Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Reddish Mage]

The Enterprise crews in Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation seem to be adventurers by your definition. Colorful characters, eclectic skills, visiting an ecletic mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wildernesses, often being in danger, and having to adapt to changing situations. And yet they do it all Lawfully. Their travel is directed by a higher authority and often planned out weeks in advance. They have protocols for just about every situation, and maintain a clear chain of command. Even their spontaneous reactions usually take the form of developing and deploying a new plan, rather than just trying whatever comes to mind and seeing what shakes out.

Awesome example! It illustrates a Lawful group that seem to be in the business of adventure, and they are certainly approaching it lawfully (at least in TNG). Yet, everything about what the challenges they are confronting, whether its one of the many god-like advanced aliens, or a mysterious illness, or rift in the space-time continuum, is a threat to their orderly existence as a working well-oiled starship crew aboard a ship that is basically a flying city, and yet they come together and defeat it week after week (or in whatever increments these days on BBC America).

The key thing about adventuring to me is that it involves meeting Chaos head-on (the adventure being presented itself). I have to admit though, if you are meeting it with the purpose of bring order, that does seem to be a lawful activity, and even the type that will tilt the Law-Chaos scale even.

I think that the nature of the adventure, the threats presented, the drama, the tension, the break with routine, all these things are Chaotic however, and it is the Chaotic nature of the matter that makes it an "adventure." The 2e Creative Campaigning sourcebook uses a well-oiled mercenary machine exterminating orcs and gathering treasure as an example of what "adventure" is not, its not predictable, and its not something you can create a clean set of protocols to go about doing and not expect to have to modify them or even throw them out on the fly.

Indeed, I recall watching episode after episode back-to-back of TNG where the crew was being challenged more by the fact that the obvious (or only) solution would violate Starfleet protocol, or that the Captain had to disobey orders to do what was right. The fact that it was hard to do in the TNG context shows the lawful nature of the crew at the same time as the hard choices adventure confronts a party with.

So the point I'll stick with is that: Chaos is part of what makes adventure, adventure.

I am conceding that a) alignment is not tilted towards chaos by adventuring in the absence of specific acts of chaos (though I think adventuring probably often invites whatever these acts do turn out to be) b) The phrase "adventuring is a chaotic activity" will be dropped.

[Math_Mage]

The key thing about adventuring to me is that it involves meeting Chaos head-on (the adventure being presented itself). I have to admit though, if you are meeting it with the purpose of bring order, that does seem to be a lawful activity, and even the type that will tilt the Law-Chaos scale even.

Lawful adventurers often find themselves in opposition to Chaotic threats. Similarly, Chaotic adventurers often find themselves in opposition to Lawful threats. This suggests, not that adventuring is Chaotic, but that it's easy to envision conflict between groups on opposite ends of the ethical axis.

Chaos is part of what makes adventure, adventure. So are Good, Evil, and Law.

[warrl]

My experience was in the late 80s and early 90s with the DOD and the ADA programming language . A directive came down from on high that the DOD was centralizing on one computer language, and one only. Henceforth all computer programs will be written in Ada. Which essentially meant we would be inoperable with anything written in the commercial world.

No one disobeyed those orders. They saluted and said "yes, sir". But they dragged their feet on implementation. They found exceptions to the rule. They played procedural games. Eventually the people whose brilliant idea it was transferred or got promoted, and things went on as they always had.

Have you read C.A.R. Hoare's speech entitled "The Emperor's Old Clothes"? He had a few things to say about Ada.

[Sir_Leorik]

I prefer the Neutral Good(ish) option: Take the merchant home (at some personal risk), pay for his healing with his own gold, and possibly keep the rest for your troubles.

I would seriously question Fyodor's 'goodness' if he's not expecting at least some reward for that action. Taking food out of the mouths of starving children to give to a rich stranger is not my idea of 'good'. The fact that the children concerned are your own - doesn't seem like much of a mitigation.

"The right thing to do"? If it was only Fyodor's own life he was risking, then sure. But he's also jeopardising his whole family, and that makes the moral equation much murkier.

