Alexander Nevermind wrote:
But he was using that to save humanity. The ending of Watchmen blew me away, it was everything I hoped for. In fact it was exactly how I envisioned some sort of world peace (lasting or not). Veidt figured it out, and it was something I pondered too. If an alien invasion occured, would the world unite? According to Watchmen it seemed so, but it was still uncertain how long it will last. Then there's the ambiguity of Rorschach's journal.
I don't know why it didn't dawn on me before but that's the same story line Macross (Robotech) has for uniting the earth after a prolong global conflict.
I voted for Ozymandias.
why? not for sympathy votes.
Of the few people who voted, Ozymandias does not seem to be the most popular. Some might find him to be one of the least likable characters because of his ego, "wrongdoing", or what not. However, his character is quite dynamic, evolved, and not your typical stock character.
Adrian was a man of character, ideals, strong will, and of all the characters the most successful. Rorschach viewed him as a prostitute, telling him he "sold himself", when in reality Veidt was a true entrepreneur. He gave away a multi-million dollar inheritance in his early years only to regain it from scratch. Because of his immense intelligence, he was only working to better himself as not only a person but a contributer to society. Of all the characters, he was the true hero seeking peace, not involved in his own personal day to day problems. Because of his ideals, he worked on bringing peace to the world. As "wrong" and "unsympathetic" of his part to make the decision to "murder" half of New York, he was a utilitarian seeking the greater good. And the end justifies the mean because in theory, the death of the New Yorkers saved everyone else. Adrian was the only character who had a goal, stuck to it, and accomplished it. Which is something the other "watchmen" couldn't even begin to come close to.
I think what's highlighted is exactly what made him more like Rorschach than anyone else. They just went about it in different ways. Rorschach wouldn't have killed/hurt so many "innocents" in order to obtain the greater good - he only mangled/killed the "bad people." Other changed their morals/ideals over time, or simply just got rid of them all together.
Rorschach is blatantly the best character, but Dreiberg was a very close second, don't ask me why. Rorschach's sheer bluntness and lack of any sort of morals on any level makes his character so much better when emotions come into play with him.
This was already explained by other posts but I disagreed too. Like I said in another post, morals can really be better described by virtue.
*Both Vedit and Rorschach were virtuous - they wanted to make the world a better place any way they could.
*Both of them understood the need to hurt/kill/mangle people in order for that to happen.
*Neither would compromise their set of "morals" once they realized what their roles in life were.
*Both took on another persona not as a name, but a life style. Vedit took on the figures of ancient worlds because of what they stood for. He not only called himself one but tried to be like them as much as possible. Walter Kovacs became Rorschach because he had to, Walter couldn't accomplish what Rorschach had to do.
But me personally, I voted for Rorschach. I associate the most with him because you need to have uncompromising "morals" when trying to do what he does. You also can't be your normal/usual self. As a person who trains in MMA, I know that at least for me, learning to hit another person and learning moves that can really hurt people isn't something you (should) step into lightly. You need to learn many things, to be honest. But Walter learned that he, even with his messed up childhood/life couldn't hurt/kill/mangle people up. Rorschach solved that problem. Also he keeps it simple, wears clothes you can get anywhere, except for his choice of mask. This is what I think a real vigilante (adventurer) would wear if they were doing this out in real life. He wasn't a super genius, didn't have a lot of money to get cool toys, no super human powers, no great looks - just average looking, unremarkable.
But what he has going for him is that he's a practical person. Has clothes that work for him, not against him. Can easily stash them anywhere and not worry about them being discovered/stolen/lost because of low inherent value of items (except mask). Can replace them easily/quickly. Has 1 piece of equipment (that we know of) that would actually work in the real word: a grappling hook.
Everyone else has great attributes too, but are unrealistic although not impossible. Look at Donald Trump and his multiple fortunes. But Rorschach could almost be the common person (although he's a lot dirtier and a little messed up in the head) on the street. And one last thing, I love how he was written and drawn, i guess "created" would a better term simply because his walking around town carrying his sign, no one looks at him twice and he can be seen anywhere around town without raising suspicion. Yep, Rorschach is who I like.
I am surprised though that so many people like him, i'd figure Jon, Dan or even Vedit would have beat him out. But go Rors!
You can never say never and never say always.