Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Tragak]

2) Willing to impose their ideas on others (can't find that one strip about Lawful people imposing their ideas on others...)

Here and here

[Math_Mage]

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.)

I think the main point worthy of dispute here is whether Roy was making an honest assessment of the threat, or whether he was just rationalizing his decision to abandon the annoying Elan. After all, he hasn't actually scoped out the bandit camp to any significant extent. He doesn't know about Samantha. He wasn't so concerned about the raiding party taking their lives as their valuables.

Neutral Roy would mount a recon mission and give up if the going got tough. Good Roy would mount a rescue mission. Non-Evil Roy does not simply walk away.

[Reddish Mage]

I think the main point worthy of dispute here is whether Roy was making an honest assessment of the threat, or whether he was just rationalizing his decision to abandon the annoying Elan. After all, he hasn't actually scoped out the bandit camp to any significant extent. He doesn't know about Samantha. He wasn't so concerned about the raiding party taking their lives as their valuables.

Neutral Roy would mount a recon mission and give up if the going got tough. Good Roy would mount a rescue mission. Non-Evil Roy does not simply walk away.

All the information we have on whether its just a "rationalization" or not is right here 153. Up till now I thought it was agreed it was a rationalization. It sure looks like it the way Roy first argues that Elan isn't a team member and only then that it is suicide (which doesn't mean Roy is wrong about the danger, its one thing to not be threatened by a small raiding party, its quite another to go into their camp and have to fight everyone).

Your notion of what makes for non-evil looks a lot stricter than was presented earlier. I didn't here anyone argue that a neutral character would at least recon a potentially dangerous situation to ascertain for certain the extent of the danger. A neutral character, says SRD, "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." That seems to allow the neutral character the ability to walk away.

I'm confused about exactly the standard for evil here. The SRD standard is pretty clear: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." That's an active standard, the explanatory text is all about active harm-causing. To this Kish added "walking away from a friend and ally in dire need" is also evil (at least if the situation isn't dangerous, or perhaps if the danger isn't particularly troubling to the decision-maker). Now there appears to be an obligation to properly assess the danger!

I've never seen the bar for "non-evil" set so high, no wonder people earlier were arguing that the "detect evil" spell will detect people who have done nothing wrong other than perhaps having ill-formed thoughts of malice that they haven't acted upon.

[veti]

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.

No. Even going without food himself would jeopardise his family, as it reduces his ability to take care of them.

My idea of LG: takes the merchant, not home, but to the healer (who is better able to take care of him), and tells the healer to keep an account of his expenses, which can be presented to the merchant as a bill when he's well enough to pay it. He probably visits every day, as time allows, to see if there's anything more he can do. In due course, if the merchant doesn't offer any reward voluntarily, he might - well within alignment - present a bill for his own rescue services, plus anything else he's been called upon to do in this capacity. After all, the man is clearly well able to pay for these services - there's no reason he should need charity that should rightfully be given to those who don't have such ample means.

One thing he certainly doesn't do is: show less commitment to his own family than a neutral or evil character would have done. If Fyodor is the sole, or even main, breadwinner for his family, then risking his own life and health is not a Good act. It may be justified to prevent a greater evil (leaving the stranger to die), but in itself there is nothing remotely virtuous about it.

You might clarify the issue more if you remove the possibility of reward from the scenario completely. Instead of a wealthy merchant, have Fyodor come across a ragged, smelly hobo, whose worldly wealth amounts to 3 c.p., a slightly mouldy hunk of bread and a four-month-old copy of Hello! magazine.

[Kish]

I'm confused about exactly the standard for evil here. The SRD standard is pretty clear: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." That's an active standard, the explanatory text is all about active harm-causing.

I have a massive objection to "active" vs. "passive" being treated as a moral issue.

Your statement that "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" is "an active standard" is at best extremely debatable. But not, unfortunately, legal to debate here; I'm sorry about speaking this elliptically, but anything more direct would run afoul of the Morally Justified ban.

[BroomGuys]

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

This is something I've kinda wondered about in Oots. The Deva evaluating Roy implicitly refers to NG and CG as "easier" alignments, and the whole evaluation thing plays out like the question is "did Roy manage to earn a LG alignment, or does he get shipped off to NG?"

