Rorschach

[Dienekes]

How is intelligent discussion of why a plan was bad any better or worse than trying to defend said plan, such as you are doing Solka?

The guy succeeded as best as he could have. He saved the world from itself. He saved the world from Dr. Manhattan's interference. He is still in position to do more good.

Actually if you want to be accurate to the source material. He succeeded in killing millions of people. This may or may not of saved the world from itself. He shipped Dr. Manhattan away, it's long term effects are still unknown. His position as mediator and benefactor are unchanged, except that his loyal, intelligent staff that helped him accomplish his goals are dead.

[hamishspence]

The doctor example I was giving, was a case of murdering people now, to save people in the near future.

Ozymandias's was murdering people, by the million, now, in the hope, of averting war that kills billions, of people, later.

Just because a person "deems it necessary" to commit mass murder, does not make them right.

Nor is it "cowardly" to criticise that person's actions, without ever having been in their place.

Most moral philosophers can be deemed "armchair moralists"- that doesn't make it inherently cowardly, to philosophise about morality.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Just because a person "deems it necessary" to commit mass murder, does not make them right.

Killing one person to save 10 isn't an immoral choice in itself.

Nor is murdering 1 person to save 10.

We are not in D&D morality cosmology, where "doing an act of evil for the greater good is still evil, because you let evil win the philosophical battle". There is no philosophical battle of Good Vs Evil, it's reality. Doing a bad thing for the greater good is a good act, always has been, always will be.

Murdering millions to save humanity is a good thing. Because you freaking SAVED HUMANITY.

And I call the Armchair Position a "Coward's position" in a general sense of the thing. People in forum/sport channels criticizing a coach's decision. People on economic forum making crazy criticism. Anything involved with politics. It's a rampant problem were people are very vocal about things they don't even want to dare take responsbilities about. They just thrive on negative cricitism, and they assume none of the risk.

[Tirian]

His position as mediator and benefactor are unchanged, except that his loyal, intelligent staff that helped him accomplish his goals are dead.

And he confesses to being half-mad and half-damned at the end. At the same time, the closing pages show that he is still capable of manipulating the world through cologne advertising.

I think that everybody was equally uneffective and unqualified to fairly judge the others. Rorschach was still trying to save the world by beating up purse snatchers, and while Adrian and The Comedian saw that the true threats were elsewhere they were still too small to untie that knot on their own. I think the real joke (as revealed by our history and the Black Freighter subplot) is that the world didn't need to be saved.

[Dienekes]

But doesn't that essentially mean you're not allowed to have an opinion on things, since you are never in the same situations as another individual. And how is defending said decisions any less armchair based? You did not kill anyone to save 10, how do you know it was moral or not?

[SolkaTruesilver]

(as hinted by our history and the Black Freighter subplot) is that the world didn't need to be saved.

Corrected that for you. Black Freighter subplot might be an interesting analogy, but it is far too remote in my taste to the situation.

Black Freighter's protagonist tried to take revenge on the destruction of his hometown after thinking that he had been too late. Ozymandia has never been too late.

[SolkaTruesilver]

But doesn't that essentially mean you're not allowed to have an opinion on things, since you are never in the same situations as another individual. And how is defending said decisions any less armchair based? You did not kill anyone to save 10, how do you know it was moral or not?

No. It essentially means that one should be careful about criticising decisions made by others while you were in not position to make decision yourself. It is not a complet discredit of the Armchair's position (because as I have hinted, some might be right). Just that it is a philosophically very weak position to be in, and that in the end, your opinion might be influenced by desiring to just criticise even more (political pundits are fans of those, which is why I never listen to any of them).

In the end, you are never satisfied with what happens. Nothing Ozymandia could have done be the right thing.

If Ozymandia had a plan that called for only 100 people killed (or even 0), but the fate of the world (complete safety/destruction) had been determined by a coin toss, would have it been a good choice?

I say no, personnaly. I consider the existence of humanity to be worth more than the lives of a million people. If you can improve the chances from 50% to 95% (arbitrary numbers) by taking a bloodier plan, than I say take that bloody plan. 45% of increased chance of humanity's survival is worth it. One cannot gamble with the fate of humanity.

[Dervag]

To me, there's no question that Ozy was evil and wrong, but still, I found him very sympathetic in his own way.

Yeah, that's true.

Or maybe even just to say: "I've had enough of your fear and beligerance. In six month's time, I'm going to emigrate to Mars. I suggest you start negotiating an arms reduction treaty".

If Manhatten leaving was enough to potentially provoke nuclear war, then presumably Manhatten threatening to leave would (or may) be enough to force people to find an alternative solution.

Yes. That's one of Dr. Manhattan's options (two "A"s in Manhattan), though; I was talking about Veidt's options.

So I have to ask, what is your threshold for absolutely knowing that nuclear war is imminent? How can you be absolutely certain short of a large chunk of the human race dying in a nuclear inferno?

There are certain signs that you expect to see in the run-up to a nuclear war: armies mobilizing, ambassadors talking a lot, that sort of thing. The stuff that happened in-story after Dr. Manhattan left Earth. If those things haven't happened yet, there is danger, but it is not imminent or very probable- the world has existed for decades with nuclear arsenals, and there is no reason to assume it can't exist for decades more. At least, nothing that justifies launching a massive destablizing strike that might make nuclear war impossible or might make it guaranteed.

Incidentally, this is a major flaw in Veidt's plan: if the psychic squid attack doesn't work and doesn't have the desired effect, or if world leaders are quicker to launch the missiles than Veidt expects, he has guaranteed a nuclear war. One caused directly by his plan to prevent nuclear war.