I was trying to keep the issue of Fyodor's Ethical decision out of the reasons for why he made his choice to save, abandon or outright murder the merchant, mostly because I was attempting to discuss the Good/Evil axis. Fyodor was put in a situation where he has to weigh the harm to a stranger to the possible harm to his family. There are definitely ways for Fyodor to ameliorate the cost to himself and his family, but it would depend on where on the Law/Chaos axis he stands. Likewise Fyodor might abandon the merchant, try to go for help, murder him and run, murder him and take 20 looting his body. Here are some expanded scenarios for our protagonist:

Lawful Good choice: Fyodor's not doing this for a reward; he is a good and pious man who remembers how the gods of Aebrynis sacrificed themselves in the last battle with the forces of darkness (see the "Birthright" campaign setting) and is willing to sacrifice his own welfare to help a stranger. He may not take food from his children's mouths, but he might very well go without food to make sure the Sanguinian merchant doesn't die. When the merchant recovers, he is so grateful for the risks Fyodor took that he gives him enough gold to take his family and flee Vorostokov.

Neutral Good choice: Fyodor takes a single silver coin from the merchant's purse, and luckily runs into a Vistani caravan. The Raunie of the caravan accepts the coin as payment for a remove disease spell, and after a single night the merchant is back on his feet. He thanks Fyodor for helping him, and while he's not happy that his rescuer went into his pouch without his permission, he understands the circumstances and likes that Fyodor took initiative. He hires Fyodor as a porter, along with some other villagers.

Chaotic Good choice: Fyodor rescues the merchant, but is wary of letting him stay in his hovel, for fear of disease spreading. Fyodor figures the merchant might have food, medicine or money and he can't use it if he's dead, so he rummages through the merchant's purse and belongings. Fyodor comes across a strange scroll; as he unravels it Fyodor gets a sense of unease. Unbeknownst to Fyodor he has just lit up a beacon for one of Prince Ladislav Mircea's Vampires to track down the merchant. The Vampire sneaks into the village and slaughters half the populace, including Fyodor's family and the merchant, before fleeing into the snow. (To get around the need for an invitation Vrykloka usually set buildings on fire and attack anyone who runs out of them.) Fyodor kneels in the ruins of his village, amid the snow, swearing revenge on all Sanguinians.

Lawful Neutral choice: Fyodor does not carry the merchant to his village; instead he immediately gets a Ranger and accompanies him to the merchant's location. Together they manage to drag the man back to their village before nightfall. Fyodor calls the villagers together and they discuss what to do with the stranger. A vote is held, and they decide to ask the Vistani Raunie to heal him and then demand payment from the merchant for their hospitality.

True Neutral choice: Fyodor tells the Ranger, does not accompany him into the forest. The Ranger fails to return by nightfall, because he and the merchant are attacked by Werewolves.

Chaotic Neutral choice: Fyodor snatches the dying merchant's coin purse and rifles through his pack for supplies. He leaves the merchant to die. One of the items Fyodor looted was a strange scroll; when he gets home Fyodor sneaks into the cellar and unravels the scroll, getting a feeling of unease. Unbeknownst to Fyodor he has just lit up a beacon for one of Prince Ladislav Mircea's Vampires to track down the merchant. The Vampire sneaks into the village and slaughters half the populace, including Fyodor's familybefore fleeing into the snow. (To get around the need for an invitation Vrykloka usually set buildings on fire and attack anyone who runs out of them.) Fyodor kneels in the ruins of his village, amid the snow, swearing revenge on all Sanguinians.

Lawful Evil choice: Fyodor checks to make sure no one is looking and snatches the merchants coin pouch. He then slits the merchant's throat, failing a Dark Powers check. When he returns to the village, Fyodor becomes paranoid that someone saw him commit the murder. He decides to take his family and leave Vorostokov; however as they enter the Mists, they are transported to the arid Domain of G'Henna, ruled by an insane Theocracy and exacerbates food shortages.

