So, Malack...

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm not sure Shojo could really be considered guilty of breaking the oath, what with his never having sworn it.

He did.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html

[SaintRidley]

He did.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html

Ah, forgot about that.

[hamishspence]

I think what really upset Miko & Hinjo was less the breaking of the oath (and given that they hadn't actually gone near either of the other gates, a case can be made that this oath hadn't yet been broken in act) and more the senility pretence.

Rigging a trial to get the Order of the Stick found innocent, probably played a part as well.

[Sir_Leorik]

Nope. It was evil and lawful.

Her oath to the Sapphire Guard and Soon trumps the fact that Shojo was her liege lord. He was guilty of violating the oath of the Sapphire Guard and, as such, was no longer considered her lawful superior.

Executing him on the spot was well within the rights of a lawful character. It just happened to be evil too because, you know, he was a CG defenseless old man and there was no need to kill him.

Except that her superior officer in the Sapphire Guard, Hinjo, had asked her to stand down so that Shojo could be arrested and brought before a magistrate. Azure City was governed by the rule of law (unlike the Empire of Blood or Gobbotopia) and everyone, whether Shojo or Daimyo Kubota was entitled to a fair trial before an impartial magistrate, where witnesses are called and evidence is presented.

The fact that Shojo was the Lord of the city made it even more important for him to be tried openly; because of Miko's actions rumors about the circumstances of his death spread throughout Azure City and definitely inspired Daimyo Kubota to hireassassins to kill Hinjo during the battle against the Hobgoblins. On the Western Continent Miko's actions would be accepted practice; in Azure City her actions are called Regicide and Treason and they get you thrown in jail awaiting trial, not a parade and a year's lease on a throne.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The point is that her oath to Shojo is taken in context of the Sapphire Guard's mission as a whole and doesn't have to be obeyed regardless of what Shojo does.

Consider if Shojo had actually been a demon in disguise and she found out about it. It wouldn't be even remotely unlawful to execute him on the spot for that. She went wrong because she's a wack job who interpreted everything in the worst light possible.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think what really upset Miko & Hinjo was less the breaking of the oath (and given that they hadn't actually gone near either of the other gates, a case can be made that this oath hadn't yet been broken in act) and more the senility pretence.

Rigging a trial to get the Order of the Stick found innocent, probably played a part as well.

Listen, Miko. I heard the same things you did, and I managed to restrain myself from executing my liege.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Except that her superior officer in the Sapphire Guard, Hinjo, had asked her to stand down so that Shojo could be arrested and brought before a magistrate.

I'm pretty sure she outranked Hinjo, actually.

Azure City was governed by the rule of law (unlike the Empire of Blood or Gobbotopia) and everyone, whether Shojo or Daimyo Kubota was entitled to a fair trial before an impartial magistrate, where witnesses are called and evidence is presented.

A fair and honest trial is a LG thing, not a L thing. I fully expect that she would have gone for a trial, except; the reason she chose to execute him on the spot was the (reasonable) assumption that the guy who rules the city, made the laws, and had already rigged one trial wasn't going to receive a fair trial at all. Arresting him would be temporarily inconveniencing him until he exploited the legal system to get off.

In that context a summary execution by the ranking member of the organization he had violated the laws of is not so unreasonable a thing to do.

[Sir_Leorik]

The point is that her oath to Shojo is taken in context of the Sapphire Guard's mission as a whole and doesn't have to be obeyed regardless of what Shojo does.

Consider if Shojo had actually been a demon in disguise and she found out about it. It wouldn't be even remotely unlawful to execute him on the spot for that. She went wrong because she's a wack job who interpreted everything in the worst light possible.

But she didn't slay a Demon masquerading as her liege. She murdered her liege on a flimsy premise. She also came close to shattering the gate when she did so. How is that upholding her vow?

[Domino Quartz]

I hope this doesn't start turning into a "Was Miko Justified?" thread, because we know that those kinds of threads get locked. Also, it's a little bit off topic.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But she didn't slay a Demon masquerading as her liege. She murdered her liege on a flimsy premise. She also came close to shattering the gate when she did so. How is that upholding her vow?

Not what I said. I said if Shojo had been a demon from the beginning and she had sworn an oath to him not realizing that. The point is that an oath to her liege is given in the context that that liege is obeying the laws of the organization in the first place. Shojo was not.

I also disagree it was a flimsy premise. Shojo was guilty of a lot of serious (to a LG paladin order) offenses and deserved to be removed from his post immediately for them.

The flimsy premise part is where where she made the jump from offenses that deserve him being removed from his post to imaginary offenses that deserve a summary execution. Once the bit about him ignoring his oath and interfering with other gates came up she was never under any obligation to follow him any more.

[Sir_Leorik]

A fair and honest trial is a LG thing, not a L thing. I fully expect that she would have gone for a trial, except; the reason she chose to execute him on the spot was the (reasonable) assumption that the guy who rules the city, made the laws, and had already rigged one trial wasn't going to receive a fair trial at all. Arresting him would be temporarily inconveniencing him until he exploited the legal system to get off.

