Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gazzor 12-06-03, 08:47 PM	Hello folks, Some of you may have heard of the Punisher comic character - in latest issues taking on Daredevil, Spiderman and Wolverine. He's a vigilante who kills criminals (Not shoplifters and such, but rapists and murderer types). The Punisher film is out next April starring Thomas Jane and John Travolta. Anyway, his adventures are often very funny, very cynical and often very wrong. I was thinking of playing him in a campaign sometime, but I know there are bound to be alignment issues cos I certainly don't have any idea what alignment he is! Good - Never harms an innocent, or allows an innocent to be harmed. He kills criminals in order to save the lives of the people the criminals would kill, or that the cocaine they sell would kill, etc. Puts his life at risk to save his friends, even when bleeding to death with 6 magnum rounds in him (What a guy!). Neutral - Has killed literally thousands of people, through shooting, smothering, stabbing, neck snapping, being eaten (Not by the Punisher himself!), being savaged by Polar Bears, run down and repeatedly reversed over, pushed in front of subway train, nuclear explosion (!!!), claymore mines, burnination and other methods I forget right now. That said, they all had it coming. Evil - Kills foes who have surrendered. Guts a murderer like a fish to produce loud screams to draw some foes into an ambush. Boots limbless old woman into raging inferno (Even though she was a Mafia boss, it was quite a shocking scene). Sneaky - pushes a Kung fu expert under a train (Splat Fu), runs down sniper. Backstabber - always attacks from behind when possible, preferably when they are asleep or on the job. Basically never fights honourably. Harsh - not afraid to inflict pain on people who get in his way, even naive goody two shoes superheroes. Wolverine's unfortunate meetings with a shotgun to the balls, being flattened by a steam roller and having his torso blown away by an anti tank rocket being the best examples. So, I think that problem Paladin status is out (!!!), but am not sure what alignment to go for. That said, he has yet to accidently kill an innocent, so his detect scumbag superpower must be active. As he has never killed anyone who didn't deserve it, I don't think of him as being evil, but he doesn't strike me as a good person either. Maybe he's bipolar depending on the person. Neutral Evil vs criminal scum and neutral good (But still harsh) vs innocent people. Any thoughts from fellow Punisher fans or alignment experts? Gazzor
Malben 12-06-03, 09:45 PM	I'd actually go for either LN or CN, depending on your interpretation of whether the dude's reasons for his behavior are lawful or chaotic. He acts out of a thirst for vengeance, which can be argued as either lawful or chaotic; he doesn't seem to enjoy harming people who haven't committed serious crimes, but he's very much inclined to savor the deaths of evildoers. That's troublesome, because it's not precisely a good trait to enjoy killing at all. On the other hand, you could argue that he doesn't enjoy killing, so much as he enjoys what he sees as an appropriate reward for someone's misdeeds. It's very foggy. I wouldn't call him evil, because he seems to make an earnest effort to avoid actually killing innocents (unless they get in his way when he's trying to punish the guilty, in which case he is willing, as you pointed out, to maim or kill people). But I wouldn't call him good, because he does some exceedingly brutal things in the pursuit of his goals, and he is not sorry to have done them and does not seek an alternative (indeed, he avoids the alternatives). I'm not sure about law/chaos. On the one hand he does operate on what appears to be a pretty rigid personal code. On the other hand, his personal code is seriously abberrant; he dismisses a lot of things that his own culture holds as practically universal goods -- like the inherent value of all human life (even that of criminals), and the idea that one person should not be faced with the ability to decide whether someone else is guilty of a crime (we normally use a jury for this, then give a single person the ability to sentence a criminal after he or she is found guilty, etc.). It's tricky, and I could see good arguments for either law or chaos. I can only say that I would not place him as neutral to law or chaos. He's definitely not TN, I think. I'd probably give him CN, in the end, since despite the internal coherence of his ideology, he's at least borderline insane.
Xaxor 12-06-03, 10:13 PM	I agree with CN. He's been in prison himself, but I think he's simply lost faith in the system. I'm not a huge fan of the comics though, so what do I know? There is chaos in any vigilante attitude, out to do what is 'right' since others cannot handle these problems. Loose cannon, Chaotic Neutral.
Ringmereth 12-06-03, 11:15 PM	Hmm... this is really interesting. I tend to go with CG. You could argue for a lawful standpoint (adheiring to a strict moral code), but since he fights dirty and is so merciless, I'd go with chaotic- the ends justify the means (not killing innocents, perhaps, but fighting dishonorably, using torture, etc). I'd consider him a good character, since he is killing those he believes deserve what they're getting. He's an especially unforgiving, merciless good, but if he's killing the murderers, rapists, and gangsters because he believes they don't deserve life, it's still good.
Bloodtide_the_Red 12-06-03, 11:31 PM	Lawful Neutral. The Punisher defentaly follows his own personal code(like it says in the PH pg.105). He's lawful because he is an intelligent opponet. I've only seen him as a guest star on other comics, not reading his own mag. He does his research on opponents and gathers infromation. He is a master of martial arts(like a monk). He does not blindly go in to a fight, he has a plan. Neutral gives him the ability to 'cross over' the line when he fells he needs too. Neutral walks the line. I can't see him as chaotic. He his lawful(note that lawful does not mean you follow all the laws). He spends hours in training/exersise/combat examples. He does not just run in to a fight wildly. Yes, I'd say he is a wild fighter..but not chaotic. He also keeps an extensive journal...yet another lawful, organized trait. I'd put Spider-Man as a chaotic, chaotic good. His fighting stlye for example is all about the random bouncing around. No training or such, he just goes wild using his 'natural' ability. BT
Nifft 12-06-03, 11:53 PM	His alignment is clearly Lawful Awesome! Seriously: since his world isn't clear-cut, black-and-white, Good-vs.-Evil like D&D is, with spells & items that can objectively evaluate the Evilness of a given person or action, it's not a question that IMHO makes a lot of sense. It's like asking: what class & level would The Terminator be, and would be beat Elminster? -- N
goblinhero 12-07-03, 02:39 AM	I'd give him the NG alignment. he's good. wants to do whats right but doesn't let the details of law interfere with his mission.
cultjake 12-07-03, 03:56 AM	Punisher - To me, this guy is Lawful Evil. Lawful - the clearer part of the alignment to define. He is organized and detailed. He follows a personal code. He uses specific tactics against studied foes. Evil - destroying evil doesn't make you good. It is said that Asmodeus once destroyed a 1000 devils for displeasing him. Did that make Asmodeus good? Never. Does the Punisher do anything that can be considered good on it's own terms? Charity? Nope. Altruism? Nope. Helping the needy? Ah, nope. The Punisher kills and you can even say he enjoys killing. Lawful and Evil.
KAPtain Braindead 12-07-03, 04:38 AM	I'm going to toss some real curves on this discussion with this one: Either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. First off he feels he is above the law. He acts as judge, jury, and executioner of criminals. The fact that he is only killing criminals ((or if you prefer "evil" characters) does not enter into the debate. His actions are that of a tyrant. He dis-reguards the laws while expecting everyone else to obey the laws. If he was really a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good type, he wouldn't be breaking the laws himself. If he was Chaotic, he would be inclined to allow people to decide if they wanted to abuse drugs or not-rather than have the laws against them forced down everyone's throat. Another factor towards the Lawful Evil alignment is that he only kills criminals and not innocent bystanders. If he killed indescriminantly, I would catagorize him as Chaotic Evil. Now remember the key componet to evil characters is that they usually don't consider themselves evil. Also consider that alignment is a gray scale for both good vs. evil and lawful vs. chaotic. Personally, I wouldn't consider the Punisher to be very evil-more likely closer to neutral range on the good vs. evil scale.
Gazzor 12-07-03, 09:14 AM	Yeah, thought this might cause some problems. The split consensus is that he is a lawful/ neutral/ chaotic/ good/ neutral/ evil character... All good points. It is very hard to categorise him within the alignment system, but if I decide I want to play him, I need to know whether a Blasphemy or a Holy Word is going to drop him dead. Will a Prot Evil or Prot good stop him? Some examples within comics. Lawful Good - Captain America. Base your paladin on Cap and you're all set. Superman as well. DareDevil. All primo paladin archetypes. Neutral Good - Flash, Wonderwoman, pretty much all the heroes. Chaotic Good -Wolverine. Chaotic Evil - Joker. Neutral Evil - Lex Luthor (btw, is he still President in the comics? I think he'd do quite a good job actually). Lawful Evil - Kang the Conqueror. LAWFUL Neutral - Judge Dredd (Was lawful good originally but has gotten harsher over the years). He is the LAW! Neutral - The Watcher. The other interesting take was when the Punisher was explaining that if he doesn't kill a criminal and then that crinminal kills someone, he's responsible. He thinks about this every time he pulls the trigger (Or snaps necks, etc). He is sometimes charitable, giving loads of cash to his neighbours after they helped him out. Going along with the kidnappers of detective Soap until he turned the tide in gruesome fashion... It's a tricky one. I'd probably go with Chaotic Neutral in DnD terms for spell effects and such, but play it as I saw fit in the game. Gazzor
Falkus 12-07-03, 09:22 AM	The other interesting take was when the Punisher was explaining that if he doesn't kill a criminal and then that crinminal kills someone, he's responsible. Bad logic. A person can't be held responsible for what somebody else does.
