Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Sir_Leorik]

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

Maybe it can be one of the bonus strips in Book Five?

[zimmerwald1915]

Maybe it can be one of the bonus strips in Book Five?

Gosh I hope not. The bonus strips the books have contained hitherto have at least been germane to the story, and what's more, to the arc of the story contained in the book in question. The bonus strips in Don't Split the Party, for instance, were meant to be online strips, and were cut for various reasons mostly related to pacing.

Meatloaf Day is prime fanfiction material, though, along the lines of some of the adventures Holmes references but which Watson never chronicles. It's clearly established as an important event with suggestive but fairly vague parameters, and its effects on the story have all long since played out.

[pendell]

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



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

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

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

Ah. Thank you for answering my post and explaining your thinking.

In point of fact, I've got a lot of feedback both here and in PM that is worth more time and attention than I have now, as I am currently preparing to catch a plane from Los Angeles to Washington DC (the plane is wheels up tomorrow, but I have a lot of other stuff to do today in preparation), so rather than answer immediately I'm going to think on it overnight.

Thanks to Rich burlew --and to Warren Dew -- and to others here for the thoughts.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anarion]

Gosh I hope not. The bonus strips the books have contained hitherto have at least been germane to the story, and what's more, to the arc of the story contained in the book in question. The bonus strips in Don't Split the Party, for instance, were meant to be online strips, and were cut for various reasons mostly related to pacing.

Meatloaf Day is prime fanfiction material, though, along the lines of some of the adventures Holmes references but which Watson never chronicles. It's clearly established as an important event with suggestive but fairly vague parameters, and its effects on the story have all long since played out.

That's a good point. Maybe it could be one of those things that comes out in a "Lost Strips" anthology after the story has already ended and The Giant finds himself in a mood to make an odds and ends book.

Edit: Slightly more on topic addressing Tomandtish's post at the end of the previous page:

Soon didn't have the option of placing the Sapphire guard openly as the head of Azure City. At least not without raising a lot of questions he didn't want to answer. The Order of the Scribble had sworn to secrecy regarding the Gates and I presume that Soon took that oath seriously (because, y'know, paladin). It seems like keeping the info within a close group of trusted associates such as the new city ruler was acceptable, but openly putting the Sapphire guard on top would almost surely break the oath.

That means that even before Shojo took the throne, there was an order of paladins involved with protecting the gate and operating out of Azure City and working in the city under false pretenses of some kind.

You can't really lay that one on Shojo's feet, although you could maybe lay it on Girard Draketooth if you think he was being really tricky around the time that the Order split up.

[tomandtish]

Part of my original thought was thinking that Soon's mistake was consolidating the two positions in the first place, since it creates the potential for a person to be caught in conflicting oaths. While that potential still exists (and came up for Shojo), in looking more carefully at Soon's supposed logic in 277 the reasoning for combining the positions was specifically defense. It appears that he wanted to make sure that anyone in charge of defending the city would also make sure the gate was defended and would not abandon it. I presume that the only way he felt certain he could ensure this was to have the positions be combined (that is, the leader has taken the oath of the SG). If Soon considered the risk of conflicting oaths he probably felt this need outweighed it.

Of course, since the Emperor is not a paladin they apparently don't give quite as much weight to the oaths of the guard and are willing to subvert them when needed to help the city. Thus creating the whole mess we find ourselves in.

So I still think part of the problem came from combining the two positions. I'm just not sure if there's a better alternative.

Edit: People refer to the Scribble's oath to keep the gates secret. In reading 276 and 277, they initially agreed that the gates need to be kept secret. The oath seems to strictly be that they won't interfere with each other's gates. So technically there's nothing about the Scribble oath (based on what we see) that says they can't talk about the gates with others. They just can't interfere with each other's gates. Now I certainly agree that openly talking is a bad idea, but it might open up possibilities.

[veti]

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

No, it's certainly not entirely Hinjo's fault. (Personally I'd blame a lot of it on the Twelve Gods, without whose active help and support Xykon would be dead-dead by now.)

But I remember writing a post a year or so ago - ah, here it is - comparing Redcloak and Hinjo's command performance against a manual of tactics. Hinjo scored pretty poorly.

I'm sure that's partly because his training didn't include basic military tactics (it certainly didn't include the USMC Tactical Fundamentals), but then nor did Redcloak's - he's never commanded a large army before either. He must have worked out the bits he got right - which was most of it - from first principles.

