Lawful Good, beyond any doubt. An enduring, essential part of Batman's characterization for decades has been his absolute devotion to his cause, and his unbreakable code.
Batman: Lawful Good, or Chaotic Good?
- Thread starter jensenthejman
- Start date
Lawful has nothing to do with a given states laws (Though a lawful character may follow them. All it requires is that the character have an establish method of behavior; in X situation they will do Y for reason Z. It's lawful in the sense 1+1. A lawful character will respect those they consider authority figures, follow any personal contracts and commitments to the letter, support the law, code or creed they follow above anything else and so on.
Kane is lawful, as is Magneto, Loghain, Darth Vader, and Boba Fett. None of the are remotely good or follow societies rules, but they all have an explicit code of actions they follow with out, and won't deviate from it.
Good also doesn't mean nice, any Paladin demonstrates that (Lawful good and violent about it!). They might give you a chance at redemption but it doesn't mean it'll be easy and they'll still put a warhammer through your skull if they think it's deserved.
Batman is Lawful Good
Kane is lawful, as is Magneto, Loghain, Darth Vader, and Boba Fett. None of the are remotely good or follow societies rules, but they all have an explicit code of actions they follow with out, and won't deviate from it.
Good also doesn't mean nice, any Paladin demonstrates that (Lawful good and violent about it!). They might give you a chance at redemption but it doesn't mean it'll be easy and they'll still put a warhammer through your skull if they think it's deserved.
Batman is Lawful Good
Batman has been written in ways that fill all nine slots on the alignment table. But I disagree with the notion that he's good. His motivations are usually quite selfish, which is a prime motivator for evil in D&D. Even when he does good, he does so for the wrong reasons, which is still evil in D&D. Very few incarnations can truly be called good, and the ones that tend to be popular, like Nolan's version are definitely not those.jensenthejman said:
For the most part, he is an evil character, one who is probably Neutral Evil. MAYBE you could squeeze True Neutral, but Lawful and Chaotic Good are right out.
I agree to an extent. However a Lawful character at least tries to or prefers to work within their particular system of order to accomplish their goals particularly if there is room to do so. Batman could have helped lower the crime rate in Gotham through legal means if he desired to. Instead Batman is violating the rules of the very establishment and system of order he means to support. That can't be lawful.Athinira said:
Navvan said:
A Lawful alignment doesn't require you to operate within any law, it requires you to follow a law (i.e., a code of conduct or action proscribing certain methods of behavior). Its why Lawful Evil characters can exist. Batman has a code he follows even when deviating from it would be both easier and more sensible, and events that bring that code into conflict with his other goals cause him great mental trouble.
neutral good in the more kid friendly shows/comics and chaotic good in the movies and darker comics
Many people have said it so far, and for the last time: LAWFUL DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T BREAK THE LAW.Navvan said:
But as a sidenote, many other people are also wrong when they say that Lawful can mean a persons own code. That is also incorrect.
Lawful (whether it's good, neutral or evil) means that you support the idea of society being based on (or controlled by) an organized and functional governmental institution, that you can then live peacefully in (lawful good), exploit for money and/or power (lawful evil) or whatever you prefer.
However, the keyword in the last paragraph was "functional". Gotham city is anything but. They have super criminals they can't handle themself and they are knee-deep in corruption. In short, their system isn't up to the task of the challenges they face and is being torn apart both from the inside and the outside - hence: Batman.
Maybe think of it like this: if Batman was a D&D character, then he would have to be at least part Monk.
As I tried to explain in my previous post in that I agree that a Lawful character doesn't mean the character doesn't break any laws. They however uphold the "laws" they have "sworn" themselves to during all but the most conflicting and dire of circumstances. Batman directly breaks the rules/law of the very thing he is trying to support/uphold. He believes in the law and order of Gotham PD/Government. However he knows that some sections are corrupt, and thus believes he needs to work around that system to do good. Directly going against the system of order you hope to support and strengthen, that you believe in, that you want others to adhere to, isn't what a lawful character would do.Athinira said:
That is the way I see it.
I underlined the part where you went wrong.Navvan said:
Batman doesn't try to work AROUND the system. He is trying to make the system actually WORK (as intended). He might catch the criminals because the police are incapable, but he still lets police/the government punish the criminals themself, making the system work. In fact, as long as Batman doesn't do anything but catch the criminals and let the government handle them after turning them in, what he does can actually be considered a form of civilian arrest, which is legal in most countries.
This of course depends on who depicts the franchise. Batmans personality varies alot between iterations, and in some he is anything but lawful.
I'm leaning towards neutral good on this one. He follows a moral code, but doesn't necessarily follow all of the rules. He's not chaotic because he doesn't completely thumb his nose at the law like say...the Joker does.
But then again...like many have said earlier in this thread, it all depends on the writer.
But then again...like many have said earlier in this thread, it all depends on the writer.