What alignment is Ozymandias?
- Thread starter Deathkingo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All right, so I guess I will break it down after all.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Be warned that the rest of this post has lots of major Watchmen spoilers, in case you didn't see that coming.
Ozymandias: Adrian Veidt is the model of a perfect human being. He's impeccably polite, intellectual, and a pacifist. He's even a vegan, for Christ's sake. This seemingly perfect man serves as a role model for all humanity right up until the moment he obliterates half of New York City. And he didn't even do it because he was evil; he genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do. And can we even say for sure that he was wrong? No "good aligned character would ever be willing to kill this many people, and no "evil" character would go so far to try to save the world.
Dr. Manhattan: Back when he was the physicist Jon Osterman, he was what most people would call a good person. When he suddenly became all blue and glowy that didn't actually change; he just got more...distant. At the end we see that he's actually still the same good-hearted person, when he goes back to (try to) save the world. But while he has good intentions, the actual stuff he does (e.g. not saving the pregnant woman in Vietnam, or not intervening to prevent nuclear war) don't really line up with our traditional definitions of a hero.
Comedian: Jesus, what an asshole. This guy is rude, violent, misogynistic, or downright hostile to nearly everyone he meets; he is the closest to pure evil that any of the characters in Watchmen get. Oh, but according to the United States government this man is a hero. Just sayin'. Anyway, when he learns about Veidt's plan, he balks and tries to stop it from happening before half the world gets blown up. You would think he'd be delighted at the chance to see so much mayhem and carnage, but instead he has a nervous breakdown. That's how we know that there's a line between asshole and villain: Just because you're a misanthrope doesn't mean you want to destroy the world.
Laurie & Dan: Bless them, they do try so hard. These two do the whole classic superhero gig, complete with ridiculous costumes and rescuing people from burning buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan actually saved a kitten from a tree at some point in his career. But when the shit went down, these two both decided that the right thing to do would be to stay quiet and let the "bad guy" get away with his nefarious scheme. Interesting, no?
Rorschach: He's actually a microcosm of the whole argument. Rorschach sees things in absolute black and white terms all the time, and he's the only character who really does so. Criminals are evil, so he kills them. Veidt's plan is evil, so he's determined to stop it no matter how many people he kills in the process. It's the same absolutist viewpoint that Moore was fighting against, and it's no accident that the one person who actually lives by it turned out to be such a psychopath. Hell, he even wears a mask that's literally black and white (but the lines are constantly shifting...geddit?). The fact that he's likable (and he is...I love the guy) is supposed to show how seductive the whole black and white view really is; sure it's easy to lump people into good and evil categories, but that doesn't mean it's right.
So there are six people who all, to some degree, want to save the world from itself. Watchmen doesn't have a villain, it just has a radical difference of opinion--and that's enough.
Ok.....really define that one please. How can you possibly say the Comedian wasn't an evil SoB.Jaranja said:
metalcore42 said:
Lawful Neutral.
In Palladium books alignments, he would be called Aberrant. He has a strong code of honor that few could comprehend. He thinks killing a few million people works to save the world.
In Palladium books alignments, he would be called Aberrant. He has a strong code of honor that few could comprehend. He thinks killing a few million people works to save the world.
Lawful good is kind of the classic superhero alignment, it's superman, it's silver age batman, ect. As a result there's really only two characters in Watchman that really fit into that mold, Nite Owl and Silk Specre.
Ozymandas - True Neutral
(Really Ozymandas is Neizsche's Ubermench. Not initally, but once the Comedian burns the map, that transformation really begins. (And yes, I know the Ubermensch is supposed to be a perminent state, not something someone becomes.) At this point lawfulness and chaos have little to no meaning to him, and good and evil have very little meaning. His final objective is a(n arguably) good one, and he is methodical in achieving that, but he is only methodical because nothing else would work, and morality doesn't dictate his actions, only his goal.)
Rorschach - Lawful Neutral (Or Evil)
(There's an element where you can kinda redefine Rorschach's alignment on how well his moral scheme fits yours, but, at the end we're not sure just how willing he is to kill people over it.)
Comedian - Chaotic Evil
(I'm inclined to leave the Comedian at CE and be done with it. "Ever wonder what happened to the American Dream? It came true," is such a perfect CE comment, I'm not sure what else I can add. He believes he's working for a better world, but towards that he'll gun down innocents and enjoy it. Did he start out as CE? I'm not sure, but, by the time the Vietnam War has started, he certainly is.)
Nite Owl - Lawful Good
(Pretty Much. He starts the narrative stuck between begin a good guy and being forced to retire from the superhero gig, in a sort of full lockdown. If you want to argue that by the end of the comic he's a NG, that's probably legitimate. Between taking up the mantel again, his breakdown from Hollis Mason's murder, and covering up Veidt's actions, he might not qualify as Lawful anymore by the end.)
Dr. Manhattan - Lawful Neutral
(Dr. Manhattan is so freaking lawful there almost isn't room for another alignment. I'd almost call him Exalted Lawful. Morality no longer intersts him, but he is so fixated on the underlying paterns of the universe that nothing else matters to him really. It's harder to pick up in the film, becuase it inserts a thread with him and Veidt that isn't in the comic, but still.)
Silk Spectre - Lawful/Neutral Good
(Silk Spectre follows basically the same arc through the book that Nite Owl does. She might end up a little closer towards Neutral Good at the begining. In a normal context you could call her CG, but, that doesn't really kick in. Maybe in the events after the comic that happens, but there's no way to know.
Ozymandas - True Neutral
(Really Ozymandas is Neizsche's Ubermench. Not initally, but once the Comedian burns the map, that transformation really begins. (And yes, I know the Ubermensch is supposed to be a perminent state, not something someone becomes.) At this point lawfulness and chaos have little to no meaning to him, and good and evil have very little meaning. His final objective is a(n arguably) good one, and he is methodical in achieving that, but he is only methodical because nothing else would work, and morality doesn't dictate his actions, only his goal.)
