What Alignment is Rorschach?

[ppaladin123]

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 an aside, Rorschach clearly has problems with homosexual activity, drug use and prostitution. It's not a matter of simple personal preference; he views them as examples of the pervasive corruption that plagues modern society and favors (violent) action to stamp them out. As such he doesn't fit the mold of the typical libertarian, "live-and-let-live," (but you'll get no help from me) type.

I view him as an reactionary authoritarian figure. He has extreme disdain for the current legal code because he thinks it has become soft and useless, another causality of society's downward spiral into decadence. He attempts to remedy this by dispensing justice when legal authorities shirk their duty to punish the corrupt. Under a particularly draconian legal regime I can imagine him as a content law-abiding citizen.

That doesn't fit neatly into the law/chaos divide. He doesn't fit neatly into a good/evil framework either (the only thing we can say he is that he is a deontologist and not a consequentialist). The character is meant to be morally ambiguous and to leave readers ambivalent about his behavior.

The correct answer to the question, "is Rorschach lawful or chaotic?" may be, "yes."

 

[Celebrim]

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

Most rebuttles to what I wrote seem to have this misunderstanding at there heart.

A code of ethics does not make one lawful. Adhering to a reviewable defined code of ethics defined by some external authority makes you lawful. Accepting some external source as the primary judge of what is right and wrong makes you lawful. If you personally write the code, and believe it applies to you, and only you know it's rules, and only you know how to abide by them, and only you get to judge whether you are abiding by them, and you believe you are answerable to your own consciousness, it doesn't matter how rigidly and fanatically you adhere to your code - you aren't lawful; you are an individualist.

A lawful person follows the dictates of an external code of ethics, even when such an action goes against his own judgment and consciousness. The lawful person assumes the primacy of 'the law' over his own reason and judgment. If the two conflict, it's probably his reason that is faulty. The chaotic person follows the dictates of their own consciousness, even when such an action goes against the laws of their community or society. The chaotic person assumes the primacy of his own judgement and reason over that of the law of their community or society.

Can anyone imagine Rorshach accepting the authority of anything over his own judgment and reason? Most people's relationship to internal and external authority is pretty complicated. They might except one in one case, and another in a different case and we could only talk about them 'on the balance'. But for Rorschach the problem is 'black and white'. Clearly in Rorschach's opinion, Rorschach always knows best. He's an extreme example of 'Chaotic'.

 

[Cyronax]

He's obviously too dark to be Good, but the ambiguity in everyone's analysis over Law and Chaos makes me think that he's True Neutral.

He's not a balance-crazy True Neutral like Mordenkainen or a 2e Druid, but he effectively has such an idiosyncratic and personalized view of the scope of his world and his resulting 'heroics' that doesn't think about Law/Chaos.

Look at it this way .... he started as a costumed hero while being a relatively angry young man. He may have done it for the right reasons or just to have a righteous feeling adventure. OR ... he may have seen the road he was taking.

He came into himself when he went after the kidnapper and murderer in a very emotional and personal way that seemed to involve almost primal rage.

Even a lawful evil character (at least many maybe) would be a little queasy about wanton abuse and murder of a young child. So to me Rorschach was being true to True Neutral .... as in he takes each person as they come, but (like many many people) he does have certain stereotypes that he immediately raises his hackles over.

And to be consistent, any alignment debate over Batman needs to really take about specific movies or comic story arcs, since different authors have done different things with the Dark Knight. Generally with Batman ... I'd say he's Neutral Good with Lawful Neutral leanings ...... sort of like some of Gygax's old Greyhawk Gods were ...St. Cuthbert?

C.I.D.

 

[frankthedm]

Lawful Good when that alignment is not being

Would a person with a very great commitment to the law, be so cavalier about breaking it?

Yes a character committed to Order would be caviler about breaking laws that allow Chaos and evil to fester.

