What Alignment is Rorschach?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Alignment in D&D has never been well-explained as to its actual purpose - the REASON it is included in D&D. Alignment has further never been well explained as to how it fulfills that purpose, being vague, contradictory, and inaccurate. But it HAS worked. Not universally, perhaps, but it DOES work.

If you accept that the purpose of alignment in D&D is to act as a guide to players for having their characters behave in a reasonable/consistent manner and not just do whatever they want, whenever they want without justification or explanation, then alignment has worked. Oh, people may disagree on how it's supposed to do that, and they may disagree on just what particular little box a given character is supposed to be in, disagree on when they stray out of their box and what the punishment for doing so should be - but in using alignment (even badly or mistakenly) players ENDEAVOR to get their characters into a particular box of behavior and keep them there. That means alignment has worked, even if it's worked poorly as a result of its own inadequacies and ill definition.

Alignment is NOT used in D&D in the same way that it was used in fiction by its creator Poul Anderson (or Michael Moorcock who used Andersons idea if I understand that correctly). Frankly, I doubt that even Gygax had a good conception of what alignment was supposed to be doing for him in D&D. He likely just included his adaptation of it because he thought it was cool - just as he was inspired to include a lot of other bits and pieces from an entire cavalcade of fiction. But once included it DID seem to serve a purpose even if not even Gygax could put into writing at the time what that purpose was. And then with every version of D&D alignment has been REwritten to attempt to make it conform to a new authors misunderstanding of its purpose.

Given the way alignment IS generally described in D&D, and given the above understanding of its purpose, my conclusion has been that the best way to categorize characters within a given alignment is to look at how that character sees their place in the universe and how THEY believe that the universe works.

So let's take Rorschach as an example. On the axis of law-neutrality-chaos he is lawful. In alignment, the opposite of lawful is chaos - NOT unlawful. Looking at Moorcock/Pouls original use lawful/chaos has to do with ORDER. If Moorcock was dealing with gamers he'd have likely used the term order instead of lawful because it more accurately indicates the intended opposite of chaos. If it IS more about order and how you see your place in the universe it's about seeing a universe where order does exist or should exist, and/or where your characters purpose is to seek or maintain that order. Rorschach believes that there needs to be or should be a certain order in the world and that his purpose and that of other masks is to establish and enforce it. Rorshach therefore doesn't CARE what the written law says except as it suits his purpose. If the law fails to understand and assist masks in their voluntary duty then the law is to be ignored.



On the axis of good-neutral-evil Rorschach certainly isn't able to be associated with the extreme of good because he doesn't care about so many of the things that good identifies with (borrowing a list from 3.5) -

• Altruism
• Respect for life
• Concern for dignity of sentient beings
• Tell the truth
• Honor tradition
• Honorability in general
• Trustworthiness
• Obedience to authority
• Reliability
• Making personal sacrifices

Where he agrees would certainly be:

• Judge those who fall short of their duty

But neither is he able to be associated with Evil because he isn't indiscriminate or uncaring in his punishments - he's quite narrowly purposeful and willing to apply punishment to ANYONE when he thinks they have it coming and to protect/avenge the rest. He's doing what he believes is appropriate and beneficial for all the right reasons even if he is ruthless and violent in doing so. The ruthlessness and violence are NECESSARY, not fun or meaningless.

Being between the two extremes of good and evil makes him neutral. Lawful Neutral - at least as most D&D alignment approaches would have you think of it.

Even if you disagree with my own or someone elses assessment of a characters alignment or how alignment is to be interpreted and used, alignment still fulfills its purpose in the game if it gets players to attempt to play their characters with some thought towards consistency and being able to provide justification or explanation for why their characters act (or don't act) in the way that they do.

 

[Celebrim]

...my conclusion has been that the best way to categorize characters within a given alignment is to look at how that character sees their place in the universe and how THEY believe that the universe works.

The problem with this sort of subjective understanding is that in fantasy, good and evil, and presumably law and chaos, are objective things. It no more matters what you think of them than it matters what you think of a brick wall. Your perception of the universe doesn't define it, and your beliefs about it don't change it.

Adolph Hitler probably believed that he was lawful good. (Godwin's Law!) So perhaps does Robert Mugabe. Indeed, we should probably expect that the vast majority of people believe that they are 'nuetral good', because they define what ever ethos they believe in as the one that is 'right' and 'good'. They believe what they do, whatever it is, is the thing that ought to be done. It's very rare that someone has an objective enough view of themselves in the mirror that they can see themselves for what they are.