Rorschach - Lawful Neutral (Or Evil)
(There's an element where you can kinda redefine Rorschach's alignment on how well his moral scheme fits yours, but, at the end we're not sure just how willing he is to kill people over it.)
Comedian - Chaotic Evil
(I'm inclined to leave the Comedian at CE and be done with it. "Ever wonder what happened to the American Dream? It came true," is such a perfect CE comment, I'm not sure what else I can add. He believes he's working for a better world, but towards that he'll gun down innocents and enjoy it. Did he start out as CE? I'm not sure, but, by the time the Vietnam War has started, he certainly is.)
Nite Owl - Lawful Good
(Pretty Much. He starts the narrative stuck between begin a good guy and being forced to retire from the superhero gig, in a sort of full lockdown. If you want to argue that by the end of the comic he's a NG, that's probably legitimate. Between taking up the mantel again, his breakdown from Hollis Mason's murder, and covering up Veidt's actions, he might not qualify as Lawful anymore by the end.)
Dr. Manhattan - Lawful Neutral
(Dr. Manhattan is so freaking lawful there almost isn't room for another alignment. I'd almost call him Exalted Lawful. Morality no longer intersts him, but he is so fixated on the underlying paterns of the universe that nothing else matters to him really. It's harder to pick up in the film, becuase it inserts a thread with him and Veidt that isn't in the comic, but still.)
Silk Spectre - Lawful/Neutral Good
(Silk Spectre follows basically the same arc through the book that Nite Owl does. She might end up a little closer towards Neutral Good at the begining. In a normal context you could call her CG, but, that doesn't really kick in. Maybe in the events after the comic that happens, but there's no way to know.
Yeah, Superman's alignment is Super Dick. Spidermans is Whach Job, and Batman's alternates between Schizophrenic and The Goddamn Batman.The_root_of_all_evil said:Ok.....really define that one please. How can you possibly say the Comedian wasn't an evil SoB.Jaranja said:
metalcore42 said:Spiderman: Chaotic Good
Batman: Neutral Good
Generally speaking Bats is Chaotic Good these days, Supermans is usually Lawful Good, and Spiderman's is Neutral or Chaotic Good. Usually. There's a lot of wacky shit out there that doesn't conform.
BTW: Do you have the individual demotivational posters for bats there?
They're not done separately but this [http://digitalculture-ed.net/tracys/files/2009/11/batman-alignment-1024x819.jpg] is the biggest I could find.Starke said:
Great sacrifice leading to something good is not christian mythology. In fact, the way Ozzy did it wasn't even martyrdom. If you wanted the story of Watchmen to be christian mythology Ozzy would have had to sacrifice himself, instead he...theultimateend said:
Killed thousands of people and framed it on aliens. This doesn't even delve into the sacrilege that was Dr. Manhattan deciding to leave and go create life somewhere else.
As for Ozzys status, see the second way true neutral can manifest and you will understand why he is a true neutral.
Moloch.Jaranja said:
But I agree with you. I do not think that the Comedian is evil. THe only evil acts he did were done so out of his parody against the world in general. I think he was trying to help in some way, by making everything "tough love". Yes, people dies because of him, but a lot of things were also were for the better because of him, as well.
I just took the end of the book as a big "Fuck your standards of right and wrong" and went on with my life, because ponificating over it would cause my head to explode.
Little thing to add to every person who thinks that Ozy is not in the good spectrum: What does he do shortly after the dust settles, and Manhattan talks to him? He looks at the screen, and says that he is trying to remember every single face he was forced to kill for the greater good. He was genuinely sorry that he had to kill people. That is not evil or neutral. Alignment naturally lends itself to a persons intentions, and Ozys were nothing if not honorable at heart. He is definitely good. Now, the complex storytelling addresses whether or not Ozys approach to good was a good thing to have happen, but his alignment is definitely good. And given that he both acts within the rules of an orderly, well thought out society, but also tricks the world and performs essentially a war crime for the greater good, shows that he will use either a chaotic or lawfull approach for the sake of good alone. Most definately, neutral good.
Indeed, had you not brought that up I would have pointed it out myself. But there's a further point that people keep overlooking.The_root_of_all_evil said:
For anyone trying to classify Rorschach as some variety of Good, I invite you to examine the Red Death, more commonly known as Mercykillers [http://www.mimir.net/factions/mercykillers.html]. The name, far from implying that they kill as an act of mercy, actually refers to their crusade to eliminate the very idea of mercy - they are a credos from the Planescape setting that espouses absolute justice, in which all transgressions are punished and forgiveness is non-existent. The only crimes they overlook are the ones that they themselves commit in their pursuit of punishing the guilty.
Sound familiar? It should, because that is Rorschach's world view in a nutshell - justice must be meted out, no matter the cost or consequences. There is no such thing as a 'good' Mercykiller, as anyone of a Good alignment finds their entire mindset horrifying (as well they should - a universe where everyone gets exactly as they deserve might as well be a living hell, and that's the end goal of the Red Death). As such all who call themselves a member of that faction are either Neutral or Evil, with the difference residing largely in how much they enjoy 'punishing' transgressors.
While other members of the Watchmen might be adrenaline-junkies who have protecting the innocent rather far down the list of their priorities, if that was ever something Rorschach thought about that part of him has long since died. The world could drown in it's own filth and he wouldn't care - he tells us as much in fact. He holds the entire world in contempt, and to him the 'innocent masses' that others fight to protect are simply those who haven't yet done something to merit his punishment.
So yeah, definitely not Chaotic Good.