Bloodtide_the_Red 12-07-03, 11:09 AM	The real hard part about setting the alignment of a comic book character, is the whole shared world. Most characters have been around for years(and years and years). This has the problem of dozens of diffrent writers/authors/ect. Each one has 'their own' view and options of the character. So you have 100 issuses where Captian America does not use a gun...then a bunch where he does and such. It's hard to 'get a feel' for such a character. BT
Whaledawg 12-07-03, 11:18 AM	This is not a debatable thing at all in my opinion. He is Lawful Evil. He has a code, but no respect for human rights. That the end results make the world a better place does not make him good at all. His motivation is the key, and his motivation is revenge and hatred for criminals(the criminals just like the ones who killed his family). Lawful Evil, definatly.
Dasein 12-07-03, 02:47 PM	I see him as the archetypal lawful good paladin - he is the executor of the natural law, the holy warrior whose mandate comes from the demands of justice itself, not some flawed view of human law and man-made rights. The only true justice is that which comes from God, and so the warrior of God has no duty to the norms and customs of men, but only to the laws of God, which are inherently just and perfect, as opposed ot the laws of men which are flawed and imperfect. Dasein
xect 12-07-03, 03:11 PM	Originally posted by Gazzor Sneaky - pushes a Kung fu expert under a train (Splat Fu), runs down sniper. Backstabber - always attacks from behind when possible, preferably when they are asleep or on the job. Basically never fights honourably. Those two would mean chaotic, not evil. As he has never killed anyone who didn't deserve it, I don't think of him as being evil, but he doesn't strike me as a good person either. Maybe he's bipolar depending on the person. Neutral Evil vs criminal scum and neutral good (But still harsh) vs innocent people. Being both good and evil would make him neutral. Characters that are sometimes good and sometimes evil are fine, most humans are. That's the majority of the "neutral" characters out there. I'd make him either true neutral or chaotic good, depending on your alignment view (is killing criminals good, then CG, if killing is always evil, then TN).
E-Vile 12-07-03, 03:36 PM	He feels responsible for the crimes of baddies he didn't get to, this is as good as a motivation as you're going to get. This makes him good or at least neutral. His methods leave something to be desired so this would certainly not make him good. He certainly isn't Chaotic because he definatily doesn't have a lighthearted way of living and sets strict personal codes for himself and is always determined to fulfill a personal oath or something like that. IMO he is Lawful Neutral, as for class I'd go for the LN paladin type from Dragon Mag.
Malben 12-07-03, 03:39 PM	Chaotic isn't necessarily lighthearted. A demon is chaotic, and about as far from lightheartedness as you're going to get.
Dasein 12-07-03, 03:45 PM	Bad logic. A person can't be held responsible for what somebody else does. From a factual standpoint, people are often held legally and morally responsble for the actions of other people. A military officer can be held directly responsible for the actions of his subordinates, as part of the job of the commanding officer is to command, and when those he is commanding fail to do their jobs, then it means the commander failed to do his. Parents, too, may be held responsble for the actions of their children, which the assumption being that it is the responsibility of the parent to control a child's actions. As it applies to the case of The Punisher, I think it makes sense that he sees himself responsble, not so much because he is responsible for the actions of another, but because he is responsible for the consequences of his own action or inaction. If letting a criminal go free alloows that criminal to commit another crime, then the Punisher shares in some of that responsibility, as he had the opportuity to stop the criminal. Dasein
Nick Soapdish 12-07-03, 10:06 PM	He's lawful evil. Not deliberately harming "innocents" is good, but frankly nobody's completely innocent. He's just defined the term himself. I mean, he doesn't just kill murderers. He kills criminals (usually, if not always violent criminals), but he's doing it on the assumption that they'd kill if they got a chance. I kinda wonder if he ever killed undercover cops (that weren't dirty, I mean). That's part of where I'm getting the lawful part from. But the evil part is easy. Look at why he's doing it. He's not doing it like Batman so that nobody else goes through what he went through. He's doing it for vengeance, pure and simple. Vengeance on anyone like the criminals that shattered his life. Now, vengeance doesn't automatically equal evil, but it does when taken to the extremes he uses. I've never read his comic so I'm not exactly an expert on him, but I've gotten the impression that he'd kill his double. By that I mean, if he came across somebody like himself, he'd kill them in a heartbeat. In fact, that might be what he's trying to do. He just doesn't want to do it the easy way.
Primus, the One and Prime 12-07-03, 10:35 PM	The Punisher has that whole staring into the Abyss with the Abyss staring right back in thing. He fights to protect good, but has in turn been consumed by his lust for vengeance and the destruction of those he sees as "Guilty".
Skyrocket 12-08-03, 01:40 AM	Garth Ennis, one of the best Punisher writers ever, said that the Punisher is "a serial killer who kills criminals." Ennis pretty much plays the Punisher as a psycho, though an very organized one. He does still have some goodness in him. Notice the way he was kind, in his own way, to Joan the Mouse, Mr. Bumpo and Spaker Dave. However, I think the most telling thing about the Punisher is this little coversation he had once with Joan. Joan: Why do you kill criminals? Punisher: Because I hate them. Joan: Oh...I thought...it might be because you wanted to protect people. I`m paraphrasing but you get the idea. Anyway, for the punisher I`d say he`s a CN Fighter/Ranger/Rogue with levels in the vigilantie PrC and Human (evi) for favored enemy.
ante_up 12-08-03, 02:54 AM	Lawful Neutral. His code of ethics is supreme in his mind. His purpose is to bring his kind of justice on the world. Good and evil are besides the point to him.
KAPtain Braindead 12-08-03, 05:27 AM	Lawful Neutral? Get real, ante_up. The basis for Lawful Neutral is that the law applies to everyone equally. That means it applies him as well as anyone else. Therefor, he would not be killing people unless the law allowed it and he would not be using weapons illegally. Lawful Evil with strong neutral and neutral evil tendencies is about the closest we will ever get to an accurate description. The problem still lies in the fact that there are no absolutes in alignment. Alignment is a flawed concept in 3.5 and needs to displayed like they did in 1st ed.
ManTimeForgot 12-08-03, 06:21 AM	The punisher is a fanatical neutral evil. He is obsessed with the law and those who break it. He is obsessed with evil and those who commit it. He commits evil in fighting evil. He uses chaotic actions to fight those who circumvent the law. He might have been good at some time (with his intention to rid the world of evil). He would have been neutral had it not been for the fact that the Punisher always resorts to violence. The punishers is simply an evil which is concerned in the utmost with the destruction of evil beings. He would be lawful, due to his stricture of compliance to certain ideals and personal behavior, but since he is willing to break any and all laws, both social and legal, in order to accomplish his missions he certainly has some chaotic qualities. The fanaticism is really what pushes the punisher over into evil. He is willing to do whatever it takes to punish evil. Doing whatever it takes ensures that he is willing to do evil, and in fact the punisher chooses to do the evil out of hand. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Watchman 12-08-03, 09:04 AM	I'd tag him Chaotic Neutral - not by the way he acts, as he isn't random, but by his ethics. Chaotic comes from stepping outside the law and/or taking it in his own hands; in essence he lives completely by his own set of rules which do not have that much to do with those the general public (more or less) adheres to. Neutral because while he's a ruthless, merciless cold-blooded mass murderer he's almost never gratuitiously brutal and draws a very firm line - namely, he only kills serious lawbreakers who harm others. I remember one story where he allowed a cop-killer gang kid who, he judged, actually had rehabiliated to walk away from the crosshairs of his sniper rifle. So, basically, he's on the edge of being Evil but not quite over it. ...though by what I've read on American prison system it could be argued that killing criminals instead of sending them *there* is actually a good deed...:eek:
Zelphi 12-08-03, 10:41 AM	Wait, he didn't kill Wolverine did he? That's not nice. Technically he's Lawful, and then his attitude would shove him into Neutral, because he shows no greater tendencies towards Good or Evil.
Millennium 12-08-03, 11:09 AM	The Punisher is very difficult to classify within the D&D Alignment system, which may be part of what makes him so interesting. It's not really possible, for example, to determine whether he's Lawful or Chaotic; he exhibits very strong elements of both. He follows a personal code, and he is very strict about it. However, at the same time he definitely acts way outside the law of the land, not even bothering to try and work with it or change it to better suit his needs. His behavior leans maybe slightly towards law, but I wouldn't personally call him Lawful. Is he good or evil? Again, hard to tell. He's not really a very nice person, that's for sure. You might call him Good, but he does a fair bit of bad stuff and seems to more or less enjoy it. I wouldn't personally call him Good, though he may have very slight leanings toward it. If you really had to put him into a box, I'd suggest that the Punisher be played out as one of the most interesting True Neutrals out there. Alternatively, you could try to play him as the scariest Lawful Good ever to walk the face of the planet, but if you stayed in character then I'm not sure how long he would last as a Lawful Good.
