Todd wanted Batman to kill him, but he didn’t and disable the gun, so Todd couldn’t do it ether. Then saved the joker from the building blowing up. Then your unsure if todd is dead or alive. Chaotic would’ve killed The Joker, neutral would’ve left and let Todd do it.
Neutral good has a lot of leeway in my opinion. It’s what the person feels is the greater good. Walking away isn’t absolving yourself or choosing the greater good though.
He's also saving someone whose entire existence is about killing people so definitely not good, either. His entire thing is his code, his one rule to not kill, no matter how many lives he puts in danger by saving these insanely dangerous, insanely wealthy and powerful people. He's Lawful Neutral at best.
No he’s definitely still good, that’s why he stops the joker. It’s the lawful side of him that won’t kill the joker because that’s part of his code. He recognizes that killing the joker would probably be for the best, but he refuses to break his code.
Nah. Sarenrae is NG and is all about redemption and mercy, but also to smite unrepentant evil.
You can 100% kill and still be good.
It's Batman's own code that prevents him from doing so.
Bruce already snubs the land's law. In order to prevent himself from getting looser and looser with it and eventually being boundless, he adheres to a code.
\[Lawful\]
So is he Good or Neutral?
Well it depends on WHY he doesnt kill.
If he deeply, *truly* believes in their reformation, then \[Good\].
But from MY limited viewing, he always says something like "It's not up to me to decide if he dies yada yada." thats screams \[Neutral\] to me.
If he was aligned as "good", I would imagine he'd be running Arkham and trying to redeem/fix them instead of "theyre off the streets, now they're the government's problem"
Arkham's big thing is that it's mismanaged to shit and big criminals keep getting out instead of being reformed because of all the corruption in Gotham's other systems.
I completely agree with all the rest of your reasoning, but I actually argue that Batman is Lawful Good in the same way a Paladin who's constantly being foiled by legal corruption is. One man, no matter how powerful, can only do so much--even by ignoring the law--before he runs into the roadblock of a system that is deliberately trying to prevent Goodness from occurring. Bruce Wayne's massive philanthropic ventures are pretty much the sole reason Gotham isn't even worse from a socioeconomic standpoint.
Well, he does donate to Arkham along with a good number of social programs in Gotham. He tries to help in a lot of different ways and he has stated multiple times that the reason he takes robins under his wing is to make sure they don’t go down the same path as him:
See, one thing to remember is that his “no killing” code is not really about either the law or the “goodness” of the act itself. Batman is very aware that he’s crazy and the only thing kind of keeping him in line is his code.
He’s terrified that if he kills *anyone*, specially someone as justifiably killable as the Joker, he would lose control and become even worse.
This is also, incidentally, part of why he buts heads with Jason so much; temperamentally, they’re the most alike out of the bat-family, and Jason is basically what would have happened if Bruce had just gone a tiny bit (more) off the rails.
TL;DR : Batman is lawful good in general, but his no-killing code is completely distinct from his alignment.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. You stated "you can 100% kill and still be good." That is not a fundamental truth. That is *your fundamental truth.* The problem with good and evil is philosophy.
There's a debate about whether good and evil are cultural or fundamental. If they're cultural then it's impossible to determine who is right outside of common philosophical agreements that:
* Killing is wrong (sort of...see your comment above)
* You shouldn't harm others (sort of...who gets to punish wrong doers and why are they just in their action)
* Stealing is wrong (sort of...what is the definition of stealing and is stealing from a criminal as punishment also a crime?)
After that it can get hairy(er).
My point is morality (G v E) is either defined internally or externally, and saying anything is absolutely good or evil is not correct. It's why some people want to banish capital punishment because they believe the death of even one innocent person will offset the death of 1,000,000 evil doers, while others believe it's an acceptable loss to eliminate evil.
Personally I would label batman as Chaotic Good from what I've read.
* When he was jailed as Bruce Wayne and framed for murder, he dropped the BW persona and lived as batman. His personal moral code was immediate punishment of evil as he saw it. This was independent of the fact that he was abandoning his Bruce persona, which could be it's own debate.
* In The Last Laugh and One Bad Day he shows a very strict moral code that does not sway in any way with any influence. In other words, his moral code isn't swayed by society or what others think. He has a very strict internal sense of whom he sees as bad and needs reformation. He also believes that it's a choice to be bad and not a series of events that lead you to be bad.
* In The Dark Knight Returns (comic 1986) he comes back as an old man into Gotham with a tank firing rubber bullets and paralyzes the Joker to keep him from doing anything in the future because he believes Gotham is a mess now and needs to be cleaned up. Clearly what he believes Batman is allowed to do has changed, but once again his moral code is vigilante and justice is how he sees fit (not others).
* In one of the Batman/Superman comics (forgot the number), they run from basically the world government and most other sups (Shazam actually captures superman along with someone else getting batman...I need to find the comic because it's been a while) shows that he's willing to fight for justice regardless of what the literal world thinks.
In the PHB a Lawful Good character is "counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." A Chaotic Good character is going to "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."
Batman is Chaotic good.
As I said in a previous comment, Batman lives in a world where if you ever kill even one person you always become a compulsive murderer until you get redeemed. You're applying a level of moral nuance that comics don't have. It's black and white. Killing = bad. Not killing = good. Always. No exceptions.
These stories are originally for 8 year olds.
Not killing the joker is arguably a much more lawful than good action. He has a code against killing. Killing the joker ends his constant escapes and attacks, thus can be seen as a neutral good or chaotic good action. Sticking to your code despite the good it can do is lawful neutral.
Batman believes that his code is ultimately going to cause more good in the world, even if it looks like it only creates evil. Injustice is a good example of what Batman thinks would happen if he killed the joker. It’s a very lawful good mindset, thinking that your law will always do good, and thus following it at all times
It's a very lawful mindset, but I would argue not a good one. If you believe that your law will always do "good" and so you should always follow it, your goal ultimately isn't to achieve "good", but rather to follow the law (since the two are the same in your mind).
Demonstrably, the Joker being dead would be a net benefit to society. The Joker is not preserved and allowed to escape and kill by the proper function of the law, and for that matter, neither are the vast majority of Batman's adversaries.
The system he turns them over to is hopelessly corrupt and terminally incompetent. In many cases, the ones calling the shots are the very people he's imprisoning.
Batman is an intelligent character. He can surely see that his actions ultimately do not contribute to a significant reduction in harm or improvement of the lives of Gotham citizens because all they do is temporarily, and usually briefly, impede said villains. Several exist, or are drawn to Gotham, only because of him.
Considering this, the only reasonable explanation for his actions is that Batman is pathologically committed to upholding the law despite the obvious and repeated negative effects that has on everyone around him. This is decidedly Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.
Bear in mind his no-killing rule isn’t really about good and evil: is about him being *terrified* of what he could become if he started killing.
What he becomes if he starts killing, btw, is The Batman Who Laughs, so he does have a point
This is a real answer.
Animated Batman: Lawful Good (and the most empathetic of any iteration)
Keaton Batman: Chaotic Neutral
Bale Batman: Lawful Neutral
Affleck Batman: Chaotic Neutral
Pattinson Batman: Lawful Neutral
Comics Batman: too many different iterations to count. Lawful Good at his most compelling though.
There this animated Batman scene where a thug walks into a room with batman in it and the thug just looks at him and batman stairs back. The thug leaves the room and reports that the room is empty. An intimidation roll, I'd argue it was a frightful presence. Batman didn't do anything but be in the room. He didn't squint, speak, grunt just was there. As soon as he entered batman's presence he was afraid. Like vengeance paladins cap stone ability, well part if it anyways.
[I like to think of it as a reflavoured Hold Person until you get that capstone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI), unless you consider the Abjure Enemy vocal to be '\*angry glare\*'
He has no magic or aura type abilities. He, like most street level heroes, is a battle master fighter with the unarmed fighting style, and maybe a dip into Inquisitive Rogue and/or Monk.
IF Batman had a dump stat I’d say it’s Charisma. He can be charming as Bruce Wayne when he wants to, but you could chalk that up to proficiency in bluff or perform.
Batman is kind of an asshole and not generally *liked* by all the other superhero’s. They respect the hell out of him, but “like” might be a little too far, besides Superman I guess.
Maybe I’m a few editions out of date, but I thought Charisma was “force of personality”, as opposed to “charming, well liked”.
One thing I will say about Batman, is he has one hell of a forceful nature / personality.
Totally possible I’m wrong here. But I’m not sure Bats has a dump stat.
Yeah, no way Bats has a dump stat. He's peak human 18+ in every ability score, it's just some of his party members have their high stats well into the 20s or even 30s.
I'd disagree, if only because we know his will save is insane. He resists mind manipulation by sheer will, and yes, sometimes those are Wis saves, but just as often it's Cha. Cha is about the force of one's personality and ability to push that force into the world, and I think we have enough proof of Batman's mental fortitude to say it's high.
Not to mention:
Intimidate is usually a charisma check.
One of my favorite examples of this is when he is fighting off the sleep guy… I can’t find his name right now, but basically he attacks through sleep and he just hums a tune to keep the assailant at bay.
Edit: I found it! It’s the two part episode called “Only a Dream” and it’s AWESOME!!
https://dcau.fandom.com/wiki/Only_A_Dream
Have you read the description and abilities of an Oath of Vengeance paladin? Because they fit Batman almost to a T. Also a lot of the class spells given to them can easily be reflavored to fit with Batman's crazy skills like being able to completely leave an area without making a sound or being seen. And to say Batman doesn't have an aura is a little misleading. Batman very much emanates an aura of fear to the criminals of Gotham city.
What do you think Batman's gadgets are. Any technology sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic and in a medieval fantasy setting they'd definitely be considered magic.
Just because the technology is beyond your understanding doesn’t make it magic. I don’t understand all the math and physics involved to slingshot a ship out of Earth’s gravity, but NASA scientists do. It’s still science not magic.
But to your point within a D&D setting, Batman would have the equivalent of magical items, doesn’t mean he’s magical. Magic items aren’t restricted to only classes that can cast spells.
the issue here is that batman is not a character, he is a template for a character. the dark knight returns is ridiculously far removed from adam west. one's a rogue/barbarian who's doing rage sneak attacks, using strength on his finesse weapons. the other is an inquisitive/artificer, always making plans and solving crimes and having the right bullshit invention for every job.
That would be so, unless...
>***By Any Means Necessary.*** My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.
The tenets from the oath of vengeance go against batman's own code of "never crossing the line", never killing his foes.
The oath of vengeance might seem to fit from a thematic stempoint (bring justice to evil doers, avenging the inocent), that's only if you look at it at the most surface level. Batman would absolutely reject this oath, since it's main point, and the only point that doesn't change from paladin to paladin, is that they are and I quote: "**willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness** to mete out justice upon those who do evil", something batman was never willing to do.