Neutral Evil choice: Fyodor checks to make sure no one is looking and snatches the merchants coin pouch. He then slits the merchant's throat, failing a Dark Powers check. Fyodor justifies his actions by telling himself that he is providing for his family. However Fyodor begins to spend the money on strong drink (plum brandy imported by the Vistani from Barovia) and becomes abusive towards his wife and children.

Chaotic Evil choice: Fyodor stabs the merchant without looking to see if anyone is around, grabs his purse, and rifles through the merchant's pack. He is careless and doesn't notice the sun is beginning to set, and is confronted by Gregor Zolnik, the Darklord of Vorostokov. Gregor likes the cut of Fyodor's jib and inducts him into the ranks of Zolnik's Loup du Noir Werewolves. Zolnik confiscates a strange scroll from the merchant's belongings and burns it and the merchants' body. He then orders Fyodor to erase all ties to his past by killing and devouring his wife and children, which Fyodor does without question.

[warrl]

About war-making and alignment...

Look at war, not from a national perspective, but from a village perspective. It's chaotic. If an unfriendly or desperate army is just marching past the village - forget about what it's like if the village is in the battlefield - the crops get trampled, the cattle get taken, probably a few buildings or bridges get destroyed, any crimes the soldiers commit against the villagers (plus any crimes the villagers commit against each other but can blame on soldiers) probably can't be prosecuted.

Judging from what the cartographers said, the average life of a kingdom on the Western Continent was probably under three years - before it was divided up, meaning its capitol ceased to be a capitol and what had been its interior became borderlands. (Rulers of existing nations being replaced by assassination is rather less disruptive.) On that basis, EVERY village was constantly in danger of having an army march past.

And of course every time there's a change of government via military conquest, there's a whole set of new laws to deal with - that are probably mostly similar in generalities, but all the nitpicky details...

Now, as Tarquin's scheme takes effect, they are seeing more and more land that is solidly and securely interior to one or the other of the three great empires. Sure there's a kerfuffle in the capitol cities every few years, but that's not even a big deal for most residents of said cities - and it doesn't involve unfriendly armies marching past villages.

And the laws are a lot more stable, as well. They may be arbitrary, harsh, and cruel, but they don't change so much from one year to the next. Even when an emperor is assassinated and replaced by another emperor, they get mostly the same advisors and staff, so most laws won't change.

In other words, Team Tarquin, by their deliberate efforts to spread and (more critically) maintain the rule of *their* law, are consistently and systematically decreasing the amount of Chaos in the human-inhabited lands of the Western Continent.

Do Team T's wars, over the short run, cause Chaos? Definitely. To the unfortunate villagers the army has to march past, their armies are no different from anyone else's. But even locally and in the short run, are they causing more Chaos than would occur if their three empires did not exist? Doubtful.

To me, this is a clearly Lawful program of military expansion.

Heck, if it were being done with Good intentions, if the reduction of military damage to villages and cities were part of the intent rather than a side effect, it might also qualify as a Good program.

Now if Team Tarquin were to try to invade the Elven lands to the north, which - as far as we know - have been at peace and with stable government(s) for quite a while, this argument would not apply.

Similarly, Zykon attacked Azure City solely for the Gate, and once it was destroyed he was ready to leave - he didn't care about the city itself for any reason whatsoever, and was quite willing to replace a reasonably effective government with no government at all. Eager to do so, in fact, because it would have been more convenient for him (until his phylactery was lost). Definitely not Lawful.

[Math_Mage]

Chaotic Neutral choice: Fyodor snatches the dying merchant's coin purse and rifles through his pack for supplies. He leaves the merchant to die. One of the items Fyodor looted was a strange scroll; when he gets home Fyodor sneaks into the cellar and unravels the scroll, getting a feeling of unease. Unbeknownst to Fyodor he has just lit up a beacon for one of Prince Ladislav Mircea's Vampires to track down the merchant. The Vampire sneaks into the village and slaughters half the populace, including Fyodor's familybefore fleeing into the snow. (To get around the need for an invitation Vrykloka usually set buildings on fire and attack anyone who runs out of them.) Fyodor kneels in the ruins of his village, amid the snow, swearing revenge on all Sanguinians.

