I always felt like, if Bruce Wayne were Lawful Good, he'd use the billions required to be Batman to create jobs, decrease poverty, invest in the government to increase police wages as to reduce corruption and use his influence as head of the largest Gotham corporation to make life better for all his employees. Not dress up like a bat to go outside the law and lay the smackdown on every bad guy he comes across.
He might have a code, but so did Robin Hood and he's the poster boy for Chaotic Good.
For Batman, the law and the system are only good for him in so far as they serve the good of the people. When the law is ineffective, he will completely disregard it and do things himself. When law gains traction and serves the good of the people, he will generally support it while preserving his flexibility to later go outside the law again as needed. At the end of the day, I see him as neutral good because the system and law is completely subordinate to doing what he thinks is good and he will disregard it or embrace to the extent it serves that end.
That would make him lawful no? because he seeks to institute a lawful system.
No. That is the 2e definition of neutral good. Disregard the law and the system of society when you believe it is to the good of the people and embrace it when you think it is to the good of the people. Where the law and the system are just tools to achieving a greater end (good) and can be wantonly disregarded or embraced at will, that isn't lawful good. That is neutral good.
If he were neutral, he wouldn't care if there was a lawful/systematic system or not, so long as things worked and people could have a good life.
I absolutely think his character would be fine if there was no lawful system so long as things worked and people could have a good life. He embraces a working lawful society because it is a means of combating the evil he sees in the world and he rejects a lawful society where he thinks it is corrupt, ineffective, etc. He wants a society where the innocent are not abused and depending on the effectiveness of the societal structure he will embrace law and order or completely disregard it. That is why he is quite content to lie about Dent's legacy but Gordon is torn up by the dishonesty.
Batman sees the value of a legal system and seeks to implement a functioning one, this screams lawful to me.
What do you think a neutral good person who saw the value of a legal system as a means of protecting the innocent would do? They would promote it every bit as much as grass roots efforts (like Wayne's investments in children's homes, etc. and other ad hoc charities and causes). They would likewise completely disregard "law and order" when they thought it wasn't worthwhile.
The defining characteristic of a strong lawful bent is the person who at the end of the day is willing to make the hard choice and let the bad guy walk when the search warrant wasn't legally administered. The reason you do that is because you believe in the system and the system requires the warrant to be issued in a certain way. You see that the reason it has to be issues in that way is to provide procedural due process guaranteed by the constitution and believe that people have those constitutional rights and that while the system will get some wrong (for example, a jury may acquit a guilty person or convict an innocent person) the value in supporting that system over the long run outweighs the countervailing interest in a particular case. It doesn't mean that a person won't give into an impulse on occasion and deviate from this - but it means that when the person carefully examines their values this is the choice they will make over the long term. If the choice is to instead throw on a cape and bust the bad guy up, then there is some motive that wins out over belief in a 2e lawful society. For Batman, it seems to me that he has no qualms whatsoever about going after people that the system misses and that he in fact embraces that role. His willingness to disregard the law when it is ineffective, corrupt, etc. screams neutral good to me.
I always felt like, if Bruce Wayne were Lawful Good, he'd use the billions required to be Batman to create jobs, decrease poverty, invest in the government to increase police wages as to reduce corruption and use his influence as head of the largest Gotham corporation to make life better for all his employees. Not dress up like a bat to go outside the law and lay the smackdown on every bad guy he comes across.
but he DOES do that, he even tried to help rehabilitate a number of criminals by giving them jobs and aiding them in fitting back into society. ie puppetmaster, twoface, clayface.
Course, they all went back to their old ways, but the points is he tried.
I think Anomen's subplot in BG2 is a very good example of what is expected of certain alignments.
*** MAJOR SPOILERS ***
In order for Anomen to become lawful good (and thus gain acceptance into the Order of Radiant Heart) he must refuse all temptations to kill the murderers of his family, and allow the law to apprehend them and prosecute them legally. If at any point, Anomen departs from this and takes revenge on the murderers, his efforts to become lawful good will come undone. He will ultimately either become chaotic neutral (and then flip out on party members for no reason), or he will even kill himself.
Right, but batman doesn't kill either and in the red hood saga he explicitly states that he doesn't do so because that would be the path to losing himself/no return. ie he sees this code as fundamentally important, this is extremely lawful. it's his personal law which holds as a part of himself and does not deviate from. Whereas chaotic good, while does not like killing in cold blood, would probably kill someone who he thought deserved it, they dont see code/rules/laws as being a fundamental aspect of doing good, wheras batman sees on a fundamental scale, the code (his code) to be integral to doing good. Furthermore when he DID have a chance to kill Frost, he didn't. This all points to him being lawful, by your criteria (and mine too).
No. That is the 2e definition of neutral good. Disregard the law and the system of society when you believe it is to the good of the people and embrace it when you think it is to the good of the people. Where the law and the system are just tools to achieving a greater end (good) and can be wantonly disregarded or embraced at will, that isn't lawful good. That is neutral good.
Sure, i'll agree that batman breaking the law of vigilatism isn't lawful in itself, but we've talked to death about lawful characters breaking the law no? They can break laws for the good of society, towards the purpose of thus reforming the society towards a better lawful system. In the end, batman wants a functionaling lawful system, his recognition that law is fundamental to good makes him lawful. If he were neutral a balance between law(order/rules) and chaos(ambiguity in the law) would be what he sees as best, or alternatively, he would not see the law as fundamental to good. All things in consideration, his scale is definitely heavier on the law side.
Course, makes him a hypocrite, but all superheros are.
I absolutely think his character would be fine if there was no lawful system so long as things worked and people could have a good life. He embraces a working lawful society because it is a means of combating the evil he sees in the world and he rejects a lawful society where he thinks it is corrupt, ineffective, etc. He wants a society where the innocent are not abused and depending on the effectiveness of the societal structure he will embrace law and order or completely disregard it. That is why he is quite content to lie about Dent's legacy but Gordon is torn up by the dishonesty.
He rejects the corrupt lawful society but seeks to replace it with a non-corrupt lawful society. keyword is lawful.
In terms of the movie, i'd say Gordon is torn up more over the fact that batman is becoming a scapegoat and will be hated when he's actually innoccent, not because he had to tell a fib in itself. hell, hes co-operating with a vigilante, a criminal, thats a way bigger crime anyway, but would that make him chaotic? no, he's still pretty much on the lawful side, based on everything else. In the same vein, batman is also lawful.