In that context a summary execution by the ranking member of the organization he had violated the laws of is not so unreasonable a thing to do.

But is wasn't a reasonable assumption at all; the only evidence she had of Shojo's wrongdoing was Shojo's admission that he was violating the Saphhire Guard's oath not to interfere with the other Gates. She leapt to the conclusion that Shojo was in league with Xykon and the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle because of her hatred of the OotS, her mental instability and her belief in her special destiny. Just violating the Oath was probably not an executable offense, and even if it was it would require a fair trial, not summary execution. Even treason, which is what she was accusing Shojo of, would result in a fair trial.

[Sir_Leorik]

I hope this doesn't start turning into a "Was Miko Justified?" thread, because we know that those kinds of threads get locked. Also, it's a little bit off topic.

I think this is more of a "Let's figure out the exact reasons Miko was not justified" tangent.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But is wasn't a reasonable assumption at all; the only evidence she had of Shojo's wrongdoing was Shojo's admission that he was violating the Saphhire Guard's oath not to interfere with the other Gates.

And this alone is enough for a LE character to summarily execute someone for. Nobody's saying that Miko's act was LG. There's a reason she fell for it.

[Sir_Leorik]

Not what I said. I said if Shojo had been a demon from the beginning and she had sworn an oath to him not realizing that. The point is that an oath to her liege is given in the context that that liege is obeying the laws of the organization in the first place. Shojo was not.

I also disagree it was a flimsy premise. Shojo was guilty of a lot of serious (to a LG paladin order) offenses and deserved to be removed from his post immediately for them.

The flimsy premise part is where where she made the jump from offenses that deserve him being removed from his post to imaginary offenses that deserve a summary execution. Once the bit about him ignoring his oath and interfering with other gates came up she was never under any obligation to follow him any more.

Miko and Hinjo overheard Shojo's conversation revealing he was violating the oath. Under the laws of Azure City and the Sapphire Guard, Shojo deserved to be immediately arrested on charges of abuse of office, violating Soon's Oath and conspiracy to violate Soon's Oath. He would then be locked up in the anti-magic cells until his trial before a magistrate. That was what the Laws required. He definitely did not deserve to remain in office.

Miko decided to take the law into her own hands (a Chaotic act) and commit murder (an Evil act) on her accused liege (another Chaotic act).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Miko decided to take the law into her own hands (a Chaotic act) and commit murder (an Evil act) on her accused liege (another Chaotic act).

Lawful doesn't require following all the laws everywhere all the time. She had strong reasons to believe that Shojo was capable of subverting the law of the land and escaping punishment for his crimes. Executing him was an attempt to unhold the intent of the law by preventing him from subverting it to his own ends.

If she had confidence that Shojo would receive an honest trial then I strongly suspect she would have taken that option.

[Warren Dew]

In that context a summary execution by the ranking member of the organization he had violated the laws of is not so unreasonable a thing to do.

It still wouldn't be lawful. Even if Shojo had actually been a demon, it would just have been a case of sacrificing "lawful" in order to do "good".

[Paseo H]

Come on guys, let's let Miko rest in peace already. Her story arc ended like 400 strips ago.

In any case, Durkon might be slightly 'lawful stupid,' but it's still towards the good. Malack is a monster (complete or close to it at least), and Durkon walked in on him doing what he was doing to Belkar. As The Giant said, he was not acting Miko-ish. He saw all anyone would need to see.

[Carry2]

I don't disagree that Tarquin is an evil despot, or that Tarquin has been verified by Rich to be a lawful evil character. You cannot deny that Tarquin is effectively a rapist and a sadistic despot who engages in unnecessary cruelty for his own entertainment. On the other hand, I do think that Tarquin's little political plot has real and useful side benefits.

*shrugs* I don't think there's really enough information to settle this question one way or another. Like I said earlier, we don't really have any hard statistics on mortality rates before and after Tarquin's conquests. (People have a tendency to think that, because I explain that X is factually so or theoretically possible, that I neccesarily condone X or consider it a good plan. Clearly I don't advocate Tarquin's style of government in any circumstances outside the stone age, given that after several millennia of political experiment, we do know how to do better.)

I am sorta reminded of L'il Ze from City of God or Stringer Bell from The Wire, but while a bloody-but-competent dictatorship may be the lesser of two evils, competent-but-non-bloody leadership is presumably the more good option. Even if Tarquin were genuinely motivated, first and foremost, by the desire to unify the continent and lay the foundation for a more peaceful and prosperous society- which is not at all clear- his particular approach could only be justified if every other form of government was either worse or impossible to implement.

However, Tarquin's involvement in a brutal government, by itself, doesn't make him evil. Bear in mind that the Order of the Stick have invaded the homes of others and skewered, burnt, bludgeoned or electrified dozens- maybe hundreds- of sentient creatures during their travels, and could say it was all neccesary for the sake of a higher goal- preserving the safety of the world at large. This doesn't make Belkar good-aligned, because for him, the pain and death and bloodshed was the whole point, and he indulged that appetite on little or no pretense. It also doesn't make Roy or Durkon evil-aligned, because for them they were simply necessary side-effects, to be minimised whenever reasonably possible. But the entire order have slaughtered scads upon scads of thinking, breathing creatures, most of whom we never actually see committing any particular, specific crime.

