Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown

[agentx42]

Wow. Funny how just a few weeks ago there was ample criticism about Shojo's leadership skills, and whether or not he was Machiavellian, and how could he lie to his Paladins...

Now we're beginning to see just what the old man had to deal with, pretty much every day: greedy, power-hungry types who want the throne for themselves, while not being allowed to explain just WHY certain things can't or must be done. I don't envy Hinjo, now having to face enemies that should be allies, as well as Yahtzee-loving liches and the eeeeevil armies that follow him.

So... maybe there's a new-found understanding for what Shojo went through, and why he's a more sympathetic character than originally imagined. Or maybe not. Now that I've introduced the topic, the dialogue is all yours.

Thoughts?

[Akaziel]

Very, very true. If that was what I would have to deal with, I would have faked senility as well.

[Estelindis]

Personally, I think that his first day in office will give Hinjo more of an insight into why Shojo faked senility. But I don't think he's going to do it himself - I reckon he'll play it relatively straight, while still keeping a few tricks up his sleeve.

[warmachine]

This is the world of politics. The trick is to get the subordinates to fight each other whilst they think you're a useful ally but make sure you don't get blamed for it. This can be someone arguing that someone else isn't fit to hold his government position. You listen to the first person and if you don't like the second person, you change policy that ends up making your victim's job harder but it's difficult to pin the cause on your decisions. Watch him fail and replace him. The victim gets the blame, the advocate suffers political backlash and you appear to act in the interests of the nation.

This is nowhere near as easy as it sounds - identifying the opportunities and dodging the blame is a black art.

Is this the way for a Lawful Good paladin to behave? Is this anyway to run a government? Nope. Hinjo has to lay down the law on a nobility that assassinates, so he has to lay it down hard. He risks turning into a dictator. He's stuffed.

[Dolash]

As a certified expert on running (fictional) governments, I think Shojo and Hinjo represent the two different yet equally valid ways of running a government.

Shojo accepts that he's not going to be able to get everyone's support, because some people are selfish, ambitious, or just think they know better. So he manipulates and slips like a greased eel through the gears of government, getting the most power (Though perhaps not the most efficiency) possible out of what he has available and simply working around human nature. This is an excellent way to lead in wartime or precarious situations where a power struggle would be too difficult to win or there are outside threats that require every effort to be put down.

Hinjo, on the other hand, is younger and committed to the Paladin code, meaning that though he has some understanding of politics (he knew ninja death squads were on their way) he doesn't bend with them. This results in many power confrontations and a much lower output in terms of available resources (plus the very real risk of being overthrown), but it also purges disloyal and untrustworthy elements from society and helps bring about a more secure nation. This is an excellent way to lead in peacetime when things are going well, since there's time and resources to go through the trouble of reformation and it ensures that if conflicts DO arise, you won't need to manipulate people into dealing with them.

Unfortunately, it seems the times and skills for both leaders were reversed, probably to make it a bigger challenge for everyone involved.

[The Wanderer]

Heh. When everyone was dissing Shojo I had to restrain myself from posting some snappish things, figuring that time would prove the old guy's case for him. But seriously, everyone was getting on the case of a leader proven to be good because he *gasp* lied to paladins in order to circumvent their vows which would have aided the destruction of the world! (Often while backing a deluded and borderline insane religious fanatic convinced that she was justified in however she chose to wield the power of life and death over people).

I was tempted to ask what would happen if some of the people here actually had to deal with a truly gray character, say a Tywin Lannister or Stannis Baratheon. God help us, I think the forum would have exploded.

[chibibar]

Shojo not being a paladin does allow Shojo to many things within the system. Shojo was able to manipulate the nobles to work for him in different ways and YET make them still think Shojo is working for them. It is an art really. Many politics work this way unless you are running a dictatorship and fear.

Hinjo is a paladin and his code disallow many methods that works with the nobles. Hinjo will have to have confrontation with the nobles and risk losing his life in order to protect the city that he swore to defend. The soldiers are loyal to their respective master(nobles) and Hinjo is going to have many rough patches before the city will be stable again.