But for the oath of revenge (which isn't very CN to begin with), this is still exactly what Belkar would do. Before you tell me Belkar would slit the guy's throat, why? The thought of him dying screaming at the hands of wild animals is more amusing.

First major problem: you've argued that Fyodor's action (and Roy's) are Neutral because PHB says Neutral characters are not obliged to make sacrifices for Good ends. But that definition cannot be taken uncritically, because every act can be construed as a sacrifice due to opportunity costs, and someone who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire because of the opportunity cost of pissing on you is Evil.

Second problem: all the embellishment about Sanguinians and Gehenna and Zykon only serves to obscure the moral choices and motivations that make this hypothetical meaningful.

Here's how I would write CN Fyodor:
Fyodor eyes the merchant's fat purse and decides to lend a hand. He lugs the merchant back to town himself, rather than relying on those useless Rangers to get anything done. He leaves the merchant with the local healer, and helps himself to the merchant's coin for his troubles. After all, he's got a family to feed, and who knows if the merchant will make it through the night?

Emphasis on personal relationships; mistrust of authority; disregard for rules about property; willing to help others, but primarily with an eye towards his own profit. That's CN. I don't claim that this is the only way a CN character could handle the situation, but your scenario portrays a callous ass concerned only with his own gain. That's not CN, that's the amoral sociopathic CN players use when they want to be Evil but the DM wants to run a non-Evil campaign.

As a final note, this CN character just acted better than the CG scenario you wrote. Frankly, I think the issue here boils down to you associating Chaos with Evil. Apparently LE cares about his family, but CE will slaughter them without a second thought. LN will save the merchant; CN will leave him to die. And when you can't come up with a good reason for CG to do anything really bad, you have him inadvertently unleash a murderous monstrosity as some kind of object lesson on the evils of theft. Seriously?

[ti'esar]

What he said.

[Kish]

And even for the three evil alignments, your Chaotic Evil scenario has him not noticing the sun beginning to set. Apparently "Chaotic" means "Really low Wisdom."

[Carry2]

Note that your given reasons for it being True Neutral also highly distinguish it from Roy's action. Roy chose to lose his entire group and continue on his mission to retrieve the starmetal alone--which would, had he stuck with it and wound up facing down the young black dragon alone, incidentally have been suicide--rather than try to rescue someone who was only there because Roy asked him to be from a group of bandits who had kidnapped him from under Roy's leadership.

That's the thing. I would agree that Roy can be blamed for taking Elan on an adventure in the first place, but this was wrong specifically because taking childish idiots who can barely hold up their own pants into dangerous, monster-infested dungeons is criminally irresponsible. But that decision was taken long beforehand, and strangely enough, nobody blames Roy for that.

I furthermore agree that tackling the black dragon solo would have been suicide, but that's (A) a separate question, based on (B) information Roy did not have. Roy does however, specifically say that he thinks tackling the bandits would be suicide, and he wasn't far from wrong, given that Sam and Pa easily trounced 2/3 of the party. Which is why I actually don't think abandoning Elan would have been evil. (On reflection, I don't even think abandoning the rest of the party would be evil, since the stakes would be higher, but so are the difficulties involved in a solo rescue.)

There's more room to argue that it's a chaotic act, in that Roy has some kind of formal responsibility for team members, and in that leaving them behind would be disloyal. It certainly would not be a good thing to do. But Roy was not the active cause of their misfortune, and saying that people are Evil simply for neglecting to make a great sacrifice for others has some uncomfortable implications.*

*And that's a much milder degree of sacrifice than we're asking of Roy here, and for lower stakes.

[Carry2]

The Enterprise crews in Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation seem to be adventurers by your definition. Colorful characters, eclectic skills, visiting an ecletic mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wildernesses, often being in danger, and having to adapt to changing situations. And yet they do it all Lawfully...

