A Character of Every Alignment

[davidvs]

Many of us are familiar with those famous Internet discussions claiming that Batman has every D&D alignment. He is Lawful because he opposes criminals on the side of law and is an ally of the police. He is Chaotic as a vigilante. He is Good because he fights evil people. He is Evil because he has many selfish motives and does not seem to notice when his battles cause property damage or other indirect harm to innocents. Etc.

I've often wondered if I could create another character of every alignment, and think I finally have.

Consider a character who knows that reincarnation happens in Golarion. So he takes reincarnation very seriously. The most important thing he can do for someone is help their karma before they are reincarnated.

Is someone very good but chronically depressed? The kind thing to do is kill them, so they start a better life promptly. To let them live extends their suffering and permits the chance that their depression will turn them selfish.

Moreover, he is a Juju Oracle, although probably with the fluff changed from Wendo to a more mainline Golarion diety. After he kills someone who is evil the merciful thing is to raise them as a neutral zombie so they can serve him in fighting evil for a few hours or days before starting their next life.

What do you think? Every alignment?

[glyph87]

davidvs wrote:

Many of us are familiar with those famous Internet discussions claiming that Batman has every D&D alignment. He is Lawful because he opposes criminals on the side of law and is an ally of the police. He is Chaotic as a vigilante. He is Good because he fights evil people. He is Evil because he has many selfish motives and does not seem to notice when his battles cause property damage or other indirect harm to innocents. Etc.

I completely disagree, he's a prime example of Chaotic Good.

1: He doesn't take pleasure in the misfortune of others, and malice is not his goal, so he cannot be Evil.
2: His ultimate goal is to destroy Evil rather than further himself or just mind his own business, therefore he is Good rather than Neutral.
3: He doesn't follow societies laws, therefore he is not Lawful.
4: He will wantonly destroy property and inconvenience others to achieve his goals and the ends justify the means, therefore he is Chaotic.

According the the 4 above observations of his personality traits, it's pretty clear that he is Chaotic Good:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

On Good vs. Evil vs. Neutral:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

...
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others

On Lawful vs. Chaos vs. Neutral:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

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.

...
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.

It is impossible for any character to be every alignment, as that is what True Neutral accomplishes by it's definition. Chaotic when it suits him, Lawful when it suits him; Good when it suits him, and (you guessed it), Evil when it suits him. A True Neutral character has neither a problem with authority nor any qualms about breaking the law, and he doesn't have a problem with throwing someone under the bus or with saving the orphans from the burning building at great risk to his own.

True Neutral, by definition:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

[d@ncingNumfar]

Batman could be said have been every alignment because of how he's been reinterpreted by so many different writers who bring their own baggage to the character.

The Juju oracle in question sounds more akin to L/N to me because of the specific self-imposed code of conduct he follows. Good and Evil seem kind of arbitrary to this character because he doesn't define evaluate them outside of the existing code he follows, because they are an extension of this code instead of existing independently.

It's getting early and I could be wrong (or just loony) but that's my two cents.

[Alitan]

And my two coppers: Batman is in fact Lawful/Neutral.

Yes, he's a vigilante. That doesn't make him chaotic.

He follows his own, rather rigid, code of ethics. Which may violate the law of the land, but from which he (almost) never deviates.

And while he is fighting evil...

"There are eight moves I can use to take him out from this position... two of them kill; five of them disarm with minimal contact. The last one... hurts."

[a paraphrase, it's been a long time since I read it]

Bats chooses the painful option. A LOT. Yeah, pain teaches, it's a great deterrent... but the nasty little grin on his face while he's pounding some chaingun-wielding thug suggests to me that he LIKES it.

So not good. But not evil, really; thug LIVES.

Batman, Lawful/Neutral with Really Scary tendencies...

[Kthulhu]

At this point, the thing that makes him evil is NOT killing the Joker, when given the opportunity.

[GnomePaladin]

I was always under the assumption that Batman is every alignment because of the variety of incarnations of Batman (also alternate universes)

Example

Adam West Batman is Lawful Good (albeit a very silly & campy one) he upholds the law because it is the foundation of society.

Batman: The Dark Knight is Neutral Good: He fights for what is right with little regard for law.

