Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Porthos]

He's not duty-bound, he doesn't especially build trust

Amongst his friends and associates, he does. People he considers on the outside of his circle of friendship, though, he doesn't. His long spanning plan is practically impossible without trust.

Again, I don't see particularly consistent or conformist behaviour on Tarquin's part.

And I do. He has screamed LE to me since we had enough info to judge.

And I think it is this fundamental dichotomy of how we see the character (and alignment in general) which will make further debate on my part fruitless. I've laid my cards on the table and you disagree with my reading of them. Fair enuf. But I dislike repeating my points over and over again, and I think I've pretty much exhausted all I have to say on the subject.

So it is at this point where I bid adieu to this discussion.

....

Hopefully.

[mhsmith]

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.

None of those show any "strong sense of personal rules." They do demonstrate that he'd prefer not to blatantly lie, but it's never clear whether this is an actual philosophical point or whether he's simply decided that it's in his long term self-interest to be seen as honest (and most evidence seems to suggest the latter). "I act Lawful because I've decided I'll benefit from it" is at most weakly Lawful... and he's pushed the envelope towards Neutral in many other ways.

And even with Malack, there's a mutually agreed upon code, between supposed equals, based on long standing precedent, which he blatantly violated when it suited him. Obviously this isn't Shojo level "I'll break the rules constantly," but it's also evidence that he IS willing to break rules when push comes to shove, or even (arguably) as a matter of convenience.

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.

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.

Actually, you would get that impression. Tarquin has VERY clearly created a Lawful Evil empire out of a pretty chaotic wasteland. There's no question at all that he's had a net Lawful effect on his part of the world, even if some of his methods may have been Chaotic at times. Pulling the wool over peoples' eyes on what's going on behind the scenes politically doesn't change the fact that for most people, what they need to know about politics is both simple and true: they WILL be oppressed, and controlled, and brutally suppressed if they ever make trouble. They are cogs in the machine of their empire, and they know this. As far as their own lives go, that's what actually matters, not whether their true ruler is an obese dragon or a scheming, back-stabbing general.

Similarly, Shojo has VERY clearly undermined the rule of Law, through a fake trial, blatantly and explicitly violating the fundamental Oath that forms the core of the Sapphire Guard, faking senility, etc. Even most of the issues that he faced (including the source problem of assassination attempts) would have plenty of Lawful or Neutral solutions, such as upping the number of guards, hiring independent monitors of noble activities and making it clear that assassination attempts could lead to lethal reprisals (Lawful), getting actively engaged in politics and making at least some allies among the nobles, to the point where things devolve into factions but at least it's organized and it's clear that assassination would create more problems than solve (Neutral), etc. "I'll pretend to be senile" is the sort of solution that inherently appeals to a Chaotic personality, and is a strong indication of his alignment.

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.

I wouldn't say that word games without lying is Lawful, but rather a less Chaotic way of organizing deception. It's not inconsistent with being Lawful (similar to the way Roy can be a jerk sometimes isn't inconsistent with him being Good), but it's also not evidence that he is Lawful.

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.

Well, it's not a rule so much as a quickhand way of observing characters. I know there are exceptions, but I'd say it's generally more helpful than not. And I never said it wasn't allowed, but rather that Lawful characters tend to be the serious types who don't have very much fun. I'm sure there are Chaotic characters who don't have much fun either (though I'd say that most of them are the sort to be Serious about their dedication to a Chaotic cause rather than to be the chaotic by nature sort that most Chaotic characters are), but by and large I think it's a reasonable sorting mechanism.

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?

I'll give my take. Malack and Redcloak would seem like pretty clear LE characters. They both have causes that they're dedicated to and rules that they feel strongly about obeying, for better or worse. Redcloak is dedicated to the Cause of goblin welfare, and has a (sort of) moral epiphany when he learns to see hobgoblins as his peers. Malack seeks a stable and powerful Vampire Kingdom, seems to have a rule about not harming clerics, asks "what would Nergal want me to do", etc.

There are plenty of LE characters in other stories who are either dedicated to order as its own goal or to some other specific cause (usually violent ones like revenge, slaughter, genocide etc.). Even Tarquin's role (totalitarian military dictator) normally would be LE, it's just that he's a lot more Neutral than your average Evil military dictator.