One of the reasons that alignment discussions provoke so much argument is that different people have very different views of what 'Good' means, and so we different groups 'rotate' the alignment wheel so that there particular beliefs get rotated to the top. The staunch believer in honor and justice is just as likely to define 'Neutral Good' in lawful terms, as he is to see 'Lawful Good' as the highest and most righteous belief system, because for him any definition of good that falls away from legalism, honor, and justice won't feel like a proper definition of 'Good'. Likewise, the staunch libertarian is just as likely or even more likely to define 'Neutral Good' primarily in terms like 'Harm no one, do as you wish', or 'Individual Liberty', because any definition of good that falls away from those ideologies will strike them as wrong - as 'evil'.

Objectively seeing ourselves is very hard. That's why I always try to get across when I explain alignment, that the player should take care to remember that most likely his character - whatever the alignment - sees his beliefs as the correct ones and the ones a person ought to be believe and live their life by. The villain doesn't see 'villany' as shameful. A 'neutral evil' character almost certainly believes that life is pain, that 'good' is mere deciet and hypocricy - the illusions of the weak - and that the way he acts is the only truly correct and rational response of the brave-hearted to the universe. In a universe where 'Good' is tangible, he probably doesn't believe himself to be 'Good', but he probably emphaticly believes 'Evil is good'. It's even possible that he defines that tangible thing others call 'Evil' as 'Good' and the tangible thing others call 'Good' as 'Evil', and would argue with a Paladin, "I'm not evil, you are!"

 

[Felix]

Chaotic Evil.

---Chaotic by his willingness to follow or flaunt the ruling authority depending upon how closely aligned the goals of that authority are compared with his own.

---Evil by his willingness to visit punishment to those innocent of action, but potentially guilty of knowledge.

Who said Evil can't be motivated by the pursuit of Good? See "The Operative" from Serenity.

And incidentally, I think in many ways he's the most admirable of the characters in Watchmen. What were his final words to Dr. Manhattan? "What is one more body laying at the foundation of your temple"? Awesome.

 

[Deset Gled]

On the subject of Lawful vs. Chaotic, and having a "personal code"...

I believe that a person can be considered lawful as long as they follow a personal code of beliefs. No external authority or review is required to be a lawful person. However, I also believe that such a code must meet a number of strict standards to be considered.

1. The code must be universally encompassing. It must lead a person in all aspects of life, giving guidance in everything that is done, on every day. This isn't to say that it must be the only thing on a person's mind all day, but you cannot claim that a strict adherence to vegetarian is a sufficient system to base one's life on.

2. The code must be specific. If must give detailed answers and specific solutions for a vast majority of issues. There may still be gray areas in interpretation and application, but something as simple as "X is good, Y are bad" is not enough of a statement (by itself) to guide a person in life.

3. The code must be unchanging. Let's face it, a code is only a code if it is a constant. If the code as you change in your life, that means that it really wasn't a personal code in any sense of the word. It is possible for the code to change occasionally, but a re-visiting of one's inner principles should be a life changing event.

4. There must be punishment if the code is broken. To err is human, and it is inevitable that a person will occasionally do something hypocritical. If the personal code is true, then a person who falls from it will realize what they have done, and mourn or punish themselves in some way. Otherwise, they are not complying with the above criteria.

Considering these criteria, I would consider Rorschach to have heavy Lawful leanings, but he comes up a little short. His personal code is that the wicked must be punished, and he follows it in all aspects of his life, which definetally meets criterion 1. However, it is not particulary specific as to how to define people as wicked, and how they should be punished. Rorshach makes snap decisions about whether a person is good or evil, and arbitrarily decides how to punish them. Someone who annoys him may be killed, but a known long-term villian like Mollock is allowed to live after spending time in jail, and someone who commits a crime while in jail is killed in the most painful method possible. The actions lead me to believe Rorschach does not have a well defined system for judgement or punishment, which are key aspects of a personal code based on judging and punishing the wicked.

Based on his close-but-not-quite code of ethics, I would actually consider Rorschach to be neutral in the Law-Chaos axis. He has the start of a code, but not all of one. He tries to uphold his code, but does a number of chaotic things in his attempts to do so. For reasons others have mentioned, I also place him squarely neutral in the Good-Evil axis.

