Mainhood 1

Makayla Mainhood

ENG 320 Prominski

12/11/2015

The Morally Ambiguous “Hero” and Watchmen

“Superhero protagonists often have a mission to right wrongs, protect the defenseless, or

defeat super villains” writes Sam Julian in “Superheroes: Archetypes for the Modern Myth”. The

common standard for a superhero is someone with good morals, someone whose main goal is to

protect the human civilians and help the police department (or, often, work as a vigilante but still

be considered a hero by the common man). While this archetype for the superhero is what one

may think of when thinking of comic book heroes like Superman, Spider-Man and Captain

America, the fact remains that many of those we might dub “superheroes” can be very much

morally ambiguous. Looking at heroes such as Batman, Wolverine, and Magneto, we see the

morally ambiguous and sometimes straight amoral individual we may still provide the title of

“hero” to. These superheroes, though they generally have at least an outline of a moral code,

sometimes act in immoral or amoral ways, though at the end of the day they still generally try to

do the moral and “right” thing, meaning they definitely aren’t the villain - leaving us, then, with

a morally ambiguous hero as the protagonist. These ideas, common in many superheroes and

comics, make themselves clearly present in Watchmen, as nearly all of the characters are morally

ambiguous in one way or another.

Morality can be loosely defined as a principles of good versus bad, right versus wrong;

specifically, to be moral is to do things that are in line with what society as a whole might deem

“good” behaviour, while acting immoral means doing things society as a whole might deem

“bad”. David Carroll writes that in John Gardner’s On Moral Fiction, he defines moral action as

Mainhood 2

“affirm[ing] life and promot[ing] human happiness...by carrying out those ideals or inherent

values or eternal verities which are universal moral laws...the Good and True and Beautiful” - the

“Good, True and Beautiful” being a philosophical Platonic idea of transcendentals, or states of

being. Based on classic superhero characters - namely Superman, who might be considered one

of the first popular culture superhero icons - the classic definition of superheroes outlined earlier

can easily be applied. Superman and others like him do what they do in the name of humanity, to

keep the average human safe and therefore affirm their life and promote human happiness. Their

morality is straightforward and easily recognizable, and we have no trouble identifying them as

protagonists and heroes.

On the flipside we have the easily recognizable villain; the one whose immorality is plain

and simple, and is clearly evil. In opposition to moral action, villains are often in direct hostility

to human happiness and humanity in general. A villain’s morality is severely compromised in the

way that a superheroes is not; even with flaws, many superheroes are still good. The same cannot

be said for villains, whose immorality are as much a part of them as anything else. Even with

great backstories or dynamic motive, it is clear that their main goal is to spread chaos, destroy

humanity or at least a portion of it, and they have no care for human life (with the exception of

very specific individuals, occasionally). Common examples of well-known super villains include

The Joker from the Batman comics, The Red Skull from the Captain America series, and The

Green Goblin, the super villain to Spider-Man’s superhero.

The morally ambiguous hero, then, falls between the classic superhero and classic

supervillain. They are neither definitely moral or immoral, but instead set their own moral code

and their morals can sometimes be swayed with persuasion. They don’t work in direct contrast to

humanity, but may ignore certain aspects of societies or even their own moral code in order to

Mainhood 3

enact what they think to be best. Morally ambiguous protagonists like Wolverine, who often acts

antisocially and has a near continuous inner fight between his willingness to kill as necessary and

the moral code enacted on him, and Magneto, who acts for the oppressed mutants but who also

believes that mutants are superior to humans and humans should be subjugated (which often

leads him to be called specieist), are still often looked to as heroes as they’re considered to have

a morally-correct motive or and undeniable part of them that forces them to act in certain

immoral or amoral ways (though, in certain incarnations, it should be noted that Magneto is

considered the villain, even as his motives are defended by those who see him as a morally

ambivalent hero for the oppressed mutant community). In Watchmen by Alan Moore, the

morally ambivalent/ambiguous hero is fairly easily found in each and every one of the

protagonists in various, sometimes very different, ways.