Maybe it's worth killing three million people to prevent a nuclear war killing everyone. But is it worth provoking a nuclear war (which Veidt does, by getting Dr. Manhattan's decision to leave Earth), and then killing three million people at the last minute in the hopes of averting the war you just lit the fuse on?

I understand having problems with the plan itself or how he went about it. I get that. But not believing that something had to be done? That's ridiculous.

The problem is the definition of "something." There are plenty of things Veidt could and should have been doing, but what he actually did wasn't one of them, because it was such a risky and unethical plan.

========

Being an armchair anything is a bad thing. You don't get any of the flak if what you propose is wrong, but you might get credit for calling (based on luck or not) the good calls. The thing is, you might get away with calling/predicting the most ludicrous possible things, you never have to live up with the consequence of your calls/predictions, and if you turn up being right, you get credit for it.

It's a coward position. You are safe in impotency. In having no responsibilities, no duties. Just a loud voice where you can try to bring down those who have power, responsibilities and duties.

Nonsense.

This is a fictional story. No one has any power to affect events in the story except the author, and even he can't change this one because he wrote it 25 years ago. We're all armchair somethings of one variety or another, simply by virtue of sitting around talking about the story to begin with. You have no call to criticize us from your armchair for expressing opinions from our armchairs.

The guy succeeded as best as he could have. He saved the world from itself. He saved the world from Dr. Manhattan's interference. He is still in position to do more good.

That's the trouble, though. Did he? Is he?

"Nothing ever ends," remember? Sure, he thinks his plan will save the world from itself, and from Dr. Manhattan's interference... is he right? Does he have enough evidence for his own rightness to justify his actions in all their horrible scope? Including the very real danger of setting off the very war he proposed to prevent?

[Dienekes]

No. It essentially means that one should be careful about criticising decisions made by others while you were in not position to make decision yourself. It is not a complet discredit of the Armchair's position (because as I have hinted, some might be right). Just that it is a philosophically very weak position to be in, and that in the end, your opinion might be influenced by desiring to just criticise even more (political pundits are fans of those, which is why I never listen to any of them).

Dude, you just criticized and judged an entire group of people after admitting to not paying attention to what they do or say anyway. How is that not a million ways against the arguments you're trying to make?

[hamishspence]

We are not in D&D morality cosmology, where "doing an act of evil for the greater good is still evil, because you let evil win the philosophical battle". There is no philosophical battle of Good Vs Evil, it's reality. Doing a bad thing for the greater good is a good act, always has been, always will be.

D&D morality isn't the only morality to subscribe to "no compromise over evil acts". Kantian, and Randian, two very different moralities- seem to agree on one thing- the dangers of compromising morality.

Not just that- but we aren't told whether Ozy did, in fact, save humanity from "imminent extinction"

[Randel]

My take on the situation:

Morality

Good and evil are relative terms and there is no single set of values by which all actions can be definitively measured. Weather of not someone is 'good' or 'evil' is largely depended on the observers point of view. That being said, while you may say that it was necessary for Ozymandius to kill a few million people to potentially maybe sort-of prevent billions from dying later due to nuclear bombardment then you are entitled to that opinion. The people who lost loved ones or were driven completly insane when a giant alien monster appeared and destroyed New York (or the whole city vanished into nothingness) would likely disagree. Rorschach may be completely insane and regularly kills, maims, and scares people... but at least he isn't powerful enough to destroy cities.


Rorschach

I kind of like him. Sure, he's completely insane, dangerously antisocial, violent with limited actual martial arts or detective training, and has serious problems making friends or interacting with people or society on any level... but they guy is a freaking superhero!

We are talking about the literal son of a prostitute who was treated like dirt by everyone in his life, who was able to get maybe one job helping work with fabric. Then he found that one of the women ordering a dress had been rape and murdered while her neighbors sat around and watched. He then proceeded to make a mask and go out beating the snot out of thugs to 'fight crime'.

He apparently didn't start killing people until that one case where the kidnapper killed the girl and fed her to his dogs. Then he murdered the **** and his dogs and burned the place to the ground. Personally, I consider that to be a good act (some people just deserve to die, no question about it).

He went on adventures, dealt with more crimminals (many of them put in jail, others brutally murdered in hilarious ways), and while his methods are abhorrent and his reasoning skills questionable... he was active enough to scare the stuffing out of crimminals.

As for his positive review of the Comedian: Rorschach didn't witness the rape and I don't know how rational he is but if people told him of the event he probably jotted it down somewhere to investigate after he was done stuffing child-molesters into woodchippers. Plus, The Comedian was a government agent and he probably figured that if the Government trusted him than he was at least playing on Team America. If the Government thought Comedian was too psychotic to be of use then they would have labeled him a crimminal and then Rorschach would have gone after him. Basically, Rorschach is nuts but he's kind of assuming that the Government or Society as whole knows if Comedian is more on the side of good than evil.

In short, I like Rorschach because he's a mentally maladjusted guy who grew up in the gutter and never got anything in the way of actual martial arts training, deductive reasoning, or psychotherapy... but is still able to kick ass and fight crime.

Batman inherited a vast fortune, a great education, and the genes of a renowned doctor and was able to buy the best training and gadgets in the world. Rorschach was the illegidamate child of a ***** who inheretied nothing, nada, and zilch aside from some serious brain problems, a twisted view of the world, and some really nasty emotional baggage. He started fighting crime because 'good' people were getting murdered by 'bad' people while all the other douchbags in the city were standing around watching.