[Megalomaniac2]

I had total sympathy for Shojo from the moment I learned his story. This is a man responsible for the entire universe, for the lives of the Gods themselves, who did his job and was awesome in the process. I think he was a genius to get as far as he did.

[Tilian]

It's possible that with the coming battle and possible social upheaval because of it, there might be a different power structure that Hinjo can actually cope with while not straying from the Paladin's code. It would certainly be easy on him.

Not that Hinjo would really want said upheaval, but it would free his hands up. Of course there's every possibility that things will just get worse.

[Sisqui]

Heh. When everyone was dissing Shojo I had to restrain myself from posting some snappish things, figuring that time would prove the old guy's case for him. But seriously, everyone was getting on the case of a leader proven to be good because he *gasp* lied to paladins in order to circumvent their vows which would have aided the destruction of the world! (Often while backing a deluded and borderline insane religious fanatic convinced that she was justified in however she chose to wield the power of life and death over people).

I was tempted to ask what would happen if some of the people here actually had to deal with a truly gray character, say a Tywin Lannister or Stannis Baratheon. God help us, I think the forum would have exploded.

Not everyone. Some of us stood up for the old coot :smallsmile:
He reminded me of the expression "Age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill."

[agentx42]

Not everyone. Some of us stood up for the old coot :smallsmile:
He reminded me of the expression "Age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill."

Man, the older I get, the more truthful I hope that expression really is... :smalleek:

[lumberofdabeast]

The constant knocking of Shojo always amused me. The man was responsible for the welfare of a city with a population that could easily be in the millions, he had to pretend he was insane to avoid being assassinated by power-hungry rivals, he couldn't afford to reveal the most important duty he had, and he still managed to take care of all this while retaining a Good (although hardly Exalted) alignment. And readers still argued that he was a terrible leader.

The fact is, sometimes, things just have to be done for the good of the whole, even if individuals suffer because of this. There is no such thing as black or white in the real world, just shades of grey. The number of people that can't cope with grey morality in OotS, just because their game worlds lack grey (one of the greatest mistakes a DM can make, in my opinion), saddens me. Shojo was an excellent leader, who played the hand he was dealt with incredible skill. He always acted with the best interests of Azure City in mind, which is more than can be said for most actual world rulers.

[Iranon]

I don't think most people were attacking Shojo as such, but pondering how it would look like from Miko's perspective.
Shojo made immense personal sacrifices (no respect for his person, only for his position. No friends or confidants. No-one to share his responsibility with) to effectively govern his city and to safeguard the world entire... and apparently did a good job of it. Azure City seems both wealthy and happy, despite a noble class that appears very quick to use assassination to further their interests.
Concerning the gates, he found a reasonable balance between keeping the spirit of the Sapphire Guard's oath and overall responsibility.

On the other hand, relying on deception in the long run has its own problems... when other people find out, they naturally jump to the most unfavourable concusions. Shojo probably knew he was done for the minute word of his method of government got out - if lucky he would be removed from power and publically disgraced, the other options being assassination and outright civil war. That his devoted protegé summarily executed him is just delicious icing on the cake or tragic irony.

Miko's conviction that the Order is in league with Xykon is coloured by personal dislike, but Xykon's words could easily be interpreted as confirmation. Furthermore, Shojo's words are fairly damning if you don't know the backstory. Given her overwrought state at the time and the implied personal betrayal, her actions are very understandable.
If you refer to Hinjo as an example how the situation should be handled... agreed. On the other hand, there is a huge difference between an heir apparent well-versed in the darker nuances of politics and a crusading zealot who finds her unquestioning loyalty apparently abused for nefarious purposes.

Similarly, I can understand the point of the nobles - we aren't given many details about how their obligations run, but it's easy to imagine that their duty to their house is at least equal to the duty to their ruler. Being coerced into fighting without exploring the alternatives and without knowing why seems an unreasonable demand.
This could and should have been addressed - either by threats or by taking the nobles into confidence in some sort.

