So, Malack...

[sam79]

Wait, are you trying to counter an argument by telling people that they should just go with a character's view point?

Why should I let a character who has less information to act on (we, as readers, get more information to consider than any single character in this comic besides the Oracle) and literally just walked into the scene? Durkon hasn't had the villain scenes we've had, so he may very well think that Malack was only pretending to hate Nale and had set the Order up for the Linear Guild.

I guess the argument would be that Durkon's narrative role is as the conscience of the OOTS; if he thinks something is wrong/right, that is signal to the audience that we should think that too. Obviously, I have no idea if Durkon is written with this kind of intention in mind.

(As an aside, I've heard Joss Whedon describe characters in his shows (Willow in Buffy and Kaylee in Firefly) as the 'heart of the piece', and if they care about something, then that is intended as a cue for the audience.)

EDIT

Personally, I think Malack is a bit clueless about mammals (and or non vampires), in the same way Celestia is. Having high Charisma and Wisdom scores doesn't necessarily mean he's well socialized. He could have been attempting to use the sharing of food as a gesture of goodwill, but just didn't think it through.

Well he's been a member of mostly-mammel adventuring party for decades, in the role as their healer. He cannot be THAT ignorant and unobservant, surely?

I truth, we probaably shouldn't put too much weight on the tea incident; it is likely to be included just for a gross-out laugh. But if we DO take it into account as an indicator od Malack's attitude, it doesn't look good for him.

[Paseo H]

I guess the argument would be that Durkon's narrative role is as the conscience of the OOTS; if he thinks something is wrong/right, that is signal to the audience that we should think that too. Obviously, I have no idea if Durkon is written with this kind of intention in mind.

(As an aside, I've heard Joss Whedon describe characters in his shows (Willow in Buffy and Kaylee in Firefly) as the 'heart of the piece', and if they care about something, then that is intended as a cue for the audience.)

Uh...yeah, exactly!

[Mike Havran]

...Come again? Being horribly evil is not the opposite of being a fool.

Sure, it is not. But still, it is not a word that springs to mind with "horribly evil." Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?

Tarquin is very, very open with what he does and who he is to those close to him. Just read the comic from his first appearence in the Empire until now. I strongly doubt you can maintain the position "but Malack does not know". Tarquin drops casual remarks of his brutality all over the place. Constantly.

Tarquin has his plans with Elan, and I think dropping the hints is a part of it. On the other hand, when his actions don't involve Elan (and especially when Elan is not around), he seems to be keeping it low-key.

[Feddlefew]

I guess the argument would be that Durkon's narrative role is as the conscience of the OOTS; if he thinks something is wrong/right, that is signal to the audience that we should think that too. Obviously, I have no idea if Durkon is written with this kind of intention in mind.

(As an aside, I've heard Joss Whedon describe characters in his shows (Willow in Buffy and Kaylee in Firefly) as the 'heart of the piece', and if they care about something, then that is intended as a cue for the audience.)

Durkon has extremely strong convictions and has in the past shown to not be the best judge of character. However, I think his reaction to stumbling on Malack snacking on Belkar was completely reasonable, and he hasn't had very long to digest this information.

The only unreasonable thing I think Durkon did was telling Malack that he couldn't let him walk out of there alive. Double meaning completely intentional.

[sam79]

Why are you still arguing and quibbling over meaningless details, when the preponderance of evidence is on Malack being an undead monstrosity who is in it just as deep as Tarquin, only difference perhaps being that "light shows" aren't his bailiwick.

Preponderance of evidence understates the case. Malack is the Lawful Evil poster-boy. If Rich ever wanted to make a Lawful Evil T-shirt, he could do worse than have Malack's Vamp-face, and a quote: "technically, I only feed on criminals".

EDIT

Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?
.

I think he has done, hasn't he? Perhaps not exaclty a 'fool', but words to that effect. Not to his face of course, but to Jirix? I may be mis-remembering though.

[Winter]

Tarquin has his plans with Elan, and I think dropping the hints is a part of it. On the other hand, when his actions don't involve Elan (and especially when Elan is not around), he seems to be keeping it low-key.

Malack works with him since over three decades. He is part of the switchgame. He is part of the Empire. I find the idea he could not know what is going on too ridiculous to further comment on it.

[Feddlefew]

Well he's been a member of mostly-mammel adventuring party for decades, in the role as their healer. He cannot be THAT ignorant and unobservant, surely?