So by all standards, Rorschach should have grown up to be a homeless drug addict who would likely have starved to death in the streets. The fact that he uncovered Ozys huge scheme and got Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and Doctor Manhattan over to Ozys secret base is like +1,000,000 points in his favor. He managed to do alot with his life despite having pretty much everything stacked against him. He took out crimminals both big and small while the police were either too incompatant to do so or society at large didn't seem to care. He even survived a prison where many of the inmates were big time crooks that he put there (apparantly they didn't get the memo that the only reason they are in jail now is that he started murdering crooks later on.)

So yeah, if Rorschach was a roleplaying character, he would have started character creation with crummy stats and a dozen flaws without anything in the way of real advantages... but managed to get into the mid levels dangerous enough to keep people scared and travel the world. That's awesome.


Ozymandius

Okay, Ozy is the self-proclaimed 'Smartest Man in the World' who gave away his inheretance so he could build it back with his own skills, became a superhero because he's really smart, hangs out on a team that includes Doctor Manhattan (who's basically GOD), and was able to build up a huge mega corporation with the industrial capacity to clone giant genetically engineered telepathic alien monsters, teleport them around, and broadcast tachyon particles, and has a whole slew of other stuff to make the money to pay for all this stuff.

And his "Master Plan" to save the world is to blow up New York.

O...kay.

Do you mean to tell me that the Smartest Man in the World never heard of bomb shelters? Or maybe space travel? Maybe... colonize Mars or something? Perhaps build some sort of missile defense program? Maybe even build a weird space base on the moon and declare himself Master of the Universe and try taking over the world from there. Heck, he could put on a silly mask and go pretty much anywhere out of the way and trick the various nations into lauching their nukes at Him instead of eachother and try slowing down their nuke program that way.

But no, Smartest Man in the World decides to blow up a city full of people and hopes that it will sort of kind of convince everyone that they are being invaded by giant squid monsters from the sixth dimension or an irate physical god or something and that will make everyone hold hands instead just going completly nuts.

Oh, and instead of convincing Doctor Manhattan (aka a physical god) that humans are pretty cool and that he can use his powers to spread life and terraform planets and spread 'quantum miracles' throughout the universe by making humans a spacefaring race... he gives all of Manhattans friends cancer and blames it on him and convinces him to retreat from humanity.


To put it simply, I dislike Ozymandius because he pretty much got straight 18's in all his startging stats and a whole bunch of bonuses... and got a whole massive amount of resources and the phone number of a bona fide physical god standing right next to him who is capable of doing anything and probably would go along with whatever plan he made... and just decided to screw everyone around him over and blow up a city on the off chance that it ends a cold war somehow.

Build a series of secret fallout shelters where people can stay an repopulate the earth on the offchance that morons blow it up? Nope, gotta drive Doctor Manhattan insane and blow up New York.

Get Doctor Manhattan to help with the teleporter thing and find a way to colonize Mars and build a perfectly functioning Utopia and turn the Cold War into a new Space Race? Nope, gotta drive Doctor Manhattan insane and blow up New York.

Ask Doctor Manhattan to duplicate himself so that both nations have one on their side to defend against missiles and provide all the awesome stuff that would help everyone? Nope, gotta drive Doctor Manhattan insane and blow up New York.

Build a secure nation state somewhere thats protected against missiles and let both sides know that if they nuke eachother that you can just swoop in and take over both their countries, decontaminate it with science, and rule over their land while ****ing on their graves because only stupid people blow themselves up? Nope, gotta drive Doctor Manhattan insane and blow up New York.

Ozymandius is basically the Lex Luthor to Doctor Manhattans Superman. Ozy has the brains and resources to save humanity if he actually wanted to. However, he really doesn't want to. He just wanted to shove Manhattan out of the way and do things 'his way' which sadly involved killing a whole lot of his own men and nuking innocents. All those people who worked on the genetic engineering, the machines, and other stuff that let Ozy blow up New York? Ozy killed them. Killing your own employees is a big red mark in my book. Ozy is a Bad Boss, that makes him Bad no matter how you look at it.


Yeah, I like Rorschach because he started with nothing, became something and while was pretty darn crazy he genuinely helped society by taking out a few nasty characters. Harassing people in bars? I don't drink, and the way I see it, if the cops aren't smart enough to figure out that Rorschach gets his 'info' by randomly harassing people in seedy bars... you'd think they would just keep an eye on the seedy bars.

I hate Ozy because he started with everything and did jack nothing with it. Yeah, there is the possibility that he may have averted global war or at least postponed it... or played a 'practical joke' (Wow, you saved the world by playing a practical joke? And that "joke" involves killing everyone in New York City? Gee Ozy, you're such a... Joker!). But honestly... with the resources at his disposal he really could have done any number of things that didn't involve backstabbing his friends, killing his employees, and murdering innocent bystanders.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Do you mean to tell me that the Smartest Man in the World never heard of bomb shelters? Or maybe space travel? Maybe... colonize Mars or something? Perhaps build some sort of missile defense program? Maybe even build a weird space base on the moon and declare himself Master of the Universe and try taking over the world from there. Heck, he could put on a silly mask and go pretty much anywhere out of the way and trick the various nations into lauching their nukes at Him instead of eachother and try slowing down their nuke program that way.

I will reply to the rest of your post later, but just nitpicking..

1) You don't survive nuclear warfare. You just don't. It's a silly notion that people have that you might be able to survive the blasts, but what comes after (cancer, nuclear winter, irradiated lands) will kill whatever comes therafter. Nothing will grow on the earth for years, natural widlife will grow quickly extinct.

there is no "after the end". The world is crippled beyond life-bearing capabilities for centuries, the end. Even here in Quebec, where I doubt very much we will be the target of a nuke, and the radiated winds probably won't touch us, still will starve to death because of the 14 degree drop in global temperature.