I do agree there are aspects which reflect him being neutral good and chaotic, but overall he's still lawful good. Just like how robin hood had a sense of honour (sometimes), still didn't make him lawful.
What do you think a neutral good person who saw the value of a legal system as a means of protecting the innocent would do? They would promote it every bit as much as grass roots efforts (like Wayne's investments in children's homes, etc. and other ad hoc charities and causes). They would likewise completely disregard "law and order" when they thought it wasn't worthwhile.
A neutral good person sees law as a means of ensuring good (eg other things can work, and you can have a good society without laws), lawful sees it as fundamental to it being good. Do you think batman is the former or the latter? Im basing this on the entirety of his characterisation, not just the movies.
to tl;dr that particular point
lawful good: law is necessary for a good society neutral good: Whatever makes a good society is fine chaotic good: law inevitably leads to evil/corruption or otherwise prevents good from being done. freedom ensures/facilitates goodness
Batman would be lawful good.
The defining characteristic of a strong lawful bent is the person who at the end of the day is willing to make the hard choice and let the bad guy walk when the search warrant wasn't legally administered. The reason you do that is because you believe in the system and the system requires the warrant to be issued in a certain way. You see that the reason it has to be issues in that way is to provide procedural due process guaranteed by the constitution and believe that people have those constitutional rights and that while the system will get some wrong (for example, a jury may acquit a guilty person or convict an innocent person) the value in supporting that system over the long run outweighs the countervailing interest in a particular case. It doesn't mean that a person won't give into an impulse on occasion and deviate from this - but it means that when the person carefully examines their values this is the choice they will make over the long term. If the choice is to instead throw on a cape and bust the bad guy up, then there is some motive that wins out over belief in a 2e lawful society. For Batman, it seems to me that he has no qualms whatsoever about going after people that the system misses and that he in fact embraces that role. His willingness to disregard the law when it is ineffective, corrupt, etc. screams neutral good to me.
I'd argue that letting the bad guy go would be lawful stupid (or lawful neutral), if you're saying all lawful characters must let the bad guy go if the judge says so, i'm going to have to strongly, strongly disagree with you. There will be lawful characters that would let the guy go, others that would keep trying to pin him and others who would follow their higher code (eg, their god, or what they view as the moral standard of the universe, or a code of honour) or realise the bad guy is using a legal loophole/technicallity to get away with injustice and correct the issue (if force, if necessary). Lawful good does not = naive.
a (not stupid) lawful good paladin/person wouldn't execute a person he knew was innoccent even if a jury gave him the death sentence. Might not necessarily bust him out of prison, but certainly wouldn't execute the person even if he was ordered to. I know you're arguing for the extreme lawful version, but the whole thread was about the fact that not all lawfuls are extreme, and deviating into the grey area still means you're lawful.
Whereas chaotic good, while does not like killing in cold blood, would probably kill someone who he thought deserved it, they dont see code/rules/laws as being a fundamental aspect of doing good, wheras batman sees on a fundamental scale, the code (his code) to be integral to doing good.
What? You can absolutely have a chaotic good character who doesn't believe in killing. A chaotic good character can have their own personal moral code which says that not killing is intengral to doing good.
You could likewise have a lawful good character who happily decapitates the Joker knowing that (a) he has the legal right to use lethal force to defend himself against an attack from the Joker that endangers his own life and (b) the Joker is just going to escape from Arkham later on and kill more people anyway. That act would both promote the welfare of innocents in the community and would be 100% compliant with the law.
What? You can absolutely have a chaotic good character who doesn't believe in killing. A chaotic good character can have their own personal moral code which says that not killing is intengral to doing good.
To clarify, not believing in killing = refuses to kill? because (as an analogy) you could be someone who does not believe in violence as a solution, but still punch someone who pisses you off or use violence to protect a friend. Which would be very different from believing in non-violence to the extent that you would not fight back (you might block hits and dodge, but never strike back)
The latter would be highly lawful behaviour, ie refusing from ever doing it. ever. Just like how some monks (in both 2e lore and real life) will never ever eat meat and rather starve than do so (that would be lawful, lawful stupid maybe, but lawful)
So having a code/personal set of rules would be lawful behaviour in itself. But I agree that a chaotic good character can have lawful attributes. in the same way, a lawful character can have some chaotic attributes. The example I gave was to illustrate an idealized chaotic good behaviour.
You could likewise have a lawful good character who happily decapitates the Joker knowing that (a) he has the legal right to use lethal force to defend himself against an attack from the Joker that endangers his own life and (b) the Joker is just going to escape from Arkham later on and kill more people anyway. That act would both promote the welfare of innocents in the community and would be 100% compliant with the law.
Okay. I also agree that not all lawful people think the same? if that's what you're getting at. Lawful describes the attitude, views and methodology (and perhaps some part of personality) of a person in regards to everyday life and i suppose good and justice in this context. it doesn't describe the specific nature of what laws or tenants the person is following. I may have missed the point of your post, but im tired right now, ill read it again tomorrow.
Okay. I also agree that not all lawful people think the same? if that's what you're getting at. Lawful describes the attitude, views and methodology (and perhaps some part of personality) of a person in regards to everyday life and i suppose good and justice in this context. it doesn't describe the specific nature of what laws or tenants the person is following. I may have missed the point of your post, but im tired right now, ill read it again tomorrow.
My previous post is the one you should respond to if you are going to take the time to reread something tomorrow (I can't promise it is worth rereading!). If your standard is the attitude, views and methodology of someone in everyday life then I would still put Batman in the neutral good territory based on his wanton breaking of the law. As Bruce Wayne, he lies (about his identity, about Harvey Dent, etc. but does it for a good purpose) and breaks laws (as mentioned earlier, he breaks lots of laws for public companies and essentially launders his money to cover up his alter ego's operation much like a drug dealer might use a business to launder his money and conceal his drug dealing operation). As Batman, the laws he routinely breaks are too numerous to discuss. He does it all for a good purpose and isn't hostile to the law - just someone who disregards it or uses it to further the cause of protecting the innocent.
Like I said, I think my post above is the more worthwhile read.
Alignment might look self explaining at first but it is one of the more complex concepts in D&D.
1) Alignment isn't supposed to be a static value like many CRPGs implemented it. It's understandable why it was implemented this way. Mainly for the sake of simplicity. But, alignment is determined by the actions of a character ("actions" in word and deed!). In a PnP round and with a DM as arbiter this can be handled to a certain degree. For the computer to be able to do the same the games would have to be build in a completely different way. And I doubt players would appreciate it if so much resources would be spent for such a feature.
