The Punisher, alignment and class

what class and alignment would the punisher(marvel) have

Chaotic Neutral (lives by his own code, not Daffy Duck) Ranger with Favored Enemy: Human.

Class is undoubtedly Gunslinger. As for alignment...opens can of worms

He's certainly not Lawful - he has no respect for the legal system, as he believes it's far too soft, slow and corrupt. I don't think he even rates Neutral - his vigilante tactics means he's given up on the normal judicial process, and decided that he can play judge, jury and executioner. So, while I would never describe Frank Castle as "impulsive," he's probably Chaotic.

Good? No way. He might have been early on, but the man has no problem torturing criminals to get the information he wants, and once he's done with them, he executes them. No, he left the side of the angels long ago (literally, actually). So we're left with either Neutral or Evil. If I had to say, I'd say his code of only killing criminals and murderers is the only thing keeping him from full on Evil, but it's really close. I'd say Neutral with VERY strong Evil tendencies.

So, CN/CE Gunslinger. With automatic weaponry.

I only stayed away from Gunslinger because, while Frank uses guns, they are a means to an end. He doesn't do trick shots or anything like that.

He's really-really good at hunting down and killing evil people, but I agree with you entirely on the non-good argument. I stayed away from Evil because he gets no personal benefit from his actions, and, indeed, suffers a great deal for them. His actions stem more from obsession than malice. He respects good (though he does not practice it himself) and hates evil. CN.

Lawful evil. Why does the majority think "lawful" has ANYTHING to do with following local laws?

lawful
He follows his own code, which , to his mind, supercedes local law.

evil
Not because he does things "for the evulls", but his sheer ruthlessness in attaining his goals.

I can see that reasoning. Maybe give him the Trophy Hunter archetype to give him access to the guns - means to an end or not, Frank uses guns. In this case, I'd give him the Gunslinger's Dodge, Utility Shot, Targeting, Dead Shot and Evasive deeds. Those feel like Punisher level deeds.

Guns don't kill people. Frank Castle kills people. With guns.

And like I said, the Neutral/Evil thing is probably the biggest issue with Frank. He walks a knife's edge on a daily basis, as he's become as big a monster as the criminals he executes.

what class and alignment would the punisher(marvel) have

Depends on what version and what writer. His first appearance after all, was as a Spiderman villain.

Mostly because that's not what Lawful is defined as in the books, DWK.

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.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

In fact, it's rather telling that they put vigilantes into the CG category. It's up to interpretation whether Frank ever thought what he was doing was "good," but there's no doubt that he ever thought it was anything but "right." Frank as we know him is certainly not Good, and the only thing to debate is how close to Evil he's fallen.

Though I have expressed my dislike for alignment elsewhere, I'd say Mr. Castle is a LN Slayer, based on most appearances I've read. LN because he follows his own code and only kills criminals. Slayer because, well, he tracks down criminals and kills them. Yes he uses guns, but that's because they are the tools at his disposal, and very common and easy to come by in the modern world. In a case where it is emerging guns (which is the default assumption of the game if you have them at all), I could see him maybe having one or two, but not relying on them day-to-day. They would be just another tool in his arsenal.

Slayer with guns, yes. There will be an archetype in the ACG, so that one.*

Ranger would be great if you could cut out all the animal stuff. LN/LE, he really does think he is dispensing justice and is aware he is a total prick.

*I don't have proof, but there will. How will the writers be able to resist the Hitman archetype, a masked man hiding on the roof with his musket, ready to cap the mayor?

He has disdain for the law and those who enforce it, and has no problem breaking the law to do what he thinks is right.

His issue is not merely with lawbreakers, but those who harm the innocent. It's an opposition to evil, not chaos.

I can see slayer over Ranger, though. Frankly I forgot about them.

Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. He's definitely not Lawful, and he's definitely not Good. The "Goodest" alignment I could see for him is Chaotic Neutral.

And speaking of Hitman, you want a classic example of Lawful Evil? Look no further than Agent 47. Anything that strays too far from that is probably not LE, and the Punisher is waaaay off of that.

As LazarX said above, depends on the version. Some write him as not so much disdaining the law, but thinking the law doesn't go far enough.

And I wouldn't say evil. He's not killing innocents. He's killing murderers and drug dealers. People who live off of the misery of others.

This is why I hate alignment. Everyone's view on what is or isn't evil is different.

As LazarX said above, depends on the version. Some write him as not so much disdaining the law, but thinking the law doesn't go far enough.

And I wouldn't say evil. He's not killing innocents. He's killing murderers and drug dealers. People who live off of the misery of others.

This is why I hate alignment. Everyone's view on what is or isn't evil is different.

Killing murderers and drug dealers I could probably see as a dark Neutral.

TORTURING murderers and drug dealers, and killing or beating on ones that have already served their time and are not committing any crimes is evil, however.

But if the torture is for the sole purpose of extracting information, and he takes no pleasure in doing so? In my view, not evil. Harsh for sure, and definitely skirting the line, but not necessarily evil.

Anyways, this is adding nothing to the thread, and I don't want to derail any farther. Obviously my views are different than yours, and I'll leave it at that.

I tend to lean towards CN, but he -does- come up with some pretty "creative" deaths (by which I mean poetically appropriate/grusome and horribly painful).

However, he does none of this for personal gain, which is a hallmark of evil.

But if the torture is for the sole purpose of extracting information, and he takes no pleasure in doing so? In my view, not evil. Harsh for sure, and definitely skirting the line, but not necessarily evil.

Anyways, this is adding nothing to the thread, and I don't want to derail any farther. Obviously my views are different than yours, and I'll leave it at that.

I think it adds more to the thread than "This is what I think with no justification, actually". But if you want to drop it, I will. I just thought it was an interesting tangent.

Chaotic Evil. He's just a version of chaotic evil that people can actually work with.

I think we should really try to interpret Frank Castle within the framework of a typical Pathfinder campaign setting.

He could easily be re-imagined as a former Ranger who came home to have his family murdered by a thieves guild.

I'd probably start with something like:
CN Human Trophy Hunter Ranger 3/Inquisitor X

I would say either LE or maybe true neutral... He seems to want to play all sides to reach his goal He works with the good guys by the law... he works AGAINST the good guys when he needs to....

He'll use good methods... he'll use ruthless methods...

I'd probably say ranger too.. Human or Criminals as a Favored enemy...

I disagree with chaotic as Castle is very methodical and has a strict code of ethics that he will not deviate from. When he does it is with much personal anguish and often extensive atonement. As far as the good/evil axis the way I see it is he performs evil acts for the greater good, placing him in the neutral category. I would put his alignment at either lawful neutral or, more likely, true neutral.

For class I would go with either fighter or ranger. Ranger seems to fit thematically, but his breath of training and skill would also lean toward fighter.

It's too bad the Punisher never appeared in 1602 because that would give us a good basis for Golarion.

Lawful evil ranger seems good to me.

LN Inquisitor, with Black Powder Inquisition.

He doesn't cast spells, though.
I'd say Slayer is the most sensibile choice.

Urban ranger/Trophy hunter with traps from UM instead of spells.

That gives him his community bonus with the underworld (constantly getting help and info from prostitutes and the like), Favored enemy humans, guns and traps.

He's LE, no doubt about it.