[chibibar]

Yea but considering the the nobles uses assassin to do their dirty deeds, doesn't look like they are in the good area of the alignment. I don't think Hinjo can trust them as far as he can throw them. It is very dangerous for others to know about the snarls. Who knows what people can do with its magic. There are sooooo many things that they don't know about the Snarl. Maybe Xykon could channel its magic for evil purpose and I'm sure the nobles could probably do the same with enough magical help.

I believe that Hinjo is between a extremely hard place and immoable rock. He can't tell the nobles about the gate and yet still need them to safeguard the city from the hoard.

[Estrosiath]

The problem with governing Azure city is that the heads of the families themselves are not paladins. If you're LG (and bound by that alignment as a paladin in a way, say, a fighter isn't), and try to govern people who are other alignments, you're in for a LOT of trouble, especially if the some of the nobles are evil. LG governments need overall a LG population and ruling class, otherwise they are in for it in a bad, bad way. I'm not sure how Hinjo will be able to deal with his new position while not compromising his alignment. Shinjo was able to do it because of the Chaotic portion of his alignment, which enabled him to lie 'for the good of the city', but Hinjo will never have that option. So he will have to keep beating back assassination attempts and coercing stubborn nobles to behave in lawful ways. Only solution is being proactive and incriminating nobles that try to undermine his rule by gathering staggering amounts of evidence against them (and he will need more than a reasonable amount, both because he is young, inexperienced in their eyes, and because they obviously want to take his place).

[Josh Inno]

I honestly don't think I understand why everyone is bashing the use of assassin's/ninjas as evil, and yet are applauding Shojo for his deceptions.

How is having a warrior who can get right to the king/ruler and kill -him- without wasting the lives of the guards and warriors in the castle necessarily evil? It leads to less total loss of life, and is in line with Sun-Tzu's philosophy of taking the whole being the superior outcome. True, they do not take Hinjo, but he is one young paladin, compared to all the forces in the tower.

The nobles may well be concerned with protecting their people and the people of the city, and they are not convinced that some form of diplomacy may not work. They see one dead, nutso ruler, and now his (from their perspective) overly naive, inexperienced, and possibly (from their perspective) incompetent nephew takes the throne, and refuses to seek a peaceful resolution to the on coming battle, where there's about a 50/50 chance of everyone in the city DIEING if it is actually fought.

While they are not acting lawfully, they did at least hold to their ideals of attempting negotiation and reason before engaging in violence.

[chibibar]

well.. I think we are using real life rules when it comes to "hiring someone to kill someone" aka Ninja. In the U.S. you can get death sentense for hiring someone to kill someone for you. that is an evil act in accordance to U.S. Laws.

Now, the funny thing is that assassinating an evil person is consider a good thing :) how ironic isn't it?

the problem we have is that we don't know how powerful the nobles might be. The soldier might be loyal to the nobles so killing off the nobles might just piss off their followers (and that can be worst) especially if the nobles have successors :)

Hinjo will have to be pretty crafty and stay within alignment to get this rolling.

[fangthane]

The constant knocking of Shojo always amused me. The man was responsible for the welfare of a city with a population that could easily be in the millions,

Actually, per the references in this and the previous comic, we can come to a much closer approximation of Azure City's population. We know they have some 10000 men under arms as a standing force, and that their noncombatants number in the tens of thousands (with a possibility of hundreds of thousands). Based on typical D&D population dispositions we can probably assume that at least 1/2 of their population is combat-capable (since usually a very large encounter group indicates "+50% non-combatants" meaning that 2/3 are combat-capable) which means that the city's population is likely to be somewhere between about 150k and about 300k, give or take.

While magic may enhance the ability to build cities, anyone who's played Civilization (any version) will understand that without infrastructure and hygiene we tend to take for granted, cities on the scale we build them just aren't possible.