2) What you call for (space travel, etc...) is running away. Ozymandia tried to save what is, not have a cradle for mankind to survive. There is the whole cultural existence of humanity that you might want to preserve (which is also a worthy goal). Nuclear warfare will wipe many of these things too. Not to forget the ecosystem. I am sorry if I sound pessimist, but I doubt very much space colonies have any change of survival in the first century without constant support from Earth. Specially with 80's tech level.

[Tyrant]

My take on the situation:Yeah, I like Rorschach because he started with nothing, became something and while was pretty darn crazy he genuinely helped society by taking out a few nasty characters. Harassing people in bars? I don't drink, and the way I see it, if the cops aren't smart enough to figure out that Rorschach gets his 'info' by randomly harassing people in seedy bars... you'd think they would just keep an eye on the seedy bars.

The only thing Rorschach became was a public menace. I've seen people go on and on about how Ozy doesn't have the right to make the decisions he made. Who gave Rorschach the right to go around brutalising anyone he deems "evil"? Rorschach kills people he believes are too evil to live and beats up anyone he deems necessary in his pursuit to save the few he believes are worth saving. That's a menace not a hero. Or, if you consider that heroic, how is Ozy different beyond a matter of scale? The main difference is Ozy believes humanity in general is worth trying to save and if the cost is a relatively (relative as in 3 million vs several billion) few have to die then so be it. I think you could almost make the argument that Rorschach's final breakdown/death wish at the end is because Ozy illustrated what his (Rorschach's) philosophy looks like on a grand scale.

I hate Ozy because he started with everything and did jack nothing with it. Yeah, there is the possibility that he may have averted global war or at least postponed it... or played a 'practical joke' (Wow, you saved the world by playing a practical joke? And that "joke" involves killing everyone in New York City? Gee Ozy, you're such a... Joker!). But honestly... with the resources at his disposal he really could have done any number of things that didn't involve backstabbing his friends, killing his employees, and murdering innocent bystanders.

What he did was far from "jack nothing". He attempted to save the world. To actually save the entire world, not just the back alleys of New York city. To actually change the self destructive ways of humanity and end the disease instead of wasting his life fighting the symptoms (like crime). I'm afraid I'm going to have to give him just a little bit more credit than a guy who thinks the world will be saved by beating up people in bars.

2) What you call for (space travel, etc...) is running away. Ozymandia tried to save what is, not have a cradle for mankind to survive. There is the whole cultural existence of humanity that you might want to preserve (which is also a worthy goal). Nuclear warfare will wipe many of these things too. Not to forget the ecosystem. I am sorry if I sound pessimist, but I doubt very much space colonies have any change of survival in the first century without constant support from Earth. Specially with 80's tech level.

To somewhat expand on that, his plan wasn't just to stop the nuclear war but to end the war mentality so that the world would actually be a better place. He wasn't trying to save it for people to just blow it up later. He was hoping that humanity would realise that they could actually be helping each other and overall improving themselves instead of pouring endless resources into "defense" and living their lives paranoid that the two super powers will nuke the planet into oblivion at any moment. Running away would likely have never been seriously considered by him.

[BRC]

In my opinion, Rorschach is so popular because he is what we have come to expect in a super hero. Comic Books are full of vigilantes going and beating up criminals, Rorschach was supposed to show the type of person who would actually go and do that, somebody scary and very sick. We've been told by countless stories and comics books, everything from Robin Hood to Batman, that a violent person working outside the law to do what they feel is right is a good thing, and even though Rorschach shows the darker side of that, it still carries over.
In addition, Rorschach shows a train most of us actually admire, determination. Nobody likes compromising their principles or changing their viewpoints. We do it all the time because it's the only realistic way to live, but we don't like admitting we're wrong. Rorshach refuses to admit he's wrong, he refuses to compromise on anything. Now, as the Comic shows, that's not a good thing, but there is a part of the human mind that admires him.

[Randel]

The only thing Rorschach became was a public menace. I've seen people go on and on about how Ozy doesn't have the right to make the decisions he made. Who gave Rorschach the right to go around brutalising anyone he deems "evil"? Rorschach kills people he believes are too evil to live and beats up anyone he deems necessary in his pursuit to save the few he believes are worth saving. That's a menace not a hero. Or, if you consider that heroic, how is Ozy different beyond a matter of scale? The main difference is Ozy believes humanity in general is worth trying to save and if the cost is a relatively (relative as in 3 million vs several billion) few have to die then so be it. I think you could almost make the argument that Rorschach's final breakdown/death wish at the end is because Ozy illustrated what his (Rorschach's) philosophy looks like on a grand scale.

To clarify: He started out with nothing in the way of resources and with a few metric tons of psychosis and through sheer will and luck became a man capable of instilling fear in the criminal world. If his life had turned out any differently then he would have been just another homeless bum dying in the gutter. He became something more than just a crazy bum in the gutter. I admire that.

He killed that guy who murdered a little girl, that's good.
He threw that masochist guy down an elevator shaft... that's not really good in any sense of the word unless you subscribe to the theory that stupid people who get off on getting beaten up by unstable vigilantes in public shouldn't be surprised if they die horribly when they run into real crazy ones.
He killed four prison inmates who were trying to kill him, thats good both as self-defense and because these guys were obviously murderers. Decent prison inmates would have stood off to the side and not antagonized him and would likely not have died horribly at his hand.