If LG has greater rewards in the afterlife, that sort of implies that NG and CG are not as positive as moral achievements in life. But this is illogical: "not as positive" pretty much means "not as good," since that is the entire concept of Goodness as I understand it. Conversely, if NG and CG are just different starting points up the same mountain, that sort of undercuts the (in my opinion) very good message that Roy's continued efforts to be LG are what's important.

Obviously this represents a question of ethics that we could debate for hours upon end; also obviously, the alignment spectrum is a simplification of morality that serves a pragmatic purpose in role-playing, or in this case storytelling. But given how Oots explicitly and deliberately problematizes the alignment system, I think we just don't have this answer in-story yet, and I rather look forward to seeing Rich's take on it.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Easier does not mean better or worse. Lawful alignments mean following more rules, so they're by definition harder to maintain than Chaotic alignments, but that doesn't make LG "more good" than CG.

Also the "greater rewards" thing is not at all established and probably not true.

[Reddish Mage]

I have a massive objection to "active" vs. "passive" being treated as a moral issue.

That would put you in extreme minority status if you think that "allowing to happen" is the same as "actively bringing about."

{EDIT - Not that there's anything wrong about being in minority status on morality, but then your opinion on the subject doesn't make for a solid basis for evaluating the alignment system or OOTS, which is based on a common fantasy-reader's conception of morality. }

This is something I've kinda wondered about in Oots. The Deva evaluating Roy implicitly refers to NG and CG as "easier" alignments, and the whole evaluation thing plays out like the question is "did Roy manage to earn a LG alignment, or does he get shipped off to NG?"

We are talking about a Lawful Good Deva here, and she didn't actually say anything about NG or CG being easier that I recall (please correct me with a link if I'm wrong). It would certainly be easier on her since she is only deals with the categories of "LG" and "somebody else's problem."

[BroomGuys]

Easier does not mean better or worse. Lawful alignments mean following more rules, so they're by definition harder to maintain than Chaotic alignments, but that doesn't make LG "more good" than CG.

Also the "greater rewards" thing is not at all established and probably not true.

But the dialogue really plays out like Roy would be pretty bummed if he got sent to the NG afterlife. The scene really loses its impact if it doesn't matter so much whether he "gets in" or not.

Edit: The link in this post also includes this quote from the Deva: "They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier." This comes directly as she's explaining why she doesn't chuck Roy down to the NG afterlife.

[Thokk_Smash]

But the dialogue really plays out like Roy would be pretty bummed if he got sent to the NG afterlife. The scene really loses its impact if it doesn't matter so much whether he "gets in" or not.

Edit: The link in this post also includes this quote from the Deva: "They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier." This comes directly as she's explaining why she doesn't chuck Roy down to the NG afterlife.

He'd never be able to see his family again if he'd gone to the NG afterlife. He would've never been able to see his baby brother again. At least, from what I remember, you can't hop across to another afterlife to visit people.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Also, sure, maybe the NG afterlife wouldn't be as good as the LG afterlife for Roy. And presumably Elan would strongly prefer the CG one. Individuals are absolutely going to have different ideas about what rewards are better and worse. "Paradise" looks different to different people.

Objectively though? CG is not "less good" than LG, and CE is not "more evil" than LE.

[veti]

This is something I've kinda wondered about in Oots. The Deva evaluating Roy implicitly refers to NG and CG as "easier" alignments, and the whole evaluation thing plays out like the question is "did Roy manage to earn a LG alignment, or does he get shipped off to NG?"

It's possible that Roy's entire entrance interview scene is, basically, staged. After all, as many thoughtful readers have already concluded, most of Heaven clearly isn't what it appears to be. (Who are the other participants in the Debate Hall Where You're Always Right? How about the other people in the Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands, and what happens if you want to see one of them again? How did Eric get in, despite being too young to have an alignment?)

Then the point of the interview is not to assess Roy - the outcome is a foregone conclusion - but to prepare him. It's to make him face up honestly to his own life and faults. There's a close parallel for that in at least one real-world religion that I'll refrain from saying any more about, except to mention that Dante wrote about it at length. (And since Rich also uses the mountain-climbing metaphor, it seems plausible that Dante may well be a direct or indirect source of inspiration.)

