Sage Atop The Mountain: Your Alignment Issues Solved

256 posts / 0 new
Last post
As part of a conversation in another thread, the idea of simply answering common issues occured to me. So here I am sitting under the umbrella of "Alignment problems" in this thread, waiting for the rain to fall.

Have a specific problem with alignment in yoru game or an issue understanding it? Hit me up. I'll resolve it for you. Free of charge!

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

what alignment is batman?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

what alignment is batman?



I say it really depends on the era.

In the beginning? I'd say Chaotic Good.

60s? Lawful Good.

Nolan's Batman? Lawful Evil. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
what alignment is batman?



I say it really depends on the era.

In the beginning? I'd say Chaotic Good.

60s? Lawful Good.

Nolan's Batman? Lawful Evil. 



Nolan's batman as LE?  wow.  i'd say lawful good.  while not abiding by the city's corrupt laws he abides by his own code while doing good.

im curious why you would attribute evil to that batman. 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

As part of a conversation in another thread, the idea of simply answering common issues occured to me. So here I am sitting under the umbrella of "Alignment problems" in this thread, waiting for the rain to fall.

Have a specific problem with alignment or an issue understanding it? Hit me up. I'll resolve it for you. Free of charge!



What is alignment for?  If I don't have to use it if I don't want to then why should I want to use it?  What makes it anything more than a theft of an interesting idea from Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson fiction that was slapped with the label of "rule" to make everyone use it?  What is it really supposed to DO for D&D?

Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.

My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm

"Who says I can't?" "The man in the funny hat..."

what alignment is batman?



Batman is Lawful Good.

(This assumes we are talking about the Batman that has been in comics for the last 70+ years and not alternate versions of Batman such as in Elseworlds or the like. That is to say, Batman's common media portrayal is as Lawful Good in comics, television and cinema. Occasionally alternate universes in comics show different kinds of Batman but that is beyond the scope of my answer since characters like Owlman are "Evil" Batman. And yes, I'm a giant comic book geek too)

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

what alignment is batman?



I say it really depends on the era.

In the beginning? I'd say Chaotic Good.

60s? Lawful Good.

Nolan's Batman? Lawful Evil. 



Nolan's batman as LE?  wow.  i'd say lawful good.  while not abiding by the city's corrupt laws he abides by his own code while doing good.

im curious why you would attribute evil to that batman. 



He only has one law he abides by. "Do not kill". Other than that, he's willing to do anything to get to his enemies. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if it breaks other existing laws.

I feel it fits the idea of a lawful evil aligned character living by a code but otherwise doing anything to get what they want.

He even goes so far as to invade the privacy of every citizen of Gotham and becomes a borderline tyrant by doing that. The only reason the system is destroyed is because Lucious Fox was too valuable an ally to lose. I have no doubt Batman would have kept that system if not for Lucious.

Also, if that blows your mind, then I have a spoiler for you...>_>





The Joker won. He got Batman to break his one rule. (He killed two-face)
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Lawful Neutral. He believes in the law but has such a warped view of what the law should be (He has done some things that were by no means Good in his pursuit of vigilante justice) thus he cannot be Lawful Good. He might think he's Good but what he does often blurs the line of Good/Evil/Neutrality.

Show
of course I know the real answer since i've seen the image with him for all alignments so nyah!
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
As part of a conversation in another thread, the idea of simply answering common issues occured to me. So here I am sitting under the umbrella of "Alignment problems" in this thread, waiting for the rain to fall.

Have a specific problem with alignment or an issue understanding it? Hit me up. I'll resolve it for you. Free of charge!



What is alignment for?  If I don't have to use it if I don't want to then why should I want to use it?  What makes it anything more than a theft of an interesting idea from Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson fiction that was slapped with the label of "rule" to make everyone use it?  What is it really supposed to DO for D&D?



What is alignment meant to DO? It is meant to give a mechanical means by which a characters disposition in the universe can be judged. Essentially, it allows the DM, as authority, to look down upon the players and see into their souls like an omniscient being. It also systematizes things like swords that only answer the call of Good or armor that only protects those who are Evil of heart without it having to be an arbitrary call by the DM "Well I guess you're good enough to lift the sword".