[BroomGuys]

No, it's certainly not entirely here it is - comparing Redcloak and Hinjo's command performance against a manual of tactics. Hinjo scored pretty poorly.

I'm sure that's partly because his training didn't include basic military tactics (it certainly didn't include the USMC Tactical Fundamentals), but then nor did Redcloak's - he's never commanded a large army before either. He must have worked out the bits he got right - which was most of it - from first principles.

Well, Redcloak also had a lot more time to prepare, too, and while he hadn't commanded a large army before, he did have more experience in smaller battles. I think their respective disparity in tactical skills is about what you would expect, given the circumstances.

[tomandtish]

No, it's certainly not entirely Hinjo's fault. (Personally I'd blame a lot of it on the Twelve Gods, without whose active help and support Xykon would be dead-dead by now.)

But I remember writing a post a year or so ago - ah, here it is - comparing Redcloak and Hinjo's command performance against a manual of tactics. Hinjo scored pretty poorly.

I'm sure that's partly because his training didn't include basic military tactics (it certainly didn't include the USMC Tactical Fundamentals), but then nor did Redcloak's - he's never commanded a large army before either. He must have worked out the bits he got right - which was most of it - from first principles.

Your comments in that thread bring up some interesting points. I'm not sure I agree with all of them but they are well argued and a good read.

Principle of the Offensive: Hinjo launching attacks against a superior force before repelling the initial assault would be foolish. Defenders can launch counter assaults and raids, but they need to be planned carefully so your troops aren't cut off (esp. when outnumbered 3/1). For example, opening your gates to send out skirmishers when they are under direct attack is risky at best.

Principle of the Objective: Without a clear understanding of how much Hinjo thought his forces could hurt Xykon beforehand, it makes sense when you remember what he said: They are there as reinforcements for the Sapphire Ghost army. In fact, Hinjo's statements in 449 make it clear that he knows he is sending them there to die so they can come back as (presumably) more powerful ghost warriors. In fact, looking at the nature of the strip, it almost appears that you have to have the failure (and death) for the ghost-martyrs to kick in. Given that, he has to put SG members there.

Hinjo specifically indicates that he believes Roy and group are the only ones able to handle Xykon (in living state anyway) which is why he sends them to deal with Xykon as they see fit. Since for Hinjo protecting the gate is the utmost priority, he has to put his SG members in the throne room so they can fight, die, and be activated as ghost martyrs when/if Xykon gets that far. I think he's working from the assumption that if Roy and gang can't stop Xykon, then Xykon will make the throne room, so the strongest possible defense of the gate itself has to be the main focus for the SG.

Of course, this is bad for the rest of the city and the other troops. But it does help showcase conflicting loyalties. Ultimately, Hinjo's first duty seems to be to his oaths as a member of the SG, not to his people. He is concerned about them, but he's making plans based on defending the gate specifically.

[EmperorSarda]

Of course, this is bad for the rest of the city and the other troops. But it does help showcase conflicting loyalties. Ultimately, Hinjo's first duty seems to be to his oaths as a member of the SG, not to his people. He is concerned about them, but he's making plans based on defending the gate specifically.

Probably because he doesn't have the troops to fight off the invasion. Especially when 1200 men at arms that he could have used were taken by the nobles fleeing, plus their ninja. Maybe 30 paladins on the battlements would have helped, it might have prevented the walls being torn up so much. But maybe not. Not much help they could have been if the army charged like they did.

[theNater]

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

Liking the idea of things being organized is not the same as liking every extant organization. Different Lafwul characters can like different kinds of organization, and can even fight over which kind is better.

Let's try an analogy a bit more apt than the one you keep bringing up. Carol comes into a room and finds a collection of music CDs arranged alphabetically by title. She thinks "well, that's ridiculous" and rearranges them alphabetically by artist name. She tears down the old order to replace it with a new one, which she finds more appealing. Is she being Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral?

