Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-05-07, 02:24 AM	Okay, I have two friends... Let's call them "Jeremy" and "Mike" and they've been having heated discussions about this topic. "Jeremy" believes that, Due to his strong personal code of ethics, Batman (c) is Lawful Good; Whereas "Mike" sees CG due to his working outside of the law and Vigilantism. I'm not the Nerd I'd like to be... so I'm uninformed and underread. But, it was pointed out that this is one for the forums. And so I leave it to you Lads and Lasses: Is Batman LG, CG, or something in between?
Geogoose 05-05-07, 02:50 AM	Bear in mind Batman as a character has been through many character changes and has been written by many different writers. This might color each of your opinions a bit. You might be thinking of Batman from the Animated series. He might be thinking of Christian Bale's portrayal in Batman Begins. Batman from the animated series is a good example of a LG character. He holds himself to strict personal disciplne, likes detailed planning, and on top of it all protects people while using non-lethal methods to remove threats. Batman from Batman Begins is much more impulsive and emotionally driven than usually portrayed. I would say he ranged from a CN towards NG at the end, give or take.
allenchan 05-05-07, 02:56 AM	Ah, this good ol' debate. It always comes back again and again. :D But, yea, you need to be MUCH more specify, there's been so many batmans (and supermans, and spidermans, and... well, you get the idea). "What are you, dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the :censored: :censored: Batman." Totally CE :P
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-05-07, 03:16 AM	like I said, I'm NOT a comic book nerd, I'm a d and d nerd. I'm not sure as to which batman is in question. I suppose that doesn't help things
Lina_Inverse 05-05-07, 03:18 AM	Lawful neutral. Batmans one concern is justice. Not protecting the innocent(good), but punishing the guilty(lawful).
Dragoncat 05-05-07, 03:28 AM	Batman is in the company of characters like Sir Vimes. He is beyond alignment. He enforces the law. He defies it. His actions can be good. They can also be evil. Lies, deception, philanthropy, justice, cruelty, vigilance, everything about him opposes such a simple classification system as the 9-box alignment grid. So what do you put down as his alignment? GDB.
Archangel62 05-05-07, 03:45 AM	I was introduced through Dark Knight Returns so I guess I've always seen him as more of a lawful evil type. He holds himself to a code of honor and sees himself as a defender of the city but he also believes that without firm order that mankind will devolve into pure anarchy.
Lina_Inverse 05-05-07, 03:47 AM	Batman is in the company of characters like Sir Vimes. He is beyond alignment. He enforces the law. He defies it. His actions can be good. They can also be evil. Lies, deception, philanthropy, justice, cruelty, vigilance, everything about him opposes such a simple classification system as the 9-box alignment grid. So what do you put down as his alignment? GDB. Everyone can be defined with the alignment system. If you think otherwise your just not thinking.
vegetalss4 05-05-07, 03:56 AM	batmans alignment has changed a 100 times so he is neutral :D
Shadowhowler 05-05-07, 04:02 AM	Everyone can be defined with the alignment system. If you think otherwise your just not thinking. Wow... I STRONGLY dissagree... the alignment system is D&D's making things black and white taken to the extreme. You can TRY to stick people into the system, but 9 major theories of ones soul just don't cut it for me.
Lina_Inverse 05-05-07, 04:23 AM	Wow... I STRONGLY dissagree... the alignment system is D&D's making things black and white taken to the extreme. You can TRY to stick people into the system, but 9 major theories of ones soul just don't cut it for me. Why not? Most moral systems have 2, 9 seems pretty broad by comparison.
johnkretzer 05-05-07, 04:24 AM	Batman is NE. Why? Because he keeps his villains around so he can keep his obbession of 'fighting crime' alive. I mean come on how many does the Joker has to kill before before they stop putting him a insane asylum and just blow his brains out? Batman is completely self-centered and really would do anything to fulfill his obbession. But then again most super heroes are evil in aligment.
Kargush 05-05-07, 05:00 AM	Batman is NE. Why? Because he keeps his villains around so he can keep his obbession of 'fighting crime' alive. I mean come on how many does the Joker has to kill before before they stop putting him a insane asylum and just blow his brains out? Batman is completely self-centered and really would do anything to fulfill his obbession. But then again most super heroes are evil in aligment. Oh, one of those... I see... Maybe the Joker would be dead if only Batman didn't have scrouples? And concidering that the Joker is submitted for life(or until he is cured) I feel your argument goes down the drain. I've read little Batman aside from Dark Knight Returns, but I've seen the movies. I'd set Batman as Neutral. He does enforce the law, but he also defies it. He will do what he can to protect innocents(in DKR he saves a child from some kidnappers, one of which is threatening to kill the child), but at the same time he isn't above evil means to meet his goal(he kills one mutant(again in DKR) but breaking every bone in his body, starting with the legs). At the same time, he isn't all happy when a band of vigilantees wearing the bat symbol go bonkers on criminals(even clipping the fingers of a clerk who lets some robbers waltz all over him when he had an alarm button). Note that this is in Dark Knight Returns.
Optimator 05-05-07, 05:43 AM	It is very hard to pinpoint anyone's alignment, especially real people and fictional chaacters with as much exposure and "air-time" as Batman. For every argument, there is an argument against it... or so it seems.
Evil DM Mk3 05-05-07, 06:10 AM	Batman, for me, hovers around LG-LN. The thing is being a vigilanty is not nessissarily unlawful as lawful does not mean follows the law (it CAN do, lawful people CAN and offten WILL but it is not manditory). Every Batman I have seen holds himslef to very high moral standards, even in Batman Begins. The whole point there is this is a guy who will not kill, regardless. The ninja he trains with are LE, but he isnt. He cares about Justice, protecting the inocent by punishing the guilty, and in DnD that is so LG it is what they named the LG paladin after.
metatheurgist 05-05-07, 07:43 AM	I think the most common misconception players have about the alignment system is that lawful people obey laws. Lawful just means organised and methodical. Bats has to be the most organised and methodical (disciplined) guy in the DC universe. I don't think you can call him evil, he might be neutral or good depending on what you think his motives are for fighting crime (personal satisfaction, or noblesse oblige). That's my 2 coppers.
Mirtek 05-05-07, 07:46 AM	I am also for LN, definately not good.
runestar 05-05-07, 08:18 AM	I see him as fluctuating between LG and LN to some extent...:P
Shadowhowler 05-05-07, 08:23 AM	Why not? Most moral systems have 2, 9 seems pretty broad by comparison. :confused: Well, I'm not sure what color the sky is in your world, but I don't think I'm likely to find out. If you meanby most moral system only have two, good and evil, then I would again disagree. I think VERY few people regardless of what faith or system of morals they have, belives that there is good, and there is evil, and nothing in between.
Rhydur Meith 05-05-07, 09:04 AM	I think the most common misconception players have about the alignment system is that lawful people obey laws. Lawful just means organised and methodical. Bats has to be the most organised and methodical (disciplined) guy in the DC universe. I don't think you can call him evil, he might be neutral or good depending on what you think his motives are for fighting crime (personal satisfaction, or noblesse oblige). That's my 2 coppers. I disagree. This would imply that chaotic folk are disorganized and undisciplined. I don't think that is true. I believe the nature of chaotic is more about a willingness to use atypical, unorthodox, possibly unlawful or even taboo actions to meet the desired ends (the ends justify the means type of thing). You can act in a chaotic manner while being organized and disciplined in your actions, they just may violate some generally accepted lawful principle. Of course, you can be undisciplined and disorganized and be chaotic, but I don't think you have to be. Conversely, the nature of lawful would be to stay with in the accepted and orthodox bounds of whatever organization, nation, cult, group, etc. you accept as legitimate. The ends do not justify the means, if it means breaking an accepted code, rule, law, etc. If something undesirable happens, it is an unfortunate consequence, but necessary in order to maintain law & order. Good and evil may be easier to define...good is acting in a manner which is beneficial to most, especially the innocent. As Spock said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". Evil is, at it's base, is more "I want what I want, when I want it and how I want it", regardless of the impact it has on others. Causing others misery can be the means to an end, or even the end itself (but not usually, there is usually some other purpose behind the cruelty, be it to dominate others thru fear, gain material wealth, power, approval of your evil deity, etc). Neutral....the old view was that of acting to keep everything in "balance", so that neither good nor evil, nor law nor chaos, triumphed, because having things out of balance was bad. But not evil, unless evil was the out of balance power. It also has been a midpoint, noting someone who at times acts within the laws, etc while ignoring them at other times; or who could act with compassion at one time and cruelty at another. It is harder to define because it is more about what it isn't than what it is. So, I'd say Batman, across almost all depicitons, is CG. He operates outside the typical and accepted structures & organizations (he works with law enforcement at times but never for them), with the intent of being able to remain a "free agent" who can act outside the normal limits or taboos when he chooses to do so. He'll turn a criminal over to the authorities or kill them himself as he chooses is best, not as the law dictates. He will act within self-interest when it contradicts the accepted mores or rules if he chooses to do. He is good because he does not use his powers to accumulate power, wealth, gain the favor of a malevolent power, etc. He acts to protect those he believes to be innocent and punish those he believes are guilty. It is a fairly "black & white" view, in that he never seems concerned with larger sociological issues that may contribute to crime, only in punishing those he deems guilty and protecting those he deems innocent. At some moments he may veer towards chaotic neutral, because there have been times he has acted more out of a sense of vengeance or selfishness, but always seems to swing back towards good in the long run. Most American icons (superheros, legendary heroes, etc) are probably CG. We admire the person who acts decisively, even if it is outside the normal conventions, and especially if they do so in the name of greater good. We don't like people who seem to allow themselves to be constrained by rules & structure; or those who seem to act callously towards others in only their own self-interest. Although outcome does make a difference, someone who accomplishes something is almost always more well-regarded than someone who failed. All that being said, I agree with the poster who said even 9 distinct alignments is not enough to really enough, but also with the poster who said most human morality systems have only two (and most often come down to: Good = like us; Evil = not like us, in whatever distinctions we think are important...race, religion, nationality, social views, etc). So, we did away with alignments in our games. PCs & NPCs have motivations, habits, beliefs, etc but are not defined in just such stereotypical ways. Gods exist, they have (seemingly) their own agendas, values, etc. that their followers may try to emulate, especially if they want the deities favor.
seldom_seen 05-05-07, 10:00 AM	I'm not a huge comic fan, but I've seen all the movies like most people. I have a problem lumping him into any one alignment. He does not seem to fit into any one specifically. His main concern is upholding the law, and protecting the innocent, but he also seems to believe the end justifies the means. Some of his tactics are completely outside the law, but are done for the sake of good. But in our society, even the most deranged and evil people are given basic rights that must be followed. Stepping outside those rights, even for the most noble cause, must put him outside the Good sphere of influence, and into Nuetral at least, maybe into Evil even. Where would a person engaging in evil acts for a good cause fall into? It's a tough call, but maybe the most appropriate would be LE?
Ryusage 05-05-07, 11:11 AM	I'm not a huge comic fan, but I've seen all the movies like most people. I have a problem lumping him into any one alignment. He does not seem to fit into any one specifically. His main concern is upholding the law, and protecting the innocent, but he also seems to believe the end justifies the means. Some of his tactics are completely outside the law, but are done for the sake of good. But in our society, even the most deranged and evil people are given basic rights that must be followed. Stepping outside those rights, even for the most noble cause, must put him outside the Good sphere of influence, and into Nuetral at least, maybe into Evil even. Where would a person engaging in evil acts for a good cause fall into? It's a tough call, but maybe the most appropriate would be LE? This is an adequate description of a Neutral character.
Witch 05-05-07, 11:14 AM	:confused: Well, I'm not sure what color the sky is in your world, but I don't think I'm likely to find out. If you meanby most moral system only have two, good and evil, then I would again disagree. I think VERY few people regardless of what faith or system of morals they have, belives that there is good, and there is evil, and nothing in between. Plenty shades of grey in D&D alignment as well. You've got "very lawful", "moderately lawful", "rather lawful", "somewhere between lawful and neutral" etcetera. This simply has no actual mechanical effect. The nine alignments are perfectly capable of encompassing all these shades, however.
Zephania 05-05-07, 11:33 AM	I shall replay with my favourite d&d alignment poster: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/Omailboxman/lgood.jpg
Kadasbrass 05-05-07, 11:49 AM	Clearly Lawful, he has levels in monk afterall. Lawful doesn't always mean "Boy-scout's" honor after all. Even Complete Scoundral classifies Batman as Lawful Good. In Batman Returns, he disagrees with Catwomens statement about them all being above the law. He doesn't always operate in the confines of the law for normal law enforcement, but works towards the same goals and rarely takes punishment into his own hands except for capturing them in the act. As for chaotic when he's emotionally driven, most everyone is emotionally driven at some point. There was even a dream scene in the animated series where Gordon uses supervillian Bane to capture Batman during Barbara Gordon's funeral (dream scene), it shows even the most lawful character has emotional points that do not agree with the law. As for vigilanty, he most often fights those the law is unable to fight, either the foe being out of their league or having their hands tied behind their back (as the case of corruption in Batman Begins). Batman also worked with the police in alot of cases in the movies and animated series, remember the Red Phone.
Drachasor 05-05-07, 12:11 PM	He's Lawful Good, easily. He has a strong personal code of ethics that he follows TO THE LETTER. He doesn't allow himself to deviate from it. Part of that code is that he'll do the job of the cops if they can't do it themselves. The only reason he constantly acts outside of the law is because Gotham's police overall are incompetent and corrupt. Acting within the law won't work, won't make the city a better place, and so it wouldn't result in things getting better. The only logical course is to act outside the law (and to try to get the police in better shape as Bruce Wayne). Anyhow, part of his code is that he doesn't take life, especially innocent life, and that's why you don't see him acting like the psychopathic punisher. Batman is clearly good, I can't believe anyone would think otherwise. The sanctity of human life is one of the most important and fundamental aspects of his character. He'd sooner die than let someone else die. (DKR doesn't follow this aspect of his character that well, and that's one of the many reasons I don't care for it). Batman Begins ignores this a little at the end, imho a bit too much, but it didn't ruin the movie for me. -Drachasor
suparman999 05-05-07, 01:18 PM	Exactly. Batman is Lawful Good. Enough said. Party's over. Th-Th-Th-that's all, folks. Go home now. Thank you. Bye bye.
johnkretzer 05-05-07, 02:27 PM	Oh, one of those... I see... Maybe the Joker would be dead if only Batman didn't have scrouples? And concidering that the Joker is submitted for life(or until he is cured) I feel your argument goes down the drain. I've read little Batman aside from Dark Knight Returns, but I've seen the movies. I'd set Batman as Neutral. He does enforce the law, but he also defies it. He will do what he can to protect innocents(in DKR he saves a child from some kidnappers, one of which is threatening to kill the child), but at the same time he isn't above evil means to meet his goal(he kills one mutant(again in DKR) but breaking every bone in his body, starting with the legs). At the same time, he isn't all happy when a band of vigilantees wearing the bat symbol go bonkers on criminals(even clipping the fingers of a clerk who lets some robbers waltz all over him when he had an alarm button). Note that this is in Dark Knight Returns. Ok Joker who has been commited for life always seeming to escape? I mean it was finally in the DKR that Batman kills him. Also in the movie Batman kills him. So I don't see your argument at all. So why do they keep commiting him? How many does he have to escape and kill again before the realize he is not mental incompetent? And what do you mean 'one of those' ?
CCS 05-05-07, 02:37 PM	Batman is clearly good, I can't believe anyone would think otherwise. The sanctity of human life is one of the most important and fundamental aspects of his character. He'd sooner die than let someone else die. (DKR doesn't follow this aspect of his character that well, and that's one of the many reasons I don't care for it). Batman Begins ignores this a little at the end, imho a bit too much, but it didn't ruin the movie for me. -Drachasor Agree. Batman is good, no doubt. And we've got nearly 80 years worth of material that tells us this. MAYBE one could argue about exactly how Lawfull he is in D&D terms. Afterall, though he's certainly highly organized, he's NOT following the same laws, in either guise, as the rest (very few comic book superheroes do) of Gotham, the USA, or any other DC Earth nation/group. That is, unless you want to count "Superheroes" as such a group. So in D&D terms that pretty well conflicts with the general description/idea of being Lawfull. In D&D it assumes you follow/respect/adhere to the laws of your group/kingdom/etc. Those who do are Lawfull. Those who sort of do/sort of don't are neutral. Those who ignore them are chaotic.....Nothing prevents neutrals and chaotics from being personally well orginized. so if I had to judge Batmans alignment as far as L/N/C? I'd put him at Neutral with stong tendancies towards Lawfull. And as far as the movies? Most modern superhero movies (starting with Batman in 1989) slip into the very bad habit of killing off the villains. Sometimes at the hands of the heroes. some examples; .Joker - dead at the end of Batman('89) .Penguin - dead at the end of Batman Returns .Green Goblin - dead at the end of Spiderman (ok, he DOES die a few times in the comics. But it's still not really neccecarry to kill him right off the bat movie wise....) .Doc. Octopuss - Dead (enough to count) at the end of spidy 2 (though since the body isn't recovered we optimists hope that his "arms", not wanting to die, would crawl him away in time....) .Ras Al-Ghul - dead at the end of Batman Begins. .Spiderman 3 - Hah! bet you thought I'd spoil it didn't you. Just go watch the movie. But rest assured, it keeps up the tradition of death. And there's plenty more comic movie examples. I won't bother counting the X-men series. Why? The death of characters is one of the prominent features in their books, so why hold it against the movies. Though the movies didn't HAVE to go that rout.... The only bright spots as far as the movie heroes not killing off their advsaries is Superman Returns & the Fantasic 4. Yes, a few flunkies buy it in Superman. But the main villain & his sidekick escape. And I'm pretty sure that had Superman not been down(poisoned & drowning) at the moment he'd have saved the flunkies. And in the FF we knew Doom would get free of being frozen as a living statue eventually.
MerlintheTuna 05-05-07, 03:28 PM	Why not? Most moral systems have 2, 9 seems pretty broad by comparison.Most moral systems don't have two. The Myers-Briggs is the biggest one around, and it's got 16. The Big Five tracks 5 characteristics and puts them on a scale, giving you effectively infinite "types." The Enneagram has 9 as well, but it also involves a tremendous amount of interconnection between the types. And these are still often rejected for being too simplistic. The problem with alignment isn't that it doesn't have enough categories. The problem is that the categories aren't well-defined, and as a result the system isn't internally consistent. Trying to fit a character to a single alignment is often akin to saying, "Okay, this character is either blond, female, or a Democrat." It's not a matter of comparing apples to oranges so much as apples to jet engines. This particular topic has been done before. It ended when someone posted a beautifully written piece on which alignment Batman is. Or rather, he posted nine beautifully written pieces on which alignment Batman is, because he can be justifiably any of them.
Drachasor 05-05-07, 06:50 PM	Most moral systems don't have two. The Myers-Briggs is the biggest one around, and it's got 16. The Big Five tracks 5 characteristics and puts them on a scale, giving you effectively infinite "types." The Enneagram has 9 as well, but it also involves a tremendous amount of interconnection between the types. And these are still often rejected for being too simplistic. There's a difference between a moral system and personality systems. Myers-Brigs and the Big Five are ways of describing and categorizing personality traits. That's VERY different from morality. You can meet two INTP's for instance, and one can be an awful, terrible human being. The other could set the standard for good. That's because personality tests don't tend to look at individual morality much at all.* -Drachasor *At best these tests can look at the Law/Chaos side of D&D morality (and do it better and with more detail). They utterly fail to handle good and evil, quite possibly on purpose -- it would take a lot of guts to make a personality test that could conclude someone is a self-centered jerk or psychopath. Usually the bad stuff is left to the realm of personality disorders or largely ignored.
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-05-07, 08:45 PM	Most moral systems don't have two. The Myers-Briggs is the biggest one around, and it's got 16. The Big Five tracks 5 characteristics and puts them on a scale, giving you effectively infinite "types." The Enneagram has 9 as well, but it also involves a tremendous amount of interconnection between the types. And these are still often rejected for being too simplistic.[/i] I disagree. Batman's PERSONALITY is NOT necessarily his allignment. a person's personality fluctuates wildly, it's like saying all emo kids are and will be forever Chaotic-annoying:D , when we know that eventually they'll grow up and become Chatotic-depressing Goth adults, or Neutral productive members of society.
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-05-07, 08:46 PM	There's a difference between a moral system and personality systems. Myers-Brigs and the Big Five are ways of describing and categorizing personality traits. That's VERY different from morality. You can meet two INTP's for instance, and one can be an awful, terrible human being. The other could set the standard for good. That's because personality tests don't tend to look at individual morality much at all.* -Drachasor *At best these tests can look at the Law/Chaos side of D&D morality (and do it better and with more detail). They utterly fail to handle good and evil, quite possibly on purpose -- it would take a lot of guts to make a personality test that could conclude someone is a self-centered jerk or psychopath. Usually the bad stuff is left to the realm of personality disorders or largely ignored. Dammit, I should read this thread faster:eek:
Vaelan 05-05-07, 09:00 PM	He is Lawful Good. However, the reasons why a lot of you see him as Lawful are unsupported by the text and utterly ridiculous beyond the preponderance of the rules as well. If you cited anything except for the fact that he works to uphold justice, I would recommend reading the PHB's Alignment chapter. I would say that you should read it again, but some of the comments in this thread make me seriously doubt that some of you read it once to begin with. He has a strong personal code of ethics that he follows TO THE LETTER. He doesn't allow himself to deviate from it. I don't see this as a very strong case for him being Lawful, myself. I know next to nothing about the character, but it seems to me that much of his code is tied up in Good ideals. All Good characters are devoted to Good ideals, even Chaotic ones. I would only see the fact that he has a code that he follows to be relevant if he obeyed it at the cost of what he desires and when any Good/Evil concern is absent. Once again, I will say that I know next to nothing on the subject, but it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic to me.
The_Shaman 05-05-07, 09:02 PM	I'd say he's probably LG to LN. I haven't really read the comics, in the movies he's mostly LG. As for having people alive or dead, that's not always the best test. Yes, good characters value life more (usually theirs and others'), but many evil characters are capable of mercy, particularly when it suits their interests. Not every evil character is a demon-worshipping, children-sacrificing maniac, after all.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-05-07, 11:26 PM	Batman is NE. Why? Because he keeps his villains around so he can keep his obbession of 'fighting crime' alive. I mean come on how many does the Joker has to kill before before they stop putting him a insane asylum and just blow his brains out? Batman is completely self-centered and really would do anything to fulfill his obbession. The Joker is unkillable. He literally cannot die. He's been knifed, shot in the face from point blank range, blown apart, and he always comes back. There's no point killing him because it doesn't work.
Nived 05-05-07, 11:46 PM	Having been a comic book fan for far too long, and a DC continuity fanboy I feel confident in saying Lawful Good. Granted there have been many interpretations of him over the years, and the nuances of his personality have changed, however he is Lawful Good. As other's have mentioned he has a personal code of ethics that he refuses to break. Batman will not kill (post "Seduction of the Innocent" anyway, a book that nearly destroyed the comicbook industry in the 1950s), not even to save his own life. He goes to great lengths to protect the innocent. He is a billionaire a bu-bu-bu-bu-BILLIONAIRE. He doesn't have to do this, put himself through hell on a nightly basis. He doesn't do it for vengence, he is not the Punisher. Batman puts himself through hell, so others don't have to. One poster said something about him caring more about punishing the guilty rather than protecting the innocent... that's ludicrous. Batman does what he does because he doesn't want anyone else to feel the pain he felt when he watched his parents gunned down in front of him. He goes to extreme lengths to protect people. Sometimes these actions have negative consequence (the JLA arc "Tower of Babel" wherein Batman's files on how to incapacitate any hero in the DCU should one ever go rogue, snap, or be mind controlled are stolen by Ras Al Ghul), however the intent is clearly to protect people in a worst case senario. Batman is a scary man, he has ranks in intimidate and he uses them. He works outside the system because the system is corrupt. Other than Gordan and a handful of cops the entire Gotham police force is on the take.