As for why you should want to use it? It gives players another layer of "interesting choices" the likes of which are the heart & soul of tabletop gaming. That is to say, when someone wants to do something, a DM is able to say "Just so you know, that's an Evil act" or "That would be a very Good act to perform" and, armed with that information, the player can make a better, informed decision about it. Mind you, that requires an impartial DM that does not CARE whether an act is Evil or Good, because it is up to the player to determine WHAT they do. Choices are fun...giving a tangible methodology to weigh those choices is even more fun.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />He only has one law he abides by. "Do not kill". Other than that, he's willing to do anything to get to his enemies. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if it breaks other existing laws.

I feel it fits the idea of a lawful evil aligned character living by a code but otherwise doing anything to get what they want.

He even goes so far as to invade the privacy of every citizen of Gotham and becomes a borderline tyrant by doing that. The only reason the system is destroyed is because Lucious Fox was too valuable an ally to lose. I have no doubt Batman would have kept that system if not for Lucious.

Also, if that blows your mind, then I have a spoiler for you...>_>

The Joker won. He got Batman to break his one rule. (He killed two-face)



Nolan's Batman is Lawful Good. He pursues justice and supports authority (particularly moral authority) while sacrificing pretty much everything for other people.

Batman's actions would only by tyrannical if they were abusive, cruel or arbitrary. They are not, therefore it is not tyranny.

Lawful Neutral. He believes in the law but has such a warped view of what the law should be (He has done some things that were by no means Good in his pursuit of vigilante justice) thus he cannot be Lawful Good. He might think he's Good but what he does often blurs the line of Good/Evil/Neutrality.

of course I know the real answer since i've seen the image with him for all alignments so nyah!



The correct answer is "Lawful Good".

Also, please guys, lets keep the major back and forth to a minimum. I'm trying to answer questions in here.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />He only has one law he abides by. "Do not kill". Other than that, he's willing to do anything to get to his enemies. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if it breaks other existing laws.

I feel it fits the idea of a lawful evil aligned character living by a code but otherwise doing anything to get what they want.

He even goes so far as to invade the privacy of every citizen of Gotham and becomes a borderline tyrant by doing that. The only reason the system is destroyed is because Lucious Fox was too valuable an ally to lose. I have no doubt Batman would have kept that system if not for Lucious.

Also, if that blows your mind, then I have a spoiler for you...>_>

The Joker won. He got Batman to break his one rule. (He killed two-face)



Nolan's Batman is Lawful Good. He pursues justice and supports authority (particularly moral authority) while sacrificing pretty much everything for other people.

Batman's actions would only by tyrannical if they were abusive, cruel or arbitrary. They are not, therefore it is not tyranny.




Thus why I said "borderline". I have no doubt that if he could have kept that system, he would have descended into abusive, cruel, and arbitrary justice.

I will never buy the "Lawful Good" schtick for Nolan's Batman. Sorry. He even shows that he goes against authority and moral authority several times throughout the Dark Knight, in particular whenever he disagrees with Gordon. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />He only has one law he abides by. "Do not kill". Other than that, he's willing to do anything to get to his enemies. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if it breaks other existing laws.

I feel it fits the idea of a lawful evil aligned character living by a code but otherwise doing anything to get what they want.

He even goes so far as to invade the privacy of every citizen of Gotham and becomes a borderline tyrant by doing that. The only reason the system is destroyed is because Lucious Fox was too valuable an ally to lose. I have no doubt Batman would have kept that system if not for Lucious.

Also, if that blows your mind, then I have a spoiler for you...>_>

The Joker won. He got Batman to break his one rule. (He killed two-face)



Nolan's Batman is Lawful Good. He pursues justice and supports authority (particularly moral authority) while sacrificing pretty much everything for other people.

Batman's actions would only by tyrannical if they were abusive, cruel or arbitrary. They are not, therefore it is not tyranny.




Thus why I said "borderline". I have no doubt that if he could have kept that system, he would have descended into abusive, cruel, and arbitrary justice.

I will never buy the "Lawful Good" schtick for Nolan's Batman. Sorry. He even shows that he goes against authority and moral authority several times throughout the Dark Knight, in particular whenever he disagrees with Gordon. 



In the Batman narrative Gordon is not always a moral authority. For instance, in the comics, his first marriage failed because he cheated on his wife.