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

A Lawful character is not responsible for the net amount of Chaos in the world; they are only responsible for whether they behave in a Lawful manner. Again, think codes of conduct. A tribal character adhering to code which requires honesty with the other members of the tribe can lie to outsiders and still be obeying the code(and thus still be Lawful). A character who only speaks statements that are the opposite of true statements(like the green guard here) is lying constantly, but is behaving in a Lawful manner, because of the rigid structure of his speech. A Lawful Evil cleric using a code of conduct defined by an Evil religion, which calls for weekly human sacrifices, will very likely break the local laws of any non-Evil settlements; adherence to that religious code makes the cleric Lawful even while violating those laws.

Of course, Lawful characters often do build and/or work within existing organizations, for a couple of reasons. First, the same desire for organization tends to make them want to organize things external to themselves, in addition to being organized. Second, it is often easier to live a structured life in a structured environment, assuming the two structures are compatible. So we will often see our tribal warrior expanding the tribe, so there's no need to keep track of who to lie to and who to be honest with. And we see lying guards hanging out with truth-telling guards and near helpful signs, so that they don't have to try to explain their code to extremely confused people. And see our cleric founding Evil cities, where performing the sacrifices can be done without fear of arrest. And so forth. Because of this, attempting to establish or expand a preferred organization is an indicator of a Lawful alignment, despite not being the definition of one.

[Throknor]

...Of course, since the Emperor is not a paladin they apparently don't give quite as much weight to the oaths of the guard and are willing to subvert them when needed to help the city. Thus creating the whole mess we find ourselves in. ...

I'd just like to interject it probably would have worked out fine if Miko hadn't gone off the rails and executed him. With Xykon coming his defense before a magistrate would have been 'I knew something has been destroying gates and I was going around the SG to find out what.' Hack, I place more blame on Roy overthinking his question. If he'd gone with simply saying 'active gate' instead of naming two of them he could have given a proper warning via Sending. Once Shojo knew Xykon was on his way he could have come clean with Hinjo, who probably wouldn't have liked the methods but would have put that aside until after the battle.

Going further would pile speculation on speculation, but my point is Shojo could have made a legitimate defense of his actions and kept the support of the nobles if he had lived. He didn't create the mess; in fact if he hadn't done any of it then the first they'd have known of the attack would have been when the goblins showed up in visual range. There would have been much less defense and the gate would likely have fallen. There would have been fewer martyred paladins in the room to help Soon, and Redcloak would have shown up to help sooner.

OK, ended up speculating. Short version: Shojo could have made it work if he'd lived, Miko created the mess.

Edit to add: It's even more convoluted. Without running into Miko they wouldn't have even known where the gate was; she wouldn't have been caught without returning from Durkon's message; which she only did for Shojo's payment of Roy behind the S.G.'s back. So that part is more his fault, but her killing him still was the worst part.

If he'd been lawful there would have been an unsuspected attack that could have been worse in terms of casualties and they might have secured the gate. By being chaotic he would have saved the day except for Miko's foray into chaos.

New summary: By being chaotic they had a better chance to win, but it fell apart through bad timing.

[Sir_Leorik]

But I remember writing a post a year or so ago - ah, here it is - comparing Redcloak and Hinjo's command performance against a manual of tactics. Hinjo scored pretty poorly.

I'm sure that's partly because his training didn't include basic military tactics (it certainly didn't include the USMC Tactical Fundamentals), but then nor did Redcloak's - he's never commanded a large army before either.

Spoilers for Start of Darkness:

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak has commanded large forces of Goblins, Zombies and other units in the past, albeit never on as large a scale as he did during the Battle of Azure City. Prior to hiring Xykon, Redcloak and Right-Eye were in charge of a small band of Goblins. As they prepared for the battle for Lirian's Glade they gathered more forces, while Xykon bolstered their ranks with Zombies. At first the Goblin forces did okay, cutting a swathe through Elven territory towards the Gate, but they didn't make any attempts to secure the territory they grabbed. During the final battle for Lirian's Glade, Xykon's cloudkill spell killed equal numbers of Goblins and Elves (he cast it directly into melee), Lirian's werebears and treants halted the Goblins' advance, and then the Guardian Virus took out all of their sides' spellcasters, save Redcloak.

Later on Redcloak was responsible for recruiting replacement monsters to replace all the Goblins killed during the battle, and after Xykon left Lair Island to search for clues about the Gates Redcloak was in charge. Redcloak was also in charge of the Goblins, Ogres and Zombie forces during the siege of Dorukan's Castle. This time he was much better organized than before, and Xykon was not the elderly fool he had been the first time; he was a force of pure malice who toyed with lives to stave off boredom.

