What's The Punisher's alignment, Veeky Forums?

Lawful Neutral.

>Lawful

He doesn't care about the laws, he cares when a person does something that he thinks is bad

With a healthy dose of HATE

He'd still be neutral evil because because said cosmic shenanigans wouldn't change Frank himself.

>vigilante
>has no qualms about torture and murder
>sees world in terms of black and white
>obsessed with vengeance
>doesn't even care about the consequences or results of his actions

Chaotic Neutral

This character is not that deep or complex

shooty edgy

>literally powered by hate
>most people here are calling him neutral or good

A righteous hate is a good thing
the duck had to go

The Punisher is one character that show the flaws of the alignment system very clearly

There's arguments to be made for him being almost any alignment and he's little but a power fantasy

Chaotic Evil

>They had to go

Fuck, I actually remember that

I think there is an argument to be made for this. In some ways, he is profoundly selfish. However he's also a master tactician and shows careful planning and restraint. That's not something I would normally associate with chaotic evil alignment. I think you could make a good argument for it though.

Chaotic means outside of the law, not that you have ADHD.

Kinda a cunt but a good cunt.

Like, its well washed but man did they fuck up the shave and now it feels like thousand needles on yo dick/face.

That's the punisher.

Yeah, but they're also unpredictable. I'd say he's closer to neutral evil than chaotic evil.

...

Neutral Violent.

CE are sometimes unpredictable, sure, but he isn't evil per se. I would venture more towards CN, because he operates outside the law, in an attempt to bring justice upon the criminals. While bringing said justice, he has no qualms about doing some crazy shit, but at the end of the day everything he does is for the betterment of the innocents.

...

Look at the OP's image. The Punisher doesn't do it for innocent people, he does it for himself. Like I said, you can make a good argument that he's chaotic evil. I'm not sure that he's a character I would associate with that alignment, personally.

Has a code he follows. Can't be CN.

Well he sure as shit isn't lawful. His entire purpose is murdering people without a trial.

Frank Castle

This.

Frank Fort

Lawful Evil

He has been show to make some collateral victims on at least two occasions, which would impl that the rest of the people he killed were actually criminals.

Everyone has a code he follows.

Frank Bunker

>The Punisher doesn't do it for innocent people, he does it for himself. Like I said, you can make a good argument that he's chaotic evil.
He has a strict code that revolves around punishing criminals for their crimes, and his whole life is dedicated to that out of revenge for something that happened to him. That's not chaotic evil.

Frank is lawful, he follows a natural law and does so to an extreme.
He's not chaotic, what he does may seem like chaos, but the very idea of an innocent getting caught in a crossfire is enough for him to change plans, and if you were to argue that a sacrifice was worth the greater good, he'd kill you.
He's obviously not neutral, as he's actively engaged in fighting evil, and the act of fighting evil for no reward is inherently good.
He's possibly a neutral good, since his views cannot be swayed by any sort of pandering.

Frank is either the ultimate lawful good, or neutral good. Depends on what "law" we're talking about

>Everyone has a code he follows.

Not me, I just get high and improvise.

Lawful evil people would be organized criminals and corrupt politicians, the kinds of people he is dedicated to killing.

I'd say his code makes him neutral. He doesn't kill criminals for justice, he kills them for vengeance. He doesn't care about making the world a better place, or bringing people to justice or what is right or wrong, he just wants to murder people he hates. That makes him more chaotic, in my opinion.

>He doesn't kill criminals for justice, he kills them for vengeance
One in the same. When he kills a criminal instead of bringing him in, he's serving justice in his eyes, as the court system would likely give them a slap on the wrist (and at any length wouldn't slaughter them, which is what he sees as justice)

that's still a set of values.

>step 1: get high
>step 2: improvise
It's more complex than Fronk's code, that can be reduced to "step 1: kill baddies".

Neutral Frank.

Lawful good.
You can say whatever you want, fighting evil is good. In the great pictures he saved countless innocent lives.

>gaylords

Are you 11?

That's the thing though, it's not about justice. He knows that killing them doesn't solve societies problems, but he doesn't care. He doesn't care about making the world a safer or better place. It's about revenge for what happened to his family. Everything is just about murdering lawbreakers to him.

Unironically, he's Chaotic Good.
Seeking the vehement and total destruction of those who are evil, by whatever means necessary, is perfectly within the domains of Chaotic Good.
Though, if he utilizes torture, he may fall to Chaotic Neutral (as is appropriate for someone who uses Evil means for Good ends). Murder is ultimately a Neutral act, but torment for the sake of torment is unequivocally Evil.

Frank's code and goals are very similar to the Mercykillers faction in Planescape, and Mercykillers are always Lawful Neutral. Thus it stands to reason that Frank is Lawful Neutral as well.

