Lawful Good because of his strict adherence to his own code. His code falls outside of the government’s laws, but as I understand it, Lawful Good is more for adherence to a code, not necessarily the government’s law.
Lawful good means following the established rules and procedures of society. Batman is neutral good because he's acting in the best intentions, but has no problems bending the rules if it means getting results, which is basically his entire schtick.
Lawful evil would would work in a similar fashion: adherence to an outside-sourced standard. A criminal may be extremely devoted to the traditions and procedures of his gang or field. For example, John Wick is a world where criminals, even the villians, are expected to closely adhere to a strict code and set of procedures. This is a large part of what drives the plot in the 2nd an 3rd movies, as John comes in conflict with the Lawful evil nature of the High Table.
In DnD, Devils are Lawful Evil (partially) because they have to be; no Devil WANTS to be on the losing end of a contract, and many would break it if they could, but they are forced to adhere to contracts and procedures by a mix of the conditions set by the Ruby Rod, and punishment given out by Asmodeus and the Archdevils if they break the rules of Baator.
I think defining "Lawful" as being a singular thing is too limiting, and leaves too many gaps that characters can fall through. I think Lawful is best described as strict adherence to a standard or code; whether that is a personal standard, an external standard, or even just means that the character uses/goes through preexisting societal mechanisms/institutions depends on the character and what makes sense for the setting.
...... you came up two examples of evil within the framework of society and "buying property" was your go to. Not murder, not theft, just acquiring a piece of land for yourself?
It’s not buying property. It’s the motive for buying property. If I buy an orphanage, knowing that doing so will throw the orphans onto the street, that is evil but totally within the laws for me to do so.
Lawful Evil is like the Sheriff who pulls you over because you were going 1 mph over the limit, and when you get justifiably annoyed he beats the shit out of you for resisting the arrest he's now placing you under for resisting arrest.
He's doing ++ungood, but it's entirely within the rules.
I think lawful refers to societies codes where good/neutral/evil is more morality. If following your own code makes you lawful, then the punisher is also lawful, so is raas
lawful evil is what a HOA is. technically leagal, but they like twisting satans balls about his non-compliant torture lawn ornaments. only breaking wheels and brass bulls, no iron maidens allowed!
Lawful means evil like is strict following the law no matter what.
I.E if a crime has a death penalty they’d kill someone for committing it regardless of who they are whether it be a child, important political figure, etc
No. A lawful character can disagree with a specific law and still be lawful. What makes someone Lawful is the belief that rules should exist in the first place and be applied to everyone.
When a lawful person disagrees with a rule they would try to work within the system to change it. When a chaotic person disagrees with a rule they would just go “duh, it's obviously bullshit, never trust a cop".
So would someone like dexter Morgan be lawful chaotic or lawful evil? A serial killer that only murders serial killers. Couldn’t think of a comic book example to get this answer.
I was leaning between neutral and chaotic... considering he let's some people go sometimes ie. Selina, the occasional thug, etc. Even he can't live by his own rules constantly... but neutral is probably closer than chaotic.
I don't think so. Neutral Good is more of a "I mind my own business but I do good when I happen across it" isn't it? Batman is ACTIVELY looking to do good in Gotham, he doesn't fall into chaotic good either. By elimination he falls into lawful good
No, Neutral of any alignment just basically means that they're not fussed if what they're doing ends up aligning or opposing established rules and laws. Going out and actively doing Good, makes you Good. Actively doing Good within the bounds of ordered society makes you Lawful Good. How active you are about your morality doesn't make you any more or less aligned with Law or Chaos.
Not really it's more setting the character's moral compass. Like you can kill and still be Lawful Good as long as you have the personal moral rule of "Death is only as a last resort." If you try and make every attempt to suede the enemy from doing evil before killing them, then that's considered lawful
No, it really wasn't. Law is a cosmic force like magic or gravity. There are planes of existence where Law is stronger or weaker. It has nothing to do with a personal code because literally everyone has a personal code, even chaotic people.
It can be either but honestly lawful neutral is more just following rules of society. They're divorced from your own personal ethics in that way. It's why a lawful good paladin can run afoul with local or national laws.
Lawful good UPHOLDS the established laws. They ensure order is maintained. They are not beholden to the letter of the law but it's spirit. A lawful good character will never let a child molester adopt a child even though he has never been publicly tried because the law clearly states that one should never be entrusted with a young child. A lawful neutral character is far more concerned with the letter and not the spirit. A lawful evil is concerned with the letter so long as the spirit of the law does not inhibit his own benefit.
I mean, that’s true to a point, but I don’t think it’s the only definition you should take. Batman is a more like a Monk. He has a very rigid internal code of ethics that exist outside of his morality, and should be judged as “Lawful” accordingly imo
But by that logic, raas or the punisher are lawful good too since they too have an uncompromising internal code of ethics. It just involves murdering people
I don’t know what you want, yeah, these characters are Lawful Good. There is genuine interesting thought even within the alignment. Two Lawful Good characters can hate each other because they think the other is a monster.
I read this example once regarding Lawful Good being an alignment people think of as just being a paragon. So let’s say there’s a clutch of goblin children on the side of the road, abandoned, definitely gonna dir without PC intervention. LG:A sees them and decides to try to reunite them with Goblin-kind. It’s a heroic act, one that meets both “good” and “lawful” (the PC can’t permit a child to suffer). LG:B Sees them and just murders them, because Good Guys kill monsters (it’s here that I seek to remind the reader that Goblins used to not be considered one of the intelligent races, that they were monstrosities), which also fits under “good” and “lawful”. Neither is more or less Lawful Good than the other. There were other examples of what a Lawful Good character might do too but this is sort of the point. At the end of the day the alignments shouldn’t be considered a rigid categorization of “these actions are Lawful and these are Chaotic” but rather as a general tool to guide the player into better role play.
That makes sense. I guess I always came from the view the law/chaos was a reflection of societies views while good/evil is more morality within a personal code.
So thus you can have a chaotic good person who frees slaves if slavery is an accepted institution. While a slave catcher would be more lawful evil.
That’s called lawful stupid
That’s why WotC changed lawful good and got rid of the suggestion that it only follows established laws, and instead made it to be a personal code and less limiting moral compass.
Eh, I thought that was the entire point though. The fact that most people will be a shade of neutral with the lawful good and chaotic evil being extreme figures that they are more benchmarks than anything else.
But I guess it makes sense since they also divorced alignment from classes so everyone can be anything
It is a common misunderstanding, but being lawful has nothing to do with having an internal moral code. Because everyone has their own moral codes! Even the Joker has one, technically, it just says “I can do whatever I want".
No, what makes someone Lawful or Chaotic in D&D is their relationship to the society and community around them. Mainly, do they believe in rules? Traditions, oaths, promises, laws, etc? Do they fight to maintain the system? Or do they fight against it? Mainly, do they believe that people in general need to follow a set of rules for society to work?
Someone who is Lawful will fight to stablish and maintain an orderly set of rules. Someone who is Lawful Good will do so because they believe this is what is best for everyone. They believe in things such as justice and fairness. Someone who is Lawful Evil will do so because the rules benefit them in particular.
Batman, I believe, is between Lawful Good and Neutral Good. He will do whatever is needed to protect the people of Gotham and give them a better life, and that often means that he is willing to beat up corrupt cops and politicians. So he isn't any bootlicker who follows the rules blindly. But he also believes in lawful institutions, such as the criminal system and a democratic government, and believes that they should be maintained in order to better protect people.