Alan Moore is the main writer of Watchmen, which is described as “a comic book about

comic books, a study of the flawed people compelled to become heroes, an examination of how

such beings would deform society, a satire of American politics and culture, a transcendental

science fiction, and a meditation on free will and determinism” (Peters). Though he is very well

known for Watchmen, Moore is also the writer of the extremely popular graphic novel V For

Vendetta, a 1982-1989 miniseries about an anarchist called simply V. The graphic novel

(published in 1988 by DC Comics) brings up many questions in the way of morality and

immorality; notably, the idea that V, regardless of his (in his mind) sincere intentions, he is

nothing more than the government and leaders that he desperately seeks revenge on. He kills

innocent people in acts of terrorism in an attempt to dismantle the fascist government that has

taken over England, which brings to light the question of his morality. Though he believes he’s

doing what he does for the greater good, V is taking the lives of innocent individuals to do so;

Mainhood 4

very similar questions are taken into account in Watchmen. Along those same lines, Moore

revived the character of Miracleman (formerly known as Marvelman). Within the series, written

1982-1990, “The boundary blurred between heroes and villains; black-and-white moral issues

became ambiguous; and the story satirized it’s own genre” (Peters).

Moore, of course, offers a lot more to the genre than interesting and question-raising

storylines. “Before Moore made his mark on comics, writers were far less important than artists

to the medium, which was widely perceived as illiterate trash for kids,” writes Jefferson Peters in

“Alan Moore”. He’s well known for bringing the very genre of comics and graphic novels to a

larger, more mature audience. His varied and dynamic characters, which include superheroes,

prostitutes and children, gave variety to a seemingly limited genre, and his “work has helped

establish a greater balance between writing and art in comics and has dramatically increased the

audience for, and aesthetic value of, the medium” (Peters). Beyond that, Moore can be known as

a popular culture icon in more than just his raising of the graphic genre; V in V for Vendetta is

oft cited as the inspiration behind the public look of the well-known hacktivist group

Anonymous, and perhaps even more than just their aesthetic, as the group is described by some

as a sort of group anti-hero. Nonetheless, “Moore’s mainstream comic work such as Watchmen

raised the standard for quality in comics writing”, and his influence on the modern adult graphic

genre should not go without recognition (Peters). His storylines, particularly within Watchmen,

are inexplicably linked with the present day idea of the morally ambiguous hero.

In “Holding Out For A Hero: Reaganism, Comic Book Vigilantes, and Captain

America”, Mike Dubose writes about the idea of the vigilante and the common theme of

vigilantism in comic books. Vigilantes, I believe, can be easily related as another title for what

I’m calling the morally ambiguous hero; while not all vigilantes are morally ambiguous and not

Mainhood 5

all morally ambiguous heroes are vigilantes, it can be seen that many of them are one and the

same; we have a prime example with who Dubose describes as “the most popular vigilante

figure...in the world of popular culture”: Batman (919). A definitively classic hero figure,

Batman is nonetheless morally ambivalent; while definitively not outrightly evil, the many

incarnations of Batman leave him as a tortured soul, someone who isn’t always working on the

“right” side of the law and for whom morality is not near as black-and-white as it is for more

classically moral superheroes like Superman and Captain America. In Frank Miller’s incarnation

of Batman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (written around the same time as Watchmen and

what the 2016 movie Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is based off of), Batman is very

much the vigilante superhero; Dubose writes that “[Batman] only fights those he...believes are

wrong and is consequently treated as a vigilante…Superman, though, is a joke, because he

allows for his morality to be placed under the government’s service” (922). Within the common

motif of superhero, that “of the endless struggle, a conflict that can never be concluded because

superheroes’ moral standards generally prevent them from killing their enemies”, Batman falls

short - though, to be fair, so do our more morally correct superheroes, on occasion (Julian). To

fully assert his moral ambivalence, Batman does sometimes kill his enemies, though he generally

doesn’t without “necessity”. Our protagonists in Watchmen are much the same way, and in that

way we can compare them to Batman in their vigilantism and their moral ambiguity.

