SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Watchmen: "The Villain"?

Started by RPGPundit, March 11, 2009, 02:07:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

RPGPundit

I was reading a thread on another forum where the poster there referred to Ozymandias as the "villain" of the story.

In the sense that he's the opponent to the "protagonists" of Nite Owl and Rorschach, I would accept that.

But I simply do NOT think that he was the "Bad guy" in the sense of being the one who was either evil, or wrong, necessarily.

On the other hand, you have Rorschach, a violent psychopathic murderer, that it seems some Watchmen fans have a fan-orgasm for.  This same poster claimed that of all the characters in Watchmen, there was only one who had "a moral backbone", Rorschach.

Except that's wrong. There were two: Rorschach and Ozymandias.

You can argue about which was right and which was wrong, and I think that is, in fact, the entire fucking point. But it seems the height of Missing The Fucking Point to just say "Veidt was the bad guy!"

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

J Arcane

Well of course, part of the whole point of Watchmen was that there was no good guys or bad guys, as a direct reaction to typical comic book morality of the time.  Alan Moore's just that sort of guy.

But you have to admit that, at the very least, Veidt's motives may've been in somewhat good intentions, but his methods were more that a bit extreme don't you think?

And Rorschach, yeah, I don't really get the hard on for him, the guy was a fucking psycho.  The only reason he comes off at all well is simply because the other "heroes" are not exactly sterling characters either.
Bedroom Wall Press - Games that make you feel like a kid again.

Arcana Rising - An Urban Fantasy Roleplaying Game, powered by Hulks and Horrors.
Hulks and Horrors - A Sci-Fi Roleplaying game of Exploration and Dungeon Adventure
Heaven\'s Shadow - A Roleplaying Game of Faith and Assassination

jhkim

NOTE: I haven't seen the movie, but I have recently re-read the graphic novel.  

It is not at all unusual for a comic-book villain to be pursuing their vision of the greater good -- as opposed to simply being greedy or sadistic.  There are lots of examples even from the Golden Age.  This is especially the case when the villain intends to be lead the way in the new world order that they are establishing.  

What is unusual is that this one wins.  He kills millions to create a world that is safer, but which he is poised to be even more powerful in.  

As for Rorschach, the graphic novel certainly sets out to make him a sympathetic character, despite being a fascist and a psycho.  For example, look at how the psychiatrist who was treating him was inspired to go and help others -- just before Veidt murdered him and millions others.  Rorschach is set up as the tragic hero of the story, who dies for his principles.  

I didn't take to him, though.  A key point for me was seeing how the only people he trusts -- the New Frontiersman producers -- stood up to defend the KKK in their editorial.  ("...despite what some might view as their later excesses, the Klan originally came into being because decent people had perfectly reasonable fears for the safety of their persons and belongings when forced into proximity with people from a culture far less morally advanced.")

Koltar

Rorshach was set up as an exaggeration of two Steve Ditko-made characters: "The Question" and Mr. A. Those two both had codes of honor based on the Ayn Rand philosophy.

Moore did Rorshach as a sort of parody of that.

Saw the movie foir a second time yesterday - what surprised me was the ticket-seller was in her early 20s, has seen the movie twice herself , has read the graphic novel years ago - and her favorite chareacter is Rorshach.

Maybe the real "villain" of the story is the cold war and humankind's tendency to go to war.


- Ed C.
The return of \'You can\'t take the Sky From me!\'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUn-eN8mkDw&feature=rec-fresh+div

This is what a really cool FANTASY RPG should be like :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WnjVUBDbs

Still here, still alive, at least Seven years now...

Abyssal Maw

Quote from: Koltar;288483Rorshach was set up as an exaggeration of two Steve Ditko-made characters: "The Question" and Mr. A. Those two both had codes of honor based on the Ayn Rand philosophy.

Moore did Rorshach as a sort of parody of that.

Saw the movie foir a second time yesterday - what surprised me was the ticket-seller was in her early 20s, has seen the movie twice herself , has read the graphic novel years ago - and her favorite chareacter is Rorshach.

Maybe the real "villain" of the story is the cold war and humankind's tendency to go to war.


- Ed C.