I truth, we probaably shouldn't put too much weight on the tea incident; it is likely to be included just for a gross-out laugh. But if we DO take it into account as an indicator od Malack's attitude, it doesn't look good for him.

I was thinking clueless as in "oh right I forgot you can't eat gluten" not "I see no reason why you shouldn't eat this cake with your allergies".

Malack works with him since over three decades. He is part of the switchgame. He is part of the Empire. I find the idea he could not know what is going on too ridiculous to further comment on it.

Oh, Malack definitely knows what's going on. I won't argue with that. I will argue the main thing he gets out of it is companionship.

[Mike Havran]

Preponderance of evidence understates the case. Malack is the Lawful Evil poster-boy. If Rich ever wanted to make a Lawful Evil T-shirt, he could do worse than have Malack's Vamp-face, and a quote: "technically, I only feed on criminals".

EDIT


I think he has done, hasn't he? Perhaps not exaclty a 'fool', but words to that effect. Not to his face of course, but to Jirix? I may be mis-remembering though.

Do you think this? Yes, I think you misremember.

On the other hand, such Malack's T-shirt would be funny But really, these discussions start to be rather annoying and I wonder why, if it was really that simple, the Giant won't simply say there is no point in discussing Malack's alignment (and getting snippy and strawmany in the process), since he's clearly Evil.

[Kish]

Sure, it is not. But still, it is not a word that springs to mind with "horribly evil." Do you think Redcloak would describe Xykon as a "fool", even though he certainly acts that way many times?

No, for the same reason Redcloak would never scream "Stop flapping your flat-toothed mouth for a minute!" at the real Xykon. Tarquin is Malack's friend, peer, equal and party leader. Xykon is Redcloak's slavemaster and sadistic torturer. There is no comparison here.

[sam79]

Do you think this? Yes, I think you misremember.

On the other hand, such Malack's T-shirt would be funny But really, these discussions start to be rather annoying and I wonder why, if it was really that simple, the Giant won't simply say there is no point in discussing Malack's alignment (and getting snippy and strawmany in the process), since he's clearly Evil.

I think it was that scene, so yes, I mis-remember.

And I guess the Giant has better things to do than comment every time someone is Wrong on the Internet about his comic. Dude'd be here all day if that was his policy!

EDIT

I was thinking clueless as in "oh right I forgot you can't eat gluten" not "I see no reason why you shouldn't eat this cake with your allergies".

Mmm...Possible, I suppose, but a bit of a stretch, I think. And if it was a genuine mistake, wouldn't he have said "sorry my bad" in strip 871? Anyway, as I said previously, this tea business may just be overanalysing something that was included simply under Rule of Funny.

[Mike Havran]

Malack works with him since over three decades. He is part of the switchgame. He is part of the Empire. I find the idea he could not know what is going on too ridiculous to further comment on it.

I think you misunderstand my points. I don't say Malack does not know a thing about what's happening around him. It's just he does not know the full measure. Malack operates the Empires under assumption that the pros of Empires outweight the cons. But Malack has also moral limits that Tarquin doesn't. And I say that Tarquin goes out of his way to prevent Malack from seeing the sharp spikes on the "oppression chart" that would get over Malack's acceptance limit. Not that it would be that difficult, since Malack seems mostly clueless.

Edit:

No, for the same reason Redcloak would never scream "Stop flapping your flat-toothed mouth for a minute!" at the real Xykon. Tarquin is Malack's friend, peer, equal and party leader. Xykon is Redcloak's slavemaster and sadistic torturer. There is no comparison here.

I meant, providing Redcloak would have no reason to fear Xykon at that point. Imagine Redcloak dying and going to goblin afterlife where some dead buddy asks him to describe Xykon. I mean, there would be a lot of expressive wording involved, but I don't think Readloak would ever use the term "fool".

[Winter]

It's just he does not know the full measure.

What "full measure"? Malack knows Tarquin very well, he knows how evil he is. He knows what it takes to run this empire, he knows Tarquin burned through 9 wifes in the past (and even if losing some is not his fault, there must be some that are) and he knows what it takes to run the entire switch-empire-scheme.
I think you just want to find reasons for Malack to be "not that evil".
But the comic strongly indicates Malack is fully aware of what is actually going on.