Mournoth 05-06-07, 12:31 AM	Batman( at least circa Dark knight Returns) is LN. as a side not, the Joker is CN. Read the killing joke if you want to know why. he's not evil, just CRAZY.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 12:32 AM	He is Lawful Good. However, the reasons why a lot of you see him as Lawful are unsupported by the text and utterly ridiculous beyond the preponderance of the rules as well. If you cited anything except for the fact that he works to uphold justice, I would recommend reading the PHB's Alignment chapter. I would say that you should read it again, but some of the comments in this thread make me seriously doubt that some of you read it once to begin with. I don't see this as a very strong case for him being Lawful, myself. I know next to nothing about the character, but it seems to me that much of his code is tied up in Good ideals. All Good characters are devoted to Good ideals, even Chaotic ones. I would only see the fact that he has a code that he follows to be relevant if he obeyed it at the cost of what he desires and when any Good/Evil concern is absent. Once again, I will say that I know next to nothing on the subject, but it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic to me. Batman as a character has fluctuated among many, many different motives, ideals and personality traits in his career. No one can deny that the Adam West Batman is a parody of stereotypical D&D-ish Paladin behavior, or that Frank Miller's Batman is a highly distorted Batman designed to portray Frank Miller's idealized Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral Ubermensch. However, the Batman *I* like from the comics *I* like and the source I like most -- the Diniverse Batman: the Animated Series films -- is Lawful Good. Despite the fact that he acts "chaotic" in that he sneaks around and stuff, what he actually believes in and the reasons he does things -- his *ethos* -- is extremely Lawful. Batman is *not* about "everyone should be free to follow their heart". He is *not* about "live for individual moments of joy and fulfillment and don't worry about the big picture". He is *not* about "I do what I feel is right at any given moment based on what I myself believe". He is *all about* "You have a responsibility to other people; everyone deserves justice; everyone should be held to the same standard; right and wrong are objective and exist outside the self". He becomes this dark, faceless enforcer of Law because there is no Law in the government as he sees it -- the government is corrupt, enforces laws selectively, makes compromises, is Chaotic. Someone has to be the voice of truly *universal* Law, the voice that says you can't get away with things because it is a fact that justice will take its due; that it doesn't matter who you know, who you're friends with, who you bribe, that justice is a *force* that's blind and faceless and will inexorably come to punish you for your objective sins against the world. He doesn't fight for himself and his own personal sense of vengeance (not the Batman I like, anyway, though I know others see him that way) but for Gotham, for the city, so that no one else has to go through what he went through -- he accepted that his own personal happiness and satisfaction were unachievable a long time ago. Batman conflicts with Catwoman (animated series version) precisely because, even though their ideals are the same -- both Good at heart -- Catwoman is Chaotic and Batman is Lawful. Catwoman refuses to care about the big picture and Batman refuses to allow her to sacrifice the big picture for the small one. He's the personification of LG in a lot of ways -- moreso, I think, than the waffling, NG Superman who actually worries a *lot* about the conflict between his higher mission and his personal attachments in his ordinary life, while Batman *always* and *consistently* puts the higher mission and the greater good above personal matters. He's supposed to be an example about how being "sneaky" or "dishonorable" or "dark" doesn't really have that much to do with Law/Chaos, and that if you frame the situation the right way Lawful characters can and *should* be just as much "scoundrels" as Chaotic ones.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 12:44 AM	I disagree. This would imply that chaotic folk are disorganized and undisciplined. I don't think that is true. I believe the nature of chaotic is more about a willingness to use atypical, unorthodox, possibly unlawful or even taboo actions to meet the desired ends (the ends justify the means type of thing). You can act in a chaotic manner while being organized and disciplined in your actions, they just may violate some generally accepted lawful principle. Of course, you can be undisciplined and disorganized and be chaotic, but I don't think you have to be. Conversely, the nature of lawful would be to stay with in the accepted and orthodox bounds of whatever organization, nation, cult, group, etc. you accept as legitimate. The ends do not justify the means, if it means breaking an accepted code, rule, law, etc. If something undesirable happens, it is an unfortunate consequence, but necessary in order to maintain law & order. This is exactly what I mean. Batman is not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy at all. At least, not my Batman -- not the Batman of the animated series, not the Batman of the Golden Age who started the ball rolling on everything, not the Batman who's been drawn and written by people I actually respect (pre-Knightfall) and who's been given a very specific role to play in certain crossover continuities (like that whole Infinite Crisis deal). Batman is, if anything, the DC hero who thinks the longest and the hardest about ends and means. The means he's chosen are ones he thought really damn hard about, and he's very, very carefully picked ones that *would not* corrupt him and make him like those he fights. That's the rationale behind his refusing to run for public office or be a public benefactor as Bruce Wayne -- the rationale for his highly extreme attitude toward never killing nor even using lethal firearms to threaten people -- the basis for exploiting a symbol of inchoate fear rather than direct force, for making criminals feel *guilty* about what they do rather than merely afraid of a single powerful individual. Like I said, while I think I'd say Superman and Batman are both paladin-ish LG in the end, Superman has *more* Chaotic tendencies than Batman -- Superman is the one who still has hopes and dreams for his own life and is willing to compromise being the perfect hero for being a human being, for pursuing things like love and a home and the sheer joy of being able to fly. You can see this as a *struggle* in Superman's character, the constant question of what would happen if he had to choose between saving Metropolis and saving his parents, or Lois. Batman has already fought this battle in himself, and won it. Batman always makes the hard but right choice. I greatly, greatly oppose the idea that Batman is Chaotic because he "operates outside the law". For one thing, he *doesn't*. There are plenty of grittier, harder-edged heroes out there. The Punisher and Daredevil differ on the moral axis -- Punisher is CN at best, Daredevil is definitely Good -- but *both* have little to no regard for the system and are willing to make and break alliances, get their hands dirty with people's blood, and generally cavalierly ignore the cops and the politicians to do what they think is right. Batman sought out Commissioner Gordon and created a relationship between himself and the police. Batman *never kills a suspect* and always delivers them to the cops for questioning, and never goes beyond the justice system and takes the duty of *punishing* criminals on himself -- only apprehending them. As Gordon has argued, depending on which Batman incarnation you're dealing with, of course, you actually have a hard time accusing Batman of actually *breaking the law* when he fights suspects. Does he operate outside the law? Of course. Because Gotham's PD and cops in general are prone to corruption -- prone to deciding that their own safety is more important at the moment than what's going down -- prone to making compromises with the system and shrugging and saying the organized crime rackets aren't that bad -- prone to deciding that some laws are more worth enforcing than others, and some lives more worth protecting than others -- prone, in other words, to *Chaotic tendencies*. Batman is a superhero because only with the total freedom to act outside the law can he perfectly enforce the *Law* (and the two are different things). But does he have any of the tendencies I would call Chaotic? Does he lose his temper and get harsher than he needs to, or falter because he feels a twinge of compassion, or start making his quest be more about specific people he cares about -- or caring about people as individuals at all -- rather than the abstract idea of justice for all? No. It's not in his nature. The thing he seems to hate and despise most is Chaos. (Yes, they've twisted this around a lot, especially post-Dark Knight Returns. I loved the Batman: the Animated Series villain Lockup, though, who was basically a caricature of these gritty quasi-Evil Batmen, who asked Batman to help him bring "law and order" to the city, and whom the B:tAS Batman told, "I was born to fight your brand of order".)
ArcTan 05-06-07, 12:46 AM	Batman( at least circa Dark knight Returns) is LN. as a side not, the Joker is CN. Read the killing joke if you want to know why. he's not evil, just CRAZY. "Crazy" is not really an excuse for blatantly Evil behavior, unless you're really so crazy that you don't actually know what you're doing and have no sense of reality. If anything, The Killing Joke proved this to *not* be the case. The Joker hasn't lost his mind, really, or his understanding of reality, his capacity for human judgment -- he's just decided he doesn't care anymore. Which is very, very different.
Drachasor 05-06-07, 02:05 AM	Well said, ArcTan. -Drachasor
johnkretzer 05-06-07, 03:35 AM	Batman( at least circa Dark knight Returns) is LN. as a side not, the Joker is CN. Read the killing joke if you want to know why. he's not evil, just CRAZY. CN as the same capablity of being insane as LG.
johnkretzer 05-06-07, 03:36 AM	The Joker is unkillable. He literally cannot die. He's been knifed, shot in the face from point blank range, blown apart, and he always comes back. There's no point killing him because it doesn't work. Well it is also a comic book which means well... people never stay dead...especialy if they sell books.
Lixith 05-06-07, 03:40 AM	I vote NG
Crichton 05-06-07, 03:51 AM	I think he's Lawful Good, he never fluctuates. He never loses the drive pushing him to find justice. The differance is that he doesn't see punishing criminals as being evil, that to him IS good. I think the equivalent is in D&D also. It's in Complete Adventurer....the Divine Stalker or something, the Paladin that gets Sneak Attack, etc.
suparman999 05-06-07, 11:27 AM	LG. Batman is LG. Batman is totally LG. Batmans goals are completely LG. I think Arctan put it best.
Evil DM Mk3 05-06-07, 11:41 AM	I was chatting with a mate of mine (who also DMs) who said that he uses Batman as part of his example of how flexable and realistic Alignemnt can be if you let it. Superman is Lawful Good. He is the Big Blue Boy Scout. Batman is Lawful Good. He is driven and unearing in his pursute of justice. How often do those two agree when it comes to morality? It is certainly a rare event in the Justice leauge TV series to start with.
Sim_antix 05-06-07, 12:37 PM	Fact Batman is GOOD He has fought crime and helped the poor through his company for his entire career, anyone who tells you he is anything but good is lying to you and themselves. Opinion Batman is LAWFUL He maintains a strict lifestyle of work, excercise and fighting crime with little variation from one day to the next. If he can do something within the law he will and everything he does outside of the law is done to bring a criminal to justice thus working towards a more lawful world in the end. Now some could argue that he is chaotic but I would disagree, characters like Human Torch and Green Arrow are chaotic and Batman is nothing like them. Some could argue that he is neutral but again I would disagree, characters like Aquaman and Catwoman are neutral and Batman is nothing like them.
thadusthemighty 05-06-07, 01:26 PM	Heres Batmans Official D&D alignment.....Lawfull Good See Complete Scoundrel, page 8, Scoundrels of any Alignment under Lawfull Good examples.............
Evil DM Mk3 05-06-07, 01:59 PM	Mind you if he could qualift as a paladin is a differant question.
thadusthemighty 05-06-07, 02:25 PM	he could be a great paladin especially if he took the Gray Guard prestige class from Complete Scoundrel.....
Drachasor 05-06-07, 02:41 PM	Mind you if he could qualift as a paladin is a differant question. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. He lies....that's about it. That's because he can be quite tricky. Honestly, IMC, I'd let him be a Paladin. The CoC isn't a balancing point, and a minor change won't affect the game much. Oh, and I think he does respect legitimate authorities btw. The corrupt parts of the government essentially illegitimize themselves. Batman has worked hard to having a relationship with the non-corrupt law enforcement. -Drachasor
Another Gnome 05-06-07, 03:06 PM	I've been saying a long time that Batman is not Lawful Good, but thanks to Jack Bauer (who makes even the Punisher look like a boy scout) I've become to change my opinion. Here then is how I see the alignment of some crimefighters: Batman, LG Judge Dredd, LN Jack Bauer, LE All these characters have the same goal to protect the innocent citizens of their base of operation and they all resort to varying degrees of violence to achieve those goals. Each one of them also has a line they will not cross, and that's what (through their actions) ultimately defines their alignment.
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-06-07, 05:31 PM	I've been saying a long time that Batman is not Lawful Good, but thanks to Jack Bauer (who makes even the Punisher look like a boy scout) I've become to change my opinion. Here then is how I see the alignment of some crimefighters: Batman, LG Judge Dredd, LN Jack Bauer, LE All these characters have the same goal to protect the innocent citizens of their base of operation and they all resort to varying degrees of violence to achieve those goals. Each one of them also has a line they will not cross, and that's what (through their actions) ultimately defines their alignment. The amount of Violence that one uses does NOT dictate their allignment. A Paladin of Pelor killing (?) 1000, undead [in whatever creative way you guys want to think s/he does it] is not evil-alligned Jack Bauer is LE because he's on FOX
High Octane 05-06-07, 05:36 PM	I dont know why people find it surprising that its pretty hard to apply D&D alignment to characters outside of D&D. Edit: And Jack Bauer is LG. He's a Greyguard. He's just on a LE to NE network.
Regularguy 05-06-07, 07:47 PM	He lies....that's about it. That's because he can be quite tricky. Honestly, IMC, I'd let him be a Paladin. The CoC isn't a balancing point, and a minor change won't affect the game much. Oh, and I think he does respect legitimate authorities btw. The corrupt parts of the government essentially illegitimize themselves. Batman has worked hard to having a relationship with the non-corrupt law enforcement. I don't know; a big part of his schtick is the bit where the cops can't get a warrant, and so he breaks into a suspect's home so he can illegally study whatever evidence he can find -- sometimes that's playing safecracker and sometimes it's just rifling through a desk's drawers, and sometimes it's a matter of hanging someone out the window for the panicked flurry of information. I don't think he 'respects legitimate authority' when it comes to burglarizing someone's house before assaulting the guy inside; he knows what the law is, and he doesn't care, because while he's glad to lie or bribe his way through a problem, this doesn't happen to be one of those times. "Sure, we're criminals," to quote Batman in DKR; "we've always been criminals. We have to be criminals. I'm fine, Robin; just pick that lock like I taught you."
dizfactor 05-06-07, 07:56 PM	ArcTan said everything I would ever want to say better than I could. Well done.
Crichton 05-06-07, 09:41 PM	Jack Bauer is a tough one, which is what makes him so interesting. His goals are always 100% good, they're not necessarily Lawful in any sense of the word though. He sees himself as judge, jury, and executioner sometimes, and other times he lets the system take it's course. Kind of Chaotic really. He's definetly not evil, it would be pretty tough to really say that he was since everything he does is based on the greater good. His methods can definetly be evil, but they're never used just for the sake of using them. So I would say he is Chaotic Good. It seems like he should be Chaotic Neutral but the only real constant in his life that isn't Chaotic is that he is always working towards good.
Chimaera2000 05-06-07, 10:03 PM	This particular topic has been done before. It ended when someone posted a beautifully written piece on which alignment Batman is. Or rather, he posted nine beautifully written pieces on which alignment Batman is, because he can be justifiably any of them. Does anyone have a link to that thread? I've always been curious about it, but never was able to find it.
Crichton 05-06-07, 10:20 PM	This particular topic has been done before. It ended when someone posted a beautifully written piece on which alignment Batman is. Or rather, he posted nine beautifully written pieces on which alignment Batman is, because he can be justifiably any of them.That sounds interesting...personally, I see no way of saying that Batman is Lawful Evil.
ArcTan 05-06-07, 11:51 PM	I don't know; a big part of his schtick is the bit where the cops can't get a warrant, and so he breaks into a suspect's home so he can illegally study whatever evidence he can find -- sometimes that's playing safecracker and sometimes it's just rifling through a desk's drawers, and sometimes it's a matter of hanging someone out the window for the panicked flurry of information. I don't think he 'respects legitimate authority' when it comes to burglarizing someone's house before assaulting the guy inside; he knows what the law is, and he doesn't care, because while he's glad to lie or bribe his way through a problem, this doesn't happen to be one of those times. "Sure, we're criminals," to quote Batman in DKR; "we've always been criminals. We have to be criminals. I'm fine, Robin; just pick that lock like I taught you." DKR Batman is totally Chaotic. He's also totally not Batman, or at least not my Batman. And the point of Complete Scoundrel was to point out that Lawful alignment does not mean following the law all the time, and certainly doesn't mean some stereotype of "honorable behavior". This is where the term "Lawful Stupid" comes from, and it *is* stupid. You can interpret Law and Chaos any way you want, but I consider it a lot less boring when Law is allowed to not be a brainless idiot that always follows exactly what it says in the rulebook. (Law is about the idea that there is a universal order that everything should conform to -- *not* that you have to do exactly what the city council tells you to do. A Lawful character may actually be *more* outraged at the corruption and incompetence and unworthiness of a civil government and *more* determined to undermine it, because he is absolutely convinced that civil authority *should* follow universal moral law even when it doesn't.)
hiryuu 05-07-07, 12:16 AM	Edit: And Jack Bauer is LG. He's a Greyguard. He's just on a LE to NE network. Bauer kidnaps, tortures, extorts, ignores morals, uses fear as a tool, and is willing to kill without remorse. That ain't good.
MerlintheTuna 05-07-07, 01:04 AM	Does anyone have a link to that thread? I've always been curious about it, but never was able to find it.It's from a fair while back. I've been scouring the googleverse, but haven't had any luck yet. I vaguely recall Tempest providing some of the info from it, but I can hardly bring myself to harass the guy about ages-old threads. He's got enough on his plate to begin with. At any rate, I'll see if I can dig it up, but at the moment, I'm pretty much all talk.:D But, for the record, I have a hard time seeing the following as "Lawful Good." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/MerlintheTuna/Random%20Images/BestPageEver.jpg
ArcTan 05-07-07, 01:18 AM	It's from a fair while back. I've been scouring the googleverse, but haven't had any luck yet. I vaguely recall Tempest providing some of the info from it, but I can hardly bring myself to harass the guy about ages-old threads. He's got enough on his plate to begin with. At any rate, I'll see if I can dig it up, but at the moment, I'm pretty much all talk.:D But, for the record, I have a hard time seeing the following as "Lawful Good." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/MerlintheTuna/Random%20Images/BestPageEver.jpg Honestly, I would say that that's because you think in stereotypes. Lawful Good can be scary, brutal and harsh. Sometimes it has to be, if it's going to seriously oppose Chaos and Evil.
DM-Scott 05-07-07, 03:20 AM	I agree with ArcTan. It bugs the heck out of me when paladins are involved nine times out of ten, because of the plain foolishness and black and white nature of certain aspects of the alignment system, which can't actually function if taken completely litterally, because you'll find they begin to conflict with themselves more often than not. Because of it, you have people who think that a paladin must wait until an evil entity of some sort is at their full strength, with all their might to bare, so that it is a "fair and honorable" fight, and then get their entire parties killed because he let the lich-king take five minutes to go into his meditation chamber, get his scrolls, staves, wands, magic items, his other stuff, cast some buffs, and come back out to engage in "fair combat". Bull patties. Then you also have people who will insist a paladin falls because he *gasp* kills a bad guy without mercy. OMG, MURDERER! Why did you kill the thing trying to kill you!? Have you never heard of nonlethal damage!? You didn't even try to heal him when you tore his left lung out of his body! The nerve. That's it, your paladin-hood is revoked, and your deity is going to give you a stern look for killing that guy who tied the little girl down and cut off each of her fingers and toes, and laughed as he left her in a room with a greased up doorknob being the only means to an escape from the room which he set fire to before leaving to go and summon an archfiend. Surely he is just misses his father who left him at the age of seven, and should really be loved an nutured. One of the wonderful things about the D&D alignment system from my perspective is, technically you could define a character with the alignments based on how you would preceive their ideology. What most people really don't realize is that a LG character could be the absolutely worst villain in a campaign, but their ideology, beliefs, and even methods are in line with their Lawful Good alignment (perhaps an "anarchist" who is fiercely opposing a government power, killing off the governments servants who oppose the anarchist and his followers, is actually a LG paladin who is waging his holy war on an "evil" enemy in the same way a LG paladin would do the same to villains in a campaign). Alignment is somewhat iffy anyway. I've never in all my years of gaming seen it as a definative piece of D&D rules. It has never been more than a guidline, except for use as some sort of restriction (paladin's can't be evil, or back in the day, Rogues couldn't be lawful!), though then they go and release variants (LE, CG, CE paladins) because the alignment doesn't actually have anything to do with gameplay in the vast majority of the time. The number of things that actually have anything to do with alignment can be counted on one hand. Most characters can be described with multiple alignments, and the alignment system seems like an interesting way to offer a static representation of a character's outlook on things. It has little to do with anything that is - real - in the game, unless dealing with A: A being with the subtype, B: A spell's effect, C: A spell descriptor. It's because of this that in most cases the alignment system messes the game up more than it helps it. If the alignment system gets in the way of role-playing and game-play, then it should be trumped as it's more of guideline anyway. You can never actually put alignment in as a rule (at least not a good one). No one ever disagrees that weapon focus gives you a +1 bonus to your attack roll, but twenty people could look at alignments in regards to anything and get different ideas from it. This is especially evident in a few of the threads a little while back, which was heavily debating the idea of employing negative energy is being either an evil or a neutral act (in which I suggested that from a mechanics point of view, clerics should be able to choose turn or rebuke, as a class ability that's not inherintly based on alignment). "Law will always trump chaos, for chaos is actually governed by a law, for it is the law of reality that chaos will be chaotic, and should it stop being chaotic to defy law, then it adheres to a new law without chaos." - D&D character in our group, who utterly crushed a chaotic outsider in a philosophical debate about law and chaos.
Sudnji_cas 05-07-07, 03:53 AM	Yes batman is very lawful good, but more harder question to solve would be what is V's (from V for Vendetta) alignment?
MerlintheTuna 05-07-07, 03:56 AM	Honestly, I would say that that's because you think in stereotypes. Lawful Good can be scary, brutal and harsh. Sometimes it has to be, if it's going to seriously oppose Chaos and Evil.Oh, I don't think in stereotypes. I think that if I did, I'd have an easier time bringing myself to give two poops about alignment in the first place. Frankly, right now, I don't have a good concept of "This guy is Chaotic Good" versus "This Guy is True Neutral." There's honestly no basis of comparison in the first place for me. Lawful Good can most certainly be brutal in some people's interpretations of alignments. The problem is that the more brutal and scary you allow it to be, the more blurring you end up with. Then suddenly your Neutral Good character is acting a lot like the Chaotic Evil bad guy, except with lighter colored clothing and a less fiendish hat/monocle. It's the issue of why your adventurer is Lawful Good when he boots down the door of a goblin fortress and razes it despite the fact that the goblins doing more or less the same to a nearby village is NE. But regarding the picture... Half the point was just to get a chance to post that, because it's the greatest page to ever exist in a comic book. But regarding alignments, I've never heard an explanation of LG behavior that included "Eh, you know what, what the heck, let's hurl a car battery at that guy I totally have the drop on." I wouldn't say there's a lot of honor going on there, and a concern for that guy's dignity is straight out. Arbitrary actions and hurting without qualms because doing so is convenient, maybe a bit moreso.
Sim_antix 05-07-07, 04:26 AM	Yes batman is very lawful good, but more harder question to solve would be what is V's (from V for Vendetta) alignment? Chaotic Good
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 04:56 AM	Bauer kidnaps, tortures, extorts, ignores morals, uses fear as a tool, and is willing to kill without remorse. Yeah...um...so does the Bat. And I don't want to hear any of that "that's not my Batman" crap. It doesn't matter what "you" think Batman should be. His comic book history speaks for itself.
hiryuu 05-07-07, 05:02 AM	Yeah...um...so does the Bat. And I don't want to hear any of that "that's not my Batman" crap. It doesn't matter what "you" think Batman should be. His comic book history speaks for itself. Batman does not torture or kill. Those are the two big things there.... and I didn't say anything about Batman. I don't want to get dragged in to the Batman thing. Just pointing out that Jack Bauer is not good, and he is most likely chaotic neutral at best. Though, to be fair, I've only caught bits of 24 and have heard people talk aboutit (I haven't watched TV since probably the mid-90s).
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 05:37 AM	Batman does not torture or kill. Those are the two big things there.... and I didn't say anything about Batman. I don't want to get dragged in to the Batman thing. Just pointing out that Jack Bauer is not good, and he is most likely chaotic neutral at best. Though, to be fair, I've only caught bits of 24 and have heard people talk aboutit (I haven't watched TV since probably the mid-90s). What are you talking about? Yes, he most certainly does! He tortures people all the time! What do you call breaking bones and hanging people from buildings to get information? Polite conversation? And he's killed before as well! Where are you guys getting your Batman history from? And I know you didn't mention Batman. But my point it, if Bauer isn't Lawful Good, neither is the Bat.
Evil DM Mk3 05-07-07, 05:49 AM	Chaotic Good Indeed and not only that he is a True Anarchist. The Anarchy phylosophy has to be at the heart of CG behaviour.
