Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Likewise, to refer to a later post, it is conceivable that the Lords of Hell can be Lawful Evil despite underhanded dealings, but this does not make manipulation and deceit non-Chaotic, any more than the rudimentary pecking order among the denizens of the Abyss means that hierarchies are somehow non-Lawful. (Or maybe the source material is just confused or contradictory on this point: It wouldn't be the first time.)

---

The Lords of Hell are paragons of Lawful Evil. They are the closest the D&D universe gets to a canonical example of pure Lawful Evil given physical form. If you view one of their primary tools (and deceit/manipulation without technically stating anything false is one of their primary tools) as Chaotic, then your definition needs revising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

But in order to actually expand his empire, he has had to overthrow one bunch of people and install his own, secretly or otherwise.

---

As far as I can tell, this is an argument that expanding any nation's borders is inherently chaotic. This is patently absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Not to mention that this involves systematically deceiving literally millions of people.

---

Deception: not aligned, depends on the details
Systematic: Lawful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

I don't understand that logic.

---

Official WotC position: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

As for the 'technically, he doesn't lie' arguments- I'm sorry, I just don't consider that position defensible.

---

There is an objective difference between stating something that is false, and implying something that is false - any given statement that belongs in either of these categories can be definitively assigned to one over the other without need for debate. The former category is universally considered to be lying. Whether the second category counts as lying is a great unresolved philosophical debate with many proponents on both sides.

Regardless of the resolution of that debate, scrupulously avoiding the former while using the latter as a major tool is a well established tendency of lawyers, devils, and many various other highly lawful figures in literature both D&D-based and elsewhere. Chaotic just doesn't care and will state direct falsehoods. Paying careful attention and restricting your falsehoods to only the implications is a highly Lawful behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

I've addressed it many times over in this thread, including earlier in the very post you quoted. In addition, I have seen no substantiation of the claim that lies through omission are less chaotic than other kinds of lies. Over to you.

---

As long as you continue to confuse "lawful" with "good' and "chaotic" with "evil" you will never see eye to eye with, apparently, any other person on this thread.

There is nothing, not a single word, in the alignment descriptions that states that a lawful person cannot be hide secrets. The extents of such, and the intent behind it, may push them along the scale between good and evil, but keeping a secret is not a violation. Lawful does not mean you can't hide things that you believe need to remain hidden.

Similarly, a lawful good person is not a robot, obliged to always blab all information they know about all situations all the time or when questioned. A LG character is allowed to think, reason, and make judgement calls about what is said to whom, and to consider what is in the interest of the greater good. Lies through omission can be a part of that. Granted, when questioned directly and forced into a corner this becomes much thornier, but no one said lawful good was easy, either, and the alignment still allows the player to make decisions based on whatever code of conduct drives them.

Devil's are a prime example of lawful evil: they rely on omissions, misunderstandings, false assumptions, and similar deceptions. Their whole shtick is to never lie, but to intentionally mislead and rigidly adhere to their agreements, manipulating circumstances and events to achieve the desired outcome. These things do not make them chaotic.

If you insist on equating "omissions" with "chaotic", then there is no point in continuing this discussion. You are not going to be convinced, and you are not going to find many (if any...I have yet to see one on this thread at least) supporters for such a rigid and narrow interpretation of the alignment system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theNater

Replacing a government with a more centralized and structured government isn't chaotic just because a government has been overthrown...
...Lawfulness isn't inherently about legal systems. It's inherently about a desire for structure and organization.

---

Yes, but given that local legal systems and governments are a form of structure and organisation, how does violating them not count as chaotic? If you build some other legal system or government in their place, yes, that is a Lawful act, but this doesn't make tearing down the old system not-a-chaotic-way-of-doing-things.

Besides, if we're saying 'laws and governments aren't Law, structure and organisation is', then lies of omission are still Chaotic, because organisations and planning depend on the flow of information. Building alliances requires other people can depend on your word, that there is consistency between what you say and what you do. If Tarquin betrays someone by lying to them, by omission or otherwise, he is increasing the net amount of Chaos in the world by at least some degree. If he then takes advantage of that betrayal to increase regional stability in indirect ways, then that is a Lawful act, but it's distinct from, and does not erase, the earlier Chaotic methods.


To go back to my earlier analogy with respect to the G/E axis, if we accept the premise that Tarquin is Lawful, we can conclude that a person who kills, say, six innocent people, torturing one of them to death purely for amusement, but saves another nine from starvation because there's more food to go around, works out as being Good-aligned. I have serious difficulties with swallowing that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Yes, but given that local legal systems and governments are a form of structure and organisation, how does violating them not count as chaotic? If you build some other legal system or government in their place, yes, that is a Lawful act, but this doesn't make tearing down the old system not-a-chaotic-way-of-doing-things.

Besides, if we're saying 'laws and governments aren't Law, structure and organisation is', then lies of omission are still Chaotic, because organisations and planning depend on the flow of information. Building alliances requires other people can depend on your word, that there is consistency between what you say and what you do. If Tarquin betrays someone by lying to them, by omission or otherwise, he is increasing the net amount of Chaos in the world by at least some degree. If he then takes advantage of that betrayal to increase regional stability in indirect ways, then that is a Lawful act, but it's distinct from, and does not erase, the earlier Chaotic methods.

---

Personally, I'd have to say that tearing down the institution is Chaotic IF AND ONLY IF you feel that it only gets in the way and can't be made more useful.

Quote:

---

To go back to my earlier analogy with respect to the G/E axis, if we accept the premise that Tarquin is Lawful, we can conclude that a person who kills, say, six innocent people, torturing one of them to death purely for amusement, but saves another nine from starvation because there's more food to go around, works out as being Good-aligned. I have serious difficulties with swallowing that conclusion.

