Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Fish]

Rich: that attitude is exactly why I love your work.

As a DM I grew bored and weary of running campaigns where I was not allowed, because the players were too well trained by the rules, to present any character in anything but the intended, approved light. If there was a council meeting, the players would assume the Drow was the problematic one and kill him without ever listening to what the meeting was about. If they saw trolls they'd ready torches without wondering what these sentient beings might be doing in the area. Living beings were bags of XP to be claimed, popping up out of the campaign like placards of scowling criminals in a shooting range. And the players had the audacity to think it was the bad guys who were evil.

Now I play GURPS. D&D is fine when you're 12 and have no room for gray area in your moral landscape. I feel a little ... wistful that things are no longer that easy and simple-minded.

Anyway, keep on doing as you're doing. No objections here to ambiguity and thoughtful characters!

[Sylian]

or (C), stop participating in message board arguments with people who want me to change what I'm doing to fit their own ideas.

I think I'll do that one.

You know, I'd like to state that I, for one, enjoy your posts here. It's up to you whether you want to continue or not, but I think many people here appreciate that you tell us more about the story and the background behind it. I check the "The Index of the Giant's Comments" fairly often to see if you've posted anything.

[EmperorSarda]

You know, I'd like to state that I, for one, enjoy your posts here. It's up to you whether you want to continue or not, but I think many people here appreciate that you tell us more about the story and the background behind it. I check the "The Index of the Giant's Comments" fairly often to see if you've posted anything.

+1 for a whole hearted agreement.

[137beth]

Now I play GURPS. D&D is fine when you're 12 and have no room for gray area in your moral landscape. I feel a little ... wistful that things are no longer that easy and simple-minded.

Grey morality works perfectly well with an alignment system...
unless you have players like what you described, or like carry2 apparently is

[lio45]

Okay, after reading the second half of this thread, I have to say... it's damn impressive to see a (popular and busy) author being that active on his message board.



... and now, for his contribution to delaying #0892 for all of us: Thanks, Carry2! (<--to be read with that "thanks, Obama" intonation).
:P

[Carry2]

Consequential ethics? Tarquin is lawful because he has created a society of law...

Because he uses almost exclusively Chaotic means to achieve this. He ignores his own legal systems on a whim, employs illusion, deceit, and manipulation, and regularly topples or usurps existing governments. A number of such actions have little or nothing to do with imposing order and everything to do with personal amusement. There is basically nothing that Tarquin does that makes him look lawful except for long-range consequences.

If this is a standard we tacitly endorse, it logically follows that an ostensibly Good PC could do nothing but employ torture, slaughter the innocent, and throw in a bit of gratuitous rape for good measure, and still come out smelling like roses if s/he (A) had some plausibly benign long-range plan, and (B) could statistically demonstrate that their actions had the net effect of decreasing suffering somehow. Are we really okay with that conclusion?

You're basing the moral message of Start of Darkness based on the opening scenes? Maybe you should read the rest of the book...

You mean the rest of the book where Redcloak does, according to his brother, go on to betray his people, and aid and abet a lich sorceror intent on world domination? To the extent that the paladins can be blamed for that outcome, they can be blamed for incompetence, but not for intent- in the sense that actually killing RC in the first place would have avoided this outcome. I'm not saying that's the only interpretation, but it's certainly a viable one.

The thing is that, within D&D rules- and not just the finicky details surrounding BAB or five-foot-steps, but the core behavioural philosophy of the class- paladins are not allowed to make that kind of call. They are 100% invested in the deontological ethics side of the spectrum, to the extent of literally not being allowed to put one foot wrong, ever, without serious comeuppance. Whereas their decisions in SoD are 100% consequentialist, and any comeuppance is conspicuously absent or glossed over.

This may make for a fine story, and if these were just generic crusading zealots serving their crystal dragon amaterasu, I would be fine with that. But these are not D&D paladins, and calling them so is not contributing to the alignment debate, any more than telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 is contributing to a debate over mathematics. It's just lowering the signal to noise ratio.

