HE'S CHAOTIC FREAKING EVIL!!!!
Ahem...
Now that my opinion has been expressed, I must ask: Why is it that just because somebody has (or claims to have) rules that they must be Lawful? Also: Why is it that because a person thinks they are justified, it makes them non-evil? I am of the opinion that EVERYONE feels they are justified in their actions. That's WHY they do them!
Basically, my arguments with people have come down to this summary:
Exhibit 1: Jigsaw kidnaps people and kills them by putting them into elaborate deathtraps from which they have only slim chances of escape.
Exhibit 2: Jigsaw claims, and seems to believe, that he is not a murderer.
Conclusion 1: The fact that Jigsaw kidnaps and murders people makes him evil.
Conclusion 2: The fact that he does so for its own sake (he does not benefit in some way, the act has intrinsic value for him) and he goes out of his way to alter other people's lives into a worldview unique to himself makes him chaotic evil.
Conclusion 3: The fact that he doesn't think he is a murderer makes him insane.
Conclusion 4: The fact that you believe him makes you an idiot.
:headexplo :hoppingma Any comments?
The 'alignment argument' that bugs me the most is the old 'Batman-can-be-made-to-seem-to-be-any-alignment-therefore-alignments-are-a-stupid-idea' argument.
Listen, man. Minus the influence of Frank Miller's (pun-intended) batsh*t take on the Batman, Bruce is Lawful Good. He may not be very nice a lot of the time, but Batman cares about his allies, and about the people of Gotham. He's a grim, violent, manipulative liar, but he's one of the good guys. The end.
As for the law/chaos axis, the fact that Batman operates outside of the law has no impact on wether or not he's lawful or chaotic. Monks aren't lawful because they've sworn to uphold or abide by the law. Monks are lawful because they adhere to a strict personal code of discipline. Just like Batman.
Yes, that makes him the same alignment as Supes. By golly, that would suggest that the alignment system is flexible, and works!
nothing
NOTHING
and again for emphasis: nothing that has caused so much trouble in all my D&D groups ever than alignment. Specifically, lawful-chaotic (good-evil has some minor issues, but overally, it's mostly agreeable). And mostly, that is because this so-called ethical axis pretty much means nothing at all; and if it does, it's never been stated explicitly. Check out the descriptions from the PHB: you could theoretically be honourable, flexible, trustworthy, reliable, freedom-loving and devoted to your art - basically, the epitome of a good person.
And actually qualify as being both. Right. So, Ember has inner discipline and Mialee is devoted to her art. Then why in the Nine is Ember lawful, but Mialee neutral? These arguments seldom go anywhere. If you want a debate on the ethical part of Jigsaw's alignment, post a definition of lawful-chaotic. Is it "keeping your word"? Is it "abiding by the law"? Is it "being honourable"? You get my point.
-Cherubaddon
I think I've observed that Chaotic Good is the most popular alignment, even if people don't actually roleplay that way. Most people "think" of themselves as good, even if they don't act that way. Same for characters. I think players just like the feel of how Chaotic Good reads. This is probably from an American standpoint, but I think people like the hero who doesn't follow the rules, bending or outright breaking them as he sees fit, for the sake of the greater good. That seems to translate fairly well into other media for us too. By the book action heroes are fairly rare; Americans seem to like those that take matters into their own hands. Hence, characters like Wolverine and Gambit or incredibly popular, while stick-in-the-mud/ass Cyclops is not. I'm weird, I guess. I actually like Cyclops.
Dexter, for example. Some people call him chaotic good, some lawful evil. I disagree, but I can see the arguments for all sides. Jigsaw? I'm just not seeing it.
Jigsaw is pretty CE, yep. He doesn't so much have 'rules', he just has what he believes to be a noble purpose. He's not evil for the sake of good, he's evil for the sake of chaos (chaos being neither good nor evil, itself). He wants to shake people up, challenge their worldviews, inspire a change in how people think, and live. Chaos.
The 'alignment argument' that bugs me the most is the old 'Batman-can-be-made-to-seem-to-be-any-alignment-therefore-alignments-are-a-stupid-idea' argument.