---

Uh, no. You could've saved those people by asking him to share more (or better yet, doing so yourself). You chose to kill instead of looking for a more humane solution, everything else is just goodish-icing on the Hellcake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tragak

Uh, no. You could've saved those people by asking him to share more (or better yet, doing so yourself). You chose to kill instead of looking for a more humane solution, everything else is just goodish-icing on the Hellcake

---

There's a far simpler reason why this analogy doesn't work - Tarquin has simply never done anything that falls as deeply on the Chaotic scale as killing and torturing people does on the Evil scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burner28

Then why is wisdom and intelligence scores separate from the alignments? if what you say is true, then by the rules someone who is extremely Lawful or Chaotic would take a penalty to their Intelligence and Wisdom score the more Lawful/Chaotic they are, mechanically speaking. But the fact that this does not happen obviously shows that there is indeed a possibility to be extremely Chaotic/ Lawful and smart.

Besides, what is so "Lawful" about using your intelligence to create strategies?

---

Well, there's always been the potential for a certain disparity between the scores on your sheet and how the player actually behaves. Maybe the effect of WIS/INT lies in recognising which alignment will best further your goals under particular circumstances. In any case, I tend to associate planning with Law on the basis that it involves some assumptions of organisation, predictability and/or obedience.

My theory is that you could earn Law points for, drawing up a detailed plan (1), to bring down a criminal (2), at the behest of your superiors (3), without using deception (4), and Chaos points for adapting the plan in the face of new information (1), and when the criminal is part of a government (2). That's a +2 net win for Law, but I think you have to account for these things separately, rather than saying they're all just neutral-until-proven-otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sky_Schemer

As long as you continue to confuse "lawful" with "good' and "chaotic" with "evil" you will never see eye to eye with, apparently, any other person on this thread.

---

As I've already mentioned (last paragraph,) I am not conflating Chaos with Evil. I am simply refusing to blur the distinction between Lawful and Chaotic methods to the point of being meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Yes, but given that local legal systems and governments are a form of structure and organisation, how does violating them not count as chaotic? If you build some other legal system or government in their place, yes, that is a Lawful act, but this doesn't make tearing down the old system not-a-chaotic-way-of-doing-things.

---

I would point out that this would mean that every act of conquer would be a Chaotic act. Every attempt to invade another country would be a Chaotic act.

Which is just bizzare.

As I think about it, we're now moving beyond the D&D definitions of Law and Chaos and approaching more the ones of Elric. Or White Wolf (Destruction/Creation/Structure).

OK, sure. Some of the most extreme modrons (otherwise known as unthinking unmmutable robots) might take your view. But that's the difference between (EXTREME) Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil/Lawful Good.

As has been brought up in this thread multiple times, the very defintion of what D&D considers to be Lawful Evil are the devils of the Nine Hells.

I guess I should ask you this. Do you agree with how the devils of the Nine Hells have been portrayed in the majority of D&D lore? And if so, what makes them so different from Tarquin? Aside from personality quirks such as loving drama.

Carry2, I again ask, quite simply: could you give us all an example of a character you think is legitimately and unambiguously Lawful Evil? The criticisms you've levied at Tarquin seem to me to derail pretty much every Lawful Evil character in fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

I am simply refusing to blur the distinction between Lawful and Chaotic methods to the point of being meaningless.

---

No, I think it is more that you insist on something being a Chaotic trait and very few people agreeing with you.

To paraphrase what you said earlier in the thread, you're painting something in a orange color and are puzzled why everyone disagrees with you calling it red. :smallwink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

As I've already mentioned (last paragraph,) I am not conflating Chaos with Evil. I am simply refusing to blur the distinction between Lawful and Chaotic methods to the point of being meaningless.

---

You can call an apple an orange all you want, but it's still an apple. You may not think that's what you are doing, but it's what you are doing.

This narrow and rigid interpretation of the alignment system that you have provides no room for real characters to operate within real events. Neither the game, nor real life, is as simple as "always tell the 100% truth". Moral dilemmas are real. They exist, both in games and in real life. People and characters are faced with them. If you do not allow the lines to blur, then you have created a standard for lawful that no one can meet. That does not sound like a workable alignment system to me.

You need to get past this. Most children learn "lies are always bad" is not an absolute truth somewhere around kindergarten, and that the good guys have flaws and the bad guys have feelings somewhere in elementary school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morty

There's a far simpler reason why this analogy doesn't work - Tarquin has simply never done anything that falls as deeply on the Chaotic scale as killing and torturing people does on the Evil scale.

---

How on earth does deliberately toppling governments across a continent not count as a pretty gosh-darned Chaotic sort of action? Yes, I know, his ultimate goal is greater political stability, and that is a Lawful objective, but it doesn't change the nature of his methods. His Chaotic and Lawful actions here are of exactly the same sort and magnitude. (Besides, some of his Chaotic actions had nothing in particular to do with law & order- sending Gannji and Enor to the arena by going around his own laws did nothing especially to enhance the power of the legal system- he simply wanted petty revenge.)

This is why I think the "torturer philanthropist" analogy is accurate here. At best you're looking at a very muddied and ambivalent kind of Neutral there, and a lot of folks wouldn't hesitate to call this person flat-out Evil. I don't see why the Law/Chaos axis is being handled differently.

...And I'm going to have to call it a day there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

How on earth does deliberately toppling governments across a continent not count as a pretty gosh-darned Chaotic sort of action?

