Batman: Lawful Good, or Chaotic Good?

[Overusedname]

It really does depend on the writer, as others have mentioned.

I do however think that in almost every modern example Batman is Chaotic Good trying to be Lawful Good, which is something I've always liked about the character. He's still a vigilante at the end of the day. He wants to scare the criminals into submission even more so then the cops.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Considering his own moral code - no killing, defeating villains and whatnot, I'd say he's pretty strict about himself. I'd say lawful good since he doesn't have to abide to the law to be lawful - he only needs to strive towards order, which he manages with his own code. That's generally speaking. Historically, he's travelled through time and been a vampire and pirate and whatnot, so... All of them?

 

[theblindedhunter]

Naturally his alignment changes with each take on him, but I think one could comfortably say he was meant to be Chaotic Good.
One of his cornerstones (that has been removed at times, but I get the impression that most fans disregard that) is not killing people, especially not innocents. That is a very Good way of carrying yourself.
Lawful/Chaotic is a little less clear, and it always has been with D&D alignments, but I think Chaotic, or Neutral at the most, would be a safe bet. He's Lawful because he sticks strongly to his code of ethics, but he also gets a lot of that from his Good side, and he is willing to take very unconventional actions, and is a vigilante from the start, grounding him fairly firmly in Chaotic.

 

[Stalydan]

Which D&D character type do consider him to be? He does step outside the bounds of ethics -- such as in the Dark Knight. He regularly hides his plans from his peers(like in Justice League: Doom). Yet he is also all about he natural order of things, and maintaining the peace. So again: which is he?

Honestly, looking at him as a whole, I'd lean toward Neutral Good. He does respect the law but he is willing to step outside of it if he thinks he needs to.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I say he's lawful good since in his moral codes is that he doesn't kill the villain outright (even go to saved the villain sometimes), no guns and (depend on the writhers) he tried to saved an injure thug/ goon or a injured bystander that got caught in the crossfire.
Beside have you read or heard of the All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder version? That version if definitely chaotic good!

 

[Navvan]

He can't be lawful good. Batman inherently breaks laws and goes around order to accomplish his goals by being a vigilante. That alone makes it so he can't be Lawful

He also is not Chaotic since his ultimate goals is to support the law and order. He regularly works with Law Enforcement and turns in criminals to the proper authorities when he can instead of say executing them or imprisoning them himself. Even if that means they are later released or managed in a way he finds inappropriate.

Neutral Good with a slight leaning to Lawful in my opinion. He wants to be lawful but recognizes that he can't be to accomplish his goals.

 

[Siege_TF]

He can't be lawful good. Batman inherently breaks laws and goes around order to accomplish his goals by being a vigilante. That alone makes it so he can't be Lawful

He also is not Chaotic since his ultimate goals is to support the law and order. He regularly works with Law Enforcement and turns in criminals to the proper authorities when he can instead of say executing them or imprisoning them himself. Even if that means they are later released or managed in a way he finds inappropriate.

Neutral Good with a slight leaning to Lawful in my opinion. He wants to be lawful but recognizes that he can't be to accomplish his goals.

Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice. He keeps his personal moral code, while maintaining the clarity of purpose to allow that code to flex rather than follow it blindly as a Neutral would, and he's never ever just tossed it aside 'just this once' like a Chaotic. Gotta be Lawful. He's got at least one villian, The Joker, whose entire motivation is to drive him to break that code, and he has always failed.

 

[In Search of Username]

Probably lawful good, with a slight hint of chaotic in that he brings vigilante justice, not official justice (but this never extends to killing people so it's not too chaotic).

Joker, though, is DEFINITELY chaotic evil.

 

[Ranorak]

Chaotic good. He's a vigilante; he is NOT lawful.

Lawful doesn't refer to the specific laws of a government.
It can also refer to a person's own rules; like never use a gun.

 

[Storm Dragon]

This may seem like a cop-out, but I think he's Neutral Good, as he displays both Lawful and Chaotic traits in more or less equal measure.