Personal codes of conduct don't make somebody Lawful or Chaotic. The reason someone follows a personal code of conduct makes somebody Lawful or Chaotic.
If they follow that code because it is just and correct, then they are lawful. If they follow that code only because they fear the consequences of breaking it (like Batman), then they are chaotic.

The Punisher employs murder, kidnapping, extortion, coercion, threats of violence, and torture in his war on crime.

Yes, but he doesn't fight evil within the confines of the law. Using a machine gun to mow down a drug cartel in the middle of a city isn't legal, unless you have a shit ton of paperwork, and can somehow claim self-defense, and even then he's more than likely looking at jail for using the machine gun in the middle of a city. Also, is torture a good act? No, it is not.

>murder,
Neutral
>kidnapping
Chaotic
>extortion
Vaguely Evil
>coercion, threats of violence
Chaotic in the extreme, vaguely Evil
>torture
Exceedingly Evil
>war on crime
Exceedingly Good

But do the ends justify the means to a good character?

Sounds like the ultimate good. It's a never ending fight against evil, that he'll fight until he dies, and even then he'll never get anything out of it.

Yet Frank would never allow harm to befall an innocent. He'd never torture someone innocent in order to get at the evil, even if it would work.

As for his methods, they may be unorthodox, but they're hardly evil, and it's debatable whether or not he gets some kind of thrill out of it. Usually he's only torturing hardass evildoers in order to get info so he can kill more hardass evildoers. I'm not a huge fan, but I've never seen him torture someone when a bullet could have sufficed.

>murder
Evil
>kidnapping
Evil
>extortion
Evil
>coercion, threats of violence
Evil
>torture
Evil
>war on crime
Well-intentioned evil

Ends and means must be in balance for someone to be truly Good or Evil. There's a reason most mortals end up Neutral.
Performing Good ends with Evil means causes your soul to be neither.

"Lawful" does NOT mean following the local laws, and never has. He does, however, follow a moderately strict code of conduct - only kill evil people, make sure no innocents get hurt, that sort of thing. Also I have no idea where you're pulling this torture thing, 99% of the time he just kills people dead.

Actually murdering people who are evil and actively engaging in acts harmful to other people such as violent/organized crime is a Good act. "Murder" just means it's illegal, it doesn't change whether it's Good or Evil.

No.
To explain it with far more depth:
>Murder
Depends entirely on who or what you are murdering and why. May be in tune with or in defiance of the laws of gods and men.
>kidnapping
Depends entirely on who or what you are kidnapping and why, but usually in defiance of the laws of gods and men.
>extortion
Typically an excess of force, and therefore tinges on Evil. But ultimately threats to manipulate another are not extremely Evil.
>coercion, threats of violence
Flagrantly defy all conventions of society and the structure by which people are expected to interact with each other. Supremely Chaotic, and often in excess of justifiable force, leaning towards Evil.
>Torture
Torment for torment's sake results in no gain but suffering, and its performance drags the world towards Hell. Even torturing people who "deserve it" is, at its utmost pinnacle, Lawful Evil.
>War on Crime
Transiently Lawful, but ultimately Good, as it is for the protection and benefit of all.

Doesnt evil inflicted upon evil equate good? Sort of like multiplying negatives

The Punisher is a remorseless, one man killing machine obsessed with murdering people he deems evil. He doesn't care about fairness, justice or whats right or wrong.

Objectively wrong. Killing someone is murder. Murder is evil.

Take your murderhobo tendencies back to 3.5

Following a code of conduct doesn't make you Lawful in and of itself. The reasons why you follow a code of conduct can make you Lawful.

People forget that intention does have meaning in D&D's paradigm. That meaning is not always sufficient to justify one's alignment, but it sometimes is. The reasons why you do things shift some people from Evil to Neutral. (People often forget Neutral exists sometimes as well, it seems.)

Short answer? Depends. If you're killing people for selfish reasons, it's still Evil whatever their alignment. If you're killing Evil people because you're on a crusade against Evil, it's Good. On the other hand, some things like torture are always evil, no exceptions.

His alignment is Frank Castle

>Take your murderhobo tendencies back to 3.5

Actually you're equally wrong regardless of the edition we're talking about.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
Gary Gygax gave his full disclosure on this subject; the execution of wrongdoers is perfectly Lawful and Good. Good is not omnibenevolent. Good is willing to make sacrifices and give up on lost cases. Mercy is not always Good, nor is it the height of Good that all Good must aspire to. Some things cannot be forgiven.

>Also I have no idea where you're pulling this torture thing, 99% of the time he just kills people dead

Are you kidding? The Punisher holds some kind of world record for number of people tortured.

>some things like torture are always evil, no exceptions.
I'd say that depends on why you're torturing, who you're torturing, and to what end.

If you're torturing random people because it gets you off, that's evil.

If you're torturing a bad guy to get critical info, then cease torturing them afterwards (probably to kill them) then it's debatable.