Edit - wanted to clarify, I agree wholeheartedly that Shojo is (or rather, was) The Man... Even a couple hundred thousand citizens is a huge responsibility and an impressive resume.

[Pantler]

Actually, per the references in this and the previous comic, we can come to a much closer approximation of Azure City's population.

Why bother? Lord Shojo stated that the population is ca. half a milion.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html

[chibibar]

Yea.. he did. Naturally most of the D&D cities would have infrastructure as GM would put them in there :) now running water and such maybe not (unless you got tinker gnomes) much less running hot water.

Now a mage tower or a mage run city would be different, there are tons of different magical items/spell you can use to simulate infrastructure :)

[pjackson]

The problem with governing Azure city is that the heads of the families themselves are not paladins. If you're LG (and bound by that alignment as a paladin in a way, say, a fighter isn't), and try to govern people who are other alignments, you're in for a LOT of trouble, especially if the some of the nobles are evil. LG governments need overall a LG population and ruling class, otherwise they are in for it in a bad, bad way. I'm not sure how Hinjo will be able to deal with his new position while not compromising his alignment. Shinjo was able to do it because of the Chaotic portion of his alignment, which enabled him to lie 'for the good of the city', but Hinjo will never have that option. So he will have to keep beating back assassination attempts and coercing stubborn nobles to behave in lawful ways. Only solution is being proactive and incriminating nobles that try to undermine his rule by gathering staggering amounts of evidence against them (and he will need more than a reasonable amount, both because he is young, inexperienced in their eyes, and because they obviously want to take his place).

Luckily, it is extremely unlikely that any of the nobles are actually evil. With an order of Paladins having been around the around the rulers for decades, any evil noble will have had to flee the city or be detected - and given Miko's attitude killed.
The appear mostly to be Neutral Lawful - they protect their own people and are concenred about the plight of the city. They are willing to use methods that are not good, to achieve their aims. These methods are predictable, probably traditional. They do not directly challlenge Hinjo's right to rule, only his ability.

Hinjo's big problem is not his alignment. It is that he can not reveal his reasons for acting as he does and therefore will appear rather irrational to others.

LG governements might work best with a predominantly LG society, but should work with LN, providing there are not many evil laws that the LG rulers would want to change quickly. That is unlikely in Azure City as Soon and the other palaldins have supported the rulers for a long time.

[Josh Inno]

well.. I think we are using real life rules when it comes to "hiring someone to kill someone" aka Ninja. In the U.S. you can get death sentense for hiring someone to kill someone for you. that is an evil act in accordance to U.S. Laws.


Well in that case, all governments that hire mercenaries to temporarily supplement their armies, or that pay to have a standing army are evil.

An assassin is no more evil than a soldier in a war who follows orders to attempt to kill the enemy, and joined the military in order to get tuition to go to college. Government sponsored assassins are also no less lawful. After all, what do you think special forces black op teams that go after specific military leaders are, other than assassins hired and trained by a government agency?



Now, the funny thing is that assassinating an evil person is consider a good thing :) how ironic isn't it?


That's my point. Assassination is not evil. However people who attempt to kill leaders, figure heads, or other people we like are considered evil "because they are the enemy".

It's perfectly possible for two paladins to attempt to kill each other and retain their alignments because they are both fighting for what they believe to be the greater good, and they are respecting the legitimate authority of the government or religion to which they pledge their allegiance.

[arkwei]

1. Well in that case, all governments that hire mercenaries to temporarily supplement their armies, or that pay to have a standing army are evil.

2. An assassin is no more evil than a soldier in a war who follows orders to attempt to kill the enemy, and joined the military in order to get tuition to go to college. Government sponsored assassins are also no less lawful. After all, what do you think special forces black op teams that go after specific military leaders are, other than assassins hired and trained by a government agency?

3. That's my point. Assassination is not evil. However people who attempt to kill leaders, figure heads, or other people we like are considered evil "because they are the enemy".

4. It's perfectly possible for two paladins to attempt to kill each other and retain their alignments because they are both fighting for what they believe to be the greater good, and they are respecting the legitimate authority of the government or religion to which they pledge their allegiance.