The procedure you see in the show basically does make the Star Trek crew look like adventurers, but you can argue that this sits uneasily with the basic assumptions of the franchise. (e.g, despite integration in a regimented command structure, senior officers are perpetually being sent on dangerous ground missions, and despite strict injunctions against interference in alien cultures, random fluke events reliably conspire to have alien cultures interfere with the enterprise. Et cetera.)

But as for whether the enterprise crew themselves behave Lawfully- well, suspiciously uniform TNG personalities aside, they are generally pretty honest, loyal and ethical, follow their orders, make plans and coordinate in an organised fashion. They do adapt to new information, and act as catalysts for social change or disruption on half the occasions when they get embroiled in setting politics, but the other half the time they're trying to ensure political stability.

[Reddish Mage]

Lawful adventurers often find themselves in opposition to Chaotic threats. Similarly, Chaotic adventurers often find themselves in opposition to Lawful threats. This suggests, not that adventuring is Chaotic, but that it's easy to envision conflict between groups on opposite ends of the ethical axis.

Chaos is part of what makes adventure, adventure. So are Good, Evil, and Law.

I just don't see the relevance that of potential Chaotic/Lawful conflict between forces of those alignments, that isn't essential to adventure. I'm claiming the chaos of a particular sort of conflict (a chaotic one) is essential to adventure, what makes adventure an adventure. This "chaos" is in the normal use of the term "chaos," by non-D&ders, that is aside from any implications it might have on the alignment scale.

Whether the party is good, evil, lawful, chaotic aligned, or (as usual) all mixed up, having adventures means they are mixing themselves up in chaotic conflict.

[Carry2]

In other words, Team Tarquin, by their deliberate efforts to spread and (more critically) maintain the rule of *their* law, are consistently and systematically decreasing the amount of Chaos in the human-inhabited lands of the Western Continent.

Do Team T's wars, over the short run, cause Chaos? Definitely. To the unfortunate villagers the army has to march past, their armies are no different from anyone else's. But even locally and in the short run, are they causing more Chaos than would occur if their three empires did not exist? Doubtful.

To me, this is a clearly Lawful program of military expansion.

Heck, if it were being done with Good intentions, if the reduction of military damage to villages and cities were part of the intent rather than a side effect, it might also qualify as a Good program.

Well, the thing is, according to Tarquin, that actually is his deliberate intention. "[Good and Evil] are outdated concepts that cause nothing but conflict. What I'm trying to do here is move beyond those ideas into a world where no-one has any reason to fight one another."

Yes, I know, we have Word of God that Tarquin isn't actually making the continent a more pleasant place, and he commits a number of Evil acts that have nothing in particular to do with reducing suffering, which calls his supposedly benign intentions into question. But Tarquin also commits chaotic acts that have nothing to do with ensuring political stability (framing Gannji and Enor, ignoring Nale and Elan's criminality, then pitting them against eachother, impersonating Thog on the way.) Why don't those call his lawfulness into question?

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?

Sarda, you are arguing that 'tactical expediency' means that releasing Nale was not Chaotic, while arguing that keeping his word to Elan was still Lawful despite being just as tactically expedient. If you neuter the one, you neuter the other. (While we're on the subject, Ian apparently doesn't put much stock in Tarquin's word or legal system.)

If, by contrast, keeping his word to Elan is still a Lawful act- despite requiring no real sacrifice on T's part- then releasing Nale is still Chaotic, for the same reasons. And so is releasing Elan, regardless of how he might rationalise it.

Love is the bane of honor, the death of duty. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms, or the memory of a brother's smile?
A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. But soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose.

[Kish]

Carry2, since you have apparently returned to this thread but not responded to this:
Can you describe your concept of an unambiguously Lawful Evil character who is not insane?

[Reddish Mage]

[QUOTE=Carry2;15442562] makes vague implication by linking to a Wikipedia of a Australian philosopher's book [\QUOTE]

If you want to say simply "Kish, you imply anyone not giving their possessions to charity is evil" simply say so. I disagree Kish makes any such implications. There's proximity in Roy's decision to not save Elan to Elan's potential death. It's at best Comparable to the case of Roy passing over a starving person (not so as Roy has some responsibility for Elan).