[BroomGuys]

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.

I dunno, the very notion that devils even would have to make up for the Chaos inherent in war leads me to believe that willingness to fight a war just isn't important to the Law-Chaos dimension of alignment.

That is an awesome word I did not know before.

Isn't it, though? It's quite useful.

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.

Ain't nothin's gonna prevent people from taking away whatever message they want, but I should clarify my point a bit. If your argument is that the comic insufficiently supports Tarquin's appearance as a lawful character, then you have to consider the meta--not just everything you see about Tarquin, but what the effect of what you see of him would be on people's opinions of him. If reading through the comic gives most people the impression "yep, he's pretty Lawful Evil," then perhaps it's less important if you're not totally sure about it anymore when you dig really deep because hey, he only just entered the comic in this story arc. His Lawfulness is much less important to the plot than his Evilness (and perhaps most important is his competence).

With regard to the paladins, I doubt that there was much harm involved in a few misconceptions people got. And given that The Giant explicitly stated that he wants to give people pause about how the alignment system is structured, you can expect someone to come away with the wrong message. But that always happens, eh?

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.
.

I think you have a fundamentally different conception of the Lawful alignment from The Giant's. It is clear that Durkon (whom you consider to be a very Lawful character, and I agree with you) views lying by omission to be far more acceptable than actually lying. I would argue that he engages in this behavior infrequently because he is Good, but he does it in this particular way because he is Lawful. Tarquin also engages in verbal acrobatics to avoid outright lies because he is Lawful, but he does so often because he is Evil. To say that you do not interpret the alignment system this way and thus would not consider Tarquin LE in your own game is perfectly legitimate, but I don't think you have a strong case if you're saying The Giant's interpretation is wrong.

[mhsmith]

Tarquin's Lawfulness is much less important to the plot than his Evilness (and perhaps most important is his competence).

I definitely agree with this.

[lio45]

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.

I actually don't think it so abnormal that not every single character of the strip is wearing their alignment on their sleeve... if that's your complaint, then I can't join you in complaining.

For example, V's alignment (a PC!) has been incertain for hundred of strips.

I don't even think Shojo's alignment is ever canonically established as CG. Belkar assumes Shojo's CG at some point, but IIRC that's it. The way he acts, he could very well be NG. But he also could be CG, which apparently, he was.

Shojo and Tarquin did a lot of things the same way because they're ruling over states where there is, or could develop, some opposition to them. By that fact alone, upon their respective introductions as characters, I'd have expected in advance to see a certain number of shared points of view and actions as the strip develops ("hide stuff from subordinates in the greater interest of ruling & the state", "take special personal protection measures", etc.)

I don't see anything there that strikes me as "OMG! Clashes with official alignment!"

[theNater]

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.

When Tarquin deceives, he uses weasel-wording. When Shojo deceives, he uses outright lies(often involving his cat). These are not identical behaviors.

If you can provide some examples of outright lies told by Tarquin, you might have a case.

[lio45]

When Tarquin deceives, he uses weasel-wording. When Shojo deceives, he uses outright lies(often involving his cat). These are not identical behaviors.

If you can provide some examples of outright lies told by Tarquin, you might have a case.

Right, the similarity is at a more basic level. (They both "hide a number of things from a number of people", which IMO, as a ruler of state in a D&D setting, is basically in the same category as "they both eat, drink, sleep, and breathe".)

[thereaper]

Well, by the logical standards of this thread, I guess that means tradition isn't Lawful, because Elan loves that brand of 'tradition', and he's CG.... or maybe that's a very insubstantial kind of traditionalism. Getting Malack to stave off his agenda for the sake of Nale is disloyal to Malack. 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.)

Well, regardless of what particular standard of honour you're referring to, I'd still say the planning and organisation is Lawful, but the deception is not. I agree that a 100% Lawful approach to war tends, indeed, to be stupid. Just ask Xenophon. But rules are rules.

The thing is that while you can look at behaviour such as, e.g, stubbornly refusing to adjust a belief system regardless of how much contrary evidence comes to light over several centuries, and call it retarded, it's hard to argue that it isn't consistent, traditional, predictable and regimented. In other words, pretty darn Lawful.