First, let me say the following things are comments on the traditional fantasy setting and/or the medieval ages, so I'm not in trouble.

1. Well, no one said all governments are/were good, so there.

2. Dude, there's something called "a just war" versus something that's not. Granted, it depends on what side of the war you are on, but I think we can agree on some general priciples.

3. Killing people is evil to begin with. If you kill without lethal provokation, it is an evil act to begin with. In the case of soldiers, they really have no choice to begin with. You can't say "I don't wanna go" to a draft, for example, and that's what always happens in the old times. Assasination might not be more evil than killing people, but it is no less evil. Only in the context of having tried someone in a court is a killing not so evil.

4. You really have no idea what you are talking about. There's no way a Paladin will get away with his powers intact with that. Miko is a good example.

[Iranon]

4. You really have no idea what you are talking about. There's no way a Paladin will get away with his powers intact with that. Miko is a good example.

So what happens if two countries, both of which lean towards Lawful Good and have paladins sworn to their service, stumble into a war? A mass fall from grace since desertion should be a hefty violation of the code? Sucks to be a paladin.

[Justinian]

I was tempted to ask what would happen if some of the people here actually had to deal with a truly gray character, say a Tywin Lannister or Stannis Baratheon. God help us, I think the forum would have exploded.

You would call Tywin Lannister gray? More like the very definition of Lawful Evil.

[The Wanderer]

Ah, I'm not a big Tywin fan, (although what a great antagonist), but I've known more than a few ASOIAF fans who would argue that old Tywin wouldn't qualify as evil... more ruthless than his enemies, certainly, but not psychotic or taking pleasure in cruelty. And he looks down on those who do, (calling them Lorch, Clegane, The Bloody Mummers etc beasts), or the way he lectures Joff when that little turd wants to slaughter the men who surrendered to him. Throw in the tragic background of Tywin having to deal with his father's mistakes even as a boy and losing the one person he loved, and voila, you've got a Tywin fanclub.

I've never bought into it, but I've heard it argued back and forth plenty of times. Although Stannis is certainly more gray than Tywin.

[lumberofdabeast]

Evil is not characterized by psychosis, or taking pleasure in other's pain, even if they are common traits of evil people.

Evil's number one defining characteristic is that it only looks out for itself. It doesn't even care about other evil things.

[Justinian]

I've never bought into it, but I've heard it argued back and forth plenty of times. Although Stannis is certainly more gray than Tywin.

Oh definitely about Stannis, but I can't see Tywin as anything but evil. I think Tyrion would agree.

Outside of Tyrion the only good Lannister is a dead Lannister. :smallfurious:

Ned. :smallfrown:

I say that, and yet I delight in playing Lannister in the strategy board game, because it allows me to be such a treacherous little bugger to the other players. :)

[EdgarVerona]

What I don't get is how, with the place supposed to be under lawful good rule and all (with paladins etc...), how come it seems *none* of the people in the higher ranks of the system are anywhere close?

Obviously Shinjo was Chaotic Good... and these other lords seem to probably be more like neutral or chaotic evil (sending ninjas to assassinate their king?). How did the Paladin get ruled under all these people for so long and not figure it out? And how come the heads of Lords weren't rolling to begin with? They seem like some evil mofos.

[hamishspence]

in the D&D rules, the assassin prestige class requires you be evil because: you must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. In the sense of Kill without asking why, assassins are somewhat evil.

[Justinian]

I'm of the opinion that assassins are evil and anyone that would employ assassins are evil. That can be for OotS, tabletop D&D, real life, whatever.

[pendell]

I'm of the opinion that assassins are evil and anyone that would employ assassins are evil. That can be for OotS, tabletop D&D, real life, whatever.

Would you consider Winston Churchill evil because he conceived and approved Operation Anthropoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid)? An assassination in the classic, literal sense of the term?

Or another example: One of the few known living American 'assassins' is Thomas G. Lanphier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lanphier).

