If Superman exists and went bad....

[Ryujin]

And it is something that happens in real life as well.

HOWEVER, in most cases the HERO does not start off by placing the would-be sacrifices into harms way as the necessary prerequisite of achieving his goal- the trope is presented as a choice between bad options that he must make the call on. Nor does the Hero conceal his role in the sacrifice. Nor does he blame another for his action. Nor might the plan be jeopardized if the Hero's true role and actions were to be uncovered.

The Hero usually doesn't find it necessary to trick semi-divine, semi-benevolent, nearly omniscient beings into not interfering with his plan.

The plan is Machiavellian- not heroic- in its inception and execution. He wanted to do it his way. Only.

I would say that the requirement that- for the plan to succeed- you must commit an atrocity AND successfully blame it on the blameless makes for an inherently flawed plan. If the truth is ever revealed, it could make the duped discard the progress made, and return to previously belligerence. Possibly even more pissed off than before.

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope. In this case I would liken the decision to having a nuclear missile full of children hurtling toward a national capital, with its destruction being the only viable solution to the problem. But that's where our opinions diverge. I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.

The point if the story is that Ozymandias fails, or at least we can presume that he did, as a result of his plan being revealed by a hero who is either less "morally flexible" or can't see and act upon a larger picture, depending upon your point of view. Perhaps a little from column "A" and a little from column "B"? Maybe that's the point?

 

[Umbran]

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero. The difference is in scope.

I think the difference is in that Batman rarely kills, even when he's being Machiavellian. Ozymandias arranged the death of millions, and a frame-up to boot. That's not just scope difference, but qualitative difference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Have you read much Batman over the years? He leans pretty hard on the Machiavellian side and is still considered a hero.

I think the difference is in that Batman rarely kills, even when he's being Machiavellian. Ozymandias arranged the death of millions, and a frame-up to boot. That's not just scope difference, but qualitative difference.

In addition, those that Bats kills are not innocents.

(And yes, I have read a lot of Batman over the decades.)

I think that the character had a high enough level of intelligence to recognize an inevitable conclusion. You don't think it was inevitable.

Arguments against the inevitability of his plan:

1) while intelligent, he failed to recognize the possibility that his plan was flawed. Despite not being omniscient, he acted as if he were. Just as he outwitted Dr. Manhattan to implement his plan, he was in turn outwitted by Rorschach, who may completely undo it.

2) As mentioned, in order to implement his plan, he both concealed it from Dr. Manhattan AND framed him for the cause. The one being who could propose and execute viable alternatives or ensure that his plan was successful beyond a few years was nullified and driven away from Earth.

3) neither Ozymandias nor Dr. Manhattan is omniscient, but Dr. Manhattan is much closer to it than Ozymandias is. Yet Dr. Manhattan didn't sacrifice himself to implement a version of Ozymandias' plan in order to stave off WW3, and was "disappointed" in the fact that Ozymandias would implement it himself. While it is true that Dr. Manhattan becomes aloof to the concerns of mere humanity, it is clear that his aloofness was a gradual development, given the story presented. At some point post gaining his powers, he still thought and acted benevolently. So arguably, given his power and knowledge, his rejection of a similar plan isn't purely a result of not wanting to help in such a plan, but also that such a plan would ultimately not achieve the desired goal.

 

[Ryujin]

I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself.

I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm just going to bow out now. You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. We've gone 'round the same points a couple of times now, so that's it for me.

Read and understood, but...

I just wanted to point out that being "Machiavellian" doesn't necessarily mean that a character isn't a "hero", in and of itself.

The word does not necessarily mean that, no, but the connotations within the textbook definition of the word are pretty antithetical to the normal concepts associated with heroism:

Mach`i`a`vel´ian
a. 1. Of or pertaining to Machiavelli, or to his supposed principles for conduct of government, as enunciated in his tract The Prince; politically cunning; characterized by duplicity, political expediency, unscrupulous cunning, or bad faith; crafty.
n. 1. One who adopts the principles of Machiavelli; a cunning and unprincipled politician.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

(Emphasis mine.)