|
Currently in a debate with my friends about this topic due to a player wanting to play a barbarian character based on the Punisher. Here is where we are stumped:
Chaotic or Lawful? He disregards society's laws and in doing so causes chaos since his methods are usually extremely violent. But he also has a code, his own set of rules which he would die for, and a strong sense of honor.
Good or Evil? He protects the innocent and only goes after people who harm them, but then he truly takes pleasure in killing, and has executed many opponents he had already rendered helpless, and he has no qualms against torture.
My vote is for LN.
The thing about being a Punisher-type in an RPG is that ruthlessly killing large numbers of bad guys is the default. The Punisher only stands out because he contrasts with Daredevil, the police, etc, who prefer to arrest them.
You could justify just about any alignment; the nuances and internal motivation are as important as the actions. The violent vigilante could be:
(a) Lawful Evil. He kills because hurting people makes him feel better. He restricts his killing to criminals because it angers him that they're breaking the law.
(b) Chaotic Good. He kills bad guys because he believes it's the most effective way of defeating evil and protecting the innocent, and that takes priority over doing things by the book.
(I wouldn't advise Lawful Neutral, because traditionally Barbarians aren't allowed to be Lawful.)
I had a similar discussion (although I used Venom as my example, since it was more about method that stands him apart from normal PCs).
My GM and i agreed on LE at the end, since he follows a code, but kills the wicked in non-good ways.
Chaotic good by definition is going to have a lot of rules even if they're not written down. Chaotic neutral likewise can't do certain things and remain chaotic neutral.
The thing is following a code that you make up is more agreeing with yourself than following anything unless
1) it has a LOT of moving parts
2) it's long and complicated.
3) the code is something that is almost a seperate entity from yourself. its a rule that's higher than you of it's own accord. You have to be able to dump a situation into the code and get an answer you don't like that you abide by rather than just doing what you want.
Castles codes really don't live up to that.
Also, I would say his current distrust of authority is a reaction to his being being too trusting of his superiors when he was in the military.
Well written characters should have reasonable reasons for holding their beliefs, but being justified /excused of having a view doesn't mean it's not there. Complete distrust of authority and heirarchy are highly indicative of a chaotic world view.
Chaotic neutral and bribing the dm with cookies not to get E on his sheet.
Probably lawful evil it doesn't matter if you are an arms dealer or just doing petty crimes you are pretty much dead either way.
can you give an example of a petty criminal he's killed?
As initially conceived by writer Steven Grant, the Punisher is not chaotic, and he inhabits a universe in which the "legitimate authorities" are, on their very best days, woefully incompetent to deal with evil running amok in the world, and few such authorities are on their best behavior in any event (i.e., resembling your typical fantasy RPG setting). During the 1980s to early '90s comicbook heyday, the character's philosophy was "an eye for an eye", which none other than Gary Gygax describes as Lawful-Good: "...Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not...."
-- If Frank Castle is depicted as relishing carnage for its own sake under more recent incarnations, they deviate from the original character conception.
Originally Batman used guns. Maybe going by original concept only doesn't paint the best picture of the hero in question.
Grant's "picture" has been the most consistent depiction of the character.
Chaotic Evil, IMO. Man's a murderer. "Having a reason" doesn't make that acceptable.
He’s whatever the storyteller of the day wants him to be. It’s the same problem as with Batman’s alignment. It’s the problem of having a huge number of people’s content considered canon all at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Evil, IMO. Man's a murderer. "Having a reason" doesn't make that acceptable.
Most 'Lawful Good' PCs are murderers too.
"We found some necromancers in a secret lair in the sewers."
"Did you retreat and notify the town guard?"
"No, we killed them all."
"How could you?"
"It wasn't that hard. We had the advantage of surprise. And look, I found this cool magic dagger when I was looting their corpses. We killed some kobolds too, but they only had three gold pieces. It was hardly worth it."
Most people who write The Punisher use standard Vigilante Fantasy rules, where every person he shoots is utterly despicable, and no-one else is dealing with them.
The thing about being a Punisher-type in an RPG is that ruthlessly killing large numbers of bad guys is the default. The Punisher only stands out because he contrasts with Daredevil, the police, etc, who prefer to arrest them.
Well, that depends on the area. In the city, there are guards there to maintain public order, and they can often look very poorly on someone running around killing people they feel are 'bad guys'.
In the various mountains and forests that adventurers run around in? ...you are likely a week's walk away from the nearest guard house. In practical terms, it is extremely difficult to even bring the person to the rightful authorities, and there are major risks that the person will slip their bonds and slit your throats in the middle of the night. As a result, it is fairly understandable that you can handle the matter yourself.
If I had to compare it to something closer to modern sensibilities... the wild west would be a good example. I've watched a 90's series called "Lonesome Dove", which largely focuses on a group doing a multistate cattle drive through unsettled areas. Along the way, they found a group of horse thieves/murderers (that also lit some random farmers on fire)- the kind of people you can't leave running around. So they hung the group. That is what most adventurers experience.
Side note- don't watch Lonesome Dove unless you are okay with Game of Thrones levels of character death (or worse- premodern medicine). Because... its main theme was "the 1800's sucked".
Castle has a code; he doesn't kill just anybody, and he doesn't kill for kicks, or money, or status.
The Joker is chaotic.
You have to look at different incarnations of Punisher differently.
Main Marvel Line:
Chaotic Good: He WANTS to be Captain America. But his personal code is so against everything Cap stands for he can never live up to it.