However, I DID qualify my initial post with the fact that I was only answering in regards to the main portrayal of Batman. So, comic book Batman.

The Batman character is Lawful Good.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />He only has one law he abides by. "Do not kill". Other than that, he's willing to do anything to get to his enemies. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if it breaks other existing laws.

I feel it fits the idea of a lawful evil aligned character living by a code but otherwise doing anything to get what they want.

He even goes so far as to invade the privacy of every citizen of Gotham and becomes a borderline tyrant by doing that. The only reason the system is destroyed is because Lucious Fox was too valuable an ally to lose. I have no doubt Batman would have kept that system if not for Lucious.

Also, if that blows your mind, then I have a spoiler for you...>_>

The Joker won. He got Batman to break his one rule. (He killed two-face)



Nolan's Batman is Lawful Good. He pursues justice and supports authority (particularly moral authority) while sacrificing pretty much everything for other people.

Batman's actions would only by tyrannical if they were abusive, cruel or arbitrary. They are not, therefore it is not tyranny.




Thus why I said "borderline". I have no doubt that if he could have kept that system, he would have descended into abusive, cruel, and arbitrary justice.

I will never buy the "Lawful Good" schtick for Nolan's Batman. Sorry. He even shows that he goes against authority and moral authority several times throughout the Dark Knight, in particular whenever he disagrees with Gordon. 



In the Batman narrative Gordon is not always a moral authority. For instance, in the comics, his first marriage failed because he cheated on his wife.

However, I DID qualify my initial post with the fact that I was only answering in regards to the main portrayal of Batman. So, comic book Batman.

The Batman character is Lawful Good.



Well, in comics, I generally do not disagree with Lawful Good.

I was speaking solely of Nolan's version. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Well, in comics, I generally do not disagree with Lawful Good.

I was speaking solely of Nolan's version. 



Understood. That might have more wiggle room then. Or at least it'd have to be thought about more. Considering the focus of the movies, however, the more interesting discussion might be regarding the villains alignment and purposes. That might be worth a thread...it's just beyond the scope of this one.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


I stand by my statement.

Edit: Trying to fiddle with the pic for size
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
I stand by my statement.



You're welcome to.

You're wrong, but that is your right.

I could explain to you why, but I doubt you're interested in having your beliefs challenged. If you are, I will elaborate...if not, well discussion will hold precious little for you in general then.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I stand by my statement.



You're welcome to.

You're wrong, but that is your right.

I could explain to you why, but I doubt you're interested in having your beliefs challenged. If you are, I will elaborate...if not, well...discussion will hold precious little for you in general then.



I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I stand by my statement.



You're welcome to.

You're wrong, but that is your right.

I could explain to you why, but I doubt you're interested in having your beliefs challenged. If you are, I will elaborate...if not, well discussion will hold precious little for you in general then.



Show me hard proof that I am wrong. Where is something I can analyze and discuss that states I am wrong? Until you can give me that, you are stating an opinion and you have no right to tell me that I am wrong. By all means, respond, I'd like to see what you have to say.
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
I stand by my statement.



You're welcome to.

You're wrong, but that is your right.

I could explain to you why, but I doubt you're interested in having your beliefs challenged. If you are, I will elaborate...if not, well discussion will hold precious little for you in general then.



Show me hard proof that I am wrong. Where is something I can analyze and discuss that states I am wrong? Until you can give me that, you are stating an opinion and you have no right to tell me that I am wrong. By all means, respond, I'd like to see what you have to say.



My my how defensive. Sore spot eh?

"A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty."

Batman. The core of Batman's character is compassion for his fellow man and a desire to protect them. It is why his counterpart Owlman is the ultimate sociopath (to the point of nihilism to prove his point).

Also there is this from WoTC themselves...the designers that determine what "Lawful Good" is...

In the Complete Scoundrel sourcebook Batman, Dick Tracy and Indiana Jones are cited as examples of lawful good characters

However, even without that, Batman is Lawful Good.