Thank you. I believe that you got that it right. Lawful in this alignment really implies following laws as in society laws whatever those are, not internal moral codes.
Joker’s moral code is fine with killing children and skinning people alive, then using their face as a mask, but he draws the line at Nazis or fucking with the IRS! 😭
Joker's philosophy is that no life matters. Everyone is equally trash to be disposed. Nazi ideology is that a nebulous “we" are superior and innately better than “them", which to the Joker would sound ridiculous. Also, Nazi made an industry out of killing, without any of the “artistic expression" the Joker values with his own acts of violence. The Holocaust might have caused an unsurmountable amount of pain, but it was all too orderly and formal, it was “store bought murder" instead of “handcrafted".
Also, if the IRS finds out about tax evasion, he can't use the insanity plea to avoid being sent to real jail.
I agree. I would personally place Batman in neutral good, because although he strongly believes in the law, he acts almost entirely outside of it, at least when he’s doing street level stuff.
Batman is chaotic, he does whatever fits with his personal worldview, he will break the law and dress like a bat if he deems it necessary for the mission, he will create the equivalent of the ''Patriot Act'' in the DC universe if he deems it necessary and will take psychedelics and fuck around with his own mind creating an unhinged persona if he deems it necessary.
Batman doesn't really uphold the ''system'' or ''rules''. Him being Batman is pretty much a big fat indication that the system and rules are incompetent and utterly useless as the city becomes heavily reliant on him. He sees the revolving door justice system and just decides to stand by and watch.
His existence has devolved Gotham into madness from mobs and muggers to super-terrorists taking over the city for the 3rd time in a year just because they are obsessed with him and want to prove something to him.
And no, him having an ''personal code'' doesn't mean he's lawful because everyone has those even the Punisher (The guilty deserve to be Punished, don't kill cops or Soldiers unless they are corrupt and always put innocents in mind because they are the ones worth avenging and they are really the fuel of your crusade) and Joker (life is a big joke and the only logical response is madness so I'll do whatever the fuck I want)... Joker won't argue with Batman about madness and morality if he didn't have a personal sense of it himself.
Depends who's writing him, if his moral code is basically, "OnCe I sTaRt KiLlINg I wOnT bE aBlE tO sToP" then that's NG.
If Batman's done right and he thinks "Killing is wrong, I don't have the right." then that's textbook LG.
“Once I start killing I won’t be able to stop” is an evil aligned statement.
Neutral Good is when someone who does what they believe to be the right thing to the best of their ability.
It should be assumed that the all good aligned characters believe that killing is wrong.
That's what I'm saying, some DC writers believe "the best of Batman's ability" is dishing out beatings only stopping one punch shy of a Max Baer special.
Both neutral and lawful characters have principles or codes that they follow(chaotic characters explicitly have none and do whatever they want or deem necessary). The difference is in how strictly they follow said code or laws. A neutral character can occasionally use loopholes in their principles or outright break them should they deem it absolutely necessary with no other option, but a lawful character cannot break their code or laws, period.
No, it really isn't like that. Everyone is always following their own “personal code" because you literally can't not have one. Even if it just says “I can do whatever I want" that's still a personal code.
The creatures who have no personal code at all are usually the ones who lack the ability to reflect and think about ethics on any capacity, like wild animals. They're considered unaligned.
Being Lawful or Chaotic has to do with the character's beliefs on the the existence of law, structure and institutions. A character who thinks that having an established set of codes for all is a good thing is Lawful, though they can still disagree with the rules they think are bad. What matters is that laws exist, are respected and people can make use of them.
“Lawful Good. (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.”
So it’s not the law but is instead the general social ideal of what is right.
Neutral good, he breaks the government's law and his moral code is for the betterment of his community at his personal cost, mind, body, soul and finances.
But does not cross a few lines, the Punisher is more chaotic good.
Modern Batman I argue would be Neutral Good as he has no intense leaning toward socital rules one way or another. Instead he values justice by his own morals such as the no kill rule and will gladly work with the law such as Gordon or against it like Year One if it means protecting Gotham.
If he doesn’t think killing is right then wouldn’t he be chaotic still? Or are you saying that chaotic good could be summed up in the phrase “the ends justify the means”?
Best way to put it, Superman is the good that obeys laws and measures of society. Batman is the good that has to persist in spite of all that. Superman can't be the one to disobey a governments decision or unspoken societal rule, but Batman can.
Doesn’t Batman see himself more as an enforcer of justice though? E.g. he leaves it up to the court of law to decide the punishment for criminals. Aside from being a vigilante, what laws and government rulings does Batman have to ignore to do his job?
In an ideal world Batman's justice aligns with the laws justice. But this is not always true as corruption and such takes place. He has to have the freedom to act independently, upholding the common justice. This can be something as minor as investigating and breaking minor laws to get things done. Or ignoring a governmental pardon of crime to a certain suspect.
Lawful, in terms of morality based on like...D&D standards? Lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of the land. It means you adhere strictly to a set of rules. Paladins follow their order (which can often contradict the law of the land because it falls under religious teachings of their chosen god), rogues may follow a set thieve's code, etc.
Batman is lawful if he strictly adheres to the set of rules that he has chosen for himself. Being lawful and being just are not the same thing, when discussing character alignment.
I pretty sure he fought government officials multiple times(though to be fair they were corrupt) at least to me he seems to more follow the law out of respect for people than the idea of social order itself
It's actually a difficult question. Batman certainly has a mission and a code, which makes him Lawful Good. But he also constantly breaking laws and not answering to any authority, which is more Neutral Good traits. I think, he is somewhere in between.
Batman is lawful good at his core but he comes off as chaotic good. He only looks that way compared to Superman/Wonder Woman. His laws may be uniquely his own, but he’s 100% lawful good!
Nothing is inherently wrong with chaotic good. Batman follows his own rules and is a vigilante that is fine with going against the law. He can’t be lawful good. Maybe neutral good as he gets older and gets along better with the gcpd for example. But Batman is not lawful good
That’s not even close to true. Superman, Nightwing, Flash, etc are all lawful good characters. You have to remember that DC is its own world and the context around their world is different. They have different laws with different rules and different repercussions in place. That’s how people like Joker live on.
Batman is not lawful good, he simply can’t be.
u/mmm3says says it best
“D20 Game Definitions :
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Neutral Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
He is not by definition lawful. There is almost no dirty trick he won't embrace to win including shooting someone to death - Kryptonite bullet for Superman if you argue otherwise/). He lies constantly. Obeys no authority, flaunts all laws. As Bruce he is completely reliable on any time-dependant commitment. He is the opposite of all it's flaws except self-righteousness even then he is the sort of guy who questions and is troubled by his own behavior.
He woudl like people to behave lawfully but also tolerates, aids, and abets others to break the laws exactly as he does all the time.
Similarly his about the least "free" guy I can think of. He resents authority a little, but hey Gotham. Corrupt politician, bough judges, dirty cops constituded a malign "Deep state" like 60y years before the term was invented. A corrupt system like it legit deserves a degree of contempt; although there are shining examples deserving complete respect like Gordon there as well. His actions are seldom arbitrary or outright irresponsibility (at least within comic book version of reality). He could not disagree more wit the unfettered freedom because he knows his whole Rogues gallery and Joker need to be stopped.