Sudnji_cas 05-07-07, 05:54 AM	Chaotic Good What about sacrificing people to save himself and killing random cops? He is incredibly organized and upholds a tradition which is not to chaotic. He also doesn't care about other people torturing Evey into becoming like him. EDIT:Thanks for reminding me.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 06:07 AM	What about sacrificing people to save himself and killing random cops? He is incredibly organized and upholds a tradition which is not to chaotic. He also doesn't care about other people torturing Evey into becoming like him. Another thing...spoiler tagged for those who haven't read the book (or seen that awful movie "adaptation" It wasn't "other people" torturing Evey. It was Codename:V. V was the one who tortured her into becoming like him. Hardly the actions of a "good" character.
hiryuu 05-07-07, 06:42 AM	What are you talking about? Yes, he most certainly does! He tortures people all the time! What do you call breaking bones and hanging people from buildings to get information? Polite conversation? And he's killed before as well! Where are you guys getting your Batman history from? And I know you didn't mention Batman. But my point it, if Bauer isn't Lawful Good, neither is the Bat. I think the issue here is the fact that so many writers have covered Batman, changing him each time, that you can't do this with one Batman. You'd have to pick each Batman and pin a different alignment on each one, or pick the Batman everybody's talking about. What Batman are you talking about? Where are you getting "your" Batman? That's the problem with the issue, and that's why I'm trying to stay out of it. In the one episode of 24 I watched, I saw the guy kidnap someone, tie him up, and threaten to rip his vocal chords out with a towel stuffed down his stomach. That's what I mean by "torture," and that's something I've never seen Batman do. I also saw him disregard orders from a superior to behave in a wantonly malicious manner, not caring what anyone else thought or did with a complete disregard for a system of any sort. That's extremely chaotic behavior. Anyway, I don't care. I'm done with this thread.
calronmoonflower 05-07-07, 06:43 AM	Well i stumbled agross this thread and might as well put my :twocents: in. Okay, I have two friends... Let's call them "Jeremy" and "Mike" and they've been having heated discussions about this topic. "Jeremy" believes that, Due to his strong personal code of ethics, Batman (c) is Lawful Good; Whereas "Mike" sees CG due to his working outside of the law and Vigilantism. I'm not the Nerd I'd like to be... so I'm uninformed and underread. But, it was pointed out that this is one for the forums. And so I leave it to you Lads and Lasses: Is Batman LG, CG, or something in between? It's a common misconception that a lawful aligment means that you follow the law. it means that you take an ordered appoch to doing thing and/or (usually both) have a code of honor that you live by. I shall replay with my favourite d&d alignment poster: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/Omailboxman/lgood.jpg I like that poster to. In my view the batman presented in the movies is lawful good. He has a strict moral code that he follows and works in a very orderly manner. In both cases when Penguin and Joker dies he didn't set out to kill either. The Joker died tiring to get away and Penguin died by foolishly pressing the large flashing red button.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 07:24 AM	That's what I mean by "torture," and that's something I've never seen Batman do. I also saw him disregard orders from a superior to behave in a wantonly malicious manner, not caring what anyone else thought or did with a complete disregard for a system of any sort. That's extremely chaotic behavior. The Bat does that stuff all the time. All the time.
Masker 05-07-07, 10:57 AM	Chaotic Good with Neutral Good influences. He works outside the system. Even outside Gotham, Batman uses his own way of work and does not allows others to dictate their morality or methods on him. He is an individualistic that holds himself (and a very few others close to him) to high standards, but does not tries to impose his belief on anothers. He does want to stop crime, not reconstruct society. When crime is gone, so wuill be the Batman. He may be a harsh interrogator (breaking bones, scaring people and such), but he never deals permanent damage or kills. He is scary and used fear to bully the bullies, who harm and intimidate those unable to defend themselves. He drops his foes on Arkham because he knows those are insane persons and can not be held accountable of their actions (yes, even the Joker, even if that could be disputed) and because he believes that his foes may change and reform (just as what happened to Bane for a while and, on a more long-term relationship, to Catwoman). He does not kill because he knows that is what set him apart of the criminals he fights and is painfully aware of the pain that comes from loss. He used his wealth and influence as Bruce Wayne to help people inside the system, but he does not consider those actions his real influence in the world. He does not bother to act within the law, which he considers worthy but ineffective. However, he also does not considers himself jury and executoner. He is a disciplined person that hold himself to a strict personal code. Discipline and hard work is not only providence of lawful characters. His code of conduct is simple and his discipline is a mean to an end (stay fit and being the best at what he does). And, while he may change in the future (Dark Knight Returns is Elseworlds, so it is no cannon) this is the present age Batman.
Sim_antix 05-07-07, 11:54 AM	What about sacrificing people to save himself and killing random cops? He is incredibly organized and upholds a tradition which is not to chaotic. He also doesn't care about other people torturing Evey into becoming like him. EDIT:Thanks for reminding me. I dont remember him sacrificing anyone to save himself, and as far as the killing of cops go, well most of them were corrupt or were following corrupt orders. Another thing...spoiler tagged for those who haven't read the book (or seen that awful movie "adaptation" It wasn't "other people" torturing Evey. It was Codename:V. V was the one who tortured her into becoming like him. Hardly the actions of a "good" character. Evey had said that she wished to not be afraid anymore3 and he made that happen, hardly the actions of an evil character...
Witch 05-07-07, 11:58 AM	V was a Chaotic Evil character who redeemed himself to CN eventually, but had Good goals in mind.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 11:58 AM	Evey had said that she wished to not be afraid anymore3 and he made that happen, hardly the actions of an evil character... Oh, well good. So if I kidnap you, lock you in an empty cement cell, shave your head, feed you rotting food,torture and emotionally manipulate you, you won't think of me as evil? That's good to know.
Sim_antix 05-07-07, 12:57 PM	Oh, well good. So if I kidnap you, lock you in an empty cement cell, shave your head, feed you rotting food,torture and emotionally manipulate you, you won't think of me as evil? That's good to know. Think of it as bootcamp. Is every drill sergeant evil?
Witch 05-07-07, 12:59 PM	Think of it as bootcamp. Is every drill sergeant evil? Lawful Evil, to be precise. Or Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies. If he isn't actually that alignment, he's at least imitating it (which, if he does it sufficiently, will actually render him to that alignment.)
RobbyPants 05-07-07, 01:05 PM	I can see compelling arguments for either lawful neutral, or a particularaly dark lawful good. Any of the other seven seem pretty unreasonalble to me. Remember, just because batman works outside the law doesn't mean that his general outlook on life isn't that laws don't benifit society. Also, it highly depends on what definition you're using for Batman. There have been so many incarnations and versions of him, it's staggering. Around the whole Dark Knight Returns comic in the 80s, Batman became much more dark. Again, I can lean either way from LG to LN.
Evil DM Mk3 05-07-07, 01:10 PM	Lawful Evil, to be precise. Or Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies. If he isn't actually that alignment, he's at least imitating it (which, if he does it sufficiently, will actually render him to that alignment.) That is the PrC from compleate :censored: isnt it? Pre-reqs LE, Intimidate 8 ranks, Martial weapon proff Skill focus (Intimidate) and Reduce to Tears* *New feat in the book
Sim_antix 05-07-07, 01:33 PM	I can see compelling arguments for either lawful neutral, or a particularaly dark lawful good. Any of the other seven seem pretty unreasonalble to me. Remember, just because batman works outside the law doesn't mean that his general outlook on life isn't that laws don't benifit society. Also, it highly depends on what definition you're using for Batman. There have been so many incarnations and versions of him, it's staggering. Around the whole Dark Knight Returns comic in the 80s, Batman became much more dark. Again, I can lean either way from LG to LN. How can someone who donates a considerable sum of his fortune to charity and fights crime be considered neutral?
Sotha_syl 05-07-07, 01:34 PM	Batman is beyond the classification of the D&D alignment system, as are most people. Not everyone acts in a completely consistent manner, and Batman as a character certainly does not. The Alignment system is flawed to the core, and I'd take it out of my game, but it's more of a guideline anyway, and it hasn't disrupted our game any, so I don't want to go through and change all the choatic and good and evil and lawful spells and items and monsters and so forth. Like someone said before, 9 philosophical standpoints to classify a soul is a bit.... dumb... and then a foolish reply said most religions/philosophies only have two. Maybe Christianity, but I'm not up for a religious debate on the D&D threads. The closest we can get to solving that kind of debate is that a Solar beats a Balor / Pit fiend any day. Problem solved. Anyway, back to Batman... he cannot be classified. End of story. You could argue that he is of any and every alignment and make valid points. I suppose you could then say he is Neutral because he fits in none of the others, and that is the direct center of the spectrum, but he is certainly not Neutral. Do you know what Batman is? He is the Night. He is Batman.
_SIN_ 05-07-07, 04:47 PM	I'm more interested in what his main fetish is with?... The rubber suits or the bats?...
J.Augustus Rose II 05-07-07, 04:53 PM	Think of it as bootcamp. Is every drill sergeant evil? I can't think of it as bootcamp because drill sergeants don't come and kidnap you in the night, then mentally and physically abuse you against your will. They don't starve you, they don't make you sleep on the floor of a pitch black cement room, or torture you. It's nothing like bootcamp. So your question is moot. How can someone who donates a considerable sum of his fortune to charity and fights crime be considered neutral? Because he writes it all off at tax time. :P
Optimator 05-07-07, 05:22 PM	Because he writes it all off at tax time. :P That's pretty funny.
Zankue 05-07-07, 07:04 PM	I'm not a huge comic fan, but I've seen all the movies like most people. I have a problem lumping him into any one alignment. He does not seem to fit into any one specifically. His main concern is upholding the law, and protecting the innocent, but he also seems to believe the end justifies the means. Some of his tactics are completely outside the law, but are done for the sake of good. But in our society, even the most deranged and evil people are given basic rights that must be followed. Stepping outside those rights, even for the most noble cause, must put him outside the Good sphere of influence, and into Nuetral at least, maybe into Evil even. Where would a person engaging in evil acts for a good cause fall into? It's a tough call, but maybe the most appropriate would be LE? Despite what they're for, evil acts make you evil, that of course doesn't mean that you're not doing it for good
Vaelan 05-07-07, 08:20 PM	Batman is beyond the classification of the D&D alignment system, as are most people. Not everyone acts in a completely consistent manner, and Batman as a character certainly does not. Have you read the Alignment chapter of the PHB? I'm speaking, of course, of the part where the book explicitly states that very few people are completely consistent. The book addresses this supposed flaw. The real problem is that you didn't bother to read the book before dismissing it.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-07-07, 08:38 PM	What are you talking about? Yes, he most certainly does! He tortures people all the time! What do you call breaking bones and hanging people from buildings to get information? Polite conversation? And he's killed before as well! Where are you guys getting your Batman history from? From the comics. You know, the ones that retconned all the murders into HAVING NEVER HAPPENED.
Evil DM Mk3 05-07-07, 08:46 PM	The real problem is that you didn't bother to read the book before dismissing it. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: And so one of the two reasons why alignment threads degrade is revelaed. The other is the inability some people have to understand that law obeying does not equal lawful and visa versa. Seriously guys the number of threads where "Read the book" is an answer is going up every week!
Cartigan 05-07-07, 09:00 PM	Are we still on topic? If so I say Chaotic Neutral.
dizfactor 05-07-07, 09:22 PM	Yes batman is very lawful good, but more harder question to solve would be what is V's (from V for Vendetta) alignment? V is the textbook definition of Chaotic Neutral
Sotha_syl 05-07-07, 09:27 PM	Have you read the Alignment chapter of the PHB? I'm speaking, of course, of the part where the book explicitly states that very few people are completely consistent. The book addresses this supposed flaw. The real problem is that you didn't bother to read the book before dismissing it. Apologies that I didn't pour over the alignment section in the PHB before posting about Batman.
_SIN_ 05-07-07, 09:55 PM	Where the hell do you guys get the impression that the character 'V' is chaotic? How is he chaotic. He's lawful, blatantly. Do you guys understand what the difference is? Chaotic being someone who changes their mind every five minutes. Lawful being someone 'set in their ways'. From start to finish, 'V' consistantly pursues his goals without distraction. Someone said he was CN? A CN is known in the real world as a Sh't stirer. A CN character, whilst remaining a 3rd party, will influence both sides indescriminatly. Like sitting listening to person A say XYZ about person B, then telling person B, then waiting for the inevitable counter-slagging before reporting back to person A. They'll try to remain an 'outsider', by will still stick their nose in. Sound like 'V'?... Didn't think so.... Someone else said C/E??? I just thank god you're not my DM. V does all that stuff in the movie/comics all for personal gain, don'cha know.... He's fighting opression... Like Ossama Bin Laden - hold on, this could have interesting implications?..... lol C/G is probably the closest fit, though I don't view him as chaotic - maybe in the sense of 'fighting the norm', but the fact that he is like that perminantly would make him lawful IMHO. E.G. IF Superman was C/G, he'd throw a sicky every once in a while! V is on a mission to destabilise the worlds governments for the good of man kind, to give people back their freedom, to show people the truth.... So in my books, he's as lawful and good as any smarmy paladin ever was! He's just got more.... Panache. And a large Vocabulary of V-words!
Lina_Inverse 05-07-07, 11:30 PM	How can someone who donates a considerable sum of his fortune to charity and fights crime be considered neutral? Baatzu fight crime. There evil. Justice is a lawful concept.
Sim_antix 05-08-07, 12:26 AM	Baatzu fight crime. There evil. Justice is a lawful concept. But do they donate to charities?
Shadowhowler 05-08-07, 12:27 AM	Where the hell do you guys get the impression that the character 'V' is chaotic? How is he chaotic. He's lawful, blatantly. Do you guys understand what the difference is? Chaotic being someone who changes their mind every five minutes. Lawful being someone 'set in their ways'. From start to finish, 'V' consistantly pursues his goals without distraction. Someone said he was CN? A CN is known in the real world as a Sh't stirer. A CN character, whilst remaining a 3rd party, will influence both sides indescriminatly. Like sitting listening to person A say XYZ about person B, then telling person B, then waiting for the inevitable counter-slagging before reporting back to person A. They'll try to remain an 'outsider', by will still stick their nose in. Sound like 'V'?... Didn't think so.... Someone else said C/E??? I just thank god you're not my DM. V does all that stuff in the movie/comics all for personal gain, don'cha know.... He's fighting opression... Like Ossama Bin Laden - hold on, this could have interesting implications?..... lol C/G is probably the closest fit, though I don't view him as chaotic - maybe in the sense of 'fighting the norm', but the fact that he is like that perminantly would make him lawful IMHO. E.G. IF Superman was C/G, he'd throw a sicky every once in a while! V is on a mission to destabilise the worlds governments for the good of man kind, to give people back their freedom, to show people the truth.... So in my books, he's as lawful and good as any smarmy paladin ever was! He's just got more.... Panache. And a large Vocabulary of V-words! I'm trying to determine if you are being serious or not. :confused: If you are, I disagree so intently that I can not even figure out how to word it right now, I'll get back to you if you confirm that you are, in fact, being serious.
_SIN_ 05-08-07, 12:43 AM	Yup, dead serious. No issue is more important than determining Batman & V's alignments... Didn't you catch the previous post regarding Batman and his rubber fetish??...
ArcTan 05-08-07, 01:46 AM	Where the hell do you guys get the impression that the character 'V' is chaotic? How is he chaotic. He's lawful, blatantly. Do you guys understand what the difference is? Chaotic being someone who changes their mind every five minutes. Lawful being someone 'set in their ways'. Nonsense. This is a stupid definition. A definition of Chaos as the "crazy" alignment and Law as the "sane" alignment is just as bad as Chaos as the "clever" alignment and Law as the "stupid" alignment. Both Chaotic and Lawful characters are completely capable of changing their minds, pursuing flexible strategies, using subterfuge and deception, rigidly adhering to a stated goal, and so on. Only at the very extremes -- where neither alignment appears sane or human -- might this be true. V from V for Vendetta is Chaotic in a way that Batman isn't because V's goals are purely destructive, and V *does not* and *will not* explain what greater end his goals are pointed toward. He has no sense of universal law or justice. He simply does what he does because it's what he does, which is the essence of Chaos. And any definition of V as actually being Good misses the point of V for Vendetta. V is like a mindless force of nature -- there are plenty of things he does that are almost impossible to excuse. He's like the Dark Knight Returns Batman in that respect.
ArcTan 05-08-07, 01:46 AM	Baatzu fight crime. There evil. Justice is a lawful concept. "Law" and "criminals" are Lawful concepts. Justice itself is not. Baator is founded on injustice, and openly prides itself on it.
Critalondel 05-08-07, 03:16 AM	The Bat does that stuff all the time. All the time. You repeatedly insisting Batman does that sort of thing does not make it so. When has Batman -- Batman from the actual DC universe continuity, not Miller's Dark Knight Returns -- murdered anyone (which you keep insisting he does all the time)? When have you seem him pull Jack Bauer-style torturing on someone? When has he, in fact, even allowed someone to die through inaction (even his most heinous of villains)? Y'know, now that I'm thinking about it, when did he even kill anyone in DKR? He broke a lot of bones, and sent a lot of Mutants into traction (no doubt), but when did he kill anyone? The Joker died, yes, but not at Batman's hand. So even in Miller's alternate future (not by any stretch DC continuity), I don't think Batman's killed anyone. Granted, in there he's CN or CG at best, as Miller's wet dream Libertarian ubermensch, and a far cry from LG -- but I still don't recall him being any sort of mass murderer in that, unarguably his darkest representation. Batman, as written in actual DC comics (and as presented in the films and the cartoons, for that matter), is rigidly Lawful Good. He's rude about it, condescending to other heroes, and uses the Intimidation skill to marvelous effect (on everyone around him)...but he's Lawful Good all the same.
MerlintheTuna 05-08-07, 03:39 AM	When has he, in fact, even allowed someone to die through inaction (even his most heinous of villains)? ... Batman, as written in actual DC comics (and as presented in the films and the cartoons, for that matter), is rigidly Lawful Good.Just off the top of my head, he allows a few villains to die through inaction in Batman Begins.Allowing the fake Ra's al Ghul to get incinerated back in the burning building in ninjaland, and leaving the real one to be killed on a runaway train in the end. His line was something along the lines of, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." Exit deathtrap, stage right, with Liam Neeson stuck pooping himself. Edit:Also, some nice information from Wikipedia...The first Batman story appeared Detective Comics #27 (May 1939)[7] Finger said, "Batman was originally written in the style of the pulps"[8] and this influence was evident with Batman showing little remorse over killing or maiming criminals and was not above using firearms. ... The first issue of Batman was notable not only for introducing two of Batman's most persistent antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman, but for one of the stories in the issue where Batman shoots some monstrous giants to death, which prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth's decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun. ... Writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams made a deliberate effort to distance Batman from the campy portrayal of the 1960s TV series and to return the character to his roots as a "grim avenger of the night." ... Frank Miller's 1986 limited series Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which tells the story of a 50-year-old Batman coming out of retirement in a possible future, returned the character to his dark roots.And so on and so forth. As common as it seems to be to dismiss Miller's work as off-base, that type of writing is frequently cited as returning to Batman's roots. Miller may go over the top, but he's still taking the original concept and applying hyperbole, not totally shifting the character's foundation.
Sudnji_cas 05-08-07, 03:50 AM	V's actions are probably evil, but he fights for greater good/chaos. The tricky part is that he is insane, so that greater good/chaos might be false. So what really counts action, intention or the cause? P.S. I only saw the movie so I probably missed something.
KillFrenzy 05-08-07, 04:32 AM	it matters not! deadpool would kick batmans arse in a micro-second http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/Kill_to_thrill/goodforpay.jpg
Sudnji_cas 05-08-07, 04:52 AM	it matters not! deadpool would kick batmans arse in a micro-second http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/Kill_to_thrill/goodforpay.jpg Yup, bullets fly faster then batarang. I hate when people mistake him for Spider-man.
Shadowhowler 05-08-07, 06:54 AM	Yup, dead serious. No issue is more important than determining Batman & V's alignments... Didn't you catch the previous post regarding Batman and his rubber fetish??... No, not that... I couldn't care less about Batman's 'alignment'... I was more trying to figure out exactly what your point about Bin Laden was. Course, now that I think of it, it dosn't matter, becuase we CAN'T really explore that conversation on these forums or this thread, becuase the thread would get locked. :( So, nevermind I guess.
RobbyPants 05-08-07, 10:52 AM	How can someone who donates a considerable sum of his fortune to charity and fights crime be considered neutral? Well, it largely depends on the specific "version" of Batman you're talking about. Some seem more neutral others good. I think most people's opinions of him being lawful neutral either stem from him being failry dark or from his strict, lawful outlook (perhaps they feel "true" lawfulness needs to be neutral). As for the charities, an argument could be made that a lawful neutral person would donate heavily: Bruce Wayne has a lot of wealth - it is very easy for him to make large donations. He frequently donates to law enforcement (a very lawful cause) Donating to charities to help the poor will help aliviate crime. If people don't need to steal to survive, then that is less crime on the streets. Boosting the community helps foster a sense of community (both a good and lawful act). I would probably lean more toward lawful good. Not because of charities or anything like that, but more because there have been several instances where he put himself in great danger to rescue an innocent caught in the wrong place at the wrong time (Batman: Year One comes to mind).
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 12:51 PM	You repeatedly insisting Batman does that sort of thing does not make it so. And your ability to ignore history does not make it false. Off the top of my head, and since you're concerned about all variations of the character, he's killed people in BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, he's let people die in BATMAN BEGINS, there was an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF BATMAN AND ROBIN where his actions caused people to die. And that's just off the top of my head. Someone already covered the comic point where he used to carry a gun. He also killed quite a few people in the Golden Age comics before he became a rainbow suit wearing joke. The character was around before 1990, y'know. As far as torture? You have got to be kidding me. Almost every issue in Batman's history has him beating on somone, or breaking their bones, or hanging them from a tall building, or terrorizing them until they give up the information they want. Crushing someone's hands to get information out of them is called torture. You can remember Batman as Adam West all you want, but that's not the root character in the least.
Skeptical Clown 05-08-07, 01:46 PM	You could make arguments about alignments all day and never get anywhere, because it's totally subjective. But I think that Batman is a pretty good example of a type of Lawful Good. It's important to remember that Batman's history is confusing and inconsistent--70 years of stories with different authors and different interpretations will do that. The Batman of the movies is not the Batman of the comics (and the Batman of the animated series is a different character too). The Batman of "The Dark Knight Returns" is not the canon Batman. Nor is the Golden Age Batman, really--but continuity and canon in DC Comics are extremely fluid. I think the Batman of the Animated Series does capture the image of Batman that is most consistent however--he's a man who uses fear, and sometimes even pain, for the cause of justice--but he's not a self-appointed executioner like the Punisher. He's mean--but he's not a murdering sadist like Jack Bauer. His dedication to justice is completely unyielding, putting him at odds sometimes with more conflicted and merciful heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman. This isn't because he lacks compassion; it just demonstrates conviction that a more Chaotic hero would lack--convinction that precludes even having a real social life. Most heroes have personal friends, relatives, or loves, but Batman's devotion to justice is pretty much zealotry. Batman's refusal to kill has been inconsistently portrayed over time, but it IS an important aspect to his character, and one that was a pretty important plot point in the current line of comics. Even though it was to save his own life, he found it hard to forgive a friend who had killed an enemy. Batman's Goodness is pretty much unquestionable--if he's not good, then who in the DC universe is? His Lawfulness, while a little strange, also seems pretty firm to me.
RobbyPants 05-08-07, 02:05 PM	Y'know, now that I'm thinking about it, when did he even kill anyone in DKR? He broke a lot of bones, and sent a lot of Mutants into traction (no doubt), but when did he kill anyone? The Joker died, yes, but not at Batman's hand. So even in Miller's alternate future (not by any stretch DC continuity), I don't think Batman's killed anyone. Granted, in there he's CN or CG at best, as Miller's wet dream Libertarian ubermensch, and a far cry from LG -- but I still don't recall him being any sort of mass murderer in that, unarguably his darkest representation. He shot that female mutant (holding the kid hostage) in the head with an M-60. She kept saying "believe me! I'll do it!", Batman shot her, and then he said "I believe you" Of course, I'm not sure I'd argue the DKR version for alignment purposes, but I'm merely pointing that one incedent out ;)
Reign_of_Ice 05-08-07, 02:23 PM	Doesn't really depend on which Batman era you are talking about? Golden Age Batman has nothing on Frank Miller's batman. His alignment has changed with the writers of the series I'd have to say.
StormKnight 05-08-07, 02:23 PM	No issue is more important than determining Batman & V's alignments... Totally true. Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment. Heed the lessons of the past.