Tarquin might be open towards Elan because he has a plan, but he surely does not care who stands around and listens. Just look at Tarquin's "Evil Banquette" he threw for Elan (and two or three dozen others) and tell me again he's not very, very, VERY open with how evil he actually is.
He serves phoenix patê (liver cut from the living bird) and pegasus flank for crying out loud.

[Kish]

I meant, providing Redcloak would have no reason to fear Xykon at that point. Imagine Redcloak dying and going to goblin afterlife where some dead buddy asks him to describe Xykon. I mean, there would be a lot of expressive wording involved, but I don't think Readloak would ever use the term "fool".

...Agh. Are you deliberately dodging?

Again: Tarquin is Malack's friend, peer, equal and party leader. Xykon is Redcloak's slavemaster and sadistic torturer. There is no comparison here. Malack describing Tarquin as a "fool" does imply that Tarquin does nothing Malack finds sufficiently vile to be more important than the way his silly behavior annoys Malack; why on earth is that showing up in a defense of Malack's moral sense, rather than in an argument that Malack is comparably evil to Tarquin himself?

[Winter]

I meant, providing Redcloak would have no reason to fear Xykon at that point. Imagine Redcloak dying and going to goblin afterlife where some dead buddy asks him to describe Xykon. I mean, there would be a lot of expressive wording involved, but I don't think Readloak would ever use the term "fool".

Yes, he would. He might not say it to Xykon, but he could very well use that word towards Jirix or Right-Eye. Redcloak thinks Xykon to be relatively stupid (but dangerous and sometimes cunning).

[Math_Mage]

I meant, providing Redcloak would have no reason to fear Xykon at that point. Imagine Redcloak dying and going to goblin afterlife where some dead buddy asks him to describe Xykon. I mean, there would be a lot of expressive wording involved, but I don't think Readloak would ever use the term "fool".

I think the word might come up in describing Xykon somewhere between here and here, if Redcloak got the chance to say it. Just sayin'.

Anyway, Nale and Tarquin have no problem calling each other fools and buffoons and all manner of nasty things, so I'm still not seeing the point here.

[Mike Havran]

...Agh. Are you deliberately dodging?

Again: Tarquin is Malack's friend, peer, equal and party leader. Xykon is Redcloak's slavemaster and sadistic torturer. There is no comparison here. Malack describing Tarquin as a "fool" does imply that Tarquin does nothing Malack finds sufficiently vile to be more important than the way his silly behavior annoys Malack; why on earth is that showing up in a defense of Malack's moral sense, rather than in an argument that Malack is comparably evil to Tarquin himself?

No, I'm not. I thought you brought up the fact that Readloak is too careful to say something when there is a chance of Xykon's retribution.

It depends on your base assumption.

If you assume Malack is a monster comparable to Tarquin, then him using word "fool" implies what you described.

If you assume Malack has certain moral standards, then him using the word
"fool" implies that he does not know of Tarquin's deeds that would break his standards.

[sam79]

If you assume Malack is a monster comparable to Tarquin, then him using word "fool" implies what you described.

If you assume Malack has certain moral standards, then him using the word
"fool" implies that he does not know of Tarquin's deeds that would break his standards.

For the first assumption, we'd have to conclude Malack is LE, like his friend and party leader.

For the second assumption, we'd have to conclude that Malack is as intellgent as Elan, only without the genre savvy, and as observant as Belkar.

[Math_Mage]

If you assume Malack has certain moral standards, then him using the word
"fool" implies that he does not know of Tarquin's deeds that would break his standards.

Why are we assuming that which we are trying to determine (the status of Malack's moral standards)?

[Kish]

No, I'm not. I thought you brought up the fact that Readloak is too careful to say something when there is a chance of Xykon's retribution.

It depends on your base assumption.

If you assume Malack is a monster comparable to Tarquin, then him using word "fool" implies what you described.

If you assume Malack has certain moral standards, then him using the word
"fool" implies that he does not know of Tarquin's deeds that would break his standards.

You had said that...let me find it...'he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.'

So now your stance is that it is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.--presuming "one" has certain moral standards. And you're using this as an argument...that Malack has certain moral standards. Do you see the circularity here? Your evidence that Malack is nonevil hinges on an assumption that Malack is nonevil.

[Chantelune]

As annoying as it is that you seem to enjoy playing Malack's defense lawyer, I would be willing to consider all of those things, except...

The last panel is more key than you're giving credit for.