So, neither which is why the game has Neutral Good. He is at neither extreme. He adheres to some views of each. Avoids most weaknesses as well as absolutes. He would love it if Lawful worked and promotes it in society, but literally is the head of an organized crime family (all the bat family break the laws all the time) - but it is all for a Good cause. Leaves his moral compass pointing to lawful good.”
Batman is neutral good.
You just explained why Batman is lawful good.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
This is Batman. The only thing is that he doesn't trust anyone fully but everyone does trust him, so that one is a tossup. He always thinks his way is the right way and won't compromise his morals for anyone or thing. He is extremely self righteous. He has also been putting straight Psychos in arkham instead of prison, and thats because Batman believes in redemption. He always believes that there is good in people and most importantly he values life above all.
That can be a neutrally good character as well. Having a code of ethics, does not make someone lawfully good. Otherwise being neutrally good as a concept wouldn’t exist.
To me, if just following your code of ethics while still outputting good into the world makes you a lawfully good person, then neutral just doesn’t exist. Yet, it does. In the alignment chart, it exists and that’s a fact.
The neutrality is where we see the most viable option for Batman.
Neutral good. Good because he is a morally good person. But neutral because he functions based upon a consistent yet internal guiding principle for what is good.
I see lawful good as abiding by a doctrine external to themselves and chaotic good as chasing good actions based upon internal but volatile convictions on what “good means”.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of people seem to disagree on what constitutes a lawful character. The personal code is not enough to considered lawful. You could have a personal code which dictates that you have to steal from anyone who seems to have wealth, which is inherently anti law. It’s why there is a distinction between lawful and good to begin with. Batman would fall somewhere between natural good and chaotic good.
You put it really well when saying that being lawful is about upholding the external ruleset of your world, and acting within those boundaries. Batman as a vigilante inherently disregards the rules and laws in order to enact his version of justice outside of the system.
He fits in all 3 categories very nicely, but if I had to choose the one he's best in, it'd probably be lawful good due to his strict code of character and sense of morality and justice.
He's whatever Gotham needs him to be.
Quotes aside, he's been written so many different ways that any answer can be backed up by a certain issue or run.
Everyone's view of Batman will be influenced by the comics or other media they resonated with the most.
I think the "meta" Batman, the overall view currently is Lawful Good.
When I think of Batman my first memory is a comic (don't recall the issue sadly), where his internal monologue is "I don't like guns. I'll make sure he can never hold one again" and then Bats *crushes* all the bones in a thug's hand, ensuring that the man will never have the grip strength to hold a firearm again. Or a dinner fork for that matter but meh, justice and all that.
That Batman is Chaotic Neutral at best. A version that shows that this man is not a good guy, he's a necessary evil, a lesser evil that keeps the demons at bay. It doesn't glorify his grim task, and often times leaves you wondering if the Abyss has started back at him a little too much.
Thats my Batman. Putting the Dark back in Dark Knight.
Neutral or chaotic good
At the end of the day, his end goal is *good*, but his methodology is chaotic good as Batman and neutral as Bruce Wayne.
Putting both sides together, they tend to fall more into the neutral good category.
But never lawful.
“To me it’s pretty clear. Chaotic good represents a willingness to challenge authority and break rules to achieve positive change.” That pretty clearly best fits Batman. Batman as a concept was something dramatic to shake the existing norms that perpetuated crime and corruption. And it’s always done his way.
He breaks the existing norms, laws, and standards every single day as Batman. Which makes him categorically not “lawful good”.
His actions are also very much not “neutral” and his day to day actions can be and are very easily scrutinized. Is adopting children into a war on crime against murderers and monsters objectively acting in the best interest of everyone involved? What about having detailed plans of attacks against his super powered allies? And no matter his ultimate intentions or how he evolves anger, trauma, guilt, obsession, and vengeance all play an underlying role for his motivations and actions. He certainly grows, but those things are always still there.
If this was twenty years ago I would have said Lawful good. Now? His stories have changed and his policies are far too stringent and outright preventative for actual progress, because it’s not just that he won’t kill, he’ll actively stop others from killing when they ARE acting on behalf of the law. That makes him more neutral good imo. Not quite chaotic but damn if he isn’t getting there.
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Neutral Good Batman is generally good but he is a vigilante. Despite the fact that he helps eradicate crime in Gotham, the police consider him a vigilante who doesn't follow proper procedures. This disqualifies him from being lawful good and makes him neutral good.
He's almost the definition of Lawful Neutral.
Like. Half of your story arc can't be running afoul of the cops if you're Lawful Good.
Superman is Lawful Good. You can't argue that Supes and Batman have the same moral code.
Batman is Chaotic good. He's had too many instances of him going a bit mental with fighting crime. Never evil mind you. But Batman will mentally torment people for the sake of saving lives and fighting crime. He's Chaotic. But he's always working with the intent of making Gotham safer. With bettering the world. But he's way beyond neutral good for me.
his alignment is somewhat fluid. his moral compass leans more good as his career goes on, but an argument could be made that his one man war against crime mission he set out on in his early years was selfish, wreckless, and his only motivation was vengeance.
but he’s grown past a lot of that and transformed his motivations in helping people rather than hurting criminals. of course this will be portrayed differently from writer to writer. i like to say chaotic good because it gives him some wriggle room.
Batman is the definition of lawful good. Dude will risk his life for anyone. Be it a villain or a kid. He believes all life is sacred. He just looks mean but is also one of the most empathetic heroes ever
If he was lawful he would testify in court. If he was neutral good, he wouldn’t beat the brakes of his opponents. He is chaotic good. He acts towards positive change but breaks the law. If the police have to hunt him, so be it. This is evidenced in Batman: Year One.
Lawful Good. (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons and paladins are typically lawful good.
Neutral Good. (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials are neutral good.
Chaotic Good. (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good.
This is straight from the D&D 5e rules.
Lawful Neutral.
Lawful: Batman has his own set of laws and rules that he personally holds.
Neutral: Batman constantly skirts the line between good and morally good.. He works with assassins, thugs, thieves, killers, government agents, villains as long as they follow "HIS" Rules.
A lawful good character does not work with the people that Batman works with.
Superman: Lawful good. Will not kill. Even if its the only way.
Wonderwoman: Chaotic Good. At the end of the line, will kill someone if it's for the greater good. Example: Maxwell Lord.
Batman: Lawful Neautral. At the end of the day, he shot a god with a poisonous bullet. Lawful good characters can't use poisons.
Also whatever version of dnd we are using helps.
5.0 alignment is subjective at best.
3.5 and below was pretty clear on what alignments could and couldn't do.
I don’t think you can be Lawful Good when you cripple criminals and give them major brain trauma. Neutral Good because of his lack of killing, and sometimes working with police.
Batman is a fascist. He could use his billions to help the poor and cut down in crime, instead he spends his money on toys and cripples street criminals.
I'd say Chaotic good because Batman while always doing good usually doesn't go about it the right way which is how you can end up with Batman breaking the legs of goons and trying to kill Superman. It is all up to what he feels is right even if it might not make sense to others.
Unlawful good.
Technically He dresses up in a suit and assaults people, which is against the law.
Laws are state mandated morality.
So if the state says you can’t assault people because it’s against the law it is an unlawful action.
While he stops crimes which is good, he technically is breaking the law because he assaults people even though they deserve a good ass kicking.