RobbyPants 05-08-07, 02:31 PM	Totally true. Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment. Sigged! :rofl:
Millennium 05-08-07, 02:52 PM	I'm surprised to hear that the Law/Chaos axis on Batman is so controversial. I'd have figured no one would argue against the Lawful component of his alignment. As for the Good/Evil axis, I'm inclined to say he's Neutral. He disapproves of using the more gross methods of Evil (particularly killing and mind control), and he is scrupulous in his own avoidance of such things. But he does not fight for the sake of righteousness. He is driven by hate, to a degree that would make even most Evil characters blanch in horror. He's a psychopath that targets criminals, but he is no less a psychopath for it. Fortunately for Gotham City, he's aware of this aspect of himself and takes steps to ensure that he never crosses certain lines. But even so, he is no beacon of light and hope.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-07, 03:40 PM	I vote lawful neutral.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 03:46 PM	I'm surprised to hear that the Law/Chaos axis on Batman is so controversial. I'd have figured no one would argue against the Lawful component of his alignment. As for the Good/Evil axis, I'm inclined to say he's Neutral. He disapproves of using the more gross methods of Evil (particularly killing and mind control), and he is scrupulous in his own avoidance of such things. But he does not fight for the sake of righteousness. He is driven by hate, to a degree that would make even most Evil characters blanch in horror. He's a psychopath that targets criminals, but he is no less a psychopath for it. Fortunately for Gotham City, he's aware of this aspect of himself and takes steps to ensure that he never crosses certain lines. But even so, he is no beacon of light and hope. I'm not disputing his lawfulness. I'm disputing his "goodness." Unless you're talking about Adam West or those god awful stories of the 50s and 60s, the Batman is Lawful Neutral.
Chimaera2000 05-08-07, 03:56 PM	Does anyone have a link to that thread? I've always been curious about it, but never was able to find it. It's from a fair while back. I've been scouring the googleverse, but haven't had any luck yet. I vaguely recall Tempest providing some of the info from it, but I can hardly bring myself to harass the guy about ages-old threads. He's got enough on his plate to begin with. At any rate, I'll see if I can dig it up, but at the moment, I'm pretty much all talk.:D Thanks for the effort. I'll keep trying Google and see if I have any luck. You're right, enough people ask Tempest for help as is. :) But, for the record, I have a hard time seeing the following as "Lawful Good." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/MerlintheTuna/Random%20Images/BestPageEver.jpg You're right, that's not Lawful Good. That's Lawful Awesome.
Cartigan 05-08-07, 04:06 PM	Maybe True Neutral. Batman isn't part of the justice system and as a vigilante is on the same side of the law of the people he is taking in. He usually works inline with the law but he has no qualms with smacking people around in questionable manners.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-07, 04:14 PM	Maybe True Neutral. I would have to disagree. Neutral, "Undecided" 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. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Underlining mine. I don't think Batman lacks conviction or strong feelings.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 04:18 PM	"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Batman is CLEARLY good. He doesn't lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. He respects the sanctity of life and is altruistic. Note that in D&D good characters can easily kill others, and putting someone under duress to get information isn't necessarily an evil act. 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 close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, 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 a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. Noticed the text I bolded. Expecially in the comics, Batman is lawful. Note that he doesn't have most of the negative traits of lawfulness, however (the same is true of many lawful characters). Batman keeps his word. If he gives it, then you can bet he isn't going to break it. On the other hand, he might have some neutral tendencies in this respect. If you want to argue that disguises and deceptive battlefield/crime-fighting tactics are chaotic behavior. I don't think that argument really holds up, however. So I don't think you can say he is neutral. Batman keeps his word. He is a taskmaster with his subordinates, and judges them and other crime fighters if they fail to live up to his standards. Notice that in the Identity Crises arc, the other members of the JL purposefully keep Superman AND Batman out of the loop. The chaotic members (e.g. Green Arrow) that disagree with the group's decision maintain their commitment to the group, but aren't willing to judge their actions. Batman and Superman would view altering the minds of Supervillians as wrong, just as they view killing is wrong. Batman and Superman also wouldn't be shy about judging other heroes that fall short of that ideal. Superheroes have standards they have to uphold, and Batman and Superman will and do bring down those that don't follow those standards. They also keep their word and do their best to work with the legitimate authority -- that's why Batman has a relationship with the police, but he isn't too public, since a public image would make Batman viewed as just another man (and hence risk his mission of getting rid of crime, corruptions, etc). Also, note that Batman typically doesn't mind being told what to do necessarily (unlike Chaotics, who tend to find it annoying). He minds being told to do things he things are stupid or tactically unsound. He's used to leadership, and so he does tend to be the tactical leader. That said, he's been perfectly willing to follow orders given by Superman, the Martian Manhunter, or many other characters when they are in charge. To Batman, the chain of command is important to uphold. Similarly, when Gordan asks him to do something, he typically does it. If he thinks there are sound reasons not to listen to Gordan, then he has almost never (or perhaps never) lied to Gordan, he's pretty up front when he isn't going to listen. All traits of a lawful character. That's not to say he doesn't occasionally act neutrally or chaotically, but overall he is quite lawful. -Drachasor
mlund 05-08-07, 04:27 PM	Batman is truly Lawful. No matter how strongly his personal impulses and connections with people his moral and ethical structure comes first. He values justice above all else. His status as a vigilante does not detract from his Lawful nature as the very legal system of Gotham City is completely subverted or ineffectual. Batman is most commonly Good. He makes nearly incomprehensibly large personal sacrifices of his wealth, time, and personal safety to improve the lot of innocent folk. The fact that his methods might evoke negative emotions in some observers does not make him any less good. Concepts like "Nice," "Icky," and "Scary" shouldn't really enter into a serious evaluation of morality. Moreover, Good characters in D&D do not have their alignment changed even if they do dip into some downright Evil means sometimes - and it would be a very stretched argument to claim that the most common depictions of Batman involve Evil Acts. To assume otherwise is to superimpose your Real World moral philosophy on the D&D system - and that path only leads to Madness (and wildly Off Topic Discussion). There are some other depictions of Batman that ignore the charitable side of Bruce Wayne or the protective side of Batman and show him more as exclusively obsessed with the punishment of Evil-doers solely to appease his psychological problem. Those depictions of Batman are typically more Lawful Neutral - very much in line with, say, St. Cuthbert. - Marty Lund
Cartigan 05-08-07, 04:35 PM	Underlining mine. I don't think Batman lacks conviction or strong feelings. Not any worse than all the "there is no way he isn't lawful!" I vote new alignment - Batman. There, I solved the problem.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-07, 04:50 PM	He respects the sanctity of life and is altruistic. I think this is debatable. There are definitely examples where this is not always the case. Note that in D&D good characters can easily kill others, and putting someone under duress to get information isn't necessarily an evil act. Good people killing easily is also debatable (and also a direct contradiction to "respecting the sanctity of life"). The alignment system is full of contradictions, so it is up to the DM and players to decide what exactly it means in their games. In my campaigns, good people do not kill easily. Note that he doesn't have most of the negative traits of lawfulness, however (the same is true of many lawful characters). I would have to disagree. Batman defintely exhibits many of the negative traits of lawfulness. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Batman is not interested in hearing your reasons for breaking the law, he is going to judge you and punish you.
calvinNhobbes 05-08-07, 04:55 PM	Not any worse than all the "there is no way he isn't lawful!" I vote new alignment - Batman. There, I solved the problem. I would say Neutral is less appropriate. Giving him the "Undecided" alignment is clearly not the case. Batman is anything but hesitant in his actions and beliefs. mlund.... Excellent summary mlund. Couldn't agree more. Most of my exposure to Batman has been on the "darker" side which is why I would put him in Lawful Neutral, but I can see how he could be Lawful Good given your logic.
Sudnji_cas 05-08-07, 05:00 PM	You're right, that's not Lawful Good. That's Lawful Awesome. You mean violent good. Right? As I have already asked (with no response). What is it that counts? Means, goal, cause or the turnout? For example: Batman tortures criminals (Evil,means) for justice (Good,cause), but that makes criminal pi$$ed off so he murders some innocent guy (Evil,turnout). In the real world causes are mostly good, because no one thinks they are fighting for the evil. In D&D on the other tentacle there are characters and creatures of pure evil so evil cause is possible (in D&D).
Sim_antix 05-08-07, 05:16 PM	I vote lawful neutral. 1. This isnt a vote 2. You didnt state any reason for your opinion which isnt a good way to get people to agree with it
ArcTan 05-08-07, 05:26 PM	V's actions are probably evil, but he fights for greater good/chaos. The tricky part is that he is insane, so that greater good/chaos might be false. So what really counts action, intention or the cause? P.S. I only saw the movie so I probably missed something. Well, yes, the film makes V much more unambiguously a good guy, which is why the film is considered by fans of the comic book to be a total rape and desecration of everything the comic book was about. Even then, it's not the fact that your actions serve the greater good that makes you good -- it's the question of whether you, *personally*, care about the greater good. Even in the film Evey points out that V, like the Count of Monte Cristo, seems to care for nothing but his revenge.
Skeptical Clown 05-08-07, 05:30 PM	I can't really take the argument that Batman is exceptionally violent seriously. The average D&D Paladin has way more blood on his hands than Batman.
ArcTan 05-08-07, 05:32 PM	And your ability to ignore history does not make it false. Off the top of my head, and since you're concerned about all variations of the character, he's killed people in BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, he's let people die in BATMAN BEGINS, there was an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF BATMAN AND ROBIN where his actions caused people to die. And that's just off the top of my head. In none of these instances has he liked doing it or chosen to do so as his first means of action. Most incarnations of Batman relentlessly torture themselves over the morality of taking life, far more so than other superheroes whom I'd still unhesitatingly peg as Good. Someone already covered the comic point where he used to carry a gun. He also killed quite a few people in the Golden Age comics before he became a rainbow suit wearing joke. The character was around before 1990, y'know. The further back you go into the Golden Age the less the character resembles anything like our modern conception of who he is. Waaay back at their very origins, Superman was some kind of crazy vigilante dude who took an arms manufacturer and put his life in danger just to make a point. As far as torture? You have got to be kidding me. Almost every issue in Batman's history has him beating on somone, or breaking their bones, or hanging them from a tall building, or terrorizing them until they give up the information they want. Crushing someone's hands to get information out of them is called torture. Er, most of the Batman intimidation I've seen involves a lot more use of fear and psychological manipulation than physical damage to "torture" people. That's the point of wearing the silly bat suit. Even then, in the context of a D&D game I wouldn't say that rolling Intimidate checks counts as an Evil act. You can remember Batman as Adam West all you want, but that's not the root character in the least. Like I said, my preferred Batman, who shaped my childhood, is the Animated Series Batman, and that Batman is pretty squarely Lawful Good.
Skeptical Clown 05-08-07, 05:33 PM	People think that Superman is the boy scout. What they forget is that Silver Age Superman was a huge jerk.
Sudnji_cas 05-08-07, 05:34 PM	Well, yes, the film makes V much more unambiguously a good guy, which is why the film is considered by fans of the comic book to be a total rape and desecration of everything the comic book was about. Even then, it's not the fact that your actions serve the greater good that makes you good -- it's the question of whether you, *personally*, care about the greater good. Even in the film Evey points out that V, like the Count of Monte Cristo, seems to care for nothing but his revenge. He is actually less good than in movie! Man, good alignment is so far for him...
calvinNhobbes 05-08-07, 06:31 PM	1. This isnt a vote :rolleyes: I mean really. Quit being a jerk. :rolleyes: 2. You didnt state any reason for your opinion which isnt a good way to get people to agree with it Who says I was trying to get people to agree why me. Perhaps I was JUST stating my opinion! Others already gave reasons why Batman could be LN, why be redundant.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 06:53 PM	Like I said, my preferred Batman, who shaped my childhood, is the Animated Series Batman, and that Batman is pretty squarely Lawful Good. Again, what YOU think Batman SHOULD be has no bearing on who the character actually IS. Again, the character was around before 1990, y'know. On top of that, TAS Batman was an extrememly watered down version of the character. What they like to call "Kid Friendly." I suggest you learn more about the character before claiming you know what he is and isn't. Now I know how those "educated about katana" guys feel.:P
Cartigan 05-08-07, 07:01 PM	I can't really take the argument that Batman is exceptionally violent seriously. The average D&D Paladin has way more blood on his hands than Batman. Doesn't mean Batman doesn't start smacking people around for great justice or some such. They just didn't like Batman killing people, or there would be.
Rhydur Meith 05-08-07, 07:40 PM	Interesting as this topic is, it basically illustrates why we dropped alignment completely from our D&D. Intelligent people, using logical reasoning and numerous examples, can't decide on so much as half of his alignment. The only close to "decided" is he probably isn't neutral, because he has strong convictions. If you take alignment out of the game, then you take away such endless arguments. A player is then free to have his character evolve, change, repent, relapse, be saved, born again and finally sell his soul. Just like in real life, where people change over their lives. If a DM wants to establish certain acts as illegal, and as risking punishment by the authorities, or some acts as "heretical" to a certain deity or faith, and therefore as risking losing divine favor or power(s), so be it. You can do all that with out alignment. You can have paladins (knights of a faith professing belief in order, justice and good), druids (priests of nature or nature deity), thieves, assassins, an evil genius, innnocent victims, etc.
Holy_Beholder 05-08-07, 08:03 PM	He is lawful evil. Drizzt is chaotic evil. Both of them hurt people. Besides, Drizzt would beat the **** out of batman.
Chimaera2000 05-08-07, 08:10 PM	People think that Superman is the boy scout. What they forget is that Silver Age Superman was a huge jerk. That's so true that's it's funny at first, then it just makes you feel cold inside as you browse through the numerous comic covers featured on this site (http://www.superdickery.com). Here are a few of the many, many examples: http://www.bigmonkeycomics.com/data/superman-dick-large.jpg http://photos4.flickr.com/5233791_e76aa9b243_o.jpg http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/supermansadick.jpg http://bifsniff.com/images/franks-blog/superdickery.jpg At first I thought that this was a joke site, but no, the hundreds of comic covers on this site are 100% real... and every one features Superman being a huge jerk. Take a look through that site if you don't believe me. I took a look at it and was surprised, shocked, and amused, then I could only shake my head in disbelief. Superman is a jerk.
Leo 05-08-07, 08:10 PM	He is lawful evil. Drizzt is chaotic evil. Both of them hurt people. Besides, Drizzt would beat the **** out of batman. Drizzit doesn't defend the american way of life. He would be beaten to a pulp by the authors.
Holy_Beholder 05-08-07, 08:36 PM	Nobody mentioned the evil bit huh. Well, I'm on a roll. Magneto is CN, everyone else in the x-men series is evil.
IRememberCecil 05-08-07, 08:42 PM	He is lawful evil. Drizzt is chaotic evil. Both of them hurt people. Besides, Drizzt would beat the **** out of batman. I can think of multiple things wrong with this post. I can summarize it in one word: All. EDIT: Joke, eh?
Cartigan 05-08-07, 08:47 PM	Interesting as this topic is, it basically illustrates why we dropped alignment completely from our D&D. Intelligent people, using logical reasoning and numerous examples, can't decide on so much as half of his alignment. I think we should take into account it's a 60 year old comic character that has gone through innumerable permutations and adaptations.
ArcTan 05-08-07, 09:47 PM	Again, what YOU think Batman SHOULD be has no bearing on who the character actually IS. Again, the character was around before 1990, y'know. On top of that, TAS Batman was an extrememly watered down version of the character. What they like to call "Kid Friendly." I suggest you learn more about the character before claiming you know what he is and isn't. Now I know how those "educated about katana" guys feel.:P Batman is a fictional character. There *is* no actual definition of what Batman is. So settle down. And yes, I do know quite a bit about the Batman mythos, so please refrain from talking down to everyone about it. If you're going to try to judge a character based on *all* his incarnations through decades of inconsistent history written by various forms of DC Comics hacks and bad adaptations, then you won't come up with anything coherent at all. Comic book "continuity" barely exists in any real form, and if you want to talk about a character you have to specify which writer or set of writers you're talking about or else you'll get twenty different answers to every question. As far as it goes, yes, the TAS Batman is rooted in the Batman of the Comics Code Authority, but that's almost half of Batman's total written history. And the TAS Batman is still nonetheless one of the deepest and most interesting incarnations of Batman out there -- in almost every case, the comics come up wanting next to the animated series, and even the best of the comic book runs -- Batman: Year One, The Killing Joke, etc. -- are peers with the animated series, far from outshining it. Batman: TAS was the series that rejuvenated the idea of serious storytelling in an animated format. It's the format that gave us the first believable, serious versions of characters like Mr. Freeze or Clayface. Don't diss it. (I find it incredible that you're actually referencing the Tim Burton films as more canonical than the animated series, which is the total opposite of my experience with most Batman fans.)
ArcTan 05-08-07, 09:51 PM	That's so true that's it's funny at first, then it just makes you feel cold inside as you browse through the numerous comic covers featured on this site (http://www.superdickery.com). Here are a few of the many, many examples: http://www.bigmonkeycomics.com/data/superman-dick-large.jpg http://photos4.flickr.com/5233791_e76aa9b243_o.jpg http://geekent.com/blog/archives/pics/supermansadick.jpg http://bifsniff.com/images/franks-blog/superdickery.jpg At first I thought that this was a joke site, but no, the hundreds of comic covers on this site are 100% real... and every one features Superman being a huge jerk. Take a look through that site if you don't believe me. I took a look at it and was surprised, shocked, and amused, then I could only shake my head in disbelief. Superman is a jerk. You have to take into account that a lot of these covers come from the Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen series, which basically scraped the bottom of the barrel as far as DC's talent pool went, and that many of them were intentionally provocative and misleading. But, again, this does demonstrate a fact -- what a comic book character, or *any* character that's existed in a long-running franchise, "really" is means nothing. Anything you think of as essential to Superman or Batman's character, you can find hundreds of contradictions to if you dig through the stacks. Treating the entire run of Superman or Batman comics as though they were one single story is beyond stupid. I don't reference the Golden Age gun-toting Batman or the Golden Age kidnapping-people-and-forcing-them-to-enlist-in-the-army Superman when I talk about Batman or Superman because they have no bearing on the characters I grew up with that influenced my pop culture landscape. I don't see the problem with this. There is no "real" description of who Batman is because there is no "real" Batman -- there's hundreds of different takes on the character.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-08-07, 09:51 PM	And your ability to ignore history does not make it false. Off the top of my head, and since you're concerned about all variations of the character, he's killed people in BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, he's let people die in BATMAN BEGINS, there was an episode of THE ADVENTURES OF BATMAN AND ROBIN where his actions caused people to die. And that's just off the top of my head. Someone already covered the comic point where he used to carry a gun. He also killed quite a few people in the Golden Age comics before he became a rainbow suit wearing joke. The character was around before 1990, y'know. None of which are canon, and as such are completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 10:19 PM	Again, what YOU think Batman SHOULD be has no bearing on who the character actually IS. Again, the character was around before 1990, y'know. On top of that, TAS Batman was an extrememly watered down version of the character. What they like to call "Kid Friendly." I suggest you learn more about the character before claiming you know what he is and isn't. Now I know how those "educated about katana" guys feel.:P Batman doesn't kill, that's a VERY well-established fact, especially in the Canon of the comics. Pick a canon comic in the last 40 years where Batman has killed....AFAIK, you won't be able to find one. I think it will be equally hard to find many instances of Batman breaking anyone's bones. Certainly nigh impossible as an interrogation technique. He uses psychological methods, never significant physical harm. Again, if you have a canon example from the comics, then please point it out. In short, the comics Batman is pretty clearly Lawful Good. He does value human life, and does his best to keep the dignity of life. You can find rare exceptions. A movie here, a non-canon comic there, where he does allow people to die (though I don't think he ever kills anyone in the movies). Those aren't the Batman that has the backing of history over the last 40+ years, however. So they are at best somewhat out of character examples in unusual circumstances. Even then, the worst you usually see is a Batman that is willing to kill (though never out of hand) and who enjoys hurting adversaries. Generally that's not enough to get rid of the lawful or good aspects of his character even in those exception. Even if it is, they are still exceptions to the general portrayal of Batman. -Drachasor
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 10:22 PM	Batman is a fictional character. There *is* no actual definition of what Batman is. So settle down. There's an actual defintion of everything when you get down to base characteristics. And yes, I do know quite a bit about the Batman mythos, so please refrain from talking down to everyone about it. If you're going to try to judge a character based on *all* his incarnations through decades of inconsistent history written by various forms of DC Comics hacks and bad adaptations, then you won't come up with anything coherent at all. Comic book "continuity" barely exists in any real form, and if you want to talk about a character you have to specify which writer or set of writers you're talking about or else you'll get twenty different answers to every question. Maybe you won't come up with anything coherent but I have no problem doing so. I'm talking about Batman at his core. As far as it goes, yes, the TAS Batman is rooted in the Batman of the Comics Code Authority, but that's almost half of Batman's total written history. And the TAS Batman is still nonetheless one of the deepest and most interesting incarnations of Batman out there -- in almost every case, the comics come up wanting next to the animated series, and even the best of the comic book runs -- Batman: Year One, The Killing Joke, etc. -- are peers with the animated series, far from outshining it. Batman: TAS was the series that rejuvenated the idea of serious storytelling in an animated format. It's the format that gave us the first believable, serious versions of characters like Mr. Freeze or Clayface. Don't diss it. I'm not dissing it. But you can not judge the character via a kid-friendly outlet. (I find it incredible that you're actually referencing the Tim Burton films as more canonical than the animated series, which is the total opposite of my experience with most Batman fans.) The only "cannon" I'm concerning myself with is the 60+ years of comics. The other examples were brought up by other people. I'm not the one picking-and-choosing. Speaking of which... Batman doesn't kill, that's a VERY well-established fact, especially in the Canon of the comics. Pick a canon comic in the last 40 years where Batman has killed....AFAIK, you won't be able to find one. I think it will be equally hard to find many instances of Batman breaking anyone's bones. Certainly nigh impossible as an interrogation technique. He uses psychological methods, never significant physical harm. Again, if you have a canon example from the comics, then please point it out. In short, the comics Batman is pretty clearly Lawful Good. He does value human life, and does his best to keep the dignity of life. You can find rare exceptions. A movie here, a non-canon comic there, where he does allow people to die (though I don't think he ever kills anyone in the movies). Those aren't the Batman that has the backing of history over the last 40+ years, however. So they are at best somewhat out of character examples in unusual circumstances. Even then, the worst you usually see is a Batman that is willing to kill (though never out of hand) and who enjoys hurting adversaries. Generally that's not enough to get rid of the lawful or good aspects of his character even in those exception. Even if it is, they are still exceptions to the general portrayal of Batman. -Drachasor So as long as you pick-and-choose what suits your argument and ignore 20 additional years of Batman comics you'll find he's Lawful Good? Right. :rolleyes:
Masker 05-08-07, 10:30 PM	BAtman has evolved from jis origins. Yes, in his first 20 years he carried a gun and shoot people. But that has been retconned and for a long time. The current Batman would never, ever use a gun. He would not kill. I'm not sure about bone-breaking (not such out of place, especially if limited to minor wounds, easy to heal). The thing is, the suppossed evil is considere only by the acts done and not to who are the victims of such acts. Sending a mugger or killer to the hospital with a few fractures is a way to make sure that they will be out of the streets for a while. The whole Bat image is to scare people into abandon crime.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 10:33 PM	So as long as you pick-and-choose what suits your argument and ignore 20 additional years of Batman comics you'll find he's Lawful Good? Right. :rolleyes: I'm sorrying that I'm going with the last 50 years of comics. I guess you somehow think that 50 years of steady Lawful Good behavior with the rare out of canon exception means I am "picking and choosing." However, this is 50 years that we are talking about! If you have to go back to the hazy origins of the a character, then of course there will be oddities and out of character behavior. Though, note that Batman doesn't use a gun after his very first issue (which is OVER 50 years ago). Needless to say that Batman is a different character from the Batman of the LAST 50 YEARS. Besides a movie (maybe two), or the rather rare out of canon comic where Batman doesn't behave as he normally does, do you have ANY examples that aren't over 50 years old? At best you can say that Batman is extremely rarely portrayed as not having a Lawful Good alignment. Again, this is EXTREMELY RARE. To say that the very rare characterization somehow eliminates his overall extremely steady behavior is ridiculous. You are the one picking and choosing the extraordinary rare exceptions. Heck, for you "20 years" of history -- which isn't 20 years at all, heck I could probably increase my "50 years" to "60 years" -- you are still picking and choosing from that! Your largest exception is the very first Batman comic ever made (and first comics are rather notorious for not having the character down pat yet, Batman in particular). So come on, I dare you to pick a canon example in the last 50 years. Heck, for any non-canon example, I'll name you two non-canon stories where Batman's LG behavior is maintained. (Note, it is nearly the case that non-canon stories might as well be Fan Fiction for all they are worth, since they are largely alternate reality stories). -Drachasor
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 10:33 PM	The thing is, the suppossed evil is considere only by the acts done and not to who are the victims of such acts. Sending a mugger or killer to the hospital with a few fractures is a way to make sure that they will be out of the streets for a while. The whole Bat image is to scare people into abandon crime. So you're lawful good as long as you only hospitalize people you deem evil? So much for due process, eh? Besides a movie (maybe two), or the rather rare out of canon comic where Batman doesn't behave as he normally does Oh, and who gets to decide what's "cannon" and what's not? You? We've got people in this thread saying that the DKR Batman acted out of character when DKR is widely regarded as the ultimate batman story AND the story that set the tone of the character for the last 20 years. Puh-lease.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 10:38 PM	So you're lawful good as long as you only hospitalize people you deem evil? So much for due process, eh? Wow, then I guess most adventurers aren't good. I guess if I stop a rape and have to hospitalize the attempted rapist I can't be good. There really must be no case where you can be good and hospitalize someone doing horribly, horribly evil things.... Or are you saying I can't be lawful if to stop a crime I have to hospitalize someone? Lawful doesn't mean blind obedience to whatever the current law happens to be. It means: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." That leaves plenty of room for beating people up. Not just anyone, but certainly criminals in the act. Again though, in the last 50 years Batman pretty much never causes significant (e.g. permanent) injury to someone else (and certainly not on purpose). Come on! -Drachasor
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 10:45 PM	Wow, then I guess most adventurers aren't good. I guess if I stop a rape and have to hospitalize the attempted rapist I can't be good. There really must be no case where you can be good and hospitalize someone doing horribly, horribly evil things.... #1: Could you stop the raptist without hopitalizing him? If you can and you don't, then you're not good. It's not always necessary to pummel someone into a hospital to stop them. Or, was he good when he took the unconcisous, and gunshot head-wounded joker and threw him in a dumpster? Or is that okay because the joker kills people. Or the time he hit him with a car while the joker was just standing there. Is that justified behavior because the joker kills? If he was that worried about the joker's victims, he would have finished him off decades ago. Instead he lets him live and sacrifices thousands of people so he doesn't tarnish his self-image. Is that good? #2: I never said he wasn't lawful. I said he wasn't good.