>Where do you live
>On the edge

10/10

I bet you think Rorschach is Lawful Good as well you fucking edgelord.

Punisher is a good man.

>Mercy is not always Good, nor is it the height of Good that all Good must aspire to.
Showing mercy is MORE good than just executing people 9/10 times, but that doesn't mean killing evildoers is NOT good.

Nope.
D&D is ironclad in this. If you need to get critical information from a person, Charm them or Dominate them. Detect Thoughts or pin them in a Zone of Truth and Command them to answer. Cast Discern Lies and Intimidate them if you absolutely must, but torture is an act of evil.

Torture has never been a reliable way of getting good information out of people, and if you have magics to make it into one, you can also get the information out without emplying it.

frank castle and punisher 2099 are very different people

Actually, it means you'll end in Baator.

Torture will also get you in Baator, no matter how noble your ends, or how many orphans you saved in you other adventures.

You don't have to be Evil to end in Baator, you just have to be judged as worthy of punishment by the Pact Primeval.

>you just have to be judged as worthy of punishment by the Pact Primeval.
Sounds like a bunch of Frank Castles pulling a Frank on old Frank.
And where does this pact sit on the alignment chart?

Lawful neutral.

He kills people, which relates to his "goodness", however, every character in D&D regardless of alignment kills stuff so we can't take that as an overall indication of his lawfulness. He obeys his own set of laws in opposition to the established set of laws and does so for the purpose of being good, while incidentally doing bad things. I'd still say lawful neutral.

How so?

That sounds completely reasonable and logical. You've convinced me.

The Pact Primeval rests precariously between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil. It is the very essence of the laws of retribution and punishment.
However, nothing within the Pact proclaims the punishers must not encourage acts which must be punished, inviting gainless retribution by corrupting the innocent. It is through this loophole that Asmodeus' grand plan was enacted.

Does the end justify the means regarding aligment? (e.g. killing an innocent child to save the world) It must be, or else paladins would be able to be baited into failing very easily and that is absolutely retarded.
If so, intent matters more than actions.
If so, he must not be Good or Lawful, because he kills evil people because he hates them, not because he wants to uphold Law or Good.

I'm extremely confused now.

Intent and actions both matter in regards to alignment.
Ends can indeed justify the means, and also not sufficiently justify the means. It is a case-by-case situation.

Depends on the writer, the story and whether he's in his own book or in someone else's. In his own books, he tends to be LN or LG. If he's written in someone else's book, he tends to lean heavily towards evil.

If you're Good, ends absolutely do NOT justify the means. Killing an innocent child is an evil act no matter WHY you do it, and any paladin doing it absolutely should fall.

They're literally different people for one thing, Punisher 2099 is a man named Jake Gallows and lives in a timeline a hundred years ahead of present day marvel. Or did, God knows what's going on with that right now.

Also, are we doing Punisher Max Frank, or mainstream continuity Frank? Because one of them is highly skilled but otherwise normal very,very dedicated murderer while the other was an angel at one point.

What about torturing people as punishment for a crime?

>police are well-intentioned evil
Ow
the edge

Lawful Evil. Even Saint Cuthbert will grit his teeth and permit it.

>If you're Good, ends absolutely do NOT justify the means. Killing an innocent child is an evil act no matter WHY you do it, and any paladin doing it absolutely should fall.
See, no.
Killing an innocent child because they've become the living portal through which Tharizdun, god of eternal darkness, will soon pour through and begin the destruction of all things positive in the great wheel, would be a perfectly justifiable reason for a paladin.
Only the most draconian DM would not allow a minor Evil aspect of the act to outweigh the corresponding tremendously Good aspect.

(me)
>most draconian DM would not allow
would allow*
fucking accidental self contradiction
(deleting posts takes too much time and somebody would just post a "gotcha!" anyway)

Most medieval punishments involved public displays of torture. Stocks, ordeal by fire, and in the case of treason things like being hung drawn and quartered.

Is any king or government that employs these punishments considered evil?

>"your end is nigh, Dabilch the Vile! I will slay you and put an end to your plans to destroy the world."
>"ha-ha, you truly are a fool, Sir Loin! The only way to stop my plan is to kill this child, who is also my phylactery!"
>"ah shit well nevermind just kill me now"
>everyone dies
>paladin goes to his god
>"nigga what the fuck"
>"hey you're the one who gave me my code, dont get mad when I don't break it"

You have to understand that one Evil act does not cause an alignment shift.
If you perform great acts of Evil in tune with great acts of Good then you are in the equilibrium of Neutral. Most mortals are Neutral, and in this case, most human societies throughout history are Lawful Neutral.
Hell, one flavor of True Neutral is explicitly "will act against anyone and perform all the Good/Law/Chaos/Evil in the world so as to bring balance".

Frank Redoubt

The Punisher doesn't live in the wild west, though. There is a system of justice in place that doesn't use torture, he just chooses to ignore it.

He's not?