This was specifically with reference to the G/E analogy to Tarquin's L/C behaviour- i.e, that a mixed record on killing/saving innocents is analogous to a mixed record on destroying/creating governments or infrastructure. I wasn't making any particular comment on Tarquin's moral outlook (which does seem fairly Evil.)
.

Convincing a person to do something they don't want to is disloyal (even if you believe it to be in the best interest of both of you)? Huh, that's a new one. I suppose by that logic I must be being disloyal to my niece and nephew when I tell them to go back to bed when they wake in the middle of the night.

I'm hearing you assert that losing paperwork is Chaotic, but by it's very nature it cannot be. Caring about what a piece of paper says is in itself lawful. A chaotic person wouldn't bother losing the paperwork proving someone innocent; they would ignore it and declare the person guilty anyway, because they don't care. Tarquin does care. That's why he goes to the trouble of losing the paperwork. This is how Lawful Evil works.

Once again, your comparisons between doing evil for good (which isn't even evil for good) and chaos for law (which isn't actually chaotic acts) are apples to oranges.

And yet again, you trot out this "deception is chaotic" corpse. How many times do we have to shoot it in the head before you leave it in it's casket?

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.

Tarquin also kept his word to release Ian and Geoff, despite there being no advantage to him in doing so.

And by your definitions here, no successful general could have anything other than a Neutral alignment (on the L/C) axis. This should tell you, once again, that something is wrong with your metric.

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.

So, let's say that Xykon goes to Mechanus and conquers the whole thing, putting into place a highly unstructured government where the laws are randomly changed everyday. A small group of modrons defeat him and put into place the government that previously existed.

By your metric, this would be a Chaotic act, and would therefore be as heinous (if not more so) than leaving in place a system where the laws are random every day.

Indeed, the very concept of creating structure is impossible under your metric, because creating structure inherently results in people needing to adapt to the new structure.

Your definition of what is Lawful or Chaotic is inherently flawed, because by your metric, there is no such thing as a Lawful action. Kicked a puppy? Now their body structure is off. Told the truth? More Chaos, because the consequences of what you said will change things. Conquered a country? People will have to adapt to the new laws.

[Cavenskull]

I think what really gets me about this whole "deception cannot be lawful" thing is that it seems to fly in the face of reality. When have politicians and lawyers ever had a reputation for honesty? If the very people responsible for making and interpreting laws cannot be considered lawful due to their deceptive actions, how could anyone possibly be lawful?

[factotum]

I think what really gets me about this whole "deception cannot be lawful" thing is that it seems to fly in the face of reality. When have politicians and lawyers ever had a reputation for honesty? If the very people responsible for making and interpreting laws cannot be considered lawful due to their deceptive actions, how could anyone possibly be lawful?

Because, as mentioned many times already, "Lawful" does not mean "Obeys the law". Plus, right in the strip we have an example of a Chaotic lawmaker (Shojo)...

[Sir_Leorik]

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.
.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Let's take Roy's actions in the early part of book two. He lied to Haley to get her to come with him search for the starmetal and he initially refused to help rescue Elan. The first action is probably Chaotic, not because he used deception, but because it was a selfish act meant to play on Haley's greed. The latter action was not a Good one, but it wasn't an Evil one either; as the Deva reviewing Roy's case told him, that action would be considered True Neutral. Has Roy not gone back to rescue Elan (and the rest of the party) and Elan and the others had died due to Roy's selfishness, that would have been a gross violation of his Lawful Good alignment. He was not behaving in a Lawful manner (he was acting selfishly and inconsistently) or in a Good manner (he was refusing to act to save someone in peril). But lying to Haley wasn't a gross violation of his Alignment; if he had found a way to deceive her into going on the mission without outright lying he could justify it by saying that he was concerned for the well-being of the group. (Of course the best way to get her to go was to appeal to her greed in an honest manner, by offering her a bigger share of any treasure.)

[Kish]

The latter action was not a Good one, but it wasn't an Evil one either; as the Deva reviewing Roy's case told him, that action would be considered True Neutral.

That's very far from what the deva told him.