Batman from "Superman: Red Son" is Chaotic Good: He fights against the overbearing superpower for freedom (and vengeance)

and there should be versions of the other six as well.

Also

Batman Alignment Chart

[Alitan]

Kthulhu wrote:

At this point, the thing that makes him evil is NOT killing the Joker, when given the opportunity.

No, that just makes him a little dumber than we thought he was.

Besides, he's succumbed to the subconscious need for his enemy to survive, because his enemy is his reason for existing...

[Foghammer]

Kthulhu wrote:

At this point, the thing that makes him evil is NOT killing the Joker, when given the opportunity.

If Batman kills the Joker, he opens the door to a new way of handling his enterprise. The second kill is easier, and the third is easier than that. If he just goes around killing these people, he's ultimately no better than they are. He justifies what he does by not killing people. And imagine the trouble he'd have from law enforcement if he killed his quarry.

If anything not killing the truly screwed up villains makes him more neutral. I don't believe that NOT killing something evil makes you evil.

[TriOmegaZero]

Character of every alignment, you say?

[Ksorkrax]

Noone (except for TriOmegaZero) got that the thread was not intended to be about the alignment-of-batman-topic?

As for the topic, killing innocents should be against the law in most societies. In what way could the character be considered lawful?
Also, you could generalize the question: What about insane people? Since we're in a fantasy world we can assume that there is some kind of madness that urges them to kill innocents with good intentions ("THEY ARE ALL SHARKS IN DISGUISE!!!") and I'm sure there's something to get them all along the chaotic-lawful axis ^^
(Well, one reason more to despise the alignment-system.)

[Robespierre]

Every character has the potential of doing good and evil things within the same campaign. Sometimes they'll follow the law and other times they will not. It seems as if character motives and history are a better way to help determine someone's personality rather than the alignment system. Of course people want to justify hostility because of their "alignment" rather than what they have seen. For example, a lot of paladin players will kill someone just because they emanate an evil aura.

[Axolotl]

I thought I had read somewhere (in the PRD?) that if a character acts similar to wildly different alignments, that character just might be Chaotic Neutral. Ah, here it is.

Quote:

Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.

I think that's more of a restriction (reclassification?) for "Chaotic A-hole" players, though, and I don't mean to imply that Batman is CN. He's Chaotic Good, imho, as he obeys the law sometimes, and sometimes he doesn't. Life is complicated, y'know? I think it's richer if people have to behave out of alignment due to circumstances.

[d@ncingNumfar]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Character of every alignment, you say?

Isn't alignment supposed to describe the fundamental nature of the being instead of specific snapshots of that being's actions? Still, it's one of the best of these posters that I've ever seen...

[TriOmegaZero]

It's one of the better examples of why alignment isn't a straight-jacket. :)

[Kerney]

Here is a perfect alignment chart.

[GnomePaladin]

Ksorkrax wrote:

Noone (except for TriOmegaZero) got that the thread was not intended to be about the alignment-of-batman-topic?

Every thread is about the alignment of batman.

Ksorkrax wrote:

As for the topic, killing innocents should be against the law in most societies. In what way could the character be considered lawful?
Also, you could generalize the question: What about insane people? Since we're in a fantasy world we can assume that there is some kind of madness that urges them to kill innocents with good intentions ("THEY ARE ALL SHARKS IN DISGUISE!!!") and I'm sure there's something to get them all along the chaotic-lawful axis ^^

Really matters if Good/Evil is based on intent or actions (ei torture is always evil vs torture to save hundreds of people is ok)

As for the OPs question, In my personal belief a character cannot be multiple alignments without suffering multiple personality disorder.

Ksorkrax wrote:

(Well, one reason more to despise the alignment-system.)

The alignment system is Lawful Evil.

[Ragnarok Aeon]

Ksorkrax wrote:

Noone (except for TriOmegaZero) got that the thread was not intended to be about the alignment-of-batman-topic?

I don't know what OP was thinking, mentioning Batman and his alignment in the same post and not expecting it to devolve into a conversation about Batman's alignment?

[Brendan Missio]

GnomePaladin wrote:

Ksorkrax wrote:

Noone (except for TriOmegaZero) got that the thread was not intended to be about the alignment-of-batman-topic?

Every thread is about the alignment of batman.

+1