 

[Celebrim]

As an aside, Rorschach clearly has problems with homosexual activity, drug use and prostitution. It's not a matter of simple personal preference; he views them as examples of the pervasive corruption that plagues modern society and favors (violent) action to stamp them out. As such he doesn't fit the mold of the typical libertarian, "live-and-let-live," (but you'll get no help from me) type.

I'll grant you that point. The best I can answer is that generally Libertarians accept as valid, "You ought to do no harm to others." While most libertarians see homosexuality, drug use, and prostitution as activities without a victim, if Rorschach doesn't see them as victimless crimes, then they wouldn't fall under 'live-and-let-live'.

Under a particularly draconian legal regime I can imagine him as a content law-abiding citizen.

Sure. One where Rorschach gets to define all the rules. This is not a particularly strong objection to the claim that Rorschach is self-centered.

I think for me the most telling thing is that when we are introduced to the character, and have to catalogue him, the author asks us to catalogue him according three highly salient points: he's the and only one of the Watchman who is still an active vigillante (in defiance of the law), he's characterized even by his friends as insance, and he makes a very Objectivist rejection of altruism - if asked to save the world, he wouldn't: "Why should I?". All these point to me to someone who is highly 'chaotic' in D&D terms.

 

[Nivenus]

Rorschach's alignment is really difficult to pin down, ultimately, as others have pointed out. On the one hand, he's actually probably the most moralistic of all the characters. And yet, on the other hand, he's clearly done very evil things - albeit not on the scale of some other characters and only generally to those who "deserve" it (though if we're going by D&D alignments than that doesn't qualify as good, via the Book of Exalted Deeds where mercy and forgiveness are good virtues and cruelty, regardless of the target, is an evil vice).

He's also, as others pointed out, got an uncompromising attitude - which seems lawful. As others have pointed out though, it's not really.

My guess is that, if we're going by D&D alignments rather than say, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, or any other "real life" moral philosophy that Rorschach.

I would actually almost say that Rorscach is chaotic evil, though in a weird way that makes him admirable from a certain vandpoint. He's clearly chaotic because he cannot stand authority, is reckless, is driven by an internal sense of justice rather than an external one, and is essentially a free spirit. The reason I say he is evil is mostly due to his sociopathic tendencies to do atrocities nearly as cruel as those wreaked by his enemies, albeit to those very enemies rather than innocents (except, perhaps, the "villain" begging for a beating Nite Owl and Silk Spectre discussed). However, I wouldn't be too surprise to see Rorscach pegged as true neutral, neutral evil, or chaotic neutral either.

It actually posits an interesting scenario if I'm correct since, at the end of the story, Rorscach is in some ways more sympathetic and morally sound than his "good" allies. It also puts his opposition to *spoilers* in an interesting light, reflecting the war between lawful and chaotic evil as well as good and evil.

I think we can all agree, however, that Dr. Manhattan is true neutral .

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people equate "Lawful" with "Obeys the Law," so I'm here to kick you in the shins for that.

The following is, of course, given my understanding of alignment...

Lawful is ordered, believing in patterns, systems, and codes.

I don't think Rorshach is quite Lawful. It's a mistake to think that just because someone adheres to an abstract code that they're Lawful. Chaotic people adhere just as strongly to their own codes.

I don't think Rorchach is quite Chaotic. It's a mistake to think that just because someone violates the laws flippantly that they're Chaotic. Lawful people will violate a petty legality to uphold a greater law easily.

On the Law/Chaos axis, he's "unaligned." He does what suits him. Sometimes he ties up the bad guys and puts them in jail, sometimes he beats their heads in with an axe. He does believe in a greater meaning, but it isn't Order, and it isn't Chaos...

It's Good.

I think that Good characters can be tremendous jerks, especially to those that oppose them. It's a mistake to think that you have to be nice to be good. Good people slay evil all the time, even without a proper trial, especially when the legal system wouldn't do justice.

Rorchach is Neutral Good.