The guys hanging around bars while he's interrogating them... okay, those guys were probably just trying to enjoy their drinks and him brutalizing them was a jerk move. But considering that the cops didn't figure out that brutalizing guys in seedy bars is Rorschach's M.O. and take adaquate measures to catch him the next time he shows up then what the hell. That's him being a maladjusted person vainly trying to get some info on how to stop evil using the only tool he has at his disposal.

He's a maladjusted sociopath who sees the world in black and white with practically no money and maybe one friend in the world and he still manages take out major crime bosses with pure crazy. I admire that. If he was sane, I'm pretty sure he would have changed his attitude to be a more admirable person. If he had gotten a psychiatrist before he found out a little girl had gotten fed to dogs then he likely wouldn't have gone totally off the deep end.

When he came back to his apartment after escaping prison to get his spare stuff and confronted the landlady who had lied about him raping her. He got a bit angry but upon seeing her children turned around and walked away. He does know about good and evil even if he doesn't have the mental resources to entirely distinguish the two and properly compromise between them.

But still, he actually does something about it all with the resources at his disposal. He is a dangerous nutcase who really should have been locked in a mental institution or in jail. He did get locked up, and it was awesome. Even in jail he was taking out bad guys because he wasn't locked up with them... they were locked up with him. Rorschach is bad-ass, and I admire that.

What he did was far from "jack nothing". He attempted to save the world. To actually save the entire world, not just the back alleys of New York city. To actually change the self destructive ways of humanity and end the disease instead of wasting his life fighting the symptoms (like crime). I'm afraid I'm going to have to give him just a little bit more credit than a guy who thinks the world will be saved by beating up people in bars.

You know who else wanted to change the self-destructive ways of humanity and wasn't afraid to sacrifice a "few" innocent people to do so?

One guess.

Okay, two.

He had power, and he used it to kill innocent people "for the greater good". That's Evil! I do not admire that. If you admire that then okay, that's your right... I suppose.


Rorschach is one guy who punches people in the face if they look like criminals. He maybe killed like.... 200 people tops if he was really really busy during his entire career.

Ozymandius is a multi-billionaire super genius who has people assassinated, poisoned, thrown out of windows, or obliterated using weird alien super-weapon things... if they are in the way of his precious plan. He killed millions of people including his own employees and a city full of innocent bystanders.

Rorschach is a glorified street thug who can be tossed in jail because he's crazy.

Ozy is carrying the power normally reserved for the leaders of entire nations. Nobody voted for him, nobody can really stop him, and he certainly doesn't seem to answer to anybody.

I like Rorschach because he's a lone guy who targets criminals as best he can and is pretty badass about it. He can't save the world by fighting street thugs but then again he can't destroy it either.

I hate Ozy because he's a megalomaniac chessmaster who toys with peoples lives and is totally willing to sacrifice large numbers of people for his plans. He really can destroy the world if he messes up due to all the crazy stuff he's making.

And this:
If Ozymandius was real, he would be perfectly willing to destroy your life and your family and your whole freaking hometown on the off chance that it prevents the world leaders from nuking the planet. And he would get away with it. Does that sound like a person that you should find sympathetic in any way?

If Rorschach was real... he'd kill a few pimps and crime bosses in downtown New York or maybe your hometown. And he might beat you up a bit for information if you frequent seedy bars. But he can still get tossed into jail when the cops find him.

So yeah, neither of them are actually admirable in a truly good sense... but Rorschach is less dangerous to the world at large. And I admire that.

[Matar]

I don’t understand why people say that Rorschach never compromises, he DID. Rorschach has no problem about the Comedian because “he serves his country”. Yhea, a attempt-rapist, murderer, child/mother killer, is okay because he does the governement’s dirty work?

Just stopping by to ask/make a point about something.

Did Rorschach even know about the rape? If so, did he have any reason to believe it? I mean, think about. I mean, think about it. Rorschach wasn't there to see what went on, but we were.

Think about it. Some chick who dresses up in skimpy clothing accuses a "Hero" of trying to rape her, but never does anything about it. Said women then goes right around and sleeps with the guy willingly. Said women no longer cries "He tried to rape me!" and basically doesn't care anymore. Her daughter, who wasn't there, backs it up though and is all pissed about it.

Of course the Comedian -did- try to rape her, but Christ. The only reason we know that is because we saw it! I don't see why anyone would think that he tried something like that given everything else that's happened.

Or maybe my memory is all fuzzy.

[Tyrant]

Response to Randel spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Show

To clarify: He started out with nothing in the way of resources and with a few metric tons of psychosis and through sheer will and luck became a man capable of instilling fear in the criminal world. If his life had turned out any differently then he would have been just another homeless bum dying in the gutter. He became something more than just a crazy bum in the gutter. I admire that.

He's a crazy bum in the gutter who brutalizes and murders the people he believes are evil (aka, most of the people out there) and those who he thinks have information. That is not admirable.

He killed that guy who murdered a little girl, that's good.

I can't take you seriously if you complain about Ozy being above the system yet champion Rorschach for taking the law into his own hands.

The guys hanging around bars while he's interrogating them... okay, those guys were probably just trying to enjoy their drinks and him brutalizing them was a jerk move.

So unprovoked assault meant to gather information is only a jerk move now? It's called torture the last time I checked. As for "seedy bars", what makes one bar seedy and another not seedy? Do we really know if Rorschach even makes such a disctinction? I can easily see him thinking all bars are dens of sin and thus fair game.

But considering that the cops didn't figure out that brutalizing guys in seedy bars is Rorschach's M.O. and take adaquate measures to catch him the next time he shows up then what the hell. That's him being a maladjusted person vainly trying to get some info on how to stop evil using the only tool he has at his disposal.

So it's the cop's fault?