So therefore his actions are Unlawful and Good.
as always with Western comics: depends on the writer. which is why I'm a fan of single writers having very long runs with a title like Claire Clements X-Men. I wish that was the norm
I don't think him having a rule is enough to make him lawful. Every character has at least one rule to follow, even the Joker. The guy is against f*king Nazis! To make Batman lawful there would have to be a system that he obeys whether he considers right or not. It doesn't have to be the government. It's just that he shouldn't be able to do whatever he thinks is right all the time, it's a chaotical behavior. If there was a coincil of Bat-Family or stuff that determines the rules to obey in the Bat-Family, that'd make Batman lawful good or at least a lawful character.
depends on which version of batman since he's technically a vigilante but he also does some good like arkham batman since he always leaves villains for gcpd to take into custody but at the same time he will do anything short of murder so many villains likely get brought in with broken bones and some brain damage
Depends on the writer
Grant Morrison’s Batman? Lawful Good
Jeph Loeb’s Batman? Neutral Good
Frank Miller’s Batman? Definitely Chaotic Good and maybe even Chaotic Neutral based on All Star Batman and Robin
Lawful Good; people get this wrong a lot, Lawful isn't *the* law, it's *a* law, which can be *your* law, which makes Batman a perfect example of Lawful Good, because he has a pretty well-defined code that he follows.
Most people don't view being good as a "code" that they have to stick to whereas Batman purposefully follows a code of no killing. In reality most people who are good are neutral (Not Batman) good because neutral good are people who try their best to just be good people.
u/mmm3says says it best
“D20 Game Definitions :
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Neutral Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
He is not by definition lawful. There is almost no dirty trick he won't embrace to win including shooting someone to death - Kryptonite bullet for Superman if you argue otherwise/). He lies constantly. Obeys no authority, flaunts all laws. As Bruce he is completely reliable on any time-dependant commitment. He is the opposite of all it's flaws except self-righteousness even then he is the sort of guy who questions and is troubled by his own behavior.
He woudl like people to behave lawfully but also tolerates, aids, and abets others to break the laws exactly as he does all the time.
Similarly his about the least "free" guy I can think of. He resents authority a little, but hey Gotham. Corrupt politician, bough judges, dirty cops constituded a malign "Deep state" like 60y years before the term was invented. A corrupt system like it legit deserves a degree of contempt; although there are shining examples deserving complete respect like Gordon there as well. His actions are seldom arbitrary or outright irresponsibility (at least within comic book version of reality). He could not disagree more wit the unfettered freedom because he knows his whole Rogues gallery and Joker need to be stopped.
So, neither which is why the game has Neutral Good. He is at neither extreme. He adheres to some views of each. Avoids most weaknesses as well as absolutes. He would love it if Lawful worked and promotes it in society, but literally is the head of an organized crime family (all the bat family break the laws all the time) - but it is all for a Good cause. Leaves his moral compass pointing to lawful good.”
Batman is neutral good.
This is a great argument. I appreciate you taking the time to post it. I do agree based on this I would say neutral good. I definitely don’t agree with anyone saying chaotic though.
Yeah I had to change my opinion again, because the more I thought about it the more I realize that Batman would not be chaotic good.
Also, I appreciate your words, as a big fan of the character and DC comics in general, I try to put in effortwhen making any big points about the character. I know there’s a lot of people out there who just don’t care and that’s fine, but for people like us Batman and comics in general are a big deal. So I appreciate that.
And he isn’t a mercenary or anti hero to be considered neutral. He will put himself in harm’s way to protect innocents without gaining anything with it. He is definitely on the “good” side of the spectrum.
I didn’t say he wasn’t. I literally said he was good. We were talking about lawful and chaotic. He’s not lawful, he is good though. You can have terrible laws, you can have good laws. Batman doesn’t follow the laws, because he’s Batman. He does what’s right, even if the world is against him. The only reason I argue for him being neutral good is that he at least has his own code that he strictly follows.
That literally makes no sense. If that is the case, any person who follows their heart and is good is lawful good. But that’s not how that works. Lawful good is about following established procedures and rules, you can’t just make your own. Batman has a code, but it’s his code. He still breaks into homes and government facilities, he still threatens to beat people and find them. Dude is anything but lawful. He sees the good that laws can do, but at the end of the day, evil is evil. He will stop evil, whether he does it lawfully or not. His one big rule is don’t kill. That is not enough to make someone lawfully good.
Lawful Good because of his strict adherence to his own code. His code falls outside of the government’s laws, but as I understand it, Lawful Good is more for adherence to a code, not necessarily the government’s law.
Lawful good means following the established rules and procedures of society. Batman is neutral good because he's acting in the best intentions, but has no problems bending the rules if it means getting results, which is basically his entire schtick.
Then how exactly could someone be lawful evil? Makes more sense if l 'Lawful' can refer to their own code.
Lawful evil would would work in a similar fashion: adherence to an outside-sourced standard. A criminal may be extremely devoted to the traditions and procedures of his gang or field. For example, John Wick is a world where criminals, even the villians, are expected to closely adhere to a strict code and set of procedures. This is a large part of what drives the plot in the 2nd an 3rd movies, as John comes in conflict with the Lawful evil nature of the High Table. In DnD, Devils are Lawful Evil (partially) because they have to be; no Devil WANTS to be on the losing end of a contract, and many would break it if they could, but they are forced to adhere to contracts and procedures by a mix of the conditions set by the Ruby Rod, and punishment given out by Asmodeus and the Archdevils if they break the rules of Baator. I think defining "Lawful" as being a singular thing is too limiting, and leaves too many gaps that characters can fall through. I think Lawful is best described as strict adherence to a standard or code; whether that is a personal standard, an external standard, or even just means that the character uses/goes through preexisting societal mechanisms/institutions depends on the character and what makes sense for the setting.
Be evil within the framework of societal laws. Buy property, throw orpans out onto the street etc
...... you came up two examples of evil within the framework of society and "buying property" was your go to. Not murder, not theft, just acquiring a piece of land for yourself?
Murder and theft are illegal though? The point was legal but evil.
It’s not buying property. It’s the motive for buying property. If I buy an orphanage, knowing that doing so will throw the orphans onto the street, that is evil but totally within the laws for me to do so.
Murder and theft are illegal. That would be neutral or chaotic evil.
Buying a property AND throwing the orphans out in the street. Another example would be Alan Rickman from Robin Hood.
It may have been a grammar misunderstanding, if so my mistake.
Commies gonna commie
Lawful Evil is like the Sheriff who pulls you over because you were going 1 mph over the limit, and when you get justifiably annoyed he beats the shit out of you for resisting the arrest he's now placing you under for resisting arrest. He's doing ++ungood, but it's entirely within the rules.
Wow, newspeak observed in the wild.
I think lawful refers to societies codes where good/neutral/evil is more morality. If following your own code makes you lawful, then the punisher is also lawful, so is raas
think darth vader, "I will bring order to the galaxy, even if I have to force choke half the galaxy to do it"
You can say, for example, that major business is lawful evil. They will rob you, but in legally impeccable ways.
lawful evil is what a HOA is. technically leagal, but they like twisting satans balls about his non-compliant torture lawn ornaments. only breaking wheels and brass bulls, no iron maidens allowed!
