What Alignment is Rorschach?

[I'm A Banana]

It's probable that, not being a heroic fantasy character, the question of R's alignment is entirely moot.

Don't let that stop the discussion, though.

 

[ppaladin123]

No, you aren't alone; I'm always vastly amused by that. The thing is, I don't know if you've also noticed this or not, but people do that with everyone and not just character's named Rorschach. We could throw out some real world names and ask for alignments and get an equally diverse number of answers.

But this to me proves more about the 'alignments' of the people giving the answers, than it does about the alignment system or the alignment of the people being analyzed.

Well, it is also evidence that the existing classification system (law/chaos, good/evil) is sufficiently vague and conflationary as to allow numerous conflicting interpretations of alignment in any given case. As a taxonomy system it is thus a failure.

 

[frankthedm]

No, you aren't alone; I'm always vastly amused by that. The thing is, I don't know if you've also noticed this or not, but people do that with everyone and not just character's named Rorschach. We could throw out some real world names and ask for alignments and get an equally diverse number of answers.

But this to me proves more about the 'alignments' of the people giving the answers, than it does about the alignment system or the alignment of the people being analyzed.

From http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/178258-why-should-hard-paladin.html

to some folks, if only subconsciously, there is not a difference between in-game and out-of-game evil. When one person says ” this is not evil” in game, and someone else disagrees on a more personal level, a rift begins because someones personal beliefs have been challenged through the medium of the D&D game. This rift is what I believe makes paladin {alignment] argument so hot blooded.

 

[Remus Lupin]

My own take:

Rorschach: Chaotic Neutral
Night Owl: Lawful Good
Silk Spectre: Neutral Good
Ozymandeus: Lawful Evil
The Comedian: Chaotic Evil
Dr. Manhattan: Neutral

 

[pawsplay]

The idea that lawful equates to obeying the status quo authority is demonstrably wrong. If that were true, you could change someone's alignment by changing the regime. Lawful means abiding the legitimate authority, with that determination hinging on a number of factors. In Rorschach's case, that means authority and individuals that acknowledge natural law in the same way he does. He is against Communism and views any communist authority as illegitimate. He helps the police, but will not allow them to arrest him because he sees himself as acting more legitimately. As for as communitarian versus liberal (in the classic sense, not the partisan sense), he is communitarian, as he views every single living person as accountable to all others how they choose to live their lives (hence his cold-blooded response to Silhouette's death... he might have had sympathy, but she had it coming, in his view... does anyone else wonder if he might actually have been the killer?). Thus, he can allow the Comedian his "moral lapses" because on the balance, he sees the Comedian as fighting against utter chaos. He adheres to a personal code, fiercely, even to the point of embracing his death rather than changing. The fact that he is somewhat self-serving in that respect makes him only human... if he were some kind of LN paladin, he would be in trouble, but that is not the case. Insanity can mix with any alignment, so again, if you consider him insane, that still does not disqualify him from being Lawful. Rorschach considers everything he does necessary, not simply preferable. He is autonomous, not anarchic.

Ozymandias I peg as LN. He is willing to bend and break rules, but ultimately works within a system. His big scheme is really just what Rorschach does on a grand scale, breaking fingers in order to halt evil and save lives. You could call him evil, because he does something evil... yet he would not do it for anything less than what he considered an imperative.

Doctor Manhatten is TN... very decent and compassionate, but too detached to do good for its own sake. His moral compass is his integrity, not a sense of something outside himself. The universe will abide in its own way.

Silk Spectre... NG. She really believes in doing the right thing. And she does not even hesitate to assault a police officer acting under some insane impulse to enforce the Keane Act during a prison riot. Her mother, CG... a do-gooder and merciful soul, but also someone who believes everyone does things for their own reasons most of all. Rorschach's foil, a sensual, individualistic, relativistic creature.

Nite Owl II... LG. Compassionate, to a fault. Bent by his conscience to accept things he would not choose for himself. The original Nite Owl, probably NG.

The Comedian... LE. Utterly selfish and destructive, but still capable of being shocked. Never evil for its own sake, always for some gain. Plagued by a vague sense of honor that suggests his lack of self-control is probably a failing.

 

[Nightson]

I don't think classifying alignment should ever come down to how one interacts with the government or laws of the land, that seems to imply that one's alignment can change with a change of address.

 

[Heckler]

But it is obvious when you think about it -- Rorschach's alignment is Batman...

No way! Batman doesn't kill.

Rorschach's alignment is Wolverine...

 

[Heckler]

I'm pretty sure that's what Alan Moore intended. You win the thread.

And here I was all set to declare The Rouse winner of the thread for his answer of "Chaotic Awesome."

 

[WalterKovacs]

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.

Actually, in the story, despite the fact that Veidt's plan works, it's made very clear that it's quite possible that it won't last. The idea that the ends justify the means is deliberately challenged by pointng out that nothing ever ends.

Veidt achieved a good end through evil means. Rorschach was going to undo the good "end" becase of his objection to the evil "means". Rorschach is willing to cross the line to punish evil ... Veidt is willing to cross the line to prevent evil.

The book is pretty objective about not saying who was right. Rorschach and Veidt know what side they are on, but both have at least some hesitation. Veidt has an attitude of sacrificing his own morality for the greater good, but still recognizing he has sacrificed his morality (and asks for assurances he did the right thing). Rorschach recognizes and accepts what John has to do. The other characters are more ambivalent to what has happened ... not liking the means, but accepting that, having failed to prevent it, they might as well make the best of it.

 

[Krensky]

No way! Batman doesn't kill.

Rorschach's alignment is Wolverine...

Rorschach's alignment is The Question/Mr. A.