Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Scow2]

Look, let's get one thing straight. Devils are the living embodiment of Lawful Evil. For one of them to perform a Chaotic act is the equivalent of an Angel committing an Evil one.

Can you imagine an angel murdering an innocent person on the street?

Probably not.

Guess what? Conquest, lies by omission, corruption, and perversion of Law are things that Devils do all. the. time.

If any of these things were Chaotic, they would be as abhorrent to the Devils as murder is to Angels.

And yet, the Devils do these things all the time.

From this, we can conclude that these things are not Chaotic.

Actually, I'm going to step into here and respond to this. When someone else quoted me saying Tarquin was Lawful Evil, and not a Modron/Inevitable, I meant that he, like Devils, will occasionally subvert Law for Evil, and Evil for Law.

Try Archon instead of Angel. Can I see an Archon randomly murdering someone? No, but I CAN imagine an Archon striking down the poor nonevil mooks guarding a horrific villain even though they've not actually done anything evil beyond not letting their employer get killed, or an Archon extending leniency and mercy to someone who cannot/does not comply with legitimate authority.


And on "Tarquin isn't lawful because he goes through wives so quickly" - Unlike a chaotic or Neutral character, he actually goes through the effort to have the cessation of the marriage formally acknowledged and recognized. He goes through divorce courts, instead of just leaving them somewhere.

[Porthos]

I really should try to quit this thread. Perhaps I will after this.

So... Tarquin is Lawful... for taking the time to ensure the right paperwork is there... by ensuring the right paperwork is not there... which is actually Chaotic.

Why is losing paperwork Chaotic? Can't it be a neutral act along the L/C axis?

See, this is the big problem in regards to arguments here. You see things as being Chaotic that a huge number of other people don't.

[Reddish Mage]

I have to say that anyone opinion's on what counts as Chaotic and to what extent could be valid way of looking at reading D&D considering the lack of detail in the Core D&D books on the subject.

However, would Carry2 really be ready to impose he understanding at the gaming table by say making a PC that committed say, a rebellion, or used deceit as a regular way of interacting, lose Lawful status?

[mhsmith]

Roy is the sort of person who seems to take just about everything seriously. Tarquin seems much less so. I don't think "has a giant stick up his ass" would be an insult that anyone would bother to use against Tarquin, and it certainly seems that Tarquin has quite a lot of fun on a frequent basis. Neither are especially Lawful descriptors.

Of course not. But there is nothing Chaotic about having fun, either, because there is no book ever that has given "Fun" an alignment.

Yes and no. Humor tends to be a neutral to chaotic activity, and (IMO) one easy way to tell if someone is strongly Lawful is if they NEVER have fun (because they're so serious all the time) and conversely, people who are ALWAYS having fun (especially rogue types) tend to be Chaotic (though Neutral probably applies too). There's a reason why Bards can't be Lawful, after all (and did Tarquin actually take a level or two in Bard to get his storytelling and narrative knowledge? I'm not sure where he got so genre savvy if he didn't).

And Tarquin definitely seems like the sort who is very often having fun. Evil and twisted fun, sure. But he's clearly enjoying himself more often than not, and is fairly frequently engaged in the pursuit thereof. Roy has fun from time to time too, but not especially often. And it's lampshaded about how Lawful types tend to feel guilty about material pleasures.

Those are my ratings. IMHO, of course.

Roy is sitting on the margins between Neutral and Lawful. He tries, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. I gave him a 7.

Tarquin has a strong sense of personal rules, but he is habitually deceptive and the code he lives by is not understood by others (and perhaps he lets others misunderstand on purpose). I gave him an 8.

Malack and Durkon were less than perfectly Lawful, employing a few careful small deceptions. But they are both "wide-eyed" Lawful in their own way, and there seems to be a bit of Lawful mancrush going on, in spite of being an ocean apart morally. I gave them both a 9.

Devils lie. Not about all things, but about many, many things. 8 or 9 ( in most cases).