"If you had not made amends for this action, I would classify your otherwise-unambiguously-Lawful-or-Neutral-Good-life-as-True-Neutral" is not only not the same as, "This action was a True Neutral action," I don't even see why anyone would think that--and not "This action was a significant Evil action"--is a logical reading.

[hamishspence]

We do have the remark "Very few truly evil acts- nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-O-Meter"

Hence- my assessment is that it was a truly evil act- yet not enough to merit a blip.

[Sir_Leorik]

That's very far from what the deva told him.

"If you had not made amends for this action, I would classify your otherwise-unambiguously-Lawful-or-Neutral-Good-life-as-True-Neutral" is not only not the same as, "This action was a True Neutral action," I don't even see why anyone would think that--and not "This action was a significant Evil action"--is a logical reading.

We do have the remark "Very few truly evil acts- nothing here even merits a blip on the Malev-O-Meter"

Hence- my assessment is that it was a truly evil act- yet not enough to merit a blip.

What Roy did, leaving a friend and ally in the hands of kidnappers, rather than try to rescue him, while callous and thoughtless, isn't an Evil act. Its a Neutral one. Roy was saying "Saving Elan is somebody else's problems." That's not how a Lawful Good hero is supposed to act, and that's why the Devas flagged it for review. Luckily for Roy he realized his mistake and took steps to correct it... only to need to be rescued by Durkon, but the Devas don't penalize incompetence.

[Reddish Mage]

When Tarquin deceives, he uses weasel-wording. When Shojo deceives, he uses outright lies(often involving his cat). These are not identical behaviors.

If you can provide some examples of outright lies told by Tarquin, you might have a case.

On a tangent, do Paladins have to be so honest because they are so Good or because they are so Lawful?

Also is Adventuring a Chaotic activity?

[Kish]

What Roy did, leaving a friend and ally in the hands of kidnappers, rather than try to rescue him, while callous and thoughtless, isn't an Evil act. Its a Neutral one.

I think you're wrong, but what I mainly care about here, is that you stop claiming the deva said so.

[Sir_Leorik]

Do Paladins have to be so honest because they are so good or because they are so Lawful?

Both. Paladins must maintain a Lawful Good Alignment and they also have to follow the Paladin Code which requires them to act in a chivalrous manner (respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents). If a Paladin changes to another Alignment (willingly or due to a magical effect), willfully commits an Evil act or commits a gross violation of the Paladin Code is stripped of her Paladin status by her deity or pantheon.

The Paladin Code in 3.X is not nearly as strict as it was in earlier editions, where Paladins had to tithe from all found treasure to charity, take vows of poverty, could not possess more than ten magic items (including up to four weapons, one suit of armor and one shield, and a limited number of consumable items) and were required to maintain their weapons, armor and clothing in a state fit for a knight. The 3.X version allows some leeway for a DM to tinker with it to fit his campaign setting. For example in one campaign Paladins are modeled on the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, expected to be chivalrous but to focus mostly on defending the realm from foreign invaders. In another campaign Paladins are modeled on the Knights of Solamnia, a once proud order of knights who have lost the respect of the people; PC Paladins need to be extra careful not to antagonize people who consider them untrustworthy hypocrites.

You could have a campaign setting where the technology is closer to the late Rennaisance, early Enlightenment, and firearms are more common; heavy armor is seen as an anachronism, and swords are drawn only after firing your pistol or musket. In this campaign Paladins might resemble the Three Musketeers, the Scarlet Pimpernel, English privateers, Hussars, or even Zorro.

You could also use the Al-Qadim campaign setting, where Paladins could be corsairs like Sinbad, dervishes, holy warriors dedicated to defending the faithful from the barbarians coming from Faerun, and Genasi Jannisaries who call upon the powers of the gods to fight the Primordials. (Whoops, that last bit should be for a 4th Edition campaign!)

[Sir_Leorik]

I think you're wrong, but what I mainly care about here, is that you stop claiming the deva said so.

We both agree that she would have tossed Roy's file to the True Neutral bin and sent him off to the Outlands if he had let the Bandits kill Elan so he could go find the starmetal; what we disagree on is whether that's because his actions were morally Neutral or Evil.