All hesitation is gone there. He's vamped out, he's super serious, he means to kill (at the least). If he was that serious about being friends, even in the face of Durkon's rejection, he wouldn't be that eager to stomp him, even if he presumably hesitated first, which isn't exactly clear. He could have just been readying himself.

I'm not specialy defend Malack for the fun of it, or even really defending him at all. It just never seemed to me that he "rushed to kill Durkon right away".

As for the last pannel, well of course. Once he came to term with the fact that Durkon won't listen to him anymore and that he has to kill him, no point in hesitating anymore. Note that we yet have to see how the fight goes. Charging with killing intent doesn't mean he won't hesitate when it comes to dealing the killing blow. Or not. We'll see about that.

Him charging Durkon that way makes me think than he's probably evil, yes, but how the scenes unfold was not quite "retreat ? No ? Die !" and more "retreat ? Sure you won't ? No ? Mmmh, pity. *pauses a few moments* Then die !".

On that regard, Belkar was more straightforward when he decided he wanted to kill Malack.

[Feddlefew]

You had said that...let me find it...'he adressed Tarquin many times as "fool." That is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.'

So now your stance is that it is hardly an expression one would use if he knew that Tarquin tortures women in order to marry him etc.--presuming "one" has certain moral standards. And you're using this as an argument...that Malack has certain moral standards. Do you see the circularity here? Your evidence that Malack is nonevil hinges on an assumption that Malack is nonevil.

I always thought that line was related to Tarquin's willingness to work with Nale.

[pendell]

Basically, I think he's evil because of his actions, and his actions are
enough for him to still be on the redeemable side of the Moral Event Horizon. That's what I mean by 'evil.'

That's actually three separate questions, I believe:

1) Are a person's observable acts evil?

Malack's draining of Belkar is definitely an evil act.

2) Is a person's alignment evil?
Different question. It requires us to have a view of enough of their lives to see what acts they do and do not perform as a matter of course, and what the intent behind these things are.

It's doubly hard because we have the "neutral" alignment, which allows a person to in essence do evil things and yet not have an evil alignment.

I don't have a good grasp of neutral alignment. I think because traditional fantasy usually involves good heroes overcoming some terrible evil. The focus is on the heroes and the villains, who are starkly good (Roy/Elan) and starkly evil (Xykon). In such environments neutral players (Tom Bombadil?) are bystanders and rarely get much screen time. That or their neutrality is but a stopping point on their way to fully joining one side or the other, and they resolve to good or evil by the end of the story (Han Solo, Raistlin Majere)

3) Is a person redeemable?
That is really subjective. I lean to the idea that no one, even Xykon, is fully irredeemable. We haven't actually seen redemption in OOTS yet (though Vaarsuvius may be travelling towards it). We know that Miko tried to become redeemed and failed. We did see a significant character become
arguably good in Start of Darkness, so that might qualify.

What is to be lost, if Malack does turn out to be evil?

As of 872, the question is irrelevant. He is an adversary of the order and must be neutralized, probably destroyed. This would not matter even if he was lawful good, which no one is arguing :).

Alignment in OOTS is not a "Team Jersey". The party you are attached to is far more important.

That is why LG Roy would defend CE Belkar from LG Miko, and why LG Durkon must defeat Malack at this point regardless of his alignment.

Which of the compromises should Durkon have accepted?

IMO, he should have at least attempted counteroffers instead of flat refusal. He had an opportunity to take an enemy piece off the board without a shot being fired, and if they had both withdrawn I think the loss of a vampire/cleric to the other side would have more than offset the loss of a normal cleric. Exchange a bishop for a rook.

As it was, by playing to the LG stereotype he has provoked a needless battle which he has a very good chance of losing. And if he himself becomes the monster he despises, he can partly blame himself.

Correctly. The fact that Malack thinks being convicted in an Empire of Blood court makes someone no longer innocent in some morally meaningful way is not to Malack's credit.

Really? I don't think so. If the EOB is anything like a real-world country, there are plenty of crimes every day that are crimes in any society , such as murder.

The EOB is a lawful evil society. Which means a fair number of people guilty of nothing but thoughtcrime get killed by the system as well as the ordinary run of murderers, torturers, sexual molesters (the lower planes had an entire choir of them when Darth V was created), rapists, and all the rest of it.

I am NOT saying that Malack was that picky. But if he chose to be he could probably dine every day on a guilty party every day -- "guilty" not just by the laws of the EOB, but "guilty" by the universal alignment laws of D&D, which are not dependent on any one country.