[factotum]

As a DM I grew bored and weary of running campaigns where I was not allowed, because the players were too well trained by the rules, to present any character in anything but the intended, approved light. If there was a council meeting, the players would assume the Drow was the problematic one and kill him without ever listening to what the meeting was about.

Then why didn't you do something about that? Have the rest of the council immediately have the players arrested and thrown into prison for murder when they kill the Drow, then introduce some sort of plea-bargain element where they have to go and do something hella dangerous or else be executed for their crime. Heck, even do something as simple as having the players encounter a Drow and a high elf fighting in the streets, but in this case it's the elf who's the bad guy and the Drow who's trying to stop him--see what happens when they find that out!

[EmperorSarda]

Because he uses almost exclusively Chaotic means to achieve this. He ignores his own legal systems on a whim,

The only example we might have seen of this is the bounty hunters misplaced paperwork. Which isn't ignoring the legal system at all. It's unfairly subjecting them to the legal system.

employs illusion, deceit, and manipulation,

Which are not unlawful things. Lying to someone does not make you chaotic.

and regularly topples or usurps existing governments.

In order to establish a more central and more stable government. Not chaotic.

There is basically nothing that Tarquin does that makes him look lawful except for long-range consequences.

How about appreciating that Roy sticks to his word? How about sticking to his promise to tell Elan about Girard? How about giving his word to Elan after they escaped the blade barrier? How about an unwillingness to lie about the forces he sent to aid/conquer the city and instead left things intentionally vague with the captain?

If this is a standard we tacitly endorse, it logically follows that an ostensibly Good PC could do nothing but employ torture, slaughter the innocent, and throw in a bit of gratuitous rape for good measure, and still come out smelling like roses if s/he (A) had some plausibly benign long-range plan, and (B) could statistically demonstrate that their actions had the net effect of decreasing suffering somehow. Are we really okay with that conclusion?

There is a difference between lawful and good. Tarquin hardly smells like roses and is definitely very Evil. No one is saying that what he is doing is a good thing.

You mean the rest of the book where Redcloak does, according to his brother, go on to betray his people, and aid and abet a lich sorceror intent on world domination? To the extent that the paladins can be blamed for that outcome, they can be blamed for incompetence, but not for intent- in the sense that actually killing RC in the first place would have avoided this outcome. I'm not saying that's the only interpretation, but it's certainly a viable one.

So you're calling the paladins evil for incompetence for failure to kill Redcloak? Given that the cloak is a relic of their God that the paladins knew nothing about, the likelyhood of another cleric picking it up and pursuing the gates are still pretty high.

They failed to kill Redcloak, and so he pursued the gates. Which he would have done had the paladins not attacked, because he would be following orders of the previous head cleric of the Dark One, who had similar goals.

The thing is that, within D&D rules- and not just the finicky details surrounding BAB or five-foot-steps, but the core behavioural philosophy of the class- paladins are not allowed to make that kind of call. They are 100% invested in the deontological ethics side of the spectrum, to the extent of literally not being allowed to put one foot wrong, ever, without serious comeuppance. Whereas their decisions in SoD are 100% consequentialist, and any comeuppance is conspicuously absent or glossed over.

And Rich has alluded to that some of the Paladins did fall that day. Lets say Redlcoak saw them fall, would that take away from the pain of his people being killed, would that take away his hatred? I would venture to say no.

As for the paladins being glanced over, as The Giant said, it is not their story. SOD is how Xykon and Redcloak came to be the villains that we know now. Going into the story of the paladins of those who fell, of the trials of those who sought atonement; is not relevant to the story because it doesn't matter.

This may make for a fine story, and if these were just generic crusading zealots serving their crystal dragon amaterasu, I would be fine with that. But these are not D&D paladins, and calling them so is not contributing to the alignment debate, any more than telling people that 2 + 2 = 5 is contributing to a debate over mathematics. It's just lowering the signal to noise ratio.

Why do they have to contribute to anything but a good story?

[Carry2]

Where by "can't be" you mean "as long as a Sizable Proportion of the citizens can be declared to be arbitrarily high level spellcasters."