He's a jerk. He's got no regard for order, but no love of freedom either. He's tremendously egotistical. Like all the Watchmen, he's a deeply flawed kind of Good.

I think the Watchmen is a good case for the idea that Good characters can come into conflict. Everyone is trying to do the right thing, but what they think of as "the right thing" is in direct conflict. Everyone has the good of humanity in mind, and just differs about how to achieve it.

Coming back from the movie, I was thinking about how most of my campaigns have that sort of ambiguity to them, and how much I like doing that -- nothing is untainted, and rational people can disagree on whether Good or Evil (as D&D alignments) is the best way to achieve a given goal.

 

[pawsplay]

Given his respect for the Comedian's patriotic actions, I would have to say he has respect for the authorities, in the abstract. Also, there is the line "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon." Pretty lawful. He lives by his personal code, and is even willing to admit from time to time when he falls short.

I think Rorschach likes the idea of Lawful Good in some respects, but he falls into the category of people who are decent but not willing to go the extra mile to actually be Good. He accepts collateral damage routinely, and his view of what to do about the coming End of the World is to try to punish as many evil people as possible before the party's over. He has righteousness, but not charity. He admires Justice, but without Plato's ideal of harmony; rather, Justice is a natural force that must be heeded, even if it means extinction.

So Lawful Neutral, St. Cuthbert-style.

 

[Nightson]

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.

 

[Nivenus]

On the Law/Chaos axis, he's "unaligned." He does what suits him. Sometimes he ties up the bad guys and puts them in jail, sometimes he beats their heads in with an axe. He does believe in a greater meaning, but it isn't Order, and it isn't Chaos...

It's Good.

I think that Good characters can be tremendous jerks, especially to those that oppose them. It's a mistake to think that you have to be nice to be good. Good people slay evil all the time, even without a proper trial, especially when the legal system wouldn't do justice.

Rorchach is Neutral Good.

He's a jerk. He's got no regard for order, but no love of freedom either. He's tremendously egotistical. Like all the Watchmen, he's a deeply flawed kind of Good.

I agreed with you up until the end of the Law/Chaos bit. Law and chaos are commonly misunderstood, in part because they're not a major part of our cultural consciousness the way they were of many ancient societies (which D&D's inspirations were largely based off of). Our primary moral consciousness is D&D's good/evil axis, based around Platonic and Judeo-Christian ideals.

However, at least in D&D terms, you're dead wrong about Good and Evil. True, good isn't necessarily about being nice, but being nice is a very large component of D&D's definition of good. Courtesy and consideration for others' feelings is considered a minor virtue of good.

More to the point, being nice is one thing. Having respect for life is another, and that is a very, very strong component of good according to the Book of Exalted Deeds. And Rorschach has no respect for life in of itself. In fact, he looks down upon and scorns most of everybody around him. He still doesn't think people should go around ax murdering people at random. Hardly. After all, his entire schtick is going around and brutally torturing/murdering people who do that sort of thing.

But he doesn't respect life in of itself. And he has no qualms about ending it whenever he feels it necessary.

The aforementioned incident with the masochistic would-be villain is, I think, a good point. Granted, its anecdotal, so it's not very strong evidence. But the fact that the other characters are willing to believe it, that Rorschach would casually end the life of an admittedly kooky and kind of disturbing fan is definitely strong evidence he's not good, at least not by D&D definitions (as I said, Rorschach may fare "better" by different moral standards).

Secondly, another large virtue of good, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, is mercy and forgiveness. Rorschach has no sense of either word. To him, a villain is a villain, deserving of as much cruelty and pain as they deal out. Mercy is for fools. Forgiveness is a little evil. He has no faith in the justice system, no faith in trial by peers or judgment by others. This is not good, by D&D definitions. This is, in fact, treading very closely on the toes of evil.

I can see the argument that Rorschach is neutral. I may even be convinced by it. But he is most definitely not good.