---

So...you are arguing that conquest is inherently Chaotic, it doesn't strike you as a problem that your definition would make the devils of the Nine Hells Chaotic, and your argument is that you would like the people who have been arguing with you to prove that your assertion is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Tarquin works to bring about an orderly law-driven empire that just so happens to have him at or near the top. He could easily take his vast personal power and run around killing whomever he felt like, racking up loot and living the good life, but he doesn't. He channels his time and energy into building a new social structure out of nothing. Regardless of the tenor of that structure (or whom it benefits), that's still incredibly Lawful.

Compare this to Xykon, who had total control of occupied Azure City and had no interest in governing it at all. Only Redcloak, his Lawful associate, took it upon himself to try and turn that territory into a functioning state.

---

Pulling this back up for a Compare and Contrast. I think the Xykon/Tarquin comparison is excellent, especially if we want to compare/contrast how demons and devils might view this situation.

Can people really tell me with a straight face that there is little difference between the way Xykon acts and Tarquin does? OK, people still suffer horribly under their respective rule. That's a given. But the way they decide to administer things? Completely and utterly different.

I would also point out that Xykon is the most Chaotic Evil character in the entire strip. Yet he rarely uses manipulation or deceit to accomplish his goals (though when he does, he's quite good at it). In fact, he prefers a straight out smash and grab along a Obey Me Or Else mentality.

But what he is, is capricious. He can change his entire battle plan on little more than a whim. He doesn't bother to go through any legal channels to get rid of his enemies. He just blasts them. He didn't bother to try to manipulate a pre-existing structure somewhere and worm his way through the ranks.
(slight SoD spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

He just set up camp somewhere and established a 'crownocracy' :smallbiggrin:

One of the few traits Xykon and Tarquin share is the fact that they both get their kicks out of seeing their enemies suffer. Well, and enjoying a good laugh. But neither of those fall along the C/L axis.

Quote:

---

The reformers in your examples were not the rulers. If the reforms had been pushed personally by the secretary of defense, the equivalent of the "ruler" in that situation, I think you would have seen things play out differently.

---

*Cough Cough*

Erm, no.

And that's all I'm going to say on a board that on a board that disallows real-world politics.

Well, okay, one point which I should make: When your typical maximum time in the job is four years, you're not going to do much good or much ill. It's the assistant secretaries and the undersecretaries and the principal deputy undersecretaries -- the non-political career lifers -- who make things happen or not. But the guy up top? Personal experience here: When the guy up top is only there for four or so years, the best thing for you to do with ANY idea of his/hers is just hold your breath and carry on as you always have. Because whatever initiative gets started will just barely get off the ground before someone else gets in and it all goes in the rubbish bin to make room for the new guy's ideas. Thing about people at that level : They want to burnish their resumes same as anyone else. Which means they'll make change just for the sake of change so they can say they did something.

Which means that many of the predecessors ideas will go straight to the bin than for no other reason than they WERE the predecessor's ideas. After all, there's a pretty good chance that you not only want to burnish your own credentials, you also want to discredit pretty much everything your predecessor did in the bargain.

Then you move on and someone else does the same to your legacy.

So: No. It's HARD to change an organization, even if you're a lifetime king with unlimited powers in law. Because even if you have the authority to kill any subordinate on a whim, you can still only be in so many places at a time, and you're only as good as the information you receive.

*Hunts for a fantasy example*.

Consider Xykon when he took over Dorukan's dungeon. He moved in with a box of stuff, brought in some new monsters, but even then there were still lawful good sylphs and so forth in the dungeon doing things as they always had. I don't think it made a difference to Xykon, because Xykon wasn't actually interested in governing or ruling anything. Same thing in Gobbotopia -- Xykon is ostensibly the person in charge, but it's redcloak who sets the policies and makes all the decisions. Xykon tried to subvert this using Tsukiko as his agent, and Redcloak killed her because she was going to give Xykon -- the boss of the side -- information that he, redcloak, didn't want her to have.

Xykon can only act on the information he has and, since redcloak controls that information totally, it's Redcloak who really runs gobbotopia. Xykon can enforce edicts like "Don't regenerate your eye" because he personally supervises redcloak every day. But anything else? Things happen as the goblins want them to happen, because Xykon doesn't really care about what they do. All he cares about is being top dog.

Of course, there's no people like that in the REAL world, anywhere, ever :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

How on earth does deliberately toppling governments across a continent not count as a pretty gosh-darned Chaotic sort of action?

---

Because he's a conqueror. You can't be a conqueror without upsetting the governments that are already in place, but if you remove the archetype of "the conqueror" from Lawful Evil, you've created a very worthless category.

Quote:

---

Yes, I know, his ultimate goal is greater political stability, and that is a Lawful objective, but it doesn't change the nature of his methods.

---

It's not just an objective, it's something he has already achieved somewhat. The Empires of Blood, Sweat, and Tears now control the majority of the arable land on the Western Continent (aside from the elves' territories) and since the three of them are only pretending to be enemies with each other, there is already less war on the continent. He isn't destabilizing in the short run, he's stabilizing in the short run, and then stabilizing more in the long run.

Quote:

---

His Chaotic and Lawful actions here are of exactly the same sort and magnitude.

---

Even if we assume conquering nations is innately Chaotic, toppling nations in a political climate of constant war with the goal of establishing a stable empire is definitely not balanced out in magnitude. His initial attempt was even more of a short-term success at establishing order where there had been Chaos: when he first appeared on the continent, he conquered eleven nations in eight months. If not for the fact that all the remaining countries ganged up on him, he likely would have established a new order and put an end to this destructive conflict (:elan: I'll never join you!) But instead, he had to devise a new strategy to conquer the whole continent, and even though it takes a bit longer, it's already working.