[BroomGuys]

He'd never be able to see his family again if he'd gone to the NG afterlife. He would've never been able to see his baby brother again. At least, from what I remember, you can't hop across to another afterlife to visit people.

That is definitely a good point. But I get the very strong feeling from reading it that there's more to it than that, particularly because Roy didn't know his little brother was in the LG afterlife. Additionally, Windstriker will be able to visit Miko, and while I'm not especially knowledgeable about fallen paladins, would she even be in one of the Good afterlives? I'd interpret this as meaning you can visit other afterlives, but Elan's song seems to say otherwise.

In any case, I don't think the fact that Roy's family is in the LG afterlife quite explains why it seems to be presented as the "highest" one (whatever that means).

[Reddish Mage]

But the dialogue really plays out like [URL="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html"]
Edit: The link in this post also includes this quote from the Deva: "They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier." This comes directly as she's explaining why she doesn't chuck Roy down to the NG afterlife.

I think you are right about it being easier to be neutral. In an earlier post the Giant said it takes greater than usual effort to be lawful. The default alignment in D&D is neutral. I think adventurers, in particular, will find the chaotic alignment easy to keep, as its easy for them to value freedom over authority and conformity, not necessarily that easy for the corporate salaryman, soldier, bureaucrat and other types working in lawful environments (particularly low to mid-level non-creative types).

[Reddish Mage]

That is definitely a good point. But I get the very strong feeling from reading it that there's more to it than that, particularly because Roy didn't know his little brother was in the LG afterlife. Additionally, Windstriker will be able to visit Miko, and while I'm not especially knowledgeable about fallen paladins, would she even be in one of the Good afterlives? I'd interpret this as meaning you can visit other afterlives, but Elan's song seems to say otherwise.

In any case, I don't think the fact that Roy's family is in the LG afterlife quite explains why it seems to be presented as the "highest" one (whatever that means).

This can be dealt with better by others with but if she went to LG/LN Arcadia, its connected to the Lawful Good realm.

[Kish]

That would put you in extreme minority status if you think that "allowing to happen" is the same as "actively bringing about."

I doubt that.

In any case, the moral standard of the D&D Player's Handbook is based on the writer's opinion--not some kind of vote. If it wasn't, based on my observations here and on the Internet in general, I imagine it wouldn't be evil to judge races rather than individuals...and yet, there it is, in the description of the Lawful Evil alignment.

[SaintRidley]

How did Eric get in, despite being too young to have an alignment?

He got grandfathered in. And that's not just for the sake of the pun, but I think the most likely explanation is that his grandfather was his dead next of kin whose alignment most matched his living family's.

[Thokk_Smash]

That is definitely a good point. But I get the very strong feeling from reading it that there's more to it than that, particularly because Roy didn't know his little brother was in the LG afterlife. Additionally, Windstriker will be able to visit Miko, and while I'm not especially knowledgeable about fallen paladins, would she even be in one of the Good afterlives? I'd interpret this as meaning you can visit other afterlives, but Elan's song seems to say otherwise.

In any case, I don't think the fact that Roy's family is in the LG afterlife quite explains why it seems to be presented as the "highest" one (whatever that means).

Right, I'd forgotten he didn't know his brother was there. I still think that not being able to see your family when you would otherwise have been able to is still a good reason to be dismayed. Assuming you can't travel between afterlives, which of course may be possible.

Couldn't it just be that it's the "highest" in that it's the most prestigious? It's the loftiest goal, like that one achievement you spend months of tireless dedication to get. Roy himself probably considered himself to be Lawful Good in the end, so part of his dismay at the thought of not getting in could be that he wanted to be Lawful Good, and anything less isn't good enough. To him, he won't settle for less than Lawful Good (and that's part of the reason the deva lets him in). I mean, think about it: if you'd spent your whole life thinking you were one thing, wouldn't you be crushed to find that the Powers that Be don't consider you to be that defining thing? (Apologies if I'm not explaining it well).

And another thing: like Rodney said earlier, a Chaotic character would definitely not find the LG afterlife to be their Paradise, so I agree with him that there is no objectively "better" afterlife.