Also, "using the only tool at his disposal"? Ozy used his primary tool, his mind, to figure out a way to save the world and he uses the plan he believes most likely to work and you are ready to burn him. I truly think, the way you view Rorschach can be applied to Ozy and the only true difference is the scale.

He's a maladjusted sociopath who sees the world in black and white with practically no money and maybe one friend in the world and he still manages take out major crime bosses with pure crazy. I admire that. If he was sane, I'm pretty sure he would have changed his attitude to be a more admirable person. If he had gotten a psychiatrist before he found out a little girl had gotten fed to dogs then he likely wouldn't have gone totally off the deep end.

When he came back to his apartment after escaping prison to get his spare stuff and confronted the landlady who had lied about him raping her. He got a bit angry but upon seeing her children turned around and walked away. He does know about good and evil even if he doesn't have the mental resources to entirely distinguish the two and properly compromise between them.

But still, he actually does something about it all with the resources at his disposal. He is a dangerous nutcase who really should have been locked in a mental institution or in jail. He did get locked up, and it was awesome. Even in jail he was taking out bad guys because he wasn't locked up with them... they were locked up with him. Rorschach is bad-ass, and I admire that.

So you admire a violent crazy man, because he's a violent crazy man?

You know who else wanted to change the self-destructive ways of humanity and wasn't afraid to sacrifice a "few" innocent people to do so?

One guess.

Okay, two.

I'll never claim to be an expert on the first of those two, but I don't believe they were out to end the destructive impulses of humanity with the death of those they killed. The second killed convicted criminals in the pursuit of his goal. They weren't innocent and they're just the type of people Rorschach would also kill so I am puzzled why you have a problem with him.

He had power, and he used it to kill innocent people "for the greater good". That's Evil! I do not admire that. If you admire that then okay, that's your right... I suppose.

So, killing thugs and those you think are evil with your bare hands/whatever impliment is on hand is okay but killing people to try to achieve world peace isn't? Selfish and using no real planning is good while having a plan that possibly benefits the world and using your brains is bad. I'll keep that in mind.

Rorschach is one guy who punches people in the face if they look like criminals. He maybe killed like.... 200 people tops if he was really really busy during his entire career.

This reinforces my view that your problem is the scale of their respecitve actions more than anything since you are basically okay with one of them having killed, by your estimate, 200 people who looked at him funny.

I like Rorschach because he's a lone guy who targets criminals as best he can and is pretty badass about it. He can't save the world by fighting street thugs but then again he can't destroy it either.

So you like him because he is, at best, a public menace? If that isn't a ringing endorsement then I don't know what is.

And this:
If Ozymandius was real, he would be perfectly willing to destroy your life and your family and your whole freaking hometown on the off chance that it prevents the world leaders from nuking the planet. And he would get away with it. Does that sound like a person that you should find sympathetic in any way?

Off chance? He didn't do it on a whim. It sounded to me like it was the plan with the best chance of success. I feel sympathy for him because the only other one of his associates who saw the true the problem, that still had more than a shred of humanity, was revelling in the fact humanity was likely going to nuke itself and basically thought it was all a big cosmic joke. All while his other associates were either clearly crazy (Rorschach) or had given up trying to do the little they had been doing (Dan, Laurie).

If Rorschach was real... he'd kill a few pimps and crime bosses in downtown New York or maybe your hometown. And he might beat you up a bit for information if you frequent seedy bars. But he can still get tossed into jail when the cops find him.

So, again, you're fine with a guy who breaks all kinds of laws so long as he does it on a local level for a vaguely definable goal but the guy who kills a lot of people with the legitamate hope of saving the world is a villain?

[reorith]

shamus young spelled hypocrite incorrectly, his point is now invalid.

[Lord of Rapture]

shamus young spelled hypocrite incorrectly, his point is now invalid.

Either my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, or you're serious.

I hope you're not serious.

[hamishspence]

1) You don't survive nuclear warfare. You just don't. It's a silly notion that people have that you might be able to survive the blasts, but what comes after (cancer, nuclear winter, irradiated lands) will kill whatever comes therafter. Nothing will grow on the earth for years, natural widlife will grow quickly extinct.

there is no "after the end". The world is crippled beyond life-bearing capabilities for centuries, the end. Even here in Quebec, where I doubt very much we will be the target of a nuke, and the radiated winds probably won't touch us, still will starve to death because of the 14 degree drop in global temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Apparently not everyone thinks the same way about this.

There have been far more catastrophic disasters in the past history of the planet.

[Freshmeat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Apparently not everyone thinks the same way about this.

There have been far more catastrophic disasters in the past history of the planet.

The article claims that the results of nuclear war are worse than previously thought, and that most of the Earth's population would die from starvation. Oh, and they based their assumptions on nuclear stockpiles one third the size of the actual stockpiles during the Cold War.

That's not something to scoff at in a "we've had worse!" manner.

[SolkaTruesilver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Apparently not everyone thinks the same way about this.

There have been far more catastrophic disasters in the past history of the planet.

Have we read the same article? It says, black on white, that a REGIONALISED nuclear conflict involving merely 50x Hiroshima-class bombs (15 KT each) would cause catastrophic consequences. It would lower the temperature of several degree, making agriculture extremely hard in all farmland of the world, causing severe world hunger.

As nukes are now built with a MEGATON scale, I think your argument is full of it.

[Freshmeat]

Maybe it's worth killing three million people to prevent a nuclear war killing everyone. But is it worth provoking a nuclear war (which Veidt does, by getting Dr. Manhattan's decision to leave Earth), and then killing three million people at the last minute in the hopes of averting the war you just lit the fuse on?