Quote:

---

(Besides, some of his Chaotic actions had nothing in particular to do with law & order- sending Gannji and Enor to the arena by going around his own laws did nothing especially to enhance the power of the legal system- he simply wanted petty revenge.)

---

The fact that he did it that way indicates a Lawful attitude because he used the legal system to get revenge rather than getting it himself without regard for the law. It seems like your definition of Chaotic actions is "anything that isn't exclusively motivated by strengthening the Lawfulness of society as a whole," and that definition leaves no room for actions that just don't fall anywhere on the Law/Chaos axis, like petty revenge.

Quote:

---

This is why I think the "torturer philanthropist" analogy is accurate here. At best you're looking at a very muddied and ambivalent kind of Neutral there, and a lot of folks wouldn't hesitate to call this person flat-out Evil. I don't see why the Law/Chaos axis is being handled differently.

---

It's not being handled differently. Everyone's counterarguments are concerned with premises from which this conclusion follows. The "torturer philanthropist" is indeed the equivalent of where you think Tarquin falls on the Law/Chaos spectrum, but it seems nobody agrees with you about where Tarquin falls on the Law/Chaos spectrum.

Missed this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

and Chaos points for adapting the plan in the face of new information (1)

---

Really? Do you really think it is a chaotic act to change a plan when new information comes to light? :smallconfused:

Why?

I hestitated to come to this conclusion but it really seems to me that you might be conflating Change with Chaos. They might be similar, but they are not the same.

Perhaps in other games, but not D&D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

Consider Xykon when he took over Dorukan's dungeon. He moved in with a box of stuff, brought in some new monsters, but even then there were still lawful good sylphs and so forth in the dungeon doing things as they always had. I don't think it made a difference to Xykon, because Xykon wasn't actually interested in governing or ruling anything. Same thing in Gobbotopia -- Xykon is ostensibly the person in charge, but it's redcloak who sets the policies and makes all the decisions. Xykon tried to subvert this using Tsukiko as his agent, and Redcloak killed her because she was going to give Xykon -- the boss of the side -- information that he, redcloak, didn't want her to have.

Xykon can only act on the information he has and, since redcloak controls that information totally, it's Redcloak who really runs gobbotopia. Xykon can enforce edicts like "Don't regenerate your eye" because he personally supervises redcloak every day. But anything else? Things happen as the goblins want them to happen, because Xykon doesn't really care about what they do. All he cares about is being top dog.

---

In other words, Xykon shares the Lawful/Chaotic axis of his alignment with Shojo and Redcloak shares the Lawful/Chaotic axis of his alignment with Hinjo.

...And so the nobles tried to kill Hinjo because they realized the things they'd been able to get away with when the ruler was a Good Xykon, they were not going to be able to get away with when the ruler was a Good Redcloak.

Seems straightforward enough. The puzzling thing is that what strikes me as the obvious conclusion of your argument, does not seem to be what you're using your argument to argue for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

How on earth does deliberately toppling governments across a continent not count as a pretty gosh-darned Chaotic sort of action?

---

Toppling a government is indeed Chaotic. That's not what Tarquin does. He replaces governments with a different government. That is merely a change in administration, and whether it is Chaotic or Lawful depends on the difference in Lawfulness levels between the two governments. As Tarquin's government is highly ordered, regimented, and stable, the replacement is Lawful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Yes, I know, his ultimate goal is greater political stability, and that is a Lawful objective, but it doesn't change the nature of his methods. His Chaotic and Lawful actions here are of exactly the same sort and magnitude.

---

Replacing a government with anarchy would be Chaotic. Splitting one government into many smaller independent ones could arguably be Chaotic. Consolidating many governments into one is by the same logic Lawful. Replacing anarchy with stable government is highly Lawful.

Tarquin is doing a lot of the latter two and none of the former two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

(Besides, some of his Chaotic actions had nothing in particular to do with law & order- sending Gannji and Enor to the arena by going around his own laws did nothing especially to enhance the power of the legal system- he simply wanted petty revenge.)

---

He didn't "go around" his own laws, he used his own laws as a mechanism. He had a well established system that takes inputs (evidence, accusations, etc.) and produces outputs (convictions, sentencing, etc.), and he adjusted the inputs and then allowed the machine to go to work. That's Lawful.

As for revenge, that part's Evil, and has nothing to do with Law vs Chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

This is why I think the "torturer philanthropist" analogy is accurate here. At best you're looking at a very muddied and ambivalent kind of Neutral there, and a lot of folks wouldn't hesitate to call this person flat-out Evil. I don't see why the Law/Chaos axis is being handled differently.

...And I'm going to have to call it a day there.

---

If someone killed 6 people specifically in order to save 9 (and nothing noteworthy besides quantity differentiated the people involved), I would call that a Good act provided that he honestly believed there was no better alternative. Choosing torture as the method of killing would be extremely Evil, however, and is very unlikely to coincide with saving the 9 being the genuine motive behind the killings.

Quote:

---

...And so the nobles tried to kill Hinjo because they realized the things they'd been able to get away with when the ruler was a Good Xykon, they were not going to be able to get away with when the ruler was a Good Redcloak.

Seems straightforward enough. The puzzling thing is that what strikes me as the obvious conclusion of your argument, does not seem to be what you're using your argument to argue for.

---

Lord Hinjo may WANT to be a good Redcloak, but what he wants and what he'll actually be are not necessarily the same thing. He's only one man, after all.

The way I see it, he's got the time to be a good paladin OR a good king, but not both. If he's going to be a good king, he's going to have to find a general -- O-chul, say -- to run the sapphire guard for him while he runs the city. If he's going to be a good paladin, then he's going to have to appoint a darn good prime minister to run the show while he's off riding his wolf and slaying dragons and what not.