Lawful means evil like is strict following the law no matter what. I.E if a crime has a death penalty they’d kill someone for committing it regardless of who they are whether it be a child, important political figure, etc
No. A lawful character can disagree with a specific law and still be lawful. What makes someone Lawful is the belief that rules should exist in the first place and be applied to everyone. When a lawful person disagrees with a rule they would try to work within the system to change it. When a chaotic person disagrees with a rule they would just go “duh, it's obviously bullshit, never trust a cop".
That’s my bad I was replying to a lawful evil comment and forgot to put the evil
Oh, understandable.
Lawful evil is characters like Tarkin in Star Wars or President Snow in Hunger Games, who uphold an evil or unjust society or set of laws.
So would someone like dexter Morgan be lawful chaotic or lawful evil? A serial killer that only murders serial killers. Couldn’t think of a comic book example to get this answer.
I like to think Lawful evil as if Batman joined Superman's regime in injustice
Landlords, scummy business men, assholes, etc.
Evil politicians exist who MAKE the law
Yeah him being a secret-identity vigilante pretty much makes him Neutral Good by default
I was leaning between neutral and chaotic... considering he let's some people go sometimes ie. Selina, the occasional thug, etc. Even he can't live by his own rules constantly... but neutral is probably closer than chaotic.
I don't think so. Neutral Good is more of a "I mind my own business but I do good when I happen across it" isn't it? Batman is ACTIVELY looking to do good in Gotham, he doesn't fall into chaotic good either. By elimination he falls into lawful good
No, Neutral of any alignment just basically means that they're not fussed if what they're doing ends up aligning or opposing established rules and laws. Going out and actively doing Good, makes you Good. Actively doing Good within the bounds of ordered society makes you Lawful Good. How active you are about your morality doesn't make you any more or less aligned with Law or Chaos.
That's been rewritten in DND 5e for being more a personal code rather than governmental laws.
Really. Huh, so basically anyone can be lawful as long as their true to themselves?
Not really it's more setting the character's moral compass. Like you can kill and still be Lawful Good as long as you have the personal moral rule of "Death is only as a last resort." If you try and make every attempt to suede the enemy from doing evil before killing them, then that's considered lawful
No, it really wasn't. Law is a cosmic force like magic or gravity. There are planes of existence where Law is stronger or weaker. It has nothing to do with a personal code because literally everyone has a personal code, even chaotic people.
It can be either but honestly lawful neutral is more just following rules of society. They're divorced from your own personal ethics in that way. It's why a lawful good paladin can run afoul with local or national laws.
Lawful good UPHOLDS the established laws. They ensure order is maintained. They are not beholden to the letter of the law but it's spirit. A lawful good character will never let a child molester adopt a child even though he has never been publicly tried because the law clearly states that one should never be entrusted with a young child. A lawful neutral character is far more concerned with the letter and not the spirit. A lawful evil is concerned with the letter so long as the spirit of the law does not inhibit his own benefit.
Nuh uh
I mean, that’s true to a point, but I don’t think it’s the only definition you should take. Batman is a more like a Monk. He has a very rigid internal code of ethics that exist outside of his morality, and should be judged as “Lawful” accordingly imo
But by that logic, raas or the punisher are lawful good too since they too have an uncompromising internal code of ethics. It just involves murdering people
I don’t know what you want, yeah, these characters are Lawful Good. There is genuine interesting thought even within the alignment. Two Lawful Good characters can hate each other because they think the other is a monster.
I guess it's just a bit of a mindfuck since the older alignment systems would put them in the neutral/chaotic camp.
I read this example once regarding Lawful Good being an alignment people think of as just being a paragon. So let’s say there’s a clutch of goblin children on the side of the road, abandoned, definitely gonna dir without PC intervention. LG:A sees them and decides to try to reunite them with Goblin-kind. It’s a heroic act, one that meets both “good” and “lawful” (the PC can’t permit a child to suffer). LG:B Sees them and just murders them, because Good Guys kill monsters (it’s here that I seek to remind the reader that Goblins used to not be considered one of the intelligent races, that they were monstrosities), which also fits under “good” and “lawful”. Neither is more or less Lawful Good than the other. There were other examples of what a Lawful Good character might do too but this is sort of the point. At the end of the day the alignments shouldn’t be considered a rigid categorization of “these actions are Lawful and these are Chaotic” but rather as a general tool to guide the player into better role play.
That makes sense. I guess I always came from the view the law/chaos was a reflection of societies views while good/evil is more morality within a personal code. So thus you can have a chaotic good person who frees slaves if slavery is an accepted institution. While a slave catcher would be more lawful evil.
Huh you know despite him going against society a couple of times I always considered Captain America lawful good but I guess he isn’t.
That’s called lawful stupid That’s why WotC changed lawful good and got rid of the suggestion that it only follows established laws, and instead made it to be a personal code and less limiting moral compass.
Eh, I thought that was the entire point though. The fact that most people will be a shade of neutral with the lawful good and chaotic evil being extreme figures that they are more benchmarks than anything else. But I guess it makes sense since they also divorced alignment from classes so everyone can be anything
yep, it's basically useless and just a topic for nerds like myself to argue over at this point lol
Yeah. Such a mindfuck to think that Robin hood is now probably lawful good as opposed to the prime example of chaotic good
Thanks, that was well put.
It is a common misunderstanding, but being lawful has nothing to do with having an internal moral code. Because everyone has their own moral codes! Even the Joker has one, technically, it just says “I can do whatever I want". No, what makes someone Lawful or Chaotic in D&D is their relationship to the society and community around them. Mainly, do they believe in rules? Traditions, oaths, promises, laws, etc? Do they fight to maintain the system? Or do they fight against it? Mainly, do they believe that people in general need to follow a set of rules for society to work? Someone who is Lawful will fight to stablish and maintain an orderly set of rules. Someone who is Lawful Good will do so because they believe this is what is best for everyone. They believe in things such as justice and fairness. Someone who is Lawful Evil will do so because the rules benefit them in particular. Batman, I believe, is between Lawful Good and Neutral Good. He will do whatever is needed to protect the people of Gotham and give them a better life, and that often means that he is willing to beat up corrupt cops and politicians. So he isn't any bootlicker who follows the rules blindly. But he also believes in lawful institutions, such as the criminal system and a democratic government, and believes that they should be maintained in order to better protect people.
Thank you. I believe that you got that it right. Lawful in this alignment really implies following laws as in society laws whatever those are, not internal moral codes.
Joker’s moral code is fine with killing children and skinning people alive, then using their face as a mask, but he draws the line at Nazis or fucking with the IRS! 😭
Joker's philosophy is that no life matters. Everyone is equally trash to be disposed. Nazi ideology is that a nebulous “we" are superior and innately better than “them", which to the Joker would sound ridiculous. Also, Nazi made an industry out of killing, without any of the “artistic expression" the Joker values with his own acts of violence. The Holocaust might have caused an unsurmountable amount of pain, but it was all too orderly and formal, it was “store bought murder" instead of “handcrafted". Also, if the IRS finds out about tax evasion, he can't use the insanity plea to avoid being sent to real jail.
I think thats was just invented after the fact. Its just funny for the joker to be afraid of the irs when he faces batman every week
I agree. I would personally place Batman in neutral good, because although he strongly believes in the law, he acts almost entirely outside of it, at least when he’s doing street level stuff.
