Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[ZarDaranth]

I've always assumed that Xykon wouldn't really rule the world per se, just be the most powerful being that demanded lesser beings amuse him for the remainder of time.

Like a stereotypical dragon that abducts a maiden once a year from a small village.

[Sky_Schemer]

Sort of makes you wonder if Xykon has considered that, that if he had no interest ruling a city or territory, how interested will he be in ruling/governing the world?

I think the answer there is that, there's ruling the world, and then there's "ruling the world". The literal meaning is running and governing, while the colloquial version means "I am in charge and get to do what I want, when I want". Xykon is clearly more the latter than the former.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

[EmperorSarda]

I've always assumed that Xykon wouldn't really rule the world per se,

Well, not at all actually. But that's beside the point.

[tomandtish]

You mean besides the Mr. Jones' sworn depostion? Well, he seems to think that he's benefiting the Western Continent be lowering the amount of actual warfare, but that could be his attempt to justify his actions to himself, especially since he knows about the level of bloodletting that Malack is planning after Tarquin and his mortal allies die.

Technically that doesn't appear to be a sworn deposition. It's simply the stated basis for the suit, which may or may not be factual. If Tarquin IS LE, then it's a true statement. But Tarquin could NE or CE and lying. The lawyer isn't telling any lies by stating the grounds for the suit (since at that point he's speaking for the plaintiff, not on his own behalf).

Except that a lawyer of Mr. Jones' caliber would have a sworn deposition from Tarquin, Mommy (taken during discovery), a neutral spellcaster who cast detect law and from Tarquin's associates submitted into the trial record. That's not hearsay, that's direct testimony, which allows Mr. Jones to make the statement before the judge.

Certainly possible, but not shown and therefore speculation. If Tarquin wants his kids and thinks claiming to be LE is the best approach, magic can also be used to give that result if tested. All we know for certain is that Tarquin is claiming this as part of his suit. After all, we have to wonder about the court if claiming you are LE is a GOOD idea in a custody battle.

Note: I believe Tarquin IS LE, but technically the suit only shows that Tarquin is claiming it. It's only proof if we know characters cannot lie about their alignments (and even then, Jones is the one speaking).

[thereaper]

I'd like to thank all of the people who have been able to follow the forum rules in discussing this topic. This question has been threatening to tear my mind apart since it occurred to me, and I appreciate all the input.

...

But the answer to your broader question is usually, "No, in a civilized society, you can't lawfully kill someone for a crime you can't prove." You can do it, and possibly still be Lawful, but doing so is not going to be a Lawful act. Yes, that sometimes means that villains get away with things, but the alternative is anarchy, with people just randomly killing other people for made-up crimes. In most Lawful societies, the job of meting out justice does not lay with the citizenry, but with the police (or the knights, or whatever). If you're Lawful, you take your case to the authorities and try to convince them to arrest the villain. Or, you realize that one Chaotic act won't change your whole alignment and kill them anyway. And then maybe you turn yourself in for murder.

...

...

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

...

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

Then this begs a very important question:

If Roy had found Xykon in a town instead of a dungeon (where there would likely be no laws), and was unable to convince the authorities to arrest Xykon (likely, given that Roy would have had no proof), what would that have meant for the Blood Oath of Vengeance?

[The Giant]

If Roy had found Xykon in a town instead of a dungeon (where there would likely be no laws), and was unable to convince the authorities to arrest Xykon (likely, given that Roy would have had no proof), what would that have meant for the Blood Oath of Vengeance?

It's unanswerable, because so many things would have to be different in order for that to be the scenario. If you're imagining a version of Xykon who is both willing and able to hide his crimes in order to avoid prosecution, you're imagining an entirely different character. And Roy would likely go about challenging such a character in an entirely different way. But I'm not going to sit and figure out exactly what would happen in such a situation, because it's not relevant to the actual story that I'm telling.

I would, however, point out that Roy has turned Nale (or someone he thought was Nale) over to the authorities three separate times rather than killing him. So that should tell you something.