So the battle for Azure City was not Redcloak's first time at bat when it came to large battles.

[Snails]

How on earth does deliberately toppling governments across a continent not count as a pretty gosh-darned Chaotic sort of action? Yes, I know, his ultimate goal is greater political stability, and that is a Lawful objective, but it doesn't change the nature of his methods. His Chaotic and Lawful actions here are of exactly the same sort and magnitude.

You are confusing "Lawful" with a general respect for all laws. Lawful only means an attitude that tends to be very consistent with being respectful of laws, it does not automatically confer respect for any particular set of laws or government. It often means holding particular convictions but it could be nothing more than personality.

Conquest and empire building is neither inherently Lawful nor Chaotic. The context and motivations matter. It is a strategy that could be employed for either ends, very easily.

[lio45]

The problem IMO very simply boils down to the fact that Carry2 is merely placing the Lawful bar too high (and maybe a bit sideways too).

Lying is Chaotic, generally, but one can still be Lawful and do a handful of things like telling one's hosts that their elaborated supper was delicious even though it was not. (That's not even a lie by omission, it's actually *less* Lawful than that. Still, you can't expect anyone to live their lives like they're on Veritaserum 24/7. If that's your standard, no one is Lawful.)

To use your Good/Evil analogy, Carry2, it's a bit like you're saying a Good person can't ever kill a spider, say an occasional mean thing to someone, etc. (FWIW, I nearly always go through the trouble of managing to get the spider on a 8.5x11 sheet of paper and throwing it out -- but on the other hand, you won't ever see me spare mosquitoes.)




As someone (Porthos?) pointed out many pages ago, it might work better in practice to replace Lawful and Chaotic with other words... say, for example,

"Organized-Predictable" for one end of the Law/Chaos axis;

"Individualistic-Spontaneous" for the opposite one.

(Not claiming those are the best possible names, but they're still IMO a bit more limpid than the traditional ones.)




So if I say Tarquin has Organized-Predictable Evil as his Alignment (and so does Redcloak) while Xykon has Individualistic-Spontaneous Evil as his (just like Belkar)... Carry2, do you think you can dispute that?

[Reddish Mage]

As I see it the discussion has gotten bodged down into vague concepts of Lawfulness and doesn't really pin things down enough to avoid argument.

What I think we have is that the basic concept of Lawfulness is so vague as to make it impossible to pin down a set of rules that govern lawful behavior. We have some expectations about what Lawful people do, and the existence of alignment in D&D pushes people with the Lawful moniker probably do more of what we expect from them, but it isn't enough here to rule definitively that any act is lawful.

If someone wants to suggest an alternative to standard D&D Lawfulness I'm open but the PHB and SRD are extremely open on this subject and even says contradictory things in describing the alignment and I haven't seen anyone that suggested that D&D has a very structured set of rules for defining what is Lawful.

I think that the Giant has defended Tarquin as being Lawful quite clearly, as Tarquin is both externally a creator of order out of chaos, and internally acting with the intent to bring order out of chaos. Not to mention Tarquin is prepared, careful, and methodological.

I think Carry2's insistent on the Chaoticness of Tarquin's alignment is an attempt to judge certain behaviors as chaotic (deceit and rebellion) regardless of intent or consequences. Not only do we say the behavior is chaotic, but its enough shift an alignment (Tarquin's) to chaos. I don't see anywhere in the D&D where the lines is drawn like this I note that when such rules have been laid down before at the gaming table or in the books it has led to more arguments then anything else.

The worst of this is that should we judge certain behaviors as Chaotic, practically every adventurer would potentially count. The very notion of gathering in a group for the purpose of individualistic, dangerous, high risk, dramatic activity is chaotic itself. The sort of behaviors adventurers do and what tends to be called for in adventures is pretty chaotic, and that includes adventures that involve some level of deception, crime, and not more then a little tendency towards rebellion (especially against evil governments). Sure, some adventurers do these things with reluctance, and some only do it for the greater good order, but the setting and structure of the gaming group demands adventurers behave in certain ways.

[Carry2]

So...you are arguing that conquest is inherently Chaotic, it doesn't strike you as a problem that your definition would make the devils of the Nine Hells Chaotic...