For comparison...[brackets are me]

"A Neutral Good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically [sounds like Batman at first], without regard for or against Lawful [not Batman, he respects the law anbd those that serve it] precepts such as rules or tradition [Batman has built an entire lineage of defenders in his Bat-family built on his traditions...so not him]. A Neutral Good character has no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them [This does sound similar to Batman, but Batman does not place Jim Gordon in compromising situations because he DOES feel beholden to him since he's the actual law in Gotham. he does not undermine Jim]. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a Lawful Good character would. [Batman constantly suffers this inner conflict. If he could be a lawman he would be but he cannot work within the restrictions of that structure because he hews to pure justice not to man's law]"

And next...[again brackets are me]

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific," "Rebel," or "Cynic" alignment. A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well [this is enough to throw out Batman as chaotic. He does not value his own personal freedom or even the freedom of those that serve with him under his oath to justice. He is all about responsibility to his fellow man]. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of alignment with the rest of society [again not Chaotic...disorganized? No, not Batman]. They may create conflict in a team if they feel they are being pushed around, and often view extensive organization and planning as pointless, preferring to improvise.[This last line ALSO shatters Batman as being Chaotic...Batman loves organization and planning and does not prefer to improvise]

So there you go.

I don't think there's a need to go into why Batman is not not-"Good" or why he is not "Evil"...if those aren't self evident, I'd suggest some heavier reading on the character of Batman.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Superman, is Lawful Good.  He always follows the laws of humanity regardless of what he, himself, believes.  Like when Luthor becomes the president of the USA, he knows Luthor, he knows he will never change.  But he respects the laws put in place because if he breaks them, or kills someone, he loses the trust of the people.  I mean even against Darkside who pushes Superman to his extreme limits, he never kills him.  Even when during the episodes of JLU where the alternate universe Justice League comes to our universe, Superman does not kill.  He's a tyrant, he lobotomizes (sp?) a villain but he doesn't kill.  This is pure Lawful Good.

The Joker, is Chaotic Evil.  He ignores laws, kills the innocent etc..  He claims to be an agent of Chaos.  He tries to turn people against each other, masterminds schemes meant to cause harm both on a physical and mental level.  He kills Robin and then later gloats about it to Batman trying to enrage him to the point that he would break his only rule, not to kill.  This is pure Chaotic Evil.

Batman, on the other hand, is much harder to define especially since he has multiple incarnations.  The Nolan Batman is not Lawful Good.  For one thing he disregards every law in the book except for the one his own code includes, not to kill.  Secondly the concept of good and evil is merely in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure Batman would never think himself evil, but the people who have their cars blown up during the motorcycle scene in Batman the Dark Knight would probably disagree.  I mean he creates an entire persona around making people scared of him, creating a mythos that he is an evil being out of your nightmares.  In Batman Begins he destroys Raz Al Goul's (sp?) base in the mountains by burning the place down.  How many people died in that fire?  Of course it doesn't really matter since they are Evil right ?  But really they believe they are Good, they purge Evil from the world after all !  Batman just didn't like that they planned to purge Gotham because it was a hive of evil and crime, and even though Batman stops them and lives out the next 20-30 years fighting evil and crime it never actually stops.  And if you look at the comic book versions of Batman he's even more away from Lawful Good.  Furthermore the need that Batman has of Robin is to keep him in check so that he doesn't cross "that" line.  Robin counter-balances Batman.  Robin is much closer to Lawful Good than Batman, however even he isn't Lawful Good.  

If I had to peg it down to an exact alignment, which is stupid to begin with because an alignment can't possibly encompass everything that even a fictional comic book character is, I would have to peg Batman as Lawful Evil (because he has his own code and follows only his own code no matter what).  The description of that alignment also includes an example of "undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct".  Batman fits that description.  However he also fits the description of Lawful Neutral, probably more so.

Anyway the tl;dr of this is that alignment is stupid and cannot possibly encompass everything that even a fictional character could represent or be.  And every problem with alignment can be solved by simply not using it to begin with which makes it even more silly.  It allows others to turn around and say that you're playing your character wrong because based on your alignment you shouldn't be doing that you're doing.  It allows DM's to abuse their authority (which is really very slim considering that without players there is no game) to cause grief and problems for players who just want to have fun and play the game and RP.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Not at all. I play 4th Edition, not 3.what-have-you. The reason is because I'm a biologist and I deal in hard facts. If you can't provide evidence to back up a claim, than what you said is exactly that, a claim.