That's not a point. It's just an assertion, which you are prepared to reassert tirelessly. You have to think about the morality of suspects and gather evidence for D&D as it stands. If it's as simple as "cast Detect Evil, and declare the evil one guilty," either the DM was completely unprepared...

My point is that the uncertainty over the use of DE is really based on whether or not it gives accurate readings for a certain threshold of malevolence, not over whether sufficiently Evil people actually deserve smiting. In which case producing a fantasy universe that already magically labels you as morally reprehensible or not in an empirically measurable way seems at odds with the game design agenda of allowing that reading to be obfuscated or faulty. It's rather like the pointlessness of combining a class system with multiclassing, since the latter defeats the purpose of the former, and if you really want the benefits of the latter, there's little point to having the former.

Your goalposts are dancing around during this post. If the concern is "punishing people for the wrong thoughts is itself an evil act," suddenly your house-ruled special Detect Evil only detects actual and horrific guilt. If the concern is, "A system that relies on that spell will let most criminals go free," suddenly it picks up anyone who is thinking about committing any crime that's worth prosecuting...

According to some definitions of Evil, yes. I don't personally agree with those definitions, in that I think you'd need to commit actual atrocities in order to attain that alignment. But I've been told that creatures or persons can read as Evil based solely on intent, and I suppose the argument is that they are so fixated on nefarious deeds that actually committing them is only a matter of time- in which case, yes, I could conditionally see justification for pre-emptive smiting there. (Again, I don't really accept that initial premise, but if one does, the conclusion is unchanged.)

My point is that, however wierd your initial reasoning on the nature of Evil may be, and however bizarre it is that the fabric of the universe can automatically assess your moral standing to begin with, having accepted that premise, Evil => Needs Smiting is a pretty trivial step. If you are not comfortable with those conclusions, then I would suggest not accepting the premise.

[Porthos]

having accepted that premise, Evil => Needs Smiting is a pretty trivial step. If you are not comfortable with those conclusions, then I would suggest not accepting the premise.

Here's the problem with accepting your premise:

Let me say that again.

Miko was the poster child of "If it's Evil, I get to Smite It." As she spiraled into her own madness it became "If it's Evil, I have to Smite It."

And when something broke in her brain? When something occurred that shattered part of her worldview?

It became: If I judge it to be wrong, whether or not it actually pings as evil it must be Smited"

After all, it's only a small step from "If something is Evil, it must be Smited" to "If someone is helping someone who is Evil, they must be Smited". And each and everyone of us saw what happened when THAT philosophy was brought to the stage.

That is, ultimately, the real danger of "If it is Evil, SMITE" without taking things into account. Without allowing for even the possibility of another solution.

See, Miko Miyazaki was a deconstruction of the SMITE SMITE SMITE paladin you are mentioning (as well as deconstructing several other Paladin tropes). That was one of the points of that entire arc. What would happen to such a Paladin if they were thrust into a situation where their philosophy just doesn't work anymore.

Of course, Shojo fared little better as his machinations proved to be his undoing.

It's almost as if Rich was pillorying both Miko and Shojo, showing their flaws for all to see.

After all, he also had a pair of reasonable authority figures in Roy and Hinjo. Hinjo in fact was the critical role of being the example of what a Paladin should do in the situation where they find their liege lord has been a little naughty.

[Carry2]

Which are not unlawful things. Lying to someone does not make you chaotic...
...How about appreciating that Roy sticks to his word? How about sticking to his promise to tell Elan about Girard?

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

There is a difference between lawful and good. Tarquin hardly smells like roses and is definitely very Evil. No one is saying that what he is doing is a good thing.

But you are missing my point. The author is on record as saying that using evil methods for good goals is no different from lawful methods for chaotic goals (or vice versa.) 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.

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

And Rich has alluded to that some of the Paladins did fall that day. Lets say Redlcoak saw them fall, would that take away from the pain of his people being killed, would that take away his hatred? I would venture to say no...
...Why do they have to contribute to anything but a good story?

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.)

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.