An interesting notion, and one which wasn't brought up until now.
I think one needs to view the bar scene in Vietnam here for parrallels. When the Vietnamese woman attacked The Comedian and the Comedian shot her in retaliation, Manhattan didn't stop either of them. He just stood by and let it happen. Later in the story he claims that there is no structural difference between a live body and a dead one, so it doesn't matter if people live or die.

As the Comedian stated, Manhattan was drifting out of touch. I feel that, sooner or later, Manhattan was probably going to leave anyway. Or, failing that, simply refuse to interfere in military matters. If Veidt could figure out something of the sort, it's not a stretch to imagine the USSR might eventually learn as well that Manhattan is not a foolproof defense system. He too has flaws - namely that he doesn't care about humans at all and will probably just stand by and watch as one nation destroys another, and probably even eachother.

Consider Veidt's radioactivity plan. With such relative ease, Veidt got Manhattan to leave, even though the good doctor had already theorized earlier that the reason he can no longer look into the future might be because of an impending nuclear disaster... and then he allows himself to become the catalyst to such a potential nuclear war just so he can look at pictures on Mars. Thanks for caring, Manhattan.
Yeah, I'd say he was drifting out of touch pretty badly indeed.

Since Manhattan was caring less and less about people, as evidenced in his failing romantic life, it becomes increasingly likely that at one point he would leave anyway. So it seems logical to have him leave on your terms, rather than leave it all up to chance. Is it still a leap of faith on Veidt's part? I suppose. But it does explain why Veidt would think of a solution to Manhattan's absence when he actually caused said absence, something which on the surface seems to make no sense at all.

That being said, while you may say that it was necessary for Ozymandius to kill a few million people to potentially maybe sort-of prevent billions from dying later due to nuclear bombardment then you are entitled to that opinion. The people who lost loved ones or were driven completly insane when a giant alien monster appeared and destroyed New York (or the whole city vanished into nothingness) would likely disagree.

To put it bluntly - from a moral perspective, heavily biased opinions are rarely a good reference point of what's right and wrong. Most criminals disagree with being jailed. Most citizens disagree with having to pay taxes. I disagree with getting a parking ticket. Yet if something is necessary, personal desires become irrelevant. Whether the New York massacre was necessary is basically the point of contention, and after seven pages I'm inclined to say it's just a matter where people have to agree to disagree.


Concerning Veidt as a character, I get the impression his motivations and attitude are the subject of at least some flanderization. I felt that he was perhaps a little smug, but by no means "highly arrogant". Nor do I feel he is completely insane, that he wants to blows up New York and establish peace between the USSR and USA only so that he can rule the world by himself or that he actually just wants to accomplish something great and honestly doesn't care about world peace. Don't get me started on the notion that he settled on a plan that involved killing millions because it involved killing millions. Yet all of those have been claimed earlier in this thread. Alternate character interpretation indeed.

You know who else wanted to change the self-destructive ways of humanity and wasn't afraid to sacrifice a "few" innocent people to do so?

One guess.

Okay, two.

Misinterpretations of historical motivations aside, this is still a case of Hitler Ate Sugar.

Ozy is carrying the power normally reserved for the leaders of entire nations. Nobody voted for him, nobody can really stop him, and he certainly doesn't seem to answer to anybody.

Therefore he's evil by default?

[SolkaTruesilver]

To clarify: He started out with nothing in the way of resources and with a few metric tons of psychosis and through sheer will and luck became a man capable of instilling fear in the criminal world. If his life had turned out any differently then he would have been just another homeless bum dying in the gutter. He became something more than just a crazy bum in the gutter. I admire that.

Wrong. He doesn't inspire fear, he inspire resentment. Show me one point, except Rorshach's raving self-monologue, where it is shown that criminals are afraid of him. Hell, some top-knot were ready to go after what they though was his FRIEND for getting out of jail.

And as far as I could see, Rorshach haven't solved any problem in New York by beating people up. Criminality is still rampant. I think you make a very common mistake in your conceptualisation of crime-solving, let me spell out the reality for you:

You cannot solve social and criminal problem by beating people up or killing them.

The guys hanging around bars while he's interrogating them... okay, those guys were probably just trying to enjoy their drinks and him brutalizing them was a jerk move. But considering that the cops didn't figure out that brutalizing guys in seedy bars is Rorschach's M.O. and take adaquate measures to catch him the next time he shows up then what the hell. That's him being a maladjusted person vainly trying to get some info on how to stop evil using the only tool he has at his disposal.

What. the. hell?

You just shifted Rorschach's blame on the police for not catching him? Are you serious? You think that Rorschach is blameless because the police is not guarding every single shady bar of New York + suburb, every single night?

Edited to prevent scrubbing

He's a maladjusted sociopath who sees the world in black and white with practically no money and maybe one friend in the world and he still manages take out major crime bosses with pure crazy. I admire that.

And yet, it solves no problem. You take out one mob boss, another takes his place. Drug is still in the steel, prostitution is still rampant. It do no good. It just make him feel better about it, by channeling his violent pulsions.

But still, he actually does something about it all with the resources at his disposal. He is a dangerous nutcase who really should have been locked in a mental institution or in jail. He did get locked up, and it was awesome. Even in jail he was taking out bad guys because he wasn't locked up with them... they were locked up with him. Rorschach is bad-ass, and I admire that.

So it all comes out to being a badass? It's not about morality, but about how impressive you are when breaking people's jaw, eh?

Funny you don't admire Green Goblin more, then.

You know who else wanted to change the self-destructive ways of humanity and wasn't afraid to sacrifice a "few" innocent people to do so?