Are there specific examples you can think of where Tarquin has "a strong sense of personal rules"? And by that I mean rules that HE adheres to, not rules he forces upon others. He seems to be pretty flexible even to rules and procedures that he's agreed to (see Malack calling him out on it), or laws that he's imposed on his society (see his "the courts will make an exception for my bride to be" comment).

So while he's certainly created Law from Chaos, he very much seems to be the sort of person who sees Law as something to impose on others, not to be subject to himself. Is that really a Lawful attitude? That's not particularly Chaotic, but at least to me it sounds pretty Neutral.

Good thing I did that earlier.

I suppose Durkon's a reasonable candidate, since he has a strong sense of duty, tradition and personal loyalty, prefers to stay on the right side of the law (even in T's empire) and lies with considerable reluctance. His record isn't perfect, of course, but it's a lot stronger than T's.

So... Tarquin is Lawful... for taking the time to ensure the right paperwork is there... by ensuring the right paperwork is not there... which is actually Chaotic.

And Tarquin is Lawful... for manipulating others through lies-of-omission... but Shojo is Chaotic... for neglecting to mention that he had hired the Order to violate his own oath of office. (I mean, it's not like they asked.)

That's... just dizzying.

I don't think there's any reasonable comparison between Tarquin and Shojo which would come out with any conclusion other than that Shojo is much more chaotic than Tarquin. As Giant noted, Tarquin created Law from Chaos, and Shojo did the reverse. Tarquin is willing and able to be deceptive, but it's not like he's doing it constantly (presumably governance and enjoying his power are the bigger issues than actively scamming people). Shojo, on the other hand, is deceptive CONSTANTLY. His scam of pretending to be senile is either something he spends more time on than even governance, or at least it's in the ballpark. etc. Honestly, I just don't see the comparison here. The only things they have in common are that they're in charge and they're willing to be substantially deceptive. There are substantial differences otherwise, and it's not just Good vs Evil issues.

[theNater]

So... Tarquin is Lawful... for taking the time to ensure the right paperwork is there... by ensuring the right paperwork is not there... which is actually Chaotic.

Tarquin cares about the paperwork. Sometimes he cares to use it, other times he cares to hide it, but he always wants the paperwork to exist and he always wants to know its status. Contrast Shojo, who seems to think that paperwork just gets in the way.

And Tarquin is Lawful... for manipulating others through lies-of-omission... but Shojo is Chaotic... for neglecting to mention that he had hired the Order to violate his own oath of office. (I mean, it's not like they asked.)

As you note, Shojo violated his own oath of office. Which brings me back to a question you have yet to answer: at what time has Tarquin violated the letter of any promise that he made?

If you simply want explicit lies from Shojo, he gave one pretty much every time he "interpreted" for Mr. Scruffy. "Mr. Scruffy would like to have a word with you before you leave" is not defensible as being technically true, however you slice it.

[Sir_Leorik]

I have to say that anyone opinion's on what counts as Chaotic and to what extent could be valid way of looking at reading D&D considering the lack of detail in the Core D&D books on the subject.

Maybe it's because I'm a big "Planescape" and "Ravenloft" fan, but the D&D Alignment rules are both more detailed and not as restrictive as is commonly thought. While the 3.5 PHB gives sparse details about Alignment, there are dozens of sourcebooks, Dragon Magazine articles, blogs, podcasts, "Sage Advice" columns, "Forum" letters columns and "Save My Game" columns discussing, debating and analyzing Alignment for all editions of D&D. In AD&D characters spoke secret "Alignment Languages" to identify each other (similar to the secret language of "Druidic").