[Porthos]

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.

The problem, and this is really central to most of the arguments in this thread: Those actions which you list as Chaotic, aren't.

I personally see very little Chaoticness in Tarquin. I'd almost go as far as saying that outside of Durkon and O-Chul he might be one of the most Lawful characters in the strip. He's certainly one of the most Lawful characters we've seen since we left Azure City.

It's about at this point I wish I had my old signature which reminded people that 'Being Lawful Doesn't Necessarily Mean You Have To Follow The Law'. I believe the article it linked to has already appeared in this thread, so I suppose that should be good enough.

See, I've long thought that a better word for Lawful is Ordered. It isn't perfect but at least it gets us out of the trap of "Someone broke a law, they can't be very lawful, can they?"

And Tarquin? He absolutely screams Order. Hell, once he dies, there will probably be a welcoming party in Baator, that's how glad they'll be to see him.

Does Tarquin have fun? Sure? Does he play games with people? Yep. Is he vocally appreciative of others plans even if they inconvenience him (though not too much)? I'd say so. But none of those actually are un-Lawful behavior. They're not Chaotic, either. They're independent of the C-L G-E axes.

Is he Manipulative? Of course. So too are the Devils of Baator. Does he twist the Law to his own favor? Gee, where I have seen that as an example of Lawfulness before?

Let me give an example of just how Lawful Tarquin is. He could have any woman he wants. Yet he seems to prefer to follow the ordered, structured path of Marriage. Of course, being evil he tends to... convince the people that they should marry him. And it has been strongly implied that when he tires of them, he disposes of them.

That's Lawful Evil behavior to a tee. Force people into a contract with you that benefits you, and then dispose of them when you wish.

Tarquin as Chaotic? Hardly.

As far as I can see, at least.

[thereaper]

Except that, once again, Tarquin's actions are not chaotic.

He misleads people; he doesn't lie to them. It's Lawful deception, just like how a Good adventurer stabbing an Evil villain who was trying to murder orphans is Good violence.

And even if you could demonstrate that misleading people was Chaotic; it would be a minor Chaotic act at best. Heck, even Roy has been known to lie on occasion.

Tarquin throws people in prison using the legal system (sure, he misplaces legal papers, but that's an example of manipulating of law, not an example of ignoring the law; heck, manipulating the law is one of the hallmarks of LE). A Chaotic individual would have thrown Enor and Gannji into prison without ever charging them with a crime.

Manipulating people is not Chaotic. If anything, it's Lawful.

Subversion of Justice is an Evil thing, not a Chaotic thing. CN and CG people don't mind justice (they may cry foul when courts let guilty ones go, but they sure don't mind when the bad guys get a guilty verdict).

I'm not sure where you're getting the whole rebellion thing from. Tarquin goes out of his way to prevent rebellion. Unless you're referring to Tarquin's group getting a patsy to topple one of their empires every few years? Except that's not even a real rebellion; it's a staged one that he does to (once again) prevent rebellion.

Also, you're taking the Giant's comments out of context. If committing Evil for some vaguely Good ideology could balance each other out, RC would be Good. Chaotic methods for a Lawful cause would be ignoring one major law to enforce another major law (see: Batman).

Ultimately, your primary issue seems to be an inability to differentiate between Chaos and Evil.

Chaos ignores laws and doesn't care about the breaking of personal codes. CG might ignore laws for the purpose of helping people, while CE might ignore laws for the purpose of hurting people.

Evil hurts others for its own gain. CE will do whatever the heck it wants, and ignore any laws that may or may not exist. LE will take the existing laws (or if they don't exist, build them) and manipulate them to benefit themself.

[BroomGuys]

In the same sense that stabbing someone does not make you evil, yes.

Degree, dude. Whether or not someone murders people is way more important for Goodness than whether or not someone lies is for Lawfulness.

There are conceivable circumstances that might justify stabbing another person, but by default, it is an evil-associated kind of act.

