POLL: What is the Punisher's alignment? (D&D)

Remove all ads!

I think it is fairly clear that the Punisher is Lawful Evil. He has a clear set of ethos which he doesnt break. He is also clearly evil, he doesnt think, he doesnt question, his goal is as Shura pointed out not to help the good people but to kill the bad people. Nor is he very interested in verifying just how bad someone is. The Punisher and Venom are actually quite similar in my opinion.

 

I think he is Chaotic Neutral with True Neutral tendency. He's not evil, nor good. He do what he wants, breaks the laws, but he somehow has his own ethos.

I don't think so. The Punisher cares for noone, loves noone, he is inspired by his family loss and pain. He doesn't kill good people, nor good, nor bad. He is much like as I said: chaotic neutral with true neutral tendency.

Venom on the other side is a tormented man. He is neither Brock, nor Venom, he is a symbiote. Venom is the best character and my favourite from the Spiderman series and comics as well. For me Brock isn't bad man, he is trully a sociopath and man driven by his hatred towards Spiderman for his ruined life and he is trully Lawful Evil with Chaotic Tendency. But at some point he finds a reason to live through his love towards Ashly Kafka. So he may be Lawful Evil at some point, but after that he becomes Lawful Neutral. (if we speak of Venom from the animated series...)

[ February 04, 2004, 14:29: Message edited by: Elan Morin Tedronai ]

 

Based on what I think he's like, I'd say Lawful Neutral, since he doesn't at all seem chaotic in nature.
Lawful because he seems to believe in a code or something - a set of rules he tends to keep for himself and will do anything for. This isn't exactly the law as we know it - probably a variation he managed to arrive with after understanding it from a different perspective and (tragic) background. There're also his feelings of hatred and loss.
His zeal also suggests that he believes in something.
From a minute viewpoint he's evil since he kills/oppresses, and from a more general view he's good because he kills evil people.
But altogether he kills *for* his beliefs. He seems to be driven by something other than whimsy, I'm sure.
Neutral because to him nothing else matters but accomplishing his ends.

Based purely on his actions though, Chaotic Evil.

[ February 04, 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

How about we say he has extreme erratic mood swings and jumps in and out between Lawful and chaotic, good and evil?

Yes. Based on this description I'd say he fits into a different catagory, like, Chaotic frustrated or lawful angsty.

However I'm still interested in opinions of course

 

Chaotic good definitely.

He may be sadistic in his process, he has good intentions. Chaotic can be used to describe someone that is insane, and gaining pleasure from killing can be considered as such. If he kills innocent people then it would be chaotic evil. Violence for pleasure can be on two completely different spectrums. That of constructive violence, and that of destructive violence.

 

@casey
Alignment isnt just something that changes five times a day, depending on your mood. Its much more general than that.

It's really amazing how people view him. Varies from lawful to chaotic and from good to evil. Quite strange.
I have never read any of his comics, so i'm writing this on the impression of what i've hear about him now.
As pointed out before lawful doesnt mean he has to obey society laws. He clearly has his own codex of rules by which he abides. So IMO clearly Lawful.
I'm against neutral. Mostly because he seems so solid when it comes to killing cops. IMO he, as a neutral character, would be more relaxed when it comes to killing. He would avoid killing officers of the law, but if he could do it without consequences he would.


Judging by his motivations as well as means for killing i'd say he's Evil too. People may consider him Good because his inner law directs him to kill "evil" people. Himself though, is evil.
Lawful Evil.

EDIT:
I think this is just the point. Some of you feel like he is good. Why? Because he kills evil folks? He might be killing good instead and sparing the evil ones. His personal code of laws would change just a little bit, and his means of killing would remain the same. As would motives. The pleasure of killing. In himself he would remain pretty much the same. Other people would suddenly start viewing him as an evil guy.

[ February 19, 2004, 16:38: Message edited by: Gothmog4230 ]

 

I think that a big part of the reason that we are seeing such a difference of opinion is because the character has changed greatly over the years. As a result of this thread I picked up one of the recent Punisher comics and found that the character behaves in a considerably different manner than he did back in the 80s. I would definitely agree that he has slid from the good side of the spectrum well into the evil side.