Listen, man. Minus the influence of Frank Miller's (pun-intended) batsh*t take on the Batman, Bruce is Lawful Good. He may not be very nice a lot of the time, but Batman cares about his allies, and about the people of Gotham. He's a grim, violent, manipulative liar, but he's one of the good guys. The end.
As for the law/chaos axis, the fact that Batman operates outside of the law has no impact on wether or not he's lawful or chaotic. Monks aren't lawful because they've sworn to uphold or abide by the law. Monks are lawful because they adhere to a strict personal code of discipline. Just like Batman.
Yes, that makes him the same alignment as Supes. By golly, that would suggest that the alignment system is flexible, and works!
I feel really tempted to make a loooooong dissertation about why LG really isn't the right alignment for Bruce, but I'll cut it and present the tl;dr version: Bruce is most definitely not LG, or at least, not a pure LG. He has broken his code of conduct repeatedly, and you really can't place him anywhere in the good spectrum with consistency, so I'd settle for NG because it's waaaaaaay too hard to pin him to CG or LG.
I feel really tempted to make a loooooong dissertation about why LG really isn't the right alignment for Bruce, but I'll cut it and present the tl;dr version: Bruce is most definitely not LG, or at least, not a pure LG. He has broken his code of conduct repeatedly, and you really can't place him anywhere in the good spectrum with consistency, so I'd settle for NG because it's waaaaaaay too hard to pin him to CG or LG.
I'd second that.
What alignment do you think Anne Coulter is?
She's CH: Chaotic Hilarious.
Any comments?
First, let me congratulate you.
You have just witnessed what we call "the real world". In this so-called "The real world" we see that people do not judge Good and Evil according to what says on the page on some rulebook, but according to their own perspective framed by their unique personal experiences and the effect of the environment.
Once again, congratulations. You have made a first step to a larger world.
I'm no comic book expert, but he keeps trying to adhear to his personal code, right? And he more often succeds than fails, and tends to feel bad about it when he does fail? If he broke his code often enough that he no longer cares or really even tries then neutral. If he just fails sometimes, then still lawfull.
The code's kind of a "best case scenario" thing. Yeah, he tries to adhere to it. Yeah, he considers it a failure if he can't for some reason. But he doesn't exactly get all mopey if some criminal blows himself up and Batman doesn't get there in time to save him, or if he has to choose between his own life and those of people he's fighting.
I'm no comic book expert, but he keeps trying to adhear to his personal code, right? And he more often succeds than fails, and tends to feel bad about it when he does fail? If he broke his code often enough that he no longer cares or really even tries then neutral. If he just fails sometimes, then still lawfull.
Exactly this. Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, your actions dictate your alignment.
(Unless your depressed and/or Emo.)
Exactly this. Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, your actions dictate your alignment.
True, but your sucess or failure does not dictate your alignment either. To the best of my knowledge he takes great pains to adhere to his code.
I'm no comic book expert, but he keeps trying to adhear to his personal code, right? And he more often succeds than fails, and tends to feel bad about it when he does fail? If he broke his code often enough that he no longer cares or really even tries then neutral. If he just fails sometimes, then still lawfull.
Nah, that'd be chaotic. Neutral goes, "willing to collaborate with the law and with whoever is in charge, but also willing to break the rules and defy The Man when it'll stop something bad from happening". Sort of what Bats does. He only breaks his code when the situation's dire, but otherwise follows it to a tee (and has never broken his rule about killing someone with a gun in canon, AFAIK).
There's the no guns thing, but that's usually depicted as more of a preference than a hard rule, because guns make dead people. Batman prefers precision methods in order to minimize that kind of thing.
I see Batman as a guy on a Quixotic quest that nobody ever die violently ever again. He's primarily motivated by fear – in particular the fear that the faceless, nameless thing that took his parents will come back for him – not an urge to help others. He has the emotional maturity of an eight-year-old, in that he just wants to hit his problems until they are fixed. If enough lives were in the balance, I doubt there's anything he wouldn't do.
(This all relates to my Batman is Siddhartha hypothesis you can read about on TV tropes.)
I don't feel like one single rule should be enough to make somebody lawful. Is "I don't eat shellfish" enough to make me lawful?
"A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
And no one kills the children anymore. "
And the Theme Park version of it is "no killing with guns".
First, let me congratulate you.