 

[Doopliss64]

Neutral good. He frequently works with the cops and generally wants to maintain order (fights the agents of chaos such as joker) but also works outside the law and will take it into his own hands. He represents a grey area between traditional policing and revenge-driven vigilantism. He does things the cops (lawful good) would never do, but also draws a firm line against killing. Every moral dillema Batman has had to face deals with his balance of the two, usually as he swings more towards chaotic. In my opinion, he is the very definition of neutral good, one who is willing to do whatever it takes to do good regardless of the law. On the other hand, as has previously been stated, different writers have different views of the character.

 

[Wayneguard]

Definitely Chaotic Good. Isn't that the point of The Dark Knight? That Gotham needed a Dark Knight (chaotic good vigilante) to clean the streets but now needs a White Knight (lawful good harvey dent - pre-insanity) to take over? Or am I just talking out my ass...

 

[ElPatron]

Chaotic good. He's a vigilante; he is NOT lawful.

I'd say it makes sense that a lawful character might see taking up vigilantism to put away dangerous criminals as being the lesser of two evils and go for it. After all, half of Gotham's police force is corrupt anyway.
Although I do agree with you anyway. Chaotic good seems more appropriate.

But in the Christopher Nolan films it's Harvey Dent who tries to put away criminals trough the "proper channels": Harvey Dent being the White Knight and Batman the Dark Knight.

 

[Athinira]

He can't be lawful good. Batman inherently breaks laws and goes around order to accomplish his goals by being a vigilante. That alone makes it so he can't be Lawful.

Actually he can (and he is). You got it all wrong about what Lawful good is about.

Lawful good doesn't mean you never break laws. Lawful good means that you work towards building a society of order that people can live peacefully in. By definition, a vigilante that takes down criminals like Batman does is contributing to law and order on the grand scale. That is the objective of a lawful good character. He might break laws himself, but on the whole he is what makes the government work in Gotham.

Edit: Also, Lawful Good doesn't have to support the current society if necessary. If a Lawful Good character comes to a dictatorship for example, he would work towards taking the dictatorship down in order to build a new society.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Batman is lawful neutral. Helping people and not killing is enough to say that he is not evil but not enough to say that he is good. He is mainly concerned with upholding his own personal view of what the law should be. Bluntly speaking he is an authoritarian.

Superman is lawful good.

 

[ihateukyle]

Id say neutral good, i dont read batman, but he works outside the law, meaning he cant be lawful without alot of arguing, but hes not random, well thought out, so not really chaotic

 

[Basement Cat]

Good? Definitely good.

Lawful or chaotic?

Given his extreme adherence to a code of honor (No killing, torturing, etc) I can't see him as being Chaotic.

The fact that he breaks and bends laws is pertinent, but in the non-realistic world of comic books where his vigilantism is openly condoned by Commissioner Gordon, who is a definitive by-the-book cop, it can be argued that his particular extra-legal behavior can be considered officially condoned. If so he isn't quite the law breaker any random would-be vigilante who commits the same violent and illegal acts (assault and battery, breaking and entering, etc.) would be labeled as.

Yet, the very fact that he IS breaking laws to do what he does mitigates the Lawful aspect somewhat, though mostly as pertaining to society's rules.

This reminds me of conflict most people have with paladins in D&D: Most people look at Lawful Good characters as do gooders, but when they think of paladins they mentally classify them as Black and White, Lawful Stupid types. DM's who view paladins in this manner are always a moment away from stripping a paladin of his/her status unless they act like unthinking robots, i.e. Lawful Stupid. Such people fail to consider the fact that the Lawful aspect does not utterly dominate the Good aspect, and act like a paladin should feel obliged to uphold and carry out any law, simply because it's the law, even if the law is something like: "Anyone caught stealing will be publicly tortured and executed, even if the thief is a starving two year old child."

In Batman's case we have a character who's diamond hard principles and code of honor sometimes conflict with existing laws.

I'd say he qualifies as Lawful (with Neutral tendencies) Good.