In AD&D 2E there were multiple articles and sourcebooks dissecting how Paladins should act, why torture is bad, etc. There were also books like the "Factol's Manifesto" showing how Lawful Good Factols like Hashkar (Fraternity of Order), Terrant (Athar) and Erin "Darkflame" Montgomery (Society of Sensation) could be. Hashkar was a Dwarven Sage who was as dry as burnt toast, as boring as a drill and as longwinded as an oboe. Terrant was a calm and disciplined man who had weathered his loss of faith in Mishakal and now sought to guide other lost souls to abandon the worship of the "Powers" and instead look for the answers to where Divine power really came from. And Erin was a cleric who suffered a different crisis of faith: she had failed to heal an anti-paladin serving an Abyssal Lord, and he retaliated by slaughtering her village. She threw herself into hedonism to assuage her grief, before falling in love with a slave who would not bow before her gluttonous host. She helped free the slave and they fled to Sigil; there she joined the Sensates who seek to experience any possible experience: fine wine, torture, new songs, painting frescoes, battling demons in the Abyss. As Factol she sought to make sure that Namers didn't lose themselves in meaningless hedonism the way she did in her youth, but learned from their experiences and tried new and innovative things. She hosted parties, art galas, concerts, magical duels, poetry readings, baking contests, anything that let the people of Sigil learn new things, see new sights and experience something new.

Then the Lady of Pain exiled them all to the Mazes because of the Chaotic Good Factol of the Fated, Duke Darkwood, trying to usurp her. Which goes to show, no matter your Alignment, no matter your philosophy, you don't cross the Lady of Pain. Ever. Not even if you're Vecna.

Meanwhile, the Dark Powers of Ravenloft were busy collecting villains who were complex characters with human motivations for their crimes. Love, vengeance, ego, religious devotion, fear of sharks, wanting to be a real boy, and whatever it was that the Illithid God Brain did to earn its domain, were their motives for murder, theft, incest, and genocide, rather than just having a label that said "Evil".

Remember: Alignment is meant to be a tool, not a straitjacket. If you feel your PC's Alignment is too constrictive have a discussion with your DM; maybe there is another way to role-play your character's personality while still having your character stay true to his Alignment.

EDIT: I made a slight error: Factol Haskar was Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. But the point I was trying to make that not all Lawful characters have a stick up their rear. Factol Terrant was a kind and considerate man, who was plotting ways to expose the Gods as frauds. Factol Erin was a woman who appreciated fine wine and food, sponsored museums, art galleries and Sensoriums where Sensates could magically record their experiences for others to sense vicariously. Factol Sarin (Harmonium) was a Paladin who believed that the totalitarian government of Ortho's philosophy of Harmony would lead to multiversal peace.

It is also possible for a character to seem Lawful on the surface, when their behavior is completely Chaotic. The best example is Count Strahd von Zarovich. Strahd is a devious opponent, very crafty and intelligent, but he is likely to abandon a well tailored plan in order to sate his momentary bloodlust or to lash out at some peasant in rage because his plans to find Tatyana's current incarnation has been thwarted. Strahd presents a front of a Lawful despot who carefully collects taxes and delegates authority to his Boyars, but the tax money often gets dumped in one of Strahd's treasure rooms for years at a time, and he delegates authority to the Boyars because his priority is to find Tatyana. Only a major event, like the opportunity to annex half of Gundarak following the Grand Conjunction, or the presence of Vampire hunters like Dr. van Richten and his heirs, gets Strahd personally involved in the day to day management of his Domain.

By contrast Azalin Rex, Lawful Evil Lich wizard-king of Darkon, and Strahd's old nemesis, micromanages his Domain, Darkon. When Azalin's body was destroyed in a failed attempt to transform into a Demi-Lich using the aptly named Doomsday Device, Darkon fell apart. Azalin's return, in the 3.X Arthaus products, halted that collapse, but he realized just how necessary he was to keep the Domain functioning.

[Snails]

Are there specific examples you can think of where Tarquin has "a strong sense of personal rules"? And by that I mean rules that HE adheres to, not rules he forces upon others.

Tarquin is magnificent at lies of omission and lies by misdirection, while never ever saying anything that is literally untrue.

Look at his discussions with the foreign ambassador. He promises an action and delivers the literally promised action, while achieving a completely different result.

Look very carefully at his conversations with Malack. His wording is very precisely vague on some points, such that he gains compliance based on supposedly mutually understood agreement about the future.

To me, this reads a Personal Code, even if it might be dishonorable by the definitions of everyone else.

[Carry2]

Tarquin displays, IMO, a behavior that is actually quite predictable when you compare with the Evil characters who are on the opposite end of his alignment axis (Xykon, Belkar).

