Is this accurate ?

Attached: alignment chart.jpg (1280x1280, 549.84K)

Not at all. Especially Rorschach. How can someone who has a strong set of codes he ardently adheres to, be considered chaotic? The Comedian is someone more fit for chaotic neutral since, he aligns himself onto things that benefit him alone.

I would say the Comedian definitely leans on the evil side more than chaotic, but for Rorschach I guess you're right, my bad. Throughout the 1986 comic he often acts alone and investigates on his own, that's why I labelled him chaotic (because he basically acts without anyone telling him what to do, or whom to obey). But the fact that he applies a strict code of values to himself kind of makes him "lawful" I guess.

On the evil side more than neutral*, sorry about that.

You stuffed Moloch and Captain Metropolis in here needlessly, but didn't bother to find a final character? You made Veidt, a guy that killed several million people, neutral? Rorschach chaotic? Pleb-tier take all around.

rorschach is chaotic lawful

Ozymandias is not really lawful neutral either
Sure his intentions might be noble and good, but killing millions of innocents is a very brutal thing to do
He is a ruthless pragmatist, and he might see his intentions as good and beneficial to mankind, but which tyrant does not see their actions that way?

Lawful good. "lawful" doesn't mean that everybody has to be following the SAME laws, and "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

None of these are correct

Shift the first row down one. Shift Ozy down one too.

Nite Owl I goes into lawful good, he went in because of an innate desire for law and justice, Comedian had Nelson pegged, Captain Metropolis was showboating more than anything.

I feel like Laurie is more Neutral Good than Dan. She was all too willing and eager to put vigilantism away when told because even if she wishes for the best when things are at their worst she ultimately doesn't invest herself much if she doesn't have to. Dan wanted to be a costumed hero, he visibly lights up when he's provoked to do so again, so he is Chaotic Good leaning, the passion and notion of reckless heroics saving the day are his vibe, but he fears more than he hopes.

Funny enough Veidt and Walter both occupy Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral in their own way based on how you see them, so both are right and yet not. Veidt actually doesn't give much of a shit about laws or rules when you hear his background. His primary concern is results.

Jon is similar to Dan in that his default mode seems passive, but the comic also shows you can catch glimpses of another side when you provoke him. So True Neutral most times, but it's enigmatic if he adheres to it. For example he leaves Earth to possibly make his own "less complicated" society so he may have his own idea of things even if he's ambivalent towards that of others.

Similar but inverse Captain Metropolis, Moloch was just doing the gig for a thrill, once it took a toll on things with Manhattan scaring the shit out of people, prison time and dead end careers he just wanted to live quietly. So I'm not sure you can call him evil, he was just arrogant when he was young.

Eddie is pretty right, he had a cry when it turned work out for him but he still believed the Chaotic Evil life was the bees knees, though technically you could argue that like Joker with the Mob he was using Lawful Evil to exercise his kick.

Lawful Evil would be Big Figure.

Because the alignment system was created to force players and NPCs into fantasy archetypes but it falls apart when you add nuance to it. Watchmen meanwhile is all about moral ponderings of vigilantes,philosophy and hypocrisy. Putting them into literal neat boxes is a fool's errand.

I'd say Rorsch is lawful evil. He has extremely rigid set of rules, literally black and white, but no ethical limits for the actions and methods of punishment he does to uphold those rules.

Weidt was ready to sacrifice tons of people for the greater good. The epitome of the Chaotic Good end justifies the means mentality.

>rough up thugs
>evil
>murder millions of innocents
>good
Nah

It's purpose was just to give you starting point and somewhat consistent direction for the roleplay when rolling characters. An improv guideline.
It was never meant to be some sort of serious lawyerly or deep ethical shit but nerds with their autism are incapable of processing things like that.

I agree Veidt is lawful evil

Rorschach is Lawful Neutral taken to an extreme degree.

Attached: 1152px-The_Axis_of_Stupid.png (1152x899, 432.56K)

>It was never meant to be some sort of serious lawyerly or deep ethical shit but nerds with their autism are incapable of processing things like that.
The rules that punish you for getting out of your moral quadrant didn't help either.

That's a bit questionable, he hadn't been committing crimes all his life, he wanted to be a hero, he only went through with his insane scheme due to insanity and not being able to resolve things conventionally.
If the world around Veidt has no war he mostly just sits in Karnak quietly.

No.

No... I guess the chart is too big for them to fit in.

OP here, yes that's why I labelled him as 'neutral". Also because he did it for what he thought was the "greater good", but of course after what he did I guess he would lean towards evil more than neutral.

Other than Rorschach and Ozymandias that I apparently got wrong, what about the others ? I do believe that Nite Owl, Laurie, and Jon at least fall on the good category (even though yes I agree it's a bit more complicated and you can't really put them in categories because nuance etc)

It isnt really about his actions he done, but more how he sees and why he does them.

All he does is to better the world, kinda bringing the law.
But he doesnt care how, the outcome validates the means.
Like he would kill a orphanage if this helps the greater good.

You cant label him neutral if he doesnt care if somebody dies as ong it is less than he expects to die.

Attached: Aligment Chart.jpg (1280x1280, 428.1K)

how does dr. manhatten even qualify for neutral? just because he whines a lot? every action he takes in the stupid series is good, the worst he did was win vietnam and that's only neutral or evil if you like communism

manhatten is easily neutral good

kill millions to save billions and institute an order that will benefit the rest of the world, for generations. it is basically the same thing as waging a war, but all the deaths happen at once.

He is an autocratic totalitarian. the very definition of lawful, but because he is willing to undertake this plan without anyone's consent makes him more neutral than actually good.

although, when you think about it, truly good people are not very inneffective. there will always be entrenched interests in the status quo. it is impossible to make large changes that actually benefit everyone. you have to be a little bit of an asshole to tell people "shove it. this is going to happen." I mean, there are people who genuinely believe that it was fine for the Nazi's to kill millions of people. And someone had to tell those sympathizers "I am sorry, but you are wrong. also, sit still while I tie this rope around your neck."

Evil in that he had his own judgements and not a single whisper of compassion nor could his decisions be swayed. He believed in order, but would kill, steal, terrorize, whatever, to maintain that order. if Rorschach actually had money and power, he would be a complete nightmare.

Lawful evil should be Nixon.

So "good" means "willing to compromise" to you? I'm rather inclined to believe the opposite. Going too far is bad, but I think most evil is the result of people compromising their values.

Ozy is the most obvious example of lawful evil in the entire series. A prototypical example of it even.

He's Lawful Evil. By definition.

I don't know who draw this, but this person should stop doing fanart.
Also, the Squid is not evil, it did not chose to die and kill people