What alignment is Ozymandias?

[Mookie_Magnus]

I think that Ozymandias is the result of what happens when a Lawful-Good becomes deranged because of the often-conflicting motivations. He is a character who craves order, as he is the CEO of a major corporation, and does everything within his own legal rights, and seems like the type of person to have Obsessive tendencies.

The Lawful part of his alignment comes through in understanding that the only way to achieve true order is by a single act of Chaos.

The same goes for his Good side. In order to reach the ultimate Good, Peace, he must sacrifice his own soul and initiate the death and destruction.

It might not seem like a typical Lawful-Good behavior, but in the long-run, it makes perfect sense.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

He's the definition of Lawful Evil, just more lawful than evil. He uses wicked means to instill order in a panic and chaos-stricken populace.

Surely that's a good move with a wicked means?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ah, just spotted this.

Ozy was sick of the status quo, thought it to be bad and wanted to shape it to something he thought was better.

Doesn't seem to happen that way.

In the entirety of his master plan, before and after, he doesn't try and bring down the Law. He just points it in a new direction. He's not actually shaping anything. They're still embroiled in their wars, it's just against the stars now.

If he had came out and announced that it was HE! Who had killed the Alien...then he'd be Lawful Evil. If he'd prompted the public to overthrow the government ("V" is textbook Chaotic Good), CG. If he'd held the world to ransom, CE.

All he did was shake things up. No governments fell. And regarding the Keene act, it was Ozy and the Comedian who obeyed the Law, Kovacs and Dreiberg who refused it and Manhattan and Juspyck who said "We don't care".

 

[Kollega]

Let's see. Lawful characters play by rules and uphold them, chaotic characters do what they feel like doing and value personal freedom. Ozymandias is definetly Neutral (i.e. morally gray), but is he Lawful or Chaotic? Or maybe True Neutral...

Ahhh, screw this. Sometimes, a simple D&D alignment just plain dosen't work.

...or maybe he is one of the stupids...

 

[Cowabungaa]

In the entirety of his master plan, before and after, he doesn't try and bring down the Law. He just points it in a new direction. He's not actually shaping anything. They're still embroiled in their wars, it's just against the stars now.

If he had came out and announced that it was HE! Who had killed the Alien...then he'd be Lawful Evil. If he'd prompted the public to overthrow the government ("V" is textbook Chaotic Good), CG. If he'd held the world to ransom, CE.

All he did was shake things up. No governments fell. And regarding the Keene act, it was Ozy and the Comedian who obeyed the Law, Kovacs and Dreiberg who refused it and Manhattan and Juspyck who said "We don't care".

Why would he have to bring down the law to be Chaotic? Isn't Chaotic doing as you please, using the methods you see fit regardless of what the law thinks? In that Wikipedia link I'm not reading anything about having to overthrow governments and setting people up to it, just hating them, and by the looks of it, Ozy reeeaaaally doesn't like what the Soviet and American governments are doing. Yes he technically just changed the direction of the war, but for Ozy that means that humanity is all united, and that's good according to him even though they're still fighting something. And while we might see one solution as good, and the other as evil, he thinks that his solution is good. I thought his motives decided what alignment he was, his actions are just what he thinks is the best plan of action, even though it's indirect. Ozy makes his own law and ignores that of the existing institutions, isn't upholding the existing law what Lawful Good characters do? I'm not seeing Ozy do that, he still changes the status quo to fit his personal image of good, albeit indirectly, but that's just what he thinks is the best plan. I really can't see where the Lawful part would have to come from, but maybe I'm just thick.

 

[Altorin]

Joyful and willing killing is always an evil act.

So Rorschach and Comedian are by their very nature evil.

The Comedian is Chaotic Evil - although he fights for the armed forces, he doesn't do so for any reason other then the fact that it gives him an opportunity to hurt people. He doesn't do it for his country, the betterment of mankind, or even his own betterment. He just thinks hurting people is funny.

Rorschach is Lawful Evil. Being lawful doesn't necisarily mean that you respect the laws of the land you're in (although it can mean that), it more means that there is a structure to your thought process. You have a code to determine your actions. Rorschach kills killers. Brutally. He'll maim and injure and terrorize people who interfere with his ability to dole out what he sees as just reward for preying on innocent people. Some might consider him Good, because he only kills "bad guys", but the fact that he relishes in the injury and killing of these people, his brutality and lack of any remorse.. He's evil. If you can call him good despite his evil actions, I can call him evil despite his good intentions.

Nite Owl, both of them, are probably Lawful Good. They want to help people, They have a strong code of ethics and morals. Nite Owl I was a good police officer, and Night Owl II wanted to be a police officer. In the end, Nite Owl I could grudgingly accept Ozymandias's chaotic evil act for the greater good, because, in the end, his code of ethics was largely untouched. There were still bad guys out there to fight, good people out there to protect, and lawful people out there willing to help protect the people.

Silk Spectre, I and II are probably Neutral Good... I don't really want to give too much thought to it atm... In short, they don't have the same zeal that the Nite Owls have. They generally want to help people, but they don't have the drive pushing them to right not only the evil but the unjust.

Dr Manhattan is True Neutral. That's the easiest one, because he is largely unattached to anything in the world. He has some Good moments, but hardly slips at all into chaos or lawfulness, and I think his only evil act is his final endorsement of Ozymandias's plot.. Not enough to shift him into Evil territory.

and finally, Ozymandias is, I would wager, Lawful Evil. I will probably stand to this firmly, so I may not post in this thread again (even though it has been fun thinking about all of this stuff). My barometer for a person's evil nature is.. if they can look in the mirror in the morning, and say with a smile "I killed a million people today, and I'm ok with that", then they're evil. I truly get the impression Veidt could do it. He sees very little value in a single human life, and for me, that's all it comes down to - how do you value others. If you would vaporize them, even to save them from vaporization, then you're evil. It may be a necessary evil, but if you do it and feel no remorse, you're evil.



As a final note, D&D doesn't even use all of these alignments anymore because they're too confusing. I mean, look at this thread. Noone can agree on anything (and there's nothing innately wrong with that). D&D's 4th edition (let's NOT turn it into another one of THOSE threads please), uses Good, Neutral, Evil, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil as the only alignments. They paint broader strokes, but it's easier to rationalize. Using those alignments we get:

Comedian - Chaotic Evil
Rorschach - Evil
Night Owl I and II - Lawful Good
Silk Spectre I and II - Good
Dr Manhattan - Neutral
Ozymandias - Evil

Still room for discussion there, but it requires a lot less thought to place them.

 

[GordonFawx]

I'm going to be wildly unpopular... but I'm going to say "Lawful Good".

This is what I always imagine would happen to a Lawful Good character with super-genius intelligence; he's always trying to save the world but he gets a little cracked along the way and ends up doing something morally questionable.

Most D&D nerds would say his end result would be as a change in alignment to something like Chaotic Good; or maybe Lawful Evil. I say it more represents a loss of sanity.