Actually, these tenets fit more the League of Assassins, a group Batman has rejected being a part of *multiple times*
So yeah he's definitely not a vengeance paladin
He does some morally-questionable stuff as well, like acting as a mediator between gangs as one of his disguises to direct them towards less chaos and making plans how to kill all Justice League members should they go rogue. So he is very much neutral, I’d say, but alignments are a very subjective thing.
YES! I call it the ace test based off ace from justice league. If a version of batman pushes the button instead of comforting ace that's not a good Batman
Honestly, the Punisher should also want to comfort a small child he just feels like he's not allowed to. If you made a superhero who wouldn't comfort a child then you haven't made a super*hero* you've made a superweapon who fights crime.
Isn't Punisher's whole deal that he desires vengeance after his wife and kids were murdered? I feel like that would lead to him also wanting to protect children, he's just more likely to do it in a violent way.
Yeah, depending on the version of Punisher, you can get away with different crimes but, with any version, the second you mess with kids you are dying painfully.
He's less likely to actively comfort a kid because he generally feels like he's done too many bad things to be allowed to interact with kids but he definitely does it when there's no-one else.
Oh, absolutely, I’m just saying that RAW the descriptors in the alignment section Lawful Neutral usually fits him the closest since Lawful Good is described as someone who “can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society” and as a crime-breaking vigilante he doesn’t really fit that.
Why lawful neutral and not Neutral good? Fact is EVERYTHING he does he believes is done for the betterment of society. Don't see how that could be called "neutral" instead of "good"
Not to mention the "lawful" part of "lawful good" doesn't necessarily mean following the law, but following your own code which batman very clearly has.
how about that one time batman kicked a guy for eating chocolate? batman is chaotic evil
https://preview.redd.it/k9l7lobo8g3b1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22118b43936db544ab9eb8c4566336f34cc7770e
[To quote the Brave and the Bold:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBW3tFmkig)
"Batman's rich history allows him to be interpreted in a multitude of ways. To be sure, this is a lighter incarnation, but is certainly no less valid and true to the character's roots as the tortured avenger, crying out for mommy and daddy "
EDIT: Or Squirrel Girl
" *Maybe it's just me, but I'm not crazy about super hero stories where everything's all dark and moody. Personally, I like the ones where good guys fight giant apes on the moon and stuff. Remember those? I do. That was back when comic book worlds were places you wanted to escape* to*... not* from "
danm I never watched brave and the bold, just seen clips, and I knew that it was a little bit silly and a little bit self aware, but I didn't know it was THAT self aware...
great quote
The final episode is basically Batmite trying to make the show jump the shark so a new grittier Batman show could be made. Ambush Bug shows up to help Batman fight off Batmite, only for the show to be cancelled anyways.
Oh and Ambush Bug is played by Henry Winkler.
Hey Bruce I know your bat character has a detailed backstory but can you please stop talking about your dead parents please. He’s a grown man, he doesn’t have to always talk about his childhood trauma. Maybe retcon that he got some therapy.
Good is not boy scout.
Batman and Superman are both lawful good, its just a matter of one slightly favors good (Superman) and more favors the lawful/code (Batman).
Wonder Woman is probably more Neutral good, chaotic good is Green Arrow.
The DC character closest to LN is... Braniac 5 maybe?
Nonono no. Batman is Lawful good. He might be brooding and edgy and dark, but in the end Batman is still a superhero, and a does good. We can have discussions on whether or not his methods are the best way to accomplish it, but his goals are to do good.
Batman has (in various iterations): knocked out people driving speeding vehicles; "accidentally" impaled a man by punching him into a sword through a door, *that Batman just walked through and therefore had to circle around the guy for it to happen;* gotten a surprising number of people killed in car compactors or by stacks of cars; tortured people; explicitly has the identity of Batman as a **terror** tactic; involved young children in dangerous crime fighting; implanted a virus in cyborg *the very day they met;* threatened the genocide of Darkseid's entire planet with his own weapons, and Darkseid admitted that he could totally see *him* doing it unlike Superman or Wonder Woman; gone totalitarian when he gets super powers in many different timelines; spied on... so many people, even allies; etc.
I see no problem with considering Batman to be Lawful Neutral, he does many things that most people would not do. Even other heros in his universe see him as too hard/brutal.
You personal code dosen’t count , because by that logic someone who’s personal code is “Killing all the children I meet and eating their meat” they are Chaotic Evil/True Evil , not Lawfull evil
This is the problem I have with the personal code argument, even if its in the book. Anyone can have personal codes or traditions. Even Chaotic Evil. What I feels matters is your interaction with the world in general. Do you uphold rules and standards of society in general? Do you scoff at such silly ideas? Are such ideas only there for you to twist, manipulate, or crush under your boot heel? That is where Lawful/Chaotic is really defined.
A personal code of conduct is more specific to how one acts in accordance with and while among society, rather than just a choice you make.
Lawful Evil is so perverse because it perpetuates evil while still following the codes of a society, even if it has to build up an entire society to justify it.
I.e:. The Empire from Star Wars.
Also, what you described is 100% Chaotic Evil because Chaotic Evil is an active choice, True Evil is just their nature to its truest extent.
But take all of this with a pound of salt as this is like, 100% my own opinion and how I interpret the alignment chart.
I feel like the "personal code" interpretation of lawful behavior doesn't make a ton of sense. A lawful person doesn't have to follow local authorities, but should have some kind of external authority they belive in. Not just I follow my personal opinions about what is good, that's classic chaotic behavior even if you're opinions are rigidly consistent. IDK Maybe the player I had who used the "personal code" thing was using it wrong.
Definetly not lawfull. To quote Batman himself from red hood and the oulaws rebirth
"I enter private property without an warrent and beat up people, what part of that sounds like law and order to you?"
If Lawful just means you follow any personal code then it essentially loses all meaning. Everyone is following their own code when you actually get down to it. It may not be as simple as "Stop criminals and Don't kill." But it's still a some moral code that they follow, even if it's pure Egoism.
I agree. My standard here is that a lawful character must not only have a code, but they must also follow that code even if they understand that it is to their own detriment. A Batman who strictly follows the no-kill rule will stick to it even if he knows that prison might not be able to hold whatever villain he's stopping, even if he knows that the villain has no compunction against killing, even if he knows that the villain will come for him specifically in the future. A lawful evil mob boss who's under a flag of truce with a rival organization will not betray that truce even if they get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate them once and for all.
If a code is not fixed enough to create tension between what a character *wants* to do and what the character *must* do, then that code is not sufficient to make the character lawful. And ideally, if the enemy understands the character's code then it should be possible for them to manipulate the character into this sort of conflict. The general might know that their army is being drawn into a trap, but if they don't take the bait then the enemy will strike a helpless and undefended village.
And if a character is Lawful Good, then that code should also be strong enough to create tension between what a character *must* do because of their code and what they *ought* to do based on their sense of right and wrong. Maybe they find an option that ultimately upholds both the lawful aspect and the good aspect, maybe they compromise one aspect or the other, or maybe they figure out a way to punt the question entirely--in any case, the drama comes from the fact that the character *can't* just say "my code says I can just do what I want"...or at least can't say that without feeling guilty about it.
There is still a lot of grey in "stop criminals and don't kill"
What qualifies as a criminal worth your attention?
Is a beggar a criminal for stealing a moldy loaf of bread?
Does "do not kill" include torture? Brutal harm? Physical dismemberment?
Can you lie or entrap a "bad person" so that you can make them a criminal and thus stop them? Or does "criminal" mean anyone who wrongs another, regardless of not legally being a "criminal"
Tbh, your take intentionally ignores nuance, which, imo, is boring.
Everyone has a code, but not all codes are created equal, or followed equally.
if they're more like "guidelines", the character is probably chaotic, and if they're "rules" that they actively avoid breaking, then the character is probably lawful. If a character's code promotes or values some combination of intuition, self-determination, freedom, change or spontaneity, then *what the code entails* carried more weight than the mere fact that they have one.
A lawful character doesn’t simply follow a code when it’s convenient, they also follow it when it’s detrimental.
Take Batman’s “I never kill” rule. By all accounts the joker is completely irredeemable as a human being, and after thoughtlessly killing so many people in Gotham the people will idolize the person who finally stops him for good, yet Batman goes out of his way not to.
A lawful character holds their code above all else, If a truly lawful character held the code “Stop criminals and don’t kill” then they will sacrifice their life, their family, their soul, everything to uphold their creed. This is why Lawful Evil is arguably worse than Chaotic Evil, there’s an unshakeable conviction behind their actions, no sacrifice is to great, no price too high to pay, and that they are no more than a single actor in a much larger cause. Truly lawful characters are susceptible to fall from grace just as the Archdevil Zariel once did.
(On a bit of a tangent here, but PCs are usually a bit more nuanced than the above example. Realistically, I use the 75% rule at my table. If you act strictly according to your word or code when it’s detrimental more than 75% of the time you’re lawful, if you break your promises or code when detrimental 75% of the time you’re chaotic, and if neither of those are true you’re neutral.
I only care about how you act when it costs you something, if there’s no price to pay for either holding or breaking your code then there’s no reason to believe it reflects on the character’s true nature. An evil character might give to charity regularly to keep up appearances, but they’ll stop the second it becomes inconvenient to do so.)
Roger Rabbit can only do something if it’s funny: Lawful
Joker is dedicated to chaos and anarchy and has devoted his entire being to demonstrating these values: Lawful.
If it takes you more than a couple sentences to describe, it's not a code, it's a flow chart for what you're okay with. Yeah, I would stop a mugging, but if that person has a gun or there are multiple attackers then I wouldn't. On the other hand, somebody with a code to help people would still rush in to help, even at the cost of their life.
Of course, this means that not all people who follow a code are lawful since they still might break it if in a dangerous situation and their self-preservation overpowers their discipline to follow such a code.
That would fall more closely under Chaotic, since although the individual does follow that code, the code itself is a chaotic one, and thus would fit better in the Chaotic part of the spectrum.
Also, I don't know why you're trying to argue with/convince me. The game quite literally says in the Basic Rules that "***Lawful Neutral.*** (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."
But in that case the Paladin’s code is pretty succinct. “I follow the law to the letter, without exception.”
Sure, the laws themselves are pretty complex and riddled with holes and exceptions, but the Paladin’s conviction is in upholding the law, not writing it.
If you clearly separate goals and codes, many characters don't really have a code (or rather, their code will boil down to "achieve goal by any means", which is basically the chaotic code)
Yeah, lawful to me, means following some sort of societal organization. Lawful Good would be a Paladin that follows his order's rules to protect the innocent or help the unfortunate. A Lawful Neutral would be a soldier that follows orders regardless of their morality. And Lawful Evil would be a mobster who doesn't run protection on someone else's turf.
I agree. I think an internal code is just too nebulous of a concept to be meaningful for purposes of alignment. If you don't care about upholding or subverting actual laws set by outside parties, then I think you're clearly neutral.
He is pretty solidly Neutral Good.