[Kish]

This is something I've kinda wondered about in Oots. The Deva evaluating Roy implicitly refers to NG and CG as "easier" alignments, and the whole evaluation thing plays out like the question is "did Roy manage to earn a LG alignment, or does he get shipped off to NG?"

If LG has greater rewards in the afterlife, that sort of implies that NG and CG are not as positive as moral achievements in life. But this is illogical: "not as positive" pretty much means "not as good," since that is the entire concept of Goodness as I understand it. Conversely, if NG and CG are just different starting points up the same mountain, that sort of undercuts the (in my opinion) very good message that Roy's continued efforts to be LG are what's important.

Roy wants to be Lawful Good. For him, if he was Neutral Good instead, it would mean he failed--failed in upholding the self-image he has, failed in being what he wants to be, failed in being the alignment both he and the Lawful Good deva consider to be best.

That doesn't imply that Elan would be less upset, were a Chaotic Good deva to tell him, "I'm not sure you've actually been Chaotic enough. Let's have a look..." Or that a hypothetical Neutral Good character, were there anyone in the strip who wasn't a polar alignment* would not consider it a failure to be classified as either Lawful or Chaotic.

* Vaarsuvius doesn't count!

[Reddish Mage]

Right, I'd forgotten he didn't know his brother was there. I still think that not being able to see your family when you would otherwise have been able to is still a good reason to be dismayed. Assuming you can't travel between afterlives, which of course may be possible.

Couldn't it just be that it's the "highest" in that it's the most prestigious? It's the loftiest goal, like that one achievement you spend months of tireless dedication to get. Roy himself probably considered himself to be Lawful Good in the end, so part of his dismay at the thought of not getting in could be that he wanted to be Lawful Good, and anything less isn't good enough. To him, he won't settle for less than Lawful Good (and that's part of the reason the deva lets him in). I mean, think about it: if you'd spent your whole life thinking you were one thing, wouldn't you be crushed to find that the Powers that Be don't consider you to be that defining thing? (Apologies if I'm not explaining it well).

And another thing: like Rodney said earlier, a Chaotic character would definitely not find the LG afterlife to be their Paradise, so I agree with him that there is no objectively "better" afterlife.

I think the "evil" one's are objectively pretty bad. Also, that Chaotic Neutral one wasn't that appealing.

[rodneyAnonymous]

The comparison was on the Law-Chaos axis, not the Good-Evil axis.

[Tragak]

I think the "evil" one's are objectively pretty bad. Also, that Chaotic Neutral one wasn't that appealing.

Each afterlife is an increased version of what the dead people in it wanted the mortal world to look like and what the Outsiders in it want the whole world to look like.

The Evil afterlives are extremely bad for however long it takes to establish your own dominance. If you wanted a world where the people around you have to put in everything they have just to defend themselves from you, then you have to defend yourself even harder. But that doesn't sound like an ideal world, so it doesn't look like either of us is Evil.

The Chaotic Neutral afterlife as an artistic, exuberant madhouse created by those who spent their lives wanting mostly to be left alone to create their own little worlds. But that doesn't sound like an ideal world, so it doesn't look like either of us is Chaotic Neutral.

[Reddish Mage]

I doubt that.

In any case, the moral standard of the D&D Player's Handbook is based on the writer's opinion--not some kind of vote. If it wasn't, based on my observations here and on the Internet in general, I imagine it wouldn't be evil to judge races rather than individuals...and yet, there it is, in the description of the Lawful Evil alignment.

Your right in that the official alignment rules is not a vote. However in the absence of clarity from WoTC, what is written is so vague we have naught but to take general conceptions of these notions to fill in the gap.

[warrl]

Kish, I think that because I have (A) pointed out that Tarquin commits many Chaotic acts

False. You've claimed it, repeatedly, but not shown it. You keep on bringing up the same specifics again, even after others have shown that those specifics do not support your case.

, and (B) that Lawful Stupid exists, and is still Lawful, you are jumping to the conclusion (C) that nothing exists between these extremes.

That's because every action that doesn't qualify as Lawful Stupid, you - and ONLY you - use as an example of a Chaotic action.