Edward Blake, alias The Comedian, is killed at the very beginning of Watchmen, yet his

legacy lives on throughout the novel. He is perhaps a very clear example of a straight up morally

ambiguous character, and might even be called acutely immoral. Dr. Manhattan says about him,

“I have never met anyone so deliberately amoral” (Watchmen, 129). Within our first few pages

with Blake we see him kill a seemingly innocent pregnant (with his child) woman (57) and he is

Mainhood 6

shown as consciously evil in his brutal destructiveness during the Vietnam War (129). On page

49 we see him rape the first Silk Spectre, Sally Jupiter, and he generally seems to have no regard

for human life, instead having such cynicism in the entire world and humanity that he finds it all

to be “a big joke”. Even with all the obvious immorality and amorality to his actions, he’s largely

regarded by many common citizens to be a hero for his actions regarding the Vietnam War, and

even works for the government after the Keene Act of 1977 outlaws costumed vigilantes.

Though he might be considered one of the most obvious examples of immorality and might even

meet many of the values of a classic villain (in his disregard for humanity, his pleasure and

ambivalence seemingly taken in killing innocent lives even without reason, and the general evil

nature he outpours), he’s still regarded through the novel as a superhero and is never punished by

another hero or by the justice system in place.

While Laurie Juspeczyk, the second Silk Spectre, and Dan Drieberg, the second Nite

Owl, are not nearly as immoral or amoral as The Comedian or even as much as any of the other

protagonists within Watchmen, they are nonetheless somewhat morally ambiguous. They don’t

commit any of the atrocities that the other characters do throughout the novel, but both of them

agree to keep it a secret that Adrian Veidt, a.k.a. Ozymandias, is the one behind the mass murder

of nearly half of New York City’s population (which was between 7.1 million and 7.4 million in

1985). While their moral code, which both coincide similarly to society’s moral code, wouldn’t

allow them to commit the atrocity themselves, they’re more than willing to keep it a secret “for

the greater good”, especially after it is shown that indeed the event has prevented World War III

and a possible complete nuclear fallout (Watchmen 402).

From the mostly moral Laurie/Silk Spectre II and Dan/Nite Owl II, and the incredibly

immoral and amoral Edward/The Comedian, we move on to perhaps the most obviously and

Mainhood 7

definitively morally ambiguous three of Watchmen; Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, Jon

Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, and Walter Kovacs/Rorschach. While these three perform unspeakable

and definably terrible, savage acts that definitely don’t meet up with common morality, they also

seem to have categorically moral understandings and therefore can’t be seen purely as evil or

villains, unlike The Comedian. Their moral codes don’t match up with each other, and they are

morally ambivalent (and in Dr. Manhattan’s case, purely ambivalent) in various and different

ways, yet all lead up to the same ideal that is incredibly similar to the average morally

ambiguous superhero; the idea that killing and dramatic violence is sometimes necessary.

Ozymandias can perhaps be considered the final antagonist of Watchmen, but it’s not

something that’s clear until the end of the novel. While he doesn’t adhere to the common

definition of the villain, he is overarchingly someone readers can identify as definably bad.

Though all of the characters can be considered “bad” in one way or another or many ways,

Ozymandias goes above and beyond in terms of absolute and mass slaughter, which, particularly

within our society today, is easily circumscribed as terrible. In the wake of our terms today,

Ozymandias’ successful plan to murder nearly half of New York City’s population via his own

imagined and created “alien” can be called domestic terrorism. Regardless of his excuse - that

it’s for the greater good, in order to save the world from World War III and probably nuclear

fallout - I don’t doubt that most readers would define his monstrous horror as an act of terrorism

(Moore 375).

Even beyond the mass slaughtering of humans that occurs “for the greater good”, Veidt

kills multiple other individuals - all part of his plan, of course. He kills The Comedian after he

latter finds out about Veidt’s plan (Moore 374), kills all of the scientists and artists he’d had

working on the monster he’d thought up to destroy New York City (332), and kills all his

Mainhood 8

workers in his home in Antarctica (356). He’s the one who leaks the (probably false) information

pertaining Dr. Manhattan giving everyone within his life cancer, get Rorschach arrested, and

even hires someone to attempt to kill him, then kills the assassin (374). All of these are to throw

everyone off his trail and dispose of anybody who could stop him from committing his plan.