[factotum]

We both agree that she would have tossed Roy's file to the True Neutral bin and sent him off to the Outlands if he had let the Bandits kill Elan so he could go find the starmetal; what we disagree on is whether that's because his actions were morally Neutral or Evil.

So you're basically saying that a single Neutral action is enough to tip you from Lawful to Neutral alignment? Seems a bit extreme to me...

[lio45]

So you're basically saying that a single Neutral action is enough to tip you from Lawful to Neutral alignment? Seems a bit extreme to me...

Exactly... plus, I'd expect a Neutral person to attempt to rescue a friend and ally in a case where there's absolutely no one else around to do it (meaning that if you walk away, it's all but certain the person is screwed).

Contrast that to Good, where you'd be expected to want to rescue people 1) even if you don't know them, and 2) even if it could morally be written off as someone else's problem.

Neutral isn't "I care only about myself", that, unless I'm mistaken, is actually more Evil than Neutral. Neutral is more like "I don't really care that much about people I don't even know and whose exact fate isn't really my business", not "this ally of mine is going to get killed if I don't lift a finger, well, too bad for him".

[Sir_Leorik]

So you're basically saying that a single Neutral action is enough to tip you from Lawful to Neutral alignment? Seems a bit extreme to me...

Not usually, but a single True Neutral action that was of such major consequence might have ramifications in the D&D Afterlife.

[Reddish Mage]

Both. Paladins must maintain a Lawful Good Alignment and they also have to follow the Paladin Code which requires them to act in a chivalrous manner (respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents). If a Paladin changes to another Alignment (willingly or due to a magical effect), willfully commits an Evil act or commits a gross violation of the Paladin Code is stripped of her Paladin status by her deity or pantheon.

The Paladin Code in 3.X is not nearly as strict as it was in earlier editions, where Paladins had to tithe from all found treasure to charity, take vows of poverty, could not possess more than ten magic items (including up to four weapons, one suit of armor and one shield, and a limited number of consumable items) and were required to maintain their weapons, armor and clothing in a state fit for a knight. The 3.X version allows some leeway for a DM to tinker with it to fit his campaign setting. For example in one campaign Paladins are modeled on the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, expected to be chivalrous but to focus mostly on defending the realm from foreign invaders. In another campaign Paladins are modeled on the Knights of Solamnia, a once proud order of knights who have lost the respect of the people; PC Paladins need to be extra careful not to antagonize people who consider them untrustworthy hypocrites.

You could have a campaign setting where the technology is closer to the late Rennaisance, early Enlightenment, and firearms are more common; heavy armor is seen as an anachronism, and swords are drawn only after firing your pistol or musket. In this campaign Paladins might resemble the Three Musketeers, the Scarlet Pimpernel, English privateers, Hussars, or even Zorro.

You could also use the Al-Qadim campaign setting, where Paladins could be corsairs like Sinbad, dervishes, holy warriors dedicated to defending the faithful from the barbarians coming from Faerun, and Genasi Jannisaries who call upon the powers of the gods to fight the Primordials. (Whoops, that last bit should be for a 4th Edition campaign!)

So basically honesty is lawful because it is part of a code.

What about standard Adventuring, isn't making a profession out of associating with a motley crew of ruffians that regularly look for reasons to dive headlong into danger a chaotic act in and of itself?

[Sir_Leorik]

Exactly... plus, I'd expect a Neutral person to attempt to rescue a friend and ally in a case where there's absolutely no one else around to do it (meaning that if you walk away, it's all but certain the person is screwed).

Contrast that to Good, where you'd be expected to want to rescue people 1) even if you don't know them, and 2) even if it could morally be written off as someone else's problem.

Neutral isn't "I care only about myself", that, unless I'm mistaken, is actually more Evil than Neutral. Neutral is more like "I don't really care that much about people I don't even know and whose exact fate isn't really my business", not "this ally of mine is going to get killed if I don't lift a finger, well, too bad for him".

The difference between Neutral and Evil is as follows: A Neutral character cares only about himself (and his loved ones and friends, maybe his country); he doesn't wish ill to anyone else, and will not go out of his way to harm them, but he won't take risks to help them unless there is something in it for him.