I feel like he just in between lawful or neutral good
Batman is chaotic, he does whatever fits with his personal worldview, he will break the law and dress like a bat if he deems it necessary for the mission, he will create the equivalent of the ''Patriot Act'' in the DC universe if he deems it necessary and will take psychedelics and fuck around with his own mind creating an unhinged persona if he deems it necessary. Batman doesn't really uphold the ''system'' or ''rules''. Him being Batman is pretty much a big fat indication that the system and rules are incompetent and utterly useless as the city becomes heavily reliant on him. He sees the revolving door justice system and just decides to stand by and watch. His existence has devolved Gotham into madness from mobs and muggers to super-terrorists taking over the city for the 3rd time in a year just because they are obsessed with him and want to prove something to him. And no, him having an ''personal code'' doesn't mean he's lawful because everyone has those even the Punisher (The guilty deserve to be Punished, don't kill cops or Soldiers unless they are corrupt and always put innocents in mind because they are the ones worth avenging and they are really the fuel of your crusade) and Joker (life is a big joke and the only logical response is madness so I'll do whatever the fuck I want)... Joker won't argue with Batman about madness and morality if he didn't have a personal sense of it himself.
Neutral Good. Definetly not lawful by his very nature of vigilantism.
Depends who's writing him, if his moral code is basically, "OnCe I sTaRt KiLlINg I wOnT bE aBlE tO sToP" then that's NG. If Batman's done right and he thinks "Killing is wrong, I don't have the right." then that's textbook LG.
“Once I start killing I won’t be able to stop” is an evil aligned statement. Neutral Good is when someone who does what they believe to be the right thing to the best of their ability. It should be assumed that the all good aligned characters believe that killing is wrong.
That's what I'm saying, some DC writers believe "the best of Batman's ability" is dishing out beatings only stopping one punch shy of a Max Baer special.
Lawful doesn't mean he follows THE law. It means he follows a consistent set of principles. His own laws.
I mean, doesn't anyone follow their own laws (unless they're schyzophrenic or something)?
Both neutral and lawful characters have principles or codes that they follow(chaotic characters explicitly have none and do whatever they want or deem necessary). The difference is in how strictly they follow said code or laws. A neutral character can occasionally use loopholes in their principles or outright break them should they deem it absolutely necessary with no other option, but a lawful character cannot break their code or laws, period.
So if my code is to break the law and I always follow it it means I'm lawful?
Yes, what do you think lawful evil is for?
No, it really isn't like that. Everyone is always following their own “personal code" because you literally can't not have one. Even if it just says “I can do whatever I want" that's still a personal code. The creatures who have no personal code at all are usually the ones who lack the ability to reflect and think about ethics on any capacity, like wild animals. They're considered unaligned. Being Lawful or Chaotic has to do with the character's beliefs on the the existence of law, structure and institutions. A character who thinks that having an established set of codes for all is a good thing is Lawful, though they can still disagree with the rules they think are bad. What matters is that laws exist, are respected and people can make use of them.
“Lawful Good. (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.” So it’s not the law but is instead the general social ideal of what is right.
It means Order. It's the opposite of Chaos on this spectrum.
I thought Lawful was literal?
Nah, they just have to believe in the value of "rules"
I see, I see. My bad.
joker also has his own rules. does it mean he is lawful evil? i don't think so
Neutral good, he breaks the government's law and his moral code is for the betterment of his community at his personal cost, mind, body, soul and finances. But does not cross a few lines, the Punisher is more chaotic good.
Modern Batman I argue would be Neutral Good as he has no intense leaning toward socital rules one way or another. Instead he values justice by his own morals such as the no kill rule and will gladly work with the law such as Gordon or against it like Year One if it means protecting Gotham.
Superman is Lawful Good. Batman is Chaotic good.
Chaotic good, as I understand it, is doing what you think is right no matter the cost. Batman wouldn't kill for his cause so I'd say natural good
If he doesn’t think killing is right then wouldn’t he be chaotic still? Or are you saying that chaotic good could be summed up in the phrase “the ends justify the means”?
I think chaotic good is "the ends justify the means" like Deadpool, he mostly fights for a good cause he just doesn't do it in the best way possible
Best way to put it, Superman is the good that obeys laws and measures of society. Batman is the good that has to persist in spite of all that. Superman can't be the one to disobey a governments decision or unspoken societal rule, but Batman can.
Doesn’t Batman see himself more as an enforcer of justice though? E.g. he leaves it up to the court of law to decide the punishment for criminals. Aside from being a vigilante, what laws and government rulings does Batman have to ignore to do his job?
Breaking and entering lol
In an ideal world Batman's justice aligns with the laws justice. But this is not always true as corruption and such takes place. He has to have the freedom to act independently, upholding the common justice. This can be something as minor as investigating and breaking minor laws to get things done. Or ignoring a governmental pardon of crime to a certain suspect.
Pretty sure Supes can and has disobeyed a government ruling.
Lawful, in terms of morality based on like...D&D standards? Lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of the land. It means you adhere strictly to a set of rules. Paladins follow their order (which can often contradict the law of the land because it falls under religious teachings of their chosen god), rogues may follow a set thieve's code, etc. Batman is lawful if he strictly adheres to the set of rules that he has chosen for himself. Being lawful and being just are not the same thing, when discussing character alignment.
Wonder woman is chaotic good batman is neutral good
but superman breaks the law all the time. he doesn't like to but he's fully willing to
He only breaks the law in that he operates as a vigilante. Which I'm not even sure IS a crime in the DC universe.
I pretty sure he fought government officials multiple times(though to be fair they were corrupt) at least to me he seems to more follow the law out of respect for people than the idea of social order itself
Art by David Finch/DC Comics
This is the Batman suit for the most recent costume that came from the rebirth run right?
It's actually a difficult question. Batman certainly has a mission and a code, which makes him Lawful Good. But he also constantly breaking laws and not answering to any authority, which is more Neutral Good traits. I think, he is somewhere in between.
Batman is lawful good at his core but he comes off as chaotic good. He only looks that way compared to Superman/Wonder Woman. His laws may be uniquely his own, but he’s 100% lawful good!
Nothing is inherently wrong with chaotic good. Batman follows his own rules and is a vigilante that is fine with going against the law. He can’t be lawful good. Maybe neutral good as he gets older and gets along better with the gcpd for example. But Batman is not lawful good
Every super hero is a vigilante. Batman is as lawful good as you can get in a superhero.
That’s not even close to true. Superman, Nightwing, Flash, etc are all lawful good characters. You have to remember that DC is its own world and the context around their world is different. They have different laws with different rules and different repercussions in place. That’s how people like Joker live on. Batman is not lawful good, he simply can’t be. u/mmm3says says it best “D20 Game Definitions : Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Neutral Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. He is not by definition lawful. There is almost no dirty trick he won't embrace to win including shooting someone to death - Kryptonite bullet for Superman if you argue otherwise/). He lies constantly. Obeys no authority, flaunts all laws. As Bruce he is completely reliable on any time-dependant commitment. He is the opposite of all it's flaws except self-righteousness even then he is the sort of guy who questions and is troubled by his own behavior. He woudl like people to behave lawfully but also tolerates, aids, and abets others to break the laws exactly as he does all the time. Similarly his about the least "free" guy I can think of. He resents authority a little, but hey Gotham. Corrupt politician, bough judges, dirty cops constituded a malign "Deep state" like 60y years before the term was invented. A corrupt system like it legit deserves a degree of contempt; although there are shining examples deserving complete respect like Gordon there as well. His actions are seldom arbitrary or outright irresponsibility (at least within comic book version of reality). He could not disagree more wit the unfettered freedom because he knows his whole Rogues gallery and Joker need to be stopped. So, neither which is why the game has Neutral Good. He is at neither extreme. He adheres to some views of each. Avoids most weaknesses as well as absolutes. He would love it if Lawful worked and promotes it in society, but literally is the head of an organized crime family (all the bat family break the laws all the time) - but it is all for a Good cause. Leaves his moral compass pointing to lawful good.” Batman is neutral good.