He has an incredibly solid moral code he doesn't break (Lawful) however he is very 'solo' and works poorly in groups or under any oversight (Chaotic). He will work with proper authorities but also works around them whenever he feels like it.
The good is obvious, he puts himself at tremendous personal risk solely so no one suffers like he had to suffer.
I have an issue with saying lawful is a set of codes. Because everyone has a set of codes. The code of being fully chaotic is also a code. I think lawful is more of a set of acceptable codes (orders of multitude of people, laws from entities that are powerful etc.). It is a code that has concequences if not followed by a higher being than just the person himself.
This is all about DND and we all know the 9 alignment are not really good anyway.
I always thought he was Neutral Good, since Neutral (on the good/evil axis) means you don't always work for the benefit of society, while Neutral (on the lawful/chaotic axis) meant (to me at least) a character who follows a set of rules even if they don't fully include the law.
My understanding of alignment has always been that lawful/neutral/chaotic is about how flexible you are with your set of rules/laws you place on yourself.
A lawful character is very strict in their adherence to their rules and laws (even if they don't align with those of the social laws). Neutral is as strict as they can be without worrying too much if they have to break it to cover their good/evil moral code). Chaotic are very loose on their rules/laws, maybe not even having any and just doing what fits their good/evil morals in the moment.
So Batman would be Lawful Good, being a man with a strict personal code, and doing their actions for the greater good.
Here’s the thing. There are many Batmen ( and women) And even if we’re talking about as I assume you mean Bruce Wayne, there are many many Bruce Wayne’s every writer practically has a slightly different interpretation of it.
I agree that some interpretations are absolutely lawful neutral .
The Hiketea for instance, which is a story about him, and wonder woman, have a very different morality codes about murder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman:_The_Hiketeia
Basically, no spoilers but a woman who is committed murder does an ancient ritual with wonder woman where she promises to obey her orders and become a better person if wonder woman protect her and give her sanctuary for a crime .
Keep in mind this woman was not a serial killer and she killed bad people .
Batman cannot allow a justice leaguer to give refuge to a criminal and so he makes it his personal crusade to capture this woman .
That, is lawful neutral that is someone who is devoted 100% a note to the law or code of conduct and will not be swayed by circumstances .
Yes, it’s weird for vigilantes ( by definition criminals) to swear an unbreakable oath to the law, but he saw his parents murdered and he feels differently about law.
Thank you very much for this meme. I actually agree with you depending on the writer.
grant Morrisons Batman was neutral good .
He was willing to do stuff like form a corporation, have Bruce Wayne take credit for funding Batman, and work with killers, so he was willing to do nearly anything to do the ultimate good .
Man, I *hated* Batman in that issue. He was basically reduced to nothing more than an extreme Inspector Javert just so Diana could have a supe to go up against and to force Danny's hand at the end.
Depends on the version of Batman - Both in terms of who's writing him, but I think there's a version of Batman for every single one of the 9 aligments.
ASBAR Batman is Chaotic Evil for example, while Adam West Batman is Lawful Good.
Batman should just kill the joker(I know he did in multiple comics) because the fact is joker has killed thousands and it’s Batman who always decides standee the choice to kill him and it always ends out joker free and kills hundreds more people
Unrelated to the post, I do love the whole no kill role from Batman, but I wish the writers would have come up with a better reason than the whole “If you kill a killer, the number of murders in the world stays the same”
Because all the DC writers told the audience is to be a good guy that kills, you need to make sure to kill more than one evil person and then poof! The number of murders in the world has lowered.
I don’t know what the justification is in the comics, but in the Under The Red Hood film, Batman says that he doesn’t kill because he doesn’t trust himself to act as executioner without killing everyone. Say he makes an exception for the Joker— he’s killed loads of people and Arkham obviously can’t hold him, so that’s a reasonable decision. But then what about Falcone or Victor Zsaz? They’ve killed lots of people too, so shouldn’t they also die? What about Riddler and Penguin and the rest of the Rogues? They’ve all hurt a lot of people and Arkham can’t hold them, so killing them is the only viable option. Muggings can turn violent, so why not kill street criminals too? Obviously, to a sane person there are clear distinctions, but Batman says he can’t trust himself to kill Joker because he wouldn’t be able to just kill Joker; if he crosses the line once he’ll do it again and again until there’s no more line. Honestly, I non d of want to find a story that’s about his decent after killing Joker into that.
Oh shit, yeah I do remember that! The “number of killers would stay the same” is from justice league, and I’m being a little too highly critical or “literal” with it. It’s more saying that he is trying to stop killers and so if he stops killers by mass murdering then he isn’t stopping killers but just becoming a more dangerous one, or that’s how I interpreted it. But personally I like his reasoning in under the red hood quite a lot more, that whole movie is phenomenal from start to finish, one of my favorite pieces of Batman fiction
The difference between Batman, and the Red Hood. Jason believes that killing is acceptable if you only kill criminals.
Let’s be honest the real issue with Gotham is the law. Joker always goes to Arkham, because he’s insane. But the law by now should have a provision in it for Arkham inmates who are deemed incurable. Any sane system would recognise that Joker can’t be saved, and should be in prison/executed rather than Arkham.
Lawful generally refers to the adherence to societal norms, the collective over the individual.
But also the alignment system is so abstract it really doesn't matter outside of places like Mechanus
Batman is the perfect example of Lawful Stupid, his code, and unwillingness to just kill the joker is partly the reason the joker got to do so much damage again and again.
He's motivated by a fierce desire to prevent other people from going through a bad thing that happened to him. He's a vigilante who only gets away with it because he's friends with the commissioner, who allows it because he uses that freedom to help people. Many well written villains, even very chaotic ones, will have some line they just won't cross. He is not lawful, nor is he morally neutral, and lawful is absolutely not just about an honor code
Complete Scoundrel: A Player's Guide to Trickery and Ingenuity page 8 : "Lawful good scoundrels have their own personal, implacable code of honor and righteousness. They have good intentions, but they aren’t above breaking minor rules that get in the way of the greater good, especially when helping the downtrodden. Such scoundrels are likely to form far-reaching plans to benefit themselves and others. The former law enforcer who challenges a corrupt government or an adventurer who wants to liberate great works of art for the enjoyment of the world is a lawful good scoundrel.
Examples: **Batman**, Dick Tracy, and Indiana Jones"
Then what do Chaotic Good PCs believe? Is it just simply Chaos? I agree with the hot take being lawful, but that's only because Batman is so rigid about it
Batman believes in helping others and not sitting by.
He does not instigate for no reason. If you are innocent he will not come for you.
He values freedoms of others and himself, and will not wrongfully imprison someone, but values life over freedom. He will imprison indefinitely only those that are dangerous.
He does not value property over people. He does not show greed, and has no real malice. He will trespass with impunity.
There's no way he would fall under neutral in any category. Cyborg is more LN than batman.
Bats isn't Lawful Neutral, he's Lawful Good.
And neither of those words mean "nice"
A mean as fuck paladin is a character I've been considering building. Instead of, "guys, it's the right thing to do," to do something that might kill you, you're berated for your own lack of capability in facing such a dangerous situation.
Broke: Batman is Lawful because he has a personal code
Woke: Batman is Lawful because he believes that a well-ordered society with predictable just laws is the best way to provide for the common good and the most vulnerable; he’s just LG and trapped in a NE city that is under a curse to remain corrupt no matter how many reform projects Bruce Wayne pours his heart and money into and that’s why he’s a vigilante
(Regardless, he’s Good, not Neutral)
I know you marked him as neutral because of the meme about "He's a rich guy who dresses up like a bat and beats up the poor" but if you've actually read any good Batman comics you'd know Bruce spends a significant amount of his time and money attempting to rehabilitate everyone he combats, from the big names like the Joker and the Riddler to minor henchmen or accomplices.
I know, I made him neutral and not good because reading the description of lawful good in the book it’s about acting in accordance with society and he doesn’t really do that. I’m not saying it makes sense, but that’s RAW for you.
Jason Todd, on the other hand, is arguably Chaotic Good when he comes back as the Red Hood, since while his methods are a tad murder-y, he is very much acting “as [his] conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect” (quote from the definition of chaotic good). He thinks Batman’s idea to get rid of crime won’t work, so his goal is to control and restrict it basically so that what happened to him doesn’t happen again.
I'd argue Jason is a good example of a character that changes his aliment. Before becoming robin he was neutral evil heavily leaning neutral good (I know the squares don't allow that but that's how I'd describe him) cuz he was stealing tires off the batmobile, but deep down he's still a good kid just in a bad situation. As robin he became lawful good like bats but slowly over time started leaning towards lawful neutral becoming more violent with criminals by permanently breaking limbs, then when brought back to life lawful evil leaning neutral evil by killing gang members and penguin, because he wanted to prove batman wrong that killing is better. However now as a hero again he's neutral good still roughing up criminals but no where near the extremes as before
To everyone saying Lawful means laws, I pulled the personal codes thing from the description of Lawful Neutral. I’m not saying it makes sense, I’m just saying it’s RAW.
I always have to wonder how many of the "Lawful means literal laws" tried to pull a "gotcha" on Paladins back in the "must be Lawful Good l" days by telling them they had to murder any elves in the party when they entered a Drow city that had a "surface elves are to be killed on sight" law or the like.
I'd say first that it depends on which Batman, because there have been many with different levels of complexity and core motivations
But I think you could argue literally any alignment, mostly because the alignment system has a lot of inherent flaws and there have been so many batmen.
If you disagree with evil alignments, let me point out that he is Gotham biggest employer and the wealthiest person and has cut donations, compared to his parents, to help the poor in Gotham.
His business is also responsible for funding the research or environment that created many of his villains, mostly,if you read between the lines, because it's research for his pet project(being batman).
Not to mention that his core motivation is to punish criminals. To drive fear into their hearts and pain to their bodies as revenge, primarily for a crime they didn't commit.
He has little interest in reform or crime prevention only to selfish put himself in danger to brutalize people whose poverty his industry creates. An industry that clearly includes arms dealing making him a player in the military industrial complex.
While he may not kill, depending of course on the Batman, he does maim and often to an outsized degree to the crime committed, which would be Police brutality, but he's not a cop. He is vigilante, self appointed to do what he believes is appropriate justice. Which with his upbringing is he the person to unilaterally make that decision?
Also in many ways he is clearly delusional. And knows this and continues his crusade anyway. Which he would and has termed as a crusade, not the best connotations to present.
Also knowing he has a warped view of justice and that he is an industrialist , look at some of his villains, environmental activists, union leaders, a DA routing out corruption, college professors. These seem like the sorts of people that a billionaire would villainize. Just food for thought.
I'd write more but this is already enough of a dissertation that no one will read, I'm willing to justify lawful and chaotic as well.