During WWII, the US became aware of the travel schedule of the brilliant Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Yamamoto). It was known he was touring the Pacific Theater by air with a small aerial escort. They were beset by Col. Lanphier and his squadron. Admiral Yamamoto was shot down. It was an assassination from conception to finish. And it may have shortened the war by a year or two.

Is Col. Lanphier evil? Or the men who sent him on his business?

I, personally , would say that killing of ANY kind is evil. But if you must kill, it is better to kill a few than to kill many. Therefore, given the choice, say, between killing one crazy man with a mustache with a poisoned umbrella one sunny day in London, and killing thousands of uniformed teenagers in 'fair' combat, I'll take the first option, thank you.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Justinian]

Don't you think you're blurring the line there between special forces / commando action in a time of war and assassination?

[pendell]

Don't you think you're blurring the line there between special forces / commando action in a time of war and assassination?


Erm, actually, I don't. For a couple of reasons:

1) The operations I pointed out are specifically called 'assassination missions'. IIRC, even the people who kicked them off and the people who carried them out considered them exactly that. Nothing else.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means" ... Clausewitz, remember?

The tools, methods, and techniques used to kill another human being are the same regardless of whether you're a Mafia hit man, an intelligence officer, or a terrorist. The politicians and the lawyers decide what is and is not a 'war', and whether or not a specific killing is 'legal' or not. But at the working level I can't see this as anything but a distinction without a difference.

2) How exactly do you define a 'war' anyway?

In history we don't always have the luxury of a declared war against a formal organized enemy who wears uniforms and controls a particular patch of geography that is recognizable as the enemy country. There have been 'cold wars', 'secret wars' between intelligence agencies, 'deniable operations' (such as, e.g., arming Nicaraguan insurgents), 'police actions', or 'targeted killings' of 'terrorists'.

So it's okay to kill a Nazi leader during WWII, is it? Well, what if it isn't WWII? What if it's 1938? Or what if he's in hiding in South America, in 1974? What if the host government is protecting him? What if he's leading a secret terrorist organization fomenting trouble? What if the person who does the killing is part of a 'resistance movement' instead of working for a government?

I suspect that ... from the perspective of the person who does the work ... this is all a bit academic. Doubtless the folks who do this kind of work are dedicated patriots, trusting that the people who give them the orders are giving them good orders and therefore shooting down Mr. X in the street is a Good Thing, even if it looks and feels like cold-blooded murder.

And it doesn't really matter whether the choice of weapon is a knife, a poison-tipped umbrella, or a Hellfire missile fired from an advanced aircraft. The means and result are the same.

3) Consider Operation Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phoenix) . The stated objective of this exercise during Vietnam was to 'neutralize' enemy 'infrastructure'.

What this means in English is to go into the homes of suspected VC operatives in the dead of night and kill them.

Justifiable act of war? Atrocity? Who decides? Does an assassination become a 'legitimate act of war' merely because a government orders that it be done? Is it ever right if it's done without government behest? Has there ever been such a thing in history as a 'good' insurgency -- and every insurgency in history has used these tactics?

====

To me, 'assassination' simply means 'the targeted killing of an individual off of the immediate battlefield'. Whether it be peace, or cold war, or a police action, or a counter-terrorist action, or a Strike For Revolutionary Justice -- that's lawyer talk, probably way above the heads of the people whose job it is to make it happen.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Squark]

Very, very true. If that was what I would have to deal with, I would have faked senility as well.

I'd BE senile

[Sisqui]

Erm, actually, I don't.

I agree with the overall post. Assassination is actually one of the most "good" ways to fight a war, if it must in fact be fought. If taking one life will result in ending the war and NOT taking it will result in the deaths of thousands, what kind of morally "good" leader would not take the opportunity, however clandestine and "dishonorable" the tactic may be?