[Porthos]

Then this begs a very important question:

If Roy had found Xykon in a town instead of a dungeon (where there would likely be no laws), and was unable to convince the authorities to arrest Xykon (likely, given that Roy would have had no proof), what would that have meant for the Blood Oath of Vengeance?

Counter-factual:

Is Xykon really the type of 'person' who could chill in a city without getting a legitimate authority to want to get rid of him?

And before anyone brings up 'Xykon bribes the authorities to look the other way' and/or 'Xykon keeps the authorities too fearful to act against him'. Then it very well could be argued that it falls upon Roy to deal with Xykon. By capturing him and presenting evidence to the authorites, if need be.

And if said authorities prove themselves corrupt enough to just turn around and free Xykon (or something similar), then I think it is justifiable for Roy to conclude that the laws of the city he is dealing with is not worth being followed, and to deal with the problem.

And if he has to provide some sort of moral pennace afterwards? So be it.

EDIT::::

And, Ninja'd (to a degree) by The Giant himself.

Also, I was thinking exactly about Roy turning Nale in. I was simply extrapolating afterwards what might happen next.

[ZarDaranth]

I would assume that in that scenario, since Roy can't get evidence to convict Xykon, that it isn't the same Xykon as ours. Ours is rather haphazard with his carnage, and tends to leave evidence and take trophies.

But, back to your scenario. Roy, if it is the same Roy, would probably be like a **** Tracy and find evidence to prove Xykon's evil and murderous, given that Roy does try to follow societal laws when they are closer to his internal designation of L/G.

EDIT: I bow to Giant Fu. *strikes massive gong*

[sam79]

An internal code LE would have a strict set of rules that he would believe set himself "above" other criminals or tyrants—stuff like, "would never kill a child." If he violates that, he might well take it upon himself to punish himself for his own transgression, flogging himself for straying from his unholy righteous path.

A minor aside, but reading this made me immediately think of Ralph Fiennes' gangster cheif in 'In Bruges'; a character who enforced a personal moral code on his henchmen, but also on himself.

[theNater]

Which brings us to one other major character I don't think we've covered yet: Tarquin.

I've been assuming he's Lawful Evil, chiefly because of the verbal contortions he's prepared to go into to avoid telling a direct untruth (which seems to be a distinctively Lawful trait - compare Durkon, O-Chul, Redcloak) - but he's in a position where he pretty much makes up the law as he goes along. What, if anything, makes him 'lawful' in an alignment sense?

You'll note that Tarquin didn't care that Nale wanted to take over, but instead didn't like the way that he wanted to take over. Also, he refuses to let Elan win immediately because Elan has to earn his victory(and brood about it a bit beforehand). This is clearly a man who believes that procedure is important.

You'll also note that he recognizes that being a tyrant is likely to result in his death, but doesn't rail against it, become excessively paranoid, or retire to a safer life. He accepts that his violent death is a probable part of his plan, because that's just the way his plan works. That is some stone cold Lawful, right there.

[Bird]

Edit: wrong thread.

[pendell]

Counter-factual:

Is Xykon really the type of 'person' who could chill in a city without getting a legitimate authority to want to get rid of him?

Yes. For two reasons:

1) A city authority need not be lawful good. Consider that Xykon had resided quite happily as the guests of the rulers of Gobbotopia for a bit more than two full books now.

2) The city authority may, ironically, have the same use for Xykon as Roy has for Belkar. So long as he keeps the in-town or in-party antics to a minimum they will tolerate him for the massive damage he can do for invaders or for, ah, special tasks.


Also, I think the concept of vigilantism isn't really applicable to D&D adventuring. The whole point of an adventure group is that for the most part you exist outside a civilized setting. There are no police to ring up when there's trouble. If you ARE inside a city chances are it's a place like Gobbotopia or Greysky where the 'law' is simply the largest gang and even a paladin would think twice about simply handing over a criminal to the local authorities.

A closer real-world analog to the adventurer is the Privateer . Back in the 1600s, the crown had very few ships, men or money to spare for war in Caribbean waters -- they were needed in Europe -- but what the crown did have was a practically limitless supply of parchment and ink. So private warships were authorized. You didn't even have to pay them -- simply authorize them to keep the plunder they took from the enemy, provided they gave the crown a share.