An Evil character cares only about himself (and in some cases his family, his friends, maybe his ethnic group, nation or religion) and sees no point in doing things to help anyone else. What is more he will actively seek to harm others for his own personal gain. A Neutral character generally won't go out of his way to hurt people.

For example, Therkla was devoted to her master Daimyo Kubota and was in love with Elan. She wanted to serve Kubota faithfully and protect Elan's life. But she wasn't interested in some greater good and she would not betray her master to Lord Hinjo when given an opportunity to testify against Kubota. By Word of Giant Therkla was Neutral, as are Vaarsuvius, Gannji and Enor.

Vaarsuvius is loyal to family and friends, hostile to those wishing them harm and sought great magical power. Now V is racked with guilt for causing the deaths of an untold number of humans and Dragons. V's spouse divorced V to keep their children away from V's malign influence; V's melancholy response was to not contest the divorce to keep their family safe.

Gannji and Enor are bounty hunters. That is a violent profession, but they only pursue official bounties. They follow the rules to keep themselves out of trouble, but they acted violently to keep themselves from being bothered by Roy. Gannji's personal animus towards Roy aside, he is a businessman and there's no room for getting personal in his line of work. The sole exception is that Gannji will do anything to protect Enor, the Lenny to Gannji's George. Fortunately Gannji and Enor's story has had a happier ending than "Of Mice and Men".

[Sir_Leorik]

So basically honesty is lawful because it is part of a code.

The Paladin Code requires Paladins to behave in an honorable manner, and that differs from campaign to campaign. Outright lying is almost always a dishonorable act.

In addition Lawful characters dislike using lies. Lawful Good characters are usually honest because honesty is usually the basis for a sound relationship within a social group; when honesty would create disharmony it would be better to keep information secret, dissemble or outright lie in order to promote Lawfulness and Goodness.

Lawful Neutral characters are usually honest because honesty is expected of them by their peers, their superiors, their faith, etc. However there is nothing that prevents a Lawful Neutral character from hiding the truth by using legal jargon, complex arguments, and statements that are technically true, from a certain point of view.

Lawful Evil characters are usually honest because they are either afraid of the consequences of being caught in a lie, or they have a vested interest in promoting a system that they can game to their advantage. The former would lie if they were relatively certain they could get away with it, as Director Lee did when he tempted Vaarsuvius. The latter do not want to set a bad precendent that can be used against them. Tarquin, as a genre-savvy villain, knows that the last thing he wants is to encourage dissent against the Empires he and his team are building. He wants the populace to be pacified and pliant, he wants the countries he is negotiating with to let their guard down and he wants the Drow Matrons to let him use the "drinking fountain" the next time he's in their Underdark Kingdom. In order to get what he wants Tarquin needs to use a combination of deception and hiding in plain sight. He will never outright lie or go back on his word. He paid Gannji and Enor for their services, despite his annoyance over the "thermal detonator". But he never promised Gannji that he wouldn't seek revenge. It was Gannji's choice to begin a fight with Roy and Belkar, rather than tell them where Elan, Haley and V were. (Or to just demand that Roy pay for the info, and name a price that might deter Roy from asking for the info.) Once Gannji and Enor were in custody, Tarquin instructed Kilkil to "lose" the paperwork. Hey, mistakes happen in big bureaucracies. Don't like it? Don't start bar brawls in your next life.

What about standard Adventuring, isn't making a profession out of associating with a motley crew of ruffians that regularly look for reasons to dive headlong into danger a chaotic act in and of itself?

This is an issue that players of Paladins have had to deal with since AD&D (1E). The wording of the Paladin's Code of Conduct was ambiguous and prone to spawning arguments. Here's my take: a Paladin can't adventure with Evil PCs. She can't adventure with PCs who engage in torture (the Paladin can't just walk out of the room, or leave the campsite to have a cigar). The player needs to speak the DM to clarify what the DM's position is on killing helpless enemies in combat (enemies who are held, sleeping due to magic, stunned). A Paladin can't kill helpless foes outside combat (nor may she adventure with allies who do so).

By the same token, a Paladin is not required to be a mirthless killjoy. A Paladin may take the mic at Karaoke Night. Challenging Death to a certain contest does not violate the Paladin Code.