This debate is running around in circles because your definition of "Lawful" and "Chaotic" do not match the ones used in the D&D game (3.5 edition). Devils have a rigid chain of command that starts with Asmodeus, goes down through the Lords of the Nine, the Dark Eight, the lesser pit fiends, all the way down to the lowliest lemure. When there is a vacancy the devils promote the most worthy candidate for the job.

I... don't see how that's inconsistent with my usage of the term. And if you look at the SRD definitions, there's still no clear reason to classify Tarquin as Lawful. It doesn't matter how you cut or slice it- there is no useful distinction between Law/Chaos where Tarquin doesn't wind up straddling the fence. He's not a 9 or 8 or out of 10 on the Law scale- he's, like, a 6 or 7. Tops.

There's certainly a lot that's happened off the pages, but based on what we've seen of Tarquin so far, I'd say that he only acts in a Lawful manner to the extent that it helps him enjoy his life to the fullest. To me, he seems to basically be Neutral Evil who acts on the Lawful side due to selfishness as opposed to any actual dedication to any kind of idea or cause.

Absolutely! Thank you! Yes!

[BroomGuys]

Tarquin is Evil because he pit two best friends (whose relationship is based on George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men") against each other in a duel to the death, despite his own son pleading on their behalf.

Huh, good catch! Gannji really does remind me of George, now that you mention it. And that leads me to wonder: what's Gannji's alignment? My money'd be on Lawful Neutral at first glance, but what do y'all think?

Edit: I do want to pose this question again: are there any mortal Lawful Evil characters in fiction who are actually motivated by a desire to make the world more Lawful? Roy isn't LG because he wants to make the world more Lawful; it just reflects in his attitude and approach to achieving Good ends (and even some things he wants for himself, too). As has been shown, Tarquin keeps his word when he makes a promise, will not lie outright (like Durkon, f'rinstance), and will generally work within the legal system to achieve his ends rather than outside of it. Sure any Lawful aspects of his actions can be viewed as self-interested, but Evil characters are supposed to be selfish. If his motivation for conquering the continent were a selfless pursuit of creating order, then he wouldn't be Evil anymore. Is it even possible to write a convincing Lawful Evil character if you consider deception to be anything more than a blip on the Chaos radar?

[Kish]

By Word of the Giant, both Gannji and Enor are True Neutral, Gannji with Lawful tendencies and Enor with Chaotic ones.

[Snails]

I... don't see how that's inconsistent with my usage of the term. And if you look at the SRD definitions, there's still no clear reason to classify Tarquin as Lawful.

That says nothing. Your definition of Chaotic is so expansive that there are no Lawfuls in multiverse.

The problem is your definitions are so bad, that your understanding of the SRD makes no sense to anyone else.

[Carry2]

Why is losing paperwork Chaotic? Can't it be a neutral act along the L/C axis?

I don't see 'losing paperwork' as Chaotic. I see breaking the law as an opposite-of-lawful-thing-to-do, and statements to the tune that he's 'using the system' as the most egregious kind of after-the-fact rationalisation.

Also, to everyone: Please stop taking isolated examples of character X or species Y, saying that they have alignment W, and declaring that everything they do is therefore W-aligned. It does not work that way.

However, would Carry2 really be ready to impose he understanding at the gaming table by say making a PC that committed say, a rebellion, or used deceit as a regular way of interacting, lose Lawful status?

I think it would contribute, certainly. I think in order to use deceit or start rebellions and not shift toward chaos, you have to do other lawful stuff to compensate, and unless it's a lot of lawful stuff, you might just wash out at neutral. *shrugs* IMHO.

As Giant noted, Tarquin created Law from Chaos, and Shojo did the reverse.

Going by Word of God, yes, but you wouldn't neccesarily get that impression from (A) just reading the strip if you (B) stripped off the big metaphysical labels on their heads. Which was the basic source of my complaints here.

Tarquin is willing and able to be deceptive, but it's not like he's doing it constantly (presumably governance and enjoying his power are the bigger issues than actively scamming people). Shojo, on the other hand, is deceptive CONSTANTLY.