And that's how Henry Morgan became Sir Henry Morgan and the Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica instead of being hung from a yardarm like almost all his colleagues in crime.

Or another example from the Wild West is the Posse . Amazingly enough, a town like Tombstone or Deadwood back in the 1800s didn't possess the money or funds to pay a full-time police department to keep the peace. So instead they'd hold an election, give the best gunfighter in town a tin star, and that person would be the sheriff. The sheriff would have the right and authority to 'deputize' any or all able-bodied townsfolk to assist in law enforcement.

When you don't live in a civilized society, ordinary people have to be the peacekeepers themselves. That's not 'vigilantism'. In many societies like the Caribbean or the Wild West, that's simply how things were. Society didn't have enough development or specialization to support a separate martial or law enforcement caste. So ordinary people were expected to understand the law and to be both willing and able to uphold it themselves.

That's why there's room for heroes in D&D and heroic fantasy. For a policeman or a soldier, risking your life for your fellow citizens is part of duty. It is, quite literally, the job. But in D&D perfectly ordinary people , the Frodos and the Bruenor Battlehammers, have to leave their forges and their farms and their comfortable homes and risk their lives against a terrible enemy, so terrible that the normal authorities are overwhelmed. They rise to the occasion and become heroes, the few to whom so much is owed by so many. And when they do this, they are not looked at as vigilantes or outside authority. More often than not, they BECOME the local authorities as the local king recognizes the adventurer's skill and appoints them to do the job they're already doing. That's why, in the old D&D rules, you typically got a keep and a holding at around sixth level or so.

At any rate, that's why "vigilantism" isn't really the right metaphor for most D&D. Because vigilantism assumes a level of civilization that simply doesn't exist in a typical D&D world. Even when there are lawful authorities such as those in Azure City or Cliffport there are still huge tracts of wasteland or wilderness where the only law is the one you carry in your sheathe with you. That's why the game is called 'Dungeons and Dragons' not 'Accountants and Advocates'. :)


Also ... I believe it was the Giant who mentioned that repeatedly Roy has turned in the Linear Guild to the proper authorities rather than killing them himself because it's the lawful thing to do.

Quite so. However, I would note that Roy kept Belkar with him in the party precisely because he didn't trust any lawful government to keep him in prison.

I suspect he's going to have a character-defining moment soon when he realizes the same thing applies to the Linear Guild, and that the 'lawful authority' -- Tarquin -- is actually one of the main members of the Linear Guild at this time.

I sincerely hope that, when the time comes for Roy to deal with these issues, the Giant won't simply let him off the horns of the moral dilemma by allowing all of them to be killed in combat, or to bring in some evil character whose job is to do the dirty work the heroes won't do. That seems to be a staple of some kinds of fiction -- the Lone Ranger can never take a life and always shoots the gun out of the bad guy's hand, and he's saved from making a choice because there's always some fortuitous coincidence that allows him to have his cake and eat it -- to have all the benefits of murder but not to be responsible for it himself.

I'm not saying that I want Roy to commit murder or to violate whatever laws Roy believes are applicable in this situation. But I'm hoping Roy and Elan will grapple honestly with these issues and come to some kind of conclusion that will be true to their characters.

ETA: Wait a minute -- evil character who will do the dirty work the good characters won't do -- that's the whole reason for Belkar's existence as a character, isn't it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Yes. For two reasons:

1) A city authority need not be lawful good. Consider that Xykon had resided quite happily as the guests of the rulers of Gobbotopia for a bit more than two full books now.

Really? I think the authorities in the city of Gobbotopia would generally quite like to get rid of him.

Even Redcloak, sunk-cost fallacy and all, might seriously consider replacing him with a browncloak if someone offered him a guaranteed method of getting rid of Xykon without dying or losing the city.

Also, I think the concept of vigilantism isn't really applicable to D&D adventuring. The whole point of an adventure group is that for the most part you exist outside a civilized setting. There are no police to ring up when there's trouble. If you ARE inside a city chances are it's a place like Gobbotopia or Greysky where the 'law' is simply the largest gang and even a paladin would think twice about simply handing over a criminal to the local authorities.