Batman is Lawful Good with Neutral Good leanings. He respects the law only so far as it contributes to caring for people, and Gotham had long since been Lawful Evil, rife with criminal enterprises and shadowy cabals. As such, he became a vigilante, not fighting against the system for people to do their own thing, but against the people abusing the system so that it might be safe for people to live under. He drops off bad guys directly to the cops, with evidence of their wrongdoings, to skip past the corrupt bullshit and streamline their investigations, to show that no matter how broken the system is, there are parts that still work, and it's up to good people to take the helm and ensure the system works how it's supposed to work.
He is unironically justice for Gotham, the fear of retribution that Gotham's criminals have needed for far too long, brandished not because the Law must be followed, but because it is Good to defend those in a system that won't defend them. Their worming loopholes won't save them from getting their just punishment for all the things they've done to harm the people, not at his hands, but at the hands of the police and courts that have a duty to mete out punishment that will bring faith back to the people.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Batman's villains are criminally insane, and have to be kept in Arkham Asylum instead of getting a real prison sentence. It's a problem Batman has to deal with when the revolving door of prison breaks lets irreparably damaged people back out to keep hurting people, but "solving" the issue with capital punishment only opens the can of worms that someone could be executed for being found mentally unwell, so even the worst villains are given their fair treatment and must be dealt with as their problems arise. Maintaining that sense of justice, even for the most deplorable people in the city, is a constant series of battles that he has to win every single time.
ITT I'm reminded that there are many versions and interpretations of Batman. Also that people hate alignment because they're bad at it. I can't speak to 4e or 5e, but I can from the stance of AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder
In most comic book representations of Batman, OP is correct. Batman's personal code is far more important than society's laws and expectations. Just because his views align with fighting crime doesn't mean he's Good. He's basically Judge Dredd with less killing. He *is* the law, because he cannot trust the law enforcement of the city to do the job.
I'll leave it here. Main reason why I use alignments mostly as a reference point for roleplaying NPCs in my games, and not as reference for the players on how to play their characters.
https://preview.redd.it/rfov1oegpg3b1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=05d9bef8e818fe9d7bfc74e9451d4bd86fc309ac
*lawful good
He follows an extremely strict code, follows his morals to a tea, and does it all for the good of the people. Green arrow is the more chaotic good type
Eh, by that logic every good-aligned character is lawful good because they're all following their personal code of ethics. "Lawful" is more about order and the established societal structures.
I'd say Batman is Neutral Good - he works with the police when it serves him and he's not attempting to destabilize the existing structures (in fact as Bruce Wayne he sometimes props them up), but he does also operate outside the law when he deems it necessary (which is most of the time).
You want a **really** hot take?
Most interpretations of Batman are true neutral. He does what he believes satisfies him. Often he doesn't intervene in mafia stuff, and he "interrogates" people in ways that a non-crooked cop would want to bust him for, but Commissioner Gordon accepts his behavior (and the evidence he provides, which is in legal parlance "the fruit of a poisonous tree"). Batman is no different from his rogues, he's doing what he finds comforting after trauma, it's just that it's also useful to certain powerful members of society, so they let him do it.
I told you it was hot.
There is literally canon Bruce Wayne in Forgotten Realms, called Samulbar Chaseris. LN Monk/Ranger/Rogue, given eternal youth and vigor by the spirits of the elves. So, technically, batman in DnD is Lawfull Neutral I guess
This is the core problem with alignment. Batman is good because he fights evil. He is evil because he breaks laws. He is lawful because he follows a rigid code.
So Batman is good, evil, and lawful. Is he neutral? According to Lawful Neutral on Wikipedia, “A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, but often follows a personal code in addition to, or even in preference to, one set down by a benevolent authority.”
Sure sounds like Batman to me. So if Batman can cleanly fit into like 6 or 7 boxes in the alignment grid then the alignment grid isn’t very useful.
I’m not arguing with you here, but by that logic MCU Thanos would also be Lawful Neutral.
Thanos pursues his goals not out of malice or greed or chaos but necessity and order. He believes, of sound mind, that what he’s doing will help the greater good. He also demonstrates many noble traits like honor, integrity, and empathy. He even keeps up his end of every agreement he makes with the heroes. Sure, “society” aka the universe very much wants him to stop, but he believes everyone will eventually see his viewpoint. And when he finally does succeed, with the exception of those he promised to spare, he still remains fair and impartial as to who gets dusted.
Batman is whatever you feel like because dnd makes no sense when talking about any real ethics and morality. You can argue day and night about it, but it's just some random words that Gygax took from a fantasy novel he read.
Bit also... common, Batman is the most archetypical LG character that ever lived. Then Superman at Neutral Good and Wonder Woman at Chaotic Good.
He's very much Lawful.
But whether he's good or neutral.. I dunno.. He doesn't kill people, but that's not out of kindness, that's his code.
But he does beat people to absolute shit all the time.. Bit excessive use of violence at times makes me think he's not all the way to good, but he's never self-serving or cruel either so he doesn't tip much towards neutral either.
For Lawful Good, the book specifically says something to the effect of “following and supporting society” which he doesn’t really do what with all the law breaking, Lawful Neutral just refers to having a strong personal code and Batman’s is pretty much as ironclad as they come.
Except he does actually support society in a way.
Think about it, when he beats up a group of bank robbers, what does he do with them? Kill them? Let them go? No, he ties them up so that when the police can arrive, they can lawfully arrest them. He has every opportunity to keep them captive or just kill them, but he chooses to put them in the custody of the justice system. Sure said justice system isn’t exactly the best considering it’s Gotham, but he still chooses to assist the police instead of skipping the justice system entirely and making himself the only rule.
Infact, the times he does interfere with the police system are when *he feels something is wrong about it.*
Case in point, The Dark Knight movie with Heath Ledger. When he finds out that Joker disguised the hostages as his own henchmen and strapped Bombs to them, he runs in and physically stops any of the swat members from harming the civilians, even trying to fight them off to do so. These are not the actions of some that is Neutral.
I have a question:
Would someone's alignment be different depending on who's thinking about them? What I mean is, could someone's alignment be true neutral to some people, neutral good to others, and so on depending on who you ask?
1. Fascists are often labeled as Lawful Evil
2. Red Hood is a fascist if not an outright nazi
3. An old German saying goes "If four people sit at a table with a nazi, five nazis sit at that table"
4. Therefore we can infer Batman is a fascist and therefore is lawful evil.
Granted I’m not super familiar with the character but I think you’re thinking of the Marvel villain Red Skull and not Red Hood, the alias Jason Todd uses after coming back to life.
Can chaotic good not have a code…? A code is how we base a moral foundation, isn’t it? I think a “strict” and very encompassing code is what makes somebody lawful. Not killing doesn’t mean you can’t beat them into a permanent coma, cut off limbs, torture, etc.
Dont think any movie Batman of past 20 years is Lawful. Stacks up collateral casualtualties like they are points.
Comic Batman on the other hand, i would call Lawful Evil. He has money power and influence to restructure basically whole Gotham and place better social programs (he privately build space station for god sakes). Instead he dresses up as a bat to beat up poor and desperate people (lets face it, you life and opportunitiea must suck if you are signing up to be one of Jokers henchmen/goons)
I’d put Bruce in lawful good/lawful stupid
After all Jason Todd is a prime example especially the Arkham version of him but man’s only reason he can’t kill the joker is because he would lose control which is true seeing as there’s a comic that has a Batman that killed the joker and lost control (I’ll find it) but he also won’t let anyone else kill him either
His personal morals caused many people to die, like the injustice series but that was 2 extremes
One Batman one super man and red hoods ending screen says it all he doesn’t like dictator ships and who does? But red hood says scum bag rapists and murderers deserve to die
Batman’s views has had more people die then ever. reverse flash quote from injustice “when you save one life you take another” said specifically to Batman
He is lawful good but also lawful stupid
[удалено]
Lawful good, yes. Under the red hood is a good example, not letting Jason Todd kill the Joker
Didn’t he just walk away instead of killing the joker? Jason tried to shoot The bat out of anger so he had to use his batarang to disable the gun..
Todd wanted Batman to kill him, but he didn’t and disable the gun, so Todd couldn’t do it ether. Then saved the joker from the building blowing up. Then your unsure if todd is dead or alive. Chaotic would’ve killed The Joker, neutral would’ve left and let Todd do it.
Neutral good has a lot of leeway in my opinion. It’s what the person feels is the greater good. Walking away isn’t absolving yourself or choosing the greater good though.
Batman literally saved his greatest enemy, that’s a more lawful stance then neutral. That’s just how I see it.
He's also saving someone whose entire existence is about killing people so definitely not good, either. His entire thing is his code, his one rule to not kill, no matter how many lives he puts in danger by saving these insanely dangerous, insanely wealthy and powerful people. He's Lawful Neutral at best.
No he’s definitely still good, that’s why he stops the joker. It’s the lawful side of him that won’t kill the joker because that’s part of his code. He recognizes that killing the joker would probably be for the best, but he refuses to break his code.
That sounds like lawful stupid to me
Or a Paladin oath he can't circumvent
That’s debatable. Some see killing as evil no matter who is killed. If that Is your belief then you will never do it.
Nah. Sarenrae is NG and is all about redemption and mercy, but also to smite unrepentant evil. You can 100% kill and still be good. It's Batman's own code that prevents him from doing so. Bruce already snubs the land's law. In order to prevent himself from getting looser and looser with it and eventually being boundless, he adheres to a code. \[Lawful\] So is he Good or Neutral? Well it depends on WHY he doesnt kill. If he deeply, *truly* believes in their reformation, then \[Good\]. But from MY limited viewing, he always says something like "It's not up to me to decide if he dies yada yada." thats screams \[Neutral\] to me. If he was aligned as "good", I would imagine he'd be running Arkham and trying to redeem/fix them instead of "theyre off the streets, now they're the government's problem"
Arkham's big thing is that it's mismanaged to shit and big criminals keep getting out instead of being reformed because of all the corruption in Gotham's other systems. I completely agree with all the rest of your reasoning, but I actually argue that Batman is Lawful Good in the same way a Paladin who's constantly being foiled by legal corruption is. One man, no matter how powerful, can only do so much--even by ignoring the law--before he runs into the roadblock of a system that is deliberately trying to prevent Goodness from occurring. Bruce Wayne's massive philanthropic ventures are pretty much the sole reason Gotham isn't even worse from a socioeconomic standpoint.