Oddly, I seem to remember a lot of occasions where Shojo has said true things, whereas Tarquin has most of the continent perpetually convinced that their rulers are not actually their rulers. I'm not seeing a case for one being more honest than the other.

[EmperorSarda]

Getting Malack to stave off his agenda for the sake of Nale is disloyal to Malack.

How is that being disloyal? Had Nale not revealed information about the Snarl, about the ritual and having worked with the person who has the ritual, Tarquin would have let Malack kill Nale. If Malack killed Nale at that juncture then neither would know who has the ritual and neutralizes their opportunity to seize the gate.

And while T has a bunch of reasons for sparing Elan- biology, self-interest, entertainment- nowhere is 'honour' mentioned. (By contrast, having your biological offspring executed for their crimes against the state would be very Lawful.)

Tarquin kept his word to tell Elan about Draketooth, even after their fight. I'd say that is honorable.

I'd still say the planning and organisation is Lawful, but the deception is not.

So planning ambushes and scenarios to gain the upperhand in a battle is lawful, but executing them is chaotic? How does that make sense?

I don't see 'losing paperwork' as Chaotic. I see breaking the law as an opposite-of-lawful-thing-to-do,

What law did Tarquin break?

[Kish]

Oddly, I seem to remember a lot of occasions where Shojo has said true things, whereas Tarquin has most of the continent perpetually convinced that their rulers are not actually their rulers. I'm not seeing a case for one being more honest than the other.

That's because you're under the impression the Lawful alignment is about "wanting everyone to know the truth."

Tarquin plays word games to lie without lying, because he's Lawful Evil. Saying, "Troops will be there by tomorrow" and not mentioning that they're going to attack the side the ambassador you're addressing comes from? That's Lawful Evil. I get that you believe it's Chaotic. This is because you don't understand what Lawful and Chaotic mean. If he cared about people en masse actually knowing what the truth is, it would indicate he was Good, not Lawful.

[Burner28]

Yes and no. Humor tends to be a neutral to chaotic activity, and (IMO) one easy way to tell if someone is strongly Lawful is if they NEVER have fun (because they're so serious all the time) and conversely, people who are ALWAYS having fun (especially rogue types) tend to be Chaotic (though Neutral probably applies too). There's a reason why Bards can't be Lawful, after all (and did Tarquin actually take a level or two in Bard to get his storytelling and narrative knowledge? I'm not sure where he got so genre savvy if he didn't).

And Tarquin definitely seems like the sort who is very often having fun. Evil and twisted fun, sure. But he's clearly enjoying himself more often than not, and is fairly frequently engaged in the pursuit thereof. Roy has fun from time to time too, but not especially often. And it's lampshaded about how Lawful types tend to feel guilty about material pleasures.

One clear example of a character whose very existence goes against your argument would be Sarah Greenhilt- a character who has plenty of fun. If having a sebnnse of humour was half as Chaotic as you make it out to be, she wouldn't have even been allowed into the Lawful Good afterlife. Heck, there is absoloutely no suggestion to imply that her status as Lawful good was ever canonically called into question because of her wanting to have fun.

And frankly, the mere existence of plenty of opportunities for Lawful Good characters to have fun in various ways in that strip you linked pretty clearly disconfirms the idea that fun was something that was not allowed for a Lawful character.

[Carry2]

That says nothing. Your definition of Chaotic is so expansive that there are no Lawfuls in multiverse.

Not really. I'm just trying not to cherry-pick particular aspects of the definitions as being the sole variants of Law/Chaos, or applying different standards to different characters. (I am, for example, actually kind of skeptical about Elan being strictly Chaotic, given that he's remarkably loyal, painfully honest, and actually quite honourable in certain respects. His main Chaotic aspects would be using illusion, doing improvised stuff at random, and having a long-distance relationship with reality. But I digress.)

[Thokk_Smash]

Going by Word of God, yes, but you wouldn't neccesarily get that impression from (A) just reading the strip if you (B) stripped off the big metaphysical labels on their heads. Which was the basic source of my complaints here.