This argument makes my head hurt.

I promise, standard D&D groups do not avoid cities, and a ton of D&D material is dedicated to settings (like Azure City and Cliffport!) where good adventurers are likely to want the authorities to look favorably on them. If there's an actual adventure in (say) the city of Suzail in Cormyr, it might mean the city is being invaded by something (as in the Speaker in Dreams module, and like in Cliffport). Or...it might just mean that the villain from your previous adventure, who is standing in the middle of the marketplace and smirking at you, is not known to the authorities as a mass murderer. "You can be sure it will never come up" is not the correct answer to the question, "How should a Lawful Good character deal with a villain who is protected by a legitimate authority in a civilized area?"

[pendell]

"How should a Lawful Good character deal with a villain who is protected by a legitimate authority in a civilized area?"

True. I contend, however, that this is an exception and is not normal D&D adventuring. Normal D&D adventuring is Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors.

Well-ordered towns who aren't under threat by a terrible invasion or some other catastrophe aren't typically where adventures occur. Well-ordered towns are where you buy your equipment, rest up, heal at the local temple, and turn in captured bad guys to the local authorities.

At any rate, I can think of a couple of different answers to your question besides "it won't come up."

1) Make a case to the lawful authorities of the bad guys guilt, and work through the system to bring him to local justice or extradite him.

2) If a representative of lawful authority , perform a , hem hem, informal extradition. I think this is what Miko Miyazaki would do if she had encountered Roy and company in Cliffport. The Sapphire Guard have jurisdiction over all matters related to the gates and are not limited in scope, so she is wiithin her lawful authority to take them into custody even within the city of Cliffport. The Cliffport police might not agree, but she answers to Lord Shojo, not to them, and it is Lord Shojo who would call her to account.

3) If there is a lawful society which authorizes bounty hunting, it might be lawful for any person to apprehend the fugitives and turn them in or kill them if the bounty is "dead or alive". So if Enor were to encounter "Nale" in Cliffport, kidnap him, and deliver him to the Empire of Blood, this would still be a lawful neutral or lawful evil act, because this is completely legal in the Empire's eyes. They don't seem to be particularly interested in HOW someone winds up before the magistrate, only that they get there.

4) Wait for them to leave the city limits, THEN bust or kill them. If he's the kind of person who won't leave the city normally, find some way to lure them out, then apply a sap and whisk them off to the EOB for payment. Or, if the bounty is of the "dead or alive" variety, simply kill them on the spot and present the head for payment.


ETA: I may be mis-reading the thread, but so far as I can tell lawful means "adheres to some external code of conduct (or an internal one well defined)". It does NOT mean "respects the law of the land that I am currently in" if the aforesaid law of the land conflicts with the rights, duties and expectations of the authority you actually answer to.

Hinjo, who is the king of the land he lives in , does not have that conflict and in fact has a greater obligation to enforce the law on himself than any of his subjects do. None of his subjects can be expected to have greater obedience to the law than he himself does.

Raises a question: Who is Hinjo accountable to ? To the twelve gods? His own conscience? The nobles of Azure City?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

True. I contend, however, that this is an exception and is not normal D&D adventuring. Normal D&D adventuring is Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors.

Is it just me, or is the whole idea of there being a "normal" D&D adventure a bit of an oxymoron? Each one should be entirely unique--even if you're basing it on a well-known module like Keep on the Borderlands there's no reason the DM has to follow the letter of the scenario.

(In fact, one of the most fun times I ever had playing RPGs was in an ancient game called Star Frontiers. The entire scenario, as published, involved a creature escaping from the city zoo, finding its zookeeper on the far side of the city, killing him, and then returning to its cave. Myself and the other adventures were so hilariously inept at this, though--it took us a good half an hour to realise that shooting *lasers* at a mirror-surfaced beastie was a bad idea--that the DM decided to up the ante, and by the time we'd finished there was pretty much a war going on in the city!).

[Sky_Schemer]

True. I contend, however, that this is an exception and is not normal D&D adventuring. Normal D&D adventuring is Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors.

