What alignment is Ozymandias?

[Jaranja]

He helped in Vietnam,by killing people he broke up riots,by killing people he kinda warned... oh god what's his name... The Magician(?) about his impending doom.while killing people

Then he raped one woman and shot the other.

Not really a role model, is he?

Fair point but Ozymandias saved the world by killing people

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Rorschach: I'm fine, Happy Harry. Yourself?
Happy Harry: Fine! I'm fuh, I'm fine! And I'm, and I'm, and I'm glad you're fine too! And uh, and uh... Oh God. Please don't kill anybody.

Laurie Juspeczyk: Hey, you remember that guy? The one who pretended to be a supervillain so he could get beaten up?
Dan Dreiberg: Oh, You mean Captain Carnage. Ha ha ha! He was one for the books.
Laurie: You're telling me! I remember, I caught him coming out of this jeweller's. I didn't know what his racket was. I start hitting him and I think "Jeez! He's breathing funny! Does he have asthma?
Dan: Ha Ha Ha. He tried that with me, only I'd heard about him, so I just walked away. He follows me down the street? broad daylight, right? He's saying "PUNISH me!" I'm saying "No! Get lost!"
Laurie: Ha Ha Ha. What ever happened to him?
Dan: Well, he pulled it on Rorschach, and Rorschach dropped him down an elevator shaft.
Laurie: PHAAA HA HA HA! Oh, God, I'm sorry, that isn't funny, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

So yeah, definitely not Chaotic Good.

He helped in Vietnam,by killing people he broke up riots,by killing people he kinda warned... oh god what's his name... The Magician(?) about his impending doom.while killing people

Then he raped one woman and shot the other.

Not really a role model, is he?

Fair point but Ozymandias saved the world by killing people

He killed thousands so billions wouldn't die. Comedian killed people because...they were there.

Just don't ask me where I was when I heard about J.F.K.

 

[jojoemon]

Twisted Good mabey?

 

[Dirty Apple]

I think this comes down to people's personal perception as to whether or not what he did was good or evil. Is the death of millions an acceptable price for the long peaceful life of billions? From the outside anyone would say yes, but I'm not gonna be the one to decide their fate. It's because of this view that I would put Ozy firmly in the Neutral Evil category. His believing that it's all right because the end justifies the means, doesn't mean it is right. This shows him to be callously superior, and self-righteous. Evil acts done in the name of good don't wash each other out.

 

[gim73]

I'm hearing alot of whining about how comedian is 'chaotic evil' because of his involvement in vietnam. I'm not really seeing anybody else touch on the fact that the comedian is all about himself. He doesn't wanna watch it all burn and laugh all the while. He enjoys the status quo and all that comes from it.

I would place him NEUTRAL evil with lawful tendencies. If he was expressed as a vector I would make him -.3i -.8j and leave him there.

 

[Lenny Magic]

Thats the thing he is actully the most original character in the movie (and the book). he doesn't align...

 

[joshthor]

i say neutral

 

[Ph33nix]

chaotic chaotic

 

[Altorin]

Whenever I watch (good) movies, I like to see what the character's alignment would be. It is simply a way to distract a geeky mind. I was recently watching Watchmen and most of the characters fit into classifications rather nicely.

Rorschach-Chaotic Good
Dr. Manhattan- Neutral, until the end, where he changes to Neutral Good
Silk Specter II- Neutral Good
Comedian- Chaotic Neutral, easy
Night Owl II- Shifts around from Lawful Good to Neutral good

And then we get to Ozymandias, who gives us a royal conundrum. There has always been debate over his action being for the good of mankind, or evil due to the fact of the millions of deaths. I just wanted to throw this out to the Escapist community, and see what they could come up with.So, what do you think?

The Comedian is actually Chaotic Evil... Willful and joyful killing of people is always an evil act.

I would say Veidt is Lawful Evil, but he doesn't see himself as evil - your alignment is in your actions however, and his actions are clearly evil.

If a paladin were to do what Veidt did, he'd become fallen. Killing millions of people to save the world isn't a good action. It may have had to happen, but sometimes you need to do something evil for the greater good, but it doesn't make you good for doing it.

 

[rabidmidget]

The more I think about the more I realize what philosophies Rorschach and Ozymandias represent

Rorschach is Categorical imperative as he believes in retributive justice and in some cases, moral absolutes (despite the fact that Ozymandias's decision saved the lives of almost all humans, he still believed that the ends didn't justify the means).

Ozymandias is Utilitarianism as he believes that the best action is the greatest amount of good fro the greatest number of people

 

[Altorin]

Oh, and I wouldn't call Rorschach Chaotic Good either, He's lawful evil

He has his own code of morals which he strictly adheres to, and he'll fucking kill you if you don't conform to that code as well.

That's TEXTBOOK lawful evil

Ozymandias and Rorschach are the same alignment, but completely different sides of the same coin.

Too many people associate Chaos with Crazyiness, and that's just not how it works... Chaos represents freedom. Rorschach is not interested in freedom of anyone at all.

 

[aaron552]

Ozymandius can't be Chaotic, as he's definitely aligned with Order, not Chaos. After all, global Order was the end result of his plan. I'd say Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, depending on your views.

As for Rorschach, he's pretty much lawful neutral.

 

[Chaotic-Neutral]

lawful evil

 

[fletch_talon]

I like Ozymandias. He defies classification, and he's one of the many characters that I don't consider to be a villain despite what they've done. Like the bad guy in UP. The ends justify the means.