The Netflix Series:
Lawful Neutral: He has a code. A strict one. Removing this code from him makes him feel like he is in hell. (Season 2)
Punisher Max:
Neutral Evil: He is ordained by a supernatural evil to be forever in war. He loves killing, and will kill forever.
Frank has been written so many ways. You can put him almost in every slot (except maybe LG or CE).
Lawful neutral or lawful evil.
He's definitely not chaotic due to the importance of his personal code in guiding the "punishments" he metes out.
I can't help but wonder if there are so many arguments for lawful and so many for chaotic, why not just agree to a middle ground of neutral.
I don't think neutral gets enough respect.
I can't agree with chaotic whatsoever though.
Frank Castle's code is too important to him in his role as the Punisher, IMO.
He doesn't play by the world's rule, but he does play by his rules.
He thinks he's making the world a better place meting out justice the legal system is unwilling or unable to do.
However, Cavall makes a semi-convincing argument for true neutral.
I can't agree with chaotic whatsoever though.
Frank Castle's code is too important to him in his role as the Punisher, IMO.
He doesn't play by the world's rule, but he does play by his rules.
He thinks he's making the world a better place meting out justice the legal system is unwilling or unable to do.
That's some people's view of chaotic good. "His" rules means individualism, which is one view of chaotic. If your rules are self determined/created they're chaotic, if they're from society or adopted from a larger organization they're lawful.
Trying to make the world a better place is good, as long as you're not doing so through cruel means or killing for pleasure.
That's some people's view of chaotic good. "His" rules means individualism, which is one view of chaotic. If your rules are self determined/created they're chaotic, if they're from society or adopted from a larger organization they're lawful.Trying to make the world a better place is good, as long as you're not doing so through cruel means or killing for pleasure.
I definitely don't accept that view of chaotic since that would arguably make paladins chaotic. Remember, they try to work within the law but their personal code is more important than any adherence to the laws of nations. It doesn't mean that chaotic characters are incapable of self discipline, but lawful characters take it to a different level.
I think some of Frank's killings definitely qualify as cruel, and while he doesn't do them explicitly for enjoyment, sometimes he does enjoy it.
|
I vote for Neutral Good
Neutral: He likes the idea of law and understands the need for laws. He follows the law unless he is in the middle of a mission and the law gets in his way, when he will break laws or rules to accomplish his goals. He doesn't steal from or hurt the good or innocent, but he will straight up murderhobo the bad guys and loot their corpses.
Good: He will also take a bullet to protect innocent lives, he frequently helps others (Gives them money, protects them, gets back items stolen from them, etc). He only murderhobos the bad guys.
Which version of Castle ? He has been a lot of different things, depicted in alot of different ways, with varying degrees of subtlely and skill. From outright fascist murderhobo, to immortal angel-ish thing, to broken man and badass murderous vigilante p... and considering current cosmic events, he's not slowing down.
I like him as the hardest True Neutral. Not by conviction or choice, mind you, just as a matter of fact.
But realistically I'd say more NE, for sheer amorality.
Law and order are not the goal, and chaos is irrelevant - if sometimes useful.
Good might be an ideal, a motivation, but from the point of view of an outsider "protecting" it, knowing full well he is entirely okay with allowing himself to go as far and as low as he feels is needed. Good is good, but it's not for him, not anymore.
Reference?He has killed people for vandalism shot at people for littering,Probably lawful evil it doesn't matter if you are an arms dealer or just doing petty crimes you are pretty much dead either way.can you give an example of a petty criminal he's killed?
he has also killed people who haven't actually done anything illegal simply because they are associated with the criminal elements like the mob bosses chauffeur whos only job for the mob boss is diving them around heck they might not even know they are a mob bossAnd Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star, killing everybody on it. --If you're working in an evil organization, you're fair game.
Which version of Castle? He has been a lot of different things, depicted in alot of different ways, with varying degrees of subtlely and skill. From outright fascist murderhobo, to immortal angel-ish thing, to broken man and badass murderous vigilante p... and considering current cosmic events, he's not slowing down.
To answer any sort of "What alignment is he?" topic like this, we should always focus upon the predominant version of the character (especially if it's the author's vision, and one still in more or less in current use).
Dwelling upon one-off instances is as useless as examining Steve Rogers (Captain America) during the much-hated, continuity-demolishing Nick Spencer story-arc in which he's a Hydra agent.
Wooo!
Alignment debate, alignment debate, let's have us an alignment debate!
. . . Perhaps, like proper debaters, we should present definitions of terms before we begin arguing over them? Semantic disputes are insidious things, and oft pointlessly persist long after it's been established that everyone agrees.
In order to answer a question like this you have to compare it vs the well-established alignment indicators from the world of fantasy/sci-fi:
Superman = LG
Batman = CG
The Joker = CE
Judge Dredd = LN
Now you can compare!!
LE
I don't have time to comb threw 50 years of comics,tv shows and movies but a quick google search turns up this snippet of a comic book Punisher showing those litter bugs not to litter.
That's from Spectacular Spider-Man #81-83. It was later retconned that one of his enemies had been drugging him to drive him insane.
I don't have time to comb threw 50 years of comics,tv shows and movies but a quick google search turns up this snippet of a comic book Punisher showing those litter bugs not to litter.That's from Spectacular Spider-Man #81-83. It was later retconned that one of his enemies had been drugging him to drive him insane.
Yeah, that's Bill Mantlo writing him as a maniacal Judge Dredd knockoff, because Judge Dredd was flaming hot in its Eagle Comics release in '83, and I assume Marvel wanted to speedily repurpose one of their existing characters into a similar jarhead role. (Article found by doing a Tineye search on Doorman47's pic.)