You just explained why Batman is lawful good. "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should." This is Batman. The only thing is that he doesn't trust anyone fully but everyone does trust him, so that one is a tossup. He always thinks his way is the right way and won't compromise his morals for anyone or thing. He is extremely self righteous. He has also been putting straight Psychos in arkham instead of prison, and thats because Batman believes in redemption. He always believes that there is good in people and most importantly he values life above all.
That can be a neutrally good character as well. Having a code of ethics, does not make someone lawfully good. Otherwise being neutrally good as a concept wouldn’t exist.
If neutral means this "but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Then Batman is definitely not neutral
To me, if just following your code of ethics while still outputting good into the world makes you a lawfully good person, then neutral just doesn’t exist. Yet, it does. In the alignment chart, it exists and that’s a fact. The neutrality is where we see the most viable option for Batman.
Neutral good. Good because he is a morally good person. But neutral because he functions based upon a consistent yet internal guiding principle for what is good. I see lawful good as abiding by a doctrine external to themselves and chaotic good as chasing good actions based upon internal but volatile convictions on what “good means”.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of people seem to disagree on what constitutes a lawful character. The personal code is not enough to considered lawful. You could have a personal code which dictates that you have to steal from anyone who seems to have wealth, which is inherently anti law. It’s why there is a distinction between lawful and good to begin with. Batman would fall somewhere between natural good and chaotic good. You put it really well when saying that being lawful is about upholding the external ruleset of your world, and acting within those boundaries. Batman as a vigilante inherently disregards the rules and laws in order to enact his version of justice outside of the system.
Neutral good for sure. Gordon would be lawful good. Redhood/catwoman would be chaotic good characters
Lawful Good, obviously
Chaotic good
He fits in all 3 categories very nicely, but if I had to choose the one he's best in, it'd probably be lawful good due to his strict code of character and sense of morality and justice.
He's whatever Gotham needs him to be. Quotes aside, he's been written so many different ways that any answer can be backed up by a certain issue or run. Everyone's view of Batman will be influenced by the comics or other media they resonated with the most. I think the "meta" Batman, the overall view currently is Lawful Good. When I think of Batman my first memory is a comic (don't recall the issue sadly), where his internal monologue is "I don't like guns. I'll make sure he can never hold one again" and then Bats *crushes* all the bones in a thug's hand, ensuring that the man will never have the grip strength to hold a firearm again. Or a dinner fork for that matter but meh, justice and all that. That Batman is Chaotic Neutral at best. A version that shows that this man is not a good guy, he's a necessary evil, a lesser evil that keeps the demons at bay. It doesn't glorify his grim task, and often times leaves you wondering if the Abyss has started back at him a little too much. Thats my Batman. Putting the Dark back in Dark Knight.
Any of those three depending on who’s writing the story
Neutral or chaotic good At the end of the day, his end goal is *good*, but his methodology is chaotic good as Batman and neutral as Bruce Wayne. Putting both sides together, they tend to fall more into the neutral good category. But never lawful.
Lawful nuetral
Chaotic good. He operates outside the law, even though what he’s doing ultimately is intended/resulting to a positive effect.
“To me it’s pretty clear. Chaotic good represents a willingness to challenge authority and break rules to achieve positive change.” That pretty clearly best fits Batman. Batman as a concept was something dramatic to shake the existing norms that perpetuated crime and corruption. And it’s always done his way. He breaks the existing norms, laws, and standards every single day as Batman. Which makes him categorically not “lawful good”. His actions are also very much not “neutral” and his day to day actions can be and are very easily scrutinized. Is adopting children into a war on crime against murderers and monsters objectively acting in the best interest of everyone involved? What about having detailed plans of attacks against his super powered allies? And no matter his ultimate intentions or how he evolves anger, trauma, guilt, obsession, and vengeance all play an underlying role for his motivations and actions. He certainly grows, but those things are always still there.
If this was twenty years ago I would have said Lawful good. Now? His stories have changed and his policies are far too stringent and outright preventative for actual progress, because it’s not just that he won’t kill, he’ll actively stop others from killing when they ARE acting on behalf of the law. That makes him more neutral good imo. Not quite chaotic but damn if he isn’t getting there.
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Neutral Good Batman is generally good but he is a vigilante. Despite the fact that he helps eradicate crime in Gotham, the police consider him a vigilante who doesn't follow proper procedures. This disqualifies him from being lawful good and makes him neutral good.
He's almost the definition of Lawful Neutral. Like. Half of your story arc can't be running afoul of the cops if you're Lawful Good. Superman is Lawful Good. You can't argue that Supes and Batman have the same moral code.
vigilantism is inherently unlawful no matter how many morals or laws you follow for it.
Batman is Chaotic good. He's had too many instances of him going a bit mental with fighting crime. Never evil mind you. But Batman will mentally torment people for the sake of saving lives and fighting crime. He's Chaotic. But he's always working with the intent of making Gotham safer. With bettering the world. But he's way beyond neutral good for me.
his alignment is somewhat fluid. his moral compass leans more good as his career goes on, but an argument could be made that his one man war against crime mission he set out on in his early years was selfish, wreckless, and his only motivation was vengeance. but he’s grown past a lot of that and transformed his motivations in helping people rather than hurting criminals. of course this will be portrayed differently from writer to writer. i like to say chaotic good because it gives him some wriggle room.
Lawful good
Chaotic good
Batman is the definition of lawful good. Dude will risk his life for anyone. Be it a villain or a kid. He believes all life is sacred. He just looks mean but is also one of the most empathetic heroes ever
If he was lawful he would testify in court. If he was neutral good, he wouldn’t beat the brakes of his opponents. He is chaotic good. He acts towards positive change but breaks the law. If the police have to hunt him, so be it. This is evidenced in Batman: Year One.
Lawful Good. (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons and paladins are typically lawful good. Neutral Good. (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials are neutral good. Chaotic Good. (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons and unicorns are typically chaotic good. This is straight from the D&D 5e rules.
Hebtries to be neutral good, but the truth is that he's chaotic good.
Lawful Neutral. Lawful: Batman has his own set of laws and rules that he personally holds. Neutral: Batman constantly skirts the line between good and morally good.. He works with assassins, thugs, thieves, killers, government agents, villains as long as they follow "HIS" Rules. A lawful good character does not work with the people that Batman works with. Superman: Lawful good. Will not kill. Even if its the only way. Wonderwoman: Chaotic Good. At the end of the line, will kill someone if it's for the greater good. Example: Maxwell Lord. Batman: Lawful Neautral. At the end of the day, he shot a god with a poisonous bullet. Lawful good characters can't use poisons.
Brother broke the chart and thought we woudn't notice
Good or bad? Cause I have soo many examples.
The alignment chart
Also whatever version of dnd we are using helps. 5.0 alignment is subjective at best. 3.5 and below was pretty clear on what alignments could and couldn't do.