Ozymandias then raises the question of whether it is moral to “sacrifice the interests of a few for

the greater good of the many?” (Kreider 97). It is a question that doesn’t sit well with nearly any

reader, no doubt, and is a “classic quandary”; can something indeed be in the best interest of

humanity if it kills over three million people? “Wholesale slaughter means nothing to

Ozymandias if human order is ultimately saved” writes Dubose (926); Kreider similarly decides

that “[Ozymandias] believes that he has an obligation to save humanity from a nuclear war,

thereby preventing death, destruction, pain, suffering, and possibly even the extinction of the

human race” (103). In Ozymandias’ mind, there is only one clear path; sacrifice a “few” in the

name of saving most. This is clear cut moral ambiguousness; while murder is clearly immoral in

the eyes of most, saving humanity as a whole is also clearly a heroic act.

Dr. Manhattan’s moral ambiguity, unlike Ozymandias’, Rorschach’s, and Laurie and

Dan’s, is defined by his inhumanity. Jon is the only one of the entire group to have actual

superhuman powers; he’s able to change matter, bend time, is seemingly omniscient, and is in all

of this incredibly God-like. His moral ambiguity is wrought by his complete and utter lack of

concern for humanity; he tells Laurie that “you were my only link, my only concern, with the

world. When you left me, I left Earth. Does that not say something? Now you have replaced me,

and that link is shattered. Don’t you see what that means?” (Moore 288) and says to Veidt, who’s

the “world’s smartest man”, that “this world’s smartest man means no more to me than does its

smartest termite” (400). He’s beyond humanity, thinking of things in a purely scientific and

Mainhood 9

physical sense. His moral ambiguity stems from the fact that humanity, in his mind, is worth

nothing more than anything else on Earth, and if they are to destroy themselves, he’s not willing

to step in and stop it.

This ambivalence for humanity is, seemingly, challenged just pages after he tells Laurie

that his

only link to the Earth and humanity has been broken. Indeed, he recognizes within Laurie that

her very existence, the chances that she would come to fruition considering the literally infinite

other possibilities, the idea that her entirety is based upon so many little things going a certain

way, what Jon calls a “thermodynamic miracle”, is what makes humanity incredible and worth

saving (Moore 306). His moral ambiguity is again challenged when he decides that Veidt’s plan

is good enough for him to

Rorschach’s moral code, meanwhile, is extremely separate and different from

Ozymandias’, though he is the most obvious example of human moral ambiguity next to Veidt.

He is also, according to Dubose in “Holding Out For A Hero”, “the closest thing to a traditional

vigilante in Watchmen in that he is violent beyond necessity, attacks police when cornered, and

blatantly refuses regulation” (924). He frequently uses violence and psychological manipulation

to ascertain information (Moore 149), he attacks the police in the face of being arrested (170), he

kills animals (199) and violent criminals (202) instead of serving them more “moral” justice in

the hands of the government, and he kills others who have wronged him (263 & 266).

Rorschach, Dubose writes, “is definitely the servant of his binary system of morals, seeing the

world only in modernist, black and white terms - like the Rorschach test” (925).

His moral code doesn’t match up with society’s, often, however. Though many of those

he kills would deserve it in the eyes of the common citizen, he still murders them violently, and

Mainhood 10

murder is incredibly immoral; even within the government and outside of vigilante justice, the

killing of even terrible criminals is considered by many to be immoral. Beyond that, he seems to

give a free pass to The Comedian for all of his incredibly immoral acts where he wouldn’t

necessarily for other criminals; whatever the reason, be it comradic respect or whatever his mind

can come up with, Rorschach’s moral code stretches and is not fully defined throughout the

entirety of the novel. While he considers humanity as a whole to be widely amoral and

undeserving of being saved, he is also the only one who decides to attempt to turn Veidt in for

the slaughter that he commits.