Malack does not know Belkar at all. He does not know that Belkar is not innocent, and Durkon knows that Malack does not know.

With respect to the Giant, Malack DOES know that Belkar is an enemy combatant who just did his level best to terminate Malack's existence on this plane. Malack is perfectly within his right of self-defense to kill Belkar even if he is momentarily paralyzed. Converting him into a charmproof ally instead is an evil act -- I've mentioned the violation part -- but it's not totally indefensible.

Or, he could have surrendered to the good and righteous, and relinquished his material and formal cooperation with evil schemes.

And where would he find the "good and righteous" on the western continent? As mentioned earlier, they seem thin on the ground on the western continent. And given that the most likely response of the "good and righteous" would be to end Malack on sight, I can see why he would be reluctant to approach them.

I'm not claiming Malack is Good-or even Lawful Neutral-I'm saying he's Evil and he's a vampire, not because he's Evil because he's a vampire.

Probably the correct argument at this point. Even the Giant has argued in-thread that it would be wrong for Durkon to attack Malack if all he knew about him was that he was a vampire.

I do not hold Malack's template against him nor his unwillingess to commit self-destruction simply because the "good and righteous" Think he deserves to die. The "good and righteous" also demonstrated in SOD that they think all goblins should be killed on sight. They've also shown it in Azure City, when the Elvish commander killed their hobgoblin prisoner.

This doesn't mean that the paladins are the evil guys and Redcloak is the good guy. But it does mean that the paladins and the good people *on this plane* -- as opposed to the perfect ones dwelling in Celestia -- are sufficiently clouded in their moral judgement that I would think twice about
anything they told me, especially if it involved either my own destruction or the destruction of others.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Really? I don't think so. If the EOB is anything like a real-world country, there are plenty of crimes every day that are crimes in any society , such as murder.

The EOB is a lawful evil society. Which means a fair number of people guilty of nothing but thoughtcrime get killed by the system as well as the ordinary run of murderers, torturers, sexual molesters (the lower planes had an entire choir of them when Darth V was created), rapists, and all the rest of it.

I am NOT saying that Malack was that picky. But if he chose to be he could probably dine every day on a guilty party every day -- "guilty" not just by the laws of the EOB, but "guilty" by the universal alignment laws of D&D, which are not dependent on any one country.

Uh...okay...does that have something to do with what Malack said or what I said about what Malack said?
You drink the blood of the innocent!
:malack: All the blood I drink is from condemned criminals, so actually no, I only drink the blood of the guilty.
You help make the laws that convict them!
:kish: The fact that Malack thinks being convicted in an Empire of Blood court makes someone no longer innocent in some morally meaningful way is not to Malack's credit.
:pendell: Really? I don't think so.

You have the honor of the only line here which I don't understand how it follows at all. I didn't say, "Malack couldn't possibly limit himself to feeding on the actually-evil even if he tried." Yet that seems to be what you responded to.

[pendell]

:kish: The fact that Malack thinks being convicted in an Empire of Blood court makes someone no longer innocent in some morally meaningful way is not to Malack's credit.
:pendell: Really? I don't think so.

My point is that being convicted in an EOB court may very well mean that the person convicted is actually guilty of a moral crime. So I don't dismiss the EOB's courts as morally bankrupt. Lawful Evil, yes. But "Lawful Evil" and "bankrupt" aren't the same thing.

A lawful evil regime imprisons and punish those that break its laws. This means that in addition to the Princess Leias imprisoned unfairly there is any number of murderers, rapists , thieves, necromancers who would be found guilty of lawbreaking in ANY nation and ANY lawful society would punish.

Consider the Bastille , once upon a time considered the ultimate symbol of oppression. But when it was actually broken into, only one of the seven prisoners was a political criminal -- the balance consisted of 4 forgers, 1 person guilty of "sexual misdemeanors", and 1 madman.

If Malack's regime is anything like that regime, then the odds are at least 50% that a person convicted of a crime in an EOB court would also have been convicted of that same crime in Azure City and punished the same way. I think we'll find that the number of innocent people in EOB prisons is strikingly low. After all, in ANY human society selfishness, avarice, greed and brutality is distressingly common enough to fill our prisons. The reason martyrs like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela have such a hold on our minds is precisely because they are rare. There were a LOT of people in South African and British jails at the same time, and most of them were NOT noble activists.