Its been a while since seeing it (and it was awesome), but I can't see how Charles Muntz's actions can be justified. His goals were purely selfish, and whilst I can understand that he was driven to insanity in his hunt for the bird, that doesn't make it okay.

Basically I see Muntz as someone you can feel sorry for, but his actions were still "evil" fr lack of a better word.

 

[Kasawd]

I'd throw my dice in for True Neutral

 

[Cerrax]

If we use a system to define each allignment, then it would be as such:

Chaotic= flexible morals
Lawful= strict morals
Good= morals are generally in favor of current laws
Neutral= morals straddle between established laws and personal agenda
Evil= morals are generally against or in violation of current laws

Rorschach-Lawful Neutral
Yes he is a violent individual, but his victims are always violent criminals, so while his methods are dangerous, he generally only harms criminals. The only time he attacks law enforcement or breaks laws, it is for a good cause.

Dr. Manhattan- Neutral
A true neutral, doesn't have morals at all, just reason. He is the ultimate realist.

Silk Specter II- Neutral Good
She leans pretty hard to lawful, but some of her actions suggest that he doesn't mind breaking a few rules.

Comedian- Chaotic Neutral
Comedian does a lot of bad stuff. He does a lot of good stuff. He's a mixed bag, textbook Chaotic Neutral.

Night Owl II- Lawful Good
Pretty hard to say no to this one. Eagerly gives up Watchmen to be a nobody and is very hesitant to rustle feathers.

Ozymandius- Lawful Good
Much like Rorschach, he has very strict guidelines of how to fix the world, and is willing to go to any lengths to achieve it.



This topic is also a great reason to go read/see Watchmen if you haven't. How many movies can you say it is this difficult to stereotype the characters?

 

[zen5887]

Rorshach = Mercykiller

Woah...

Well my mind is blown.

Anyways.

The alingment system is not Black and White (something I've been trying to tell someone in my game group for awhile). There are diffrent kinds of certain alingment, just because someone is LG doesn't make them a champion of justice, just because some is N doesn't mean they don't care.

As for Ozymandias I can see him as CG. Me and Purps had this convo on the way home from seeing the movie and I think thats what we decided. He ended up saving a bunch of people in the end but he didn't care who he stood on to get there. I can't see how he is LE, he isn't lawful (because he blew a lot of shit up) and he isn't evil because his motives were good.

Lets remember that - Motives. A characters actions don't always dictate their alignment, the motives behind it are just as, if not more important. Ozy gave a bunch of people cancer but it was all part of his grand scheme to save the world.

 

[Misterian]

Lawful evil.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Read up above. I got the quotes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

Ozy didn't actually kill millions though. (technically) [And yeah, that is fudging it, but he saved billions by doing it...That's why he couldn't allow Rorscach to tell.]

Before that though, everything he did was completely legal and above board, apart from those other deaths "for the cause".

Do Paladins lose their LG alignments for goblin genocide?

But the goblins are evil henchmen, villains. Doesn't count for Ozy, he killed innocent people and made the completely innocent Dr. Manhattan the new global enemy. But if I read the quotes from Wikipedia, then, to me, this sounds more like Ozy:

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. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganised and often out of alignment with the rest of society. They have no use for those who would try to push them around and tell them what to do.

While they do not have evil intentions, they often do bad things (even if they do not necessarily enjoy doing these things) to people who are, in their views, bad people if it benefits their goal of achieving a greater good.

sounds a LOT more like Ozy than:

Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment. A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A Lawful Good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful Good characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves. Lawful Good creatures include the noble golden dragons. Lawful Good outsiders are known as Archons.

Lawful Good characters, especially paladins, may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict - for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm - or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler.

Ozy wanted to shape the world to his image. His methods were indirect, yes, but isn't it about it motives? Ozy was sick of the status quo, thought it to be bad and wanted to shape it to something he thought was better. The law, meanwhile, was more of a burden to him than a friend. He murdered people, the cops were hunting for him and so where the Watchmen, so where exactly is he acting by the law? Is Ozy, as your Wikipedia links says it, really honourable (he betrayed his scientists and his fellow Watchmen), trustworthy and obedient to authority? Those aren't qualities I'd associate with Ozy.

I hate to push it towards Godwin, but Churchill did exactly that. Ho yus.

Good point. *ponders* But that's pretty much the same as with the goblins. All the soldiers his soldiers killed were evil henchmen. Yes he killed some innocents in the bombings, but not intentionally like Ozy did. Ozy is actually much like a terrorist, come to think of it. Churchill waged war, Ozy sowed chaos and distress for something he thought was right.

PS: Come to think of it, this is the most nerdy discussion I had in ages. And damn I'm loving it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Problem:

God killed Sodom and Gomorroah. That makes him Chaotic Good by your definition. Mine keeps him as Lawful Neutral.

And Chaotic Good also states disorganised, which Ozymandias certainly wasn't.

Even with all the people he killed, you couldn't really call them innocent. Each had sinned in more than one way.

It's all a matter of opinion anyway, and the D&D Alignment system isn't the best way of describing morals.

Just by names though, I'd put Ozy as "Judge" or "Disciplined" rather than "Beatific," "Rebel," or "Cynic".

PS: Come to think of it, this is the most nerdy discussion I had in ages. And damn I'm loving it.

Nerding out is one thing they will never take away from us