Zelphi 12-08-03, 11:22 AM	Law of the Land has nothing to do with being of Lawful alignment. No arguement, no opinions, just a statement of fact.
bitnine 12-08-03, 11:31 AM	Originally posted by Skyrocket Garth Ennis, one of the best Punisher writers ever, said that the Punisher is "a serial killer who kills criminals." Joan: Why do you kill criminals? Punisher: Because I hate them. Joan: Oh...I thought...it might be because you wanted to protect people. Senior Punisher seems to me to be someone who hates a certain type of people. He hunts them down a brutally exterminates them by any means that he can. He is careful, methodical, coldblooded, and unforgiving of anyone who gets between him and his mission. He leaves a neverending trail of the bodies of his enemies, and acts with compunction, compassion, or remorse. The question largely being that does the fact that his hatred and anger is focused on those classified as evil (or a subset thereof) take that viewpoint and shift it over to good or neutral? I'd say no. There's nothing wrong with an antihero, and Dr. Punisher is perhaps an excellent example of that. He's a psychopathic serial killer that's driven to continually murder his enemies out of hatred. Yet most of those bodes-to-be are very bad people that we'd like to see gone. Hey, people might also like a Devil who obsessively and exclusively hunts Demons. The world might even be a better place for their existances in the eyes of some. So here's to antiheroes!
JonahBlack 12-08-03, 11:42 AM	The interesting thing about D&D Alignment (which has been discussed elsewhere) is that it is an Objective Morality. This provides for people who do not realize their own alignment, or rather, believe they are acting from one moral viewpoint, but are actually in quite another. Punisher is an example of this. If the question were put to him (and he didn't shoot you for asking), he'd probably think he was TN, or CN. I doubt he's deluded enough to think that he's Good, but I doubt he'd classify himself as Evil. I think, however, that he is actuall LE. While he might claim that he wants to protect the innocents, or not see them hurt, that's more a fuction of his personal code of conduct. If faced with an innocent who is impeding his crusade, Punisher will usually come up with some justification to himself that they are evil, and procede to maim or kill the person. Dr. Doom is similar to this. He honestly thinks that he is superior to everyone, and that the world would be better off with him ruling it, regarless of the cost. However, under D&D morality, Doom is objectively evil.
StormKnight 12-08-03, 05:20 PM	Lawful Evil. He may have a code he follows, but his disregard for others, lack of mercy and lack of respect for life put him in the evil category. I'm not sure about the lawful...I could also see Chaotic Evil, just with a few personality quirks.
xect 12-08-03, 06:20 PM	Originally posted by E-Vile He certainly isn't Chaotic because he definatily doesn't have a lighthearted way of living and sets strict personal codes for himself and is always determined to fulfill a personal oath or something like that. I'd make that true neutral. His backstabbing nature makes him unlawfull IMO.
Falkus 12-08-03, 06:38 PM	If letting a criminal go free alloows that criminal to commit another crime, then the Punisher shares in some of that responsibility, as he had the opportuity to stop the criminal. There is such a thing as jails.
Gazzor 12-08-03, 06:45 PM	Some more interesting points. Many of you say that he is evil as he kills criminals who may not themselves be killers. What does that make PCs who say, "Orcs! Kill 'em!" ? There was the interesting issue where the Punisher forced DareDevil to make exactly the same choice he does every time he pulls the trigger, "Do you kill someone, or spare them knowing that that person will kill someone else?". Daredevil actually took the Punisher option... (But the firing pin had been filed off...) And no, Wolverine wasn't killed, he just had his flesh + organs blasted off from below his chest to above his knees. It's also worth noting that he could have killed the "Confederacy of Dunces" (Spidey, Wolvie and DD) off at least once, but has spared their lives as they are naive and foolish rather than evil. I would probably go with True Neutral now, as he is far too organised to be chaotic. The other great point is how inconsistent writing with different writers can change a character between issues. Gazzor
Voran 12-08-03, 08:11 PM	Well...they did make Punisher an angel, for a time being. That didn't turn out so well, so they sent him back :b: I figure if you really wanted to get technical, Punisher would be true neutral, because he's got a pretty obvious mental health issue, borderline insanity thing going on. Crazy people aren't CE or LG, they're just crazy :)
Koga:The ninja trick 12-08-03, 08:34 PM	Over-zealous, has a code of ethics, and maims badguys in the most cruelists and vile of ways. Lawful evil. I would've made him lawful neutral, but it's not like he's fought a hero once or twice. He's regularly putting bullets through the good guys for his own reasons. Meaning innocence is the only thing safe from his wrath, and even then.. Punisher is the original Kabalah evil. Justice without mercy. And in every aspect the result of this original evil as even the heroes he claims to be one of cannot fully trust him without risking a shotgun shell between thier head..
ante_up 12-08-03, 10:04 PM	Originally posted by KAPtain Braindead Lawful Neutral? Get real, ante_up. The basis for Lawful Neutral is that the law applies to everyone equally. That means it applies him as well as anyone else. Therefor, he would not be killing people unless the law allowed it and he would not be using weapons illegally. Actually, a lawful neutral character does not have to follow the law. From the SRD (emphasis mine): Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her... She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Skyrocket 12-09-03, 02:21 AM	Dr. Doom is similar to this. He honestly thinks that he is superior to everyone, and that the world would be better off with him ruling it, regarless of the cost. However, under D&D morality, Doom is objectively evil. [/B] Dr. Doom is easy to do. He`s clearly Lawful Evil. I think one of the problems with the Punisher is that he tends to vary in how extreme he is depending on who is writing him. Also, let`s ask ourselves which type of morality are we using; fantasy world D&D morality or real world morality. In a D&D world more often as not justice is found at the end of a sword. So in a place like Greyhawk or Faerune someone like the Punisher wouldn`t be seen the same way as someone who started blowing away muggers in Manhattan would be. Oh, I forgot, if you`re talking D&D terms Foe Hunter would actually be really good PrC for making a Punisher-like character.
Millennium 12-09-03, 09:36 AM	Originally posted by ante_up Lawful Neutral. His code of ethics is supreme in his mind. His purpose is to bring his kind of justice on the world. Good and evil are besides the point to him. Except that a lawful neutral character will also obey laws that are fair (and sometimes even those which are not). The Punisher doesn't seem to believe that the laws are unfair; he simply has no faith in conventional law enforcement. Nevertheless, he shows no respect for the law in his own actions. Even a Chaotic character can follow a personal code of honor. The issue of Lawful versus Chaotic is usually a matter of how the character deals with external laws. Lawful Neutrals generally follow personal codes, but they don't have a monopoly on that, nor does the personal code have a monopoly on their ehavior.
Palin the Wizard 12-09-03, 10:44 AM	I fail to see the problem with tagging him an alignment--he's clearly Neutral Evil. Punisher is a raving psychopath.
the_heart 12-09-03, 11:38 AM	my vote goes for lawful evil(borderline LN). he has a strong, if warped personal code. he has no concept of fair or proportional punishment(iirc didn't he once go really far off the deep end and start attacking any lawbreakers, like jaywalkers and litterers?) my view is that alignment is an internal world view, respect for laws does not make someone lawful, a structured and consistant personal code does, IMO chaotic people are capricious and prone to inconsistancy.
MaverickWolf 12-09-03, 11:43 AM	The Punisher is True Neutral, albeit an extreme example of one. Instead of being TN because he can't decide, he is TN because his very way of life defies all other alignments. He follows a strict code, making him lawful, but his dishonorable fighting style and lack of feeling makes him chaotic, henceforth balancing him out to neutral on the law/chaos axis. He is good because he kills those he believes are evil, as they most often are. He may attack superheroes, but he doesn't kill them, and he only does it because he believes their way of doing things is highly ineffective and will allow the criminal to continue in his evil ways, but the superheroes would stop the Punisher from doing things his way because they're goody-two-shoes(even Spider-man, even though he is definitely chaotic). The only exception to this rule is perhaps Wolverine. Wolverine is more like The Punisher than any other superhero, and the Punisher views him as a threat, for though they are alike, they are highly different. The Punisher is evil because he feels no compassion, no remorse, over what he does. And yes, he does appear to enjoy it more often than not. Of course, that also balances him out to neutral on the good/evil axis. Henceforth, The Punisher is the most extreme and the strangest example of TN one could ever hope to come up with.
Llathos 12-10-03, 09:49 AM	The majority of you seem to be jumping on the Lawful Evil bandwagon. I think you need to stop for a second and think about what you're saying. A Lawful Evil character is usually attributed to the characteristics of BANE. Often complex design, ruthless execution of innocents to reach that goal, be it slaughter of followers or innocents. Power to the strong and death for the weak. You think THAT describes Punisher? Lawful Good, on the other hand, can easily be one of the most merciless alignments available. It's the LG Paladin that doesn't hesitate before finishing off a pleading evil enemy. People seem to very commonly and conveniently forget this. I'd say Lawful (His personal code) and Good (overall protecting of innocents and slaying of evil). The "brutality" in which he kills evil just furthers his position as a truly fanatical and militant agent of good. In D&D, killing evil is not evil. Whole orders of LG Paladins are dedicated to it.
Falkus 12-10-03, 10:08 AM	A Lawful Evil character is usually attributed to the characteristics of BANE. Often complex design, ruthless execution of innocents to reach that goal, be it slaughter of followers or innocents. Power to the strong and death for the weak. That describes him just fine. We have a justice system, we don't need to have guy running around executing people he feels are guilty. Lawful Good, on the other hand, can easily be one of the most merciless alignments available. It's the LG Paladin that doesn't hesitate before finishing off a pleading evil enemy. People seem to very commonly and conveniently forget this. A paladin who kills an enemy begging for mercy has commited an evil act, and will lose of his powers.
