Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[EmperorSarda]

In the same sense that stabbing someone does not make you evil, yes. There are conceivable circumstances that might justify stabbing another person, but by default, it is an evil-associated kind of act.

It's all in the motivation, why are you stabbing someone. If you're randomly attacking someone, then yeah, it definitely isn't a good act.

Likewise, deceit, manipulation, rebellion and subversion of justice are, all else equal, considered chaotic behaviour.

From the Player's Handbook:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.

Gosh, it sounds like your complaints of Tarquin are exactly what the PHB describes as a Lawful Evil person. Also, look at the descriptions in the PHB about Law vs Chaos, no where does it say it saw lawful people have to tell the truth, nowhere does it say lying is chaotic. The same for deceit, manipulation and everything else you state. Neither are defining characteristics of lawful or chaotic people.

He keeps his promises only when it suits him, and uses them to dupe and bamboozle folk the rest of the time. I refuse to call this lawful behaviour.

Which promises has he not kept?

Therefore, if one accepts that Tarquin can- as far as we ever see- preoccupy himself with Chaotic actions all the live long day, often gratuitous, and still count as Lawful based on their avowed purpose and indirect ramifications, I cannot escape the conclusion that a character in D&D could preoccupy themselves with Evil actions all the live long day, often gratuitous, and still count as Good based on their avowed purpose and indirect ramifications.

Except establishing a harsh dictatorship full of puppet rulers that is "toppled" every couple of years to keep the citizens in the dark is not a chaotic act. It's a method to retain power and to grow the kingdom.

Since I am personally not comfortable with that conclusion, I am similarly ill-at-ease with the idea that Tarquin counts as strictly lawful.

Precisely, you are not comfortable. Everyone else, including the author, sees Tarquin as lawful.

But from the perspective of the story, this is beside the point, because it's all off-panel, unspoken context. Someone actually reading SoD is not going to know any of this. (I suppose the head paladin mumbling something like "Let us be done here, and pray we may atone for our sins this day", would solve the problem neatly. But it's not in there.)

But why does it matter? Is it really that important to show some of the paladins needing to atone?

I am not disputing that SoD is a good story, or that being a good story is not praiseworthy. I enjoyed SoD. But this kind of depiction has, I think, the potential side-effect of encouraging role-play dysfunction when specifically tied to D&D rules. I think it might be possible to maintain a consistently good story without encouraging dysfunction of this type, through either a more consistent application of alignment, or just not applying alignment labels. *spreads hands* IMHO.

Except The Giant is not a WoTC employee. The comic and his books are not authoritative in anyway on how a character should act in role play. Sure, he'd like to open up our eyes to a better playing experience with some morals in the story, but that all lies with the player and the DM.

Any player who turns to his DM and says he wants his Paladin to slaughter innocents is a person who doesn't understand the game at all. Any DM permitting is a poor DM who doesn't understand the game. Any person who reads SOD and gets the impression, because some of the paladins are punished off screen, that what those paladins did was a good thing does not understand the book, primarily because it doesn't pain the paladins as being good guys. It doesn't justify their actions of slaughtering innocent goblins, it doesn't even paint them in a good light.

So why worry about a hypothetical gaming party where someone might do this?