Drachasor 05-08-07, 10:49 PM	So you're lawful good as long as you only hospitalize people you deem evil? So much for due process, eh? Oh, and who gets to decide what's "cannon" and what's not? You? We've got people in this thread saying that the DKR Batman acted out of character when DKR is widely regarded as the ultimate batman story AND the story that set the tone of the character for the last 20 years. Puh-lease. I let DC comics decide what is canon. DKR ISN'T canon, and that is simply a fact. Even in DKR Batman doesn't kill anyone, and he only hurts criminals who have killed others and/or are engaged in criminals acts (besides Superman, but Supes can take it easily and that's a complicated things in DKR). That said, the Batman of DKR differs markedly from the Batman of normal continuity. He uses more brutal methods, hurts people more, and is 20 years older (with 20 years of history having passed). That's essentially an alternate timeline story, as anyone could tell. DKR is well-written, and used a great deal of novel artistry and wording. It is famous for that as well as the story itself. While many people view it as THE Batman story, that doesn't mean everyone or even most people do. It also doesn't mean the characterization of Batman is entirely spot-on (it isn't). Indeed, it touches on Batman going a bit over the edge when he almost kills the Joker (which he doesn't). So there is certainly plenty of evidence to suggest this Batman is more brutal than the Batman we all know and love. Anyhoo, anyone who knew much about Batman canon would know DKR isn't part of the Batman continuity. I can only assume you aren't an avid reader or follower of the comics. While that doesn't mean your viewpoint doesn't have merit, it can certainly mean you have a biased perspective.* Anyhow, DKR "set the tone" only in certain ways. It certainly didn't set any tone brutality, since the Batman in the comics is not nearly as brutal as DKR. It just set of tone in terms of how Supers talk to each other, how comics are drawn, and moving away from the earlier "light and fluffy" Batman. So Batman got more serious after DKR, but he didn't go DKR. -Drachasor *Especially if you are a fan of a more brutal Batman, which it seems like you might be.
Sotha_syl 05-08-07, 10:53 PM	Batman is awesome, and alignment arguments are silly. Thread over.
Masker 05-08-07, 10:54 PM	First of all, I never said Batman was lawful. I already explained why I believe him to be Chaotic Good. He strikes at criminals. That means, bad people, who do not deserve to be treated nicely. And Batman not only wants to prevent crimes. He wants to intimidate criminals into abandon their life of crime. If they need to be sent to the hospital to take the hint and repent, then, why Batman is evil? If they repent, they will be save from th Bat. If not, they will be found again and sent to the hospital again. And they will eventually learn or leave. He does not hit good people or repented criminals. He is the first who gives the benefit of doubt to reformed criminals who are accused of returning to crime. Recent examples include Bane, Catwoman and Two Face.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 10:55 PM	I let DC comics decide what is canon. DKR ISN'T canon, and that is simply a fact. Then give us DC's list of what is and isn't cannon. Even in DKR Batman doesn't kill anyone This has already been proven wrong. While many people view it as THE Batman story, that doesn't mean everyone or even most people do. This does not matter in the least. It set the tone for the comics for the next 20 years. I can only assume you aren't an avid reader or follower of the comics. While that doesn't mean your viewpoint doesn't have merit, it can certainly mean you have a biased perspective.* Never assume. *Especially if you are a fan of a more brutal Batman, which it seems like you might be. I'm a fan of the Batman that doesn't wear brightly colored costumes or says things like "Old Chum." And Batman not only wants to prevent crimes. He wants to intimidate criminals into abandon their life of crime. If they need to be sent to the hospital to take the hint and repent, then, why Batman is evil? If they repent, they will be save from th Bat. If not, they will be found again and sent to the hospital again. And they will eventually learn or leave. He does not hit good people or repented criminals. He is the first who gives the benefit of doubt to reformed criminals who are accused of returning to crime. Recent examples include Bane, Catwoman and Two Face. So intimidation includes throwing an unconcious person with a gun-shot related head wound into a dumpster? Or hitting them with a car? And good means you can allow thousands of people to die in order for you to keep your self-image untarnished?
Vaelan 05-08-07, 11:06 PM	So you're lawful good as long as you only hospitalize people you deem evil? The only violence that precludes a Good alignment is violence against the innocent. Even Exalted characters, who are held to a much higher standard, are allowed to kill a person to prevent the person from commiting an Evil act. Violence isn't the huge factor you're making it. This is a violent game.
Masker 05-08-07, 11:10 PM	So intimidation includes throwing an unconcious person with a gun-shot related head wound into a dumpster? Or hitting them with a car? And good means you can allow thousands of people to die in order for you to keep your self-image untarnished? I do not know what instances you are reffering to. Can you tell me the sources of this actions? For the thousands of peaople dead, I think you are reffering to the OMAC program, don't you? In that case, it is not related to Batman. The AI of the main computer has hacked and reprogremmed.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 11:13 PM	Violence isn't the huge factor you're making it. This is a violent game. Alright. Ignoring the violence, we'll have a scenario: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." Would you, as a DM, allow that character to keep his Lawful Good alignment? I do not know what instances you are reffering to. Can you tell me the sources of this actions? For the thousands of peaople dead, I think you are reffering to the OMAC program, don't you? In that case, it is not related to Batman. The AI of the main computer has hacked and reprogremmed. The car bit was from Arkham Asylum: Living Hell #6 and the dumpster thing was from Batman #665. And no, I'm not talking about the OMAC program. I'm talking about the thousands of people the Joker has killed. Not to mention the death counts of Two-Face, Bane, the Scarecrow, etc.
Holy_Beholder 05-08-07, 11:15 PM	No. He would be lawful evil. Batman is lawful evil. Drizzt is chaotic evil. Hercules is nuetral evil. They are all evil.
Masker 05-08-07, 11:22 PM	The thing is, if such a character has a sacred vow that prevents him from killing, yes, I would allow him to keep his aligment. You can not sacrifice moralty for any reason. It is not Batman keeping his self-image. Is batman showing his belief in the sanctitity of life and the fact that no one is unable to be redeemed. The thing is, the Joker escapes, and not by Batman's fault. Remember that both are comic book characters and the Joker is just to awesome a villian to only be used once. So the editors of the comic book allow him to escape as often as the plot needs it. Batman gets him and sends him back to Arkham. And, since he believes in his own method, he does not allows the Joker to die, has actually saved him from death (Devil's Lawyer) and has offered him chances of redeption at least once (The Killing Joke).
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 11:33 PM	The thing is, if such a character has a sacred vow that prevents him from killing, yes, I would allow him to keep his aligment. You can not sacrifice moralty for any reason. It is not Batman keeping his self-image. Is batman showing his belief in the sanctitity of life and the fact that no one is unable to be redeemed. Then why did he only offer him redemption once? Beyond that, what has batman ever done to try and redeem the joker? Or any of his villains. Beating on a psychopath isn't going to make him less of a psychopath. And I really have to question the idea that one mans "sacred vow" is more important than thousands of innocent lives. And beyond that, how moral is it to allow thousands to die? The thing is, the Joker escapes, and not by Batman's fault. Remember that both are comic book characters and the Joker is just to awesome a villian to only be used once. So the editors of the comic book allow him to escape as often as the plot needs it. Batman gets him and sends him back to Arkham. And, since he believes in his own method, he does not allows the Joker to die, has actually saved him from death (Devil's Lawyer) and has offered him chances of redeption at least once (The Killing Joke). So if the BBEG escapes to kill and kill again it's not the LG PCs fault? You would allow the LG PC to sit back and do nothing substantial? Are we talking about the game or the comics? You can't switch back and forth to suit your argument. And why doesn't Bruce Wayne donate millions of dollars to Arkham Asylum for better security or treatment? Every time we're shown Arkham the doctors are complaining about the lack of funds and personnelle. If your LG PC had access to billions of gold pieces and he chose to spend it on new equipment instead of using some of it to insure the mass-murdering BBEG would never escape you'd allow him to remain LG?
DaidojiTaidoru 05-08-07, 11:46 PM	Alright. Ignoring the violence, we'll have a scenario: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." Would you, as a DM, allow that character to keep his Lawful Good alignment? I'm talking about the thousands of people the Joker has killed. Not to mention the death counts of Two-Face, Bane, the Scarecrow, etc. Yes, because a character is not responsible for the failures of the courts, the guards, the government, and the murderers themselves. Alignment is what you do. If someone sends a note to you saying "If you don't murder ten people I'm going to bomb a building", and you don't murder anyone but try to stop that person instead and fail what happens to your alignment? Nothing because you didn't murder anyone, you just failed to successfully stop a murder. You may suck as a crimefighter but your alignment really hasn't changed. Oh and maybe he doesn't kill not because of his image, because being willing to kill someone would definatly spark more fear into criminals, but because he thinks killing is wrong.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-08-07, 11:55 PM	If someone sends a note to you saying "If you don't murder ten people I'm going to bomb a building", and you don't murder anyone but try to stop that person instead and fail what happens to your alignment? So you get points for trying even though hundreds of people were killed? That's good to know. And that's not even close to what he does. Not. Even. Close. Oh and maybe he doesn't kill not because of his image, because being willing to kill someone would definatly spark more fear into criminals, but because he thinks killing is wrong. And I'm glad his personal code of honor is more important than the thousands of people killed by his enemies. And if he's so worried about the failures of the courts and government, maybe he should spend more time and money trying to fix them instead of spending that time and money trying to circumvent them. That, and it's not like his enemies ever go to court. They escape, they kill, he pummels them, then drops them off at Arkham Asylum where they escape again.
Lina_Inverse 05-09-07, 12:44 AM	If your LG PC had access to billions of gold pieces and he chose to spend it on new equipment instead of using some of it to insure the mass-murdering BBEG would never escape you'd allow him to remain LG? Although i agree with you that batman isn't good. LG PCs do have an advantege here in availability to dominates, geas and helms of reverse alignment. A Exalted good charecter with vow of pacifism and without those lovely tools is doing the right thing. Silly vows.
Drachasor 05-09-07, 01:19 AM	Alright. Ignoring the violence, we'll have a scenario: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." You are doing the comic equivalent of meta-gaming. The comic ignores things like the fact the Joker wouldn't escape all the time. Fact is, we can hold people pretty much indefinitely. The comic ignores this for the purpose of crafting a story. You are ignoring this, the suspension of disbelief, and trying pointing it at as a reason Batman isn't good. That's ridiculous. The Joker escapes because the plot deems this necessary. If the Joker died, then the plot would cause him to come back to life. Either way the Joker kills more people. The same is true of many, many villains throughout comics. If you go into one thinking that a villain is going to be stopped for good, then 9/10 you are dead wrong. This doesn't matter if the villain is arrested, killed, forced outside the universe, atomized, or turned into a newt. They get better, they get out, and they go do more bad things. There's not a DANG thing the Superhero can do except to stop them again. That's the physics of superheroes, and you can't ignore part of it to make your point. In any case, you are presenting a scenario that bad DMs love to do. It's called setting up a Paladin for a fall. You make the Pally kill the guy or not kill the guy. Either way the Pally falls. If he kills him, he either isn't good or isn't lawful. If he doesn't, then you blame the Pally for anything the villain ever does again. That's equally ludicrous and unfair. Being good doesn't demand that you kill evil, just that you try to stop it. Look it up.* -Drachasor *And by your reasoning almost everyone is evil. Afterall, for all we know I could have gone out and done something to prevent someone else from dying or a million people from dying. Heck, we all might of been able to do something. Since we didn't we're all evil. You can't blame someone for unforeseeable consequences anymore than you can blame them for inevitable ones. The Joker killing again is one or both of those.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 01:45 AM	You are ignoring this, the suspension of disbelief, and trying pointing it at as a reason Batman isn't good. That's ridiculous. No, I'm not. And no, it isn't. The character AS WRITTEN allows these things to happen. The things that I have written are a part of his character. He will not, as written and in character, kill the joker because it goes against his moral code. Not even in the dark and scary DKR would he kill the Joker even AFTER he killed an entire television audience and a troop of boy scouts. And, as written, the Batman "knows" the Joker is going to escape and kill again. He makes the "revolving door of Arkham" joke constantly. But, as written, his moral code won't allow him to perminantly stop the Joker. This moral code, as written, is a major part of Batman's character. A character that you were so worried about through out these posts. You were so worried about Batman's code making him Good and now you're going to blame it on the ghost in the machine forcing him into that code? Metagaming is bad but railroading is okay? Nice friggin' argument you have there. And since when is killing a mass-murderer, one who has killed countless men women and children, against the code of a paladin? Pft.
Drachasor 05-09-07, 01:52 AM	Then give us DC's list of what is and isn't cannon. You're being silly. DKR isn't canon, and everyone knows this. Heck, go look it up on Wikipedia. All Batman comics since the last history revision (major event in the DCU, always) are cannon. Many of the events in the official Batman comics beforehand usually. Annuals are almost always canon. Elsewords, obvious trips into possible futures or parallel timelines are not cannon. Graphic Novels that look at the future aren't canon (e.g. DKR, which was written around the time of a history revision as well, if memory serves). Many graphic novels that focus on a contemporary Batman are canon, and the ones that aren't almost always demonstrate this by indicating it is one of the exceptions above. If you don't know how to figure out what Batman canon is.....well, do you even read comic books or do you just browse through them now and then? This has already been proven wrong. Batman didn't kill anyone in DKR. He almost killed the Joker, but he didn't (the Joker did off himself though to frame Batman). Other people did kill, and some claimed to do it in Batman's name. Batman doesn't endorse killing though. Just who do you think he did kill? This does not matter in the least. It set the tone for the comics for the next 20 years. I'm beginning to think you don't know much about how DKR set the tone of Batman. By the way, you reference Batman 665, but it isn't even out yet! As for Arkham Asylum: Living Hell, that story wasn't told from a reliable perspective. As is often the case, you can necessary assume the person telling the tale is getting everything right; just as with the Killing Joke. -Drachasor
Drachasor 05-09-07, 01:55 AM	No, I'm not. And no, it isn't. The character AS WRITTEN allows these things to happen. The things that I have written are a part of his character. He will not, as written and in character, kill the joker because it goes against his moral code. Not even in the dark and scary DKR would he kill the Joker even AFTER he killed an entire television audience and a troop of boy scouts. And, as written, the Batman "knows" the Joker is going to escape and kill again. He makes the "revolving door of Arkham" joke constantly. But, as written, his moral code won't allow him to perminantly stop the Joker. This moral code, as written, is a major part of Batman's character. A character that you were so worried about through out these posts. You were so worried about Batman's code making him Good and now you're going to blame it on the ghost in the machine forcing him into that code? Metagaming is bad but railroading is okay? Nice friggin' argument you have there. And since when is killing a mass-murderer, one who has killed countless men women and children, against the code of a paladin? Pft. If you can't handle the suspension of disbelief with comics and how they occasionally poke fun at it, then you probably would enjoy reading something else. Edit: Well, I imagine if he went around killing criminals, you'd probably be arguing he isn't lawful, since that would be violently against the law. Excessive force isn't legal by any stretch. Ergo, one way or the other, you'd probably be saying Batman can't be Lawful Good (enter fallen Paladin). -Drachasor
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 02:05 AM	If you can't handle the suspension of disbelief with comics and how they occasionally poke fun at it, then you probably would enjoy reading something else. Edit: Well, I imagine if he went around killing criminals, you'd probably be arguing he isn't lawful, since that would be violently against the law. Excessive force isn't legal by any stretch. Ergo, one way or the other, you'd probably be saying Batman can't be Lawful Good (enter fallen Paladin). -Drachasor Since we're talking about the alignment of the character as written, the suspension of disbelief has no bearing on the argument. You were the one who was so adamant that he be treated as written and now that your argument has been deflated you've started pulling out claims of suspension of disbelief and metagaming. It's not my fault your argument doesn't hold water. And no, he wouldn't be Lawful Good if he started killing criminals. He'd be Lawful Neutral. Exactly as I've been saying all along.
Critalondel 05-09-07, 02:40 AM	So you're saying he's Lawful Neutral for not killing supervillains, and he'd be Lawful Neutral if he did kill them, too. Man. No wonder you think you're winning the argument.
RobbyPants 05-09-07, 09:17 AM	Batman didn't kill anyone in DKR. He almost killed the Joker, but he didn't (the Joker did off himself though to frame Batman). Other people did kill, and some claimed to do it in Batman's name. Batman doesn't endorse killing though. Just who do you think he did kill? He shot the female mutant holding the kid hostage with the M-60. He took the M-60 from the big mutant when he broke through the wall behind him. Female Mutant: I'll do it! Believe me! Batman: *squints* Female Mutant: BELIEVE ME! * BRAP! * Batman: I believe you.
Vaelan 05-09-07, 09:29 AM	Would you, as a DM, allow that character to keep his Lawful Good alignment? Yes. I don't even see how this is a question. I would think that he is rather stupid for never having thought to try to contain the BBEG himself, but, 1) I often find myself thinking that overly Lawful people are rather stupid and 2) intelligence is not required to be a Good person. The fact is, he is still out there putting himself on the line to protect others. That he doesn't do a terribly good job of protecting others isn't relevant. If you're a consequentialist, then obviously you're going to think it matters, but not everyone is a consequentialist.
Masker 05-09-07, 11:07 AM	Batman has not offered the Joker redemption because the Joker has made clear he does not want it, by his actions and behavior. If the Joker tried to aproach Batman in seek of redemption, the Bat would stand by him, as he has done for several villians who attempted to reform. If he beats the evil clown and sends to the hospital wing of Arkham, even if he will escape (and he can not be hold anywhere else), he will have a lesser chance of wounding or killing, since he will have a broken leg or arm. Batman beats him to keep then Joker out of circulation for a longer time that what Arkham does. the fact is that Comic Book time does not reflect that, because we never know the current date. The Joker should only make a spree about once or twice a year at most, spending the rest of his time locked down or in recovery. And, if the Joker kills, it is not Batman's fault. Is the Joker's. And Batman works as hards as he can to stop the joker everytime he is out.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 12:41 PM	So you're saying he's Lawful Neutral for not killing supervillains, and he'd be Lawful Neutral if he did kill them, too. Man. No wonder you think you're winning the argument. If you'd bother to keep up, which you obviously haven't, my responses are based around people switching back and forth from game terms to comic terms. But thanks for the poor attempt at being snotty. Oh, and you don't have to kill people to be Lawful Neutral either. Thanks for playing. Yes. I don't even see how this is a question. I would think that he is rather stupid for never having thought to try to contain the BBEG himself, but, 1) I often find myself thinking that overly Lawful people are rather stupid and 2) intelligence is not required to be a Good person. So Batman, to you, would be Lawful Stupid? The fact is, he is still out there putting himself on the line to protect others. That he doesn't do a terribly good job of protecting others isn't relevant. If you're a consequentialist, then obviously you're going to think it matters, but not everyone is a consequentialist. I'm sorry, but if you have the chance to save thousands of people by killing one person and you choose not to due to a personal code, you don't get points for trying. Batman has not offered the Joker redemption because the Joker has made clear he does not want it, by his actions and behavior. If the Joker tried to aproach Batman in seek of redemption, the Bat would stand by him, as he has done for several villians who attempted to reform. Like the Riddler? He's attempting to reform and all the Bat has done is hound and belittle him as Batman AND Bruce Wayne. If he beats the evil clown and sends to the hospital wing of Arkham, even if he will escape (and he can not be hold anywhere else), he will have a lesser chance of wounding or killing, since he will have a broken leg or arm. Batman beats him to keep then Joker out of circulation for a longer time that what Arkham does. the fact is that Comic Book time does not reflect that, because we never know the current date. The Joker should only make a spree about once or twice a year at most, spending the rest of his time locked down or in recovery. If he was dead it would put him out of circulation perminantly. But because of Batman's personal code, more people will always die. But that's okay, right? And, if the Joker kills, it is not Batman's fault. Is the Joker's. And Batman works as hards as he can to stop the joker everytime he is out. Actually, thinking about it, it's not. The Joker is insane. He can't help what he does. Yet, instead of donating funding to Arkham to get the villains actual help he simply continues to beat on them. Nice guy, this Bats. Beats on the mentally ill and allows people to die because of a self-imposed moral code. Nice guy. Y'know, maybe Vaelan is right. Maybe the guy really is Lawful Stupid.
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:09 PM	#1: Could you stop the raptist without hopitalizing him? If you can and you don't, then you're not good. It's not always necessary to pummel someone into a hospital to stop them. I am calling BS on this statement. If you stop a rapist through any means you have done a good act and are probably a good person. If you stop a rapist by smashing his back with a baseball bat thus hospitalizing him it does not negate the good act nor the fact that you are probably a good person. If you stop someone from raping a loved one and you end up beating them to death with your bare hands you are still a good person doing a good thing.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-09-07, 01:17 PM	Or any of his villains. He redeemed Two-Face on multiple occasions, and assisted with the redemption of Catwoman and Poison Ivy.
Witch 05-09-07, 01:22 PM	I am calling BS on this statement. If you stop a rapist through any means you have done a good act and are probably a good person. If you stop a rapist by smashing his back with a baseball bat thus hospitalizing him it does not negate the good act nor the fact that you are probably a good person. If you stop someone from raping a loved one and you end up beating them to death with your bare hands you are still a good person doing a good thing. Hardly. You're still a good person, but you're not doing the right thing by beating them up to death.