ETA: Note that Redcloak faced this same choice, to continue to be the effective "king" of Gobbotopia OR continue the quest of the dark one as an adventurer. he could be a good adventurer OR a good ruler but not both. So he chose to be an adventurer and fobbed the ruling off on Jirix.

I remember clearly being in the room when a general officers was evaluating a project I was working on. The man was only one-star rank, but the number of decisions he had to make was enormous. So this was his system: Everyone had to boil their project down to a ten-minute presentation, at the end of which he would either thumbs-up the entire project or cancel it altogether. He simply didn't have time in his day for anything more. So he picked people he trusted to handle the details and didn't sweat them.

That all works well just as long as you CAN, actually, trust them to handle the details. When you're that busy and have no real expertise in the matters you're being forced to sit judgement on (he wasn't picked for software expertise, but because he could fly fighters) , you've got no real way to evaluate it either, until the smell gets so bad you can't ignore it.

That's pretty much how I expect Hinjo to rule, because that's how ANY human running any organization larger than a school classroom rules. There's simply no other way to do it, because humans have finite time and attention spans.

So I expect Hinjo to have to choose between being a good king and being a good paladin but not both.

I expect him to choose the second -- to be a good paladin -- which means that monsters throughout the world will have a much harder time of it but the nobles of Azure City will be able to get along pretty much as they always have, even if Hinjo IS a more lawful ruler than Lord Shojo was.

That's just my read of his character. I read Lord Hinjo as a hero and a warrior, not a shepherd or an accountant or an administrator. He may make a good king when he's in his 50s or so and has got all the heroing out of his system. But not now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Regardless of whether it's staged or not, he's still throwing out one government and installing a different set of folks to run the place. While the indirect effect is greater organisation, the act itself is chaos-aligned.

---

This was already sort of said, but the only thing that changes is the patsy ruler and name of the country. Nothing has suggested that Tarquin tears all his laws down and creates entire new laws. That would make everything all the more complicated.

He is systematically is growing his empire.

Quote:

---

Likewise, to refer to a later post, it is conceivable that the Lords of Hell can be Lawful Evil despite underhanded dealings, but this does not make manipulation and deceit non-Chaotic, any more than the rudimentary pecking order among the denizens of the Abyss means that hierarchies are somehow non-Lawful. (Or maybe the source material is just confused or contradictory on this point: It wouldn't be the first time.)

---

Again, where does it say that deception and manipulation is chaotic?

If that were the case, then Redcloak would be chaotic because he uses deception and manipulation to control Xykon.

Also, you have yet to prove where Tarquin has broken his word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

It can be good based on indirect consequences, not based on the nature of the act itself. If violence was morally neutral, murdering orphans wouldn't be evil to begin with. Likewise, while deceit may have the indirect effect of increasing order in the world, deceit, in itself, is essentially a force for discord. In addition, it is not clear that all of Tarquin's lies (and yes, they are lies) have well-defined lawful side-effects.

Subversion of the legal system (perhaps I shouldn't say 'justice') might or might not be an evil thing, but it is definitely a chaotic thing to do, even when it's your own system.

Regardless of whether it's staged or not, he's still throwing out one government and installing a different set of folks to run the place. While the indirect effect is greater organisation, the act itself is chaos-aligned.

That is precisely my point. By the same logic that Tarquin is Lawful, you're basically a hair's breadth away from declaring Redcloak Good-to-Neutral. Since this rather contradicts my intuition on the matter (and, as it happens, the author's own position,) I can only conclude that there is something wrong with the logic.

I believe I am capable of distinguishing the two. But we don't see Tarquin actually sitting down and paying particlar attention to drawing up something like the Code of Hammurabi. We don't see him going all Javert-on-steroids in the scrupulous enforcement of a bad system. (He does delegate that sort of thing to others, but ignores or undoes their efforts when it suits him.) We certainly don't see him pledging unwavering loyalty to a nefarious higher power, yet alone seeking to fill the universe with emotionless constructs.

As for the yet-another-Batman-example: I think the problem here is a tendency to (A) lump the various qualities of an example under one alignment heading and/or (B) cherry-pick the qualities a given person wants to dissociate. For example, "The Joker makes elaborate plans, the Joker is CE, therefore planning is not Lawful." No, it just means the Joker is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Chaotic, just as Batman is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Lawful thanks to technical violations of the legal system, despite having a strong LG batting average (no pun intended,) based on other stuff he does. This doesn't make planning any less Lawful or criminality non-Chaotic.

Likewise, to refer to a later post, it is conceivable that the Lords of Hell can be Lawful Evil despite underhanded dealings, but this does not make manipulation and deceit non-Chaotic, any more than the rudimentary pecking order among the denizens of the Abyss means that hierarchies are somehow non-Lawful. (Or maybe the source material is just confused or contradictory on this point: It wouldn't be the first time.)

.

---

So, by your own definition, Devils are Chaotic, then? Because the acts you claim to be "chaotic" are perpetrated by Devils just as often as they are by Tarquin.

The issue is that, again, Tarquin doesn't perform Chaotic acts. "Losing paperwork" is not Chaotic. Half-truths are not Chaotic. Conquering other nations through underhanded means is not Chaotic. Changing the rules is not Chaotic. These are all traits of Lawful Evil.

Underhanded dealings and systematic undermining of the laws that are on paper are all LE traits. They are not Chaotic.

So, if Roy kills the evil Orc chieftain and builds a strong central Orc government in its place, would the act be Chaotic?