Ed is correct about Question/Mr. A. Although Manhattan is also a kind of Ditko objectivist character as well. He's based on Captain Atom (another Ditko character). He eventually just shrugs and leaves the world to its own collapse. Blue Beetle (the version we get in Watchmen as Nite Owl) was ALSO a Ditko creation.


(Ditko illustrated version of Blue Beetle..)

Most people like Rorshach because  he has all the best lines and he is kind of creepy and edgy. He's intense. His colors are black and white (like Mr. A), but the mask constantly changes.

What I think the movie captured really well is that at the end, Rorshach found himself suffering from the ultimate dichotomy: he simultaneously knew that if he lived by his moral code, he would have to go back to tell the world they had been tricked. He also knew that it would be better for all if Manhattan didn't let him do that.
Download Secret Santicore! (10MB). I painted the cover :)

HinterWelt

The problem I have with Veidt has always been that in the end, he could not bring himself to kill Rorshach. He left that for Dr. Manhattan. It always struck me as cowardly. Also, if Dr. Manhattan was to kill Rorshach, it would seem to follow that Veidt should die as well. I mean, if you are going to kill to cover up the tragedy and you "care" enough to do so, doesn't it then follow that you should kill the guy who brought about the tragedy? I mean, Rorshach is a crazy loon who is wanted for multiple murders. How much pull would he have?

In the end, Veidt committed mass murder and rationalized it as "uniting the world". Rorshach killed two(?) people and had a pretty solid rationale for doing so (still a rationalization but one based on evil done). Both represent the same thing from different views. Veidt is just a higher order of magnitude and involves killing innocents, one could argue, a more successful psycho.
The RPG Haven - Talking about RPGs
My Site
Oh...the HinterBlog
Lord Protector of the Cult of Clash was Right
When you look around you have to wonder,
Do you play to win or are you just a bad loser?

Koltar

I always took that as the idea that Jon/Dr. Manhattan had come to respect LIfe! again after his talk with Laurie on Mars.

Killing Rorshach might be mecessary,Veidt was already punishing himself in his mind for all the death he was causing.

In the novel, we get that nice moment between Veidt and Jon. Jon is tired of causing death is what I got from that . he wants to start life - or try to.


- Ed C.
The return of \'You can\'t take the Sky From me!\'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUn-eN8mkDw&feature=rec-fresh+div

This is what a really cool FANTASY RPG should be like :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WnjVUBDbs

Still here, still alive, at least Seven years now...

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim;288469NOTE: I haven't seen the movie, but I have recently re-read the graphic novel.  

It is not at all unusual for a comic-book villain to be pursuing their vision of the greater good -- as opposed to simply being greedy or sadistic.  There are lots of examples even from the Golden Age.  This is especially the case when the villain intends to be lead the way in the new world order that they are establishing.  

Except that there's no indication that Veidt wants to do anything other than save the world.  I guess, you could maybe, maybe argue that he also wanted to see if he could.

QuoteWhat is unusual is that this one wins.  He kills millions to create a world that is safer, but which he is poised to be even more powerful in.  

Sorry, but I just don't see that as a motivation at all. Veidt's already one of if not the richest man in the world, and immensely powerful, and in the aftermath of what happens he continues to be powerful but there's no sign that he is any MORE powerful. He doesn't "take over the world" or something like that. And it certainly doesn't seem like that was his goal, either directly or subconsciously.

QuoteAs for Rorschach, the graphic novel certainly sets out to make him a sympathetic character, despite being a fascist and a psycho.  For example, look at how the psychiatrist who was treating him was inspired to go and help others -- just before Veidt murdered him and millions others.  Rorschach is set up as the tragic hero of the story, who dies for his principles.  

I really don't see that at all. I see Rorschach as an example of everything that's wrong with vigilantism; Rorschach doesn't kill villains to protect the innocent, not for a long time; he does it because he hates the scum.  He doesn't want to save anyone, he said so himself.  

And the fascist that was treating him wasn't inspired BY rorschach; his entire life fell to pieces because of Rorschach; he started to try to help others and be more decent as a reaction AGAINST everything that Rorschach stood for, that total nihilism.

I think you've had a very shallow reading of the comic, there.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

HinterWelt

Quote from: Koltar;288506I always took that as the idea that Jon/Dr. Manhattan had come to respect LIfe! again after his talk with Laurie on Mars.