E-Vile 12-10-03, 10:15 AM	Originally posted by Falkus A paladin who kills an enemy begging for mercy has commited an evil act, and will lose of his powers. Not if the paladin knows the enemy will strike again anyway or is a known liar.
Johannixx 12-10-03, 01:18 PM	I agree that Frank Castle's alignment is difficult to determine using the D&D rules. Personally, though, I'd lean towards Lawful Neutral. He's Lawful, in that he is very disciplined and focused. He does very little randomly. He plans things meticulously, and has a valid (to him) reason for every atrocity he commits. His own moral code is paramount to his every action, and he rarely if ever deviates from that code. Despite the fact that he doesn't obey the laws of the land, he is very lawful in his methodology and outlook. His moral alignment is even more difficult to determine. After all, this is a person who has slaughtered thousands of people, often in gruesome ways, and often after those people have surrendered and thrown themselves on his nonexistant mercy. By conventional ethics, killing an opponent who has surrendered is an evil act. However, Castle also goes far out of his way to protect innocents, even at the cost of his own safety. Such selfless devotion to protecting innocents bespeaks of the classic Paladin-ish Good. Thus, Castle is something of an enigma. He is capable of acts of great evil, but in the pursuit of the overall good. He is also more than willing to sacrifice his own life to protect the innocent. I'd lean towards Neutral or Good on this issue, but the fact that he gains satisfaction, if not pleasure, from brutality makes me hesitate to call him truly good. Thus, I think he's Neutral.
BlackFiend 12-10-03, 02:05 PM	Yeah...I love the Punisher, man. Lawful Evil at its best, without a doubt. He's a true anti-hero. Cruel and ruthless as hell, itself. I'd even argue chaotic Evil as he is no teamwork kind of guy..and to hell with obeying the laws. What laws? IMO, if anyone wanted to build a vengeful paladin...unhampered by Lawful Good...they need to go no further than the PUNISHER.
Falkus 12-10-03, 04:32 PM	Not if the paladin knows the enemy will strike again anyway or is a known liar. Well that's sort of a different situation, isn't it?
Johannixx 12-10-03, 05:37 PM	Originally posted by Falkus Well that's sort of a different situation, isn't it? Not really. After all, the Punisher knows that criminals revert to crime more often than not, and the ones he goes after are generally the violent, unrepentant types anyway.
Falkus 12-10-03, 07:32 PM	Not really. After all, the Punisher knows that criminals revert to crime more often than not, and the ones he goes after are generally the violent, unrepentant types anyway. Who appointed him judge? We have laws for a reason, and in general, they work. That's what I've always disliked about superhero comics, the way most of them imply that without the heroes the entire world would just be run by criminals.
l3lasphemy 12-10-03, 07:57 PM	Could always kind of create your own AL....that maybe has to go to confession every so often...and recieve spankings for being naughty. Just a thought - or is that whole "creating your own AL" against all that is good and true in D&D?
bitnine 12-10-03, 07:57 PM	Originally posted by Johannixx Not really. After all, the Punisher knows that criminals revert to crime more often than not, and the ones he goes after are generally the violent, unrepentant types anyway. Hey, it's a kinder, gentler Punisher. By the time the thread is done, he'll be a poor teddy bear that's forced into pulling the trigger by those naughty naughty evil men who come right up to him. Awww... I know a certain antihero that could use a hug.
l3lasphemy 12-10-03, 08:01 PM	lmao - viva la hug!
Jerks 12-11-03, 03:22 AM	Frank Castle is without a doubt an EXTREMELY lawful individual. A former special forces operative he believed in putting his life on the line for the preservation of society. He has taken the Punisher moniker out of revenge for the loss of his family, but more so to punisher those that flaunt the laws of the country. He believes that a well-ordered society is paramount to peace and prosperity. The criminal justice system however, has failed (in his mind), and he seeks to punish violent criminals who prevent the functioning of society. The only reason he can disregard the laws of the land is that he sees it as corrupt, and beyond redemption. Therefore, he has stepped in personally to restore balance. Lawful. The good vs evil axis is a little harder and open to a lot of interpretation. He does perform quite a few evil acts, but using D&D morality you have to look at the types of people that he kills. Gunning down violent criminals is not as bad as gunning down bystanders in a train station. Even if he does it with sneak attacks or without mercy it's not a bad under D&D morality. He really has no place in his life for decisions about Good and Evil. He is single-mindedly focused or reducing the criminal population, and choses the most expediant means to that end. I'll say that he started out as Neutral, but has slide towards evil in his singe minded pursuit of justice. He has no desire to gain personal power (maybe redemption for not having saved his family), and this lack of personal interest and the fact that he doesn't kill innocents nudges me towards neutral in this regard. so Lawful Evil (Neutral)
Dasein 12-11-03, 03:17 PM	I would say lawful good: 1. The people he kill deserve it. The world of D&D is a violent one, and killing or otherwise using violence is morally acceptable. He only intentionally kills those who are guilty, and thus he is justified in killing them. Thus, his means are not evil. 2. He does not have what would be considered 'evil' motives, and his intent is to right the wrongs of the world, while keeping innocents safe. Therefore, he is good. The lawful aspect has been addressed many times, so there is nothing further to add to there. Dasein
archcomponent 12-11-03, 03:36 PM	Originally posted by Dasein I would say lawful good: Indeed, he has a true Paladin's spirit. He hates evil and how it debases life with its very existance, and knows that his primary duty is to fight it wherever it should occur, without quarter or mercy. Each and every person that he kills is evil, and therefore he is continually performing good acts. He doesn't hold himself to the laws of the land - but he holds them to be an "illegitimate authority" in that they permit the existence of evil. So he follows a purer law.
bolobaby 12-11-03, 04:18 PM	Has anyone even read the deity description of St Cuthbert? Doesn't this Lawful Neutral deity sound *anything* like the Punisher? How come no one has brought this up...?
Edymnion 12-11-03, 04:25 PM	I throw my vote in for Lawful Neutral. Like was said, he was special ops, he followed orders. Then his family was brutally gunned down, and their killers walked free because the justice system failed. He is Lawful in the extreme, but he keeps to his own system of rules because, like was already said, he sees the rules of the land as being corrupt and beyond redemption. Yes, he has tangled with other Heroes like Spiderman and Wolverine, but its because he heard of them as criminals endangering the innocent. After he shot at them for a while, and realized that they were really on the same side (see Spiderman for an example), he immediantly stops. He was doing his job, plain and simple. I wouldn't call him Good, per say, though. Like was already said, he has no mercy for evil doers. If the crime boss gets down on his knees and begs forgiveness, Punisher just blows him away without thinking twice about it. Definatly not a Good action. But he isn't evil, he doesn't kill indescriminatly, and he doesn't do it for fun or self reward. He kills because he protects the innocent from violent criminals that the law cannot touch. He plans carefully, and likes to get things done as quickly and cleanly as possible. He does not want to kill innocents, otherwise he would just blow up the building the badguys are in. Instead, he goes in and takes out the baddies one at a time, sparing the structure and any innocents that may be in a differant area. He fights for good, but isn't above using evil techniques to get the job done. Punisher is, IMO, an archetype Lawful Neutral character. He doesn't care who you are, just what you've done. If you commit a violent crime that gets his attention, he takes you out. He DOES do research on his targets though, and does his best to make sure they really did what they are accused of, and did it intentionally. Lawful Neutral all the way.
Aranael 12-11-03, 04:59 PM	In terms of something I noticed on the Lawful side of things: I would say, first of all, that Lawful has nothng to do with following External laws, but following Your Own code. Lawful vs. Chaotic, in my mind, is bound with Freedom of Choice, and how you deal with Other People. As in, do you think they have the right to choose what is right for themselves? If so, Chaotic. If not, if you think Everyone should follow certain behavior patterns, then Lawful. If you do not yourself, you are simply a hypocritical lawful. In that light, he is MOST CERTAINLY lawful. As to fighting style, fighting "dirty" does not make one Chaotic. The things he does, whilst unorthodox, require intense training and discipline. In terms of fighting style, the Rogue is one of the most "lawful" characters out there, requiring a degree of control, discipline, training, and knowledge that is truly ridiculous. Think about the Mechanics behind a sneak attack. Just because it Looks random does not mean it Is, and then it is only a matter of this- does his fighting have a pattern in its application, and all of that, or not? Does it follow a code? Yep, it is always against those he judges guilty, and then he uses whatever measures he judges are needed against them. He is the epitome of LN. To kill, as others have pointed out, is neither an inherently Evil (based on the act itself) or an inherently Good (based on the targets) act. Thought it is unacceptable in a Society that values human life above all other things, even the life of those that take life themselves, that does not make it evil. We are, after all, using D&D morality, not that of society. In that case, I can see no proper alignment other than LN. To uphold his own personal code and ethos, to all people, whatever the cost to himself or others. He does not seek to dominate, or to kill for the sake of destruction, or to rob, rape or pillage, nor does he seek to make the world a better place, or do actions that are "good" in and of themselves. The Only thing that matters is the Ethos. PURE LN.
Jerks 12-11-03, 05:13 PM	Good points there Edymnion and Araneal. I've revised my opinion. Lawful Neutral is most definitely the best choice.
the_heart 12-12-03, 04:23 AM	maybe we could go with LN(insane) as he only has the vaguest grasp of fair or proportional justice. it's pure 'you do bad, you die'.