You have just witnessed what we call "the real world". In this so-called "The real world" we see that people do not judge Good and Evil according to what says on the page on some rulebook, but according to their own perspective framed by their unique personal experiences and the effect of the environment.
Once again, congratulations. You have made a first step to a larger world.
Wow. That was... condescending. Um... thanks?
I do realize in the real world that good and evil are not carefully laid out in black and white. But then in the real world, alignment doesn't exist. For alignment to exist in the comparison, it must be viewed as within the framework of the D&D world.
That said, within the framework of the D&D world, absolutes and concrete comparisons DO exist. Some actions are explicitly defined as evil actions, some as good, etc. I believe my point was that I was trying to say he was Chaotic Evil as D&D defines alignment, and while I was using the interpretations of alignment as defined in the book, other people were coloring their opinions with their own feelings of what Good/Evil or Law/Chaos should be.
So, when you say "in the real world" people judge good and evil by their own beliefs rather than what rulebook says, that really has no bearing on the question. The question was "What alignment is Jigsaw?" and the actually interpretation is "What alignment would Jigsaw be if he were a D&D character?" The real world comparison is like asking a player in the game whether he casts a fireball, only to have him respond, "No, of course not! My wizard casts fireball at the orcs."
I do actually have a life outside of gaming.
I do actually have a life outside of gaming.
No kidding!
;) Sorry, I had to. I agree with you that the above poster was quite a bit more arrogant than strictly required. Still, that one sentence of yours has an awesome ring to it. On topic: I can only repeat myself saying that you should maybe define what you mean by law/chaos if this thread is going to go anywhere. Because as written, it can't hold.
(and has never broken his rule about killing someone with a gun in canon, AFAIK).
.....Darkseid.:P
"No killing with guns" is just the quickest way of explaining Bats' code. What it's really about is more or less that he's opposed to doing anything that would be a step backwards on the road to this (the lyrics come from Pink Floyd's The Gunner's Dream):
"A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
And no one kills the children anymore. "
And the Theme Park version of it is "no killing with guns".
Well, that's not really a code at all, then.
I also disagree. I've seen no indication that Batman dreams so loftily, or at least he doesn't practice what he preaches. He shows almost no interest in resolving the systemic causes of crime, poverty, and corruption. Sure, Wayne Foundation gives money to various charitable causes, but his pet operation is personally combating individual criminals. He regularly shrugs off criticism of his extremely questionable methods, such as the use of oppressive fear and overt physical threats, and the idea of recourse to the law is pretty much anathema to lawless vigilantism. I just think his goals are a lot simpler and more myopic than that.
Well, that's not really a code at all, then.
I also disagree. I've seen no indication that Batman dreams so loftily, or at least he doesn't practice what he preaches. He shows almost no interest in resolving the systemic causes of crime, poverty, and corruption. Sure, Wayne Foundation gives money to various charitable causes, but his pet operation is personally combating individual criminals. He regularly shrugs off criticism of his extremely questionable methods, such as the use of oppressive fear and overt physical threats, and the idea of recourse to the law is pretty much anathema to lawless vigilantism. I just think his goals are a lot simpler and more myopic than that.
That's mostly interpretation. To put it in another way: Do you think The Killing Joke would have been a good way to end The Joker's rivalry with Bats, or do you think it was way too sappy? It pretty much sums up the whole idea.
That's mostly interpretation. To put it in another way: Do you think The Killing Joke would have been a good way to end The Joker's rivalry with Bats, or do you think it was way too sappy? It pretty much sums up the whole idea.
Sums up what idea? The Joker's rivalry with Batman doesn't end in the killing joke. What was sappy about it? Batman laughs? Batman was barely even in the Killing Joke, and we're talking about Batman here, not the Joker.
Yeah, I'm interpreting. I'm looking for a way to mostly explain all of Batman's aberrations. As far as I know, he has never quoted a Pink Floyd song to explain his motives and goals, and, as I said, he certainly doesn't live up to his ideals if that's what he believes he's fighting for.
If Batman is motivated primarily by a nebulous fear of violent death and sublimated rage over the murder of his parents, and he sets himself on his impossible quest because it makes him feel safer to rationalize his fears and to confront them on his own terms rather than wait alone in the dark for them, then no killing becomes just one practical application of his goal, rather than the stumbling block it's often portrayed as. He can't kill the Joker because his goal isn't to stop the Joker from killing people, it's to stop people from dying at all, including the Joker, one at a time if that's what it takes.