Regarding a character acting with compassion, I can cite at least one situation where Batman did something blatantly cruel and by older edition's standards, Evil. When he has cornered Two-Face and he demands Dent give himself up, Dent goes to flip his coin, heads he surrenders, tails he fights. What Batsy does at that immediate time is hurl dozens of otherwise identical quarters at Two-Face, making him drop his coin amidst all the others. What does Batman do after that? Simply grin and walk away, leaving Two-Face (who has a psychological need to have his coin) broken, unable to find the one tie to his sanity.

If you prefer a second account of uncompassionate behavior from Batsy, let's go with the origin of the Joker. The Joker started off as a simple man who through twists of Fate, found himselves indebted to the mob. When he brought several thugs into a chemical plant that he worked in so they could steal some chemicals and pay off his debt, Bats showed up and proceeded to kick the ever loving zogg out of the thugs. Then, when only the proto-Joker remained, he threw him into one of the vats of chemicals, creating the man that would be the Joker. Very nice and Good of Batsy to do, throwing an unarmed man into a chemical vat and creating his greatest archenemy and one of the most deadly madmen ever to be unleashed on Gotham.

As for your book saying that Batsy is LG, I'll leave you with this to ponder. Only 600 years ago, Europe believed that the world was as flat as a board and that you could sail off the edge of the very world. Now we know that the world is not in fact flat but rather quite roundish. Perhaps you shouldn't take everything written in a book as Gospel truth. You, and the book, might just be proven wrong.
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
For further examination on the alignment of Batman, you should check out the Book "Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of The Soul" in the Blackwell series.


The Joker, is Chaotic Evil.  He ignores laws, kills the innocent etc..  He claims to be an agent of Chaos.  He tries to turn people against each other, masterminds schemes meant to cause harm both on a physical and mental level.  He kills Robin and then later gloats about it to Batman trying to enrage him to the point that he would break his only rule, not to kill.  This is pure Chaotic Evil.




Joker is a tough case, only becaue he is frequently portayed differently.
Comics, even the 90's cartoon, yeah, i'll give you CE anyday.
Heath Ledger's Joker is CN: he has no interest in personal gain or power (he burns his money!), all he wants to do is upset order. Police, politicians, the mob, hospitals, no one is safe, not even his own henchmen.



On a similar note, anyone who thinks batman is LE seriously needs to lay off the pipe. He's LG (not lawful stupid, just lawful and good). It can be argued that he's LN or even NG, and sometimes in those cases it's best to agree to disagree.
But answering (Anything) Evil is just a pure demonstration that you have no idea how alignment works in any edition. Sorry, but it's true. 
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis

let's go with the origin of the Joker.

The Joker’s origin has never been established. That was only in the Tim Burton film and isn’t a part of the comic mythos.
Well clearly others disagree with you Onikani and I would appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks against those who do.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Noctaem, whom are you addressing?
Onikani, as the post clearly reads :p
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Onikani, as the post clearly reads :p

misread. >.<
no worries.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)


let's go with the origin of the Joker.

The Joker’s origin has never been established. That was only in the Tim Burton film and isn’t a part of the comic mythos.



The Killing Joke. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/

let's go with the origin of the Joker.

The Joker’s origin has never been established. That was only in the Tim Burton film and isn’t a part of the comic mythos.



The Killing Joke. 

Wow. Fail on my part. I had forgotten about that . . .

let's go with the origin of the Joker.

The Joker’s origin has never been established. That was only in the Tim Burton film and isn’t a part of the comic mythos.



The Killing Joke. 



"The story would affect the mainstream Batman continuity" taken from the wiki. It depends on how much weight you place on plot points which are considered contradictory to "mainstream" views of the world of Batman.

I think this is the central issue most people have with arguing anything and everything Batman: we all have a source, era, or format of Batman we like better or have more contact with, so we all talk on different levels that are incompatible and then get upset when no one can see how "clearly right" we are. (As with the case of Batman's alignment earlier).
Well clearly others disagree with you Onikani and I would appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks against those who do.




As has been pointed out, Complete Scoundral clearly says that Batman is LG.
I know it is common for people to disagree with the Devs but still...

And oddly enough i actually agreed with you (Joker CE), i didn't make any personal attacks, just a general statement to those that defines "someone that fights crime and donates tons of money to orphans and charities" as evil.