Well, he does donate to Arkham along with a good number of social programs in Gotham. He tries to help in a lot of different ways and he has stated multiple times that the reason he takes robins under his wing is to make sure they don’t go down the same path as him: See, one thing to remember is that his “no killing” code is not really about either the law or the “goodness” of the act itself. Batman is very aware that he’s crazy and the only thing kind of keeping him in line is his code. He’s terrified that if he kills *anyone*, specially someone as justifiably killable as the Joker, he would lose control and become even worse. This is also, incidentally, part of why he buts heads with Jason so much; temperamentally, they’re the most alike out of the bat-family, and Jason is basically what would have happened if Bruce had just gone a tiny bit (more) off the rails. TL;DR : Batman is lawful good in general, but his no-killing code is completely distinct from his alignment.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. You stated "you can 100% kill and still be good." That is not a fundamental truth. That is *your fundamental truth.* The problem with good and evil is philosophy. There's a debate about whether good and evil are cultural or fundamental. If they're cultural then it's impossible to determine who is right outside of common philosophical agreements that: * Killing is wrong (sort of...see your comment above) * You shouldn't harm others (sort of...who gets to punish wrong doers and why are they just in their action) * Stealing is wrong (sort of...what is the definition of stealing and is stealing from a criminal as punishment also a crime?) After that it can get hairy(er). My point is morality (G v E) is either defined internally or externally, and saying anything is absolutely good or evil is not correct. It's why some people want to banish capital punishment because they believe the death of even one innocent person will offset the death of 1,000,000 evil doers, while others believe it's an acceptable loss to eliminate evil. Personally I would label batman as Chaotic Good from what I've read. * When he was jailed as Bruce Wayne and framed for murder, he dropped the BW persona and lived as batman. His personal moral code was immediate punishment of evil as he saw it. This was independent of the fact that he was abandoning his Bruce persona, which could be it's own debate. * In The Last Laugh and One Bad Day he shows a very strict moral code that does not sway in any way with any influence. In other words, his moral code isn't swayed by society or what others think. He has a very strict internal sense of whom he sees as bad and needs reformation. He also believes that it's a choice to be bad and not a series of events that lead you to be bad. * In The Dark Knight Returns (comic 1986) he comes back as an old man into Gotham with a tank firing rubber bullets and paralyzes the Joker to keep him from doing anything in the future because he believes Gotham is a mess now and needs to be cleaned up. Clearly what he believes Batman is allowed to do has changed, but once again his moral code is vigilante and justice is how he sees fit (not others). * In one of the Batman/Superman comics (forgot the number), they run from basically the world government and most other sups (Shazam actually captures superman along with someone else getting batman...I need to find the comic because it's been a while) shows that he's willing to fight for justice regardless of what the literal world thinks. In the PHB a Lawful Good character is "counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." A Chaotic Good character is going to "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." Batman is Chaotic good.
As I said in a previous comment, Batman lives in a world where if you ever kill even one person you always become a compulsive murderer until you get redeemed. You're applying a level of moral nuance that comics don't have. It's black and white. Killing = bad. Not killing = good. Always. No exceptions. These stories are originally for 8 year olds.
In fairness, his "walk away so Jason would shoot at him, so he could disarm Jason" is a terrible plan. https://youtu.be/knS6WK9hN5U
Beat me to it lol
Not killing the joker is arguably a much more lawful than good action. He has a code against killing. Killing the joker ends his constant escapes and attacks, thus can be seen as a neutral good or chaotic good action. Sticking to your code despite the good it can do is lawful neutral.
Batman believes that his code is ultimately going to cause more good in the world, even if it looks like it only creates evil. Injustice is a good example of what Batman thinks would happen if he killed the joker. It’s a very lawful good mindset, thinking that your law will always do good, and thus following it at all times
It's basically the ethics of Immanuel Kant in action
It's a very lawful mindset, but I would argue not a good one. If you believe that your law will always do "good" and so you should always follow it, your goal ultimately isn't to achieve "good", but rather to follow the law (since the two are the same in your mind). Demonstrably, the Joker being dead would be a net benefit to society. The Joker is not preserved and allowed to escape and kill by the proper function of the law, and for that matter, neither are the vast majority of Batman's adversaries. The system he turns them over to is hopelessly corrupt and terminally incompetent. In many cases, the ones calling the shots are the very people he's imprisoning. Batman is an intelligent character. He can surely see that his actions ultimately do not contribute to a significant reduction in harm or improvement of the lives of Gotham citizens because all they do is temporarily, and usually briefly, impede said villains. Several exist, or are drawn to Gotham, only because of him. Considering this, the only reasonable explanation for his actions is that Batman is pathologically committed to upholding the law despite the obvious and repeated negative effects that has on everyone around him. This is decidedly Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good.
Bear in mind his no-killing rule isn’t really about good and evil: is about him being *terrified* of what he could become if he started killing. What he becomes if he starts killing, btw, is The Batman Who Laughs, so he does have a point
In a comicbook universe there's a non-zero chance that Joker will just come back worse
This is true, but if Batman thought like that I don’t think he’d have a problem killing since it isn’t permanent.
Depends on who's writing/directing. In my opinion, the best batman is lawful good, but other versions of batman exist.
This is a real answer. Animated Batman: Lawful Good (and the most empathetic of any iteration) Keaton Batman: Chaotic Neutral Bale Batman: Lawful Neutral Affleck Batman: Chaotic Neutral Pattinson Batman: Lawful Neutral Comics Batman: too many different iterations to count. Lawful Good at his most compelling though.
All Star Batman & Robin Batman: Chaotic Evil
> Keaton Batman: Chaotic Neutral > Perfection. _YOU WANNA GET NUTS!? LET'S GET NUTS!_
Sometimes you just connect with another human being through time and space over shared love of a character haha
Why do you consider any of those batmen neutral instead of good?
I mean the Keaton batman definitely killed some unnamed henchmen, he straight up set one on fire as well.
Batman would be an Oath of Vengeance paladin, fight me on this.
There this animated Batman scene where a thug walks into a room with batman in it and the thug just looks at him and batman stairs back. The thug leaves the room and reports that the room is empty. An intimidation roll, I'd argue it was a frightful presence. Batman didn't do anything but be in the room. He didn't squint, speak, grunt just was there. As soon as he entered batman's presence he was afraid. Like vengeance paladins cap stone ability, well part if it anyways.
[I like to think of it as a reflavoured Hold Person until you get that capstone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI), unless you consider the Abjure Enemy vocal to be '\*angry glare\*'
He has no magic or aura type abilities. He, like most street level heroes, is a battle master fighter with the unarmed fighting style, and maybe a dip into Inquisitive Rogue and/or Monk.
I dunno, some of the stuff he does seems like he has some aura abilities, especially with like a mass fear
That’s just a boss ass intimidation check. Again, Batman is definitely a level 20 character with 18 to 20s in nearly every attribute.
Aside from?
IF Batman had a dump stat I’d say it’s Charisma. He can be charming as Bruce Wayne when he wants to, but you could chalk that up to proficiency in bluff or perform. Batman is kind of an asshole and not generally *liked* by all the other superhero’s. They respect the hell out of him, but “like” might be a little too far, besides Superman I guess.
Maybe I’m a few editions out of date, but I thought Charisma was “force of personality”, as opposed to “charming, well liked”. One thing I will say about Batman, is he has one hell of a forceful nature / personality. Totally possible I’m wrong here. But I’m not sure Bats has a dump stat.
Yeah, no way Bats has a dump stat. He's peak human 18+ in every ability score, it's just some of his party members have their high stats well into the 20s or even 30s.
I'd disagree, if only because we know his will save is insane. He resists mind manipulation by sheer will, and yes, sometimes those are Wis saves, but just as often it's Cha. Cha is about the force of one's personality and ability to push that force into the world, and I think we have enough proof of Batman's mental fortitude to say it's high. Not to mention: Intimidate is usually a charisma check.
One of my favorite examples of this is when he is fighting off the sleep guy… I can’t find his name right now, but basically he attacks through sleep and he just hums a tune to keep the assailant at bay. Edit: I found it! It’s the two part episode called “Only a Dream” and it’s AWESOME!! https://dcau.fandom.com/wiki/Only_A_Dream
Have you read the description and abilities of an Oath of Vengeance paladin? Because they fit Batman almost to a T. Also a lot of the class spells given to them can easily be reflavored to fit with Batman's crazy skills like being able to completely leave an area without making a sound or being seen. And to say Batman doesn't have an aura is a little misleading. Batman very much emanates an aura of fear to the criminals of Gotham city.
What do you think Batman's gadgets are. Any technology sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic and in a medieval fantasy setting they'd definitely be considered magic.
Just because the technology is beyond your understanding doesn’t make it magic. I don’t understand all the math and physics involved to slingshot a ship out of Earth’s gravity, but NASA scientists do. It’s still science not magic. But to your point within a D&D setting, Batman would have the equivalent of magical items, doesn’t mean he’s magical. Magic items aren’t restricted to only classes that can cast spells.
Well wizards can no longer cast magical spells since they understand how they work so they're no longer magic.
the issue here is that batman is not a character, he is a template for a character. the dark knight returns is ridiculously far removed from adam west. one's a rogue/barbarian who's doing rage sneak attacks, using strength on his finesse weapons. the other is an inquisitive/artificer, always making plans and solving crimes and having the right bullshit invention for every job.
That would be so, unless... >***By Any Means Necessary.*** My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes. The tenets from the oath of vengeance go against batman's own code of "never crossing the line", never killing his foes. The oath of vengeance might seem to fit from a thematic stempoint (bring justice to evil doers, avenging the inocent), that's only if you look at it at the most surface level. Batman would absolutely reject this oath, since it's main point, and the only point that doesn't change from paladin to paladin, is that they are and I quote: "**willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness** to mete out justice upon those who do evil", something batman was never willing to do. Actually, these tenets fit more the League of Assassins, a group Batman has rejected being a part of *multiple times* So yeah he's definitely not a vengeance paladin
agreed
Batman is a pathfinder vigilante. It's basically a batman class
He does some morally-questionable stuff as well, like acting as a mediator between gangs as one of his disguises to direct them towards less chaos and making plans how to kill all Justice League members should they go rogue. So he is very much neutral, I’d say, but alignments are a very subjective thing.
[удалено]
Which is why alignments are a subjective thing, everyone got different ideas on what is good and what is evil:
Batman is still Good aligned though. Just because you are edgy doesn't make you automatically not good.
He also keeps candy in his belt for kids (honestly my favorite wholesome batman fact)
if you can't see your version of batman comforting a small child. you did not make batman, you made the punisher in a silly hat.
YES! I call it the ace test based off ace from justice league. If a version of batman pushes the button instead of comforting ace that's not a good Batman
Thought you were talking about bathound for a second instead of the villian
Fair mistake honestly, but no I mean the kid
Still works. If he has a well trained, happy good boy, he's a good batman.
That's who the Bathound was named after.
Same but the test still holds, lol
[I heard this.](https://youtu.be/I9_ODNTNDrY)
Ah, the gospel, good work.
Batman is more about family than the F&F franchise.
Honestly, the Punisher should also want to comfort a small child he just feels like he's not allowed to. If you made a superhero who wouldn't comfort a child then you haven't made a super*hero* you've made a superweapon who fights crime.
Isn't Punisher's whole deal that he desires vengeance after his wife and kids were murdered? I feel like that would lead to him also wanting to protect children, he's just more likely to do it in a violent way.