So, in the end, I think Rorschach is true neutral. The same alignment that Dr. Manhattan is. Go figure.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Interesting thread. I'm not familiar with the character, but from reading this thread, I'd have to call him chaotic good. He defends innocents, punishes the guilty, and doesn't give a damn about how he gets his results, as long as he gets them.

 

[Mallus]

And incidentally, I think in many ways he's the most admirable of the characters in Watchmen.

He is.

And that's part of the trap-like genius of Watchmen. It gets people to admire a violent sociopath, forever traumatized by a traumatic childhood, who is ultimately willing to jeopardize the newly-minted world peace, invalidating the deaths of millions, just because he's got a personal code of ethics (which coincidentally doesn't preclude all manner of unethical behavior).

He's an example of how audiences react positively to men of action that get the funny, plucky lines (despite the fact they're monsters that the Abyss has gazed into).

 

[Celebrim]

On the subject of Lawful vs. Chaotic, and having a "personal code"...

I believe that a person can be considered lawful as long as they follow a personal code of beliefs. No external authority or review is required to be a lawful person. However, I also believe that such a code must meet a number of strict standards to be considered.

Interesting. This seems to be a 'middle ground' between my instance that no pure personal code can be considered lawful, and the opposite contention (held by some) that holding any personal code of behavior makes you lawful.

I like your reasoning. For one thing, I think it much more clearly explains why every personal code can't be considered lawful than anything I've said hitherto.

1. The code must be universally encompassing. It must lead a person in all aspects of life, giving guidance in everything that is done, on every day. This isn't to say that it must be the only thing on a person's mind all day, but you cannot claim that a strict adherence to vegetarian is a sufficient system to base one's life on.

No, but "Harm no one, do as you wish", might be universally encompassing...

2. The code must be specific. If must give detailed answers and specific solutions for a vast majority of issues. There may still be gray areas in interpretation and application, but something as simple as "X is good, Y are bad" is not enough of a statement (by itself) to guide a person in life.

...however, among other things, it would fail to give very specific guidance. Like any other axiomatic basis of morality, like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", broad axiomatic dictums are designed to work counter to strict moral legalism.

I think a lot of people are mistaking, "Passionate belief in something's value.", for, "Follows a strict code." I can be passionately motivated by some belief of mine, but that doesn't make my personal beliefs legalistic in any fashion. I think it just stands to reason that before a code of conduct can possibly be called 'lawful', that it has to have traits that make it legalistic and hense make the person's actions reviewable in an objective way.

For example, a club, fraternal order, or corporation might have some sort code of conduct. That code of conduct could either say things like, "Curfew is at 10:00." or "No girls allowed in the dorm." or "If you bring beer, bring enough for everyone to have their own." or "Don't talk about fight club." That's a legal code. Anyone can review whether or not I've broken the rules in an objective manner. Or the code of conduct can be, "Do nothing that brings shame to the club." That's not a legal code. That's a very high standard of behavior, and people who held that maxim in very high regard, might be strongly motivated to engage or not engage in particular sorts of behavior. But whether or not I'm actually following the code is entirely subjective, and the only real way to decide whether I've broken the code is to ask for someone's opinion. Hense, such a code mandates not the rule of law, but rather rule by personal conviction.

Naturally of course, many real world codes have both sorts of strictures in them.

The code must be unchanging. Let's face it, a code is only a code if it is a constant. If the code as you change in your life, that means that it really wasn't a personal code in any sense of the word. It is possible for the code to change occasionally, but a re-visiting of one's inner principles should be a life changing event.

More than just the code must be unchanging. The code must stipulate that for a given circumstance, there is an unchanging behavior - either a prohibition against doing something specific, or a commandent to do something specific. For a given circumstance, there must be a predictable responce. A lawful code can't just simply amount to, "Make it up yourself." or "Do what you want to do." The personal code actually has to mandate something.

There must be punishment if the code is broken. To err is human, and it is inevitable that a person will occasionally do something hypocritical. If the personal code is true, then a person who falls from it will realize what they have done, and mourn or punish themselves in some way. Otherwise, they are not complying with the above criteria.