Besides, (this may be a regional thing) "Laying off the pipe" isn't exactly an attack around here, it's not like i called them trolls or anything. So sorry if that offended you somehow, but i stand by my statements.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis

let's go with the origin of the Joker.

The Joker’s origin has never been established. That was only in the Tim Burton film and isn’t a part of the comic mythos.



The Killing Joke. 



"The story would affect the mainstream Batman continuity" taken from the wiki. It depends on how much weight you place on plot points which are considered contradictory to "mainstream" views of the world of Batman.

I think this is the central issue most people have with arguing anything and everything Batman: we all have a source, era, or format of Batman we like better or have more contact with, so we all talk on different levels that are incompatible and then get upset when no one can see how "clearly right" we are. (As with the case of Batman's alignment earlier).



Well, considering how hard that story impacted the continuity, I place a lot of weight in it. That said, I do understand that some might argue that Joker's origins weren't necessarily established exactly as he admits to perhaps remembering it wrong, but I'd say that it doesn't have to. It establishes just enough so that he has some kind of background and origin. That being the "bad day" that drove him crazy. Also, it has more or less always been solidified that he first became a criminal through the Red Hood fraud.

Well clearly others disagree with you Onikani and I would appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks against those who do.




As has been pointed out, Complete Scoundral clearly says that Batman is LG.
I know it is common for people to disagree with the Devs but still...

And oddly enough i actually agreed with you (Joker CE), i didn't make any personal attacks, just a general statement to those that defines "someone that fights crime and donates tons of money to orphans and charities" as evil.

Besides, (this may be a regional thing) "Laying off the pipe" isn't exactly an attack around here, it's not like i called them trolls or anything. So sorry if that offended you somehow, but i stand by my statements.



I never took it as an attack. I don't see how it could be. :P

Anyway, you can feel however you want. But LE is Nolan's batman. :P

Then again, this could lead to a discussion about the definition of LE in D&D. But I don't feel like getting into any heavy conversation at the moment. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Not at all. I play 4th Edition, not 3.what-have-you. The reason is because I'm a biologist and I deal in hard facts. If you can't provide evidence to back up a claim, than what you said is exactly that, a claim.

Regarding a character acting with compassion, I can cite at least one situation where Batman did something blatantly cruel and by older edition's standards, Evil.



There are two problems with this. The first is that characters who have an alignment don't always act true to it. The famous example is good-guy Tordek justifying to himself him stealing to satisfy his greed. Secondly, Two-Face was an enemy. Is it a good act to show compassion on a rampaging demon? No. That smile could have been for any number of reasons. He could have just been happy that he found a simple way to neutralize such a dangerous individual. Even if he was smiling at the ironic manner of his defeat, that hardly means he isn't lawful good. In fact, he could have been experiencing compassion even as he was laughing at the irony. That is what the lit-crit crowd calls an internal conflict. Now, what that does demonstrate is the potential capacity for him to become something other than lawful good, and that is something pretty much every character has, the ability to grow in a positive or negative manner.

Caine Black Knife does some very heroic and beatiful things to protect his family who doesn't actually care anything for him, even going so far as to
Show
block a sword meant to kill his wife with his own body.
He is also generally worse than the Joker as he
Show
killed the children of an entire nation because he was angry that the nation's warriors violated his lover. He burned over 10,000 children to death with molotov cocktails while using an elaborate hoax to trick them into thinking he was their god sending his angry judgment on them,
and that was just one example. Generally, Caine is a remorseless murderer who kills people for the entertainment of others, as his livelihood. Easily classified as Chaotic Evil. He also demonstrates that he has a seething and volatile hatred  of authority when he
Show
literally curses out and threatens a whole room of the world's most powerful leaders with painful and creative death. They all think it is part of the "Caine act" and that he is just getting into character so they all cheer for him. What they don't realize is that he was 100% serious, as they find out much later in the story.




Oct 23, 2012 -- 11:33AM, Onikani wrote:


Heath Ledger's Joker is CN: he has no interest in personal gain or power (he burns his money!), all he wants to do is upset order. Police, politicians, the mob, hospitals, no one is safe, not even his own henchmen.






Its just a question of what his goals are. He is willing to hurt, oppress, and kill bystanders or anyone really, so long as it is convenient in getting him what he wants, and what he wants is chaos and anarchy. In fact the 3e description of Chaotic Evil fits Nolan's Joker to a T, I think.