ToH is anything but normal. ;)

"Normal" is defined by your GM and your campaign and there's not one standard for it. I've been in three campaigns and all three have had significant encounters from published modules taking place within city limits.

However, even without specific city adventures, characters do not generally exist in a vacuum. Even if you did nothing but hack-and-slash dungeon adventures, there is still a larger world out there. It's up to you and your GM to decide how much to use it.

Raises a question: Who is Hinjo accountable to ? To the twelve gods? His own conscience? The nobles of Azure City?

In theory, a ruler is accountable to the people he or she rules.

[BenjCano]

The second page of this thread got me thinking about this quote from A Song of Ice and Fire when Jamie Lannister is talking about being known as an oathbreaker and betrayer due to his past deeds.

So many vows … they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or another.

It seems like a conflict-rich environment to examine a Lawful character who has to choose which of his or her oaths to break, if for example he or she was a knight sworn to obedience and to protect the innocent then ordered to go forth and burn a village down and kill everyone in it.

EDIT: Huh. Now I'm trying to decide what alignment Jaime Lannister and other characters from ASoIaF would be.

[ZarDaranth]

Raises a question: Who is Hinjo accountable to ? To the twelve gods? His own conscience? The nobles of Azure City?

As Hinjo is a man with many roles, he is held accountable for each role he plays.

1.) Hinjo, the ruler of the Azure City Refugees, is accountable to the refugees he leads.
2.) Hinjo, the noble of Azure City's Former Upper Class, is accountable to the nobility that still exists.
3.) Hinjo, the Leader of the Former Sapphire Guard, is accountable to whatever paladins survived as refugees.
4.) Hinjo, the paladin, is accountable to the Twelve Gods.
5.) Hinjo, the man, is accountable to his own conscience, his upbringing as Lawful Good, and the laws of whatever locality he is in.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, I think the concept of vigilantism isn't really applicable to D&D adventuring. The whole point of an adventure group is that for the most part you exist outside a civilized setting. There are no police to ring up when there's trouble. If you ARE inside a city chances are it's a place like Gobbotopia or Greysky where the 'law' is simply the largest gang and even a paladin would think twice about simply handing over a criminal to the local authorities.

That may have been true in 1974, but it has not been the case for a very long time. I can name dozens of adventures published by TSR, WotC, the RPGA and dozens of third party publishers which set adventurers in large urban environments (not towns or villages, but major metropolises). The earliest of these, "The City-State of the Invincible Overlord" from Judges Guild was published in 1976. It detailed a campaign set in a huge city ruled by a tyrant, where the PCs almost never set foot in a dungeon.

"D3: Vault of the Drow", published in 1978, is mostly a dungeon crawl, but the city of Erelhei-Cinlu is rather fleshed out and there is nothing to stop the PCs from engaging in intrigue rather than going from house to house killing Drow and Demons.

"B6: The Veiled Society" for Basic D&D in 1984, detailing a mystery set in the crime ridden city of Specularum. There are entire Planescape Campaigns that never leave Sigil because there's so much adventure there.

Half of the adventures I've designed for my Ravenloft campaigns are set in the cities of Port-a-Lucine, Ste. Ronges or Kantora. (The other half involve Mordentshire or Barovia.) Waterdeep, the City of Greyhawk, the city-state of Tyr (on Athas), Lankhmar and Ravens Bluff have all had multiple adventures set in them.

EDIT:

I contend, however, that this is an exception and is not normal D&D adventuring. Normal D&D adventuring is Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors.

A) "Tomb of Horrors" is not a normal D&D adventuring experience. There are almost no monsters to kill and very little treasure; its basically a series of death traps that require the players (not the PCs) to solve puzzles with almost no clues in order to move on. Its great fun to be able to beat it, but that's not a typical dungeon crawl.

B) D&D has expanded greatly from the sort of illogical, gilded holes that the Caves of Chaos (the dungeon from "B2: The Keep on the Borderlands") represents. The monsters in the Caves of Chaos lived in a bunch of caverns right across from each other. What do they eat? Why do they live so close together if they hate each other? At least the Lizardmen had the good sense to live in the swamps rather than the Caves.