Well yes, I think it's fair to say that invading another country tends to be chaotic, in the sense that it introduces a lot of uncertainty into peoples' lives. They don't know if they'll live or die, where or when the enemy will strike, or how long supplies will last. Infrastructure gets damaged, services are disrupted, lines of communication are cut. This is to say nothing of military tactics in general:

'All warfare is based on deception...
...Thus the pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless. If it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it or the wise make plans against it.'

Which sounds chaotic to me. Of course, (as Sun Tzu would emphasise) it also takes a lot of organisation, planning and discipline in order to raise and coordinate an army, and if you actually stick around after a conquest and strive to install new infrastructure and governance, I would agree that is a lawful sort of thing to do. (Whether it's good or bad is an entirely different question.) But the fact that Tarquin does both these things- even if the end result is a net increase in political organisation- makes his position on the L/C axis deeply ambivalent*.

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

Well, yes. Because the alignment descriptors credit Chaos with being flexible and adaptable, and Law with being rigid and hidebound. This is a pretty clear-cut case where Law is dumb and Chaos is smart, but nobody said being all-Lawful, all the time, in every respect, was advisable or even practicable.

I think Carry2's insistent on the Chaoticness of Tarquin's alignment is an attempt to judge certain behaviors as chaotic (deceit and rebellion) regardless of intent or consequences. Not only do we say the behavior is chaotic, but its enough shift an alignment (Tarquin's) to chaos.

I haven't really been arguing that. (That would be making alignment 100% methods-based, which opens it's own big can of worms, as you've pointed out. I can certainly see him being, say, NE.) I've just been trying to argue that Tarquin being a clear-cut case of Lawful is actually on pretty shaky ground. And, also inconsistent with many posters' low tolerance for means-to-end statistical-outcome-based reasoning when it comes to the Good/Evil axis.


*You can even argue that while the transition from long-running tribalistic anarchy to centralised beuraucracy is better organised, it's also a huge departure from local traditions. According to standard descriptors, the former is lawful, but the latter is actually chaotic.

.

[Kish]

Well yes,

Snipping out part of my question totally makes your assertions look better too.

Carry (heh) on.

[Carry2]

As Tarquin's government is highly ordered, regimented, and stable, the replacement is Lawful.

Destroy one government, replace with another, coordinate governments replaced == net result of increased organisation. I get the argument. But it's rather similar to the idea of killing 6 innocent people, taking their food, and saving the lives of 9 others from starvation == net result of reduced suffering.

The point I'm making is: If this was all you knew about someone's behaviour, would they count as good, as evil, or as neutral? If they count as good, then Tarquin counts as lawful. If they count as evil, then Tarquin counts as chaotic. And if they count as neutral, Tarquin counts as neutral- just on a different axis.

He didn't "go around" his own laws, he used his own laws as a mechanism...
...Choosing torture as the method of killing would be extremely Evil, however, and is very unlikely to coincide with saving the 9 being the genuine motive behind the killings.

I'm virtually certain there's nothing about Tarquin's laws that specifically says blue-skinned lizardfolk bounty hunters must have their paperwork misfiled. By that logic, Shojo rigging a show trial to bring in the OOTS was itself a Lawful act. It is partly for this reason that I'm skeptical Tarquin's behaviour can really coincide with a deep-seated need for order.


(For the record, I must emphasise that I am not trying to conflate chaos with evil here. I am not claiming that 'deception is always wrong', in the sense of evil-aligned, but that it is, within the framework of D&D definitions, a chaotic type of action. It just so happens that the examples of Tarquin employing deception (or manipulation, or subverting due process) also make him look evil, but that is a coincidence. Likewise, the specific chaotic actions which Shojo takes in the comic are largely unpleasant, but this is not because I am cherry-picking the data- it's because that's the only data available in-comic when it comes to discussing their character's ethical outlook.)

[Carry2]

Snipping out part of my question totally makes your assertions look better too.

Kish, I apologise if you feel slighted, but I am trying to reply to a significant volume of posts within a limited time. There is going to be a certain amount of lossy compression. If anyone is worried about context, there is a hyperlink above the quote.
.

[BroomGuys]

Destroy one government, replace with another, coordinate governments replaced == net result of increased organisation. I get the argument. But it's rather similar to the idea of killing 6 innocent people, taking their food, and saving the lives of 9 others from starvation == net result of reduced suffering.