Conquest is not Chaotic. If anything, it is lawful. But conquest often requires the dismantling of the old regime. This does not make it Chaotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Looking over this description, I can see elements of Law that probably fit Tarquin, and elements of Chaos that probably do. He doesn't seem to promote freedom or recklessness, but he isn't reliable, trustworthy or traditionalist. He resents being told what do, and does what he promises only if he feels like it. While he probably cracks down on insubordination, he doesn't seem judgemental or closed-minded per se. He seems to believe that a lawful society will let people depend on eachother, but he's also adaptable, takes arbitrary actions, goes to great lengths to avoid actual responsibility. He certainly favours 'new ideas'.

Let's just try a thought experiment here for a second. Imagine that you had never before heard of this Tarquin or had any formal information about his alignment. I explain to you that there is a machiavellian schemer, fond of wine, women and song, who systematically overthrows the governments in his part of the world in the process of successfully forging a larger, secretive political alliance across the continent. Toward this end, he regularly lies, cheats, dupes and manipulate others, not to mention ignoring local legal systems whenever it suits him, including his own. Sometimes he even does it just for the lolz! Now, be honest- and without any particular comment on the G/E side of the spectrum- is this person Lawful or Chaotic?

Again, if no-one's mind is likely to be changed, why write the book?

.

---

I would say "Textbook LE, except for the part about ignoring his own legal system".

Fortunately, Tarquin doesn't ignore his own legal system (he perverts it when it suits him; he doesn't ignore it), so that's not an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorSarda

Again, where does it say that deception and manipulation is chaotic?

---

Exemplars of Evil (3.5 splatbook) had a big list of personality traits, and the alignments they tended to go with. "Manipulative" was Evil rather than Lawful or Chaotic, but "Duplicitous" was Chaotic:

Quote:

---

Evil:

cruel - deriving pleasure from the suffering of others, causing harm and pain merely for the sake of doing so
envious - belittling the accomplishments of everyone around them, while secretly wishing to achieve the same things
manipulative - exploiting and using people
gluttonous - hoarding food or treasure to deprive others of the chance to enjoy it

Chaotic:

avaricious - plotting to acquire items belonging to others
duplicitous - honoring no alliance or bond of friendship, lying, cheating, betraying
lascivious - driven by bodily impulses and desire for gratification
mad - erratic and sometimes hostile
nihilistic - defying social conventions and opposing tradition

Lawful:

arrogant - proud, vain, and full of self-importance
trustworthy - their word is their bond
intolerant - persecuting others for their differences
direct - explaining exactly what they expect of others
obsessive - focusing on something and not letting it go
slothful - relying on others to carry out their schemes, but expecting them to be obeyed
vain - consumed with appearances
vindictive - never forgetting a slight or letting go of a grudge

---

Though these were very much generalisations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

Yes, but given that local legal systems and governments are a form of structure and organisation, how does violating them not count as chaotic?

---

Two nations with two sets of laws and two sets of rulers is inherently more chaos than one nation with one set of laws and one ruler. Taking over a nation and imposing one set of laws everywhere = creating more uniformity. More order. Hence, more lawful.

You're making the mistake of thinking "more nations with laws" = more Lawful. Imagine an international treaty where multiple nations agree to tear down their internal laws (eg, for postal service) and install a single law to replace them. Do you really think tearing down all those laws can only be chaotic?

I'm not even going to address the Law/Chaos argument anymore, because we've reached the fingers-in-the-ears "la la la can't hear you" stage of internet argument. I do want to respond to an unrelated post, though:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

Stuff about dragging your feet in a Lawful system instead of plotting murder.

---

I think your experience, while interesting, is far more applicable to the Western Continent than to Azure City. That's exactly the sort of atmosphere I was imagining when I was coming up with a land where rulers are rolled over every few years; people just shrug and get on with their lives, trying not to offend the new boss for the 2-3 years before the next revolution.

In contrast, Azure City has a monarchy with lifetime rule. Hinjo is 23; he could easily rule for 50 more years like Shojo did. Look at the ages of the nobles in strip #414—Kubota is the youngest, and he's probably pushing 50. They simply aren't going to live to see the next ruler unless they take some sort of action. And then you throw in the invasion, and Hinjo's unwillingness to parley, and it seems like hey, maybe we should roll the dice on whoever Hinjo's successor would be. But you'll notice that once the invasion is over and everyone is on the boats, only Kubota (who is an Evil egomaniac) is still interested in overthrowing Hinjo. Probably because no one else wants to deal with the total cluster**** that the Azurite's situation has become.

So my point is, the reaction you describe only makes sense when there's an expectation that you can "run out the clock." And/or no explicitly treasonous activity going on for which you might get jailed or executed, since that punishment will outlast the administration.

Kubota's Lawfulness did seem rather strong here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0562.html

when he is positively gleeful over Therkla's understanding of following the letter of an instruction, rather than its spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

*Cough Cough*

Erm, no.

And that's all I'm going to say on a board that on a board that disallows real-world politics.

Well, okay, one point which I should make: When your typical maximum time in the job is four years, you're not going to do much good or much ill. It's the assistant secretaries and the undersecretaries and the principal deputy undersecretaries -- the non-political career lifers -- who make things happen or not. But the guy up top? Personal experience here: When the guy up top is only there for four or so years, the best thing for you to do with ANY idea of his/hers is just hold your breath and carry on as you always have. Because whatever initiative gets started will just barely get off the ground before someone else gets in and it all goes in the rubbish bin to make room for the new guy's ideas. Thing about people at that level : They want to burnish their resumes same as anyone else. Which means they'll make change just for the sake of change so they can say they did something.

Which means that many of the predecessors ideas will go straight to the bin than for no other reason than they WERE the predecessor's ideas. After all, there's a pretty good chance that you not only want to burnish your own credentials, you also want to discredit pretty much everything your predecessor did in the bargain.