[TheOtherMC]

You see, one of the best things about real life situations though, is that we as humans arnt constrianed by any kind of ALIGNMENT. We can make conscious choice about how we act without ever having to worry about losing our class features for it......well most of us at least :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Of course, D&D assassins are the far extreme of the scale: they kill for money and money alone. ANYONE is fair game for these guys.

Spec-Forces types are closer to your "patriotic assassin" who kills for his country. Even then, they have issues with collateral damage.

Since time immemmorial, assassins of any kind have been looked on with some distaste. The Tyrannicides of ancient Greece who murdered a tyrannical ruler were not seen as heroes by most Greeks.

A mercenary kills for money, but not usually murders. It is a case of fighting on the battlefiend rather than murder in the enemy's sleep.

James Bond, the archetypal honorable assassin, is rarely if ever seen sneaking up on someone to murder them. His fights are usually with an aware and hostile enemy.

[Justinian]

I agree with the overall post. Assassination is actually one of the most "good" ways to fight a war, if it must in fact be fought. If taking one life will result in ending the war and NOT taking it will result in the deaths of thousands, what kind of morally "good" leader would not take the opportunity, however clandestine and "dishonorable" the tactic may be?

Well, that's certainly very "ends justify the means" of you.

[pendell]

Well, that's certainly very "ends justify the means" of you.

Uhm, isn't all warfare an exercise in 'ends justifying the means'?

Warfare involves killing young teenagers -- people whose only crime is to wear a different uniform -- with machine guns, knives, rifles, bombs, shells in the most horrific of ways. And that's just the *soldiers* -- when you start adding in the civilians who get bombed, blasted, gassed, or even atomized it becomes even more horrific.

If there is never a situation when a lesser evil is justified in order to accomplish a greater good, war ... hell on earth ... should never be fought at all.

Am I wrong?

Why is it right to kill thousands upon thousands of young men -- under some circumstances -- but it is always wrong to kill the middle-aged clown who is responsible for the whole mess? Why is wholesale murder "good" while retail murder is "always wrong"?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Taffer]

Mainly because arguments like "The ends justify the means" are very slippery-slope. Where do you draw the line? Should we kill people who become political dissenters on the off chance that they might foster a revolution? Heck, should we outlaw cars because they lead to thousands of deaths a year? Surely it would be safer to return to the horse and buggy days.

[Yogi]

[Scrubbed]

[UglyPanda]

THIS is what we think of Meat Loaf Day!
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html

The nobles are not entirely good nor entirely civil. They're quite duplicitous and are willing to use ninjas to assume power.

None of the nobles took out any time to have a civil discussion with Hinjo before they sent their assassins after them (ironic, seeing as the first one angry at him suggested using diplomacy with Xykon). If you argue that they did, let me point out the there were four ninjas of different colors attacking Roy, when only three nobles spoke to him. Only one said anything (in an attempt to usurp the crown, of course); another simply sided with the first; and the last simply yelled at him.

[Sisqui]

Well, that's certainly very "ends justify the means" of you.
Why yes, yes it is :smallcool:

[TimeWizard]

The highest praise I could give Shojo is that he reminds me very much of Havelock Vetinari. While their individual facades are very different, both go about guarding their country with the same means to the end. Is it Machiavellian? Perhaps. Is it damn effective? Undoubtably.

[Nightmarenny]

Well, that's certainly very "ends justify the means" of you.
And why can't the end justify the means sometimes? I mean killing people because they might become enemies so no war is ever started is an example of the ends not justifying the mean but whats so bad to kill a truely hostile man so that a couple million teenagers don't die for nothing? Sometimes the ends does justify the means. Its so annoying that now or days so many people use the arguement as some sort of end-all phrase.

[Jari Kafghan]

Two points in my first post.

1. There is no way that Tywin Lannister was evil. He was easily hated, mostly because he was ruthless. He was looking out for the kingdom and in the long run his family, and because he was such an so single minded about those two things, Nothing would get in his way. As they said in one of the books, he was a rare man. And as they said in the last one, Tywin is deffinately his son, just at this point is lacking the focus of his father.