So I have no doubt that if Malack wanted to be picky and dine only on reprehensible criminals rather than good types offending a lawful evil system by being good, he would not starve. Given the character of the citizens of the Empire of Blood as seen on panel, he could probably gorge to the size of the Empress and still not make a dent.

ETA: Although, from a lawful neutral perspective, it probably doesn't matter whether an offense against law was done from a good cause or an evil one. The fact that the laws were offended is sufficient cause to punish the offender -- with imprisonment or death, whether in the arena or by blood-sucking vampire.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Winter]

My point is that being convicted in an EOB court may very well mean that the person convicted is actually guilty of a moral crime.

Yes. Given they have a conviction rate of nearly 100% and there are only two types of trials ("You admit guilt" and "You plead not guilty but then are found guilty and face a harsher punishment for annoying the judge") I strongly doubt the ruling of court matters.
If you convict everyone, some of the are bound to be guilty (which is what you said) but that neglects those that a) not guilty or b) who are guilty, but do not deserve death (which seems to be some sort of default choice one way or the other in the EoB).

[pendell]

From an LN perspective, does a law have to be good or reasonable to be obeyed and enforced ,or does it just have to be the law?

Such a perspective , if that really is LN, would push one to being the kind of person who would fail the Milgram experiment, since an LN person will gladly participate in any kind of atrocity, simply because the law says it must be so.

Which sort of implies that LN is not really a viable alignment. You are either going to THINK about the laws you enforce and why, and act against them if they are too evil (which makes you LG), or you go along as Willing Executioner like so many did in the 20th century, obeying authority simply because it IS authority, which makes you as LE as a concentration camp guard.

ETA: I suppose you could still do LN with a character such as Astinus of Palanthas , but that requires being detached from the world rather than being a participant in it. And doesn't this cool detachment constitute a form of evil, since you see evil but do not lift so much as a finger to stop it?

ETA: Is Just Following Orders or Just Obeying the Law a valid defense in front of a LN court? Would an LN court punish a man who stole from the rich to give to the poor with the same severity as a man who stole from the poor for his own gain?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Or they might simply "refuse to obey the order" but not "act against the order-giver".

[Winter]

From an LN perspective, does a law have to be good or reasonable to be obeyed and enforced ,or does it just have to be the law?

It does not have any bearing here as Malack is not a judge, but a person who is theoretically capable of making the laws. We're not looking at LN here, but at LE, as you do not follow what is law (how stupid or injust it may or may not be) but because you are behind them and accept what they cause.

ETA: Is Just Following Orders or Just Obeying the Law a valid defense in front of a LN court? Would an LN court punish a man who stole from the rich to give to the poor with the same severity as a man who stole from the poor for his own gain?

Well, that depends. On what the law says. Does the law make a distinction? Then the LN judge would make one. Does the law make no distinction? Then the LN judge treats everyone equal for the same crime.

[pendell]

Or they might simply "refuse to obey the order" but not "act against the order-giver".

On what basis does a lawful neutral person refuse a lawful order?

I'm told that is a distinction drummed into modern soldiers -- no soldier is obliged to obey an illegal order. But the defense must be that the order breaks the law, the argument cannot be that the law ITSELF is wrong. Soldiers and police officers are not encouraged to sit in judgement on the laws they enforce.

I would expect that a lawful neutral person would not consider a moral argument with respect to a law. The only question would be : "is it lawful"?

If the order is lawful then it must be obeyed by an LN person. Regardless of whether the law is moral. If the law says all red-headed left-handed people must be killed on sight, an LN person will do this because it is the law.

Their defense would be pretty much exactly like the prosecutor's in Azure City

It is not the place for a mortal to supersede divine law and take matters into their own hands. The gods have wisdom and understanding beyond what you or I could grasp.

Replace "divine law" with law and replace "the gods" with "the king" or "the elected representatives" and you've got the LN outlook, I think.

To them, their job is to enforce the laws, not make them. They would view with horror a law officer who overlooked the letter of the law in favor of his own personal moral judgement, as this would be the road to the Man On Horseback.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

"Has compunctions against harming the innocent" is a general trait of non-evil alignment- not just Good. A Neutral (Good/Evil axis) person given an order that qualifies as "harming the innocent" - even a legal order- will at least have compunctions about obeying it. Even if they are Lawful.