[theNater]

The procedure you see in the show basically does make the Star Trek crew look like adventurers, but you can argue that this sits uneasily with the basic assumptions of the franchise. (e.g, despite integration in a regimented command structure, senior officers are perpetually being sent on dangerous ground missions, and despite strict injunctions against interference in alien cultures, random fluke events reliably conspire to have alien cultures interfere with the enterprise. Et cetera.)

But as for whether the enterprise crew themselves behave Lawfully- well, suspiciously uniform TNG personalities aside, they are generally pretty honest, loyal and ethical, follow their orders, make plans and coordinate in an organised fashion. They do adapt to new information, and act as catalysts for social change or disruption on half the occasions when they get embroiled in setting politics, but the other half the time they're trying to ensure political stability.

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you're trying to make here, and all I get from the linked article is that the author doesn't understand Star Trek's Prime Directive. It might help if you summarized and/or rephrased.

(While we're on the subject, Ian apparently doesn't put much stock in Tarquin's word or legal system.)

That speaks more to Ian's character than Tarquin's, much as Girard assuming Soon would break his oath tells us more about Girard than about Soon. The simple fact is that we haven't seen Tarquin violate the letter of any promise he has made.

[Carry2]

Whether the party is good, evil, lawful, chaotic aligned, or (as usual) all mixed up, having adventures means they are mixing themselves up in chaotic conflict.

I don't disagree with this assessment, I just think that it is possible, in theory, for individuals caught up in such conflict to have other qualities that outweigh or counteract the chaos, as far as alignment assessments go. Law/Chaos have a lot of different facets.

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.

Well, if he's building trust with a small handful of individuals, and destroying it with anyone outside it, I don't see how that's a net win for 'trust'. (Or maybe he's building trust with all the soldiers that work for him, but that's very difficult to do without exposing the fact that he basically runs the place, which defeats the purpose of shuffling the cabinet every few years. Organisations depend on information.)

Carry2, since you have apparently returned to this thread but not responded to this:
Can you describe your concept of an unambiguously Lawful Evil character who is not insane?

Kish, I think that because I have (A) pointed out that Tarquin commits many Chaotic acts, and (B) that Lawful Stupid exists, and is still Lawful, you are jumping to the conclusion (C) that nothing exists between these extremes. I have frankly been reluctant to respond to this notion on the basis that it's beneath you. But, FWIW, here is how a hypothetical alt-Tarquin might have responded to events in the strip:


"General, might I suggest setting some of our prisoners on fire to spell out a welcome message to your son?"
"That would be an inefficient use of transport resources. Crucify them in their home districts as per standard protocol."

"General, your son Nale has returned, having been captured skulking about the palace."
"Nale and his associates are guilty of sedition and rebellion, and too dangerous to be kept alive. Extract any useful information from them under torture, then execute them at dawn."

"General, the bounty hunter is demanding compensation due to misleading information on the reward posting."
"It was highly unlikely Elan would be on this continent, and I will not be extorted from due to factors beyond my control. Update the reward postings and ensure the proper paperwork is filed, but throw the bounty hunter out."

"General, the envoy from the Free City of Doom is petitioning we send relief forces."
"I will agree to send a legion of our men, provided she agree to a permanent military base within the city and yields a regular tribute of slaves and gold. If she refuses, tell her we will ally with her enemies instead."

"General, interrogation of the prisoner has revealed the coordinates of a so-called 'Gate' that may hold the key to world domination."
"Assemble a platoon of crack troops so that we may seize the location at once. Place a double guard on Elan and his associates to ensure they do not leave the city pending the investigation- their interference raises too many uncertainties."


Now, there's no guarantee that this alt-Tarquin would be (A) as entertaining or (B) as effective at unifying the continent. But he'd be a lot less ambiguously Lawful.

Anyway. At this point the debate is only going to wind up going in circles (or, rather, being forced to continually re-quote old arguments because nobody wants to dig through 20 pages of dense wall-of-text.) So I'll just call it quits at that.

