What alignment is Ozymandias?

[dududf]

Wow, my dad and I were just talking about this yesterday, and we also found him to be the hard one.

Chaotic good?

That's pretty much my best guess, he's doing something illegal and otherwise very questionable, but with the intention of preventing nuclear war.

As for other alignments:
Dr. Manhattan-True Neutral.
Nite Owl II-Lawful Good.
Silk Specter II-Neutral Good.
The Comedian-Chaotic Evil.
Rorschach (I'm gonna get flamed for this)-Lawful Evil. Now before someone mentions that he's a vigilante and a rather psycho one at that, he's also a moral absolutist, hence the lawful part. The Evil part is where the problem occurs, and what I'll get flamed for.

*Gets flame thrower*

"Rawr."

Seriously though, I think it's Chaotic Good, because he does good but in a sinister way, no way is he "Lawful" as the law is after him, and he takes it in his own hands (like most of the minuteman/watchman) but it's ultimately for a good cause.

Exaplain how he's Lawful, and Evil then we'll talk =P I just think you have your order reversed

I said he was lawful because he was doing things by a sort of moral code, though there's no question that he's breaking the actual law. Basically he's lawful, just of a different law.

As for the evil part, that's where I sensed problems. You could argue he's good because he believed he was doing so, that one probably comes down to your views.

Aye, but wouldn't Personal Law be considered Morals?

As to the evil, if you read the Comic book, or hell even had a keen eye/ear in the movie (I think they briefly cover it) you hear him ranting about "The Filth" by filth he is reffering to corruption. He is trying to purge Corruption from the world, from which could argueably a good cause.

Ultimately yes, you're right it depends on the perspective from which you see the charecter.

I just saw him as a bit of a psycho and zealot with the way he dealt with things and even some of the things he dealt with. Of course, that view is gonna get me killed, though I'll acknowledge that the basic "purging corruption" thing is noble.

As for the lawful part, you're right about his law being morals, I was just allowing leeway with my definition of lawful, he's a very chaotic sort of lawful.
/oxymoron

My brain just exploded.

And yes, all of this "Chaotic Lawful blah blah" stuff is mainly as to how you perceived the bloke involved.

Nice talking, and you're Avatar scares me and makes me think of what Anime that is from

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ozymandias is Lawful Neutral. All he's doing is saving the world. Whether it wants it or not.

Isn't that pretty much what Chaotic Good is? He's following his own moral compass, doing what he thinks is good. The deaths he caused were sacrificed he was prepared to make for the greater good.

Nope, because he never changes the Law. He just gives the world the excuse to change the Law. Chaotic Good would be like Night Owl, dodging the Law to bring Good to the World.

Ozymandias just gives people the Impetus to change the Law. Everything he does is actually Lawful.

Comedian is Lawful Evil. He works totally within the law; it's just not the LAW law.

Care to explain that one as well? Isn't he more Chaotic Evil? He basically does whatever he likes and tries to take what he wants without thinking about what other people want, like the Silk Spectre. He doesn't care he hurts people as long as he has what he wants.

Because he's a "Hero". In Vietnam he leads the troops killing and maiming, but that's all LE rather than CE. Chaotic Evil would be fighing against the Law and the Law treat him as a hero.

If Ozy was CG and Comedian was CE, then the Comedian would have killed off Ozy or at least ran from him. Chaotic Evils are only in it for themselves. The Comedian just was a Stormtrooper with a Nasty Lust side that took him to Neutral Evil. As a "Patriot", he was exemplified remember. He actually cared about how people saw him.

Ozymandias never actually broke the law, and suffered for his "Duty". Everything he did was completely within the law up until the point where he dropped the Alien and that was only to stop World War 3.

 

[Wintermoot]

he did prevent WW3 but he did kill allot of people in the proces he is either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil

 

[A random person]

Wow, my dad and I were just talking about this yesterday, and we also found him to be the hard one.

Chaotic good?

That's pretty much my best guess, he's doing something illegal and otherwise very questionable, but with the intention of preventing nuclear war.

As for other alignments:
Dr. Manhattan-True Neutral.
Nite Owl II-Lawful Good.
Silk Specter II-Neutral Good.
The Comedian-Chaotic Evil.
Rorschach (I'm gonna get flamed for this)-Lawful Evil. Now before someone mentions that he's a vigilante and a rather psycho one at that, he's also a moral absolutist, hence the lawful part. The Evil part is where the problem occurs, and what I'll get flamed for.

*Gets flame thrower*

"Rawr."