This default is less important than you think it is. If a character stabs an evil person in self defense after witnessing that person murdering a dozen orphans, that is pretty much not an Evil act at all. It's the character's attitude about it that tells you more: a Good person would feel remorse anyway, while a Neutral or Evil person wouldn't pay it any mind at all. Similarly, Tarquin lies to suit his purposes (and as I've argued before, not doing this is a really unnecessarily exclusive criterion for a Lawful Evil alignment) he prefers to do it in technical truths, and he keeps his promises, while a Chaotic person would lie willy-nilly without a second thought.

Likewise, deceit, manipulation

Deceit strikes me as more Evil (what Lawful Evil character is never deceptive?), and if you think manipulation is tied inextricably to Chaos,
you're obviously not familiar with one of a paladin's key class abilities: Summon Conscience.

rebellion

Conquering and rebellion are not the same thing.

and subversion of justice

You're conflating "justice" with "the law." Subverting justice is Evil, while subverting the law is Chaotic.

He keeps his promises only when it suits him

You gotta show some proof for this one.

I refuse to call this lawful behaviour.

Nobody's makin' ya, but I'm just not seeing your analysis. Could you give us a Lawful Evil character that does fit the alignment cleanly and explain how he fits it so much better than Tarquin?

Therefore, if one accepts that Tarquin can- as far as we ever see- preoccupy himself with Chaotic actions all the live long day,

I really think you're exaggerating here. There's not much of a point to the Lawful Evil alignment if we hold them to such rigorous ethical standards.

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.

As you may have observed, I take issue with your premises, so I do not come to this conclusion at all.

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.)

Someone reading SOD will probably just wonder how paladins can do such terrible things and then feel a bit sympathetic to Redcloak as the story progresses, and I imagine that was the point. Getting bogged down in the details of how the alignments work out, in my opinion, would diminish this effect on the audience; if we see penitent paladins that did these terrible deeds, we wouldn't sympathize as much with Redcloak's anger.

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've never played D&D before, and I can tell you that if I joined a game (kinda hope I do some day!) the first thing I would do is ask for a thorough explanation of the rules from the DM. I really don't think this has nearly the problematic potential you seem to think it does.

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.

My own humble opinion is that Rich has already succeeded in maintaining a consistently good story without encouraging dysfunction of this type.

[theNater]

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

By whom? Especially on that manipulation one; I don't think I've ever seen that indicated as a chaotic behavior.

He keeps his promises only when it suits him, and uses them to dupe and bamboozle folk the rest of the time.

Which promises has Tarquin broken? Keep in mind that taking advantage of loopholes is a key lawful evil trait, so a promise only counts as broken if he violates the letter of the promise. Violating the spirit doesn't count.

[Porthos]

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

I missed this the first time around.

No. No they are most certainly NOT. Each and everyone of those traits are shared by the vast majority of Devils that populate the Nine Hells. With Asmodeus being the prime example of each and everyone of them.

A Devil that isn't manipulative? That'd be the first one I'd ever see. And deceit? An undecitful Devil is an unsuccessful Devil.

One that fostered rebellion in others (or thought it might rebel against its own masters... if they thought they could get away with it)? Too many Devils to count.

And subversion of justice? That's practically their middle name.

Now deceitfulness and manipulativeness aren't inherently evil (well, given the negative connotation of the word, deceitfulness might be close - but that's an argument I'd rather not get into). But neither are they inherently chaotic.

And the fact that you seem to think so, is as I said earlier, the big central argument here.

My counter to your assertion is, well, just about every Devil that has ever existed in D&D lore.

[warrl]

The two sides need to be equal in power [or whatever, just so the result is in doubt]. If not, the result is a lot of dead lemures [or a dead solar] and no more opposition.

In a two-side system, that is somewhat true. Not necessarily completely true - it may be that A is quite capable of conquering B but the expense of doing so and then maintaining control is perceived as being too high relative to the benefit.

In a three- or more-way system, it's rather less true. Perhaps A is quite capable of conquering B, but fears what C might do in response to such an attempt. (The world could have used a bit more of that sort of fear in Europe circa 1914.)

And the D&D 3.xE alignment system is a 9-way system.