If "Keep" were the final word in D&D you'd have a point, but the game began to evolve. TSR released "I6: Ravenloft" (assault a Vampire Lord's elaborately mapped castle and match wits with him), the Dragonlance Saga (you play a member of the Companions of the Lance in a high fantasy saga), the Forgotten Realms (where Waterdeep, Suzail and other cities were explicitly designed so that adventures could take place in them), Spelljammer, etc. Going and exploring a dungeon became just one of many goals an adventurer could have, and there were all sorts of ways for PCs to get into trouble in a city (much to the glee of DMs everywhere).

[Fish]

As a historical aside, there are other aspects of law which, in feudal societies, citizens took into their hands all the time. Land disputes and property borders, wills and inheritance, were brought before the local town meeting, where the people would decide among themselves who had broken the law and what the fine would be. The local lord couldn't be bothered with petty decisions like who accidentally plowed over whose property stake when he, the lord, was off bashing skulls in the king's war.

If you're imagining a version of Xykon who is both willing and able to hide his crimes in order to avoid prosecution, you're imagining an entirely different character. And Roy would likely go about challenging such a character in an entirely different way.

One would also have to imagine a Xykon who would not attack the moment Roy arrived -- a Xykon, that is, who is wise enough of or averse enough to the consequences of breaking the law that he doesn't strike first. In every RPG video game with legal consequences (Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, et al) the bandits attack you first. Other villains can be provoked into attacking first (often by revealing their schemes). Xykon would not fear to kill Roy, nor fear the consequences of doing so. Truly, laws in the earthly model are not very applicable to beings like these.

[David Argall]

A point to remember here is that we need some degree of balance in our alignment wheel. A good vs evil system needs as much good as evil, and our law vs chaos requires there be lots of both law and chaos.
We can vary with law vs neutral a fair amount and we don't need to be precise in any case, but our definitions of law, chaos, good, & evil need to be balanced. No matter how logical it may be to say X is lawful/chaotic, we need large amounts of both and a definition that produces too much of either is to be rejected no matter what logic says.
This in turn means that when one says X is lawful/chaotic, one needs to have in mind a Y that is chaotic/lawful. This hardly needs to be precise, and can be fairly vague, but we can't accept logic that makes everything lawful/chaotic.

[Sky_Schemer]

A point to remember here is that we need some degree of balance in our alignment wheel. A good vs evil system needs as much good as evil, and our law vs chaos requires there be lots of both law and chaos.

Uh, no.

A sufficiently clear and absolute definition of "good", "evil", "law", and "chaos" is all that is needed. Balance in numbers on either side of the scale has nothing at all to do with it.

Your approach is little more than an argument for moral relativism. Sorry, but no.

[Snails]

The fact that adventurers in D&D just don't follow the laws of a given society is because it is easier to just not take them strictly into account and usually they don't act in an environment that everyday people of that imaginary world act.

Careful.

Approximately one thousand years ago, murder was not really a crime. The consequence of dishing out violence is that the victims relatives would seek revenge. The idea that murder is the business of the State appears when rulers had sufficiently efficient administrators who could both quell local squabbles and gather those local resources for highly profitable attacks on the neighbors.

So when our imaginary world is "pseudo-medieval" and some regions are barbaric when compared to the Dark Ages and some other regions are enlightened when compared to the High Renaissance, all within mere days or weeks of travel time apart, do not be so sure you understand how PCs are supposed to think.

For purposes of OotSverse, it is apparent that Roy prefers to hand people over to local rulers to throw in jail, when possible. V's attitude is not outlandish in the least; murdering Kubota is a fine heroic thing to do if one can get away with it...in a very Not Lawful way of thinking.

[Fish]

A point to remember here is that we need some degree of balance in our alignment wheel. A good vs evil system needs as much good as evil, and our law vs chaos requires there be lots of both law and chaos.

I vehemently disagree on philosophical and historical grounds. It is not remotely necessary for the number of good beings to exactly balance the evil beings.

Consider: one thief can rob any of 100 houses in my village. So we, the 100, organize and defend, we watch one another, we agree to report suspicious behavior.

