschach as CE comes not from Rorschach's description, but from our own attitude towards Chaotic Evil.

In a lot of ways we admire Rorschach. He was clearly the fan favorite at the showing I went to. He is the justice we secretly desire, retribution untainted by mercy, but the justice we are terrified of actually getting.

That would also peg the Spectre as evil, as he is justice an retribution untainted by mercy, and is equally random (in a "mysterious ways" meaning). The only difference is that Spectre has divine judgement which is probably a bit more accurate and finding the guilty than Rorschach is.

Also with the means and ends definition, it would be hard to peg any of the heroes as good as ultimately they don't really do anything. They come out of retirement and save some people (good), lay the beat down on some punks (while not retribution, it's hardly merciful), fail to save a lot of people (not that they really could have). I guess the movie at least gave Nite Owl a "moment" that he didn't have in the graphic novel to show his disapproval.

Now, I can definitely agree with no good people in Watchmen, or at least those that want to do good are either ineffectual at it (and thus have good means to neutral ends) or are willing to go extremely far (and thus have either evil means to good ends, or will result in evil ends by good intention) which is sort of the point of the story.

Also, considering that this is a D&D allignment system ... Rorschach is not much more evil than some members of "no-evil allowed" adventuring party. He slaughters "monsters", and his torture for information is hardly a long and sadistic process. Not exactly redeeming, but more of an extremely pragmatic do gooder. Which does sync up with Veidt doing what he does, but on a grander scale. In the end, it may be that Rorschach sees that parallel at the end, and it is why he is willing to die since Veidt has shown him the logical end of his methods.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't know where people get the idea that Rorschach is supposed to be a hero. He's an insane extremist. I don't think insane people can really be put on the alignment axis.

In a sense, Rorshach is the only one of the Watchmen who could colorably be described as a hero. He's not a mass murderer of random innocent people (like Ozymandias), he's not an inhuman amoral creature (like Dr. Manhattan), he's not a brutal government stooge who apparently killed his own child (like the Comedian), and he's not a limp opportunist who condones mass murder because it is difficult to oppose or expose (like silk stalking or the nite owl). He's the only one who is willing to die rather than participate in the cover up of the murder of millions. Yes, he is objectionable in many ways, but in the end, he is the only one who can even be colorably termed a "hero".

 

[Mallus]

He's the only one who is willing to die rather than participate in the cover up of the murder of millions.

Thus re-imperiling the lives of billions. If he were a hero he'd promise Manhattan that he'd fetch his journal back from the New Frontiersman.

Yes, he is objectionable in many ways, but in the end, he is the only one who can even be colorably termed a "hero".

I see you fell into the trap.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, he is objectionable in many ways, but in the end, he is the only one who can even be colorably termed a "hero".

I don't know what "colorably termed" means.

And, honestly, you can choose who you would, or would not call a hero. I'd say your ability to decide who I can or cannot call a hero is weak. What constitutes a hero is subjective, not objective.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hey, I read a few pages, but I didn't see what I was thinking so I jumped ahead. Pardon me if someone has said it.

Rorschach goes after law breakers. He dislikes many kinds of people, but we only ever have any evidence that he actually pursues those who break the law. Therefore: Lawful. If he were chaotic, those commies and fornicators he hates so much would probably at least get somewhat of a mention as his victims.

As for good and evil, I'm going Neutral for what I think are fairly obvious reasons. You could make a case for Good or Evil, I think, but not a very good case for either (at least not without many inconsistencies). In any case, he walks the line enough to be dubbed Neutral in my eyes.

That's my drive by for the day.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't know what "colorably termed" means.

And, honestly, you can choose who you would, or would not call a hero. I'd say your ability to decide who I can or cannot call a hero is weak. What constitutes a hero is subjective, not objective.

No, no...this is an alignment thread. We can only speak of objective absolutes! Geez. You've been on the Internet long enough to know that.

 

[mlund]

Rorschach goes after law breakers. He dislikes many kinds of people, but we only ever have any evidence that he actually pursues those who break the law. Therefore: Lawful. If he were chaotic, those commies and fornicators he hates so much would probably at least get somewhat of a mention as his victims.

That's not really true. You get a little more insight into what makes him tick when he beats those bullies taunting him about his mother to a bloody pulp. He doesn't go after criminals specifically. He attacks the Malefactor. He doesn't target the people who break the laws of man, but rather people who violate his perception of Natural Law.

While he despises drug-users and prostitutes he doesn't go around beating them up or killing them. They've made their own beds using their own free will in his mind, and he's not there to stop them. Condemn them? Sure. Restrain their liberties? Never.

When I look at Rorschach I see a mash-up of various American Founding Fathers given severe mental / emotional trauma and some vague superpowers thrown into a dystopian, authoritarian world on the brink of nuclear war.

Rorschach sees Governing Authority as a necessary evil he'd rather be rid of. He takes a Thomas Jefferson approach to liberties in a belief that the right to swing one's fist ends at another person's nose. Those who violate that Natural Law forfeit their intrinsic rights as human beings.

He's a Neutral character who desires a Chaotic Good world with an incredible intensity. Rorschach is also terribly conflicted in his conception because he's made an avatar / Straw Man for Real World philosophies in a Fantasy World composed of cardboard sets and Straw Man geo-political figures and governments. Watchmen is great and all, but it is ultimately a reflection of emotional and intellectual boogie-men of a past era - kind of like Gulliver's Travels.

- Marty Lund

 

[Rykion]

Thus re-imperiling the lives of billions. If he were a hero he'd promise Manhattan that he'd fetch his journal back from the New Frontiersman.

Killing millions of people to prevent something that might happen is hardly the act of a hero.

I doubt publishing the journal would make any difference as people's attitudes would have changed in the face of the tragedy. If people still wanted to destroy each other after what happend, then they would be back in the same position within a few years even without the contents of the journal.

I think all of the Watchmen are severely flawed, and they all failed in trying to be heroes. In the end, a world without masked vigilantes and superhumans is better off.

 

[ppaladin123]

Thus re-imperiling the lives of billions. If he were a hero he'd promise Manhattan that he'd fetch his journal back from the New Frontiersman.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a debate in ethics that has lasted thousands of years.

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind action such as respect for rights, duties, or principles, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.[1]
It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" based ethics, because deontologists believe that ethical rules "bind you to your duty".[2] The term 'deontological' was first used in this way in 1930, in C. D. Broad's book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[3]
Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted with consequentialist or teleological ethical theories, according to which the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences.[4] However, there is a difference between deontological ethics and moral absolutism.[5] Deontologists who are also moral absolutists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them. Immanuel Kant, for example, famously argued that it is always wrong to lie – even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim.[6] Non-absolutist deontologists, such as W.D. Ross, hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do. Kant's and Ross's theories are discussed in more detail below. Furthermore Jonathan Baron and Mark Spranca use the term Protected Values when referring to values governed by deontological rules.

Also note that deontology has a "lawful' vibe to it as it is based on duty/obligation. This is another reason why some might call Rorschach "lawful."