Masker 05-09-07, 01:22 PM	Like the Riddler? He's attempting to reform and all the Bat has done is hound and belittle him as Batman AND Bruce Wayne. Eh? when did that happen? The Riddler was part of the attack against Metropolis in the Crisis. I've not seen anything on him since. If he was dead it would put him out of circulation perminantly. But because of Batman's personal code, more people will always die. But that's okay, right? Have you considered the fact that even more than one person actually believes, inside the DC world, that Batman is doing right at not killing the Joker? Yeah, he could kill the clown. After that, well, he may also think that killing Bane or Two Face would not be so out the line, because both are mass killers. And Ra's there too (or was, but he will return)...There is a line that Batman will not cross. And even Gordon, that lost his wife and saw his daughter maimed for life, considers that Batman should not take the Joker's life. It is not just Batman's code, but the way decent people are in the DCU. The same moralty thing you try to apply is flawed. You say Batman can not be good because he does not kill. That is false. He makes everything in his power to keep the Joker where he can not bring harm. And, for Arkham Asylum...it is a plot device. In the real world, such a place would be a maximum security prision, equipped with the best tech and probably state-controlled. And the Joker's escapes are not only from the lack of security. For quite a while, he was allowed to escape with help of Harleen Quinzel. Since Bruce wayne is openly a philantropist, helping a wide variety of institutions, is highly probable that, in fact, he has donated large amounts of money to Arkham. Actually, thinking about it, it's not. The Joker is insane. He can't help what he does. Yet, instead of donating funding to Arkham to get the villains actual help he simply continues to beat on them. I am not so sure about this point. The Joker is insane, but certainly he is not unaware of his actions. He remembers and relishes his own evilness and his acts of mass slaughter. And he can not be cured. So, instead of wholly breaking everything he believes and killing him, Batman prefers to neutralize him, keeping him in Arkham, maybe waiting for a possible cure against the madness. However, Batman does not consider that executiong the Joker is evil, as long as it is done by the proper autorithy and after a proper trial. (Devil's Lawyer again) Nice guy, this Bats. Beats on the mentally ill and allows people to die because of a self-imposed moral code. Nice guy. Y'know, maybe Vaelan is right. Maybe the guy really is Lawful Stupid. As I said, the code is not self-impossed, but actually a point of view widely held by the population. Especially the heroic population. If he could somehow permanently stop the joker from doing harm, he would. But not by killing him.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 01:24 PM	I am calling BS on this statement. If you stop a rapist through any means you have done a good act and are probably a good person. If you stop a rapist by smashing his back with a baseball bat thus hospitalizing him it does not negate the good act nor the fact that you are probably a good person. If you stop someone from raping a loved one and you end up beating them to death with your bare hands you are still a good person doing a good thing. Call it what you want but the term you're ignoring is "unnecessary force" which is illegal and...well...unnecessary. And doing it once might not make you a bad person, but doing it night after night by dedicating your life to it does. He ain't one at a timin' it, folks.
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:25 PM	Call it what you want but the term you're ignoring is "unnecessary force" which is illegal and...well...unnecessary. And doing it once might not make you a bad person, but doing it night after night by dedicating your life to it does. He ain't one at a timin' it, folks. So giving criminals what they deserve is a bad act?
Witch 05-09-07, 01:25 PM	So giving criminals what they deserve is a bad act? Who're you to decide what they deserve? You don't do things to criminals because they 'deserve it'. You imprison them to have them realize what they've done, or, if worse, to keep them away from society.
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:26 PM	Hardly. You're still a good person, but you're not doing the right thing by beating them up to death. But you are still a good person. And who says beating a rapist to death isnt the right thing?
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:27 PM	Who're you to decide what they deserve? You don't do things to criminals because they 'deserve it'. You imprison them to have them realize what they've done, or, if worse, to keep them away from society. Prison is not the answer as has been shown by the amount of criminals who have been to prison and have not reformed. I believe that if we went back to public humiliation, beatings and death that we would see the crime rate drop significantly.
Witch 05-09-07, 01:29 PM	I believe that if we went back to public humiliation, beatings and death that we would see the crime rate drop significantly. Dear god. I'd prefer not to live in the middle ages, thank you. Humiliating people publically? You call it good?
RobbyPants 05-09-07, 01:32 PM	Dear god. I'd prefer not to live in the middle ages, thank you. Humiliating people publically? You call it good? Agreed. And think of the consequences of convicting an innocent person...
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:39 PM	Dear god. I'd prefer not to live in the middle ages, thank you. Humiliating people publically? You call it good? Yes when there is undeniable evidence that someone committed a terrible crime than I call it good to punish them severely. And you may think we are more "civilized" now than in the middle ages but I dont think you would see half of what goes on today back then with the consequences they would have to face (gangs, pedophiles, etc) Agreed. And think of the consequences of convicting an innocent person... You wouldnt stone someone to death based on circumstantial evidence. Like I said keep thinking we are living in enlightened times and nevermind the fact that we are going down faster than ever before :rolleyes:
Witch 05-09-07, 01:42 PM	Yes when there is undeniable evidence that someone committed a terrible crime than I call it good to punish them severely. Such does not exist. And if you think that they didn't have gangs or pedophiles back then, I'd call you severely misinformed. Rural people even had a holiday in which they'd beat up any woman they met on the streets for jokes. If their husbands interfered, the gangs would take out their knives. Such was the norm. This focus on thinking "ah, all was so much better in the past" is pure nostalgia, and not based on fact.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 01:43 PM	Eh? when did that happen? The Riddler was part of the attack against Metropolis in the Crisis. I've not seen anything on him since. In the most recent Batman books. He's tried to reform and work as a "celebrity detective." He's made three or four appearances since the Crisis and the Bat has been up his butt every time. Which one of you guys was accusing me of not being up to date on the Bat-Books? Have you considered the fact that even more than one person actually believes, inside the DC world, that Batman is doing right at not killing the Joker? Besides the fact that this has nothing to do with his alignment, you're actually suggesting that an entire population of people is okay with a mass-murdering psychopath constantly escaping? He makes everything in his power to keep the Joker where he can not bring harm. And, for Arkham Asylum...it is a plot device. In the real world, such a place would be a maximum security prision, equipped with the best tech and probably state-controlled. And the Joker's escapes are not only from the lack of security. For quite a while, he was allowed to escape with help of Harleen Quinzel. We're not talking about the real world, we're talking about the characters as written. The real world has nothing to do with it. And he doesn't do everything in his power to stop the Joker. That has been covered. Since Bruce wayne is openly a philantropist, helping a wide variety of institutions, is highly probable that, in fact, he has donated large amounts of money to Arkham. Source? If you cant' point it out, it hasn't happened. It's only fair since you keep questioning my sources. I am not so sure about this point. The Joker is insane, but certainly he is not unaware of his actions. He remembers and relishes his own evilness and his acts of mass slaughter. And he can not be cured. So, instead of wholly breaking everything he believes and killing him, Batman prefers to neutralize him, keeping him in Arkham, maybe waiting for a possible cure against the madness. So you admit batman is more worried about what he believes over the saftey of the people of Gotham? However, Batman does not consider that executiong the Joker is evil, as long as it is done by the proper autorithy and after a proper trial. (Devil's Lawyer again) So why doesn't he push for a trial? Why does he circumvent the entire judicial process? As I said, the code is not self-impossed, but actually a point of view widely held by the population. Especially the heroic population. If he could somehow permanently stop the joker from doing harm, he would. But not by killing him. Of course, you're speculating that an entire population doesn't want a mass-murderer executed. And who says beating a rapist to death isnt the right thing? The law?
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 01:44 PM	...
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:56 PM	So since its the law that makes it right?
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 01:59 PM	Such does not exist. And if you think that they didn't have gangs or pedophiles back then, I'd call you severely misinformed. Rural people even had a holiday in which they'd beat up any woman they met on the streets for jokes. If their husbands interfered, the gangs would take out their knives. Such was the norm. This focus on thinking "ah, all was so much better in the past" is pure nostalgia, and not based on fact. I never said everything should be like it was, just the punishments for crime. Seriously dont go thinking someone is misinformed just because you choose to focus on one aspect of what they said rather than attempting to figure out what they meant and responding to that.
Skeptical Clown 05-09-07, 02:09 PM	I'm sorry, but if you have the chance to save thousands of people by killing one person and you choose not to due to a personal code, you don't get points for trying. Now hold on just a second. This isn't even a remotely fair way to analyze alignment. First of all, it's a question that doesn't have a real answer, in real worlds or fantasy ones. It's based entirely on circumstances, and even the best and most powerful of superheroes can't know everything. Batman is not the most powerful of heroes--he's just a man. Secondly, it doesn't really make much sense to judge a character like Batman on individual incidents. As has been noted, he has a history of over six decades, and he has numerous different incarnations in various media that all have different takes on him. Plus, by nature, comic book stories are cyclical; it requires a certain suspension of disbelief to accept that any villains keep coming back to get beaten, over and over. If we dismiss this suspension of disbelief, then by all rights, pretty much every superhero could be construed as a maniac. Thirdly, and following from the same point, it doesn't make much sense to judge fantasy characters entirely by real-life ethics. Ethics are circumstantial, and characters in fantasy stories are clearly in unusual and extraordinary circumstances. In real life, Batman and Spider-man and most other superheroes would be terrifying vigilantes. If a man were cruising the skies with more power than an atomic bomb, I think it'd be unsettling for most people. In the fantasy world of comics, however, these things are acceptable. In the context of these stories, violence is also more acceptable--and usually less traumatic than it might be otherwise. People deliver punches that should shatter bones, and they shrug it off. This is fine, however. Because alignment doesn't work in real life situations either. Alignment is a fairly silly construct, but it can work in a fairly silly universe like those presented in fantasy stories. Trying to evaluate the real world with alignments, or fantasy worlds with real-life law and ethics, can lead only two directions--tangled, incoherent snarls of thought, or punchlines.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 02:22 PM	First of all, it's a question that doesn't have a real answer, in real worlds or fantasy ones. It's based entirely on circumstances, and even the best and most powerful of superheroes can't know everything. Batman is not the most powerful of heroes--he's just a man. No, I'm just one man. Batman took down Superman and had plans to take out the rest of the JLA. He also had a global metahuman tracking unit...until it was hacked and got a ton of people killed. And if Batman hasn't learned by now that the Joker is going to escape and kill again he should probably turn in his "world's greatest detective" badge. Secondly, it doesn't really make much sense to judge a character like Batman on individual incidents. As has been noted, he has a history of over six decades, and he has numerous different incarnations in various media that all have different takes on him. Plus, by nature, comic book stories are cyclical; it requires a certain suspension of disbelief to accept that any villains keep coming back to get beaten, over and over. If we dismiss this suspension of disbelief, then by all rights, pretty much every superhero could be construed as a maniac. Except that we're talking about the character's D&D alignment as he is written. Thirdly, and following from the same point, it doesn't make much sense to judge fantasy characters entirely by real-life ethics. And we wouldn't be if we were talking about the Silver Surfer. But we're talking about Batman, a character entirely based around real-life ethics. It's that "moral code against killing" thing that everyone keeps bringing up.
Cartigan 05-09-07, 02:31 PM	No, I'm just one man. Batman took down Superman Superman turns into a pansy when some one pulls out a glowing green rock.
Skeptical Clown 05-09-07, 02:46 PM	And we wouldn't be if we were talking about the Silver Surfer. But we're talking about Batman, a character entirely based around real-life ethics. If a real person put on a mask and decided to fight crime, they would be arrested, and rightly so. Batman is not a real person. He doesn't exist in the real world. He's not based around real-life ethics any more than the Silver Surfer--in fact, given the general way the DC and Marvel universes differ, I'd almost say he's less tied to reality than the Silver Surfer.
mlund 05-09-07, 02:56 PM	I actually have to go with the side that marks Batman's plot-railroaded requirement to constantly put his villains in a position to escape again as a mark against his Goodness. Still, I try to overlook it because it is a plot-device. I'm sure that if the series writers didn't see dollar signs in respawning the same classic villains time and time again Batman would've at least had some of these guys tossed into the Phantom Zone by now. Who're you to decide what they deserve? While I agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that if you remove the mostly religious roots of the idea that final and truthful judgment is reserved for the Almighty then the answer of "A reasonable person," is perfectly acceptable. Heck, a purely democratic philosophy would argue that "an agent of the majority" is also a reasonable answer. Of course, this is why we temper democracy with a Constitution that enshrines the notion of "inalienable rights" that are "endowed by their Creator." Once you strip all that away and decide that humans are the highest moral and reasoning authority to make the best judgments possible the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" and "who are you to judge?" concept is completely obsolete. You don't do things to criminals because they 'deserve it'. If you're the final recourse for the ultimate execution of Justice, then you certainly might. It is just that we, as a society, do not believe ourselves to carry that ultimate burden. We focus instead on Safety and Compassion. You imprison them to have them realize what they've done, or, if worse, to keep them away from society. Actually, that's not the half of it. One of the most fundamental principles of Justice in our laws has been greatly overlooked. It is a concept called Retributive Justice - the imposition of severe and immediate punitive consequences which make criminality prohibitive to all but the extremely foolish and brash. Now a days we only seem to be willing to hand out punitive consequences in civil cases rather than criminal trials. Funny thing how in tort cases running up huge punitive damages makes Lawyers a lot of money but in criminal cases it doesn't get them anything at all ... Dear god. I'd prefer not to live in the middle ages, thank you. Humiliating people publically? You call it good? Actually, it can be good. So is a modest beating from time to time. The trick is that the consequence is connecting directly to a valid provocation. In more brutal times there was no cause-effect relationship to most humiliation or non-lethal violence. It was simply malicious. When you apply Pavlovian training to humans from age 4 to 104 they learn unless they have some sort of developmental handicap. On the other side of the coin, when you dispense punishment and reward arbitrarily or randomly it will drive most fairly intelligent creatures insane. Now we've blindly attempted to purge all violence from our day-to-day society - and we suffer for it. We still allow people to mistreat one another. People still do severe malicious harm (often times more lasting) to one another through more subtle means - deception, slander, manipulation of loved ones, and covert property crimes. That's never going to change because in a free society you can't take away people's right to be malefactors. There was a time and a place where such behavior was less common and casual because it could earn you a black eye. Now you can provoke people with all manner of malicious conduct and feel assured that no matter what vile thing you did they'll suffer more dire consequences for taking a swing at you. That's terminally backwards. Rather than protecting the innocent, we spare the guilty to avoid any direct blame for error or wrong-doing and then allow the guilty to go on victimizing the innocent whose hands we have tied. In essence we've simply broken the Pavlovian system and allowed it to continue running while broken. No good can come of that. - Marty Lund
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 03:04 PM	If a real person put on a mask and decided to fight crime, they would be arrested, and rightly so. Batman is not a real person. He doesn't exist in the real world. He's not based around real-life ethics any more than the Silver Surfer--in fact, given the general way the DC and Marvel universes differ, I'd almost say he's less tied to reality than the Silver Surfer. I don't know how you come to that conclusion but I thought of something while I was sweeping the carpet: I'm not comparing him to real-world ethics, I'm comparing him to D&D ethics. That's where this came in: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." And that's when people started yammering about ghosts in the machine and metagaming. Would St.Cuthbert be okay with that? Would Pelor? Would Heironeous? What Good (or arguably good in the case of St.Cuthbert) organization in D&D would be okay with Batman's reactive inaction? This is a conversation about Batman's D&D alignment, correct?
Sim_antix 05-09-07, 03:41 PM	While I agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that if you remove the mostly religious roots of the idea that final and truthful judgment is reserved for the Almighty then the answer of "A reasonable person," is perfectly acceptable. Heck, a purely democratic philosophy would argue that "an agent of the majority" is also a reasonable answer. Of course, this is why we temper democracy with a Constitution that enshrines the notion of "inalienable rights" that are "endowed by their Creator." Once you strip all that away and decide that humans are the highest moral and reasoning authority to make the best judgments possible the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" and "who are you to judge?" concept is completely obsolete. If you're the final recourse for the ultimate execution of Justice, then you certainly might. It is just that we, as a society, do not believe ourselves to carry that ultimate burden. We focus instead of Safety and Compassion. Actually, that's not the half of it. One of the most fundamental principles of Justice in our laws has been greatly overlooked. It is a concept called Retributive Justice - the imposition of severe and immediate punitive consequences which make criminality prohibitive to all but the extremely foolish and brash. Now a days we only seem to be willing to hand out punitive consequences in civil cases rather than criminal trails. Funny thing how in tort cases running up huge punitive damages makes Lawyers a lot of money but in criminal cases it doesn't get them anything at all ... Actually, it can be good. So is a modest beating from time to time. The trick is that the consequence is connecting directly to a valid provocation. In more brutal times there was no cause-effect relationship to most humiliation or non-lethal violence. It was simply malicious. When you apply Pavlovian training to humans from age 4 to 104 they learn unless they have some sort of developmental handicap. On the other side of the coin, when you dispense punishment and reward arbitrarily or randomly it will drive most fairly intelligent creatures insane. Now we've blindly attempted to purge all violence from our day-to-day society - and we suffer for it. We still allow people to mistreat one another. People still do severe malicious harm (often times more lasting) to one another through more subtle means - deception, slander, manipulation of loved ones, and covert property crimes. That's never going to change because in a free society you can't take away people's right to be malefactors. There was a time and a place where such behavior was less common and casual because it could earn you a black eye. Now you can provoke people with all manner of malicious conduct and feel assured that no matter what vile thing you did they'll suffer more dire consequences for taking a swing at you. That's terminally backwards. Rather than protecting the innocent, we spare the guilty to avoid any direct blame for error or wrong-doing and then allow the guilty to go on victimizing the innocent whose hands we have tied. In essence we've simply broken the Pavlovian system and allowed it to continue running while broken. No good can come of that. - Marty Lund Its all just so true I had to repost it
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:21 PM	There's an actual defintion of everything when you get down to base characteristics. No, there isn't. Especially not in fiction. Maybe you won't come up with anything coherent but I have no problem doing so. I'm talking about Batman at his core. Because you have a specific set of biases informing your interpretation, and you refuse to see them as biases. I'm not dissing it. But you can not judge the character via a kid-friendly outlet. The vast majority of the history of Batman comes from "kid-friendly" outlets. You may not like the Comics Code, but most of what Batman *is* does come from the comics that were created under its aegis. If you're going to boneheadedly insist that because the "original" Batman had a gun that means that that's the "real" Batman, then the same applies to Superman -- who, far from being a Big Blue Boy Scout, is a guy who throws cars at people and kidnaps them. (And, incidentally, who isn't an alien of any sort but some kind of vigilante who dresses up in a cape.) The only "cannon" I'm concerning myself with is the 60+ years of comics. The other examples were brought up by other people. I'm not the one picking-and-choosing. The 60+ years of comics contradict each other thoroughly and repeatedly. That's what you get when you get 60+ years of very different people to try to draw and write one character, many of whom have very specific artistic goals that differ from each other's, and many of whom have no artistic goals at all and are incoherent hacks. So as long as you pick-and-choose what suits your argument and ignore 20 additional years of Batman comics you'll find he's Lawful Good? Right. :rolleyes: Sure. It's not like this question has a real answer, dude. Batman is imaginary. You can make him whatever you want to make him. The Joel Schumacher films have one Batman; the Tim Burton films have another; the crazy Dark Knight Returns and Batman: All Stars project of Frank Miller has yet another; the crappy anime-inspired The Batman series has another; the Diniverse Animated Series Batman has another; the Batman Begins films has another; the Golden Age pre-Comics Code Batman has another; the Knightfall "grittier but still true to his roots" Batman has another; the Batman we see in Justice League as opposed to his own books has another; etc., etc., etc. The Batman *I* like and that *I* choose to identify as Batman is a Batman that is an exemplar of what I mean by Lawful Good, and I've even played in D&D games where Batman was used as a template to imagine a darker Lawful Good character. At the point where people start yelling at each other about what the "real" character is and rejecting other people's definitions of the character, I think the conversation has lost its point.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:30 PM	So you're lawful good as long as you only hospitalize people you deem evil? So much for due process, eh? The point of Batman is that due process has become unreliable in Gotham City. Lawful doesn't mean "following the law", especially when the civil order has been infiltrated by Chaos. Oh, and who gets to decide what's "cannon" and what's not? You? We've got people in this thread saying that the DKR Batman acted out of character when DKR is widely regarded as the ultimate batman story AND the story that set the tone of the character for the last 20 years. Puh-lease. Well, DKR is non-canon for certain very explicit reasons, one of which is that it's set in an imaginary future of the DCU that has never come to pass. (Frank Miller explicitly said that the freedom to treat Batman as an "Elseworlds" character because it was set in future time was what motivated him to do the project.) In the real DC canon, Batman remains in his 30s, the Justice League has not been put on trial and banished from Earth, Lois Lane is not dead, etc., etc., etc. That aside, Frank Miller gets credit for pulling the tone *away* from campy-silly-Adam-West Batman, but that doesn't mean the actual DCU took DKR as canon or followed it. Frank Miller's Batman set *one pole* of the Batman spectrum, just as the Adam West series set the other. The real Batman as he's been portrayed in the mainstream comics has always been somewhere in between. And yes, now that Frank Miller has been going steadily more and more off the deep end, with the psychotic masturbatory power fantasy that was The Dark Knight Strikes Back and his new horrifying take on Batman and Robin in Batman: All Stars (where, apparently, Bruce Wayne killed Robin's parents, kidnapped Robin and subjected him to psychological torture to break him), more people are jumping off the "Frank Miller is a dark genius!" bandwagon. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. Batman is a fictional character. Any one of us can decide who the "real" Batman is if we want. That's what happens when a writer creates a Batman story that shifts the character to a more human angle or a darker angle or a more brutal angle -- they're imposing a little bit of their vision on the canon and causing it to change. The Batman I like -- and the Batman a lot of other people like -- is the balanced version shown in the Animated Series, which drew on some of the better comics from the Silver Age for inspiration (and thus consciously put Bruce Wayne in an Art Deco-inspired postwar past rather than in the present day). If you want to pick and choose Batmen from other incarnations to play with, we can talk about those, too. I'm fairly certain I'd peg the Batman we see in Batman Begins as being less Lawful than the mature Batman we see in the Animated Series, and Tim Burton's addiction to making everything as dark and mysterious as it can possibly be makes his Batman a lot less clearly Lawful or Good. But please stop with the insistence that there's One Real Answer because there's One Real Character (or that the character has one real "core"). There's no such thing.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-09-07, 04:30 PM	I don't know how you come to that conclusion but I thought of something while I was sweeping the carpet: I'm not comparing him to real-world ethics, I'm comparing him to D&D ethics. That's where this came in: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." You seem to be missing the fact that the Joker is unkillable. He does not stay dead. Hell, he just came back after getting shot in the face at point blank range. All killing the Joker does is make you not know where he is when he comes back. At least when he escapes from Arkham there's only a few places where he could be.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:32 PM	#1: Could you stop the raptist without hopitalizing him? If you can and you don't, then you're not good. It's not always necessary to pummel someone into a hospital to stop them. Or, was he good when he took the unconcisous, and gunshot head-wounded joker and threw him in a dumpster? Or is that okay because the joker kills people. Or the time he hit him with a car while the joker was just standing there. Is that justified behavior because the joker kills? If he was that worried about the joker's victims, he would have finished him off decades ago. Instead he lets him live and sacrifices thousands of people so he doesn't tarnish his self-image. Is that good? #2: I never said he wasn't lawful. I said he wasn't good. The part about alignment threads I like least is when we stop talking about Good and Evil based on people's intentions or character and instead start arguing our real-life perspective on what we consider to be good or evil, which we *all* know isn't going to go anywhere.