Killing Rorshach might be mecessary,Veidt was already punishing himself in his mind for all the death he was causing.

In the novel, we get that nice moment between Veidt and Jon. Jon is tired of causing death is what I got from that . he wants to start life - or try to.


- Ed C.

To clarify my point, I am not talking about punishment for Veidt. Dr. Manhattan would care less about punishment than the real effect Veidt could have. Veidt needed to be stopped far more than Rorshach. Veidt would kill again in the name of his holy cause as sure as Rorshach would kill. The difference would be magnitude.

And in the end, Veidt did not even dirty his hands with Rorshach. He just set up the suggestion.
The RPG Haven - Talking about RPGs
My Site
Oh...the HinterBlog
Lord Protector of the Cult of Clash was Right
When you look around you have to wonder,
Do you play to win or are you just a bad loser?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;288490Most people like Rorshach because  he has all the best lines and he is kind of creepy and edgy. He's intense. His colors are black and white (like Mr. A), but the mask constantly changes.

I was horrified that the movie executives would end up changing the story to make Rorschach the noble dark anti-hero; like that little comic floating around somewhere on the web where Rorschach ends up saving the day by beating up Dr.Manhattan and Ozymandias because he's so "incredibly cool".

Its ironic that all those "dark antiheroes" basically sprung from Rorschach, because he's really the best possible condemnation of that whole concept, he's not meant to be either "cool" or good at all; and you get the point of that most strongly the first moment they unmask him and you see that he's just this pathetic little loser.

QuoteWhat I think the movie captured really well is that at the end, Rorshach found himself suffering from the ultimate dichotomy: he simultaneously knew that if he lived by his moral code, he would have to go back to tell the world they had been tricked. He also knew that it would be better for all if Manhattan didn't let him do that.

I think that is a possible way to read the events at the end. We can't really know, of course. If you wanted to be generous, you could say that Rorschach knew that he couldn't betray his principles, and he had to die, and that maybe that was better, because he represented a world that had to change.
If you don't want to be generous, you could argue that Rorschach just knew Manhattan was going to kill him, so he knew there was no point in even trying to run or fight, but would have throttled every last one of them and told everyone the truth even if it damned mankind, because he couldn't do anything else.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;288501In the end, Veidt committed mass murder and rationalized it as "uniting the world". Rorshach killed two(?) people and had a pretty solid rationale for doing so (still a rationalization but one based on evil done). Both represent the same thing from different views. Veidt is just a higher order of magnitude and involves killing innocents, one could argue, a more successful psycho.

It seems to me that Rorschach's only rationale was to just fight against the world and degeneracy he hated. At least, after the dog incident. Basically, after that point it stopped being about anything really heroic, and just became a personal vendetta against a life that made no sense.

Ozymandias wanted to save the world, and maybe prove he could, and certainly his rationalization was that the end justified the means. Perhaps, if nuclear annihilation was really the only certain alternative, it really did in this one case. Perhaps not. You can certainly criticize his view, but it doesn't make sense to say that he and Rorschach had the same motives only on different scales.  They didn't.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

jeff37923

Not to threadjack here, but as a fan of the comic, the more that I read this movie being discussed, then the more I want to wait until the Director's Cut comes out on DVD and watch it then.
"Meh."

jhkim

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518Except that there's no indication that Veidt wants to do anything other than save the world.  I guess, you could maybe, maybe argue that he also wanted to see if he could.
Let me be clear here.  Both Rorschach and Ozymandias wanted to make the world better.  Ozymandias was smarter, and his way was implied to be more effective.  However, his way also involved killing millions of innocent people and the new world order he would create would be based on a gigantic lie.  