It’s interesting, that in the wake of the rest of the heroes’ decision to overlook the atrocity

that Ozymandias commits because they too recognize its wider application “for the greater

good”, Rorschach is the one who decides that his behaviour, regardless of its intentions, cannot

be okayed. Rorschach attempts to turn Veidt in; “In [Rorschach’s] mind, Adrian is a murderer,

and justice demands that he be held accountable, regardless of the consequences” (Krieder 97).

Though we’ve seen Rorschach overlook the actions of The Comedian, he doesn’t in Veidt’s case,

even with the possibility that declaring the “alien invasion” as a fake set up might further

international relations between Russia and the United States that would then continue to lead to

an eventual nuclear fallout. Krieder goes on to write that “[Rorschach’s] value system can be

characterized as deontological in that it is based on principles requiring we determine morality of

our actions independently of their consequences” (98). In Rorschach’s mind, consequences of his

own actions based on his moral code don’t matter as much as adhering to the moral code does;

even though, as discussed, there are some exceptions to this moral code.

In the wake of the intense and long-lasting revival of the superhero in today’s popular

culture (mostly through blockbuster movies), and especially after the introduction of the morally

Mainhood 11

ambiguous hero in the 1980s, it is worth noting that our current superheros seem much less

morally ambiguous than people like Rorschach and Ozymandias. They have flaws and

sometimes do things that we might not fully, morally support, but the protagonist of our classic

superhero, vigilante stories are still, clearly, heros at the end - and, as Krieder writes, “As much

as we might admire and respect some aspects of Rorschach’s moral convictions, we certainly

can’t view him as the hero of the piece in any formal sense” (102). Understandable, yet made me

think: what type of a morally ambiguous hero do we have today? Perhaps the best example of

someone like this is the protagonist in one of Showtime’s most successful series, Dexter. The

main character, Dexter Morgan, is a vigilante serial killer that circumscribes to a very strict

moral code, only killing brutal criminals who have slipped through the justice system - his

actions are strikingly similar to those of Rorschach. “Indeed, like any good superhero, Dexter is

strong, meticulous, skillful, and knowledgeable; he easily subdues his victims; he is a clever

hunter of minds when it comes to tracking criminals and monsters (like himself); and he makes

full use of the police forensics unit for his own purposes…” writes Victoria Smith in “Our Serial

Killers, Our Superheroes, and Ourselves: Showtime’s Dexter” (392). Smith goes on to outline

many ways that Dexter mirrors the typical superhero archetype, but in particular it is his

similarity to Rorschach that is useful to this paper.

One of the most interesting thing about Rorschach is the reader’s unsurety about whether

or not we should applaud him. Though he is definitely not a good person - murder does not meet

up with the common moral code - it is the fact that he only murders violent, cruel criminals that

we might say “had it coming” that causes the reader to pause in their analysis of Rorschach.

This same exact line of thought is one that can be applied to Dexter - though we can’t morally

accept his vicious killing, his own strict morality that causes him only to attack violent criminals.

Mainhood 12

Ashley Donnelley writes in “The New American Hero: Dexter, Serial Killer for the Masses” that

“Dexter’s vigilantism is aimed at terminating those whose victims look disturbingly like us and

those we care about” (24). It is because we don’t identify with the victims of Dexter or

Rorschach (mostly) that we feel less connection to them and might find the protagonists

themselves more interesting than anything else. Their victims aren’t us; their victims are awful,

terrible people, monsters, cruel individuals who do cruel things and whose deaths we can feel at

least somewhat vindicated in advocating. Though our mainstream, everyday superheroes that are

popular in this day in age aren’t necessarily morally ambivalent in the ways that the protagonists

in Watchmen are, our interest in these types of characters certainly hasn’t faded; Dexter has been

nominated and won many awards over the years, is considered one of Showtime’s most

successful series, and has even spawned a petition by fans to be continued after the finale in

2013.

All in all, the amorality and moral ambiguity within the heros of Watchmen, while

certainly not unique (especially for the 1980s), is nonetheless a striking feature of the novel.