IF THE DM SAYS YOU ARE OF AN ALIGNMENT, YOU ARE. That's it. Of course, it applies to everyone. When I DM, they might be a different alignment than what they would be in their own campaign.
Get over it. For the record, I don't believe jigsaw is CE. Not by a longshot. I probably will never agree with you, but I can respect and understand your decision to peg him as such.
I also don't care at all (I can't emphasize this enough) what alignment Batman is. I care what you, the DM, tells me his alignment is.
I don't want a debate, because as I have stipulated, I follow that which is presented. If you were my DM and said Jigsaw was CE, I would say OK and go on with the game. If I was DM, I would expect the same. (This also refers to my previous post).
...
I ... don't care at all (I can't emphasize this enough)
...
I don't want a debate,
Okay, love ya, bye bye!
But, I don't know, I guess you felt like you proved something? I was fairly civil; you contributed little (a vague animaniacs reference) to nothing.
Nah, that'd be chaotic. Neutral goes, "willing to collaborate with the law and with whoever is in charge, but also willing to break the rules and defy The Man when it'll stop something bad from happening".
Wrong. The law/chaos axis has nothing to do with the law or 'the Man'. Nothing.
Boy you took that way out of context (unless I'm mistaken). I'm willing to accept, and follow with other peoples' view points while not necessarily agreeing with them. Of course, within the context of the game, not arbitrarily.
But, I don't know, I guess you felt like you proved something? I was fairly civil; you contributed little (a vague animaniacs reference) to nothing.
... Not really. You said you do not care, and that you do not wish to debate it. That is all well and good. Have a nice day. Don't feel obligated to post in a thread about things you dont care about and dont want to talk about.
That said, If you changed your mind and now do care or would like to debate you are welcome to do that as well, of course.
No more. Alignment. Bad. Everyone and their mothers knows it.
Ohh!
Lets apply alignment to the forum medium.
What would you say my alignment is?
Ohh!
Lets apply alignment to the forum medium.
What would you say my alignment is?
Chaotic Avatar-Stealer.
For example, I personally think that if you are attacking someone with the intent to harm or kill them, it really shouldn't matter for the purposes of morality whether or not you are using poison. In fact, it might even be merciful. Choosing to poison someone with a strength or dexterity damaging poison in order to paralyze and avoid killing them could certainly qualify by real life standards as a morally wholesome choice. However, the book defines it as evil, therefore it is. And while I personally disagree with that assessment, and may support the change of the rule in any games that I play, I still ACCEPT that the rule exists in the first place.
As far as Jigsaw is concerned, he routinely does evil actions (kidnapping, murder, etc.), and he has in fact made it central to his being. It is his life's purpose. This right there basically means that, regardless of whether or not you agree with his motives (torturing and killing them for their own good
), he is evil because of his actions.For the ethical axis, he is always trying to shake people out of the rut they are in. A consistent theme for his victims is that they are guilty of a lifetime of some habitual crime, sin, or perceived inadequecy. He views himself largely as a creature of change, a strong element of chaos according to D&D alignment. He is trying to force them to take responsibility for whatever he thinks has deemed them unsuitable to survive, and change themselves. Just as a chaotic character may try to conquer a corrupt system, he is trying to conquer their corrupt natures.
The thing that really binds the whole Chaotic Evil thing together though is that as noble as he thinks his purpose may be, it ultimately comes down to being entirely self-centered in origin. When he tried to kill himself after his chemotherapy failed, and survived the crash, he felt he had a moment of clarity that made him a stronger and better individual. All of his games are based around trying to force people to live out his moment of clarity, because he feels that the experience makes him superior to anyone else. In short, he has suffered a break from society and reality and is, with complete and total disregard for the lives and rights of others (he views both as immaterial) trying to "enlighten" others to his "superior" perception.
Additional proof:
- While he claims to help people, he has no problems killing others who do not qualify for his standards for destruction in order to make his point to his prey.
- Chaotic Evil is the only alignment that allows people to perpetuate evil acts for their own sake rather than personal benefit.
