Saturday, February 28, 2009

Defining the pretty easily definable, the alignment of Rorschach, Scar, and Light (some spoilers) part 1 Rorschach

Don't try this at home..........however cool it might have been


Vigilantes are interesting.  They ignore the rules of law, and go fight evil, unhindered by petty concerns like the government, morality and basic decency.  America has a kinda hero worship of these people who go outside the law and hunt down and assault people they don’t like.  Personally, I dislike vigilantism, or the glorification of it, as in real life, it is almost always….well evil.  We always have people without professional training going out and causing massive damage to those around them, even if they are doing it for a good cause (Damnit John Brown).  And in fiction, we have these kinda disturbing glorification of these people, as the movie dramatizes there torturing people for information and murdering people who can’t fight back, see also Dirty Harry and anything by Frank Miller.  But here I’m going to do the alignments of the three vigilantes I like best, because the writers didn’t try to glorify there ideals while making them badass.  And I’m in a comic mood, so yeah, theme there.  But lets do the Watchman one first

"This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.:

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save Us!"...:

...and I'll look down, and whisper, "No".:

 

“I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me”

“No.  Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon”

 

Right, going on with the Watchman theme, I’m going to briefly go with the alignment of my favorite character from the series, which says a lot to Alan Moore’s writing style considering that I am morally opposed to everything this psychotic believes in.  Rorschach is a moral absolutist, a radical right wing anti communist vigilante, who is determined to hunt down and destroy evil wherever he can find it.   He is basically  the personification of what real vigilantes are, and why our justice system is designed to prevent that from happing (see also, vigilantism is horrible).  Rorschach tortures people for information, innocent or not, murders anyone who he feels is in his way, and generally acts upon a very utilitarian ideal (a letter he writes as a child reveals that he supported Truman’s nuking of Japan, innocent civilians there be damned).  So why do I like him?  Because he is the most interesting character, and unlike many people who espouse utilitarian ideals , he honestly believes in it, and in a bit of a quintessential vigilante, considering his mask his “true face” and going so far as to not eat or bath, but just walks around New York killing crimes.  I like him because he is the only character who doesn’t compromise his beliefs, and is brave to the point of absurdity, but both of those come because he is a freaky psychopath but hey.  Anyways, alignment.  Now lets make this clear, he is evil.  Even before his “Transformation”, he tortures at least 20 innocent people before he tortures the right man to get information.  When he captures a serial killer, he chains him up and burns him alive as the man is burned alive.  Yes, you might say “But he is a serial killer” but as I’m a fan of Fitz Lang’s “M” even child murderers are people, and deserve a fair trial.  He tortures anybody who gets in his way, murders peoples people who are trying to beg for mercy (the midget) after his transformation.  So evil, certainly, but what kind?  Well, I’m going to assume the Chaotic Evil is not in there, as he certainly has a motive and a code he keeps too.  So its between NE and LE.  Now, I’d be tempted to say NE, because while he has a code, it isn’t a very clear one, I mean, as he will break any rule to accomplish his current mission, so it is kinda variable.  But based upon the way he generally acts, I’d say LE.  He is very orderl in how he handles himself, as seen by his mechanic, detail oriented manner of taking notes and talks to people, straight to the point, stating the facts in a very robotic manner.  He also has a very strict code, flexible his methods might be.  For example, his deal with the unlicensed gun, and not trying to deny murders he had committed.  Or for that matter, the strict life style he leads.  So I’d saw Lawful evil.

from

EE

5 comments:

kpenguin said...

I agree with your assessment, EE, although I'd be a bit more sure than you appear to be about him being LE rather than NE.

I think his code is very clear: There is evil in this world, evil must be punished, no restraints when punishing evil. Its not a complex code, but its one he sticks to with conviction. He'll never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon.

Hey, if you're doing Scar next... are you going to comment on the upcoming new FMA anime? Apparently it will stick closer to the manga than the previous one.

kpenguin said...

Also, I wouldn't say he's a utilitarian. He's not looking to maximize benefit in the maximum amount of people.

EvilElitest said...

1) Yeah, he is in the end Lawful evil, i don't know if i made that quite clear. What i mean about his code being a little hazy is what won't he do to fight evil. there are very few limits on what he will do to win, but in the end he is still lawful evil
2) Hmmmm, i'd say he is utiltarian in the sense of "greatest for all of humainity" but he is in the sense of "Ends justifies the means", but thats is just more vigilante
3) yeah, i'm going to go into Anime and Manga Scar, as they are slightly different (but not enough to merit an aligniment change i think), and i will comment on the new anime

kpenguin said...

1) Haziness doesn't matter in that sense because "Do anything to stop evil" is part of his code. That is to say, his flexibility in method does not translate into flexibility in his code
2) "Ends justify the means" is a horribly poor way to define utilitarianism, since it is more of a consequentialist belief than utilitarian.
3) Cool

EvilElitest said...

1) The thing is, he doesn't really define evil that much. On one hand he seems to be about abiding the law (his comment to Morloch about licensing his gun comes to mind) and on another hand he goes after people without any sense of due process (torturing innocents in the off chance one of them might have the info he needs). Is he for eliminating evil as a group, IE every single person who had done "evil" must be killed, or is he content in just capturing them? It isn't really clear
2) Utilitarianism is founded upon that idea through. By cleansing evil he makes way for a better society. its rather short term, but its there, such as his child letter supporting Truman's nucking of of japan. He isn't like Dr. Mahnatten certainly, but he has the basic beliefs
3) Thanks, its up now. What do you think?
from
EE