Then you move on and someone else does the same to your legacy.

---

I'll provide examples by PM of major doctrinal changes successfully pushed through by people in this office. Granted the two examples I have in mind both involve people who managed to stay in that office more than 4 years.

Quote:

---

So: No. It's HARD to change an organization, even if you're a lifetime king with unlimited powers in law. Because even if you have the authority to kill any subordinate on a whim, you can still only be in so many places at a time, and you're only as good as the information you receive.

---

Is it hard? Sure. Is it impossible? No. And your suggestion it's relevant when a "typical maximum time in the job is four years" suggests that such a change is much more likely when the person has lifetime tenure.

Quote:

---

Same thing in Gobbotopia -- Xykon is ostensibly the person in charge, but it's redcloak who sets the policies and makes all the decisions. Xykon tried to subvert this using Tsukiko as his agent, and Redcloak killed her because she was going to give Xykon -- the boss of the side -- information that he, redcloak, didn't want her to have.

---

The prior ruler before Xykon was not Redcloak, but Hinjo. I'd say things changed quite a bit between Hinjo and Xykon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carry2

As for the yet-another-Batman-example: I think the problem here is a tendency to (A) lump the various qualities of an example under one alignment heading and/or (B) cherry-pick the qualities a given person wants to dissociate. For example, "The Joker makes elaborate plans, the Joker is CE, therefore planning is not Lawful." No, it just means the Joker is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Chaotic, just as Batman is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Lawful thanks to technical violations of the legal system, despite having a strong LG batting average (no pun intended,) based on other stuff he does. This doesn't make planning any less Lawful or criminality non-Chaotic.

---

I have concluded that you seem to be missing something fundamental about what the D&D Alignment system is and is not.

The Joker does not have an Alignment; he's a comic book character, not an NPC. However the Joker's behavior is often held up as a prime example of how a Chaotic Evil villain might behave. The Joker is Chaotic because he rejects the concept of an Orderly society. The Joker expresses this best in the Graphic Novel "Batman: the Killing Joke", in the movie "The Dark Knight", and in the "Batman: the Animated Series" episode "Joker's Favor". In each of those stories the Joker attempts to drive a law abiding citizen (Commissioner Gordon in "Killing Joke", the commuters and prisoners trapped on the barges in "The Dark Knight", and Charlie Collins in "Joker's Favor") to the brink of madness by terrorizing them. The Joker is Evil because he has no regard for human life, except his own. He callously murders people for fun, abuses Harley Quinn, and creates the "Laughing Fish" by pouring a version of Joker toxin that only affects fish into the Gotham river.

Despite the Joker of "TDK"'s protestations, in all of his incarnations the Joker is a master planner. That means, in terms of the D&D game, that the Joker has a high Intelligence score; it says nothing about whether he is Chaotic or not. Belkar Bitterleaf doesn't make long term plans, but that's not because he's Chaotic, its because his Intelligence score is low.

What I'm trying to hammer home is that Alignment is a code of conduct that governs how you live your life. It doesn't make you smart or stupid (that's your Intelligence score) nor does it imply common sense or lack thereof (that's your Wisdom score). Furthermore actions that might be considered a violation of one's Alignment in one context are an affirmation of your Alignment in other cases. You keep mentioning lying. Lying is not inherently Chaotic or Evil. What matters is the context. Who are you lying to? Why are you lying? Is there a way to avoid an outright lie and still not tell someone a secret? There are plenty of ways to bend the truth without actually lying. O-Chul, Durkon and Tarquin all do it, and they are all Lawful.

Finally there is no "one" way to role-play each Alignment. By insisting that there is, you are showing a lack of experience with how the D&D game has evolved since 1974 (when there were only three Alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic). A Lawful Good character can be jolly and make jokes. A Chaotic Evil character can be a humorless scold. (Maybe he kills anyone whom he thinks is making fun of him?) A Lawful Neutral bureaucrat could actively help people navigate the bureaucracy, provide cheerful customer service and give tips on how to avoid breaking the law by accident. One Chaotic Neutral Xaositect could go around breaking people's windows in the Lady's Ward for the "lulz", and when people ask her to stop, she casts magic missiles at them until the Dabus and the Sons of Mercy show up to kill her. Another Xaositect might knock on people's door and offer to paint murals on the sides of their homes; if they decline, she'll shrug and go to the next home and repeat her offer. She doesn't do this because she feels the need to get permission; instead she doesn't want the hassle of the owners asking the Dabus to arrest her and then having to spend three hours interpreting a series of rebuses. She's rather spontaneously paint a mural as the inspiration comes to her; sooner of later some Basher'll let her paint his kip so why get worked up over an addle-pate who won't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

Lord Hinjo may WANT to be a good Redcloak, but what he wants and what he'll actually be are not necessarily the same thing. He's only one man, after all.

The way I see it, he's got the time to be a good paladin OR a good king, but not both. If he's going to be a good king, he's going to have to find a general -- O-chul, say -- to run the sapphire guard for him while he runs the city. If he's going to be a good paladin, then he's going to have to appoint a darn good prime minister to run the show while he's off riding his wolf and slaying dragons and what not.

---

Hmm. Seems to me that the SG doesn't really need a general right now, and what's left of "Azure City" doesn't really need a prime minister so much as a war leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

That's pretty much how I expect Hinjo to rule, because that's how ANY human running any organization larger than a school classroom rules. There's simply no other way to do it, because humans have finite time and attention spans.