Laying bare the results gives you too incomplete a picture. Tarquin has two main desires: power and looking awesome. He may use order as a justification for his actions, but he basically admitted to Elan he just wants to have fun running an evil empire. But what characters are primarily motivated by their placement on the Law-Chaos spectrum? Belkar doesn't specifically want Chaos, he's just indifferent to law and goes about his stabbity business. If Roy were in a position to do so, he would try to topple Tarquin's empires because they are slaughtering people; he would be Lawful in doing so not by trying to make the continent more Lawful but by making sure to restore the rule of Law without all the Evil.

So Tarquin's motivation doesn't have to be to make the continent Lawful, it's just that he is Lawful in pursuit of his selfish goals, per all the evidence that you haven't really refuted yet (to my knowledge).

The point I'm making is: If this was all you knew about someone's behaviour, would they count as good, as evil, or as neutral? If they count as good, then Tarquin counts as lawful. If they count as evil, then Tarquin counts as chaotic. And if they count as neutral, Tarquin counts as neutral- just on a different axis.

The fact that Tarquin has conquered countries is very, very far from the only thing we know about him.

I'm virtually certain there's nothing about Tarquin's laws that specifically says blue-skinned lizardfolk bounty hunters must have their paperwork misfiled.

So? Why does everything he does have to have the intention of increasing Lawfulness? The point is that he could have done this, which was motivated by petty revenge (not anywhere on the Law-Chaos axis), by simply having them killed outside the bounds of the law, but instead he used the legal system to do it.

By that logic, Shojo rigging a show trial to bring in the OOTS was itself a Lawful act. It is partly for this reason that I'm skeptical Tarquin's behaviour can really coincide with a deep-seated need for order.

Deep-seeded need for order? That sounds very unlike a description of the Lawful character and very like a character with OCD.

For the record, I must emphasise that I am not trying to conflate chaos with evil here.

Nobody said you were trying to; just that you were by accident.

I am not claiming that 'deception is always wrong', in the sense of evil-aligned, but that it is, within the framework of D&D definitions, a chaotic type of action.

People have made some compelling counterarguments to this.

It just so happens that the examples of Tarquin employing deception (or manipulation, or subverting due process) also make him look evil, but that is a coincidence.

Using the Law to stomp on people's rights and tricking them deliberately into acting against their own wishes is definitely not coincidentally evil.

Likewise, the specific chaotic actions which Shojo takes in the comic are largely unpleasant, but this is not because I am cherry-picking the data- it's because that's the only data available in-comic when it comes to discussing their character's ethical outlook.

We've been down this street before. Reasonable authority figure trying to help the main characters saving the world? We just don't need him to save a dozen orphans from a burning building to believe that he's Good. I suffer no confusion about the alignment system or about the story in taking that one on faith.

[Carry2]

To use your Good/Evil analogy, Carry2, it's a bit like you're saying a Good person can't ever kill a spider, say an occasional mean thing to someone, etc. (FWIW, I nearly always go through the trouble of managing to get the spider on a 8.5x11 sheet of paper and throwing it out -- but on the other hand, you won't ever see me spare mosquitoes.)

I honestly don't think that Tarquin's chaotic inclinations are really on such a minor scale. He's not just making one or two transparent complements to visiting diplomats, he's deceiving and manipulating a large fraction of the continent's population, along with their leaders, and introducing huge political change in the process.

As someone (Porthos?) pointed out many pages ago, it might work better in practice to replace Lawful and Chaotic with other words... say, for example,

"Organized-Predictable" for one end of the Law/Chaos axis;

"Individualistic-Spontaneous" for the opposite one.

I don't disagree with those definitions, I just think that Tarquin is not terribly predictable, and has actually created a lot of short-term disorganisation in his time. At the same time, he has been a long-term force for increased organisation. This isn't so much about the nature of his actions- if we can finally move past silly assertions that things explicitly described as chaotic are not chaotic- but on the relative weighting we assign to means vs. ends.


A while ago, someone in the thread asked me what an unambiguously LE ruler (such as a Baatezu) might actually do differently if they were in Tarquin's position. (Well, first of all, they'd probably have fed Nale and Elan to the Empress, because they wouldn't have cared about some stranger's kids, but let's pretend that we're talking about some kind of alt-Tarquin with a different personality. In which case, I could imagine a few hypothetical differences. I'll try to come back to that later, but I'll just say that while a more Lawful character might well be less effective at doing what Tarquin does, that just makes T more effective at his job, not less ambiguously aligned.)