Deceit - officially, by D&D rules and real-world examples, NOT CHAOTIC, but you use it as proof that Tarquin is Chaotic.

Making war - I showed at some length how it is SOMETIMES Lawful, in the sense of advancing Law in general, but you still assert that it's automatically Chaotic.

[warrl]

Additionally, Windstriker will be able to visit Miko, and while I'm not especially knowledgeable about fallen paladins, would she even be in one of the Good afterlives? I'd interpret this as meaning you can visit other afterlives, but Elan's song seems to say otherwise.

Given that Miko hadn't fallen from Paladinhood long before, killing Shojo may have been Evil enough to bust her out of Paladinhood but not all the way to Neutral. I'd say there's a better chance that she loses Lawful, but still, the Neutral Good afterlife ain't the Seven Hells.

And Windstriker, who is not dead and also has some plane-hopping ability on his own, can visit her. There is no suggestion that she can go plane-hopping to visit him.

In any case, I don't think the fact that Roy's family is in the LG afterlife quite explains why it seems to be presented as the "highest" one (whatever that means).

Maybe the Good afterlives are partially a Deific version of Draketooth's illusion that recently trapped the OotS. Roy's (and his mother's) version of paradise would include little brother, therefore they perceive him as being there - even if he is not actually there. (And if he's too young to have an alignment, then there's no obvious problem with either assigning him his parents' alignment or having a default.)

[rodneyAnonymous]

It is possible that Miko remained Lawful Good after falling.

[thereaper]

But Tarquin also commits chaotic acts that have nothing to do with ensuring political stabilityt

You have yet to demonstrate this. Every one of the so-called "Chaotic" acts you have mentioned so far are either lawful or neutral in nature.

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.


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.)


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.

You honestly believe that being Lawful means having only one (very strict) way of punishing people?

Denying a bounty payment based on a technicality is less lawful than paying it (and then losing some paperwork to get back at them later)? Both are a manipulation of the law for one's own ends.

Look, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it in real life or not, lies by omission are not considered Chaotic in D&D. Stop trying to stealthily apply your own morality to D&D's alignment system.

If changing one's plans is Chaotic (as your first example claims), then sending a platoon of crack troops to seek out the gate must also be Chaotic, as your alt-Tarquin would be changing his plans on how to proceed in life. Even your hypothetical "perfectly Lawful" person is doing things you consider Chaotic. Once again, your definitions of "Lawful" and "Chaotic" simply don't work.

I also find it very odd that you continue to associate being Lawful with caring about written laws. Heck, the SRD's description of Lawful Evil starts with "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts."

In other words, even if you could demonstrate that Tarquin breaks his own laws (which would be hard to do, given that we don't know what they are), you still wouldn't be able to claim that he was Chaotic based on that, simply because what matters is how well he sticks to his principles. And guess what? He sticks to them like glue. He doesn't lie to people (except through lies of omission, which are not considered Chaotic in D&D), He conquers nations and puts into place legal systems that benefit him (and which he strongly enforces), and if his own legal system gets in his way he manipulates it instead of ignoring it. Heck, he even willingly accepts the potential negative consequences of his own actions down the line. These are all Lawful traits.

What are his so-called "Chaotic" traits? He misleads people (not Chaotic), he conquers through deception (not Chaotic either), he manipulates the law (also not Chaotic), and he has more than one way of dealing with problems (yet again, not Chaotic).

Your argument has no legs upon which to stand.

[Math_Mage]

All the information we have on whether its just a "rationalization" or not is right here 153. Up till now I thought it was agreed it was a rationalization. It sure looks like it the way Roy first argues that Elan isn't a team member and only then that it is suicide (which doesn't mean Roy is wrong about the danger, its one thing to not be threatened by a small raiding party, its quite another to go into their camp and have to fight everyone).

All right. If it is a rationalization, then Roy's defense disappears.

Your notion of what makes for non-evil looks a lot stricter than was presented earlier. I didn't here anyone argue that a neutral character would at least recon a potentially dangerous situation to ascertain for certain the extent of the danger. A neutral character, says SRD, "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." That seems to allow the neutral character the ability to walk away.

I'm not responsible for how other people define non-Evil. I discussed what CN Fyodor would do, right? That's the sort of tone I take with alignment.