ManTimeForgot 12-12-03, 04:38 AM	Well heart. Either the Punisher is neutral (bordering on chaotic) evil with a fanatical obsession with eradication of evil or he is an insane Lawful Neutral who has lost all concept of fairness and justice. Either way you play him he is still the punisher and gets to rock on evil people with impunity. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 04:46 AM	Er... How can anyone classify a raving psychopath who murders every criminal he comes across as Neutral? It's murder. He doesn't give them a chance. There is absolutely no doubt that Punisher is Evil. Murder is inherently evil. That's why we have laws against it. Punisher kills for the pure sake of killing. He doesn't do it for a higher purpose, but out of a twisted wish to have revenge for his murdered family. Even though he won't kill innocents, he's still evil. Very evil.
the_heart 12-12-03, 05:08 AM	i agree murder is inherently evil, however, killing isn't always murder and killing is not inherently evil. and, lets face it, society has laws that are good for society, not that are necessarily good. as to his final alignment, it does really depend on which version you've read, as each writer portrays where he is on the total revenge/protect the innocent angle slightly differently. sometimes he is a psychotic killer LE/NE but at other times he has expressed concern for protecting those the law can't protect/can't protect themselves. most of the people he kills are men of violence who(theoretically at least)have the capacity to defend themselves. i can see him as a fallen 'holy Warrior' paladin who took the 'warrior' a step to far. either way he is the punisher and gets to rock on evil people with impunity (to steal a phrase :D )
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 06:11 AM	Killing a human being with any sort of weapon is defined as "murder".
the_heart 12-12-03, 06:28 AM	i always believed that, in Law, murder is 'unlawful killing' with or without a weapon. arguably, lawfully killing someone with a weapon isn't murder. my personal definition is dependant on the circumstances. so we'll go with your definition for now. therefore for the purpose of this discussion, i adjust my comment to: 'murder is not inherently evil'
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 09:12 AM	Unlawful killing? Pleh. So now Chaos equals Evil? Not remotely.
bitnine 12-12-03, 10:11 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Well heart. Either the Punisher is neutral (bordering on chaotic) evil with a fanatical obsession with eradication of evil or he is an insane Lawful Neutral who has lost all concept of fairness and justice. Either way you play him he is still the punisher and gets to rock on evil people with impunity. No, no, no! The poor widdle punisher is a helpless victim that is forced into ending lives because he wants to help people and save them, but naughty bad men can't be stopped by the system and can't be reasoned with. I mean, all he wants is peace and happiness and rainbows, but his awful targets all but pull the trigger for him. And he only ever kills the baddest of men. It's not like he goes after them and kills all of their flunkies that he comes across as well. I mean, if a LN bodygaurd or the likes pulls a gun on the punisher because he just blew up a car outside and is breaking into the building, that forces the poor ol' punisher to kill them, too. I mean, it's not like his thirst for vengeance and hatred is so strong that if sent back in time to perform some minor task, he'd hunt down and kill Al Capone, ignoring all of the potential harm that he might cause to our timeline. And even if he did, it would be a carefully deliberated plan to try to build a better society with hugs and puppies and butterflies. Awww... He really is just a sweet ol' teddy bear.
Johannixx 12-12-03, 01:46 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard Killing a human being with any sort of weapon is defined as "murder". So, if a mugger on the street pulls a knife on me, attempts to stab me, and I fatally shoot him as an act of self-defense, I'm a murderer? Wow. I never knew that. And I suppose I can walk around killing anyone I wish with my bare hands, and I'm still an okay guy. Murder, technically, is killing someone unnecessarily. Killing someone who is threatening you is not murder. Killing someone who is threatening others is not murder. Killing someone who is just walking down the street, not harming anyone, is murder. When it comes down to it, the Punisher has a moral code that differs from mainstream society's in one aspect: He does not believe that all human life is sacred, only innocent life. Violent criminals' lives are not sacred, in fact they are undesirable in the extreme. And, interestingly enough, the Punisher doesn't really care if criminals kill each other. He only gets mad when their violence affects innocents. At least, that's my $.02 on the matter.
Jerks 12-12-03, 03:55 PM	Murder is a legal term. It is the willful and unlawful taking of a human life. Man people kill other people without technically being murderers. For example, police officers sometimes right to use deadly force in the line of duty. In Michigan, you shoot & kill someone who invades your home without worrying about too much legal hassle. We are attempting to look at the Punisher through D&D eyes. Imagine if all the criminals he has capped are instead hordes of rampaging orcs. These orcs have either killed humans in the past, or pose an imminent threat. With this simple substitution does your opinion of his alignment change? Heck, in D&D he'd probably be a ranger with favorite enemy orc, and a cool backstory.
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 05:52 PM	Originally posted by Johannixx So, if a mugger on the street pulls a knife on me, attempts to stab me, and I fatally shoot him as an act of self-defense, I'm a murderer? Wow. I never knew that. And I suppose I can walk around killing anyone I wish with my bare hands, and I'm still an okay guy. Murder, technically, is killing someone unnecessarily. Killing someone who is threatening you is not murder. Killing someone who is threatening others is not murder. Killing someone who is just walking down the street, not harming anyone, is murder. Yes, you'd be a murderer. There are always alternatives. You could shoot the mugger in the shoulder rather than killing him, and he would have a good chance of survival, as well as not being a threat anymore. Hell, if you have a gun, you can probably make him surrender without even firing a shot. If there was a struggle, though, and his death was accidental, it's entirely different. And... if you can kill someone with your bare hands, your hands are weapons.
Aranael 12-12-03, 07:17 PM	Dude, remember we ARE talking about AD&D here!?? As in- You'd BETTER classify all of your characters as evil, then. Otherwise, when you kill all those brigands and bandits roving the countryside, then you are a MAJOR Murderer. If your argument becomes well, we only kill non-humanoids, then I must ask you- why are humans sacred, but no one else? What makes the killing of cerain creatures ok bt not others? In AD&D, the answer is this- certain creatures are evil, and others are not. Since they ARE evil, no questions asked, it is ok it kill htem, since alignment is a concrete concept, and not some form of abstraction, within the game world. In that sense, ALL of the creatures that the Punisher kills are Evil. He doesn't even kill all evil creatures, but all of those that he does kill are evil. Thus, how is he himself evil? I must point out this too- murder is the "unlawful killing of another". Separated from "normal" killng b he law not permitting it. Stupid? Yes. But how it is? Yep. Now, in that sense- again, IN AD&D, let us say that there is an evil baron who plans to dominate the world (a crime lord who has an iron grip on the city, and whose influence is expanding). Of course it is unlawful to kill him. Yet is it "evil" to do so, sparing all of those innocents? Not according to AD&D. Even an assassin, or any other form of killer, is fair game. Define all he does IN TERMS OF AD&D, and you wil find that there is not a single thing, other than the carnage he brings about, that PCs (goodly aligned ones) do not do as well. That is then why I say LN. He is a Judge. He is not evil for his actions, but nor does he have good motivations or even the welfare of others in mind. In AD&D terms, then, he is Totally LN. If a PC went about, hunting down killers and murderers and killing them, would they be insane? Probably. Evil? Not a chance. Oh, and away from AD&D for a moment- even the Bible does not declare Killing to be a sin, only murder, and many are the times that the commands of God require death and killing, whether it is due to war, or to the punishment of a criminar, or anything of the sort. To kill someone in self defense is in no way murder, nor is it a sin. To kill someone as part of lawful puishment, is also in no way murder, nor a sin. War, also not murder or a sin. Whether you believe that people Should kill them in those cases is another matter entirely. According to Jesus, when they have commited a crime, we should not, and we should not have warfare or even kill in self defense, but rather lay down and die. I can quote the appropriate verses if need be. The point is, the person is NOT a murderer, for whatever you Wish the definition to be, it is what it is, and more than that, if you would not kill them, so be it, but that does not mean that it is morally supported that No One should. I point out, finally, that there IS always an alernative. Sometimes, the alternative is to let them kill you or others. Some people do not find this an acceptable alternative, just saying.
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 07:54 PM	You may be talking D&D... I wasn't. Punisher isn't a D&D character.
Edymnion 12-12-03, 08:01 PM	Yeah, in D&D, anything with an Intelligence of more than 3 is a "person", a sentient, living being that is capable of making his or her own choices, and is responsible for their own actions. That means killing orcs is murder. Killing dragons, murder. Hell, killing a Druid's Awakened animal companion is murder. Unless you only throw animals and mindless undead/constructs at your players, they commit murder every time they go into combat. D&D morality != modern day morality. Killing is a neutral act, period. Check your core rulebooks, as I believe it actually states that killing is neutral, and it is the circumstance and reasons behind the killing that make it a good or an evil action. Killing a man because he is wearing the color yellow, and you don't like yellow, is an evil act. Killing the man because he is the head of a thieve's guild selling crack to 10 year olds is either neutral or good, depending on how you want to look at it. But, to use the modern definition of murder, it is unlawful. Killing someone out of self defense or to put an end to a rampage is not unlawful, hence it isn't murder. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.
wdarkk 12-12-03, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by bolobaby Has anyone even read the deity description of St Cuthbert? Doesn't this Lawful Neutral deity sound *anything* like the Punisher? How come no one has brought this up...? I agree with this.
bitnine 12-12-03, 09:40 PM	I know I certainly don't see any difference between St. Cuthburt and the Punisher.