One guess.

Hummm... no. I really don't see the parallel you are drawing, because it's nonesense. One party tried to impose it's will on Europe by force and domination. The other party tried to make people stop fighting.

Ozymandius is a multi-billionaire super genius who has people assassinated, poisoned, thrown out of windows, or obliterated using weird alien super-weapon things... if they are in the way of his precious plan. He killed millions of people including his own employees and a city full of innocent bystanders.

And Rorschach thrown people out of elevators, electrocuted, has assassinated people himself. He tortures innocent bystanders to get information.

It's all a matter of scale.

Ozy is carrying the power normally reserved for the leaders of entire nations. Nobody voted for him, nobody can really stop him, and he certainly doesn't seem to answer to anybody.

I really don't see the point that "people have voted for you" to be a good justification for world annihilation. U.S. government and USSR government were ready to destroy the world. What entitled them to? Because "people voted for them"?

For me, the different Governments were the real criminals. They were the one who were willing to risk the world's fate. This is the outcome they were hoping to achieve: Option A: Everybody dies. Option B: everybody dies but us.

Who voted for the U.S. to destroy the world?

I hate Ozy because he's a megalomaniac chessmaster who toys with peoples lives and is totally willing to sacrifice large numbers of people for his plans. He really can destroy the world if he messes up due to all the crazy stuff he's making.

I think between the parties that have the power to destroy the world, Ozymandia is the one least probably to do so. Hell, Ozymandia is probably the one that would care the most about the global population's warfare. All other other parties involved are sorely self-interested, which cause the problems in the first place.

If Rorschach was real... he'd kill a few pimps and crime bosses in downtown New York or maybe your hometown. And he might beat you up a bit for information if you frequent seedy bars. But he can still get tossed into jail when the cops find him.

Yhea, he'd do that. But crime and prostitution would still happen just as much. He'd merely be adding more blood on the street to cover the filth.

[hamishspence]

Have we read the same article? It says, black on white, that a REGIONALISED nuclear conflict involving merely 50x Hiroshima-class bombs (15 KT each) would cause catastrophic consequences. It would lower the temperature of several degree, making agriculture extremely hard in all farmland of the world, causing severe world hunger.

As nukes are now built with a MEGATON scale, I think your argument is full of it.

The original work by Sagan and others was criticized as a "myth" and "discredited theory" in the 1987 book Nuclear War Survival Skills, a civil defense manual by Cresson Kearny for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Kearny said the maximum estimated temperature drop would be only about by 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and that this amount of cooling would last only a few days. He also suggested that a global nuclear war would indeed result in millions of deaths from hunger, but primarily due to cessation of international food supplies, rather than due to climate changes.

They could be wrong- but its clear there is some disagreement on this subject.

And the argument I am disputing is this:

1) You don't survive nuclear warfare. You just don't. It's a silly notion that people have that you might be able to survive the blasts, but what comes after (cancer, nuclear winter, irradiated lands) will kill whatever comes therafter. Nothing will grow on the earth for years, natural widlife will grow quickly extinct.

Natural wildlife survived the K.T event, and the end-Permian extinction.

I wonder how "nuclear winter" stacks up next to those?

[SolkaTruesilver]

They could be wrong- but its clear there is some disagreement on this subject.

No

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers

Claiming that a 1986 report rejects the findings of a 2006 research shows a... err... confusion about your mental capabilities.

[hamishspence]

I'm not criticising the notion of nuclear winter, but the notion that it would wipe out all life on the planet.

The 1987 report disputed a previous one (1982)- has anyone provided a rebuttal to the 1987 one?

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm not criticising the notion of nuclear winter, but the notion that it would wipe out all life on the planet.

The 1987 report disputed a previous one (1982)- has anyone provided a rebuttal to the 1987 one?

I'd rather go for a study done on nuclear war consequence done in the last 10 years, where research teams are less likely to be influenced by political reasons.

Less than 5 years is also better.

[hamishspence]

Concerning the suggestion that Ozymandias was "flanderized" by the posters here, it is interesting to see the point of view of the artists and writers.

For example:

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/10...-interview.php

There is a moral ambiguity at the end of Watchmen, a choice one of the main characters makes to sacrifice a few million lives to save the world. I’d like to know what is Dave Gibbons’ opinion on that choice? Was that character right or wrong? Did he really want to save the world, or was he just serving his own ego?

Dave Gibbons: So you want me to make it unambiguous?

Well, I think we deliberately left it ambiguous. There are arguments on both sides. Often, very hard decisions have to be made in the real world.

I don’t know that I would want to interfere in the free-running nature of the universe by doing what Adrian Veidt did. I think you could see that it was an evil thing to do and maybe a patronizing thing to do. I think that probably is one of the worst of his sins, that it’s kind of looking down on the rest of humanity, scorning the rest of humanity. I think for that reason that Rorschach, by persisting in his single-minded devotion to what he sees as the truth is, by Adrian’s actions, actually painted in a very human manner. At the end of it, your loyalty lies very much with this very flawed, psychopathic human being who knows his faults, who knows the faults of the rest of humanity, rather than somebody like Adrian, who considers himself to be above humanity and who has taken a rather cold and calculating view of everything.

So, from the heart, I would say that Adrian was wrong. And I think he really wanted to save the world, but the problem with people of ego is their ego can’t see their ego.

[SolkaTruesilver]

He might be looking down on humanity, but he nevertheless tries to save it against itself. It's like saying that restraining a child for his own safety is bad because you "look down on it".

In Watchmenverse, humanity had to be slapped on the wrist to prevent itself to play with gasoline. And the slapper gets the bad press because of it.