---

Umm. Not entirely. You're thinking of a modern organisation, which is several orders of magnitude larger and more complex than anything that existed in Azure City even before its conquest. If you look at historical generals of even comparatively modern times - Napoleon's day, say - you'll see the good ones did pay enormous attention to detail. Not that they micromanaged every decision, of course, but they certainly expected their orders to be followed, and any officer who 'dragged their feet' as you describe elsewhere could expect to be given a very uncomfortable time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

That's just my read of his character. I read Lord Hinjo as a hero and a warrior, not a shepherd or an accountant or an administrator. He may make a good king when he's in his 50s or so and has got all the heroing out of his system. But not now.

---

But 'now' is precisely when Azure City needs a hero for a shepherd. Assuming (best case) the Azurites can regroup, reinvade, and boot Gobbotopia out within the next year, I would still expect there to follow at least 6-8 years of 'emergency' administration (basically, martial law) while the city rebuilds and repopulates. Hinjo just happens to be in charge at a time that gives him a chance to shine - and maybe redeem his catastrophic mishandling of the first Battle for Azure City.

Regarding Tarquin, as a law student, I want to point out that his deceit by omission is extremely lawful. While it's true that most people consider lying by omission and lying by active statement morally equivalent, most legal systems, both now and historically, have drawn a distinction between the two, only holding people liable if they lie by acting, while letting them (legally) get away with lying by omission because there's no overt act to punish.

So, Tarquin lying by omission to conceal his big plan is a perfect example of staying technically within the letter of the law while manipulating things to his advantage.

In fact, I really can't think of anything that would be a better example of Lawful Evil as an alignment than obeying a technicality of the law to avoid punishment while doing something that every reasonable person agrees is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

I have limited time and energy to create comics, I am not going to spend even one moment drawing scenes that only you seem to think are necessary. Everyone else seems to get it, and I can't imagine any way to make such things interesting or funny or relevant to anything.

---

I'm a bit late to the party on this quote, but I, for one, would be highly interested in reading about the origins and plotting involved with Meatloaf Day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veti

But 'now' is precisely when Azure City needs a hero for a shepherd. Assuming (best case) the Azurites can regroup, reinvade, and boot Gobbotopia out within the next year, I would still expect there to follow at least 6-8 years of 'emergency' administration (basically, martial law) while the city rebuilds and repopulates. Hinjo just happens to be in charge at a time that gives him a chance to shine - and maybe redeem his catastrophic mishandling of the first Battle for Azure City.

---

In fairness to Hinjo, I'm not sure it's entirely his fault that the battle was lost. He is unprepared, but a lot of the blame for this can be laid at Shojo's feet, and some even at Soon's.

Soon creates the Sapphire Guard (SG) to protect the gate. However, when he retires he decides to hand leadership over to Shojo's father (the current Emperor). It's unclear whether or not Shojo's father was a paladin, but by doing this Soon has created a situation where two distinct duties (rule of Azure City and Protection of the Gate) have the potential to come into conflict. Using the glorious prescience granted by hindsight, it might have been better to leave control in the hands of another paladin, and clarify that while the SG may support the Emperor, it's first and foremost duty is always to protect the gate. He apparently saw no such conflict.

Shojo ascends to the throne and eventually discovers that he has to actually work around his oaths to the SG at times in order to rule the city. He begins feigning craziness both to fool the SG and to throw off the nobles (he makes comments as well that indicate that discontent and assassination attempts by the nobles are not unusual). He ends up designating Hinjo as heir apparent but realizes there's going to be issues because he's a paladin.

Spoiled for War and XP Bonus Content

Spoiler

Show

Bonus content in War and XPs makes it pretty clear that Shojo is intentionally keeping Hinjo in the dark about his own condition because Hinjo lacks the right political mindset, and that Shojo figures it will be another 10 years before Hinjo's had enough optimism knocked out of him to be effectively trained as an emperor. We can take this to mean that Hinjo's not getting much training in the "give and take" necessary for politics. Unfortunately, when Shojo's deceptions are discovered, he's not going to get those 10 years.

As a result Hinjo ascends to the throne, He's a good paladin and his heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, he hasn't been trained in politics. He's unable to come up with reasonable explanations that will convince the nobles to stay and fight, and won't break his oath and tell them about the gate (thus illustrating nicely the problem of consolidating the position of Emperor and leader of the SG). Therefore the nobles refuse to fight, and the remaining soldiers are now much more confused. No one knows for sure what happened in the throne room (remember, 442 shows that rumors indicate some people think Hinjo killed Shojo). As a result, when the battle gets tough many fail their morale checks and flee. (It's also important to note that Hinjo's assumption of the throne to start of the battle appears to only be about 24 hours).

To sum, I think Hinjo probably made reasonable decisions as best he could. Unfortunately his poor political training led to a situation where a (presumably) sizable chunk of his force was going to desert with no way for him to prevent it. (It's also unclear how much formal tactical training he's been given). As a result, he goes into this battle hamstrung before it's even started.

Given this, there's some basis for arguments that Shojo's methods ultimately led to the downfall of Azure City, although it wasn't his intent. If we just had the attacking army and not the change in leadership caused by Miko's actions, it's certainly more likely that Shojo would have been able to come up with explanations that would have kept the nobles fighting. And you wouldn't have had the uncertainty and confusion in the ranks. Likewise, if you just had the change in leadership but no attacking army, Hinjo might have had time to become an effective leader and deal with any crisis caused by his nobles. Unfortunately, Murphy shows up and both happen at the same time. Shojo's methods may have benefited AC for most of his reign, but when they fail they fail spectacularly by causing substantial distrust/concern among common soldiers (who now don't aren't sure what actually happened), discord among the nobles (who appear to always seek their own advantage anyway and are going to want a reason to fight that Hinjo can't provide because of oaths), and allowing everything to hinge on a poorly prepared leader (because you've been lying to him about your own methods all along).