2) Alignment isn't as absolute as it might seem. Lawful vs Chaotic. Lawful just states that a character adheres to the rules of society. If you look more closely you'll see that different societies can have very different rules. What might be considered lawful in one society might be viewed unlawful/chaotic in another society. Good vs. evil has similar issues in that it is based on what is viewed as good or evil by a specific society. To a certain extent there may be common ground between different societies, but that requires a case by case comparison. Here comes lore into play (how societies in the gaming worlds are described). To properly implement this in a computer game you'd need to feed the computer with this informations as well.
3) Certain classes have alignment restrictions. On a closer look that doesn't explain much. A paladin has to be lawful good which is associated with some ideal (obeying the laws and some self imposed rules of the chivalric order and doing good deeds). Here is already the first conflict. The rules of the society and the self imposed chivalric rules might lead to some conflict. A lot also depends on the values of the society. Again a by case examination is required. A monk is required to be lawful since monks live in monasteries under self imposed rules. And again, do the rules of the monastic order conflict with the rules of the society or not? Without a by case examination you can't tell. A druid is required to be true neutral. A druid will certainly have a code of conduct. By that rule he might be considered lawful. But his code of conduct might conflict with society's rules (i.e. the society he lives in). On the other hand if the society is more in touch with nature (e.g. nomads, hunter/gatherers) then the druidic code of conduct might be in accordance with this society's rules. The same discussion you can have about good vs. evil. What is viewed as evil by a specific society and what is considered good by specific society? In later editions (i.e. 3rd) the druid alignment restrictions were lifted a bit by requiring a druid to only be partially neutral. The alignment restrictions just don't explain much. But to replace these restrictions one would need to provide a lot more informations about a concrete campaign setting and the different societies it harbours.
4) There may be a difference on how a character sees himself and how a character is perceived by others.
As it is now alignment can only be considered a broad guideline of what to expect from an NPC or character. It would also be easier just to ignore this aspect.
2) Alignment isn't as absolute as it might seem. Lawful vs Chaotic. Lawful just states that a character adheres to the rules of society. If you look more closely you'll see that different societies can have very different rules. What might be considered lawful in one society might be viewed unlawful/chaotic in another society. Good vs. evil has similar issues in that it is based on what is viewed as good or evil by a specific society. To a certain extent there may be common ground between different societies, but that requires a case by case comparison. Here comes lore into play (how societies in the gaming worlds are described). To properly implement this in a computer game you'd need to feed the computer with this informations as well.
The alignment system doesn't care what certain societies deem good or evil. The alignment system does have some universal assumptions. Slavery is evil, killing in cold blood or entirely without provocation is evil, etc. Just because your DM hosts a campaign set in Menzoberranzan doesn't mean a drow matron mother is Lawful Good.
@Schneidend Exactly. Most people would agree breaking into someone's home or business is a bad thing and against the law. Batman will break that law/rule because it's more important to him to catch someone doing evil than it is to uphold that particular law- he follows his own standards of what is good and bad in what he does- and that makes him Chaotic Good.
@Schneidend Exactly. Most people would agree breaking into someone's home or business is a bad thing and against the law. Batman will break that law/rule because it's more important to him to catch someone doing evil than it is to uphold that particular law- he follows his own standards of what is good and bad in what he does- and that makes him Chaotic Good.
Batman is unlawful in the 2nd edition which BG takes place in. Yes. We heard you.
In 3rd and 4th edition Batman (from the recent movies) can be considered Lawful as most of his behavior is based on ideals and philosophy, much like Monks. Though Monks gain super power by matching their lifestyle to an idea as much as possible. If they break away from that idea of perfection, and follow base lusts, like eating junk food instead of exercising and meditating, they will never become their 'perfect self' (Level 20 abillity). This is why Monks have to be "lawful". They have strict rules they have to follow.
Let's say a Monk follows the "path of ultimate Truth." His attacks should be made to reflect the desired traits of "Truth". They should be direct, blunt, and efficient. Obviously, this man should always tell the truth when speaking. He should also live by all other traits you can find in the idea of "Truth". Another monk however, may follow an actual religion of an evil deity, and try to follow in the God's example as much as possible. Let's say he follows Erythul, the God of Hate, envy, malice, panic, ugliness, and slaughter. He should be living, sleeping, breathing these thing every day of his life.
So back to Batman. I don't know if you watched Nolan's Batman movies, but there was much philosophy in those movies. Bruce Wayne felt Batman had to be 'more than a man'. He had to become a symbol. Along the way, Batman was challenged physically and mentally, but most of the time he stood by his ideals. He did one thing I reacted to, like trying to save Rachel instead of Harvey Dent, which wasn't true to his ideal of being more than a man, but aside from that time, he had been very consistent through-out the movies. And I have not forgotten all the impressive things he had done before and after that. Besides, it was the choice between two lives. It was hard. And he did send the police to rescue Harvey. Ultimately, it was Joker's fault someone died. Not Batman's.
Yeah i did (respond to your bigger post), but its in my previous post, you gotta click show previous quotes at the bottom.
Also, the analogy i gave to batman breaking the law is like a paladin breaking the law in an unlawful society. Gotham is corrupt and rampant with crime, to batman not going vigilante would be going against his alignment. Example i gave was the liberation of slaves from thay. A lawful good paladin would do that, even though in thay slavery is legal, because he views the institutionalization of evil to be an unlawful act, the ruling body themself is unlawful by trying to say evil is lawful.
This was an example gave from some 2e thing i read a while ago, ok, so grain of salt, my memory aint exactly polished diamond, but the concept is definitely true i think.
So batman = paladin, vigilantism = freeing slaves, or something. And as bruce wayne, he works to fix the laws internally and uncorrupt the corrupted through non violent means. when that doesn't work (eg joker killing people) he goes batman time. Besides, by your argument of breaking laws and such, no vigilante/superhero can be lawful good unless sanctioned by the government, so the lawful good superman guy would have been non lawful up until he got sanctioned by the government. Furthermore, once the justice league was founded (and the UN set up an embassy) superheros were recognised by the other countries (or atleast, america), in which case batman wouldn't be breaking the laws, or atleast he would be in a legal grey area. and would therefore lawful good because he's no longer breaking laws. But as we cleared up before, alignment is strictly independant of laws (ie slavery being legal/not legal does not influence the lawful good action) so similarly, just because the JLA got UN recognition doesnt suddenly change the alignment of batman.