All I want to say on the matter is that I definitely got the impression that Tarquin is Lawful Evil and Shojo is Chaotic Good just from reading the strips. I didn't need Word of Giant to tell me that. And I guess that speaks to how people perceive things differently, but I really think that you're overthinking this. No offense meant, of course.

[Kish]

Not really. I'm just trying not to cherry-pick particular aspects of the definitions as being the sole variants of Law/Chaos, or applying different standards to different characters.

Oh? Did you address multiple people pointing out that by your "conquest is Chaotic" argument, the devils of the Nine Hells don't qualify as Lawful?

Let me try to avoid getting this post butchered again. If you reply to it at all, please explain why, in Carry2 terms, a standard Nine Hells devil would qualify as Lawful. Or don't bother.

[Carry2]

How is that being disloyal? Had Nale not revealed information about the Snarl, about the ritual and having worked with the person who has the ritual, Tarquin would have let Malack kill Nale...
...So planning ambushes and scenarios to gain the upperhand in a battle is lawful, but executing them is chaotic? How does that make sense?

I don't recall saying that. I said that military ambushes have both lawful and chaotic aspects (planning/organisation vs. deception/disruption.) Likewise, if you have some kind of formal policy of executing prisoners that you stuck with consistently, I guess that's arguably lawful. It's simply that if Tarquin had particular compunctions on that front, that would make him lawful, but he doesn't. Having gone to great lengths to explain sparing Elan, honour is not mentioned once. He is, however ignoring his own precedents about punishing rebellion and sedition when he lets his sons live.

Tarquin kept his word to tell Elan about draketooth solely because it suited him, which is under the SRD definitions for Chaos. He's not sacrificing anything here for the sake of honour or honesty or legal procedure or personal loyalty. He follows them when it's coincidentally useful, and ignores them at all other times. That's a pretty neutral pattern of behaviour.

[BroomGuys]

Not really. I'm just trying not to cherry-pick particular aspects of the definitions as being the sole variants of Law/Chaos, or applying different standards to different characters.

Yeah, I think you have the right idea by trying not to omit any details, but I also think your analytical approach is a bit too Procrustean. If you impartially collect all the data you see and average it out, though, you can get misleading results because you only see the characters when they're important to the plot. An ad-hoc analysis might be less rigorous, but given that most readers of the comic are likely not going to analyze every detail of the characters' alignments, I would say that a more ad-hoc approach gives you a closer picture to what message the comic actually communicates to readers. Objectivity can actually be a bad thing when you're analyzing any kind of art because what people subjectively believe about it is an important aspect of the art.

(I am, for example, actually kind of skeptical about Elan being strictly Chaotic, given that he's remarkably loyal, painfully honest, and actually quite honourable in certain respects. His main Chaotic aspects would be using illusion, doing improvised stuff at random, and having a long-distance relationship with reality. But I digress.)

Digressions aside, I actually agree with you on this one.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, to everyone: Please stop taking isolated examples of character X or species Y, saying that they have alignment W, and declaring that everything they do is therefore W-aligned. It does not work that way.

Actually that is precisely how Alignment works in D&D. A player chooses his PC's Alignment and is supposed to roleplay the character based on how he interprets the chosen Alignment. The DM's role is to choose Alignments for the NPCs and monsters and roleplay them. If the players' choose to roleplay their PCs in a way that is grossly contrary to their Alignment, the DM's job is to step in and tell the player to stop. If the player continues to grossly abuse the Alignment system the DM should choose which Alignment the PC's behavior matches and tell the player that his PC's Alignment has changed. But this should allow for freedom to roleplay. Alignment is not meant to be a straitjacket. If a Lawful Good PC is being clever with his words in order to outwit a Lawful Evil duke, while never actually lying, the DM should reward the clever player, not swap his PC's Alignment to Chaotic Neutral.

In this comic strip the Giant chooses the Alignments for the characters; his word is final. However the characters often struggle to follow their chosen Alignments, as seen with Roy's epiphany in Wooden Forest or Belkar's fever dream while suffering from the mark of justice. One of the goals of the comic is to deconstruct the concept of Alignment and how it would impact day to day life if it were more than a metaphysical concept.