Palin the Wizard 12-12-03, 10:39 PM	... if you of course overlook the fact that St. Cuthbert deals out just punishments and Punisher kills any lawbreakers he encounters. Edymnion, could you please explain why D&D morality has any bearing on this discussion? You don't judge alignment according to the system you use; you judge alignment according to the setting. Frank Castle is a character in Marvel's superhero world, and that world's morality is very much modern day.
Edymnion 12-13-03, 02:32 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard Edymnion, could you please explain why D&D morality has any bearing on this discussion? You don't judge alignment according to the system you use; you judge alignment according to the setting. Frank Castle is a character in Marvel's superhero world, and that world's morality is very much modern day. Because we are discussing Frank Castle's alignment in terms of the D&D game. D&D alignment is not abstract, it isn't relative. If you grow up in a culture where it is okay and required to sacrifice a virgin every time you sit down to dinner, can you be a Good character within that setting? No, the culture itself is Lawful Evil, and by following it, so are you. If we are going to discuss this in terms of the Good/Law axis set up in D&D, we have to do it in D&D terms, compare apples to apples. If you want an answer along the lines of "Lawful Neutral" or "Chaotic Evil", you have to use the D&D morality. After all, if you're going to play or use a system of moral relativity, then you can't have hard classifications, as your alignment would shift constantly depending on the viewpoint of the observer. The common Nazi soldier saw himself as an agent of Good. His superiors saw him as an agent of Good, and many of the German people saw him as an agent of Good. Ask the British or the Jews if a Nazi was a Good person, or an Evil person, and I bet you're going to get "Evil" more often than not. Thats the road moral relativism leads you down, and your alignment shouldn't change just depending on who is looking at you. You are either Good, Neutral, or Evil, and you are that across the board, otherwise the classifications are meaningless.
Dasein 12-13-03, 03:48 PM	Murder is inherently evil. That's why we have laws against it. Murder is killing that is against the law - specifically unlawful killing with malice aforethought, which differentiates it from manslaughter and other forms of homicide, which while possibly illegal, are not pre-meditated or comitted with malicious intent. As for your assumption that murder is wrong and therefore illegal, one could just as easily argue that murder is illegal because murder disrupts civil order. Morality really doesn't play into it, although it can help sugar coat the law. That is, it's easier for some people to accept the law if they believe it to be moral, but the law itself is inherently amoral. The law only concerns itself with lawful and unlawful, not right and wrong. Dasein
Random bloke 12-13-03, 04:35 PM	Err... am I missing something here? I only read 2 Punisher comics - in one he has blown up a gang + assorted hookers who weren't able to give him the information he needed, and in the other he opened into a crowd full-auto, trying to get the guy he was after... Seems like nothing more then a seriously messed up CE, type - the sort that most of my characters would love to take down...
thugpoetry 12-13-03, 04:47 PM	The bloke is Lawful Good. He fights evil without mercy. Remember that we ARE talking DnD here, and DnD involves both good and evil being real forces. The punisher follows the code he has, and follows it without remorse. I'll say again, then I'll quote the PH. He fights evil without mercy. PH, discussion of alignments. "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good" page 105. What's the problem here? It seems like an awful lot of people are confusing the relative morality system that real-life uses with the absolute morality system that Dungeons and Dragons uses. "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces the define the cosmos" PH, page 103 Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Palin the Wizard 12-13-03, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Because we are discussing Frank Castle's alignment in terms of the D&D game. D&D alignment is not abstract, it isn't relative. If you grow up in a culture where it is okay and required to sacrifice a virgin every time you sit down to dinner, can you be a Good character within that setting? No, the culture itself is Lawful Evil, and by following it, so are you. If we are going to discuss this in terms of the Good/Law axis set up in D&D, we have to do it in D&D terms, compare apples to apples. If you want an answer along the lines of "Lawful Neutral" or "Chaotic Evil", you have to use the D&D morality. After all, if you're going to play or use a system of moral relativity, then you can't have hard classifications, as your alignment would shift constantly depending on the viewpoint of the observer. The common Nazi soldier saw himself as an agent of Good. His superiors saw him as an agent of Good, and many of the German people saw him as an agent of Good. Ask the British or the Jews if a Nazi was a Good person, or an Evil person, and I bet you're going to get "Evil" more often than not. Thats the road moral relativism leads you down, and your alignment shouldn't change just depending on who is looking at you. You are either Good, Neutral, or Evil, and you are that across the board, otherwise the classifications are meaningless. Point out to me WHERE I mentioned or even implied "relative morality". I said "modern day morality", not "relative". They are not the same. You can argue for absolute morality even in our modern world. You're building up a very pretty straw-man argument, I'm afraid. Originally posted by thugpoetry The bloke is Lawful Good. He fights evil without mercy. Remember that we ARE talking DnD here, and DnD involves both good and evil being real forces. The punisher follows the code he has, and follows it without remorse. I'll say again, then I'll quote the PH. He fights evil without mercy. PH, discussion of alignments. "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good" page 105. What's the problem here? It seems like an awful lot of people are confusing the relative morality system that real-life uses with the absolute morality system that Dungeons and Dragons uses. "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces the define the cosmos" PH, page 103 Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Punisher doesn't just "fight without mercy". He slaughters any villain he comes across if they've done a crime he deems serious enough (which doesn't take much, as far as I know). Lawful Good? That's so wrong it's laughable.
Gazzor 12-13-03, 09:45 PM	Random bloke said, I only read 2 Punisher comics - in one he has blown up a gang + assorted hookers who weren't able to give him the information he needed, and in the other he opened into a crowd full-auto, trying to get the guy he was after... Well, as has been said, different writers have a different take on the character. He has never, in the current series, killed anyone who didn't deserve it*, and even killed a bunch of vigilantes because they accidently killed innocent people. (*Hence my theory of his superpower being "Never hurt innocents" as no one innocent has yet died to all the ordnance tat he flings around). Punisher doesn't just "fight without mercy". He slaughters any villain he comes across if they've done a crime he deems serious enough (which doesn't take much, as far as I know). Well, is a vet evil if he puts down a rabid dog? How about a hunter who kills a bear that has been terrorising a local community? The Punisher is killing animals, they just happen to be slightly more intelligent, and even more malign in many cases... The fact that he seems to take a fair amount of pleasure in his work removes the "Good" angle though, IMO. Gazzor
Gazzor 12-13-03, 09:45 PM	(double post)
Dasein 12-13-03, 10:00 PM	The fact that he seems to take a fair amount of pleasure in his work removes the "Good" angle though, IMO. Why should one not take pleasure in doing good? I would think the most sincere and purest form of pleasure would come from doing good. Dasein
Edymnion 12-13-03, 11:01 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard Point out to me WHERE I mentioned or even implied "relative morality". I said "modern day morality", not "relative". They are not the same. Yes, they are, at least in this situation. You are trying to make this relative to modern day morality, and using D&D rules to do it. With D&D alignment, killing is not evil, it is neutral. You are trying to use modern day morality where killing is inherently evil. You are changing the relative viewpoint, trying to assign a new group of standards to the same action, which alter the way the action is viewed. Tell me that isn't moral relativism. In D&D, you can chase down a thief and cleave the guy in half for stealing your money pouch, and you aren't going to be punished for it. You may even be rewarded for it. That is the standard we are using here. Trying to change that principle is applying a form of moral relativism. And the way alignment is set up in D&D, it is NOT based on the region or time period. If torturing slaves to death for spilling your tea is acceptable and expected in your society, that does not mean that torturing them to death is a good act. The society as a whole is Evil, and comparing the acts of the individual to those of society is not the way you judge alignment. It doesn't matter if we're talking 10,000 BC or 10,000 AD, the alignment system as set up is the one you are supposed to use, and doing certain things are Evil or Good, period, regardless of time period or setting.
bitnine 12-13-03, 11:13 PM	Originally posted by Random bloke Err... am I missing something here? I only read 2 Punisher comics - in one he has blown up a gang + assorted hookers who weren't able to give him the information he needed, and in the other he opened into a crowd full-auto, trying to get the guy he was after... Seems like nothing more then a seriously messed up CE, type - the sort that most of my characters would love to take down... No! Those are blatant lies! The punisher is a big teddy bear, motivated by his want to protect the innocent, conflicted with his knowledge that the irremptively evil people that he's going after would harm the innocent should he let them live. He's made of candy and gumdrops!
thugpoetry 12-14-03, 02:49 AM	Palin, rather than state something so ridculous that it is laughable, why not try and, oh, I don't know, back your point up? A paladin who commits genocide in the name of Pelor against those thrice-cursed mind flayers isn't gonna get in hot water. The only book I need to argue from lays it out pretty clearly in my favor. Care to add some proof to your postulates? "He slaughters..." Would you prefer "he gently euthanizes them with an injection of lead?" Hello...talking about DnD here...how ELSE do you fight evil? It ain't with teacups, that's for sure. It's usually with blades and force. For example, what is Drizz't doing in that new series of books? He's standing alone against huge numbers of evil enemies, and he is SLAUGHTERING them. If you want to use an alignment system in your game that is more in line with how you think, more power to you. I'm just arguing from the books. And just for the record, modern-day alignment IS relative. Everything is relative today, it's relative to your mindframe, to your cultural upbringing, to the peer pressures you're subject to.