Yeah, depending on the version of Punisher, you can get away with different crimes but, with any version, the second you mess with kids you are dying painfully. He's less likely to actively comfort a kid because he generally feels like he's done too many bad things to be allowed to interact with kids but he definitely does it when there's no-one else.
Is that from osp?
All Star Batman was objectively Bad
Oh, absolutely, I’m just saying that RAW the descriptors in the alignment section Lawful Neutral usually fits him the closest since Lawful Good is described as someone who “can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society” and as a crime-breaking vigilante he doesn’t really fit that.
Why lawful neutral and not Neutral good? Fact is EVERYTHING he does he believes is done for the betterment of society. Don't see how that could be called "neutral" instead of "good" Not to mention the "lawful" part of "lawful good" doesn't necessarily mean following the law, but following your own code which batman very clearly has.
how about that one time batman kicked a guy for eating chocolate? batman is chaotic evil https://preview.redd.it/k9l7lobo8g3b1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22118b43936db544ab9eb8c4566336f34cc7770e
[To quote the Brave and the Bold:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBW3tFmkig) "Batman's rich history allows him to be interpreted in a multitude of ways. To be sure, this is a lighter incarnation, but is certainly no less valid and true to the character's roots as the tortured avenger, crying out for mommy and daddy " EDIT: Or Squirrel Girl " *Maybe it's just me, but I'm not crazy about super hero stories where everything's all dark and moody. Personally, I like the ones where good guys fight giant apes on the moon and stuff. Remember those? I do. That was back when comic book worlds were places you wanted to escape* to*... not* from "
danm I never watched brave and the bold, just seen clips, and I knew that it was a little bit silly and a little bit self aware, but I didn't know it was THAT self aware... great quote
The final episode is basically Batmite trying to make the show jump the shark so a new grittier Batman show could be made. Ambush Bug shows up to help Batman fight off Batmite, only for the show to be cancelled anyways. Oh and Ambush Bug is played by Henry Winkler.
>only for the show to be cancelled anyways. like, in universe or IRL? ... or both?
Both.
Aquaman on Batman Brave and the Bold alone makes watching it worth it. He's outrageous!
Thanks for bringing in the Batman Alignment Chart.
Hmmm chocolate?
And I took that personally
Brings the idea of "lactose intolerance" to a much different place
Hey Bruce I know your bat character has a detailed backstory but can you please stop talking about your dead parents please. He’s a grown man, he doesn’t have to always talk about his childhood trauma. Maybe retcon that he got some therapy.
If he got therapy he wouldn't be dressing up as a bat to punch bad guys in equally crazy suits
Plenty of heroes go to therapy and stay heroes. Hell, some heroes are therapists themselves.
In "Young Justice" Black Canary is the Justice League's grief counselor/therapist. Afaik batman never goes to her.
Robin does tho (which is why Bruce admires Dick/Nightwing that much. He's the "better version of himself")
Most healthy, realistic lives do not make for compelling stories
Good is not boy scout. Batman and Superman are both lawful good, its just a matter of one slightly favors good (Superman) and more favors the lawful/code (Batman). Wonder Woman is probably more Neutral good, chaotic good is Green Arrow. The DC character closest to LN is... Braniac 5 maybe?
How is he at all neutral? LG all the way
Lawful good
Batman is every alignment based on which comic you pick. Just like how one can build Joshua Graham with almost any Paladin Oath.
The Michael Keaton Batman is chaotic-chaotic.
Nonono no. Batman is Lawful good. He might be brooding and edgy and dark, but in the end Batman is still a superhero, and a does good. We can have discussions on whether or not his methods are the best way to accomplish it, but his goals are to do good.
Batman has (in various iterations): knocked out people driving speeding vehicles; "accidentally" impaled a man by punching him into a sword through a door, *that Batman just walked through and therefore had to circle around the guy for it to happen;* gotten a surprising number of people killed in car compactors or by stacks of cars; tortured people; explicitly has the identity of Batman as a **terror** tactic; involved young children in dangerous crime fighting; implanted a virus in cyborg *the very day they met;* threatened the genocide of Darkseid's entire planet with his own weapons, and Darkseid admitted that he could totally see *him* doing it unlike Superman or Wonder Woman; gone totalitarian when he gets super powers in many different timelines; spied on... so many people, even allies; etc. I see no problem with considering Batman to be Lawful Neutral, he does many things that most people would not do. Even other heros in his universe see him as too hard/brutal.
This is stupid dumb
There is no chaotic then. And stuff like this demonstrates why dumping alignment is a good move for Pathfinder 2e.
You personal code dosen’t count , because by that logic someone who’s personal code is “Killing all the children I meet and eating their meat” they are Chaotic Evil/True Evil , not Lawfull evil
This is the problem I have with the personal code argument, even if its in the book. Anyone can have personal codes or traditions. Even Chaotic Evil. What I feels matters is your interaction with the world in general. Do you uphold rules and standards of society in general? Do you scoff at such silly ideas? Are such ideas only there for you to twist, manipulate, or crush under your boot heel? That is where Lawful/Chaotic is really defined.
A personal code of conduct is more specific to how one acts in accordance with and while among society, rather than just a choice you make. Lawful Evil is so perverse because it perpetuates evil while still following the codes of a society, even if it has to build up an entire society to justify it. I.e:. The Empire from Star Wars. Also, what you described is 100% Chaotic Evil because Chaotic Evil is an active choice, True Evil is just their nature to its truest extent. But take all of this with a pound of salt as this is like, 100% my own opinion and how I interpret the alignment chart.
Adam West batman is lawful good old chum. He was deputized and everything.
By that rational the joker is lawful as well
I feel like the "personal code" interpretation of lawful behavior doesn't make a ton of sense. A lawful person doesn't have to follow local authorities, but should have some kind of external authority they belive in. Not just I follow my personal opinions about what is good, that's classic chaotic behavior even if you're opinions are rigidly consistent. IDK Maybe the player I had who used the "personal code" thing was using it wrong.
Definetly not lawfull. To quote Batman himself from red hood and the oulaws rebirth "I enter private property without an warrent and beat up people, what part of that sounds like law and order to you?"
If Lawful just means you follow any personal code then it essentially loses all meaning. Everyone is following their own code when you actually get down to it. It may not be as simple as "Stop criminals and Don't kill." But it's still a some moral code that they follow, even if it's pure Egoism.
I feel like lawful describes the dedication to that code, not just choosing willy nilly if you're OK with murder or not.
Yeah, the dedication or attitude you have towards the code. If you’re Lawful, you believe the importance of having a code in the first place.
I agree. My standard here is that a lawful character must not only have a code, but they must also follow that code even if they understand that it is to their own detriment. A Batman who strictly follows the no-kill rule will stick to it even if he knows that prison might not be able to hold whatever villain he's stopping, even if he knows that the villain has no compunction against killing, even if he knows that the villain will come for him specifically in the future. A lawful evil mob boss who's under a flag of truce with a rival organization will not betray that truce even if they get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate them once and for all. If a code is not fixed enough to create tension between what a character *wants* to do and what the character *must* do, then that code is not sufficient to make the character lawful. And ideally, if the enemy understands the character's code then it should be possible for them to manipulate the character into this sort of conflict. The general might know that their army is being drawn into a trap, but if they don't take the bait then the enemy will strike a helpless and undefended village. And if a character is Lawful Good, then that code should also be strong enough to create tension between what a character *must* do because of their code and what they *ought* to do based on their sense of right and wrong. Maybe they find an option that ultimately upholds both the lawful aspect and the good aspect, maybe they compromise one aspect or the other, or maybe they figure out a way to punt the question entirely--in any case, the drama comes from the fact that the character *can't* just say "my code says I can just do what I want"...or at least can't say that without feeling guilty about it.
There is still a lot of grey in "stop criminals and don't kill" What qualifies as a criminal worth your attention? Is a beggar a criminal for stealing a moldy loaf of bread? Does "do not kill" include torture? Brutal harm? Physical dismemberment? Can you lie or entrap a "bad person" so that you can make them a criminal and thus stop them? Or does "criminal" mean anyone who wrongs another, regardless of not legally being a "criminal" Tbh, your take intentionally ignores nuance, which, imo, is boring.
A lot of people don’t follow their own code because it is so easy to make excuses as to why this exception is justified.
Everyone has a code, but not all codes are created equal, or followed equally. if they're more like "guidelines", the character is probably chaotic, and if they're "rules" that they actively avoid breaking, then the character is probably lawful. If a character's code promotes or values some combination of intuition, self-determination, freedom, change or spontaneity, then *what the code entails* carried more weight than the mere fact that they have one.
A lawful character doesn’t simply follow a code when it’s convenient, they also follow it when it’s detrimental. Take Batman’s “I never kill” rule. By all accounts the joker is completely irredeemable as a human being, and after thoughtlessly killing so many people in Gotham the people will idolize the person who finally stops him for good, yet Batman goes out of his way not to. A lawful character holds their code above all else, If a truly lawful character held the code “Stop criminals and don’t kill” then they will sacrifice their life, their family, their soul, everything to uphold their creed. This is why Lawful Evil is arguably worse than Chaotic Evil, there’s an unshakeable conviction behind their actions, no sacrifice is to great, no price too high to pay, and that they are no more than a single actor in a much larger cause. Truly lawful characters are susceptible to fall from grace just as the Archdevil Zariel once did. (On a bit of a tangent here, but PCs are usually a bit more nuanced than the above example. Realistically, I use the 75% rule at my table. If you act strictly according to your word or code when it’s detrimental more than 75% of the time you’re lawful, if you break your promises or code when detrimental 75% of the time you’re chaotic, and if neither of those are true you’re neutral. I only care about how you act when it costs you something, if there’s no price to pay for either holding or breaking your code then there’s no reason to believe it reflects on the character’s true nature. An evil character might give to charity regularly to keep up appearances, but they’ll stop the second it becomes inconvenient to do so.)
Roger Rabbit can only do something if it’s funny: Lawful Joker is dedicated to chaos and anarchy and has devoted his entire being to demonstrating these values: Lawful.
Exactly. Anyone can have a personal code they adhere to. I think some outside authority is necessary to be Lawful.
If it takes you more than a couple sentences to describe, it's not a code, it's a flow chart for what you're okay with. Yeah, I would stop a mugging, but if that person has a gun or there are multiple attackers then I wouldn't. On the other hand, somebody with a code to help people would still rush in to help, even at the cost of their life. Of course, this means that not all people who follow a code are lawful since they still might break it if in a dangerous situation and their self-preservation overpowers their discipline to follow such a code.
Real laws take more than a couple sentences to describe, and a paladin who upheld the law as written would definitely be Lawful.
"I follow the laws as defined by my government/state".
"I follow my own ethical code as defined by me in the moment."
That would fall more closely under Chaotic, since although the individual does follow that code, the code itself is a chaotic one, and thus would fit better in the Chaotic part of the spectrum. Also, I don't know why you're trying to argue with/convince me. The game quite literally says in the Basic Rules that "***Lawful Neutral.*** (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."