Even beyond that is the idea that the classic superhero vigilante is what spawned the actual

“superheroes” in the novel. The history within the story is fairly straightforward and follows

actual history correctly up until the reelection of Richard Nixon and the acceleration of the Cold

War, and superhero comics like Superman and Batman were printed and the 1950s ideas of

heroism and vigilante justice were as much of Watchmen’s pop culture as it is our own. The

superheroes in the comic modelled themselves after the superheroes in the comics, with one

appalling difference; that all of them were human, without any special powers, and throughout

the entirety of the novel the only hero with any actual superpowers is Dr. Manhattan.

Nonetheless, these very human vigilantes have a very large impact on the culture and political

Mainhood 13

fronts within America - to the point that a law is passed by the US Congress outlawing costumed

adventuring.

“Unlike the treatment of the classic superhero apolitical, in the world of dystopia the

existence of these beings alters the cosmic order and sense of morality” says Sergio Armando

Hernández Roura in “Watchmen or the Global World’s Risks”. This world our protagonists are

living within is not ours; Dr. Manhattan has been created, an omniscient, all-powerful, God-like

character who cares little for humanity, and he and The Comedian helped win the Vietnam War,

leading to the reelection of Richard Nixon, and all of this also helped cause the acceleration of

the Cold War and the very looming threat of a complete nuclear fallout. “The world with

superheroes is a place very different from our own” Roura continues, reasserting the idea that it’s

not just this world and this America that’s different from our own; it’s any world and any

America with superheroes. The heroes are the ones who affect the way that history is created.

This, again, pushes on our very idea of morality and what it means; not only within our own

standing of whether the Vietnam War was necessary or what it’s actual motives were, but also

with our views of how vigilantism is or isn’t moral based on the consequences of that “heroism”.

Over and all, one would be hard-pressed not to say that Watchmen is, in the end, a

superhero graphic novel. Though the protagonists aren’t classic supers, “Superheroes” reminds

us that “The archetype of the superhero can be continually reinvented to suit its audience”. The

heroes in Watchmen are another reinventing of a classic to play on the contemporary anxieties of

society (i.e., a pending nuclear war). Their moral ambiguity only adds another layer to the story

that relies heavily on the moral code that the readership adheres to. Their insistence on being

ambivalent rather than the villain or the easily-recognizable superhero leaves the reader feeling

Mainhood 14

unsure of some of the characters and adds true complexity to their personality, making the novel

grittier and even more life-like.

Mainhood 15

Works Cited

Carroll, David B. "On Moral Fiction". Magill’s Literary Annual 1979. Ed. Frank N. Magill.

Hackensack: Salem, 1979. n. pag. Salem Online. Web. 11 Dec 2015.

Donnelley, Ashley M. “The New American Hero: Dexter, Serial Killer for the Masses”. Journal

of Popular Culture 45.1 (2012): 15-26. Web. 11 Dec 2015.

Dubose, Mike S. “Holding Out for a Hero: Reaganism, Comic Book Vigilantes, and Captain

America”. Journal of Popular Culture 40.6 (2007): 915-935. Web. 9 Dec 2015.

Hernández Roura, Sergio Armando. “Watchmen or the Global World’s Risk”. Sergio 22 (2013):

429-445. Web. 11 Dec 2015.

Julian, Sam. "Superheroes: Archetypes for the Modern Myth". Critical Survey of Graphic

Novels: History, Theme, and Technique.Hackensack: Salem, null. n. pag. Salem Online.

Web. 11 Dec 2015.

Kreider, S. Evan. “Who Watches the Watchmen? Kant, Mill, and Political Morality in the

Shadow of Manhattan”. Homer Simpson Ponders Politics: Popular Culture as Political

Theory. Ed. Joseph J Foy and Timothy M. Dale. The University Press of Kentucky, 2013.

97-111. Print.

Moore, Alan and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. 1987. New York: DC Comics, 2014. Print.

Peters, Jefferson M. "Alan Moore". British Fantasy and Science-Fiction Writers Since 1960. Ed.

Darren Harris-Fain. Detroit: Gale, 2002. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 261.

Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Dec 2015.

Smith, Victoria L. “Our Serial Killers, Our Superheroes, and Ourselves: Showtime’s Dexter”.

Quarterly Review of Film and Video 28.5 (2011): 390-400. Web. 9 Dec 2015.