Eco-Mono 12-14-03, 03:16 AM	Originally posted by thugpoetry "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good" page 105. Seems to me the protection part is missing. Yes, in D&D Good and Evil are two absolutely opposing forces. But even in D&D, part of what defines them is what rules they choose to play by. Note that in the PHB definition of Good also includes "a respect for life". Would a Good person, under these definitions, destroy that which is Evil? Only if any other options which preserve "life [. . .] and the dignity of sentient beings" have been exhausted. From what I see here (note that I haven't read the comics myself), the guy takes no initiative to choose a more life-affirming path; those who have done highly evil deeds are already condemned in his mind. Of course, this speaks terrors for the conventional Paladin, as you quoted from the very next page. "Normal" D&D paladins go out to combat evil without the intermittent attempts to find another solution, which puts the class's stereotype in conflict with its Good descriptor. In fact, many "normal" good-aligned people in D&D ignore the "respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings" when facing evil. This can be easily justified, of course, by the precedent, set time and time again, that fighting evil is good. You mentioned this precedent yourself. However, it conflicts with some of the material in the very PHB we are both using for reference. End result: the Corebooks' alignment explanations are like the Bible. Contradictions everywhere, that only personal preference can solve.
Palin the Wizard 12-14-03, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion Yes, they are, at least in this situation. You are trying to make this relative to modern day morality, and using D&D rules to do it. With D&D alignment, killing is not evil, it is neutral. You are trying to use modern day morality where killing is inherently evil. You are changing the relative viewpoint, trying to assign a new group of standards to the same action, which alter the way the action is viewed. Tell me that isn't moral relativism. In D&D, you can chase down a thief and cleave the guy in half for stealing your money pouch, and you aren't going to be punished for it. You may even be rewarded for it. That is the standard we are using here. Trying to change that principle is applying a form of moral relativism. And the way alignment is set up in D&D, it is NOT based on the region or time period. If torturing slaves to death for spilling your tea is acceptable and expected in your society, that does not mean that torturing them to death is a good act. The society as a whole is Evil, and comparing the acts of the individual to those of society is not the way you judge alignment. It doesn't matter if we're talking 10,000 BC or 10,000 AD, the alignment system as set up is the one you are supposed to use, and doing certain things are Evil or Good, period, regardless of time period or setting. Hmm... You're right. I'm taking it back. Originally posted by thugpoetry Palin, rather than state something so ridculous that it is laughable, why not try and, oh, I don't know, back your point up? A paladin who commits genocide in the name of Pelor against those thrice-cursed mind flayers isn't gonna get in hot water. The only book I need to argue from lays it out pretty clearly in my favor. Care to add some proof to your postulates? Why, gladly. Punisher doesn't protect the innocent, a Lawful Good person would. Punisher would kill an enemy who surrendered, a Lawful Good person wouldn't. Punisher is determined every lawbreaker is evil and should be put down, a Lawful Good person would try to seek out a different way if at all possible (and note that it usually isn't common sense to try and talk sense to an orc. Other sentient beings, however, where the majority of the race is good or neutral, it should be an option). Punisher will use any means necessary to kill an enemy... even tortorous ones. A Lawful Good person would, if killing is necessary, choose the most mercyful method available. Do you need more proof? The reason I didn't provide proof against the claim that Punisher should be Lawful Good in the first place is that it is so painfully obvious I really didn't think it would be necessary.
thugpoetry 12-14-03, 12:12 PM	ooOOOoo....Eco...I like it! Good argument! However, I don't think that the protection part is missing. It's preemptive protection, as I'll go into a bit later. But it's still there. Same type of "protection" that a paladin offers when he invades a dragons cave to destroy the evil beast. The contradiction stuff, I can't rebut. :) I really like your argument. Palin... So the Punisher doesn't kill them because he feels responsible for every innocent that would be killed if he doesn't kill these lowest of the low? Unless I'm going crazy, which is possible, Punisher doesn't kill jaywalkers, or speeders. He kills those people who are unrepentant and well beyond rehabilitation. In my estimation, that qualifies as protecting the innocent. In DnD terms, the Paladin that goes to eradicate the goblin caves after they've attacked the same village a couple of times and will attack the same village again does the same thing. I'd say that some paladins would accept mercy. More cold-blooded ones, who realize that mercy to these people will result in more deaths, will eliminate the threat. Punisher went over this with Daredevil, who has already been quoted on here by someone else as someone to model the Paladin after, I believe. You say that it's not usually good sense to talk to Orcs...how is that much different than not being good sense to talk to the hardened criminal element that Punisher goes after? If his mission included killing off skateboarders, because they're trespassers, or something equally absurd, then I'd fully agree that he's not good. However, he doesn't kill for minor crimes. He kills for the BIGGIES, like murder. Which goes back to his protecting the innocent. It's preemptive protection, for sure, but still protection. If I was in the mood I was in last night, I'd say that I've proven that Punisher doesn't consider every lawbreaker is evil and must therefore be put down. But I'm going to argue the spirit of your post, not the letter. Punisher kills humans, mostly? He kills gangsters, he kills hardcore criminals who do far more harm than good and have proven it with their actions. He doesn't kill innocents for kicks. He doesn't kill the low level criminals. And last time I looked around real-world, which is where Punisher is nominally based, I didn't see any orcs. Or elves, or gnomes. Or dragons. Or trolls. Get my point yet? This last part, about the torture, is the best part of your argument, IMHO. Punisher feels that the tradeoff is worth it, and again, it's focused on eradicating evil. I can't really justify the torture, though. Lesser of two evils is still evil, ya know. But that's not enough to knock him from an alignment where LG characters committ genocide in their god's name, and are cheered for it when they come back to their respective societies. Does punisher torture them even after he has all the information he needs? And if the claim was "painfully obvious", do you think that I would post something to the contrary?
Rotipher 12-14-03, 01:17 PM	Look at it this way: what *faction from Planescape* would the Punisher be signed up for, the instant he stumbled into Sigil in a Marvel/WotC crossover comic? What alignment are the Mercykillers most associated with?
CrippleMrOnion 12-14-03, 02:12 PM	This is precisely why so many people hate the alignment system. I however, as I've said before, know it's not a problem with the system, but with the people interpreting it. I've already argued this with Thugpoetry privately. I guess I'll post now. He's Lawful Evil. There's no doubt about it. After reading most of the posts, that seems to be the consensus. I agree wholeheartedly. As I told thugpoetry already (we ended up agreeing to disagree), there's no question about the fact that he's lawful. He follows a very strict set of laws and guidelines about who he kills. His laws may not follow society's, but that's irrelevant to anyone who has read and understands what the PH says. The SRD also says (If i'm not allowed to quote that here, I apologize, I'm not quite competant on copywrite law) that Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “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. It seems obvious to me (though not everyone) that Punisher actively pursues killing "others" out of "duty". The fact that he kills evil people is irrelevant. That's defined as evil by the very document that sets down the rules. Yes, he INDIRECTLY protects innocent life by killing evildoers, but his intent is what's important. As mentioned in another post, an evil assassin who kills an evil oppressive lord for a sword and, in the process, frees innocent people is still evil. So is the Punisher.
bitnine 12-14-03, 02:29 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard Punisher is determined every lawbreaker is evil and should be put down, a Lawful Good person would try to seek out a different way if at all possible (and note that it usually isn't common sense to try and talk sense to an orc. Other sentient beings, however, where the majority of the race is good or neutral, it should be an option). There's also the item that the Punisher will often kill those other than his target that provide obsticals. Not so much police, but bodygaurds and private security forces and the like who might, say, point guns at him and tell him to surrender, responding to him breaking into some place to take out a target. But then again, those people, even if they are LN, have all but forced him to kill them by pointing a gun at some armed guy that just broke into the compound that they are paid to keep safe. But they stand in the way of him killing his (presumably evil) target. I guess that would make it a good act to kill them as well.
Palin the Wizard 12-14-03, 03:54 PM	thugpoetry: No, Punisher doesn't kill criminals to protect the innocent--that's where you're wrong. He kills criminals because he hates them, and as I mentioned before, out of a twisted wish for vengeance for his murdered family. Going back to one of your earlier arguments, you post the part under Lawful Good which describes a paladin. It says specifically, "Alhandra, who fights evil without mercy..." Note that it says "fights" and not "kills". Punisher kills evil without mercy. Alhandra fights evil without mercy. There's a clear difference. bitnine: Well. In that case, killing them would be a neutral act, not a good (or evil) act. They choose to fight him, and he merely defends himself.
bitnine 12-14-03, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard bitnine: Well. In that case, killing them would be a neutral act, not a good (or evil) act. They choose to fight him, and he merely defends himself. Interesting. Would you still consider it neutral if he so executed cops that responded to reports of a break-in, gunfire, and an explosion?