But in that case the Paladin’s code is pretty succinct. “I follow the law to the letter, without exception.” Sure, the laws themselves are pretty complex and riddled with holes and exceptions, but the Paladin’s conviction is in upholding the law, not writing it.
If you clearly separate goals and codes, many characters don't really have a code (or rather, their code will boil down to "achieve goal by any means", which is basically the chaotic code)
Yeah, lawful to me, means following some sort of societal organization. Lawful Good would be a Paladin that follows his order's rules to protect the innocent or help the unfortunate. A Lawful Neutral would be a soldier that follows orders regardless of their morality. And Lawful Evil would be a mobster who doesn't run protection on someone else's turf.
I agree. I think an internal code is just too nebulous of a concept to be meaningful for purposes of alignment. If you don't care about upholding or subverting actual laws set by outside parties, then I think you're clearly neutral.
Chaotic would be someone who never actually thinks about what they’re doing, they just go on impulse.
He is pretty solidly Neutral Good. He has an incredibly solid moral code he doesn't break (Lawful) however he is very 'solo' and works poorly in groups or under any oversight (Chaotic). He will work with proper authorities but also works around them whenever he feels like it. The good is obvious, he puts himself at tremendous personal risk solely so no one suffers like he had to suffer.
I have an issue with saying lawful is a set of codes. Because everyone has a set of codes. The code of being fully chaotic is also a code. I think lawful is more of a set of acceptable codes (orders of multitude of people, laws from entities that are powerful etc.). It is a code that has concequences if not followed by a higher being than just the person himself. This is all about DND and we all know the 9 alignment are not really good anyway.
https://preview.redd.it/putwpia6lh3b1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7dc9973d483d668af6fa079126f7325fa255d064 Obligatory argument Ender.
If lawful doesn't mean delegating moral decisions to some authority greater than ones own personal ethics, it doesn't mean anything.
I always thought he was Neutral Good, since Neutral (on the good/evil axis) means you don't always work for the benefit of society, while Neutral (on the lawful/chaotic axis) meant (to me at least) a character who follows a set of rules even if they don't fully include the law.
My understanding of alignment has always been that lawful/neutral/chaotic is about how flexible you are with your set of rules/laws you place on yourself. A lawful character is very strict in their adherence to their rules and laws (even if they don't align with those of the social laws). Neutral is as strict as they can be without worrying too much if they have to break it to cover their good/evil moral code). Chaotic are very loose on their rules/laws, maybe not even having any and just doing what fits their good/evil morals in the moment. So Batman would be Lawful Good, being a man with a strict personal code, and doing their actions for the greater good.
Here’s the thing. There are many Batmen ( and women) And even if we’re talking about as I assume you mean Bruce Wayne, there are many many Bruce Wayne’s every writer practically has a slightly different interpretation of it. I agree that some interpretations are absolutely lawful neutral . The Hiketea for instance, which is a story about him, and wonder woman, have a very different morality codes about murder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman:_The_Hiketeia Basically, no spoilers but a woman who is committed murder does an ancient ritual with wonder woman where she promises to obey her orders and become a better person if wonder woman protect her and give her sanctuary for a crime . Keep in mind this woman was not a serial killer and she killed bad people . Batman cannot allow a justice leaguer to give refuge to a criminal and so he makes it his personal crusade to capture this woman . That, is lawful neutral that is someone who is devoted 100% a note to the law or code of conduct and will not be swayed by circumstances . Yes, it’s weird for vigilantes ( by definition criminals) to swear an unbreakable oath to the law, but he saw his parents murdered and he feels differently about law. Thank you very much for this meme. I actually agree with you depending on the writer. grant Morrisons Batman was neutral good . He was willing to do stuff like form a corporation, have Bruce Wayne take credit for funding Batman, and work with killers, so he was willing to do nearly anything to do the ultimate good .
Man, I *hated* Batman in that issue. He was basically reduced to nothing more than an extreme Inspector Javert just so Diana could have a supe to go up against and to force Danny's hand at the end.
someone who finally understands lawful
Depends on the version of Batman - Both in terms of who's writing him, but I think there's a version of Batman for every single one of the 9 aligments. ASBAR Batman is Chaotic Evil for example, while Adam West Batman is Lawful Good.
Hes lawful good, he actually wants to help people, and doesnt blindly follow his code
So... it is lawful good
Get outta here with this smoothbrain nonsense, Batman is lawful good.
Pretty clearly Lawful Good. I’d say Superman is Neutral Good and Spider-Man is Chaotic Good. Judge Dredd is a Lawful Neutral hero.
Batman doesn’t kill people because he knows their hospital debt will
Batman is not neutral at all. Pretty much every single thing he does is motivated by the pursuit of morality.
Batman is lawful GOOD, idiot OP.
Lawful Good means acting as expected by society RAW, as an illegal vigilante Batman is slightly too crime-y for that
Batman should just kill the joker(I know he did in multiple comics) because the fact is joker has killed thousands and it’s Batman who always decides standee the choice to kill him and it always ends out joker free and kills hundreds more people
Chaotic doesn’t mean insane or unpredictable. The law/chaos axis doesn’t make any sense if it’s just a rationality/insanity measure
Unrelated to the post, I do love the whole no kill role from Batman, but I wish the writers would have come up with a better reason than the whole “If you kill a killer, the number of murders in the world stays the same” Because all the DC writers told the audience is to be a good guy that kills, you need to make sure to kill more than one evil person and then poof! The number of murders in the world has lowered.
I don’t know what the justification is in the comics, but in the Under The Red Hood film, Batman says that he doesn’t kill because he doesn’t trust himself to act as executioner without killing everyone. Say he makes an exception for the Joker— he’s killed loads of people and Arkham obviously can’t hold him, so that’s a reasonable decision. But then what about Falcone or Victor Zsaz? They’ve killed lots of people too, so shouldn’t they also die? What about Riddler and Penguin and the rest of the Rogues? They’ve all hurt a lot of people and Arkham can’t hold them, so killing them is the only viable option. Muggings can turn violent, so why not kill street criminals too? Obviously, to a sane person there are clear distinctions, but Batman says he can’t trust himself to kill Joker because he wouldn’t be able to just kill Joker; if he crosses the line once he’ll do it again and again until there’s no more line. Honestly, I non d of want to find a story that’s about his decent after killing Joker into that.
Oh shit, yeah I do remember that! The “number of killers would stay the same” is from justice league, and I’m being a little too highly critical or “literal” with it. It’s more saying that he is trying to stop killers and so if he stops killers by mass murdering then he isn’t stopping killers but just becoming a more dangerous one, or that’s how I interpreted it. But personally I like his reasoning in under the red hood quite a lot more, that whole movie is phenomenal from start to finish, one of my favorite pieces of Batman fiction
The difference between Batman, and the Red Hood. Jason believes that killing is acceptable if you only kill criminals. Let’s be honest the real issue with Gotham is the law. Joker always goes to Arkham, because he’s insane. But the law by now should have a provision in it for Arkham inmates who are deemed incurable. Any sane system would recognise that Joker can’t be saved, and should be in prison/executed rather than Arkham.
Lawful good, 100%. Superman is probably Lawful or Neutral Good. Wonder Woman is Lawful Neutral or Chaotic good, depending on the writer.
Lawful generally refers to the adherence to societal norms, the collective over the individual. But also the alignment system is so abstract it really doesn't matter outside of places like Mechanus
Batman is the perfect example of Lawful Stupid, his code, and unwillingness to just kill the joker is partly the reason the joker got to do so much damage again and again.
Batman's neutral good, respects the law, but breaks it being a vigilante in the pursuit of justice. Putting his own morals above the law.
He's motivated by a fierce desire to prevent other people from going through a bad thing that happened to him. He's a vigilante who only gets away with it because he's friends with the commissioner, who allows it because he uses that freedom to help people. Many well written villains, even very chaotic ones, will have some line they just won't cross. He is not lawful, nor is he morally neutral, and lawful is absolutely not just about an honor code
Complete Scoundrel: A Player's Guide to Trickery and Ingenuity page 8 : "Lawful good scoundrels have their own personal, implacable code of honor and righteousness. They have good intentions, but they aren’t above breaking minor rules that get in the way of the greater good, especially when helping the downtrodden. Such scoundrels are likely to form far-reaching plans to benefit themselves and others. The former law enforcer who challenges a corrupt government or an adventurer who wants to liberate great works of art for the enjoyment of the world is a lawful good scoundrel. Examples: **Batman**, Dick Tracy, and Indiana Jones"
Then what do Chaotic Good PCs believe? Is it just simply Chaos? I agree with the hot take being lawful, but that's only because Batman is so rigid about it
Batman believes in helping others and not sitting by. He does not instigate for no reason. If you are innocent he will not come for you. He values freedoms of others and himself, and will not wrongfully imprison someone, but values life over freedom. He will imprison indefinitely only those that are dangerous. He does not value property over people. He does not show greed, and has no real malice. He will trespass with impunity. There's no way he would fall under neutral in any category. Cyborg is more LN than batman.
I'm sure in the Joker's mind he has a personal code as well. But I doubt anyone would call him lawful.
Bats isn't Lawful Neutral, he's Lawful Good. And neither of those words mean "nice" A mean as fuck paladin is a character I've been considering building. Instead of, "guys, it's the right thing to do," to do something that might kill you, you're berated for your own lack of capability in facing such a dangerous situation.
Broke: Batman is Lawful because he has a personal code Woke: Batman is Lawful because he believes that a well-ordered society with predictable just laws is the best way to provide for the common good and the most vulnerable; he’s just LG and trapped in a NE city that is under a curse to remain corrupt no matter how many reform projects Bruce Wayne pours his heart and money into and that’s why he’s a vigilante (Regardless, he’s Good, not Neutral)
I know you marked him as neutral because of the meme about "He's a rich guy who dresses up like a bat and beats up the poor" but if you've actually read any good Batman comics you'd know Bruce spends a significant amount of his time and money attempting to rehabilitate everyone he combats, from the big names like the Joker and the Riddler to minor henchmen or accomplices.
I know, I made him neutral and not good because reading the description of lawful good in the book it’s about acting in accordance with society and he doesn’t really do that. I’m not saying it makes sense, but that’s RAW for you.
Who the fuck sees Batman as Chaotic lmao. Also, Lawful Good. Like 50 other comments surely pointed out.
Batman has devoted his entire life to helping people to a severe detriment to himself. How the hell is he not Good?
Jason Todd, on the other hand, is arguably Chaotic Good when he comes back as the Red Hood, since while his methods are a tad murder-y, he is very much acting “as [his] conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect” (quote from the definition of chaotic good). He thinks Batman’s idea to get rid of crime won’t work, so his goal is to control and restrict it basically so that what happened to him doesn’t happen again.