[Kish]

My point

Again, it's not a point. It's just an assertion. However many times you repeat it, it's still not a point.

[BenjCano]

It might be an interesting thought experiment for Carry2 to explain his thinking of Lawful vs. Chaotic alignment thusly:

Let's pretend that Tarquin was back in Bloodhaven, doing his normal thing. He is assassinated and replaced by a shape-shifting, greater devil of some kind. What specific changes does not-Tarquin make to the Empire of Blood? In what way does not-Tarquin change the plans for dividing and conquering the continent behind a series of proxy rulers and faux-rebellions? How does not-Tarquin behave in his specific, day to day operations? What exact behaviors would not-Tarquin exhibit that would be different from those that Tarquin exhibits? In what way could someone like Malack who knows Tarquin well suspect that his friend had been replaced by a fiendish imposter?

Please be specific and detailed so that we can unpack your thinking here. And when you've done that, what do you think your responses to the above questions would be if the premise was that Tarquin was replaced by a greater demon, instead of a greater devil?

[Tragak]

It might be an interesting thought experiment for Carry2 to explain his thinking of Lawful vs. Chaotic alignment thusly:

Let's pretend that Tarquin was back in Bloodhaven, doing his normal thing. He is assassinated and replaced by a shape-shifting, greater devil of some kind. What specific changes does not-Tarquin make to the Empire of Blood? In what way does not-Tarquin change the plans for dividing and conquering the continent behind a series of proxy rulers and faux-rebellions? How does not-Tarquin behave in his specific, day to day operations? What exact behaviors would not-Tarquin exhibit that would be different from those that Tarquin exhibits? In what way could someone like Malack who knows Tarquin well suspect that his friend had been replaced by a fiendish imposter?

Please be specific and detailed so that we can unpack your thinking here. And when you've done that, what do you think your responses to the above questions would be if the premise was that Tarquin was replaced by a greater demon, instead of a greater devil?

How about this:

Greater Demons pit their victims against each other with too few rules, not too many, and destroy any institutional support system that their victims could turn to for help.

Greater Devils pit their victims against each other with too many rules, not too few, and create very comprehensive support systems that don't actually help their victims, but take of too much room and resources for anybody to build a support system that actually would.

[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?

[Reddish Mage]

BTW, I've been on this board a long time. I've been reading comments about OotS all over the web.

Do you want to know approximately how many people I have seen that said, "Well let's not forget, those goblin children had it coming. I mean, Paladins killed them and didn't suffer any consequences".

Probably no more than five.

Do you want to know approximately how many people now say they want the Goblins to 'win' and that the Sapphire Guard (and the gods they work for) are a bunch of genocidal jerks who deserve to die horrbily and painfully?

Too many to count.

I don't think you need to worry on the 'people getting the wrong idea from SoD' angle. If anything, it might have tilted the scale a bit too much into the pro-Goblins territory.

The storytelling was that powerful to many people.

Sometimes I wonder about whether that scene is too powerful. Initially, I read it straight from Redcloak as saying Paladins and good gods approve of killing goblin children; since they are "evil" and created to be an easy source of low-level xp.

The Giants post walks that back considerably. But, Redcloak's mission continues to appear just, if not the way it is carried out. I think reading SOD gives a very different perspective of the story, and particularly of the downtrodden goblin race, which the Giant himself suggested shouldn't be labeled "evil" by official sourcebooks but left to DMs to figure out.

[hamishspence]

BTW, I've been on this board a long time. I've been reading comments about OotS all over the web.

Do you want to know approximately how many people I have seen that said, "Well let's not forget, those goblin children had it coming. I mean, Paladins killed them and didn't suffer any consequences".

Probably no more than five.

Do you want to know approximately how many people now say they want the Goblins to 'win' and that the Sapphire Guard (and the gods they work for) are a bunch of genocidal jerks who deserve to die horrbily and painfully?

Too many to count.

It is interesting to look back and see how people reacted.