[BroomGuys]

if we can finally move past silly assertions that things explicitly described as chaotic are not chaotic

When almost everybody you're arguing with is making those 'silly' assertions, you don't get to say this. Many people on this thread seem to think following the letter of a law and telling technical truths with the goal of deception pretty much epitomize the Lawful Evil alignment. No matter how obvious you may find it, you have to demonstrate why this is not the case.

[Nilehus]

Being Lawful does not mean you can't learn from your mistakes. Being Lawful does not mean you have to keep moving forward in an ineffective manner when it has been demonstrated it doesn't work.

When Haley explained the whole shell game scenario during the battle for Azure City, Roy and Hinjo adapted their tactics and thinking to fit the situation. We know for a fact those two are Lawful, and this act didn't change their alignment.

Tarquin doesn't base his character around the idea of pure, strict, predictable Lawfulness. He is as lawful as he can be in regards to the Empires. Does he have to use some unorthodox methods? Yes. But he is still the driving force behind a government that has strict laws that, one or two examples aside, do get followed and enforced.

[tomandtish]

Well, yes. Because the alignment descriptors credit Chaos with being flexible and adaptable, and Law with being rigid and hidebound. This is a pretty clear-cut case where Law is dumb and Chaos is smart, but nobody said being all-Lawful, all the time, in every respect, was advisable or even practicable.

Careful. Quoting only the positives from one side and the negatives from the other doesn’t paint a complete picture.

From D20 SRD:
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

Note that the negatives for each category are often just the positives taken too far. Any positive trait can become a negative if taken to an extreme. But note (for positives and negatives) the words “can” and “implies” . These are some traits commonly among people with these descriptors. Not all will have all traits, and not all will take them to extremes.

A lawful person can change/adapt plans based on new information or a changing situation. A chaotic may change plans for no apparent reason at all or for reason that appear to make no sense.

If my plan is to drive over a large bridge, and while en route I learn the bridge is out, planning a new route is not chaotic. It’s common sense. If I keep on driving and go off the bridge I am either 1) lawful stupid since I refuse to change plans, 2) chaotic stupid since I felt today was the day I’d randomly learn to fly or 3) dealing with serious mental issues which have affected my judgment to the point my original alignment is superseded by the issues.

In short, don’t assume all lawful characters have to be hidebound dinosaurs resistant to change, just like all chaotics don’t have to be random wild cards changing opinions and actions at the drop of a hat.

Lawful characters can have some randomness in their actions just as Chaotic characters can have some order.

I’m not sure I can contribute anything else to this one. As I’ve said before, everyone has their own definition of alignment. Carry2’s standards for demonstrating a lawful alignment are obviously way more exacting than mine, which is fine.

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

As was asked earlier though, Carry is there anyone in the comic who you think does demonstrate a lawful alignment? (I'll modify it to just unambiguously lawful).

[Nilehus]

And, just throwing this out there. Losing the paperwork of someone you want taken care of is VERY lawful evil. A chaotic ruler would've, say, just kept them locked in antimagic cells without any records of them being there. For example. Or just straight up executed them. Taking the extra time/energy to make sure you have a legal reason to do so is as far from Chaotic as it gets.

[Snails]

tomandtish says it well.

It is easy to paint a one-sided picture and assert that a truly Lawful person must follow through on a plan, even if it will obviously fail. I can turn that around and say that a truly Chaotic must keep changing their plans with no regard for the fact that they were about to succeed with the plan they had.

A cartoonish caricature of Lawful is going to be stupid. A cartoonish caricature of Chaotic is also going to be equally stupid.

Both are Straw Men.

[Carry2]

When almost everybody you're arguing with is making those 'silly' assertions, you don't get to say this. Many people on this thread seem to think following the letter of a law and telling technical truths with the goal of deception pretty much epitomize the Lawful Evil alignment. No matter how obvious you may find it, you have to demonstrate why this is not the case.

As I mentioned before, because I think this kind of behaviour normally has the net effect of making the world less organised and predictable. Honesty isn't Lawful because it's arbitrarily declared to be, but because prediction and organisation depend on accurate and comprehensive information. It's about there being a useful correlation or consistency between what you say and what you actually do.