As far as the lawful/chaotic argument, I would have to say that being lawful means following the rules of some sort of society of which you are a member. Having your own code and following it despite the fact that it goes against the laws of society is still chaotic in my opinion.

Look at Robin Hood - the prime example that has always been given for a chaotic good character. He has his own code that he follows, it is just in opposition to the laws of his society. He feels that the laws are evil and as a good person is willing to break them and defy the authorities. Thus, by the same reason, the Punisher's illegal murdering of criminals is, irregardless of why he does it, a chaotic act.

If following one's own code of conduct was all that was required to be lawful then there wouldn't be very many non-lawful people around except for people with mental illness.

 

There are many different reasons a character could be lawful. It is not limited to just the government definition for the purpose of alignment.

For a lawful evil character, it could be the wanton domination of people against their will, whether it be done within the laws of a currently existing society or in private, hidden places like Irenicus' dungeon in BG2. This is the powermongering version.

For a lawful good character it could be upholding the laws and beliefs of their chosen god no matter what the cost to themself. This is the spiritual and government version.

For monks lawful means they practice a strict form of maintaining their body and health. This is the mental version. That is the sole reason why monks are required to be lawful in 3rd edition D&D. And on the other hand, it's also the sole reason barbarians are required to be non-lawful, and druids neutral.

There's various other reasons a character can be lawful.

 

This is quite but in terms of your comments about monks/barbarians.

Monks are lawful because they follow the strict rules of their Order. Monks live apart from the rest of what we consider normal society in seperate societies of their own. If a monk does not follow the rules of his/her order than he/she is generally punished or expelled. This assumes that a monk is an actual monk and not just a martial artist who could quite easily study the same fighting techniques outside of a special order. I see no reason why a non-monk martial artist could not be chaotic and have the same abilities as a monk - it is just an arbitrary rule of the game.

As far as barbarians are concerned, I disagree completely with the rule that says that a barbarian should have to be non-lawful.

Lets say that we are playing in what we would all consider to be a barbarian tribal setting. The tribe has rules and traditions that are followed by its members who face some sort of punishment from the tribal leader(s) if the rules are broken. How is a member of this tribe who follows the laws/rules/traditions of his people any different than the law abiding citizen of a "more civilized" society.

When is the last time you saw a barbarian being portrayed as someone who does not have a code of conduct that he/she follows? Everytime I turn around I see another Conan/Wolfgar etc. who is a barbarian who violates the rules/laws of the normal human society that he/she lives among but follows a code of honour every bit as strictly as any Paladin. These Barbarians are never portrayed as being any less faithful to their god(s) than anyone else. The only possible explanation for them being non-lawful is that they are being compared to the society that they live in and they follow their own rules instead of those of that society.

 

JSBB - think of it this way: raging (what really defines the Barbarian) requires a free soul. A really free soul is Chaotic. One way to think of tribal, nomadic people is not as Barbarians but as just Warriors. Note that lawful Barbarians (i.e. ex-Barbs) can't rage. Chaotic characters can also be very passionate - about a lover, their friends, or even family (clan, tribe). The problem is that while they may be loyal to a few people, they are chaotic towards other things.

If you love a girl so much that you're willing to defy your parents and tradition for her, then it makes you chaotic (maybe it's lawful with the girl, but not towards everyone else). Or if you've hated your parents all your life (goodness forbid), and falling for that girl makes you change your attitude towards them, then that's chaotic too (changing set ways).

On being chaotic: just being chaotic doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you want. If you're chaotic good, it means you're chaotic, but at least you're doing anything evil. It works the other way around: if you are massacring orphanages but are "just following orders", then it still makes you Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral.

If you ask me, being lawful doesn't equal being legally right (lawful isn't legal ). It's just following something, anything... er, lawfully.

(I see that I've gotten myself into a rant about alignment again. )

(And I also see that I'm the only one that voted chaotic evil. )

[ February 20, 2004, 03:34: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

@Oaz: I think the alignment concept applies to more than the laws of society.