Now, it's certainly possible to look at Tarquin's behaviour and conclude he's simply concocting after-the-fact rationalisations for sadism and megalomania. Just don't think you can escape utilitarian thinking so easily.


(Also, Malack is Miko's evil opposite: A clearly despicable person who nonetheless makes everybody around him feel as good about themselves as possible.)

[Paseo H]

Utilitarian gloating? Meh.

Meanwhile, simply gainsaying everyone who asserts Tarquin's monstrousness does not make an argument.

Sophistry, despite the etymology, is not wisdom. Nor will any amount of it serve to convince anyone that a man who engages in acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape, is anything less than a monster.

[hamishspence]

It isn't just brutal government- it's the ordinary people brutally competing with each other:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html

which is one of the horrors of Tarquin's rule- not just that he is cruel- but that his people have become cruel as well.

[Carry2]

Sophistry, despite the etymology, is not wisdom. Nor will any amount of it serve to convince anyone that a man who engages in acts of plain barbarity, not to mention rape, is anything less than a monster.

If you're going to argue that Tarquin commits evil acts in a totally gratuitous and pointless fashion, for their own sake, and that makes him evil, go ahead. I'm simply pointing out that "noble ends can never justify violent means", when consistently applied, has some pretty radical implications for the heroes of the story.

[Paseo H]

If you're going to argue that Tarquin commits evil acts in a totally gratuitous and pointless fashion, for their own sake, and that makes him evil, go ahead. I'm simply pointing out that "noble ends can never justify violent means", when consistently applied, has some pretty radical implications for the heroes of the story.

I am very well aware of those implications, namely that deontology is essentially self refuting because in order for it to have meaning, there must be actions that are both necessary and evil, otherwise why not just be a utilitarian?

Yet, to give godspeed to necessary evils is to give others permission to visit them upon ourselves, should they deem it "necessary."

So, you're stuck.

[Carry2]

...which is one of the horrors of Tarquin's rule- not just that he is cruel- but that his people have become cruel as well.

I'm sorry, but by the same token that we don't know whether things have statistically improved under Tarquin's rule, there is also no evidence that his regime is any crueler than those that it succeeded. We do not have reliable data on this point.

[Porthos]

Also, it's a little bit off topic.

"As a GITP discussion about alignment grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Sapphire Guard or Miko approaches 1."

Porthos' Restatement of Godwin's Law as applied to this forum.

[Carry2]

I am very well aware of those implications, namely that deontology is essentially self refuting because in order for it to have meaning, there must be actions that are both necessary and evil, otherwise why not just be a utilitarian?

Yet, to give godspeed to necessary evils is to give others permission to visit them upon ourselves, should they deem it "necessary."

So, you're stuck.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but it sounds something like an artificial dichotomy. Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

[hamishspence]

I'm sorry, but by the same token that we don't know whether things have statistically improved under Tarquin's rule, there is also no evidence that his regime is any crueler than those that it succeeded. We do not have reliable data on this point.

We've got hints that the previous ruler:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html

balked a bit at the kind of things they were doing- even hoping to put in a bit of democracy.

[Dark Matter]

However, Tarquin's involvement in a brutal government, by itself, doesn't make him evil.

"Involvement"? Sure, "involvement" wouldn't, by itself, make him evil. But you should be saying "creation of" rather than "involvement in" and you should also be saying "Evil" rather than "brutal".

Those are his laws out there, his government, his men, his army, and his training books. This whole thing is his creation, right down to the recruiting of a death-cult leading vampire cleric to serve as Tarquin's replacement after he dies of old age.

He isn't an innocent by stander, and he's not an incompetent manager. Sure, he's talked about how his last ten minutes might be getting killed by the forces of good... but he's not going to be taking a dive for them. He's very very competent, and if no one stops him, the empire will be building bigger statues of him while they're murdering 1000+ people a day.

[Carry2]

We've got hints that the previous ruler... ...balked a bit at the kind of things they were doing- even hoping to put in a bit of democracy.

I dunno. There isn't really evidence that he accomplished much, given that staying on the throne for 11 months was his biggest achievement.

[hamishspence]

It may suggest that he was something of an obstruction to Tarquin's plans for the Empire though- hindering the implementation of brutal policies, until he was killed by the future Empress of Blood.

[Carry2]

He isn't an innocent by stander, and he's not an incompetent manager. Sure, he's talked about how his last ten minutes might be getting killed by the forces of good... but he's not going to be taking a dive for them. He's very very competent, and if no one stops him, the empire will be building bigger statues of him while they're murdering 1000+ people a day.

Again, if you want to argue that Tarquin is evil because he kills gratuitously, or for purely selfish reasons, or because more humane methods of law-enforcement would be viable, go ahead. What I object to is the notion that killing people, even huge numbers of people, regardless of context or motive, automatically makes him an evil person. By that standard, every member of the OOTS are going directly to hell.