Seriously though, I think it's Chaotic Good, because he does good but in a sinister way, no way is he "Lawful" as the law is after him, and he takes it in his own hands (like most of the minuteman/watchman) but it's ultimately for a good cause.

Exaplain how he's Lawful, and Evil then we'll talk =P I just think you have your order reversed

I said he was lawful because he was doing things by a sort of moral code, though there's no question that he's breaking the actual law. Basically he's lawful, just of a different law.

As for the evil part, that's where I sensed problems. You could argue he's good because he believed he was doing so, that one probably comes down to your views.

Aye, but wouldn't Personal Law be considered Morals?

As to the evil, if you read the Comic book, or hell even had a keen eye/ear in the movie (I think they briefly cover it) you hear him ranting about "The Filth" by filth he is reffering to corruption. He is trying to purge Corruption from the world, from which could argueably a good cause.

Ultimately yes, you're right it depends on the perspective from which you see the charecter.

I just saw him as a bit of a psycho and zealot with the way he dealt with things and even some of the things he dealt with. Of course, that view is gonna get me killed, though I'll acknowledge that the basic "purging corruption" thing is noble.

As for the lawful part, you're right about his law being morals, I was just allowing leeway with my definition of lawful, he's a very chaotic sort of lawful.
/oxymoron

My brain just exploded.

And yes, all of this "Chaotic Lawful blah blah" stuff is mainly as to how you perceived the bloke involved.

Nice talking, and you're Avatar scares me and makes me think of what Anime that is from

I'm entirely aware of how oxymoronic my statement was, again, I just went with lawful because he does things by a moral code.

As for my avatar, it's from Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, specifically the second season A's. Technically, though, the specific shot in my avatar doesn't actually happen in the anime. She does walk out of an inferno, however.

 

[hittite]

He sort of a deranged good. He believed he could (SPOILER WARNING BEDEEP BEDEEP BEDEEP!!!!!) unite the world against a common enemy buy killing em masse. I hate to say it but it makes sense, aka his idea was sound, but he didn't have to kill so many people. Even he isn't so sure about what he'd done. At the end of the book, he asks Dr. Manhattan if he has done the right thing. I don't remember exactly but he basically gave a flip-flop answer.

I'd put him under either Choatic Good or Deranged Good.

Oh, and by the way, reading the title of this I thought you were asking if was gay or bisexual or something.

I just finished reading it, and I have it right here.
Ozy: I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end.
Doc: "in the end?" Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.

OT: I'll have to agree that he's chaotic good.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Chaotic Evil vs Lawful Evil:

Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in a group, as they resent being given orders, and usually only behave themselves out of fear of punishment.

Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.

I'd say Comedian was LE in that account.
Equally

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.

Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, a disciplined monk.

Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates.

So I'd say Ozymandias is LN.

 

[Asymptote Angel]

...and here was I, thinking we were analyzing Shelley. Damn.

 

[Xanadu84]

Ozy is the very definition of Neutral Good. He does good, as he sees it, for the sake of good alone. He will either follow the rules and act within the system, or break the rules, depending entirely on what produces the more beneficial outcome.

 

[Veret]

Okay...I know nobody asked, but I just have to say that the very existence of this thread is deeply ironic. Give me a moment; I'll try to explain what I mean.

When Watchmen first came out in 1986 (the comic book, not the movie--go read it), it was pretty revolutionary. Most comic books prior to that year had dealt with morality in completely black-and-white terms: This guy's good, that guy's evil, go kick his ass, etc. Obviously I can't say that about all comic books everywhere without selling somebody short, but that was certainly the dominant theme. Meanwhile, in real world politics, life was actually kind of starting to imitate art. America and the USSR were at the height of the Cold War, with everybody pointing nukes and trying to demonize each other. Ronald Reagan, in the course of one speech, managed to 1) call Russian politicians the "greatest evil" in the world, 2) equate Karl Marx to the biblical serpent in the garden of Eden, 3) refer to the Cold War as a "test of moral will and faith," 4) explicitly call the Soviet Union an "evil empire."

Enter Alan Moore. He and a few other people were watching this Cold War political drama devolve into an old-school comic book throwdown, and he seems to have found it all a little stupid. There's a pretty solid theory out there that suggests Moore wrote watchmen (at least partially) as an attack on the black and white rhetoric that was coming out of the White House. Watchmen, after all, has some very realistic and complex characters--and when real life gets more dumbed down than a superhero comic, you may have a problem.

