What Alignment is Rorschach?

[Heckler]

Given that the Watchmen movie has just come out, and the number of similar threads we've had previously, I just had to ask.

Rorschach is a hero, saving humanity from the worst scum we have to offer. No criminal is safe from him. He shows no mercy to those who have committed wrongs. He is completely driven to eliminate those who would do evil.

But he works outside the law. He is a vigilante who uses violence to get what he wants and murders his victims rather than turn them over to the police.

So, what alignment is he?

 

[Rechan]

Lawful Insane.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Chaotic Awesome

 

[Illadar]

Lawful Evil

 

[Andor]

Pretty much.

Lawful Neutral in AD&D terms.

He's not evil because he's not arbitrarily cruel, nor driven by personal gain. He does not prey upon society at large and would probably give his life to save an innocent. Assuming you could find someone who qualified as an innocent in his eyes.

He is certainly not good either. He'll cheerful torture and murder his foes. Fear is his chief weapon.

Now of course the trouble with the Lawful vs Chaotic question is does lawfull mean he obeys societies laws, or his own code? Some think that a strong personal code at odds with societies is chaotic, the "Robin Hood is CG" crowd. If so he could conceivably be argued as CN. Societies laws have never even slowed him down. But his own code is absolute. He would destroy the world before he would bend an inch. I'd peg him at Lawful Neutral (Insane).

It should be noted that most PCs wouldn't even blink at Rorschac's behavior in a party member. Untill they had to lie to save the world...

 

[Celebrim]

The only reason the problem seems hard is you've used such a terse summary of events, and colored those events according to particular biases, that it would appear to be contridictory.

Would a person with a very great commitment to the law, be so cavalier about breaking it? The answer is pretty clearly, "No.", so it must be that Rorschach's fanatic commitment is to something else entirely. If we begin exploring the character a bit, I think we will probably find that there isn't as much contridiction as your summary would indicate.

But before we go there, I want to note that you can do this with any character, but doing it doesn't prove anything because the contridictions are false. I can take a character like Jean Valjean from 'Les Miserables', and say, "Jean Valjean is a hero and an honorable man, yet he is also a criminal and also evades the law? So which is he, lawful or chaotic?", and all I've done is create a false dichotomy using imprecise descriptions, and not proved anything about either Jean Valjean or the alignment system.

Rorschach is by the author's own estimate, "Extreme right wing", "anti-liberal" (alias 'socialism', if that makes it more clear), "anti-communist" (alias 'collectivism', if that makes it more clear), and "a nutcase" (alias, 'crazy'). We also know that he has virtually no respect for government, authority, or the law and that he self-classfies himself as a rebel and a dissident. He defines himself as a guy who says, "No."

He wears a mask that is always changing, but is always absolutes - black and white. Rorschach believes good and evil to be clearly defined and absolute, but tellingly he also considers himself personally to be the absolute judge of what is good and evil and holds himself accountable to no one and everyone accoutable to him. Also telling, his definition of 'absolute good' based on the causes he fights for (or against) seems to revolve around 'personality liberty, provided you do not harm others' (and if you do, then 'eye for an eye').

I consider Rorschach's alignment to be about as clear cut as any in fiction sense it very much was intended to embody a particular ideology. He's a slightly psycho anarchist libertarian vigilante. I think Rorschach is pretty much the iconic example of a Chaotic Neutral.

As further evidence of this claim, it wouldn't be very hard to go around the web to various right-wing Libertarian and Objectivist political blogs, and see them proudly claiming Rorschach as their own, identifying him with 'John Galt' and so forth. I'd link, but I don't want to drag this more political than it has to be (given that Watchman is openly political commentary). (I hope I don't have to prove an ideology briefly summarized as 'personal freedom is the highest good' is chaotic neutral.)

Additionally, Rorschach was based on a character named 'The Question'. The creator of that character was himself an Objectivist.

 

[Thasmodious]

Would a person with a very great commitment to the law, be so cavalier about breaking it? The answer is pretty clearly, "No."

I agree with much of your post, but not this statement. History is full of people who did just this.

so it must be that Rorschach's fanatic commitment is to something else entirely.

That I agree with. Rorshach isn't dedicated to the law, but to absolute good versus evil. In a very similar way to the traditional D&D paladin, who's code places fighting real evil above obeying laws. The paladin is often a rebel, fighting a despotic tyrant or some other form of man-made evil. I could see making a case for Rorshach as LG. The key would be if his perception of absolutism gels with the settings. What shouldn't a paladin do in pursuit of a vengeful demon or other great evil? Where does Rorshach violate that code in his fight against evil?

On a personal note, I frakking hate objectivism. So does the global economy.

 

[Creamsteak]

Lawful Chaotic. Or was it Chaotic Lawful?

 

[ppaladin123]

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.

From the SRD:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. 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.

So he is lawful because he always tells the truth, keeps his word and judges those who fall short of their duties. But he is chaotic because he does not respect authority, resents being told what to do and follows his conscience.

Lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability

Sounds like Rorschach...so...lawful.

Chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility

So...chaotic...


::Head Explodes::


Do you think maybe they tried to cram about 50 different dimensions of personality and moral code into one dimension? Could that be why nobody can ever agree whether Batman is chaotic or lawful?

 

[Vegepygmy]

On a personal note, I frakking hate objectivism. So does the global economy.

I don't want to violate the "no religion, no politics" rule, so I won't retort to this statement.

Strangely, even though you and I obviously see the world quite differently, like you, I find much to agree with in Celebrim's post.