[Tragak]

Carry2, since you have apparently returned to this thread but not responded to this:
Can you describe your concept of an unambiguously Lawful Evil character who is not insane?

No, he can't. Even though everybody else can.

[Kish]

So I'll just call it quits at that.

And I'll just note that, no, you cannot describe your concept of a Lawful Evil character who is not insane. Though you sure can throw a lot of words at not doing so!

(Hint: "How would a hypothetical alt-Tarquin have responded to events in the comic?" is not what I asked.)

[Carry2]

Guys, I've described a LE dictator in Tarquin's position who faces similar decisions, and responds to them in a rational and nasty way. Without breaking his word, breaking his alliances, or breaking his own law. I don't know what else you are looking for. *shrugs* Sorry I couldn't help.

I'm having a hard time understanding the point you're trying to make here, and all I get from the linked article is that the author doesn't understand Star Trek's Prime Directive. It might help if you summarized and/or rephrased.

My point is that the specific premise of Star Trek as a setting should actually make it very difficult or unlikely for the crew of the enterprise to get embroiled in strange and unexpected situations as frequently as they do. The prime directive forbids interference in external alien cultures, while the Federation being a post-scarcity panglossian utopia makes it difficult to generate drama from the inside. (Roddenberry's standing order of 'no disagreements among the crew' in TNG was basically this in microcosm.) Freaky alien stuff really has to come to them, because they're supposed to have a standing policy of not touching freaky alien stuff. I love Star Trek anyway, but I'm a little more conscious of it's flaws with the benefit of hindsight.

But as for whether it's possible to actively go adventuring and stir up chaos and still be Lawful, what I'm saying is that yes, it's possible. But, IMHO, you have to do a bunch of other lawful stuff to compensate, and I suppose in that regard, the enterprise crew are not the worst example.

I disagree Kish makes any such implications. There's proximity in Roy's decision to not save Elan to Elan's potential death...

Physical proximity is not the question here. Ability to act and have an impact is. The alternative is basically saying 'things I can't see don't have moral importance', which is barely better than saying 'things I can't see don't really exist'.

...And I'm really gonna have to leave it at that.

[Reddish Mage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Whether the party is good, evil, lawful, chaotic aligned, or (as usual) all mixed up, having adventures means they are mixing themselves up in chaotic conflict.

I don't disagree with this assessment, I just think that it is possible, in theory, for individuals caught up in such conflict to have other qualities that outweigh or counteract the chaos, as far as alignment assessments go. Law/Chaos have a lot of different facets.

I don't disagree with this point.

[Kish]

Guys, I've described a LE dictator in Tarquin's position

Hold up. You've declared that Tarquin's position (which is based on manipulating the Western Continent) is inherently Chaotic. So, if he didn't care about his family and killed anyone who was any sort of threat to him or went against him in an unimaginatively brutal way, you'd stop going on about the inherent chaos of conquest and deception? I'm skeptical.

I don't know what else you are looking for. *shrugs* Sorry I couldn't help.

I'm looking, for the third time, for your description of your concept of a sane Lawful Evil character. Not for "what features of Tarquin do you believe are Chaotic?"--that, if nothing else, you have said many times--and not a way to make changes to someone else's character to create a character who you might theoretically grant was Lawful Evil.

If you genuinely have such a concept, then describe it. Start from the beginning, not from "alt-Tarquin." If you reply to the first paragraph of this post but not this one, I will take that as indicating that no, you have no concept of a sane Lawful Evil character.

[multilis]

"No, in a civilized society, you can't lawfully kill someone for a crime you can't prove."

A group of paladins attack a goblin village, killing everyone. The goblin village is civilized and lawful society. If the paladins commit a single unlawful act they are no longer paladins. They can not prove all the villagers including women and children committed crimes deserving death.