Masker 05-09-07, 04:39 PM	In the most recent Batman books. He's tried to reform and work as a "celebrity detective." He's made three or four appearances since the Crisis and the Bat has been up his butt every time. Which one of you guys was accusing me of not being up to date on the Bat-Books? I was not aware of such instance. Until I get to see it, I withhold my opinion on the issue. Besides the fact that this has nothing to do with his alignment, you're actually suggesting that an entire population of people is okay with a mass-murdering psychopath constantly escaping? No, they are okay with having a people who beliefs in life as their protector rather than a killer who decides to kill people based on his own judgment. We're not talking about the real world, we're talking about the characters as written. The real world has nothing to do with it. And he doesn't do everything in his power to stop the Joker. That has been covered. Really? Where? Other than killing, what other thing hasn't Batman done to keep the Joker out of the streets? Source? If you cant' point it out, it hasn't happened. It's only fair since you keep questioning my sources. No, I have not a source. It is just a highly possible opinion of mine. So you admit batman is more worried about what he believes over the saftey of the people of Gotham? How did you get to this conclusion? I said that Batman does everything in his power, short of killing the Joker, to keep it pout of the streets. So why doesn't he push for a trial? Why does he circumvent the entire judicial process? The Joker can not be tried (innocent due to insanity). There is no way to go around that. Of course, you're speculating that an entire population doesn't want a mass-murderer executed. The population may want that (or again, they may not. I've never saw people saying that in the comics), but the Joker can not be legally sent to the electric chair. And life or death can not be decided democratically anyway.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:42 PM	Then give us DC's list of what is and isn't cannon. ...Well, first of all, it's spelled "canon". (Sorry, that's beginning to bug me.) Second of all, things are non-canon if they explicitly say they're non-canon in the introduction, as was the case with DKR. (Have you actually read the trade paperback?) This has already been proven wrong. Both in D&D alignment and in real life, "letting someone die" is very different from "killing someone", unless you happen to be one of Isaac Asimov's robots. I'm a fan of the Batman that doesn't wear brightly colored costumes or says things like "Old Chum." You see, the fact that it was a blatant self-parody aside, I don't actually think the Adam West Batman is more or less "real" than the DKR Batman. You can choose to be a fan of that Batman and say that he's the Batman you think of when you think "Batman" just as you can with anything else. There are a lot of adults who aren't comic book geeks who watched TV in the '60s who probably do think that way, and dislike the "new, darker" Batman. Different strokes. So intimidation includes throwing an unconcious person with a gun-shot related head wound into a dumpster? Or hitting them with a car? And good means you can allow thousands of people to die in order for you to keep your self-image untarnished? People can lapse in being good and still be good. And the whole question of how responsible you are for the evil other people do because you won't cross certain lines to stop them is an *open* one. Not everyone adheres to a purely utilitarian view of ethics, *especially* not superheroes like Batman and Superman.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:45 PM	Alright. Ignoring the violence, we'll have a scenario: You're the DM for a Lawful Good character. This Lawful Good character has spent the last ten years repeatedly capturing a mass-murdering BBEG who repeatedly escapes to mass-murder all over again. We're talking about thousands of innocent people. This Lawful Good character refuses to kill the BBEG because he doesn't want to tarnish his personal image. "I won't kill him because that would make me like him." Would you, as a DM, allow that character to keep his Lawful Good alignment? Absolutely. Having a deontological or virtue-based system of ethics -- ethics are what you are or what you do, not the results of what you do -- is actually an acceptable moral system in my mind, if not in yours. (You get to dictate what the universal definition of "right and wrong" is even less than you get to dictate what the universal conception of a fictional character is.)
ArcTan 05-09-07, 04:49 PM	Since we're talking about the alignment of the character as written, the suspension of disbelief has no bearing on the argument. You were the one who was so adamant that he be treated as written and now that your argument has been deflated you've started pulling out claims of suspension of disbelief and metagaming. It's not my fault your argument doesn't hold water. And no, he wouldn't be Lawful Good if he started killing criminals. He'd be Lawful Neutral. Exactly as I've been saying all along. So what would Batman have to do to be LG? Not be a superhero at all? What I'm disliking here is that you really are talking out of both sides of your mouth. People who argue, as a factual matter, that Batman adheres to a strict code of conduct are slammed for not knowing this or that example of a violent, brutal Batman. People who argue that a violent, brutal Batman wouldn't be Good are slammed because they don't understand the "real" consequentialist, utilitarian ethical system that demands an Isaac Asimov-like "Who has died because of my inactions?" accounting every day. By either reckoning, Batman can't be Good. The Adam West Batman is LN because his silly moral code allows criminals to escape again and again. The DKR/DKSB Batman is LN because he lacks said silly moral code and is therefore a brutal, violent killer. It's a stupid double-bind -- it means Good is impossible in your world, which makes it pointless to talk about.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 04:50 PM	The part about alignment threads I like least is when we stop talking about Good and Evil based on people's intentions or character and instead start arguing our real-life perspective on what we consider to be good or evil, which we *all* know isn't going to go anywhere. First things first: I'm talking about Batman at his core so all of that nonsense about the millions of interpretations is moot. At his core Batman is an exceptionally angry person who has taken the law into his own hands because his parents were murdered when he was a child. He created a new persona to combat crime through violence instead of through the system. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Then again, probably not. Secondly, you can not judge good and evil based on a person's intention. That's how these threads always end up with someone mentioning Hitler. I was not aware of such instance. Until I get to see it, I withhold my opinion on the issue. 'kay. No, they are okay with having a people who beliefs in life as their protector rather than a killer who decides to kill people based on his own judgment. That's speculative but then again, I think what I said might have been too. I have a massive migrane so who can tell at this point. Really? Where? Other than killing, what other thing hasn't Batman done to keep the Joker out of the streets? Well, he hasn't, on record, donated millions to Arkham Asylum, attempted to clean up the political corruption in Gotham, or really done anything more than pummel people he deems evil. No, I have not a source. It is just a highly possible opinion of mine. Then it's not cannon is it, since everyone was so worried about that. How did you get to this conclusion? I said that Batman does everything in his power, short of killing the Joker, to keep it pout of the streets. No, what you said was "So, instead of wholly breaking everything he believes and killing him, Batman prefers to neutralize him, keeping him in Arkham, maybe waiting for a possible cure against the madness." That's not doing everything in his power. It's beating the snot out of someone and leaving other people to clean up the mess. The Joker can not be tried (innocent due to insanity). There is no way to go around that. No, but maybe he'd end up in someplace a little more secure than arkham. Someone mentioned the Phantom Zone earlier. The population may want that (or again, they may not. I've never saw people saying that in the comics), but the Joker can not be legally sent to the electric chair. And life or death can not be decided democratically anyway. Well, that's pretty much what a jury does isn't it? A group of peers passing vote on people's lives? Edit: You guys post too bloody fast. So what would Batman have to do to be LG? He would have to do more than he currently does. Which is nothing more than beating people up and going home to his billionaire mansion. What I'm disliking here is that you really are talking out of both sides of your mouth. People who argue, as a factual matter, that Batman adheres to a strict code of conduct are slammed for not knowing this or that example of a violent, brutal Batman. People who argue that a violent, brutal Batman wouldn't be Good are slammed because they don't understand the "real" consequentialist, utilitarian ethical system that demands an Isaac Asimov-like "Who has died because of my inactions?" accounting every day. No, I'm not. I've never once said he wasn't Lawful or didn't ahere to a code. I said that his code is not GOOD because it allows people to die by his direct inaction. I'm not talking about a "consequentialist, utilitarian ethical system." I'm not talking about one person dying because I didn't go to the store today. I'm talking about hundreds of people dying because of his unwillingness to break his own personal code and kill a person he knows will kill again. This isn't random crime he has no hope of stopping. The Joker kills because the one person who can stop him won't. By either reckoning, Batman can't be Good. The Adam West Batman is LN because his silly moral code allows criminals to escape again and again. The DKR/DKSB Batman is LN because he lacks said silly moral code and is therefore a brutal, violent killer. The Adam West Batman villains never killed anyone. Ever. In fact, they never succeeded at anything. I don't know where you're getting the DKR thing at because he still had a moral code. Otherwise he would have killed the joker instead of paralyzing him.[/QUOTE] It's a stupid double-bind -- it means Good is impossible in your world, which makes it pointless to talk about. Good isn't impossible in my world. I just hold people to higher standards that you apparently do.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 05:00 PM	First things first: I'm talking about Batman at his core so all of that nonsense about the millions of interpretations is moot. At his core Batman is an exceptionally angry person who has taken the law into his own hands because his parents were murdered when he was a child. He created a new persona to combat crime through violence instead of through the system. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Then again, probably not. I certainly don't agree with that. At least not to the degree you seem to be taking it. There's a whole crowd of people who say "Batman only makes sense when you realize he's psychotic", implying that everyone who wrote Batman before Frank Miller had his disturbing epiphany with DKR was stupid or misled -- including, probably, Bob Kane when he wrote his original proposal for the "Bat-Man", who was clearly a noble figure. Secondly, you can not judge good and evil based on a person's intention. That's how these threads always end up with someone mentioning Hitler. *I* judge good and evil based, at least partially, on intentions. You can't judge good and evil based purely on consequences either (which is how these threads end up bringing up Ender from Ender's Game, or some other scenario involving a complex series of illusions). Well, he hasn't, on record, donated millions to Arkham Asylum, attempted to clean up the political corruption in Gotham, or really done anything more than pummel people he deems evil. Oh, c'mon. Bruce Wayne the philanthropist, Bruce Wayne the public political opponent of Lex Luthor's presidential bid, Bruce Wayne who works closely with the director of Arkham when overseeing Two-Face's reconstruction (a plot that's occurred several times in several different media)... c'mon. You're being disingenuous when you say the comics have *never* included Bruce Wayne doing *anything* but suiting up as Batman. (No, I can't quote chapter and verse right now.) Then it's not cannon is it, since everyone was so worried about that. It's canon in the animated series, at least. Also, it is in fact spelled "canon". No, what you said was "So, instead of wholly breaking everything he believes and killing him, Batman prefers to neutralize him, keeping him in Arkham, maybe waiting for a possible cure against the madness." That's not doing everything in his power. It's beating the snot out of someone and leaving other people to clean up the mess. It's doing everything he thinks he has the right to do -- stop the Joker when he's a clear and present danger without passing judgment on the Joker as a man. The whole point of "Lawful Good" as opposed to just Good is that you do believe in overarching principles that matter more than the simple "Stop people from getting hurt". No, but maybe he'd end up in someplace a little more secure than arkham. Someone mentioned the Phantom Zone earlier. Well, this is the problem with the Justice League, that it puts Batman in contact with all kinds of extraterrestrial and extradimensional and magical forces that don't really fit his milieu. This is the problem with comic books in general, right there with the returning villain-of-the-week trope. One reason I like the Animated Series is not just that Bruce Timm and Paul Dini are damn good writers, but that the fact that a TV series is inherently more self-contained than the 60+ years of comic books, with two guys at the helm the whole time, meant that these big plot holes weren't nearly as pronounced and the different facets of continuity were kept much more tightly knit together. EDIT: You do realize that the rate of people escaping from the Phantom Zone isn't all that much better than the rate of people escaping from Arkham, right? As long as it's a comic book universe, whatever prison or prison dimension or prison-thing you've got will be escaped from when the writers run out of ideas. Well, that's pretty much what a jury does isn't it? A group of peers passing vote on people's lives? They have the legitimacy to do so based on the democratic process set down by this nation's Constitution. You can argue about how legitimate this political legitimacy is, but Batman, at least, seems to think it's important that there be legitimate and publicly recognized authority. That's what differentiates him from the Punisher.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 05:08 PM	He would have to do more than he currently does. Which is nothing more than beating people up and going home to his billionaire mansion. At the end of the day it is, in fact, a comic book. Most D&D Paladins rarely do anything much more with their careers than go into dungeons and kill monsters who are sitting there minding their own business. You can't blame them for it, because the majority of adventures DMs run don't give them much opportunity to do more than that. Even then, Batman does a lot more than most people in his position would. He *does* donate a great deal to charities and such (you can't just ignore the "extremely generous philanthropist" part of his characterization, it's been there since the very beginning of the character) and, more than that, he goes out and risks his life *personally* to stop crime. That puts him several notches above most billionaires in the world, and probably most people. No, I'm not. I've never once said he wasn't Lawful or didn't ahere to a code. I said that his code is not GOOD because it allows people to die by his direct inaction. I'm not talking about a "consequentialist, utilitarian ethical system." I'm not talking about one person dying because I didn't go to the store today. I'm talking about hundreds of people dying because of his unwillingness to break his own personal code and kill a person he knows will kill again. This isn't random crime he has no hope of stopping. The Joker kills because the one person who can stop him won't. Which is still imposing your consequentialist view of ethics as absolutely true. The only difference is the stakes are higher. One can have an absolutist deontological view of morality -- that Evil is *doing Evil things*, not allowing other people to do Evil things -- and be consistent. Batman seems to act or think this way. I don't blame him, even if I might not make the same decision in my own life. Hell, I probably do make the same decisions in my own life -- deciding I'm not going to sign up for the army so that some other poor schlub who has no choice but to enlist or starve gets pushed into it so he can die in Iraq has probably cost someone his life thus far. The choice isn't as high-stakes or as obvious, but it's still a choice. Again, Batman does a lot more than he's *required* to do. The fact that he goes out and risks his life to beat up the Joker *at all* says something. You're doing the equivalent of looking at someone who donates a hundred dollars to charity and asking them why they don't donate ten thousand, instead of asking everyone else why they donated nothing. The Adam West Batman villains never killed anyone. Ever. In fact, they never succeeded at anything. I don't know where you're getting the DKR thing at because he still had a moral code. Otherwise he would have killed the joker instead of paralyzing him. DKR Batman loses his moral code over time. By the time of The Dark Knight Strikes Back, it seems to simply not exist. As for Adam West Batman, of course Adam West Batman succeeded. He succeeded in every episode. Gotham City still has all that artwork in its museum, doesn't it? The World Peace Conference carried on as scheduled and the delegates were re-hydrated, weren't they? Good isn't impossible in my world. I just hold people to higher standards that you apparently do. "Different" is not the same as "higher".
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 05:14 PM	I certainly don't agree with that. At least not to the degree you seem to be taking it. There's a whole crowd of people who say "Batman only makes sense when you realize he's psychotic", implying that everyone who wrote Batman before Frank Miller had his disturbing epiphany with DKR was stupid or misled -- including, probably, Bob Kane when he wrote his original proposal for the "Bat-Man", who was clearly a noble figure. Except for that whole shooting people thing, right? *I* judge good and evil based, at least partially, on intentions. You can't judge good and evil based purely on consequences either Which brings us to what I've been saying all along: His intentions might be good but the consequences of his action/inaction are most certainly not. Oh, c'mon. Bruce Wayne the philanthropist, Bruce Wayne the public political opponent of Lex Luthor's presidential bid, Bruce Wayne who works closely with the director of Arkham when overseeing Two-Face's reconstruction (a plot that's occurred several times in several different media)... c'mon. You're being disingenuous when you say the comics have *never* included Bruce Wayne doing *anything* but suiting up as Batman. (No, I can't quote chapter and verse right now.) If you can't quote chapter and verse then it hasn't happened. No proof/no pudding. It's canon in the animated series, at least. Also, it is in fact spelled "canon". Which has nothing to do with the comics. And excuse the spelling. It's doing everything he thinks he has the right to do -- stop the Joker when he's a clear and present danger without passing judgment on the Joker as a man. Which leads to more people getting hurt because of his personal code. Lawful Good means you can let people die in mass numbers as long as you try and stick to your own personal code? No wonder people call it "Lawful Stupid." They have the legitimacy to do so based on the democratic process set down by this nation's Constitution. You can argue about how legitimate this political legitimacy is, but Batman, at least, seems to think it's important that there be legitimate and publicly recognized authority. That's what differentiates him from the Punisher. How is the Batman a legitimate and publicly recognized authority? At the end of the day it is, in fact, a comic book. Which has nothing to do with the character as written. Would it be better if it were the Great American Novel? Again, Batman does a lot more than he's *required* to do. The fact that he goes out and risks his life to beat up the Joker *at all* says something. You're doing the equivalent of looking at someone who donates a hundred dollars to charity and asking them why they don't donate ten thousand, instead of asking everyone else why they donated nothing. Except that he's not really the only one doing anything. If you have the option of doing more, you should. How is that not a "good" idea? DKR Batman loses his moral code over time. By the time of The Dark Knight Strikes Back, it seems to simply not exist. How does he lose it over time? It seems to me the entire story is about Batman returning to his moral code. At the beginning he was a champagne swilling fop. At the end he was training former criminals to live my his code. Remember when he took the guns away from the S.O.B.? And DKSB was a piece of crap so let's just stick with DKR. As for Adam West Batman, of course Adam West Batman succeeded. He succeeded in every episode. Gotham City still has all that artwork in its museum, doesn't it? The World Peace Conference carried on as scheduled and the delegates were re-hydrated, weren't they? I was talking about the villains. "Different" is not the same as "higher". If your direct (repeat: DIRECT) actions or inactions allow people do die by the hundreds you are not a good person. I can't even imagine how someone could think otherwise.
Holy_Beholder 05-09-07, 05:19 PM	I would say lawful evil if you take real good and real order into account. By D&D standards, lawful good. Good guys can kill, loot, burn stuff, and do all sorts of stuff. Unicorns are good, and there is a reason all of them are shown with white fur.(Unicorns who don't stay together getting killed for their horns +Exiling all brown, grey and black furred unicorn) Racist, cruel animals labeled good.
Masker 05-09-07, 05:22 PM	First things first: I'm talking about Batman at his core so all of that nonsense about the millions of interpretations is moot. At his core Batman is an exceptionally angry person who has taken the law into his own hands because his parents were murdered when he was a child. He created a new persona to combat crime through violence instead of through the system. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Then again, probably not. There is a point you are missing in this outline. Batman is not motivated solely by anger. He has the altruistic belief that no one should suffer as he did when he lost his parents. Secondly, you can not judge good and evil based on a person's intention. That's how these threads always end up with someone mentioning Hitler. But you can not also say moralty is wholly based on consecuences. Otherwise, moralty is irrelevant, because even the vilest act may have good consecuences. No, what you said was "So, instead of wholly breaking everything he believes and killing him, Batman prefers to neutralize him, keeping him in Arkham, maybe waiting for a possible cure against the madness." That's not doing everything in his power. It's beating the snot out of someone and leaving other people to clean up the mess. So, he belief that life is sacred. He does everythign out of killing the Joker to keep him out of the streets. He sents him to Arkham because that's where he would not do harm and the only place he can be legaly kept. About the donations to Arkham, I believe Wayne does donate to it, but I can not prove it. No, I'm not. I've never once said he wasn't Lawful or didn't ahere to a code. I said that his code is not GOOD because it allows people to die by his direct inaction. I'm not talking about a "consequentialist, utilitarian ethical system." I'm not talking about one person dying because I didn't go to the store today. I'm talking about hundreds of people dying because of his unwillingness to break his own personal code and kill a person he knows will kill again. This isn't random crime he has no hope of stopping. The Joker kills because the one person who can stop him won't. By that token, all law authorities of the world should execute all unrepentat killers. And everyone who didn't sacrifice himself to save another from a killer would not be good. And the Joker can be stopped by others, you know. Green Arrow has killed criminals, as the 2nd Flash, Green Lantern and others. But killing is never something that should be done often or when it is not needed. Batman would have no issues with Gordon shooting the Joker after he killed the comissioner's wife. But he rejected Wonder Woman for killing Maxwell Lord. Superheroes hve more options that normal people, so they must seek to get their foes alive, if they can.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 05:30 PM	There is a point you are missing in this outline. Batman is not motivated solely by anger. He has the altruistic belief that no one should suffer as he did when he lost his parents. Yeah, but "fear and superstition" are a much bigger part of his character. But you can not also say moralty is wholly based on consecuences. Otherwise, moralty is irrelevant, because even the vilest act may have good consecuences. I'm not, and once again, this is how people end up mentioning Hitler. So, he belief that life is sacred. Then why does he continue to let people die by letting the Joker live? When the Joker breaks out and kills 100 people the Joker's life is more important than those 100 people? Or the inevitable 100 to follow? By that token, all law authorities of the world should execute all unrepentat killers. And everyone who didn't sacrifice himself to save another from a killer would not be good. When your body count is somewhere in the thousands then yeah, they probably should. Or at least put a little more effort in. And I'm not asking him to sacrifice himself. I'm asking him to sacrifice his moral code for all those hundreds of people bound to die at the Joker's hands. And the Joker can be stopped by others, you know. Green Arrow has killed criminals, as the 2nd Flash, Green Lantern and others. But killing is never something that should be done often or when it is not needed. Batman would have no issues with Gordon shooting the Joker after he killed the comissioner's wife. But he rejected Wonder Woman for killing Maxwell Lord. Superheroes hve more options that normal people, so they must seek to get their foes alive, if they can. So you're saying it's wrong to kill the Joker for his past crimes but it's okay for Gordon to do it out of revenge?
DaidojiTaidoru 05-09-07, 05:35 PM	When your body count is somewhere in the thousands then yeah, they probably should. Or at least put a little more effort in. And I'm not asking him to sacrifice himself. I'm asking him to sacrifice his moral code for all those hundreds of people bound to die at the Joker's hands. I find it amusing that your advocating sacrificing a moral code in order to become good. "You're too forgiving, nice and optimistic to be Good, come back when you've killed some people. Just make sure they were really Evil first."
mlund 05-09-07, 05:45 PM	I'll say this - Batman's refusal to do anything more than put recurring villains in Arkham may not be a Good thing, but it certainly isn't enough to change his D&D alignment from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral on its own. I think it is enough to justify calling him a moron at times, but that's more the problem with comic book writing conventions than with Batman himself, IMO. To be fair to the poor guy, in a reasonable world with just a little less Deus Ex Machina to profit from recurring villains they wouldn't constantly escape and re-offend. - Marty Lund
DaidojiTaidoru 05-09-07, 05:49 PM	I think it is enough to justify calling him a moron at times, but that's more the problem with comic book writing conventions than with Batman himself, IMO. Heh. "Just because you're good doesn't mean you're stupid." But it doesn't make you smart either.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 05:54 PM	I find it amusing that your advocating sacrificing a moral code in order to become good. "You're too forgiving, nice and optimistic to be Good, come back when you've killed some people. Just make sure they were really Evil first." What I'm advocating his sacrificing a moral code in order to save hundreds, if not thousands of lives. I'll say this - Batman's refusal to do anything more than put recurring villains in Arkham may not be a Good thing, but it certainly isn't enough to change his D&D alignment from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral on its own. I think it is enough to justify calling him a moron at times, I would agree with this, especially the moron part, except that it hasn't been a one time thing. It's been a hundred time thing. You don't change alignment over one event but it should be changed if that event happens over and over and over and over and over again. Comics are no more "Deus Ex Machina" than D&D is and that's what we're talking about. His D&D alignment.
DaidojiTaidoru 05-09-07, 06:06 PM	What I'm advocating his sacrificing a moral code in order to save hundreds, if not thousands of lives. "Mirai wa mada kimatanai yo." or "The future is not decided." Saying Batman is evil for not killing the Joker makes Luke Skywalker Evil for not cutting down Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi. In both cases you have an unrepentant mass murderer who is likely to destroy many more lives should they survive. In both cases the hero decided that holding to their moral code was more important then killing that person. The fact that they end differently has no bearing on the morality of the choices of the hero, only the morality of the choices of the villan.
Jon of the North 05-09-07, 06:34 PM	OK, I didn't read all 8 pages because it's 7+ pages of people saying the same thing over and over. I don't claim to be an expert on Batman, morality, or anything, really. But some stuff has to be mentioned (again, in at least on case): 1) someone said Batman killed the Joker in Dark Knight Returns. You are Wrong. Batman broke just below the Joker's neck in an attempt to cripple him. The Joker broke his own neck , killing himself, to frame Bats. 2) On DnD alignment and real world ethics. Not touching this; it's a round peg being put in a 100 sided hole. 2.5) "Luke, your going to find many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our point of view." 3) IIRC, In universe Superman has actually killed more people than Batman (3 to 1). 4) Of course Batman has repeat villains. You try making 5+ decent original foes a month. Final weird ironic note on Batman and Crime that most comics don't really touch on (last one I read that did was the Alex Ross/ Paul Dini special): Take all the stuff Batman can do to fight typical crime, from snatching purse thieves to beating the crap out of Bane. Take what Bruce Wayne can do, from improving law enforcement technology to donating money to drug rehab, schools, etc, to the 100,000s of people he employs. Batman changes the headlines, Bruce changes the world.