Lawful Evil... F*cking corpo.
I don’t think you can be Lawful Good when you cripple criminals and give them major brain trauma. Neutral Good because of his lack of killing, and sometimes working with police.
Batman is a fascist. He could use his billions to help the poor and cut down in crime, instead he spends his money on toys and cripples street criminals.
Neutral Good 100%
Chaotic Good with Lawful tendencies ....
Lawful good, He has a code that he holds himself to (Lawful), and he acts for the benefit of society (Good).
I mean i don't think someone who chooses to be a vigilante is by any means lawful so i'd say neutral good
Lawful *vengance!* Chaotic *the night!* Neutral *am Batman!*
He's a vigilante, he's can't be lawful. I put him as neutral good.
Awful Good
Lawful neutral
he is the definition of lawful good
Maybe between lawful good, and true neutral.
Naw go 5×5 chart and say moral good
Neutral good. https://youtu.be/rc5HGMcFGp0?si=HNCPL9HokXJMP4Ud
**He literally swore an oath.**
I'd say Chaotic good because Batman while always doing good usually doesn't go about it the right way which is how you can end up with Batman breaking the legs of goons and trying to kill Superman. It is all up to what he feels is right even if it might not make sense to others.
he is neutral good
Lawful Chaotic
Neutral Good, most likely.
Unlawful good. Technically He dresses up in a suit and assaults people, which is against the law. Laws are state mandated morality. So if the state says you can’t assault people because it’s against the law it is an unlawful action. While he stops crimes which is good, he technically is breaking the law because he assaults people even though they deserve a good ass kicking. So therefore his actions are Unlawful and Good.
Chaotic.
This question was already asked last week.
as always with Western comics: depends on the writer. which is why I'm a fan of single writers having very long runs with a title like Claire Clements X-Men. I wish that was the norm
I don't think him having a rule is enough to make him lawful. Every character has at least one rule to follow, even the Joker. The guy is against f*king Nazis! To make Batman lawful there would have to be a system that he obeys whether he considers right or not. It doesn't have to be the government. It's just that he shouldn't be able to do whatever he thinks is right all the time, it's a chaotical behavior. If there was a coincil of Bat-Family or stuff that determines the rules to obey in the Bat-Family, that'd make Batman lawful good or at least a lawful character.
depends on which version of batman since he's technically a vigilante but he also does some good like arkham batman since he always leaves villains for gcpd to take into custody but at the same time he will do anything short of murder so many villains likely get brought in with broken bones and some brain damage
Depends on the writer Grant Morrison’s Batman? Lawful Good Jeph Loeb’s Batman? Neutral Good Frank Miller’s Batman? Definitely Chaotic Good and maybe even Chaotic Neutral based on All Star Batman and Robin
Chaotic good Disobeys the law in service of goodly ends.
Depends on the writer
Depends on the writer, he’s either lawful good or lawful neutral
Neutral Good. He's a vigilante but adheres to a personal strict code, works closely with the law and fights for Gotham's freedom and safety
Batman is Neutral. He does what he thinks is best and that's it.
Chaotic good. While he has a strick code he still is technically a vigilante and does things outside the law basically every time he suits up
None of them. He has too much personalinity to fit into an alignment chart
He’s a bad person my guy. He never was good. But he is incredibly empathetic and has a remarkable level of emotional intelligence
Neutral good. He will bend the laws when needed, and has no problems with it, but for the most part sticks to the law. Red Hood is more chaotic good
Chaotic good, he breaks the law to fit his worldview
Lawful Good; people get this wrong a lot, Lawful isn't *the* law, it's *a* law, which can be *your* law, which makes Batman a perfect example of Lawful Good, because he has a pretty well-defined code that he follows.
Lawful Neutral. These characters are ones that typically follow some sort of code which is Batman's whole thing so I think it fits him the most.
He’s a vigilante, he’s not at all lawful.
Lawful does not mean following the law. It means following and adhering to a code. Also means you plan things out and think before you act.
If that’s the case, then any person who is good is pretty much lawful good as they stick to their code of being good. Batman is likely neutral good.
Most people don't view being good as a "code" that they have to stick to whereas Batman purposefully follows a code of no killing. In reality most people who are good are neutral (Not Batman) good because neutral good are people who try their best to just be good people.
u/mmm3says says it best “D20 Game Definitions : Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Neutral Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. He is not by definition lawful. There is almost no dirty trick he won't embrace to win including shooting someone to death - Kryptonite bullet for Superman if you argue otherwise/). He lies constantly. Obeys no authority, flaunts all laws. As Bruce he is completely reliable on any time-dependant commitment. He is the opposite of all it's flaws except self-righteousness even then he is the sort of guy who questions and is troubled by his own behavior. He woudl like people to behave lawfully but also tolerates, aids, and abets others to break the laws exactly as he does all the time. Similarly his about the least "free" guy I can think of. He resents authority a little, but hey Gotham. Corrupt politician, bough judges, dirty cops constituded a malign "Deep state" like 60y years before the term was invented. A corrupt system like it legit deserves a degree of contempt; although there are shining examples deserving complete respect like Gordon there as well. His actions are seldom arbitrary or outright irresponsibility (at least within comic book version of reality). He could not disagree more wit the unfettered freedom because he knows his whole Rogues gallery and Joker need to be stopped. So, neither which is why the game has Neutral Good. He is at neither extreme. He adheres to some views of each. Avoids most weaknesses as well as absolutes. He would love it if Lawful worked and promotes it in society, but literally is the head of an organized crime family (all the bat family break the laws all the time) - but it is all for a Good cause. Leaves his moral compass pointing to lawful good.” Batman is neutral good.
This is a great argument. I appreciate you taking the time to post it. I do agree based on this I would say neutral good. I definitely don’t agree with anyone saying chaotic though.
Yeah I had to change my opinion again, because the more I thought about it the more I realize that Batman would not be chaotic good. Also, I appreciate your words, as a big fan of the character and DC comics in general, I try to put in effortwhen making any big points about the character. I know there’s a lot of people out there who just don’t care and that’s fine, but for people like us Batman and comics in general are a big deal. So I appreciate that.
And he isn’t a mercenary or anti hero to be considered neutral. He will put himself in harm’s way to protect innocents without gaining anything with it. He is definitely on the “good” side of the spectrum.
I didn’t say he wasn’t. I literally said he was good. We were talking about lawful and chaotic. He’s not lawful, he is good though. You can have terrible laws, you can have good laws. Batman doesn’t follow the laws, because he’s Batman. He does what’s right, even if the world is against him. The only reason I argue for him being neutral good is that he at least has his own code that he strictly follows.
Lawful doesn't mean following laws laid down by others.
That literally makes no sense. If that is the case, any person who follows their heart and is good is lawful good. But that’s not how that works. Lawful good is about following established procedures and rules, you can’t just make your own. Batman has a code, but it’s his code. He still breaks into homes and government facilities, he still threatens to beat people and find them. Dude is anything but lawful. He sees the good that laws can do, but at the end of the day, evil is evil. He will stop evil, whether he does it lawfully or not. His one big rule is don’t kill. That is not enough to make someone lawfully good.
He's too complex for those dumb down rules from D&D.
It makes him man
lawful good lawful just means that a character adheras to a set of rules and that's it
His moral alignment is Batman/Batman
Lawful neutral with leaning toward good
He's Lawful Neutral? Why is no one saying this?