(The adventurers may come from a different society than the target, and may not accept the authority of the local government. The village may be small enough to have a government of 1 who acts as both leader and judge. Appointing a "neutral" rather than "evil" supreme leader/high priest of the dark one may not stop the paladins even though government alignment may be "neutral")

[Kish]

If you genuinely have such a concept, then describe it. Start from the beginning, not from "alt-Tarquin." If you reply to the first paragraph of this post but not this one, I will take that as indicating that no, you have no concept of a sane Lawful Evil character.

...And I should have added, "When I say 'reply,' I mean to include PMs as well as the board."

Carry2, this thread has been about you, and only you, arguing with other people (including Rich!) about your...odd...concept of what it means to be Lawful for most of the thread's existence. If you wish to drop it and stop posting now, do so. But I'm not interested in discussing what it would take for you to believe Tarquin is Lawful by PM.

[ORione]

If the paladins commit a single unlawful act they are no longer paladins.

Not true. At least, not true in 3.X. They can do Chaotic things occasionally, as long as they maintain a Lawful alignment.

[multilis]

Not true. At least, not true in 3.X. They can do Chaotic things occasionally, as long as they maintain a Lawful alignment.

You are correct, I was wrong.

If each paladin kills 10 goblin villagers in my above example, does that count as 10 chaotic acts? Is there a limit of civilized goblin villages and/or villagers a paladin can kill and still be a paladin?

Does it make a difference if dark one appoints a neutral high priest as sole leader/judge as a defense against paladin attack?

Can goblintopia built over the ruins of former paladin city be made a civilized government (to paladins), and thus eventually chaotic acts for a group of paladin adventurers to make war on city? What would be needed, appoint a neutral goblin, or appoint a lawful other species as judge or mayor?

(I think it matters quite a bit whether the society that the "group of paladin adventurers" belong to "recognises" the local government as legit, rather than just an alignment game.)

[Carry2]

But I'm not interested in discussing what it would take for you to believe Tarquin is Lawful by PM.

Kish, since you were gracious enough to conclude this discussion by PM, allow me to return the compliment. You are now on my ignore list. For whatever that's worth.

EDIT: The rest of you are okay.

[Tragak]

Kish, since you were gracious enough to conclude this discussion by PM, allow me to return the compliment. You are now on my ignore list. For whatever that's worth.

What about everybody else here?

[Sir_Leorik]

And even for the three evil alignments, your Chaotic Evil scenario has him not noticing the sun beginning to set. Apparently "Chaotic" means "Really low Wisdom."

In the "Ravenloft" Campaign Setting the sun sets when its most dramatically appropriate, even if it there should be four hours of daylight left. Especially when you live in a land plagued with eternal winter.

[Reddish Mage]

What about everybody else here?

I'm all for moving from the tension as to wether Carry2 can encapsulate his conception of LE (sounds to me that conception is of someone who sticks to their own rules while being ruthless and efficient, and not someone who is constantly twisting or selectively ignoring the rules to suit their own personal whims) and ask about the evidence that "Lawful" characters have certain traits in OOTS.

I think I can identify several based on quite a bit of comic evidence: Lawful people by and large are 1) Responsible, as Roy should have been with Elan, or as Haley notes how much more responsible Roy is after he is resurrected 2) Willing to impose their ideas on others (can't find that one strip about Lawful people imposing their ideas on others...) 3) Stick to agreements (Nale mentions doing so early on, and not doing so is what keeps Eugene from the LG afterlife) 4) Follow laws, procedures, and established authority when possible (see Durkon's behavior in the Empire of Blood) 5) Come up with lawyerly-type of rationalizations when engaged with rule dodging

[Kish]

In the "Ravenloft" Campaign Setting the sun sets when its most dramatically appropriate, even if it there should be four hours of daylight left. Especially when you live in a land plagued with eternal winter.

That's not the point. All three of your "Chaotic" examples show, or consist of, having really low Wisdom. And as Math Mage says, your "Chaotic Neutral" character acts like Belkar--and acts more evil than your Lawful Evil character.

Chaotic Good is not "less good" than Lawful Good; Chaotic Evil is not "more evil" than Lawful Evil.