- Characters and NPCs who are evil due to insanity (such as Derro) are almost always Chaotic Evil in nature
As the D&D rules read, Jigsaw can't really be viewed as anything but Chaotic Evil. If your personal code of conduct, worldview, background, philosophy, religion, etc. make you think that he has some valid points or would be a different alignment in your games, that's fine. But that doesn't make him anything other than Chaotic Evil in the alignment system as written.
If he was regularly posioning people, or casting inflict minor wounds... rebucking undead... ect. then you might have an argument.
I dont think kidnapping and killing are specifically called out as evil acts.
If he was regularly posioning people, or casting inflict minor wounds... rebucking undead... ect. then you might have an argument.
Well there was the plot of Saw II (I think it was, I forget the number) where the entire plot had a timeline based around how long it would take the poison to affect his victims.
And actually, under the Good vs. Evil heading in the 3.5 PHB:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
So does "Adventuring".
... Not really. You said you do not care, and that you do not wish to debate it. That is all well and good. Have a nice day. Don't feel obligated to post in a thread about things you dont care about and dont want to talk about.
That said, If you changed your mind and now do care or would like to debate you are welcome to do that as well, of course.
I suppose in a roundabout way I am debating. And I also never intended to say that I don't care about the subject of the thread, but rather don't care to debate about the specifics of the alignment of certain people. My standpoint is that it usually is fruitless to try to convince someone that jigsaw, batman, or whoever is alignment X, because such a sentiment is based on subjective (and often) biased mores and values of the person who says as much.
Strangely, although you have disagreed with my posts, I think you're probably someone I would get along with swimmingly, because a lot of what you've said (both in jest and seriously; and not simply in this thread) are things I agree with... but I still think you missed the context of my posts (and hopefully have cleared that up here).
In fact, he's often explaining to his victims that what he is doing isn't necessarily good nor evil; just simply fulfilling some form of justice based on his personal dogma.
Just for funsies, how about LN? Jigsaw doesn't believe what he does as having any sort of moral standing.
In fact, he's often explaining to his victims that what he is doing isn't necessarily good nor evil; just simply fulfilling some form of justice based on his personal dogma.
Alignment isn't necessarily about beliefs. Evil means you hurt others, have a desire to hurt others, or lack the compassion and empathy to prevent yourself from hurting others. All three descriptions match Jigsaw.
I think he's Lawful Evil, though, because he tries to assert control over other people. He doesn't do it like a CE bully, however, he carries authority, or at least attempts too. He's meticulous and careful, which aren't traits you'd find in a Chaotic character.
However, I think that the alignment debate is pretty stupid.
I'd also would like to say that I've never watched a Saw movie in my life. I have more taste than that.
Alignment isn't necessarily about beliefs. Evil means you hurt others, have a desire to hurt others, or lack the compassion and empathy to prevent yourself from hurting others. All three descriptions match Jigsaw.
That's actually the exact point I was trying to make. What people feel constitutes good or evil in real life often has no bearing on alignment in D&D. While views of morality are subjective in real life, in the framework of D&D, they are often layed out in black and white by the developers of the game. It's their vision and their rules, whether we agree with them or not.
I personally think Jigsaw is neutral evil. In my understanding, CE is all about doing whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want. Jigsaw was a bit too purposeful and idealistic for that, but not nearly refined or self conscious enough to be lawful. Solidly NE.
Jigsaw claims to be purposeful and idealistic, and goes to great lengths on the subject to explain why he is so, but his actions belie his true nature. While he claims the purpose of the betterment of his targets, he often commits other acts just to setup their "redemption". In recent movies, he has put other people in death traps for his target to choose to save or not, people who did not meet his standards of execution (they often made only one mistake). I know at least one other was kidnapped and put in mortal danger when they had done nothing at all (one of the main character's children) to be the "prize" for the character "winning" the game, and he claims in the exact same movie that he has never killed anyone.
Basically, Jigsaw is very detailed in the creation of his life's work, claiming to have a set of guidelines and rules, but he breaks those rules whenever it suits him. And as already said, Jigsaw has dedicated his life to being a powerful force of change, very indicitive of a chaotic alignment. Dedication and Chaotic Alignment aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Robin Hood, often thought to be the ideal Chaotic Good hero was quite dedicated to freeing the country from tyranny, no matter how much adversity he faced.