What Alignment is Rorschach?

[pawsplay]

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.

If you excluded insane extremists, you would end up with a lot of people in the True Neutral category.

As for why he's a hero... he

Spoiler

gave his life to stand up for what he believed. He can be wrong in every other way you can think of and you can still admire his integrity.

Watchmen isn't about true blue heroism. He's a hero because he does not qualify as an anti-hero... he may be tragic, but he does not fail. Just because someone is a hero in a piece does not mean you have to agree with their morality, or that the author does. Rorschach is not a role model or the epitome of cool, but he does represent something important to us.

 

[arscott]

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.

This. A personal code isn't evidence of lawful alignment unless it derives from an external authority.

I'd peg Rorshach as Chaotic Neutral, if not Chaotic Evil.

 

[ppaladin123]

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'.

From the SRD:

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her.

Italics are mine. The alignment descriptions are ambiguous about this internal/external code dimension so I don't think it is fair for you to claim that others have some "misunderstanding," at the heart of their arguments.

The problem is that "law" is meaningless without analogous norms to guarantee enforcement. Norm enforcement occurs as a result of norm internalization (through primary and secondary socialization processes) on the part of those that sanction deviance.

If compliance with a law on the part of an individual becomes rooted over time in an associated internalized norm, is that individual by your definition now "chaotic," because his behavior no longer depends on the continued existence of that law as an external written code? Even if that external code is the origin of his internal code? Would he be lawful if he continued to follow the law while it existed but suddenly become "chaotic" if he continued to follow the obligations/restrictions after the law was repealed?

Are people only "lawful," if they follow currently existing laws out of fear of sanction(that is, they have not internalized associated norms but do not wish to provoke the ire of those who have)? Are they only lawful if they automatically accept all governments as legitimate?

Say I am a citizen of country X and I admire the legal code of that country. I have in fact internalized those laws. Now I move to country Y and find that the legal code is quite different, I dislike it greatly and think that it is in fact immoral. I continue to follow the legal code of country X to the letter even when it contradicts the legal code of country Y. Am I chaotic now?

St. Augustine (and others) argued that there was a natural law that ordered the universe and that could be discovered through reason. That law was objective and ought to be followed. Human law was a pale imitation of natural law and when it contradicted it, it was illegitimate and ought not to be followed. St. Augustine laid this all out in City of God (and compared the City of God to the City of Man). St. Augustine thought that he (like other reasonable men) had knowledge about the natural law and lived his (later) life according to it. Is St. Augustine chaotic? Is he only chaotic if there actually is no objective natural law that trumps the law of man (i.e. he was wrong)? What if there is but he was mistaken about a few of its details?


I don't think there is an easy answer to these questions. I certainly don't think we can locate all individuals on some order/chaos scale (or love/fear for your Donnie Darko fans) without losing a great deal of nuance.

 

[ppaladin123]

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.

Yeah, if I was forced to stuff him in one of these inadequate boxes I think I'd put him in the lawful neutral box. I think he views himself as a servant of some higher justice, one that the authority figures seem to have forgotten.

So here is a question. Say I follow the dictates of my conscience. In doing so I evaluate my actions based on how they conform to to some external code I learned and have internalized.

Am I chaotic only in as much as I stubbornly maintain that I can, for myself, adequately judge whether I am adhering to that code? Am I only lawful if I allow others' interpretations of that code and my actions to help determine whether I am in accordance with it? I am still chaotic if I maintain that I am the final judge of my adherence but admit to my shortcomings when they are pointed out by others?

I think of this as the Martin Luther question. Was Luther chaotic for maintaining that the church authorities were incorrect in their interpretation of scripture (i.e. he relied on his own instincts/conscience/reason rather than on their judgment) and rebelling against them? Or, was he lawful because he was a firm believer in a objective higher law, and, as a servant of that law, attempted to correct the inconsistency?

 

[Nivenus]

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her.

Emphasis mine.

Rorscach is a lone dog who prefers to work alone. He doesn't play well with others. And he doesn't care to. That's a chaotic trait.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

He's Unaligned. He hasn't made any real commitment to anything except his own, personal convictions. He has an egoistic streak, but he doesn't exploit people or take joy from harming others. He doesn't want to destroy anything, either.

 

[pawsplay]

Emphasis mine.

Rorscach is a lone dog who prefers to work alone. He doesn't play well with others. And he doesn't care to. That's a chaotic trait.

He's apparently responsible for putting dozens of criminals into the prisons. He also made it clear that what affects one of them (the Watchmen) affects all of them. Simply being a loner and a misanthrope does not disbar you from believing in an ordered society. That is a matter of temperament, not morality.

Bottom line: Rorschach believes morality is absolute, intelligible, and universal. Lawful, plus a bag of chips.

 

[avin]

LN - he follow his own rules, and never step away from them.

Ozymandias is True Neutral or LN?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Unaligned, the whole bloody lot of them.

 

[ppaladin123]

Whatever his alignment, he is certainly a "Knight Templar,"

Knight Templar - Television Tropes & Idioms

To many Knight Templar types, All Crimes Are Equal, and the lightest offenses are met with full imprisonment, death or brainwashing. Note that the canonical "minor offense with staggeringly out-of-proportion punishment" is jaywalking. If you're in a story like this, don't jaywalk. It's important to note that Knights Templar believe fully that they are on the side of righteousness and draw strength from that, and their opponents are not. Invoking goodness and decency will have no effect, save for making Knights Templar decry your cause as the work of the devil. After all, they are certain their cause is just and noble, and anyone who stands in the way is a deluded fool at best or another guilty soul to be 'cleansed' or evildoer to be killed