Neutral characters do not have the freedom to walk away from any situation. They still have consciences; they still feel the desire or duty to help others, especially when their personal relationships or interests are involved.

What distinguishes the Good character? Extent: he values the well-being of everyone, even strangers. Selflessness: he consciously strives to do good for its own sake, rather than as a side effect of pursuing his own interests. Struggle: he will fight for the well-being of others even to his own detriment. The Good character is NOT distinguished merely by helping or protecting others; as we know, Evil people also do these things.

He who has the freedom to walk away from any situation has no conscience. A person with no conscience is not Neutral, but Evil.

I'm confused about exactly the standard for evil here. The SRD standard is pretty clear: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." That's an active standard, the explanatory text is all about active harm-causing. To this Kish added "walking away from a friend and ally in dire need" is also evil (at least if the situation isn't dangerous, or perhaps if the danger isn't particularly troubling to the decision-maker). Now there appears to be an obligation to properly assess the danger!

You would be well served to use the entire definition, rather than stripping the single phrase:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Clearly 'active' Evil is not the only kind of Evil there is. As I mentioned, having no conscience is another kind of Evil, and one the SRD covers.

I've never seen the bar for "non-evil" set so high, no wonder people earlier were arguing that the "detect evil" spell will detect people who have done nothing wrong other than perhaps having ill-formed thoughts of malice that they haven't acted upon.

In response, I give you the words of Helen Keller:
“Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.”

'Lacking a conscience', 'simply have no compassion', 'the apathy of human beings'--these are different ways of expressing the same basic concept: if you can prevent evil, and the only reason you don't is that you don't care if the evil happens, then you are complicit in that evil act.

So yes, Neutral Roy still has an obligation to at least make an effort to rescue Elan. Sure, if the going gets tough, he'll give up. But if he doesn't even try, that's Evil.

[Math_Mage]

Separately, for once:

I think you are right about it being easier to be neutral. In an earlier post the Giant said it takes greater than usual effort to be lawful. The default alignment in D&D is neutral. I think adventurers, in particular, will find the chaotic alignment easy to keep, as its easy for them to value freedom over authority and conformity, not necessarily that easy for the corporate salaryman, soldier, bureaucrat and other types working in lawful environments (particularly low to mid-level non-creative types).

What the Giant said was that it takes more effort than usual to adhere to a self-made code, because there is no external authority holding one to that code.

You previously conceded that adventuring is not a particularly Chaotic profession, even if it is a chaotic one. Are you going back to that? Because we can rehash that whole discussion, if you'd like, but I doubt we'll arrive at a different result.

But the dialogue really plays out like Roy would be pretty bummed if he got sent to the NG afterlife. The scene really loses its impact if it doesn't matter so much whether he "gets in" or not.

Edit: The link in this post also includes this quote from the Deva: "They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier." This comes directly as she's explaining why she doesn't chuck Roy down to the NG afterlife.

Each of these claims is interpreted through the lens of the person issuing them. The Deva considers the LG afterlife the ideal to strive for. The Deva thinks NG is to some extent an afterlife for people who couldn't hack it as Lawful. Roy thinks the same way.

But that doesn't make it so. The CG Deva will have different opinions on which afterlife is the best and which alignment is the hardest to adhere to.

There is a good case to be made, however, that being Neutral on either axis is objectively easier than being on either end of said axis, because people without strong tendencies end up as Neutral, while people with strong tendencies can be anywhere on the axis.

[theNater]

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.

The crew of the Enterprise, like most adventuring parties, goes to where the freaky alien stuff is. From a narrative perspective, there's not a lot of difference between Romulans being detected near the Neutral Zone and goblins being spotted in the Spooky Forest. Unless you're saying that the entire Federation would see freaky alien stuff less often than they do, which fails to account for the size of the Federation and the nuances of the Prime Directive.

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.

Going to where chaos is(which is what many adventuring groups do) isn't the same thing as stirring up chaos.

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?

Respecting legitimate authority is not the same as ignoring evil done by it. As such, that clause of the paladin code does not prohibit making war. Providing a formal declaration of war is an appropriate way to show respect to a ruler on whom one intends to make war.