Interesting discussion. This is one reason why I never play Lawful Good. More often than not I feel like I am pressured into behaving in a certain way because that is what the law would require me to do. It actually narrows the options available to the character (especially in crpgs) that playing a lawful good character is like Forest Gump'ing your way through the dialogue options. Due to the law being fixed your path is already laid out before you start the game. Very few games give you really interesting options to play that allows choice when it comes to Lawful good. Plansecape Torment was one of them.
Interesting discussion. This is one reason why I never play Lawful Good. More often than not I feel like I am pressured into behaving in a certain way because that is what the law would require me to do. It actually narrows the options available to the character (especially in crpgs) that playing a lawful good character is like Forest Gump'ing your way through the dialogue options. Due to the law being fixed your path is already laid out before you start the game. Very few games give you really interesting options to play that allows choice when it comes to Lawful good. Plansecape Torment was one of them.
Being of Lawful alignment isn't exclusive to following the laws of the land. That is certainly a form of Lawful behavior, but your character would have to first recognize the laws of a given land as productive or useful, whether for his own gains in the case of Evil, keeping society orderly for Neutral, or the protection of others for Good. Being Lawful means adhering to well-defined codes. Most characters who have their "own moral code" are Chaotic of Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, but a knight or samurai could be Lawful while adhering to their chivalric or bushido codes while at the same time breaking the laws of the land.
@Schneidend The problem is there are only a very limited amount of dialogue options / ways to complete a quest in a crpg .It is an extremely small subset of reality. In an imaginary world when for instance playing PnP with others then I will play Lawful as there is room for it, you can explain why you should't lose reputation when committing an act that would in BG for instance cost you your Paladin ship because you can't reason with the DM inside the game If for instance I was a Paladin from some where in the planes where all magic users were deemed evil and actively hunted. Then somehow I got teleported to the Sword Coast and find myself admits a bunch of magic users whom I instantly start to slaughter I would lose my Paladin ship together with all abilities in BG. In PnP it is whole different story...
Yeah i did (respond to your bigger post), but its in my previous post, you gotta click show previous quotes at the bottom.
Also, the analogy i gave to batman breaking the law is like a paladin breaking the law in an unlawful society. Gotham is corrupt and rampant with crime, to batman not going vigilante would be going against his alignment. Example i gave was the liberation of slaves from thay.
The analogy breaks down because Batman breaks laws that he knows are for the good of society. Laws like financial disclosure requirements for public companies or Constitutional Due Process, etc. are good for free societies and not analogous to slavery in thay.
Batman breaks "good" laws that he believes would be in the best interests of Gotham (and other places) when he thinks that the system is too slow or not effective.
Does a Paladin endorse destroying slavery for every society? Of course.
Does Batman endorse financial fraud for every company? Of course not.
Eh, at this point I think it's time to agree to disagree. I'll just say that I also disagree that batman breaking those laws disqualifies him from lawful good, but i'll not go into why, otherwise i'd be that guy who insists on getting the last word. (in the sense I get to be the last person to put forward and argument, no argument here, just an opinion)
Eh, at this point I think it's time to agree to disagree. I'll just say that I also disagree that batman breaking those laws disqualifies him from lawful good, but i'll not go into why, otherwise i'd be that guy who insists on getting the last word. (in the sense I get to be the last person to put forward and argument, no argument here, just an opinion)
Fair enough. Let me just ask this...in your mind is there any law he wouldn't break to stop crime other than one barring killing or rape or similar cruelty? I think he would violate every privacy law (surveillance, computer hacking, etc.), commercial law (gross abuse of accounting practices and public disclosure requirements), property law (happy to invade someone else's property to gather clues or move in to stop something), law prohibiting use of non-lethal force, assault law (i.e., putting someone in fear of imminent harm), law prohibiting use/ownership of certain prohibited items (chemical/vehicle/etc.), traffic law (well, maybe not DUI but if he was drugged and felt he had to get somewhere to save someone he would probably do that too), etc. in the book if he felt like it was justified even though he would endorse pretty much every one of those laws as being good (and in most cases absolutely necessary) for a functioning free society. Would he be content to let the guilty (say the Joker) walk free if the prosecutor did not meet her burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors (walking free does not include breaking laws to surveille the person, etc.) or if the Judge barred incriminating evidence because the source of the evidence (say Batman) illegally obtained the evidence?
Ok, this will be my last post on the issue, guess I WILL be the guy to get the last word (MWAHAHAHAHA)
To me, batman is pretty much the same in behaviour and principles as a LG paladin of Hoar (both 2e and 3e etc) They follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. Doing this is officially recognised as lawful behaviour mind you. A lawful good paladin of Hoar is allowed to break written laws which hindered them from "true" justice (Which would be the ultimate spirit of the law, atleast to hoar) as long as the spirit is preserved (ie the intentions of the law).
Course, it's bad to needlessly break laws (for LG in general), but batman does not do this, he doesn't say, graffiti a wall just because, that would be anarchist. He breaks "lesser" laws in order to enforce the principle "laws" eg basic dignities of society, what is documented in the constitution etc. Eg interrogating a guy to get the launch codes to stop a nuke. It's illegal to interrogate people, definitely, but if batman were to honor the law of not interrogating, he would forgo the even bigger "law" of "protecting society from evil" or would otherwise be letting lots of people die and betray his ideals (which would be lawful stupid to the maximum). Mind you, it's hard to imagine any LG person who wouldn't do the exact same thing, ie break a few laws to save lives if the situation was dire.
Furthermore, if you do things that are normally illegal (eg punch someone in the face) under situations of duress (self defense, defending other people) its not illegal. So batman stopping a crime in progress is not illegal in itself. Vigilatism is illegal, sure, but then LG paladins of hoar can also be described as vigilantes, but they're still LG. Things like assault law don't apply when he's protecting someone. The gross abuse of accounting practices etc is to protect his identity, he cant go to the IRA "yeah, this was for the batmobile", its a matter of consequence, eg a paladin even though described as being not able to lie, would lie about his identity to protect himself if he was being unjustly pursued eg evil wizards go around asking hobos "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN", the paladin is dressed as a hobo, if the paladin answered "I am this man" he's lawful stupid, if he answers "nope, no idea" he lied, sure, but hes still LG because the lie is to preserve the greater purpose. In the same vein, accounting stuff for batman is like the lie for a paladin so this is in not a compelling example of why he can't be LG. For the law of prohibited goods, i could equally argue that he has the right to bare arms, regardless of what the written law says, his fundamental right is that. so him carrying around weapons or not does not bar him from LG behaviour.