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

[Porthos]

I'm ignoring everything else because there is very little to say. And I sense it would be futile to pursue it. But there is this point here:

I'm virtually certain there's nothing about Tarquin's laws that specifically says blue-skinned lizardfolk bounty hunters must have their paperwork misfiled. By that logic, Shojo rigging a show trial to bring in the OOTS was itself a Lawful act. It is partly for this reason that I'm skeptical Tarquin's behaviour can really coincide with a deep-seated need for order.

No, the law states that everyone must have papers. That's it. Nothing more.

Knowing this, how would a Lawful person game the system to get revenge on someone?

Have something happen to their paperwork and let the system grind them down.

Compare/Contrast Shojo and the OOTS Show Trial. In that case, Shojo and a hand picked conspirator had a dog and pony show trial that resembled a game of Calvinball. Moreover the purpose of the Show Trial was to hoodwink the establishment (i.e. the Sapphire Guard) and make them think things were going according to how they see things.

Well that and to offer a job.

In short, Shojo was making up the rules as he went along with very little regard to established norms.

But, fine. You clearly don't think much of that example. Then use Nale. When confronted with the capture of Nale, Shojo just shrugged and said "Throw him in jail. Don't set up a trial. And don't make any records of this." O-Chul was very clearly displeased at this notion, but was forced into doing it.

Both Shojo and Tarquin had someone thrown in jail. But one used the system to take care of it, while the other didn't.

See a desire to game the system doesn't really fall anywhere on the L/C axis. A direct example of this, as I noted earlier, was Celia openly stating that 'She doesn't make the crazy rules. She just twists them to her advantage'.

That might be an example of Lawful, Not Dumb (to piggybank on the famous Good, Not Dumb) meme.

Sure a Lawful person could just shrug their shoulders and play along with Rules As Intended. But a Lawful person could ALSO take a look at things and say, "Nope. I'm going to play with Rules As Written." And as anyone who has even given a cursory glance at Character Optimization/Theoretical Optimization threads could see, that can lead to very.... interesting places.

NB: Twisting the Rules As Written to an absurd degree can piss a lot of people off. As said cursory glance would tell you. But just because you're pissing people off and just because you're subverting the Rules As Intended, it doesn't actually follow that you're acting in a non-Lawful manner.

[Scow2]

As I mentioned before, because I think this kind of behaviour normally has the net effect of making the world less organised and predictable. Honesty isn't Lawful because it's arbitrarily declared to be, but because prediction and organisation depend on accurate and comprehensive information. It's about there being a useful correlation or consistency between what you say and what you actually do.

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

I can probably agree with this line of reasoning. The cosmic alignments form a wheel, not a grid. However - Tarquin is still Lawful Evil. He's just not a Modron/Formian/Inevitable.

[BroomGuys]

As I mentioned before, because I think this kind of behaviour normally has the net effect of making the world less organised and predictable. Honesty isn't Lawful because it's arbitrarily declared to be, but because prediction and organisation depend on accurate and comprehensive information.

But the manifestation of an alignment is in a character's actions, and characters don't make decisions with well-formed and rigorous logistical analysis of the net increase/decrease of Law or Chaos in the world. They make decisions based on what they feel that they should or want to do. Regard for Lawful principles is what makes this process Lawful.

It's about there being a useful correlation or consistency between what you say and what you actually do.

Tarquin always does something that is at least technically not in conflict with what he has said. That's a pretty useful correlation or consistency, don't you think?

But predictability is a bad measuring stick anyway. Someone kicks Mr. Scruffy; what will Belkar do?! Clearly he must be Lawful if we can tell for sure he will brutally murder that person!

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

This strikes me as a very strong argument that your criteria for Lawfulness among Lawful Evil characters are far too rigid. If Baatezu lie through omission all the time, and they're supposed to be maximally LE, then lying though omission clearly isn't that Chaotic.

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

If you have any intention of convincing anybody of anything on this thread, continuing to stockpile counterarguments that you don't address (which, in my mind, have been the more important ones as to why people disagree with you) is really not going to help you. But maybe I shouldn't call attention to the fact that we're devoting so much time and energy to arguing about something trivial over the internet...

Edit: Aw man, I got the last post of the page again? Now nobody's gonna read it. Curses!