[Carry2]

Tarquin plays word games to lie without lying, because he's Lawful Evil. Saying, "Troops will be there by tomorrow" and not mentioning that they're going to attack the side the ambassador you're addressing comes from? That's Lawful Evil.

As I've mentioned in a recent post, there are aspects of this behaviour which can be considered lawful- e.g, the planning and organisation- but also aspects which, by default, are considered chaotic- e.g, the deception and usurpation. I therefore don't consider this terribly Lawful behaviour.

I am perfectly aware that honesty is not the only form of lawfulness, but you cannot point at Tarquin's habit of using weasel-words and say that his deception is a Lawful quality, while pointing at identical behaviour in Shojo and saying that's one of his Chaotic qualities. I shall have none of this glaring doublethink under my mental roof. None of it.

[Sir_Leorik]

Edit: I do want to pose this question again: are there any mortal Lawful Evil characters in fiction who are actually motivated by a desire to make the world more Lawful?

Azalin Rex, the Lich Wizard-King of Darkon. When he was a mortal he felt that due to his intellect and a sense of noblesse oblige he was a stern father to his kingdom (originally located on Oerth). His Chaotic Good son Irik disagreed, and Irik set prisoners Azalin had scheduled to be executed for petty crimes free. Azalin refused to grant clemency to Irik, and had his only heir executed. Despairing the fact that no one comparable to himself would inherit his throne, Azalin was approached by a mysterious entity and taught the secrets of becoming a Lich. He ruled as a tyrant for decades, in the name of promoting a Lawful society. A band of adventurers caught wind of what Azalin was, and they banded together to defeat him. Azalin fled into a bank of Mists, and ended up in Barovia where he became Count Strahd's court wizard. Long story, short, they did not get along. An attempt to open a portal out of the demiplane they were trapped in coincided with an Alchemist activating his Apparatus, and the events of adventure module "I10: Ravenloft 2: The House of Gryphon Hill" ensued.

Blaming his host for that fiasco, Azalin stepped into the Mists and became Darklord of Darkon, the largest Domain in the Core area of Ravenloft. Azalin uses a large army, a vast secret police network (whose upper echelons are composed of Werewolves, Vampires and Ghosts) and annual parties where his barons and nobles are invited to commit acts of debauchery, to control his Domain. He is able to animate the dead anywhere in Darkon, and uses that ability when his pesky neighbor Vlad Drakov stages yet another invasion.

Azalin claims that without his control the Domain would collapse into Chaos, as demonstrated by events after the Grim Harvest (when his attempt to escape Ravenloft by transforming himself into a Demi-Lich failed spectacularly). After the Grim Harvest whole areas become depopulated, since the Negative Energy from the effects of Azalin's Doomsday Device corrupted the land. Some areas were rendered barren, others turned into a mess of vegatation and disease. Drakov launched another failed invasion, religious zealots began agitating, and the Kargat, the secret police force, were reduced to infighting. But much of this Chaos was caused by Azalin's consolidation of power or by events caused by his own machinations in the events leading up to the Grim Harvest. That doesn't make Azalin any less Lawful, but he did not acheive the results he wanted. (Which is probably part of the curse the Dark Powers layed on him.)

[Sir_Leorik]

I shall have none of this glaring doublethink under my mental roof. None of it.

Well it's a good thing we're not under your mental roof.

[Nilehus]

I am perfectly aware that honesty is not the only form of lawfulness, but you cannot point at Tarquin's habit of using weasel-words and say that his deception is a Lawful quality, while pointing at identical behaviour in Shojo and saying that's one of his Chaotic qualities. I shall have none of this glaring doublethink under my mental roof. None of it.

Tarquin did it to expand his empire(s) and enforce his laws on others. Shojo did it to subvert the laws of his empire. How is it not obvious? Intentions DO matter with morality. Very few acts can be said to be flat-out evil or good.

If you have problems with people saying things that disagree with your... interesting take on morality, then the Internet is probably not the best place for you.