[Gift Jeraff]

Shocking as it may be, this is actually not the first time someone has asserted that Tarquin isn't Lawful Evil. IIRC, someone once argued that "being constantly happy" = Chaotic and "not punishing Roy for the damage he caused to the colosseum" = Neutral.

[tomandtish]

When it comes to information that is incorrect (major or minor) we can say there are three basic levels:

Let’s use the Azure City gate as an example.

1) Lie: The person is stating something they know to be factually untrue. Example: Let’s say O’Chul had told Hinjo that “I destroyed the gate with my blade” in strip 663. This is a lie and will show as such with Discern Lies.

2) Evasion/Misdirection: The person states something that is factually true, but is intended to give the person(s) who hear it a false impression. O’Chul’s actual response (about the destruction of the gate) in strip 663 is a prime example of this. Whether it trips Discern Lies or not depends on how much weight you give the necessarily part of “does not … necessarily reveal evasions”. (For the record, I’ve always ruled that it only detects straight lies).

3) Wrong information: This is simply someone relaying information that they believe to be correct but isn’t. Example: Hinjo choosing to tell anyone that O’Chul destroyed the gate. There’s no lie or evasion here. It’s simply incorrect information that Hinjo was given and believes to be correct. Obviously does not show on Discern Lies.

Lying may or may not be inherently chaotic. Evasion almost certainly can’t be inherently chaotic (although people may use it for chaotic ends). There’s a simple reason and it is the Paladin:

No class could function in a civilized society without the ability to engage in evasion to some degree. Sooner or later everyone is going to have to tell the “white lie”, the “shaded truth”. If we say that Lawful characters can’t do this at all, we’ve set up an entire group of alignments that would have to say the unvarnished truth when asked.

“How’s my cooking?” “Horrible”.
“What do you think of my new painting?” “Looks like the contents of the wheelbarrow after cleaning the stables”.
“As your King, I want your feedback on what you think of my new laws”. “The zombie I struck down last week shows greater insight”.

By allowing evasion, you get:

Hinjo: “O’Chul! I’ve just taken up cooking. What do you think of my first attempt”?
O’Chul: “My Lord, I’ve never tasted anything like this. It is a truly unique experience. May I have another serving”? While praying Oh Gods, I don’t ask for much. But please let me make this fortitude save so I don’t embarrass my Lord….

Again, the class can’t function in society if they can’t do this to some extent, so Lawful characters have to be able to do so. But it’s important to not confuse the means with the end. Evasion could be chaotic if that was the person’s goal. Similarly, the good or evil of evasion can be based on the motivation as well. Tarquin’s deceptions are to help cement his power and position, and to punish personal wrongs. O’Chul’s deception was to help preserve the reputation of someone when further recrimination appears to serve no purpose. Make your own judgments where those fall as far as good and evil.

[EmperorSarda]

1) Lie: The person is stating something they know to be factually untrue. Example: Let’s say O’Chul had told Hinjo that “I destroyed the gate with my blade” in strip 663. This is a lie and will show as such with Discern Lies.

Except not a lie. O'Chul didn't say he destroyed it. He said he made the decision and that it was his sword that did it. He didn't say he destroyed the gate. Both things were exactly true.

You do make good points overall at how lying is not a chaotic attribute though.

[ORione]

Except not a lie. O'Chul didn't say he destroyed it. He said he made the decision and that it was his sword that did it. He didn't say he destroyed the gate. Both things were exactly true.

You do make good points overall at how lying is not a chaotic attribute though.

But if O'Chul had said that he destroyed it, then it would have been a lie. That's what tomandtish is saying.

[hamishspence]

Except not a lie. O'Chul didn't say he destroyed it.

Which is probably why it began with "Let's say..."

[EmperorSarda]

But if O'Chul had said that he destroyed it, then it would have been a lie. That's what tomandtish is saying.

Which is probably why it began with "Let's say..."

I feel foolish. Ignore my ramblings.

[hamishspence]

Besides O-Chul, do we see any other paladins being evasive?

The ones in the bonus strip in War & XPs with Miko (who don't want to go to dinner with her) spring to mind- but what about the main strip?