What I was responding to here was Krokodil’s claim that Rorschach’s speech was merely describing an ink blot. I believe we agree that it’s not.
Er, no. Rorschach says as early as the third panel of issue 1 that he is not trying to save society, only punish it for its iniquities.
Master Wang-Ka: Most of what you say is confirmed in issue 1, p24: “Soon there will be war. Millions will burn. Millions will perish in sickness and misery. Why does one death matter against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution … and there is so little time.”
The only thing you say that I disagree with is why Rorschach was crying. I think he was crying because here is this all-powerful being who could have created his own utopia without the need for anyone to do evil, but who was instead choosing to let evil thrive while destroying the worthy.
Kovacs shut off his emotions and became Rorschach so he could deal with criminals as he felt they needed to be - without compromise. This is why before the end, he removes his mask and his final words appear in a normal speech bubble instead of the squiggly ones used to denote his monotone voice; what’s the point of his being Rorschach when he cannot exact vengeance any longer?
I thought it was fairly obvious that Krokodil’s claim was that Rorschach was equating reality with an inkblot. We all agree.
“Um, you know he’s describing a Rorchach blot, right” means he’s equating reality with an inkblot?
I agree that that’s what Rorschach was doing, but if that’s what Krokodil meant I think he chose a rather clumsy way of stating it.
Hrm. Hadn’t even thought about that. I stand corrected!
(score one against ignorance, and fight on!) 
Try this, then: He’s taking his trademark, a Rorshach blot, and pushing its implications to a ridiculous degree.
BTW, Moore has said that Silk Spectre has no specific tie to Nightshade, and comes from the same tradition as Phantom Lady and the Blonde Phantom. But, since Nightshade was the only Charlton Acton Hero who was a woman, readers assumed that’s who she was supposed to be. From the survuving artwork of the original version (which actually used the Charlton characters), Nightshade wasn’t in evidence. Sarge Steel was; I guess he became one of the detectives in the final draft.
I think, Priceguy, that it was not so much that the children were innocent as that he identified with them. After all, he was the son of a whore, and they are the children of a woman he regards as a whore. At least, that is how I’ve interpreted the scene.
Re: Ozymandias’ plot: I would also suggest that he might have believed a policy based on deception and murder will not stave off Armageddeon. Ozymandias may have been the smartest man in the world, but I would find it difficult to believe that he didn’t leave some traces somewhere that would ultimately tip off the plot. I find myself wondering what American and Soviet scientists would think after a careful study of the monster’s DNA, wondering what would happen if any diver finds the remains of the ship.
My own take on the removal of his mask is that Rorschach decided to reclaim his humanity at the very end.
I always viewed the ending as Rorschach’s expression of fury and frustration at justice being denied.
Makes sense, given that he had details of the plot written down in the diary he sent to the New Frontiersman, who he believed would publish it.
Wang-Ka nailed it. The overriding factor in Rohrshach’s personality is that he is insane.
At the end when he realized that the right thing to do (about Ozymandias plot) was to keep quiet the only option open to him was death.
‘You don’t understand it. I’m not locked up in here with you…you’re locked up in here with ME.’
I think it’s ultimately futile to try and paint an accurate picture of Rorschach’s ethical behavior, because it’s simply inconsistent. This is why he’s such an interesting character and why Watchmen is such an interesting book – all of the characters are unpredictable – just like real people – in that they don’t always follow their own rules, or even recognize their failure to do so. However, their actions aren’t random, just inconsistent.
Like all existentialists (myself included), Rorschach is presented with this dilemma – if there’s no meaning to life, if there’s no glory to man, if there’s no moral law delivered from on high, then why not be totally selfish? Rorshach doesn’t have an answer to this questsion, but that doesn’t stop him from “helping” people. However, his inexcusable methods point out the flip-side to his refusal to wait on the sidelines – Kitty Genovese showed us it’s wrong to wait for someone else to solve our problems, but Rorshach shows us that the fact that one man decides to do so doesn’t give him the tools to do it well, or right.
–Cliffy