The fact that you guys are having trouble pigeonholing Adrian Veidt is exactly what Moore wanted. He and the other five main characters are endless examples of six very different, multidimensional people, all trying to more or less do the right thing in their own very different ways. I can break that statement down if you like, but I'm pretty sure if you've made it all the way through the book (or even the movie), you'll have some idea what I'm talking about.

The tl;dr version: Watchmen is all about morality being more complex than just good and evil. Or that was my take, anyway. Thoughts?

...and here was I, thinking we were analyzing Shelley. Damn.

Yeah, me too actually. But I like this conversation better.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The tl;dr version: Watchmen is all about morality being more complex than just good and evil. Or that was my take, anyway. Thoughts?

The problem with that was that Alan Moore deliberately set out to make Rorschach the most evil, depraved SoB ever and ended up making him quite "likeable". Equally, he was aiming for the "Big Bad" to be a "Big Good".

If you want a real tough one, give alignments for the four-colour Batman, Spiderman and Superman. Now they're really tough.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Nope, because he never changes the Law. He just gives the world the excuse to change the Law. Chaotic Good would be like Night Owl, dodging the Law to bring Good to the World.

Ozymandias just gives people the Impetus to change the Law. Everything he does is actually Lawful.

Ehhhhh, I think I'm kinda confused with your definitions of law and good. According to what law is what he is doing lawful? I doubt that any criminal court would approve of his actions, killing millions of civilians is pretty much illegal everywhere.

Ozy himself thinks that what he's doing is right though, because he has a certain vision, in the end he wants to protect the greater good: kill a couple to save billions from nuclear holocaust. That's what his own conscience tells him, not a pre-determined law, as far as I can recall. And as far as I can tell, that makes him Chaotic Good: he's following his own moral compass, and not a law, to save the world. Why would he have to hide his actions if it would all be lawful?

I have the feeling that you mean something else with "law" than I do, which is why I'm so confused.

Because he's a "Hero". In Vietnam he leads the troops killing and maiming, but that's all LE rather than CE. Chaotic Evil would be fighing against the Law and the Law treat him as a hero.

If Ozy was CG and Comedian was CE, then the Comedian would have killed off Ozy or at least ran from him. Chaotic Evils are only in it for themselves. The Comedian just was a Stormtrooper with a Nasty Lust side that took him to Neutral Evil. As a "Patriot", he was exemplified remember.

Ozymandias never actually broke the law, and suffered for his "Duty".

Why would Chaotic Evil mean that he would fight the law? Doesn't "chaotic" mean pretty much doing whatever you please? In CE's case that means that he doesn't intend on destroying the law, but only that he couldn't care less about breaking it to get what he wants (either the Silk Spectre, or just hurting people in Vietnam or during riot control), and isn't that exactly what he's doing?

And as you say, CE's are in it only for themselves, so why would he have to kill Ozy? What would've dictated him to do that? If killing Ozy would've done him more harm than good, or at least give him more trouble than he thinks is worth it, wouldn't it be excepted from a CE character to not kill Ozy?

And well, isn't killing millions of innocents against the law? Again, I think you're using a different version of the word "law", what would that be?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ehhhhh, I think I'm kinda confused with your definitions of law and good.

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?

I doubt that any criminal court would approve of his actions, killing millions of civilians is pretty much illegal everywhere.

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

 

[metalcore42]

The tl;dr version: Watchmen is all about morality being more complex than just good and evil. Or that was my take, anyway. Thoughts?

The problem with that was that Alan Moore deliberately set out to make Rorschach the most evil, depraved SoB ever and ended up making him quite "likeable". Equally, he was aiming for the "Big Bad" to be a "Big Good".

If you want a real tough one, give alignments for the four-colour Batman, Spiderman and Superman. Now they're really tough.

Superman: Lawful Good
Spiderman: Chaotic Good
Batman: Neutral Good

 

[Jaranja]

Ozymandas - Chaotic Good
Rorschach - Chaotic Neutral
Comedian - Chaotic Evil
Nite Owl - Lawful Good
Dr. Manhattan - Lawful Neutral
Silk Spectre... She's either Neutral Good, or Lawful Evil, I can't decide

Feel free to update this as you please.

I'll disagree on Roschach because he was a good guy, just crazy.

Also disagree with Comedian, I don't think he was really evil. He wasn't good by any means.

And Silk Spectre would be Neutral Good, she's not evil in any way.

 

[UAProxy]

Extreme chaotic good. Too much of anything, even good, is bad. That's why paladins are so easy to make extreme.

 

[Starke]

Do Paladins lose their LG alignments for goblin genocide?

They certainly can, if it's genocide and not proportional.

 

[The Great JT]

I'd put him under Lawful Chaotic.