I never took it as an attack. I don't see how it could be. :P

Anyway, you can feel however you want. But LE is Nolan's batman. :P

Then again, this could lead to a discussion about the definition of LE in D&D. But I don't feel like getting into any heavy conversation at the moment. 




Thanks for having a sense of humor.


And yes, the crux of all alignment problems isn't that people can't agree on what alignment someone is, it stems from a larger issue that people don't agree on what the alignments themselves mean. If everyone agreed on exactly what all of the alignments meant, there would be a lot less arguing and a lot more discussion.

But yeah, that's a whole new can of worms, and i'm also not getting into it now. 
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis

I never took it as an attack. I don't see how it could be. :P

Anyway, you can feel however you want. But LE is Nolan's batman. :P

Then again, this could lead to a discussion about the definition of LE in D&D. But I don't feel like getting into any heavy conversation at the moment. 




Thanks for having a sense of humor.


And yes, the crux of all alignment problems isn't that people can't agree on what alignment someone is, it stems from a larger issue that people don't agree on what the alignments themselves mean. If everyone agreed on exactly what all of the alignments meant, there would be a lot less arguing and a lot more discussion.

But yeah, that's a whole new can of worms, and i'm also not getting into it now. 



A sense of humor goes a loooooooooooooooooooooong way online.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Here's the problem with the "600 years ago in Europe" analogy...the devs get to define what Lawful Good is. It is within their right. So they get to define who fits that ideal. If they say Batman is LG than Batman is LG.

Because you disagree with it does not make them wrong. It actually makes you wrong. The devs define Lawful Good. They have stated something to be Lawful Good. THAT is gospel because all of it is firmly 100% in the control of the devs. Do you not like it? Maybe. Does it make it wrong? Nope. It just makes it a truth for the system you happen to dislike. Get over it. You can not like something and still have that something be true.

Oh also because I'm a GIANT comic book nerd (got 5000+ of them in a fireproof cabinet in my basement right now...) I'll point out some of the incorrect things mentioned...

When he has cornered Two-Face and he demands Dent give himself up, Dent goes to flip his coin, heads he surrenders, tails he fights. What Batsy does at that immediate time is hurl dozens of otherwise identical quarters at Two-Face, making him drop his coin amidst all the others. What does Batman do after that? Simply grin and walk away, leaving Two-Face (who has a psychological need to have his coin) broken, unable to find the one tie to his sanity.



You seem to be connecting two seperate things...in Batman Forever, Batman did indeed throw a bunch of coins at Harvey to keep him from RANDOMLY deciding whether or not to kill someone (that is an evil act by the way...leaving someones life up to chance like that). So he was preventing an evil act. That is Good. And he did not grin about it, if this is what you are referencing.

And then there is this example from Batman the Animated Series where Two-Face IS paralyzed by indecision .However, suggesting that the coin is his "one tie to his sanity" is such a misunderstanding of the Two-Face character that it is glaring. The coin is no more his tie to sanity than a beer is an alcoholics link to their self-control. Flipping a coin to determine whether or not to murder is NOT sane behavior.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqGup4UGS_A

If you prefer a second account of uncompassionate behavior from Batsy, let's go with the origin of the Joker. The Joker started off as a simple man who through twists of Fate, found himselves indebted to the mob. When he brought several thugs into a chemical plant that he worked in so they could steal some chemicals and pay off his debt, Bats showed up and proceeded to kick the ever loving zogg out of the thugs. Then, when only the proto-Joker remained, he threw him into one of the vats of chemicals, creating the man that would be the Joker. Very nice and Good of Batsy to do, throwing an unarmed man into a chemical vat and creating his greatest archenemy and one of the most deadly madmen ever to be unleashed on Gotham.



You don't know your Batman canon. The thugs of the Red Hood gang were killed in a shoot-out with plant security and the man-that-would-be-Joker panic'd and ran. When Batman showed up he then JUMPED into the vat of chemicals. And that is the most cited origin from the Killing Joke. You're wrong. Also Batman felt TERRIBLE that it happened.

Believe me, my comic book knowledge borders on the absurd...especially when it comes to Batman.