The Paladin Code says that a Paladin should provide aid to anyone in need who will not use that aid for Chaotic or Evil purposes. That should include humanoid children and intelligent monsters. If a tribe of Kobolds are starving, a Paladin should feed them, especially if doing so will encourage them them from raiding a halfling village; if the Paladin's rations are only going to give the Kobolds the strength to launch the next raid she should not feed them. How does a Paladin tell the difference? Paladins should take a page from the Jedi on this one: be mindful of your surroundings, search your feelings, Sense Motive you must use, yadda, yadda, yadda. Its not easy, but that's why Paladins are so special.

[Reddish Mage]

Not usually, but a single True Neutral action that was of such major consequence might have ramifications in the D&D Afterlife.

I think this action was so callous, even if it isn't evil it is an extreme "non-good" act.

[Kish]

I think the concept of "a True Neutral action...of such major consequence" itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of the alignment system. Actions of major moral consequence are definitionally not True Neutral ones.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think this action was so callous, even if it isn't evil it is an extreme "non-good" act.

Exactly. It was an intentionally callous act, but it wasn't exactly Evil.

I think the concept of "a True Neutral action...of such major consequence" itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of the alignment system. Actions of major moral consequence are definitionally not True Neutral ones.

Why can't an act that is neither Good or Evil have moral consequences? Ignoring the "maintain the balance" view of True Neutrality held by Mordenkainen, there are plenty of possible decisions that can be made by someone presented with different options. One option may be a Good action, one option may be an Evil option, and then there is an option that isn't quite Evil but would not be considered a Good action to take either. Or one option might be Lawful, one Chaotic, and one option that is not quite Lawful but not that Chaotic. These are ethical and moral decisions that in the D&D Alignment system are just as valid as one any others (though the consequences for each choice may be different).

[Kish]

Why can't an act that is neither Good or Evil have moral consequences? Ignoring the "maintain the balance" view of True Neutrality held by Mordenkainen,

My preferred attitude to take toward it. Stupid 1ed.

there are plenty of possible decisions that can be made by someone presented with different options. One option may be a Good action, one option may be an Evil option, and then there is an option that isn't quite Evil but would not be considered a Good action to take either.

Would you like to give an example of an action which is both of great moral consequence for the person making it (no, "I'm not going to do the obvious good/evil thing" wouldn't count, and the argument that Roy's decision to abandon Elan was morally significant looks, to me, to be functionally identical to the argument that it was evil rather than neutral), and a True Neutral action? 'Cause all I'm seeing right now is you asserting that such can theoretically exist.

[EmperorSarda]

however ignoring his own precedents about punishing rebellion and sedition when he lets his sons live.

Maybe because there is a difference between how Elan attacked Tarquin and how the female general attacked Tarquin. With Elan, he saw it as a debate and not sedition. Nale... he only has let live for the ritual. After they get that (or rather when Xykon shows up and Nale no longer has any cards to play), Malack is free to kill him. How is that ignoring his own precedents when what Elan and Nale do play exactly into what he wants?

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.

Tarquin let them go without having to stay that 3rd night like they promised. But... still, he tells them like he promised. What does it matter if he is not sacrificing anything, he still kept his word and there was never any indication that he was going to break it. Twisting how you see his motives does not change the fact that he kept his word regardless of the "spirited debate" between him and Elan. How is that not lawful?

[Reddish Mage]

Maybe because there is a difference between how Elan attacked Tarquin and how the female general attacked Tarquin. With Elan, he saw it as a debate and not sedition. Nale... he only has let live for the ritual. After they get that (or rather when Xykon shows up and Nale no longer has any cards to play), Malack is free to kill him. How is that ignoring his own precedents when what Elan and Nale do play exactly into what he wants?


Tarquin let them go without having to stay that 3rd night like they promised. But... still, he tells them like he promised. What does it matter if he is not sacrificing anything, he still kept his word and there was never any indication that he was going to break it. Twisting how you see his motives does not change the fact that he kept his word regardless of the "spirited debate" between him and Elan. How is that not lawful?

I must applaud this bit of legal insight, for it highlights the spirit of many legal avenues for resolving problems we have all encountered if we have had the fortune of studying or dealing with the intricacies of law.