More than that, the holder of the code must recognize that violating the code brings a just punishment. From the perspective of law, the problem with a personal code like, "I consider myself a citizen of the world.", is that not only does it not mandate anything specific, but the holder of the code isn't held responcible for their actions by anyone in authority. No one grants or revokes 'citizenship of the world'. There is no recognized set of duties imposed on someone by 'citizenship of the world'. It might be an idea that has real personal meaning and which shapes someones behavior, but no external observer is in any position to judge whether that is the case. With a personal code like, "I have a responcibility to your fellow humans", or "I have a responcibility to the Earth", it might motivate - even passionately motivate - a particular behavior, but unlike an actual lawful code, nobody would know to expect exactly what that behavior was or whether it would suddenly change according to the vagaries of how the person interpreted their code. The holder of such a code does not expect and would strongly object to someone else holding them accountable for not doing A or B that that other person thought should be done. The holder of such a code holds themselves responcible and judges for themselves whether they are doing a good job of living up to their own standards.

Considering these criteria, I would consider Rorschach to have heavy Lawful leanings, but he comes up a little short. His personal code is that the wicked must be punished, and he follows it in all aspects of his life, which definetally meets criterion 1. However, it is not particulary specific as to how to define people as wicked, and how they should be punished. Rorshach makes snap decisions about whether a person is good or evil, and arbitrarily decides how to punish them. Someone who annoys him may be killed, but a known long-term villian like Mollock is allowed to live after spending time in jail, and someone who commits a crime while in jail is killed in the most painful method possible. The actions lead me to believe Rorschach does not have a well defined system for judgement or punishment, which are key aspects of a personal code based on judging and punishing the wicked.

Based on his close-but-not-quite code of ethics, I would actually consider Rorschach to be neutral in the Law-Chaos axis.

Well, you are free of course to make your own judgement, but I think he comes about as 'far short' of being lawful as you can possibly come. His ever changing face is about as perfect of a metaphor as you can have for chaotic behavior.

So, in the end, I think Rorschach is true neutral. The same alignment that Dr. Manhattan is. Go figure.

Doesn't this conclusion bother you just a little bit though? If everyone is basically nuetral, what is the conflict really over? Is it just that Rorschach is a more extremist neutral, blowing things up to achieve some idea of harmony and balance, and Dr. Manhattan is just neutral apathetic? Or, is there some actual ethical conflict being played out here, "The good of the many over the good of the few or the one.", for example?

 

[Remus Lupin]

Doesn't this conclusion bother you just a little bit though? If everyone is basically nuetral, what is the conflict really over? Is it just that Rorschach is a more extremist neutral, blowing things up to achieve some idea of harmony and balance, and Dr. Manhattan is just neutral apathetic? Or, is there some actual ethical conflict being played out here, "The good of the many over the good of the few or the one.", for example?

I love the idea of "extremist neutrality." It reminds me of the "Unitarian Jihad"!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The problem with this sort of subjective understanding is that in fantasy, good and evil, and presumably law and chaos, are objective things. It no more matters what you think of them than it matters what you think of a brick wall. Your perception of the universe doesn't define it, and your beliefs about it don't change it.

But again, it matters very little whether you, I, or anyone else can all agree on how to classify any given individual, but whether or not the PLAYER of the CHARACTER is being guided to keep his characters behavior reasonable and logical in the long term - to behave insanely only if actually insane, to be able to occasionally act "out of his established character" or even contrary to his stated beliefs as long as some reasonable motivation for it is evidenced or reasonably explainable, to otherwise act as if the character does have a wide set of beliefs and motivations without having to extensively define those motivations. In short - is alignment acting as a guide for the players roleplaying of a given character?

Even if the player is guided to have his character act in a way that the DM wishes to classify in a way that is quite different from the players own understanding of the alignment framework the two points of view can be reconciled as long as the DM can and does explain HIS OWN views to his players, WHY he wants the characters behavior to fit into the DM's defined boxes, and allows the player room to "maneuver" reasonably within that framework, then alignment works as it needs to. All the discussion seen here is simply the sort of discussion that DM's need to maintain with their players to keep alignment functioning according to its purpose.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Doesn't this conclusion bother you just a little bit though? If everyone is basically nuetral, what is the conflict really over? Is it just that Rorschach is a more extremist neutral, blowing things up to achieve some idea of harmony and balance, and Dr. Manhattan is just neutral apathetic? Or, is there some actual ethical conflict being played out here, "The good of the many over the good of the few or the one.", for example?

Unless, of course, the alignment system just fails to describe real or fictional personalities of reasonable complexity.