So, as usual, people are arguing that they are 100% right and aren't even correct about their examples. Par for the course. However, I was provided with an EXCELLENT example of why people don't understand alignment...and it has NOTHING to do with something wrong with the concept of alignment. It's this gem right here...

"Secondly the concept of good and evil is merely in the eye of the beholder"

If you believe this is true in HEROIC FANTASY (which comic book Batman is very much a cousin to) you do not understand heroic fantasy. Period. Good and Evil are cosmic forces that are NOT subjective. If you are looking at alignment from that perspective then, in the words of Yoda, "That is why you fail"

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


Its just a question of what his goals are. He is willing to hurt, oppress, and kill bystanders or anyone really, so long as it is convenient in getting him what he wants, and what he wants is chaos and anarchy. In fact the 3e description of Chaotic Evil fits Nolan's Joker to a T, I think.




It's really more simple than that he's not doing it to 'get what he wants', he's doing it solely to spread chaos. The hospital scene with Dent is really his crowning moment, he hands Dent a loaded gun and says "And the thing about chaos...it's fair". Dent decides to flip a coin and joker's response is "now you're talking!" 
Again, it's about motives, it's not about personal gain or even his own well being, it's about the reckless spead of chaos with a complete disregard to good and evil. That's CN (or at least one way to play it). 
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
I also wanted to add that this thread has done a WONDERFUL job of providing the example I said I thought it would in another thread.

I created a thread to HELP people with alignment issues and immediately it gets swarmed with people attacking both alignment (for being wrongbad) and me (for being just plain wrong).

No actual questions. No attempt at understanding. No attempt at actual resolution.

Nope, just arguments about Batman that are TOTALLY OFF TOPIC.

The topic of this thread is me offering to help people with issues that have popped up with regards to alignment in their games or with understanding it.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.



Its just a question of what his goals are. He is willing to hurt, oppress, and kill bystanders or anyone really, so long as it is convenient in getting him what he wants, and what he wants is chaos and anarchy. In fact the 3e description of Chaotic Evil fits Nolan's Joker to a T, I think.




It's really more simple than that he's not doing it to 'get what he wants', he's doing it solely to spread chaos. The hospital scene with Dent is really his crowning moment, he hands Dent a loaded gun and says "And the thing about chaos...it's fair". Dent decides to flip a coin and joker's response is "now you're talking!" 
Again, it's about motives, it's not about personal gain or even his own well being, it's about the reckless spead of chaos with a complete disregard to good and evil. That's CN (or at least one way to play it). 



Joker is lying to Harvey. He lies the entire time. "Do I look like a guy with a plan?" He has the most intricate plans in the entire movie. He has planned this all. He is beyond brilliant and entirely evil. He is pure evil. Unrestrained, uncontrolled...but with a purpose that is literally aimed directly at the soul of humanity. He wants to make innocent people murder others in cold blood. And the great part is, the detonator was probably tied to the ships OWN explosives. Cuz that's the joke!

Joker is not about chaos. Joker is about the hilarity of life. Evil always wins. That's the joke he is making. Evil wins because WE'RE ALL EVIL...that is his point. That nobility is a lie. That anyone can be like Joker. That all it really takes is one bad day. And he's wrong.

I think the disconnect here is that Joker wants to PROJECT the appearance of being Chaotic Neutral...he wants to pretend that he is the unbridled human nature. Beyond good...beyond evil. Just pure humanity. In a way his statement is not that he is Evil but that he is HUMAN and these are the actions of a human being. They are natural and therefore neutral...like the behavior of an animal.

However, he is still evil. His facade is a lie. It is a deeply, DEEPLY flawed and disturbed world-view. Evil is not the natural state of humanity. Or at least thats the message of the film. Joker fails. Utterly. Even Harvey is a failure...Harvey was already deeply flawed. Deeply broken. All Joker could do was magnify what was already there. He wasn't able to corrupt Batman because Batman is incorruptible...Batman is good.

Now Harvey...Harvey is Chaotic Evil but with about 50/50 neutral tendencies (that's a joke ^_~). He'd like to think he's lawful but he's the exact opposite.

In summation: Joker would love everyone to believe he's chaotic neutral because that is his agenda and his message. "Everyone is like me deep down". But he's evil...very evil.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Sign In to post comments