Pyritefoolsgold 05-09-07, 06:43 PM	You are assuming that inaction is the same as action. Many people would disagree with this. If you have a gun, and a mass murderer is standing in front of you, and you can't quite bring yourself to shoot him, to kill another human being, and he goes on to kill more people, you do not become guilty of his murders. It is a good thing to shoot him and thus stop him from killing again. It is a neutral thing to do nothing You can do a billion neutral acts, and they will not change your alignment any more than it will change your alignment because you committed the neutral act of eating breakfast this morning.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 06:51 PM	"Mirai wa mada kimatanai yo." or "The future is not decided." Saying Batman is evil for not killing the Joker makes Luke Skywalker Evil for not cutting down Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi. In both cases you have an unrepentant mass murderer who is likely to destroy many more lives should they survive. In both cases the hero decided that holding to their moral code was more important then killing that person. The fact that they end differently has no bearing on the morality of the choices of the hero, only the morality of the choices of the villan. #1: It is an absolute certainty that the Joker will kill again and again. So your clever little saying is right out. Not to mention you contradicted it in your second paragraph. #2: No. The hero decided that holding to their moral code was more important that saving thousands, if not millions or billions in the case of Vader, from future extermination. It isn't one life against a moral code. It's one life against hundreds/thousands/millions of OTHER lives. And, for the record, Luke DID turn evil in the long run. You are assuming that inaction is the same as action. Many people would disagree with this. If you have a gun, and a mass murderer is standing in front of you, and you can't quite bring yourself to shoot him, to kill another human being, and he goes on to kill more people, you do not become guilty of his murders. Not of murder no. But you are guilty of culpable negligence. It is a good thing to shoot him and thus stop him from killing again. It is a neutral thing to do nothing You can do a billion neutral acts, and they will not change your alignment any more than it will change your alignment because you committed the neutral act of eating breakfast this morning. ^ I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Letting people die due to your own inaction is neutral? ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ And, in the larger picture, that's all Batman does is nothing. He puts his own code above the needs of the many.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 07:03 PM	...
Drachasor 05-09-07, 07:33 PM	J.Augustus Rose II, at best you are arguing that Batman is short-sighted, at best. Let's say Batman kills a bad guy now and then, that's still not killing people when convenient. He'd still be killing in the act of protecting others. He still makes personal sacrifices to protect other people; he puts his own life on the line for others. He still doesn't kill people often by any stretch of the imagination. So in your best case, Batman still is upholding the virtues of good-aligned characters. By your measure he certainly isn't exalted, but he most certainly is good (with perhaps some neutral tendencies). Remember, in D&D good is: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Batman has ALL of these easily. Now, I know you are probably about to say that "ooooh, look how he hurts people for information, he can't ever be good!" However, if you say that, then you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you are saying that he has to take extreme measures (e.g. killing the joker) to save lives, and on the other hand you are pointing out extreme measures he takes to save lives and saying that means he can't be good. You can't have both and be consistent. As far as 'mistreating' criminals goes, the Bats only does that to save and protect more people, innocent people. He places their dignity and safety above those of the people that inflict harm. -Drachasor PS. That said, I think you are largely mischaracterizing Batman. You are overemphasizing and distorting some of his interrogation techniques (which don't reach the level of torture, imho), and deemphasizing his concern for others, his altruism, and his self-sacrifice. Your argument has so far only really consisted of DKR (not canon), the 1st ever Batman comic in which Batman used a gun (which was recognized as wrong and after that very first comic it never happened again), a tale told by a third party, and one or perhaps two canon references over the past 40 years. That's a VERY weak case overall. Nonetheless, the point in the body of my post stands even with them regarding Batman's good alignment.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 07:40 PM	Except for that whole shooting people thing, right? The gun actually disappeared after the first issue, and he used it to kill two monsters, not two humans. Which brings us to what I've been saying all along: His intentions might be good but the consequences of his action/inaction are most certainly not. Which still makes him a good person in my book. If you can't quote chapter and verse then it hasn't happened. No proof/no pudding. *shrug* I don't really care, since this is just a message board discussion. Which has nothing to do with the comics. And excuse the spelling. This was a discussion about Batman, not "Batman in the comic books". Which leads to more people getting hurt because of his personal code. Lawful Good means you can let people die in mass numbers as long as you try and stick to your own personal code? No wonder people call it "Lawful Stupid." It's only stupid if you assume that you're correct and that the only thing that matters about our actions is their earthly consequences. How is the Batman a legitimate and publicly recognized authority? He isn't, which is why he doesn't act as judge, jury and executioner, and only acts to stop crimes, not punish them. Which has nothing to do with the character as written. Would it be better if it were the Great American Novel? I'm just saying you have to make certain allowances for the milieu. It's a comic book, so it's a story about violence, so everything we see in the story focuses around violence. Except that he's not really the only one doing anything. If you have the option of doing more, you should. How is that not a "good" idea? It's unfair to claim that you must do absolutely everything you're capable of in order to be "good". That's why BoED draws a distinction between Good-aligned (which fully 1/3 of the whole world is) and Exalted (which almost nobody is). How does he lose it over time? It seems to me the entire story is about Batman returning to his moral code. At the beginning he was a champagne swilling fop. At the end he was training former criminals to live my his code. Remember when he took the guns away from the S.O.B.? And DKSB was a piece of crap so let's just stick with DKR. Who's picking and choosing what's canon now? The whole point of the end of DKR is that Batman has renounced his former respect for the law and legitimate civil authority and is now planning a military insurrection to overthrow the government. That's turning his back on all his former principles. I was talking about the villains. In the Adam West Batman universe it's pretty clear that the police were helpless without Batman. (I mean, scrape away all the campiness and the villains were portrayed as being ridiculously powerful -- which is, of course, what added to the camp. Catwoman really was totally irresistible to all men. The Joker seemed to have a nearly unlimited supply of gadgets that could neutralize every cop in the entire city. Etc.) If your direct (repeat: DIRECT) actions or inactions allow people do die by the hundreds you are not a good person. I can't even imagine how someone could think otherwise. Honestly, as other people have pointed out, if someone has a gun and is watching someone else kill somebody and just can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, I would still call them a good person. To say otherwise is to have a very particular view of morality that most people don't share.
ArcTan 05-09-07, 07:46 PM	I'm not, and once again, this is how people end up mentioning Hitler. Well, big deal. Maybe it's something worth mentioning. For what it's worth, I don't like Hitler because I don't think he had good intentions, not because I think he had wonderful intentions that turned out to have bad consequences. Then why does he continue to let people die by letting the Joker live? When the Joker breaks out and kills 100 people the Joker's life is more important than those 100 people? Or the inevitable 100 to follow? Because it's more important to him not to kill than to do anything necessary to stop anyone else from killing. Being unwilling to do absolutely everything and anything to stop evil is part of being "Lawful". When your body count is somewhere in the thousands then yeah, they probably should. Or at least put a little more effort in. And I'm not asking him to sacrifice himself. I'm asking him to sacrifice his moral code for all those hundreds of people bound to die at the Joker's hands. You still have the "He's a superhero so I have the right to demand everything from him" attitude. Batman doesn't have to be a superhero at all. He could retire from being a superhero and sit on his butt for the next fifty years doing *no crimefighting at all* and still be a good person in my book. (Most of the good people in my book are good people despite the fact that they don't go outside looking for criminals to try to stop them from committing crimes.) Sorry, "You didn't go far enough" is not a good reason to accuse someone of not being a good person. Batman's already gone way beyond the call of duty in what you can expect from a human being to try to help his fellow human beings. So you're saying it's wrong to kill the Joker for his past crimes but it's okay for Gordon to do it out of revenge?[/QUOTE] I don't think the statement that Batman would have no issue with Gordon shooting the Joker in The Killing Joke is accurate -- after all, it is exactly what the Joker wanted to happen. I think Batman would *understand*, though. But yes, in the end both Gordon and Batman made the decision not to cross a certain line. Whether making that decision is a universally absolutely correct decision or not, I don't know (or particularly care) -- but it *is* a Good decision from the perspective of the comic book, and probably from the perspective of D&D morality as well.
Sudnji_cas 05-09-07, 07:50 PM	If Batman was in real world: 1) Joker would still be in the loony bin. 2) If world is full of masked jerks one of them would surely kill Joker (Some DC equal of Punisher) 3) Batman would go crazy killing Joker or resign from his superhero position. 4) Society unable to protect it self from not so superpowered villein such as Joker without batman would not reach the modern age, or Joker would rule the world. So the only thing that keeps Joker alive (or from ruling the world) is that readers and writers like him. (Maybe some kill Joker petition would kill him.)
ArcTan 05-09-07, 07:53 PM	#1: It is an absolute certainty that the Joker will kill again and again. So your clever little saying is right out. Not to mention you contradicted it in your second paragraph. #2: No. The hero decided that holding to their moral code was more important that saving thousands, if not millions or billions in the case of Vader, from future extermination. It isn't one life against a moral code. It's one life against hundreds/thousands/millions of OTHER lives. FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Not all morality hinges on weighing lives in the balance this way. Some people would strongly disagree. You're basically taking Ozymandias from Watchmen and saying he's absolutely objectively correct about his philosophy, when it's clear that if you take this philosophy to its logical conclusion most people would find it horrifying and reject it. And, for the record, Luke DID turn evil in the long run. What "long run"? He still serves the Light Side in the EU, as far as I know (not that I care much). He's at his closest to the Dark Side specifically when he is willing to kill Vader and justify it based on Vader's crimes; he returns to the Light because he won't kill someone he loves even if that person himself is a mass murderer of trillions of lives. Not of murder no. But you are guilty of culpable negligence. In the legal sense? Absolutely not. No lawyer in the world could get me convicted for negligence for *not shooting somebody*. The very idea is insane. The most you can say is that if I were a police officer being paid by the state to enforce the law, I didn't shoot him *and* I took *no other actions* I might be negligent in pursuing my duties. But cops are trained to err on the side of less deadly force as opposed to more, and non-cops have no duty to enforce the law through force at all. ^ I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Letting people die due to your own inaction is neutral? Yes. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ That is, again, your philosophy. Others might argue that for good people to be willing to do *anything* to stop the triumph of evil only ensures that they themselves will become evil. ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", to quote another maxim.) And, in the larger picture, that's all Batman does is nothing. He puts his own code above the needs of the many. There are certainly tens of thousands of people who *would have died* did Batman not exist -- hell, the whole city would've been burned to the ground or flooded with poison gas or ripped apart by mutant tree-monsters a dozen times over. Batman *has done good*. The fact that he doesn't do as *much* good as you'd like him to do doesn't negate the good he does, any more than someone who donates a lot to charity is suddenly no longer a good person because he hasn't sold *all* his assets and donated them *all* to charity.
Drachasor 05-09-07, 08:35 PM	What "long run"? He still serves the Light Side in the EU, as far as I know (not that I care much). He's at his closest to the Dark Side ecifically when he is willing to kill Vader and justify it based on Vader's crimes; he returns to the Light because he won't kill someone he loves even if that person himself is a mass murderer of trillions of lives. The Dark Empire comic series is when Luke goes closest to the Dark Side. The Emperor comes back (clone bodies), and Luke joins with him for a bit. Luke spends much of his time appearing to be working with the Emperor while sabotaging a lot of war efforts (e.g. Luke is basically a double agent). Luke does use a bit of the dark side, and in some ways goes dark, but in the end he kills the Emperor for good (with a little help). After that Luke has been consistently on the light side of the force, despite efforts and arguments by others to use the dark side.* In any case, Luke NOT killing Vader was certainly good and with the light side of the force. It's madness to say otherwise. From sparing Vader, Luke was able to defeat the Emperor and save the Rebel fleet. -Drachasor *Most of these arguments hinge on moral relativism and stating that there isn't a "dark side" just dark uses, or that to overcome a particular foe dark powers must be used. It's rather long and complicated to go over all the incidents and their apparent merits, so I won't go into it. It's really quite off topic.
Vaelan 05-09-07, 09:04 PM	So Batman, to you, would be Lawful Stupid? No, he would be Stupid Good. Stupidity is a result of his Lawfulness and thus it is placed on the Law/Chaos axis. I'm sorry, but if you have the chance to save thousands of people by killing one person and you choose not to due to a personal code, you don't get points for trying. So you're rejecting non-consequentialist views. I get it; there is no need to repeat yourself. Since you seem so intent upon arguing consequentialism, I'll stoop to your level. What if Bruce Wayne decided not to go after Joker at all? I'm sure Gotham would be a much better place with Joker running around unopposed. :rolleyes: The fact is, he puts himself on the line and makes a difference. Perhaps, from a consequentialist viewpoint, you could say that Batman could be more Good by abandoning his compunction against killing, but saying that he isn't Good at all for putting himself on the line to make a difference is completely irrational. If you want to argue consequentialism, you should at least do so consistently.
J.Augustus Rose II 05-09-07, 11:45 PM	Which still makes him a good person in my book. And it doesn't in mine. It makes him self-absorbed. *shrug* I don't really care, since this is just a message board discussion. Then don't bring it up as fact. This was a discussion about Batman, not "Batman in the comic books". Please. :rolleyes: It's only stupid if you assume that you're correct and that the only thing that matters about our actions is their earthly consequences. See above. He isn't, which is why he doesn't act as judge, jury and executioner, and only acts to stop crimes, not punish them. So the savage beatings at the hand of a trained martial artist isn't punishment? It's unfair to claim that you must do absolutely everything you're capable of in order to be "good". . If you aren't doing all you can you're not completely good. Who's picking and choosing what's canon now? The whole point of the end of DKR is that Batman has renounced his former respect for the law and legitimate civil authority and is now planning a military insurrection to overthrow the government. That's turning his back on all his former principles. You mean the law and government he spent his entire life circumventing? Honestly, as other people have pointed out, if someone has a gun and is watching someone else kill somebody and just can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, I would still call them a good person. To say otherwise is to have a very particular view of morality that most people don't share. Like I said before, I obviously hold people to higher standards than you do. Well, big deal. Maybe it's something worth mentioning. For what it's worth, I don't like Hitler because I don't think he had good intentions, not because I think he had wonderful intentions that turned out to have bad consequences. But HE thought he had good intentions. Just like the Bat thinks HE has good intentions. In the end, scores of people died anyway (so to speak.) Because it's more important to him not to kill than to do anything necessary to stop anyone else from killing. Being unwilling to do absolutely everything and anything to stop evil is part of being "Lawful". Then he is "Stupid Good." You still have the "He's a superhero so I have the right to demand everything from him" attitude. Nope, I'd expect the same out of anyone else. If you let people die (especially by the thousands) by doing nothing, you're not a good person. I don't think the statement that Batman would have no issue with Gordon shooting the Joker in The Killing Joke is accurate -- after all, it is exactly what the Joker wanted to happen. I think Batman would *understand*, though. Sounds like the Bat is a little flexible in his morals then. FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Not all morality hinges on weighing lives in the balance this way. Some people would strongly disagree. You're basically taking Ozymandias from Watchmen and saying he's absolutely objectively correct about his philosophy, when it's clear that if you take this philosophy to its logical conclusion most people would find it horrifying and reject it. And they wouldn't find it horrifying to let a constantly escaping mass-murderer live? In the legal sense? Absolutely not. No lawyer in the world could get me convicted for negligence for *not shooting somebody*. The very idea is insane. Didn't say the legal sense, did I? That is, again, your philosophy. Others might argue that for good people to be willing to do *anything* to stop the triumph of evil only ensures that they themselves will become evil. ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", to quote another maxim.) He could still do more. There are certainly tens of thousands of people who *would have died* did Batman not exist And there's tens of thousands who *would have lived* if not for his personal code of honor. Which is better? I'm done.
Drachasor 05-09-07, 11:59 PM	Like I said before, I obviously hold people to higher standards than you do. Holding people to high standards is good and all, but that doesn't mean your standards for good are the same as the D&D standards for good. -Drachasor
ArcTan 05-10-07, 12:10 AM	And it doesn't in mine. It makes him self-absorbed. *shrug* Then don't bring it up as fact. Whatever. I don't exactly have my giant collection of Batman comics here to check when you bring up chapter and verse, and I'm willing to bet most people here don't either. This was, in fact, a friendly discussion rather than a meeting of the Junior Debate Society before you took over the thread. Please. :rolleyes: Batman's a fictional character. I prefer certain fictional versions of Batman that have had more impact on me than the comic books, and so do a lot of people. Just because the comic books came first doesn't make them "better" or "more real". So the savage beatings at the hand of a trained martial artist isn't punishment? My Batman doesn't hand out beatings as punishment, no. If you aren't doing all you can you're not completely good. Like I said, difference between Good-aligned and Exalted. No one said Batman was *completely* Good or that he was the best person who ever walked the earth or that he never committed an Evil act. He is still *on balance* Good, which is all the D&D alignment means. You mean the law and government he spent his entire life circumventing? He circumvented it but never actively opposed it and everything he did fed back into it. That's exactly why the Joker goes back to Arkham every time -- because the Joker gets the due process of a trial, and the screwed-up judicial process repeatedly rules him not guilty by reason of insanity and sends him to the mental hospital. If Batman really didn't give a crap about the law he'd never have begun communicating with Gordon, he'd snap the villains' necks instead of handing them over to the cops, and so on. Again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth -- first Batman is a sadistic Punisher-type character who hands out violent beatings all the time, and then he's an ol' softie and an idiot who lets the Joker off the hook because he's just too nice. Which one is it? Which one is the "core" of the character for you? Like I said before, I obviously hold people to higher standards than you do. Different, not higher. Someone who never, ever, ever takes a life himself, even if it means the death of everyone in the entire world, might *by his own standards* be held to a much higher standard than anyone else in the world. (This is BoED's Vow of Peace.) Someone who is willing to cold-bloodedly slaughter half the people in the world in order to save the other half might *by his own standards* be held to a much higher standard than anyone else in the world. (This is Ozymandias from Watchmen.) You can't say either one is "higher" than the other. They use different methods of counting. Refusing to kill, ever, even when it means others die by your inaction is not a moral compromise, it is a *different kind of morality*. But HE thought he had good intentions. Just like the Bat thinks HE has good intentions. In the end, scores of people died anyway (so to speak.) It doesn't matter what intentions someone *thinks* they have, it matters what someone's intentions actually are. I'm not even sure that you can say Hitler thought he had good intentions. He would have described his own intentions as "good", but he would not have described them as matching the D&D idea of "Good", or most of our ideas of "good"; he would have labeled such ideas of "good" false and evil. Then he is "Stupid Good." From your perspective. I'm beginning to get the idea that your idea of a good person is one I don't want to be anywhere in the same city with, so hey. Nope, I'd expect the same out of anyone else. If you let people die (especially by the thousands) by doing nothing, you're not a good person. The simplest part of D&D's alignment is the part that divides everyone equally among all nine descriptors. You can take issue with that if you like, but D&D just says you have to be *better than average* in order to have the little G next to your name, not that you have to be a paragon of Goodness (a Paladin, or an Exalted). It may be perfectly reasonable for you to use this standard and therefore to say that almost no Good people exist in the world -- hell, probably *no* Good people exist in the world, since I can't think of anyone who never did anything that couldn't've been done differently to prevent more deaths. It's not the standard I use. Sounds like the Bat is a little flexible in his morals then. Sounds like the Bat has some understanding of human nature and doesn't hold other people to as high a standard as he does himself, hence his failing to force everyone he runs across to become a costumed vigilante. In DKR, this is exactly when the Bat-philosophy turns ugly -- when the Sons of the Batman begin to "punish" ordinary civilians for not doing enough to stop criminals, breaking a storeowner's arm for not attempting to stop a Mutant from taking a girl hostage, etc. And they wouldn't find it horrifying to let a constantly escaping mass-murderer live? I wouldn't. Frankly, I would never find it "horrifying" for someone to tell me that they didn't kill somebody, even if the somebody was Dr. Mengele. Killing is a nasty, horrible thing. It should never be easy. Didn't say the legal sense, did I? "Negligence" is a legal term. And even in an abstract moral sense, the kind of person who would tell me I'm *obligated* to go out and risk my life on other people's behalf or I'm not a good person sounds pretty unreasonable and hard to get along with. (So let's talk about yourself -- are you a cop? A firefighter? A soldier? Can you provide some convincing justification for why you aren't out there risking life and limb for people who need it right now, instead choosing to waste time on an Internet message board? How much of your personal income did you donate to the sick and hungry last month, as opposed to spending it on wasteful personal recreations like role-playing games?) He could still do more. Which means he could be a better person. Not that he isn't a good person. And there's tens of thousands who *would have lived* if not for his personal code of honor. Which is better? I dunno. Maybe Batman understands himself and understands that, like all human beings, he is not a perfectly rational machine, and that if he allows himself to kill once when it's perfectly justified, the instinct to kill will become far, far easier to give into and he'll start becoming what he hates. It's the same reason I'd be terrified of firing a gun and killing a man, even if I knew I had to. I'm done. It's been fun.
DaidojiTaidoru 05-10-07, 12:16 AM	#1: It is an absolute certainty that the Joker will kill again and again. So your clever little saying is right out. Not to mention you contradicted it in your second paragraph. Actually the only thing that is certain is the the Joker will one day stop killing. Whether that be from competent law enforcement, death, redemption or (most likely) the Batman comic series dying out somewhere in the year 4059. And neither you nor I nor Batman have any idea when that day will come. And there was no contradiction in the second paragraph. When I said that the people in question were likely to continue killing I was simply giving the odds. If you're worried about the odds you shouldn't be good anyway. Media has taught us the Evil Armies always have the odds on their side. People who aren't stupid enough to challenge the odds don't become heros.
Optimator 05-10-07, 07:26 AM	"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
High Octane 05-10-07, 08:42 AM	I am going to say this right now. Alignment rarely works outside of D&D. Although you can occasionally find paragons of alignment in fiction, they are few and far between. Trying to apply D&D alignments to every fictional character doesnt work. Alignment only works in D&D when you make your characters larger than life. All works of fiction have protagonists, but D&D characters are not mere protagonists, they are romantic heroes and villains. Not tragic heroes. They are Hercules and Odysseus, not Macbeth. Batman, as portrayed by Frank Miller, is not a romantic hero OR villain. He is satire. He is not humorous, but a satire doesnt have to be humorous.
StormKnight 05-10-07, 03:58 PM	There's a concept of moral philosophy that believes that you cannot accomplish good via evil acts. No matter how much the immediate cause seems to be better, in the long run attempting to use evil as a tool for good will fail. This could be as direct as a Batman willing to kill would have gone "over the edge" into insanity, or not had the focus to be able to defeat foes like the Joker. He wouldn't save more lives by killing the villains; he'd save none at all by being unable to even stop them. Or it could be as vague as a Batman willing to kill becoming a symbol of the success of violence as a tool of good, and driving the world into a far darker and worse place. You may not agree that that's a valid definition of morality, but that's an argument philosophers have been having for centuries. Doubtful we'll conclude it in an internet chat.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 04:05 PM	I'd point out Storm Knight, that valid or not, it ISN'T the definition of good for D&D. -Drachasor
StormKnight 05-10-07, 06:17 PM	I'd point out Storm Knight, that valid or not, it ISN'T the definition of good for D&D. -Drachasor It isn't a definition of good at all! Its a way of approaching moral decisions. The D&D definition of "good" can certainly include taking that approach, as well as several other approaches to moral decisions, such as maximizing the immediate good. It is an excellent idea to wrap your brain around if you are trying to figure out why a Paladin follows a certain code. :) Alignment rarely works outside of D&D. Alignment is a bunch of great big boxes. You can plunk anyone within those boxes; sometimes the fit will just be clearer than other times. But ultimately, alignment is meant as a guide for how a character acts, not a way of classifying how a character did act. Which is a subtle difference.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 10:11 PM	It isn't a definition of good at all! Its a way of approaching moral decisions. The D&D definition of "good" can certainly include taking that approach, as well as several other approaches to moral decisions, such as maximizing the immediate good. Well, obviously you didn't provide a full definition of good, but you brought up something that some people say is good. Someone else brought up this sort of thing...the thread has been rather plagued with people saying Batman/others aren't good if they don't believe the ends justify the means.* I was just pointing out that this isn't an aspect of the D&D definition of good, which, as you noted, is very broad. -Drachasor *Or other particular views of judging whether some complex action is good or not.
PhaedrusXY 05-10-07, 10:16 PM	Chaotic Lawful
Mognwar_the_Eviscerator 05-19-07, 10:47 PM	Well, obviously you didn't provide a full definition of good, but you brought up something that some people say is good. Someone else brought up this sort of thing...the thread has been rather plagued with people saying Batman/others aren't good if they don't believe the ends justify the means.* I was just pointing out that this isn't an aspect of the D&D definition of good, which, as you noted, is very broad. -Drachasor *Or other particular views of judging whether some complex action is good or not. I'd just like to throw something into the mix. A friend of mine pointed out that evil is NOT killing virgins/sacrificing babies and Chaotic does not mean Never follows Laws (of the land). But alignment is almost a measure of HOW you get to your end. LG, for example is more "I have a strong personal code wherein I am SELF-sacrificing to help others", and CE is a bit more "anything goes, and I'll sell my sister's soul to her husband for a cognizance crystal and a puppy" Chaotic Lawful YES.