As for the joker, Joker is insane, so wouldn't go on trial, also why batman sets him to an asylum rather than lock him up in is own batprison. Because that follows the spirit of the law and what would be lawfully good (eg ultimately Joker and all the other goonies need rehab, because they got issues). But lets say someone gets off because of evidence flaws, or whatever, this has happened before. Batman doesn't then go "OK, im going to now frame you" or "i'm going to imprison you in my bat prison instead", no, he lets the person go free, but watches them carefully and/or gathers additional evidence. Which, suprise suprise, is ultimately lawful behaviour. At the cusp of the issue, when it gets down to make or break, batman follows lawful behaviour (ie, he would let the guilty walk rather than kill them or unlawfully inprison them). In situations like an alien invasion or when the Joker became a vampire, yeah he'd imprison an alien or joker vampire, but those are extreme and unusual cases (and he didn't imprison for justice or stuff like that, but to cure the joker and find a way to fix things, sent him back to arkham afterwards)
Furthermore, although there is evidence law, just because batman got the evidence, it wouldn't make it automatically illegal. If he immediately passed on the evidence to Comish gordon, it would be legal. Much like any other civilian picking up a gun used in a murder and passing it on to the police. It could potentially be thrown out in court, true, but if it could be demonstrated that the evidence was compelling, relevant and not falsified it can remain. I wont lie to you, in real life there have been examples of judges throwing out compelling evidence because of evidence botch ups, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit, still lawful, but lawful stupid. Likewise, there have been judges who have allowed the evidence to remain, which is following the spirit of the law and (under interpretation) the letter, so also lawful. Either way, batman getting the evidence does not default to illegal (short of fabricating evidence.)
Additionally, the idea that batman can't break any law which he would see functioning in a good society or he suddenly becomes chaotic or neutral doesn't make sense. Otherwise, as i said before, you would have no LG superheros. It'd be illegal to say, break a window, but batman needed to break a window to save someone in a fire, he would, because circumstances demand it (and the law would also recognise this and therefore its not actually illegal).
Doing this is officially recognised as lawful behaviour mind you. A lawful good paladin of Hoar is allowed to break written laws which hindered them from "true" justice (Which would be the ultimate spirit of the law, atleast to hoar) as long as the spirit is preserved (ie the intentions of the law).
Let's use an example. When Batman breaks corporate disclosure laws and cooks the books of his company, the spirit of those laws is wholly 100% violated. Investors in his Company cannot make informed decisions on investment opportunities and the company is used to fund things totally unrelated to the business. This hurts employees at the company (less money available for their pay, benefits, etc.) but it really hurts the investors. In the latest Batman movie, it is made clear that these practices resulted in investors losing their behinds due to his illegal activity. This behavior hurts those specific people and more generally undermines a free market (which cannot exist if such behavior is prevalent). Wayne/Batman would strongly disapprove of this behavior generally but justify it based on need.
The need for him to do this is obvious -- as are his values in judging that need over the value of those good laws.
Things like assault law don't apply when he's protecting someone.
I won't get into it but there is a whole system of rules in place as to what is acceptable and what is not legally. When people run at him trying to shoot him or beat him with a bat, he is 100% entitled to batter them to protect himself. When he ties someone up and hangs them over a building to extract information (which is an assault putting them in fear of imminent bodily harm) that is 100% illegal. Most of the assaults committed by Batman are not needed to protect anyone from immenent harm - including himself. Most of the batteries that he commits can be justified as needed to protect himself or others from imminent harm.
On the illegal surveillance of other people, I don't get your argument that it is per se lawful behavior. It isn't legal to tap people's phones, hack their computers, stare into their private abodes, etc. When Batman does these it is for good reasons, but I don't get the argument that it is for lawful reasons.
It could potentially be thrown out in court, true, but if it could be demonstrated that the evidence was compelling, relevant and not falsified it can remain.
As a lawyer, I can tell that isn't true. A vigilante partnering with the police who illegally obtains evidence (such as by breaking and entering into someone's house and stealing it with the intent of delivering it to his "partner" Commissioner Gordon) isn't going to be admissible if the Judge does his job. This happening on TV doesn't accurately reflect what is actually legal.
And why would a judge do this?
IT ISN'T LAWFUL STUPID BEHAVIOR. *****This is the most important point I can make.***** The Judge isn't being lawful stupid when he throws out a confession because the criminal didn't receive required Miranda rights. These constitutional guarantees are put in place knowing that guilty parties will be able to get off free. These are sober and deliberative decisions to value the freedoms that come with these constitutional guarantees and due process guarantees over the value of that evidence. Likewise, the burden of proof is set up KNOWING that it will let guilty people go free. That isn't lawful stupid. It is a value judgment that the system has inherent value in having that high burden of proof and it is worth it to let the guilty go free rather than subvert the evidentiary, etc. burdens that are part of our system of justice.
Contrast this Judge's attitude with Batman's decision never to kill because he thinks it is morally wrong and will ultimately corrupt him. The Judge is putting the systemic value of the system of law over the outcome in a particular case. You can make a case that it is lawful stupid in the same way you can claim Batman is "good stupid" - in much the same way that the Judge let's a guilty party go free when he excludes evidence that is inadmissible for constitutional due process reasons Batman decides not to kill someone that he knows is going to eventually break out of prison or the asylum and hurt/kill more innocents. The Judge recognizes the value in the law and the system and won't compromise the system for a more just outcome in one case because he recognizes that to do so undermines the system. Batman likewise recognizes that killing would lead him down a dark path and ultimately undermine his moral good. Batman doesn't put any type of similar value on the legal system - his priority is to the good, not the system of law and order.
Additionally, the idea that batman can't break any law which he would see functioning in a good society or he suddenly becomes chaotic or neutral doesn't make sense. Otherwise, as i said before, you would have no LG superheros. It'd be illegal to say, break a window, but batman needed to break a window to save someone in a fire, he would, because circumstances demand it (and the law would also recognise this and therefore its not actually illegal).
I agree with this 100%. However, it is equally asinine to conclude that "well, superheros have their personal code of good so they can do whatever they want legally and are still LG because they do things for ultimate good per their personal code."