2. THe problem with assassination and the ends justifying the means is this. You have played your trump card, you won't be able to play it on the next person you don't like half as easily, and at the same time even the best assassin things can go wrong. And most importantly you don't know what the outcome of a new leadership will be. "The devil you konw..." You cannot be sure the person you want to follow will. Or that things will be better over all if he does. The advantage to war isn't the honor of not killing the one guy in a sneaky manner. Its that when the leadership is overthrown, you know for certain what is taking its place.

[Justinian]

And why can't the end justify the means sometimes? I mean killing people because they might become enemies so no war is ever started is an example of the ends not justifying the mean but whats so bad to kill a truely hostile man so that a couple million teenagers don't die for nothing? Sometimes the ends does justify the means.

So if you must know, since you asked, war is not always wrong - when it is in self-defense, for example, in much the same sense that killing is not always wrong. So particularly when fighting a just war (which to me, generally means fighting in self-defense), a leader may send his soldiers on a raid behind enemy lines to destroy enemy infrastructure or disrupt the enemy chain of command. This is not a happy euphemism for assassination, mind you, as this is morally not the same thing as what I consider an 'assassination."

So when I say above, "I'm of the opinion that assassins are evil and anyone that would employ assassins are evil. That can be for OotS, tabletop D&D, real life, whatever," I very much mean it, but I suppose I'm using a more exclusive denotation of the term.

If no war is ever started then how can sending a soldier or covert agent to kill someone in cold blood be anything but murder?

Honestly, this thread has gotten quite strange, with people defending obviously nasty / unethical men like Daimyo Kubota and their employ of assassins to kill rightful rulers because they don't like their policies. IRL I abhor plenty of politicians and dictators, but that doesn't mean I think my nation should send CIA ops to kill them in the dead of night. That is not justice.

I will backdown off the high horse a little and say that in D&D terms, obviously one act does not make someone evil or good, so it is conceivable, however unlikely that someone could be neutral on the good / evil scale and still employ assassins as I define them.

But IRL, a governmental official hiring an assassin is morally no different than a civilian hiring a hitman, and I would call that a very evil act, and would generally refer to the people doing such a thing as evil people.


Its so annoying that now or days so many people use the arguement as some sort of end-all phrase.Not that I consider myself a saint, or anything, as I know better, and I know my vices, but I do consider myself to be a individual of principle, and logically consistant principle at that. I was not trying to Godwin's principle this, so to speak - I was not trying to iterate a commonly used buzz phrase or internet messageboard meme without considering the implications. Personally, I'm not very big on using ends to justify the means (unless those means are so innocuous as not to beg the question) and obviously a lot of people are.


There is no way that Tywin Lannister was evil. He was easily hated, mostly because he was ruthless. He was looking out for the kingdom and in the long run his family, and because he was such an so single minded about those two things, Nothing would get in his way.

Well, to me that first part sentence contradicts the rest of what you said, as I said before I would consider the Lannisters as such: Tywin to be Lawful Evil, Cersei to be Chaotic Evil, Tyrion to be Chaotic Neutral, and Jaime I can't pin down, though if I had to choose one alignment for him in the first book, I would choose Neutral Evil.

I would make my argument using almost exactly the same words you just did. Tywin is a ruthless man that values his status and his family above everything else and nothing can get in his way. You could make a case for Lawful Neutral if you could show some sign of goodness in him, but personally, from scouring the books, I can find none.

[Nightmarenny]

War is never right, but often necissary, and I would quite prefer the fast way out when it comes to it.

When it comes to assination outside war. I think its a more complicated question than you give it credit for. I'm not very good at analogy or metaphore but I'll try and explain my position.

There is a man who rules a country. He has ruled it well so far but is about to put in motion a law or policy that would very logicaly get alot of people killed. He doesn't relise that and refuse's to aknowledge in anyway that he could be wrong. So he trudges on about to preform an accidental but still very terrible act. The only way to stop his policy is to get him out of office and the only way to get him out is for him to die.

Would it be better to let those people die?