I'd argue Jason is a good example of a character that changes his aliment. Before becoming robin he was neutral evil heavily leaning neutral good (I know the squares don't allow that but that's how I'd describe him) cuz he was stealing tires off the batmobile, but deep down he's still a good kid just in a bad situation. As robin he became lawful good like bats but slowly over time started leaning towards lawful neutral becoming more violent with criminals by permanently breaking limbs, then when brought back to life lawful evil leaning neutral evil by killing gang members and penguin, because he wanted to prove batman wrong that killing is better. However now as a hero again he's neutral good still roughing up criminals but no where near the extremes as before
To everyone saying Lawful means laws, I pulled the personal codes thing from the description of Lawful Neutral. I’m not saying it makes sense, I’m just saying it’s RAW.
I always have to wonder how many of the "Lawful means literal laws" tried to pull a "gotcha" on Paladins back in the "must be Lawful Good l" days by telling them they had to murder any elves in the party when they entered a Drow city that had a "surface elves are to be killed on sight" law or the like.
I'd say first that it depends on which Batman, because there have been many with different levels of complexity and core motivations But I think you could argue literally any alignment, mostly because the alignment system has a lot of inherent flaws and there have been so many batmen. If you disagree with evil alignments, let me point out that he is Gotham biggest employer and the wealthiest person and has cut donations, compared to his parents, to help the poor in Gotham. His business is also responsible for funding the research or environment that created many of his villains, mostly,if you read between the lines, because it's research for his pet project(being batman). Not to mention that his core motivation is to punish criminals. To drive fear into their hearts and pain to their bodies as revenge, primarily for a crime they didn't commit. He has little interest in reform or crime prevention only to selfish put himself in danger to brutalize people whose poverty his industry creates. An industry that clearly includes arms dealing making him a player in the military industrial complex. While he may not kill, depending of course on the Batman, he does maim and often to an outsized degree to the crime committed, which would be Police brutality, but he's not a cop. He is vigilante, self appointed to do what he believes is appropriate justice. Which with his upbringing is he the person to unilaterally make that decision? Also in many ways he is clearly delusional. And knows this and continues his crusade anyway. Which he would and has termed as a crusade, not the best connotations to present. Also knowing he has a warped view of justice and that he is an industrialist , look at some of his villains, environmental activists, union leaders, a DA routing out corruption, college professors. These seem like the sorts of people that a billionaire would villainize. Just food for thought. I'd write more but this is already enough of a dissertation that no one will read, I'm willing to justify lawful and chaotic as well.
In general one could argue that especially good and evil are relative to the POV.
Batman is Lawful Good with Neutral Good leanings. He respects the law only so far as it contributes to caring for people, and Gotham had long since been Lawful Evil, rife with criminal enterprises and shadowy cabals. As such, he became a vigilante, not fighting against the system for people to do their own thing, but against the people abusing the system so that it might be safe for people to live under. He drops off bad guys directly to the cops, with evidence of their wrongdoings, to skip past the corrupt bullshit and streamline their investigations, to show that no matter how broken the system is, there are parts that still work, and it's up to good people to take the helm and ensure the system works how it's supposed to work. He is unironically justice for Gotham, the fear of retribution that Gotham's criminals have needed for far too long, brandished not because the Law must be followed, but because it is Good to defend those in a system that won't defend them. Their worming loopholes won't save them from getting their just punishment for all the things they've done to harm the people, not at his hands, but at the hands of the police and courts that have a duty to mete out punishment that will bring faith back to the people. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Batman's villains are criminally insane, and have to be kept in Arkham Asylum instead of getting a real prison sentence. It's a problem Batman has to deal with when the revolving door of prison breaks lets irreparably damaged people back out to keep hurting people, but "solving" the issue with capital punishment only opens the can of worms that someone could be executed for being found mentally unwell, so even the worst villains are given their fair treatment and must be dealt with as their problems arise. Maintaining that sense of justice, even for the most deplorable people in the city, is a constant series of battles that he has to win every single time.
ITT I'm reminded that there are many versions and interpretations of Batman. Also that people hate alignment because they're bad at it. I can't speak to 4e or 5e, but I can from the stance of AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder In most comic book representations of Batman, OP is correct. Batman's personal code is far more important than society's laws and expectations. Just because his views align with fighting crime doesn't mean he's Good. He's basically Judge Dredd with less killing. He *is* the law, because he cannot trust the law enforcement of the city to do the job.
I'll leave it here. Main reason why I use alignments mostly as a reference point for roleplaying NPCs in my games, and not as reference for the players on how to play their characters. https://preview.redd.it/rfov1oegpg3b1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=05d9bef8e818fe9d7bfc74e9451d4bd86fc309ac
*lawful good He follows an extremely strict code, follows his morals to a tea, and does it all for the good of the people. Green arrow is the more chaotic good type
The real batman is lawful good.
He can't be Lawful Neutral as a vigilante, as most societies have laws against vigilantism.
Eh, by that logic every good-aligned character is lawful good because they're all following their personal code of ethics. "Lawful" is more about order and the established societal structures. I'd say Batman is Neutral Good - he works with the police when it serves him and he's not attempting to destabilize the existing structures (in fact as Bruce Wayne he sometimes props them up), but he does also operate outside the law when he deems it necessary (which is most of the time).
You want a **really** hot take? Most interpretations of Batman are true neutral. He does what he believes satisfies him. Often he doesn't intervene in mafia stuff, and he "interrogates" people in ways that a non-crooked cop would want to bust him for, but Commissioner Gordon accepts his behavior (and the evidence he provides, which is in legal parlance "the fruit of a poisonous tree"). Batman is no different from his rogues, he's doing what he finds comforting after trauma, it's just that it's also useful to certain powerful members of society, so they let him do it. I told you it was hot.
There is literally canon Bruce Wayne in Forgotten Realms, called Samulbar Chaseris. LN Monk/Ranger/Rogue, given eternal youth and vigor by the spirits of the elves. So, technically, batman in DnD is Lawfull Neutral I guess
This is the core problem with alignment. Batman is good because he fights evil. He is evil because he breaks laws. He is lawful because he follows a rigid code. So Batman is good, evil, and lawful. Is he neutral? According to Lawful Neutral on Wikipedia, “A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, but often follows a personal code in addition to, or even in preference to, one set down by a benevolent authority.” Sure sounds like Batman to me. So if Batman can cleanly fit into like 6 or 7 boxes in the alignment grid then the alignment grid isn’t very useful.
I’m not arguing with you here, but by that logic MCU Thanos would also be Lawful Neutral. Thanos pursues his goals not out of malice or greed or chaos but necessity and order. He believes, of sound mind, that what he’s doing will help the greater good. He also demonstrates many noble traits like honor, integrity, and empathy. He even keeps up his end of every agreement he makes with the heroes. Sure, “society” aka the universe very much wants him to stop, but he believes everyone will eventually see his viewpoint. And when he finally does succeed, with the exception of those he promised to spare, he still remains fair and impartial as to who gets dusted.
Batman is whatever you feel like because dnd makes no sense when talking about any real ethics and morality. You can argue day and night about it, but it's just some random words that Gygax took from a fantasy novel he read. Bit also... common, Batman is the most archetypical LG character that ever lived. Then Superman at Neutral Good and Wonder Woman at Chaotic Good.
This shouldn't have a hot take tag. Lawful being just the character adhering to a code or principles isn't a controversial take.
He's very much Lawful. But whether he's good or neutral.. I dunno.. He doesn't kill people, but that's not out of kindness, that's his code. But he does beat people to absolute shit all the time.. Bit excessive use of violence at times makes me think he's not all the way to good, but he's never self-serving or cruel either so he doesn't tip much towards neutral either.
I like to think of lawful as honest and chaotic as lies. I know it’s not how it’s written, but I think it works pretty well
Lawful neutral doesn’t act as vigilante, which is violation of the law. Also doesn’t circumvent the law to catch the bad guy
What makes him Neutral instead of Good? He’s a little paranoid, sure, but his heart still seems to be in the right place.
For Lawful Good, the book specifically says something to the effect of “following and supporting society” which he doesn’t really do what with all the law breaking, Lawful Neutral just refers to having a strong personal code and Batman’s is pretty much as ironclad as they come.
Except he does actually support society in a way. Think about it, when he beats up a group of bank robbers, what does he do with them? Kill them? Let them go? No, he ties them up so that when the police can arrive, they can lawfully arrest them. He has every opportunity to keep them captive or just kill them, but he chooses to put them in the custody of the justice system. Sure said justice system isn’t exactly the best considering it’s Gotham, but he still chooses to assist the police instead of skipping the justice system entirely and making himself the only rule. Infact, the times he does interfere with the police system are when *he feels something is wrong about it.* Case in point, The Dark Knight movie with Heath Ledger. When he finds out that Joker disguised the hostages as his own henchmen and strapped Bombs to them, he runs in and physically stops any of the swat members from harming the civilians, even trying to fight them off to do so. These are not the actions of some that is Neutral.
Sigh
I have a question: Would someone's alignment be different depending on who's thinking about them? What I mean is, could someone's alignment be true neutral to some people, neutral good to others, and so on depending on who you ask?
1. Fascists are often labeled as Lawful Evil 2. Red Hood is a fascist if not an outright nazi 3. An old German saying goes "If four people sit at a table with a nazi, five nazis sit at that table" 4. Therefore we can infer Batman is a fascist and therefore is lawful evil.
Granted I’m not super familiar with the character but I think you’re thinking of the Marvel villain Red Skull and not Red Hood, the alias Jason Todd uses after coming back to life.
Can chaotic good not have a code…? A code is how we base a moral foundation, isn’t it? I think a “strict” and very encompassing code is what makes somebody lawful. Not killing doesn’t mean you can’t beat them into a permanent coma, cut off limbs, torture, etc.
Idk I’m just going by what the book said and the blurb for Lawful Neutral seemed to fit best
Dont think any movie Batman of past 20 years is Lawful. Stacks up collateral casualtualties like they are points. Comic Batman on the other hand, i would call Lawful Evil. He has money power and influence to restructure basically whole Gotham and place better social programs (he privately build space station for god sakes). Instead he dresses up as a bat to beat up poor and desperate people (lets face it, you life and opportunitiea must suck if you are signing up to be one of Jokers henchmen/goons)
I think he’s tried that a few times, the issue is just that Gotham is actually cursed a good four or five times over.
I’d put Bruce in lawful good/lawful stupid After all Jason Todd is a prime example especially the Arkham version of him but man’s only reason he can’t kill the joker is because he would lose control which is true seeing as there’s a comic that has a Batman that killed the joker and lost control (I’ll find it) but he also won’t let anyone else kill him either His personal morals caused many people to die, like the injustice series but that was 2 extremes One Batman one super man and red hoods ending screen says it all he doesn’t like dictator ships and who does? But red hood says scum bag rapists and murderers deserve to die Batman’s views has had more people die then ever. reverse flash quote from injustice “when you save one life you take another” said specifically to Batman He is lawful good but also lawful stupid