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 arent 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 Gardners 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 villains 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-Mans 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 dont 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 theyre 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 hes
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 its 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. Hes 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, Moores 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 Im calling the
morally ambiguous hero; while not all vigilantes are morally ambiguous and not all morally

Mainhood 5
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 isnt 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 Millers 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 vigilanteSuperman, though, is a joke, because he allows for his
morality to be placed under the governments 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
doesnt 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, hes 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), hes 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 dont
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 Citys population (which was between 7.1 million and 7.4 million in
1985). While their moral code, which both coincide similarly to societys moral code, wouldnt
allow them to commit the atrocity themselves, theyre 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 dont meet up with common morality, they also seem to have
categorically moral understandings and therefore cant be seen purely as evil or villains, unlike
The Comedian. Their moral codes dont match up with each other, and they are morally
ambivalent (and in Dr. Manhattans 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 its not
something thats clear until the end of the novel. While he doesnt 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 Citys population via his own
imagined and created alien can be called domestic terrorism. Regardless of his excuse - that
its for the greater good, in order to save the world from World War III and probably nuclear
fallout - I dont 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 Veidts plan (Moore 374), kills all of the scientists and artists hed had
working on the monster hed thought up to destroy New York City (332), and kills all his

Mainhood 8
workers in his home in Antarctica (356). Hes 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 doesnt 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. Manhattans moral ambiguity, unlike Ozymandias, Rorschachs, and Laurie and
Dans, is defined by his inhumanity. Jon is the only one of the entire group to have actual
superhuman powers; hes 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. Dont you see what that means? (Moore 288) and says to Veidt, whos
the worlds smartest man, that this worlds smartest man means no more to me than does its
smartest termite (400). Hes 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, hes 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 Veidts plan
is good enough for him to
Rorschachs 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 doesnt match up with societys, 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 wouldnt
necessarily for other criminals; whatever the reason, be it comradic respect or whatever his mind
can come up with, Rorschachs 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.
Its 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 [Rorschachs] mind, Adrian is a murderer,
and justice demands that he be held accountable, regardless of the consequences (Krieder 97).
Though weve seen Rorschach overlook the actions of The Comedian, he doesnt in Veidts 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 [Rorschachs] 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 Rorschachs mind, consequences of his
own actions based on his moral code dont 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 todays 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 Rorschachs moral convictions, we certainly
cant 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 Showtimes 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: Showtimes 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 readers 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 cant 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
Dexters vigilantism is aimed at terminating those whose victims look disturbingly like us and
those we care about (24). It is because we dont 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 arent 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 arent necessarily morally ambivalent in the ways that the protagonists
in Watchmen are, our interest in these types of characters certainly hasnt faded; Dexter has been
nominated and won many awards over the years, is considered one of Showtimes 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 Watchmens 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
Hernndez Roura in Watchmen or the Global Worlds 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 its
not just this world and this America thats different from our own; its 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 its actual motives were, but also
with our views of how vigilantism is or isnt 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 arent 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". Magills 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.
Hernndez Roura, Sergio Armando. Watchmen or the Global Worlds 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: Showtimes Dexter.
Quarterly Review of Film and Video 28.5 (2011): 390-400. Web. 9 Dec 2015.