It applies to the character's mentality, personality, and methodology as well. The Punisher, for example, utterly flouts the laws and murders anyone who pisses him off.

That is one step towards the "Chaotic" side.

However, he is meticulous in his planning and cold and calm in his fighting style. He goes over his murderous designs carefully and often has contingencies prepared to deal with unexpected situations or developments.

His adherence to a personal code is Lawful as well, Oaz.

That's "Lawful", the same way Monks are Lawful and Barbarians are Chaotic.

Frank Castle, aka the Punisher, IMO, leans slightly more to Law than Chaos.

I agree completely that he's Evil, though. Garth Ennis writes him as a serial killer that kills criminals and a sadistic psychopath. In Punisher: Born, he is a sociopath who lives only for the joy of murdering other people. He butchers fellow soldiers as easily as a vietnamese girl and vietcong fighters.

Therefore, I come to this conclusion:

The Punisher is Neutral Evil, with Lawful tendencies.

But he's still the most awesome badass ever.

 

I think one can be lawful if following a personal code. Even if that code is unique to her.

Consider a person who adheres to a strict code, whatever that code may be. That person is lawful in my opinion. That person will adhere to the code regardless of personal wants or desires. To take a real life example, Kant would follow his personal code - a unique deontology - (or purportedly anyways) regardless of personal outcome or personal desire. His code was created by himself. It was said that Kant was like clockwork and that people could set their clock to him. Though his code was completely unique in that he created it himself - I'd think he was a lawful person.

So, I think a person can be lawful even if her code is unique. Certainly though the Punisher's code isn't unique - it is the vigilante's code (from what I've heard).

 

So if two societies with completely different ideologies and concepts go to war with incredible dedication and zeal, who is being lawful?

Or if there is an assassin extremely loyal to his guild who goes around picking off his assigned targets, who is being lawful, the assassin or the guards who attempt to capture him in the name of the city?

If all the Punisher cares about is killing people, then he's chaotic, since a chaotic evil mass murderer might love torturing innocents in a lawful way, but disgregard everything else in a chaotic way. Just because you don't go against the law doesn't mean you're lawful; it's the willingness to break the rules and flexibility that counts.

Besides, just because you plan something well doesn't mean you're lawful; nothing prevents you from making a character with 18 Intelligence and Wisdom. A chaotic person might plan a bank heist to its exact and finest details, but then just might decide to go for coffee with his girlfriend instead an hour before pulling it off.

If Mr. Castle is walking down the street, catches something giving him a dirty look, then kills Mr. Dirty-Looker even though the vigilante's code (or whatever he follows) tells him otherwise, then he's CE.

 

Lawful means that someone adheres to a consistent code or principle. That's it right? The explanations I've seen haven't said what that code has to be or how that code has to originate. I imagine because to do so would greatly limit the meaning and they didn't want to limit the meaning.

Codes of laws can conflict. That's not surprising. For an easier example, if an evil monk's order demands he murder somebody protected by a Paladin and they come into conflict - they're both lawful. They just obey a different code of laws.

I agree though that planning certainly does not equal lawful. It's just being smart.

 

It entirely depends on what those ideologies are. They could both be lawful, and wishing to impose their respective law on the land they're fighting over. One could be lawful and the other is not, in other words one is trying to conquer the other. Various other ways it could be...

The assassin is lawful, obeying the assignments of his payer. He never disobeys his guild and always follows its rules. He is operating outside of society but is still following the law of the guild.

The guard may or may not be lawful. It depends on why he is working as a guard. He may be doing it because it's the only job he can do, and he may also not agree with the laws that he is hired to enforce. Does he ever become lax when doing his duty? Does he look the other way if he is bribed with a lot of money?

I would say that being lawful simply means that someone acts within some form of rule based structure, at all times. Whether those rules be self imposed, or by government, or by some organization like a monk's order. That person will follow that structure, in all cases and never deviates from those rules. In other words, it is not flexible, even for personal gain.

[ February 23, 2004, 05:51: Message edited by: RangerFox ]

 

/me was being rhetorical.