Edymnion 12-14-03, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by CrippleMrOnion Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. But that statement right there says the Punisher is Good. He protects innocent life. Criminals are not innocent. Their bodyguards are not innocent. The little old ladies the criminals rob of their life savings, and the kids the drug pushers are working, those are the innocents. His murdered wife and son are the innocents. The Punisher does not debase nor destroy innocent life, neither for fun, nor for profit. He's an anti-hero, yes, but he is still a hero. He's just more dark and gritty about it than Superman is. I think we all agree that he's Lawful, and there is a good discussion on whether or not he is good or evil, which, IMO, is a clear indicator of him being Neutral. He fights for a worthy cause, but uses not-so-worthy methods to carry the fight out. Doesn't care if people thinks he's a savior or a monster, he's just out to get the job done. Lawful Neutral. In fact, lets look at the entry for St. Cuthbert from the PHB (mine is the 3.0 version): 3.0 PHB, page 92: St. Cuthbert The god of retribution, St. Cuthbert is lawful neutral. He is known as St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel. St. Cuthbert exacts revenge and just punishment on those who transgress. Because evil creatures more commonly and flagrantly violate laws than good creatures do, St. Cuthbert favors good over evil, though he is not good himself. So lets see, he hunts down those that break the law. He doesn't care if they are Good, or Evil, he hunts both down with equal impunity. He exacts revenge, which is in a sense what the Punisher is doing (crime killed his family, he kills crime), and doles out just punishment. The argument could be made that death isn't a just punishment for all of Punisher's targets, but he almost exclusivly goes after criminals that wouldn't get anything less than a life sentance, so it could be said quite easily that the punishment is just, especially given D&D punishments (like I said earlier, where you could kill a pickpocket and at most get a slap on the wrist for being excessive). St. Cuthbert sounds a lot like Frank Castle to me.
bitnine 12-14-03, 04:54 PM	St. Cuthbert The god of retribution, St. Cuthbert is lawful neutral. He is known as St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel. St. Cuthbert exacts revenge and swift death on those who transgress. Because he finds evil creatures a seething anethema that provoke the deepest form of hatred in his heart, St. Cuthbert fanatically despises and methodically hunts evil, though he is not good himself.
Displaced-Hinn 12-14-03, 05:11 PM	No question of his alignment he is Lawful Neutral: 1. makes his own rules. 2. protects who he sees as inocent 3. PUNISHES those he sees as guilty These and other atributes makes him lawful neutral and if you want to make him alittle less lawful you could play him Chaotic Neutral that way you are not bound by any rules but be careful playing a CN character is hard if you cannot play a character outside of your own personality. I mean unless your already a starkraving mad lunitic already :smirk:
Landor 12-14-03, 05:49 PM	I've only read pages 1 and 4 thusfar, so forgive me if the following has been previously mentioned: Rorshach
Gazzor 12-14-03, 07:04 PM	It's worth pointing out that in all the Punisher comics I have read, he never kills innocent security guards or cops. If he does in others, it's inconsistent writing with the current version, who's fluffy and cuddly as has already been pointed out. :) Rorschach was a cool character. The Watchman film or series is supposed to be in production soon. So, just what alignment was the villain? (I'll say no more as it spoils the whole mystery part of the graphic novel). Best book I've ever read. I even covered it in my English Literature class project. Punisher does also save innocents, like Spacker Dave who was getting his face piercings pulled out with pliers by two mooks. Palin said, Going back to one of your earlier arguments, you post the part under Lawful Good which describes a paladin. It says specifically, "Alhandra, who fights evil without mercy..." Er, what difference? Does she tickle them with a feather duster until they renounce their evil ways, or does she hack them to death with her phat holy avenger? Punisher would kill an enemy who surrendered, a Lawful Good person wouldn't. Lawful stupid you mean? "Oh no, it's the really powerful baron who can bribe the judge and jury at his trial and get away with his heinous crimes and be killing more people next week. I know what, I'll accept his surrender and hand him over to the watchmen he owns". Hmmmm.... To be fair, I would go with LN myself. Probably a Rogue/ Ranger to reflect the fact that he's highly intelligent and very sneaky both indoors and out. Gazzor
Edymnion 12-14-03, 07:20 PM	If Good was not supposed to kill, somebody mind telling me why Holy swords deal real hitpoint damage, and not subdual? ;)
Landor 12-14-03, 07:53 PM	Originally posted by Gazzor Rorschach was a cool character. Gazzor Yeah, he was. But I was sugesting more of a comparison of the Punisher to Rorschach.
Palin the Wizard 12-14-03, 08:30 PM	Gazzor... I never said a Lawful Good character had to be stupid. In your example, the Lawful Good character should do all that he could to make sure his trial was just. If you cannot see the difference between fighting and killing evil, I really don't want to try and explain it to you.
bitnine 12-14-03, 10:24 PM	Originally posted by Palin the Wizard If you cannot see the difference between fighting and killing evil, I really don't want to try and explain it to you. Also, one would hope that a person that didn't see the difference wouldn't become an activist in the war on illiteracy.
bitnine 12-14-03, 10:25 PM	[Triple post, it would seem.]
bitnine 12-14-03, 10:26 PM	[I like pie.]
Aranael 12-14-03, 10:40 PM	I've made my points, both for the L part and for the N part completely already. Right now I'm just enjoying some good debate/ discussion. However, a bit of errata that may or may nor make any difference: In the PHB, looking at what they said (how sad that I forget already), it says "Good.... protect INNOCENT life", "Evil..... debase Innocent life". I think that it is merely an oversight that the listing of the attributes of Good do not then include innocent, nor evil. It was already stated, and did not need to be done so again. As in, I believe that good characters have a concern and respect for Innocent life, not All life. They value the unspoiled life of a child, and will do anything not only to protect that child, but to prevent that child's life from becoming "tainted". They Do Not value the life of the person that rapes said child and tortures them for kicks. As in, they respect LIFE, the concept, not "all living things". As I said, it is perhaps only my interpretation, but it also removes ALL inconsitencies from that section of the PHB, and makes the most sense. Take it or leave it as you will, think it makes a difference or not, this discussion rocks.
thugpoetry 12-15-03, 12:52 AM	Ahh...DnD debates, just the thing to help me procrastinate! Thugpoetry putting stuff off, so necessary. :) Lemme see here... Onion...you say that there's no doubt about it. Maybe not in your mind. Everywhere else, though, we got some nice debate going on concerning that very point. And just because he pursues the killing of evil people doesn't mean that he pursues evil in the sense that you mean it in. In a very literal sense, then yes. He does pursue evil (characters). We've agreed to disagree on this, so I won't bother rebutting your arguments. You've already heard it before. Palin: To "fight" evil without mercy....:confused: Wanna give me an example of how to effectively fight evil without mercy without killing it, in DnD terms? Wait, I know! We could cripple the evi....oh wait. No. He doesn't. The difference between fighting and killing someone in the real world is painfully obvious, and needs no further elaboration. However, in DnD...fighting evil means destroying evil. Not saying "See, I've won. If you do evil again, I'll spank you again." In the Baron example...if the Baron just goes free again, then what real good has the Pally done, besides needlessly risk her life? Edy: The St. Cuthbert thing is interesting...but Punisher saves innocents. Punisher protects innocent lives. This would mean that he doesn't see the punishment as the endall, as Cuthbert does. Punisher sees the end result as more innocents left alive. Which, in my humble opinion, makes him good. Neutral wouldn't care about the innocent people, because that is a good thing. Just for kicks, when we get done with this, we should put the Punisher together as a character, and just happen to leave the alignment aspect incomplete. Don't really think that we're gonna get agreement on this, short of lawful.
Palin the Wizard 12-15-03, 07:03 AM	Let's just make him Lawful Neutral. ;)
CrippleMrOnion 12-15-03, 02:30 PM	I honestly can live with LN because the outcome of his actions is good. However, since intent is truly what matters, I still bend towards LE. As much as this is a disagreement about Punisher, this is as much a disagreement about what alignment is truly measured by. [WizO Catoblepas: Message edited. See below.]
thugpoetry 12-16-03, 02:09 AM	[WizO Catoblepas: Message edited. Please keep the posts to the subject matter of the thread, not each other.] I shall obey.
CrippleMrOnion 12-16-03, 02:13 PM	[WizO Catoblepas: Message edited. Please keep the posts to the subject matter of the thread, not other members.]
WizO_Catoblepas 12-17-03, 05:48 AM	Ok, let's keep the discussion to the topic of the thread, not other members. Otherwise, I'll have t close the thread and send out some official warns. Thanks.
Xavier X 12-17-03, 01:57 PM	Lawful: Serious self discipline and a hardcore code of conduct to boot (even though he has forgone regional rules and laws, it still stands as he is answering a higher calling, doing the job the law should have done in the first place). Neutral: Good or Evil.. it doesn't matter 'casue if you break the rules (as he sees them) then you are scum and he knows what to do with scum. Granted evil doers are more likely to fall into the scum category. Example: St. Cuthbert, a LN diety of vengence, retribution, and justice. Also, he is definately off his rocker, but off his rocker with a purpose. That would be different than CN crazy, which is typically thought of as random.
thugpoetry 12-17-03, 06:26 PM	I still disagree with the Neutral, but can live with it as a compromise. However, in interest of putting off cleaning... Neutral would imply that he punishes all criminals, with no regard to scope. However, he doesn't punish ALL criminals. Just the big baddies. :) Like a paladin who crusades against all that is evil doesn't punish jaywalkers. Before Onion and I got a touch off topic (:angel:), I raised the question of how, in DnD, to effectively fight evil without killing it. Aranael raised a good point him/herself. Good cares about innocent life. Not life that has blood of innocents on it. He ruthlessly crushes evil where he sees it. He doesn't ruthlessly crush everyone in his way. He doesn't believe in letting people get in his way, no...but even a paladin, when faced with people who are to slow him down will wade through them until he can get past.