The reason I think Batman fits the NG segment of the 2e alignment scale is because he makes repeated deliberative decisions to break and undermine the law and to preserve his flexibility to do it again in the future. In doing so, he violates laws that he believes are good for society. He further violates doing things he would not want others to do. He makes the deliberate decision to place himself visibly outside of the law (both in his methods and the image he wants to project - he wants criminals to know he isn't part of the system and subject to its limits and he wants the citizens to know that the system doesn't endorse his behavior). He simply places a much higher priority on other goals and is equally willing to embrace or disregard the law depending on whether it delivers his desired bottomline result. That is NG - working towards good and using or disregarding the law as appropriate to that goal. The fact that he is systemic in his methods both undermines an argument that he is LG (because he makes deliberate decisions to routinely violate the law) just as it strongly cuts against him being CG (because his decisions are considered and planned and he will support the law when it supports G).
I would rather we ditch the alignment and class system all together and have something more open ended. I hate being defined by stereotypes and would rather learn and grow in whatever feels right (or wrong, or whatever the character I'm RPing) wants.
Comments
Not dress up like a bat to go outside the law and lay the smackdown on every bad guy he comes across.
He might have a code, but so did Robin Hood and he's the poster boy for Chaotic Good.
The defining characteristic of a strong lawful bent is the person who at the end of the day is willing to make the hard choice and let the bad guy walk when the search warrant wasn't legally administered. The reason you do that is because you believe in the system and the system requires the warrant to be issued in a certain way. You see that the reason it has to be issues in that way is to provide procedural due process guaranteed by the constitution and believe that people have those constitutional rights and that while the system will get some wrong (for example, a jury may acquit a guilty person or convict an innocent person) the value in supporting that system over the long run outweighs the countervailing interest in a particular case. It doesn't mean that a person won't give into an impulse on occasion and deviate from this - but it means that when the person carefully examines their values this is the choice they will make over the long term. If the choice is to instead throw on a cape and bust the bad guy up, then there is some motive that wins out over belief in a 2e lawful society. For Batman, it seems to me that he has no qualms whatsoever about going after people that the system misses and that he in fact embraces that role. His willingness to disregard the law when it is ineffective, corrupt, etc. screams neutral good to me.
Course, they all went back to their old ways, but the points is he tried. Right, but batman doesn't kill either and in the red hood saga he explicitly states that he doesn't do so because that would be the path to losing himself/no return. ie he sees this code as fundamentally important, this is extremely lawful. it's his personal law which holds as a part of himself and does not deviate from. Whereas chaotic good, while does not like killing in cold blood, would probably kill someone who he thought deserved it, they dont see code/rules/laws as being a fundamental aspect of doing good, wheras batman sees on a fundamental scale, the code (his code) to be integral to doing good.
Furthermore when he DID have a chance to kill Frost, he didn't.
This all points to him being lawful, by your criteria (and mine too).
EDIT: dont wanna double post A neutral good person sees law as a means of ensuring good (eg other things can work, and you can have a good society without laws), lawful sees it as fundamental to it being good. Do you think batman is the former or the latter? Im basing this on the entirety of his characterisation, not just the movies.
to tl;dr that particular point
lawful good: law is necessary for a good society
neutral good: Whatever makes a good society is fine
chaotic good: law inevitably leads to evil/corruption or otherwise prevents good from being done. freedom ensures/facilitates goodness
Batman would be lawful good. I'd argue that letting the bad guy go would be lawful stupid (or lawful neutral), if you're saying all lawful characters must let the bad guy go if the judge says so, i'm going to have to strongly, strongly disagree with you. There will be lawful characters that would let the guy go, others that would keep trying to pin him and others who would follow their higher code (eg, their god, or what they view as the moral standard of the universe, or a code of honour) or realise the bad guy is using a legal loophole/technicallity to get away with injustice and correct the issue (if force, if necessary). Lawful good does not = naive.
a (not stupid) lawful good paladin/person wouldn't execute a person he knew was innoccent even if a jury gave him the death sentence. Might not necessarily bust him out of prison, but certainly wouldn't execute the person even if he was ordered to. I know you're arguing for the extreme lawful version, but the whole thread was about the fact that not all lawfuls are extreme, and deviating into the grey area still means you're lawful.
You could likewise have a lawful good character who happily decapitates the Joker knowing that (a) he has the legal right to use lethal force to defend himself against an attack from the Joker that endangers his own life and (b) the Joker is just going to escape from Arkham later on and kill more people anyway. That act would both promote the welfare of innocents in the community and would be 100% compliant with the law.
EDIT2: rephrased something so it actually made sense To clarify, not believing in killing = refuses to kill?
because (as an analogy) you could be someone who does not believe in violence as a solution, but still punch someone who pisses you off or use violence to protect a friend.
Which would be very different from believing in non-violence to the extent that you would not fight back (you might block hits and dodge, but never strike back)
The latter would be highly lawful behaviour, ie refusing from ever doing it. ever.
Just like how some monks (in both 2e lore and real life) will never ever eat meat and rather starve than do so (that would be lawful, lawful stupid maybe, but lawful)
So having a code/personal set of rules would be lawful behaviour in itself. But I agree that a chaotic good character can have lawful attributes. in the same way, a lawful character can have some chaotic attributes.
The example I gave was to illustrate an idealized chaotic good behaviour. Okay. I also agree that not all lawful people think the same? if that's what you're getting at.
Lawful describes the attitude, views and methodology (and perhaps some part of personality) of a person in regards to everyday life and i suppose good and justice in this context. it doesn't describe the specific nature of what laws or tenants the person is following.
I may have missed the point of your post, but im tired right now, ill read it again tomorrow.
Like I said, I think my post above is the more worthwhile read.
1) Alignment isn't supposed to be a static value like many CRPGs implemented it. It's understandable why it was implemented this way. Mainly for the sake of simplicity. But, alignment is determined by the actions of a character ("actions" in word and deed!). In a PnP round and with a DM as arbiter this can be handled to a certain degree. For the computer to be able to do the same the games would have to be build in a completely different way. And I doubt players would appreciate it if so much resources would be spent for such a feature.
2) Alignment isn't as absolute as it might seem. Lawful vs Chaotic. Lawful just states that a character adheres to the rules of society. If you look more closely you'll see that different societies can have very different rules. What might be considered lawful in one society might be viewed unlawful/chaotic in another society. Good vs. evil has similar issues in that it is based on what is viewed as good or evil by a specific society. To a certain extent there may be common ground between different societies, but that requires a case by case comparison. Here comes lore into play (how societies in the gaming worlds are described). To properly implement this in a computer game you'd need to feed the computer with this informations as well.