You identify more with Veidt's goal, and are confused that people sympathize with Rorschach and see Veidt as the villain.  I think their reaction is understandable even if I don't share it.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518Sorry, but I just don't see that as a motivation at all. Veidt's already one of if not the richest man in the world, and immensely powerful, and in the aftermath of what happens he continues to be powerful but there's no sign that he is any MORE powerful. He doesn't "take over the world" or something like that. And it certainly doesn't seem like that was his goal, either directly or subconsciously.
I don't doubt that he only intended to continue to do good as he saw fit using his millions and the millions more he would make.  However, he was prepared to capitalize on what only he knew would come.  For example, he directed buying of stocks according to his predictions of what would happen.  In talking to his Asian servants from Karnak,

Veidt: This all says "war." We should buy accordingly.
Servant: But... Sir, we have never bought into munitions ...
Veidt: Of course not. You're ignoring the subtext: increased sexual imagery, even in the candy ads.  It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war.  Remember the Baby Boom...
Servant: So, should we buy into ... uh ...
Veidt: Into the major erotic video companies.  That's short term. Also, we should negotiate controlling shares in selected baby food and maternity goods manufacturers.  

Note that he knows that munitions won't be sold, but in retrospect it is reasonable that there will be another baby boom.  In the papers that Rorschach and Nite Owl took from his office desk, he wrote to his marketing director Leo regarding his action figure line, saying "Suggest instead we create costumed army of terrorists, introduce as main villains in Saturday cartoon, then duplicate here along with weapons, accessories, and vehicles."  

Note how he is making costumed terrorists the villains in his line.  Again, I'm not suggesting that this is the motive, but these were the things he is shown to be working on in addition to his master plan.  I think he would use the profits from this to do as he thought best.  However, this can be seen as rather unsavory.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518I really don't see that at all. I see Rorschach as an example of everything that's wrong with vigilantism; Rorschach doesn't kill villains to protect the innocent, not for a long time; he does it because he hates the scum.  He doesn't want to save anyone, he said so himself.
That might be how you feel about him, but there are plenty of people who emotionally identify with wanting to punish evil -- and feel that doing so is a good end.  You might not like it, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a different reaction is wrong.

Aos

Quote from: jhkim;288556, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a different reaction is wrong.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
You are posting in a troll thread.

Metal Earth

Cosmic Tales- Webcomic

HinterWelt

Quote from: RPGPundit;288524It seems to me that Rorschach's only rationale was to just fight against the world and degeneracy he hated. At least, after the dog incident. Basically, after that point it stopped being about anything really heroic, and just became a personal vendetta against a life that made no sense.

Ozymandias wanted to save the world, and maybe prove he could, and certainly his rationalization was that the end justified the means. Perhaps, if nuclear annihilation was really the only certain alternative, it really did in this one case. Perhaps not. You can certainly criticize his view, but it doesn't make sense to say that he and Rorschach had the same motives only on different scales.  They didn't.

RPGPundit

I would disagree to an extent. They reflected each other. Rorshach was, or it seemed to me, about punishing the evil in the world. It did not matter the methods used. If they were "evil" they were expendable. This is shown very much in his interaction with Morloch. Morloch is guilty of not having a license for his gun. For a minute, you believe (and Morloch does as well) that Rorshach will kill him for it. But Rorshach says something like "Minor infraction. Get license soon" and is over it.Rorshach is all about "evil" is evil and should be punished. Good is not his concern but he is not going to kill the innocent to get his way.

Veidt on the other hand, is less principled but has the same ends justify the means. Only, he truly does not qualify the means. Rorshach would do whatever it took to "get tot he truth" (witness the bar and his "questioning"). At one point he even pulls Nite Owl (Mr. Goody two shoes) off a guy and says "Not in front of civilians". Veidt though, will kill millions, scar and hospitalize millions more to obtain his goal. Is he tortured over his actions? A secret confession of guilt to a being leaving this existence is not convincing to me. He has rationalized what he does is for the greater good of mankind. This sounds very familiar to me. It is the kind of thing we hear from  ideologues all the time.

So, to sum, although I will admit that they are slightly differing in their execution, Rorshach and Veidt are alarmingly similar. Veidt rationalized killing millions for his vision. Rorshach has a similar...principled strength...words fail me but the idea that they stick to their principles and will face all manner of horrors makes me think they are more similar than different. One kills millions including innocents while the other kills the guilty, the scum. Both rationalize it one with necessity of "saving the world" the other with the necessity of punishing the evil.

Of course, that is just my take on it, I could be wrong.
The RPG Haven - Talking about RPGs
My Site
Oh...the HinterBlog
Lord Protector of the Cult of Clash was Right
When you look around you have to wonder,
Do you play to win or are you just a bad loser?