Seriously, you're arguing that the embodiments of Lawful Evil themselves aren't perfectly Lawful. Lawful with a Lawful Evil character is not the same as Lawful with a Lawful Good character. LE characters bend the rules as much as they can to benefit themselves, without actually breaking them. Whether it's by lying by omission, using exact words, or a loophole in a law that could be interpreted to say it's legal to steal from someone on the 17th Tuesday in a year. Most LG characters follow the spirit of the law, as well as the letter. LE character, by and large, do not.

[Porthos]

I don't see 'losing paperwork' as Chaotic. I see breaking the law as an opposite-of-lawful-thing-to-do, and statements to the tune that he's 'using the system' as the most egregious kind of after-the-fact rationalisation.

Setting aside the point about Law and Lawful alignment (have you read that article yet, BTW? It's an interesting one) what law has Tarquin broken?

====

Ah, hell. Imma gonna quote the relevant bit from that WotC article I just linked. Keep in mind a lot of it is written from the Good point of view:

First of all, let's be clear about one important concept: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals. The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.

See more at the link.

[Snails]

As I've mentioned in a recent post, there are aspects of this behaviour which can be considered lawful- e.g, the planning and organisation- but also aspects which, by default, are considered chaotic- e.g, the deception and usurpation. I therefore don't consider this terribly Lawful behaviour.

It is only in your definition of Lawful where deception and usurpation are presumed Chaotic. The SRD does not indicate such. Perhaps your definitions are simply flawed?

[Carry2]

Oh? Did you address multiple people pointing out that by your "conquest is Chaotic" argument, the devils of the Nine Hells don't qualify as Lawful?

Well it's not like they ever get anywhere. I suspect it's the same kind of 'throw bodies at the enemy to eat up spare production capacity' warfare you'd see in 1984. But as I have mentioned repeatedly, the act of military conquest has both lawful and chaotic aspects, and the devils might be doing a bunch of other beaureaucratic, legalistic, loyalty-bound, traditionally-minded stuff at home to compensate. Which they certainly appear to be doing. But I dunno, maybe according to a consistent interpretation, the nine hells are a sort of an ethical gray area.

Yeah, I think you have the right idea by trying not to omit any details, but I also think your analytical approach is a bit too Procrustean.

That is an awesome word I did not know before.

If you impartially collect all the data you see and average it out, though, you can get misleading results because you only see the characters when they're important to the plot. An ad-hoc analysis might be less rigorous, but given that most readers of the comic are likely not going to analyze every detail of the characters' alignments, I would say that a more ad-hoc approach gives you a closer picture to what message the comic actually communicates to readers.

Well, apparently it communicated to at least a couple that goblin-infanticide is totes LG, homeys. That's the thing about ad-hoc analysis- you can basically take away whatever message you want. I don't see much reason to encourage it.

However the characters often struggle to follow their chosen Alignments, as seen with Roy's epiphany in Wooden Forest or Belkar's fever dream while suffering from the mark of justice.

That's closer to my actual point. LG characters can take chaotic or even evil actions on occasion, and still work out in their original bracket based on averaging over time. (And of course vice versa for CE characters.) But this doesn't make chaotic actions non-chaotic, evil actions non-evil, good actions no-good, or lawful actions non-lawful, just because alignment states are not completely binary.
.

[Carry2]

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Again, I don't see particularly consistent or conformist behaviour on Tarquin's part. He's not duty-bound, he doesn't especially build trust, his personal ethics are a joke, and he follows neither the letter nor the spirit of any particular law.

Since the original purpose of this thread was to discuss the idea of whether a Lawful character could exist in opposition to their social context provided they had a sufficiently rigorous personal code- i.e, vigilantism- I think it's fair to describe Tarquin as the anti-Vigilante. He's the ethical vacuum at the centre of a social context that he imposes, and I think that's a pretty mixed position.

[Kish]

But I dunno, maybe according to a consistent interpretation, the nine hells are a sort of an ethical gray area..

That's the closest your post comes to actually addressing what I said, so.

Can you describe your concept of an unambiguously Lawful Evil character who is not insane?