3) Certain classes have alignment restrictions. On a closer look that doesn't explain much. A paladin has to be lawful good which is associated with some ideal (obeying the laws and some self imposed rules of the chivalric order and doing good deeds). Here is already the first conflict. The rules of the society and the self imposed chivalric rules might lead to some conflict. A lot also depends on the values of the society. Again a by case examination is required.
A monk is required to be lawful since monks live in monasteries under self imposed rules. And again, do the rules of the monastic order conflict with the rules of the society or not? Without a by case examination you can't tell.
A druid is required to be true neutral. A druid will certainly have a code of conduct. By that rule he might be considered lawful. But his code of conduct might conflict with society's rules (i.e. the society he lives in). On the other hand if the society is more in touch with nature (e.g. nomads, hunter/gatherers) then the druidic code of conduct might be in accordance with this society's rules. The same discussion you can have about good vs. evil. What is viewed as evil by a specific society and what is considered good by specific society? In later editions (i.e. 3rd) the druid alignment restrictions were lifted a bit by requiring a druid to only be partially neutral.
The alignment restrictions just don't explain much. But to replace these restrictions one would need to provide a lot more informations about a concrete campaign setting and the different societies it harbours.
4) There may be a difference on how a character sees himself and how a character is perceived by others.
As it is now alignment can only be considered a broad guideline of what to expect from an NPC or character. It would also be easier just to ignore this aspect.
In 3rd and 4th edition Batman (from the recent movies) can be considered Lawful as most of his behavior is based on ideals and philosophy, much like Monks. Though Monks gain super power by matching their lifestyle to an idea as much as possible. If they break away from that idea of perfection, and follow base lusts, like eating junk food instead of exercising and meditating, they will never become their 'perfect self' (Level 20 abillity). This is why Monks have to be "lawful". They have strict rules they have to follow.
Let's say a Monk follows the "path of ultimate Truth." His attacks should be made to reflect the desired traits of "Truth". They should be direct, blunt, and efficient. Obviously, this man should always tell the truth when speaking. He should also live by all other traits you can find in the idea of "Truth". Another monk however, may follow an actual religion of an evil deity, and try to follow in the God's example as much as possible. Let's say he follows Erythul, the God of Hate, envy, malice, panic, ugliness, and slaughter. He should be living, sleeping, breathing these thing every day of his life.
So back to Batman. I don't know if you watched Nolan's Batman movies, but there was much philosophy in those movies. Bruce Wayne felt Batman had to be 'more than a man'. He had to become a symbol. Along the way, Batman was challenged physically and mentally, but most of the time he stood by his ideals. He did one thing I reacted to, like trying to save Rachel instead of Harvey Dent, which wasn't true to his ideal of being more than a man, but aside from that time, he had been very consistent through-out the movies. And I have not forgotten all the impressive things he had done before and after that. Besides, it was the choice between two lives. It was hard. And he did send the police to rescue Harvey. Ultimately, it was Joker's fault someone died. Not Batman's.
Yeah i did (respond to your bigger post), but its in my previous post, you gotta click show previous quotes at the bottom.
Also, the analogy i gave to batman breaking the law is like a paladin breaking the law in an unlawful society.
Gotham is corrupt and rampant with crime, to batman not going vigilante would be going against his alignment. Example i gave was the liberation of slaves from thay. A lawful good paladin would do that, even though in thay slavery is legal, because he views the institutionalization of evil to be an unlawful act, the ruling body themself is unlawful by trying to say evil is lawful.
This was an example gave from some 2e thing i read a while ago, ok, so grain of salt, my memory aint exactly polished diamond, but the concept is definitely true i think.
So batman = paladin, vigilantism = freeing slaves, or something.
And as bruce wayne, he works to fix the laws internally and uncorrupt the corrupted through non violent means. when that doesn't work (eg joker killing people) he goes batman time.
Besides, by your argument of breaking laws and such, no vigilante/superhero can be lawful good unless sanctioned by the government, so the lawful good superman guy would have been non lawful up until he got sanctioned by the government.
Furthermore, once the justice league was founded (and the UN set up an embassy) superheros were recognised by the other countries (or atleast, america), in which case batman wouldn't be breaking the laws, or atleast he would be in a legal grey area. and would therefore lawful good because he's no longer breaking laws.
But as we cleared up before, alignment is strictly independant of laws (ie slavery being legal/not legal does not influence the lawful good action) so similarly, just because the JLA got UN recognition doesnt suddenly change the alignment of batman.
Batman breaks "good" laws that he believes would be in the best interests of Gotham (and other places) when he thinks that the system is too slow or not effective.
Does a Paladin endorse destroying slavery for every society? Of course.
Does Batman endorse financial fraud for every company? Of course not.
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL.
wat?
Eh, at this point I think it's time to agree to disagree. I'll just say that I also disagree that batman breaking those laws disqualifies him from lawful good, but i'll not go into why, otherwise i'd be that guy who insists on getting the last word. (in the sense I get to be the last person to put forward and argument, no argument here, just an opinion)
Ok, this will be my last post on the issue, guess I WILL be the guy to get the last word (MWAHAHAHAHA)
To me, batman is pretty much the same in behaviour and principles as a LG paladin of Hoar (both 2e and 3e etc)
They follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. Doing this is officially recognised as lawful behaviour mind you.
A lawful good paladin of Hoar is allowed to break written laws which hindered them from "true" justice (Which would be the ultimate spirit of the law, atleast to hoar) as long as the spirit is preserved (ie the intentions of the law).
Course, it's bad to needlessly break laws (for LG in general), but batman does not do this, he doesn't say, graffiti a wall just because, that would be anarchist. He breaks "lesser" laws in order to enforce the principle "laws" eg basic dignities of society, what is documented in the constitution etc. Eg interrogating a guy to get the launch codes to stop a nuke. It's illegal to interrogate people, definitely, but if batman were to honor the law of not interrogating, he would forgo the even bigger "law" of "protecting society from evil" or would otherwise be letting lots of people die and betray his ideals (which would be lawful stupid to the maximum).
Mind you, it's hard to imagine any LG person who wouldn't do the exact same thing, ie break a few laws to save lives if the situation was dire.
