Poll: What Alignment is Batman?

[Angie7F]

Chaotic Neutral for me.
I think that is why the story is interesting and makes the character more relate-able.

 

[DoPo]

Bateman as written by Frank Miller is a chaotic evil psychopath.

Hmm...I guess the name fits but I think I prefer


Maybe he's Steve Bateman, though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I was going to say Lawful Good, because he has a code he follows, but that's not enough, he needs an organisation following it, and the bat family is a bit small.

Otherwise a random orc who consistently goes round hitting people for no reason could be said to be lawful, because s/he's following the "hitting people for no reason" code.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Chaotic Good in most incarnations IMO.

Despite being an outlaw vigilante he adheres to a moral code, and his main reason for acting outside the law is to stop the criminals that the police can't, either due to corruption or because the villain has super powers or insane planning/technical skills. You could argue that his over-preparation (as seen in the war games arc where his attempt at a 'training simulation' backfired completely) and his paranoia and mistrust of other heroes, particularly Superman, drives him down to Chaotic Neutral, but everything is done out of concern.

 

[Something Amyss]

clearly chaotic good (I would call Nolan's Batman this)

Nolan's Batman is Chaotic Neutral at best, and even then I don't buy it. Good implies a lot of things this Batman lacks.

The larger point that Batman can't be pinned to a single alignment because he's been done so many different ways, however, is one I agree with.

Batman in the popular consciousness, though, tends to be one that rules by terror. While he has a moral code, so do many evil people. His motives are often portrayed as selfish (based on HIS desire to punish people for what happened to HIM, rather than to protect), and he often shows no signs of altruism, respect for humanity or human dignity.

As he is commonly portrayed, he is more Evil than Good in alignment terms.

I know this will annoy a lot of people, but they tend to be the same people who judge "Good" and "Evil" based on whether or not I like the person."

Chaotic Good tends to be the dumping ground for "guys I like who do bad things." It's also where Gregory House gets dumped a lot, though he is selfish and dangerous to just about everyone around him because of it. House is practically the ultimate example of Evil doing good deeds for the wrong reasons. Batman usually isn't that far off, though.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, I will put it like this. I am a DM, if I had current film era batman in my game and he was a paladin he could kiss goodbye to his power.

While true, I guess that'd be because he doesn't follow the paladin code more than anything. In Batman TAS he is mostly LG with some slip ups but clearly LG. Or maybe he's like...80% Good and 20% Neutral or so. He still won't be getting paladin powers, though.

TAS isn't the current film version, though. Current film version Batman is a terrorist with slightly better PR.

Chaotic Neutral for me.
I think that is why the story is interesting and makes the character more relate-able.

It's relatable (The Hell does Firefox not recognise this as a word? It's a perfectly cromulent one) because it's one step away from the violent revenge fantasy so commonly identified with the nerd/geek/outcast.

Which I suppose could be the same thing....

Despite being an outlaw vigilante he adheres to a moral code

A moral code doesn't make you capital G Good. Or Lawful, but since we're not arguing Law at this moment....

and his main reason for acting outside the law is to stop the criminals that the police can't[....] but everything is done out of concern.

Good intentions (though I find it arguable that most modern incarnations have that) do not make for Good acts.

Monsters often have bad reasons for good acts (or "good" reasons for bad ones.

You let one of them go but that's nothing new. Every now and then a little victim's spared because she smiled, 'cause he's got freckles. 'Cause they begged. And that's how you live with yourself. That's how you slaughter millions. Because once in awhile?on a whim, if the wind's in the right direction?you happen to be kind.

Batman tends to hide behind a moral code to excuse otherwise Evil acts.

Additionally, preparation and contingencies don't bump someone down the Good/Evil scale by themselves. Preparation implies order and is a sign of a Lawful mind (though perhaps Batman's ONLY sign in most versions). This is why Wizards in Third Edition (where this version of the alignment scale comes from) are repeatedly listed as having lawful tendencies. But back to GvE...

To repeat myself:

Chaotic Good tends to be the dumping ground for "guys I like who do bad things." It's also where Gregory House gets dumped a lot, though he is selfish and dangerous to just about everyone around him because of it. House is practically the ultimate example of Evil doing good deeds for the wrong reasons. Batman usually isn't that far off, though.

Alignment threads tend to be exercises in excusing the people or characters someone likes for their trespasses. That's nice, but it doesn't fit within the D&D alignment system where Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are very real forces in the world(s).

 

[DoPo]

Well, I will put it like this. I am a DM, if I had current film era batman in my game and he was a paladin he could kiss goodbye to his power.

While true, I guess that'd be because he doesn't follow the paladin code more than anything. In Batman TAS he is mostly LG with some slip ups but clearly LG. Or maybe he's like...80% Good and 20% Neutral or so. He still won't be getting paladin powers, though.

TAS isn't the current film version, though. Current film version Batman is a terrorist with slightly better PR.

I know - I just rewatched a bit of TAS to remind myself of how it went. I've seen a current of one movie from the current trilogy - the second one (erm, The Dark Knight Returns? Whatever it was called). And if I really had to judge by that movie, I'd say Lawful. Lawful something, not sure. He was taking up serving Gotham quite seriously. Then again, I didn't pay much attention - the film bored me a bit and I think I started to doze off at some point, so maybe he was just trying to justify his actions. Also, can't remember if he was Neutral or Evil. The more I consider it, the more I think he was somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Stupid.

As I said, I'm judging this only from what scraps I can remember from the second movie.

I still think applying D&D alignment to non-D&D is not going to go well, though. Especially when you have everything being gritty and dark and edgy and stuff. I don't think there are even enough shades of morality in the movie to justify bringing in the D&D alignments. At most, I'd go with the 4e system where you have more or less a single axis - LG being "goodie two shoes", G less than that but OK, Unaligned speaks for itself, E also, and CE is just being a dick for the sake of being a dick at all times. Umm, I'm not sure you need all of the labels either.