Furthermore, if you do things that are normally illegal (eg punch someone in the face) under situations of duress (self defense, defending other people) its not illegal. So batman stopping a crime in progress is not illegal in itself. Vigilatism is illegal, sure, but then LG paladins of hoar can also be described as vigilantes, but they're still LG. Things like assault law don't apply when he's protecting someone. The gross abuse of accounting practices etc is to protect his identity, he cant go to the IRA "yeah, this was for the batmobile", its a matter of consequence, eg a paladin even though described as being not able to lie, would lie about his identity to protect himself if he was being unjustly pursued eg evil wizards go around asking hobos "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN", the paladin is dressed as a hobo, if the paladin answered "I am this man" he's lawful stupid, if he answers "nope, no idea" he lied, sure, but hes still LG because the lie is to preserve the greater purpose. In the same vein, accounting stuff for batman is like the lie for a paladin
so this is in not a compelling example of why he can't be LG.
For the law of prohibited goods, i could equally argue that he has the right to bare arms, regardless of what the written law says, his fundamental right is that. so him carrying around weapons or not does not bar him from LG behaviour.
As for the joker, Joker is insane, so wouldn't go on trial, also why batman sets him to an asylum rather than lock him up in is own batprison. Because that follows the spirit of the law and what would be lawfully good (eg ultimately Joker and all the other goonies need rehab, because they got issues).
But lets say someone gets off because of evidence flaws, or whatever, this has happened before. Batman doesn't then go "OK, im going to now frame you" or "i'm going to imprison you in my bat prison instead", no, he lets the person go free, but watches them carefully and/or gathers additional evidence. Which, suprise suprise, is ultimately lawful behaviour. At the cusp of the issue, when it gets down to make or break, batman follows lawful behaviour (ie, he would let the guilty walk rather than kill them or unlawfully inprison them). In situations like an alien invasion or when the Joker became a vampire, yeah he'd imprison an alien or joker vampire, but those are extreme and unusual cases (and he didn't imprison for justice or stuff like that, but to cure the joker and find a way to fix things, sent him back to arkham afterwards)
Furthermore, although there is evidence law, just because batman got the evidence, it wouldn't make it automatically illegal. If he immediately passed on the evidence to Comish gordon, it would be legal. Much like any other civilian picking up a gun used in a murder and passing it on to the police.
It could potentially be thrown out in court, true, but if it could be demonstrated that the evidence was compelling, relevant and not falsified it can remain. I wont lie to you, in real life there have been examples of judges throwing out compelling evidence because of evidence botch ups, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit, still lawful, but lawful stupid. Likewise, there have been judges who have allowed the evidence to remain, which is following the spirit of the law and (under interpretation) the letter, so also lawful. Either way, batman getting the evidence does not default to illegal (short of fabricating evidence.)
Additionally, the idea that batman can't break any law which he would see functioning in a good society or he suddenly becomes chaotic or neutral doesn't make sense. Otherwise, as i said before, you would have no LG superheros. It'd be illegal to say, break a window, but batman needed to break a window to save someone in a fire, he would, because circumstances demand it (and the law would also recognise this and therefore its not actually illegal).
tl;dr
Batman = like a paladin of hoar = LG.
The need for him to do this is obvious -- as are his values in judging that need over the value of those good laws. I won't get into it but there is a whole system of rules in place as to what is acceptable and what is not legally. When people run at him trying to shoot him or beat him with a bat, he is 100% entitled to batter them to protect himself. When he ties someone up and hangs them over a building to extract information (which is an assault putting them in fear of imminent bodily harm) that is 100% illegal. Most of the assaults committed by Batman are not needed to protect anyone from immenent harm - including himself. Most of the batteries that he commits can be justified as needed to protect himself or others from imminent harm.
On the illegal surveillance of other people, I don't get your argument that it is per se lawful behavior. It isn't legal to tap people's phones, hack their computers, stare into their private abodes, etc. When Batman does these it is for good reasons, but I don't get the argument that it is for lawful reasons. As a lawyer, I can tell that isn't true. A vigilante partnering with the police who illegally obtains evidence (such as by breaking and entering into someone's house and stealing it with the intent of delivering it to his "partner" Commissioner Gordon) isn't going to be admissible if the Judge does his job. This happening on TV doesn't accurately reflect what is actually legal.
And why would a judge do this?
IT ISN'T LAWFUL STUPID BEHAVIOR. *****This is the most important point I can make.***** The Judge isn't being lawful stupid when he throws out a confession because the criminal didn't receive required Miranda rights. These constitutional guarantees are put in place knowing that guilty parties will be able to get off free. These are sober and deliberative decisions to value the freedoms that come with these constitutional guarantees and due process guarantees over the value of that evidence. Likewise, the burden of proof is set up KNOWING that it will let guilty people go free. That isn't lawful stupid. It is a value judgment that the system has inherent value in having that high burden of proof and it is worth it to let the guilty go free rather than subvert the evidentiary, etc. burdens that are part of our system of justice.
Contrast this Judge's attitude with Batman's decision never to kill because he thinks it is morally wrong and will ultimately corrupt him. The Judge is putting the systemic value of the system of law over the outcome in a particular case. You can make a case that it is lawful stupid in the same way you can claim Batman is "good stupid" - in much the same way that the Judge let's a guilty party go free when he excludes evidence that is inadmissible for constitutional due process reasons Batman decides not to kill someone that he knows is going to eventually break out of prison or the asylum and hurt/kill more innocents. The Judge recognizes the value in the law and the system and won't compromise the system for a more just outcome in one case because he recognizes that to do so undermines the system. Batman likewise recognizes that killing would lead him down a dark path and ultimately undermine his moral good. Batman doesn't put any type of similar value on the legal system - his priority is to the good, not the system of law and order. I agree with this 100%. However, it is equally asinine to conclude that "well, superheros have their personal code of good so they can do whatever they want legally and are still LG because they do things for ultimate good per their personal code."
The reason I think Batman fits the NG segment of the 2e alignment scale is because he makes repeated deliberative decisions to break and undermine the law and to preserve his flexibility to do it again in the future. In doing so, he violates laws that he believes are good for society. He further violates doing things he would not want others to do. He makes the deliberate decision to place himself visibly outside of the law (both in his methods and the image he wants to project - he wants criminals to know he isn't part of the system and subject to its limits and he wants the citizens to know that the system doesn't endorse his behavior). He simply places a much higher priority on other goals and is equally willing to embrace or disregard the law depending on whether it delivers his desired bottomline result. That is NG - working towards good and using or disregarding the law as appropriate to that goal. The fact that he is systemic in his methods both undermines an argument that he is LG (because he makes deliberate decisions to routinely violate the law) just as it strongly cuts against him being CG (because his decisions are considered and planned and he will support the law when it supports G).