Consider: a thousand small Viking hordes, each ten men strong, can terrorize the towns of Europe, and prompt the organization of a decentralized defense system (feudal lords, fealty, knights supported by local resources) to repel them. 10K Vikings who steal and loot and kill and rob and burn, against ten million citizens.

In fact, it's pretty much always the way: serial killers vs society; the child watch system to locate missing or abducted children; a posse of townsfolk; the usual arrangement is a few evil folks outnumbered by the many who aren't. It is rarely ever, as you allege, a battle of even numbers.

[Sir_Leorik]

A point to remember here is that we need some degree of balance in our alignment wheel. A good vs evil system needs as much good as evil, and our law vs chaos requires there be lots of both law and chaos.

This idea of creating balance between Law and Chaos and between Good and Evil is the philosophy of the archmage Mordenkainen from the Greyhawk setting. While Mordenkainen will join forces with Good aligned heroes to keep Vecna, Iuz, Rary the Traitor or the Scarlet Brotherhood from conquering the Flanaess, he also works in secret to check the power of Lawful and Good forces to keep them from utterly destroying Evil. Never mind that there are plenty of Evil forces willing to fill the vacuum if Iuz were imprisoned or the Scarlet Brotherhood disbanded, Mordenkainen is just as fearful of what heroes might do if they were triumphant, so he seeks a balance. (Maybe Mordenkainen knows what happened to the Kingpriest of Istar after his crusade against Evil went to his head.)

We can vary with law vs neutral a fair amount and we don't need to be precise in any case, but our definitions of law, chaos, good, & evil need to be balanced. No matter how logical it may be to say X is lawful/chaotic, we need large amounts of both and a definition that produces too much of either is to be rejected no matter what logic says. This in turn means that when one says X is lawful/chaotic, one needs to have in mind a Y that is chaotic/lawful. This hardly needs to be precise, and can be fairly vague, but we can't accept logic that makes everything lawful/chaotic.

Um, what? That's not how the Alignment Axis works. Law opposes Chaos, Good opposes Evil; you pick a side and follow its way. If you don't want to pick a side you stay Neutral on that axis.

[Holy_Knight]

But Miko was also a Paladin and a Samurai. As a Paladin she was expected to follow the Paladin Code and the rules of the Sapphire Guard, which she was at best paying lip service to. And as a Samurai she probably should have committed suicide the second she was punished for murdering Lord Shojo. Instead she tried to rationalize her actions. That's a Chaotic attitude, one that she was probably headed for much earlier. Maybe if she'd been more concerned with introspection and kindness like O-Chul is, and less concerned with mattress tags going missing from beds, she wouldn't have been sliding down that slippery slope.

I don't think what Miko did was slide into Chaos--rather, I think she had a nervous breakdown and lost the ability to fit her worldview, her actions, and external events into a coherent picture of reality. What I mean is, she obviously committed a lot of transgressions, but I'm not sure "adopting a chaotic attitude" is the most accurate way to characterize it. I think she still believed in basically the same ideals she always had, but (wrongly) believed that most of the people around her/in charge had become corrupt.

Batman has a code of conduct. No matter how many times he breaks the law by assaulting someone, trespassing, tampering with a crime scene, kidnapping someone from a foreign country and dropping them off in front of GCPD headquarters, he has a code: he must never take someone's life. When he breaks the code at the end of the movie to save Gordon's son, Bruce Wayne is so traumatized that he spends the nearly a decade living as a reclusive invalid. (This makes "The Dark Knight Rises" almost make sense. Almost. ) Because he has a code, Batman is setting himself up for his eventual downfall in the Nolanverse, because in that world living by a personal code of right and wrong is meant to supplement obeying the law, not replace it. By putting his code above the law, Batman's hubris requires a fall from grace. The problem is that his redemption in "TDKR" was so ineptly handled. Seriously, having Dr. Shondra Kinsolving use her metahuman powers to heal Bruce's back would have required less suspension of disbelief than the magic chiropractor in the prison. But I can definitely see how Christopher Nolan's Batman could be considered Lawful Good, making him a perfect mirror image of the Joker.

I think you're right in broad strokes about Batman's (and the Joker's) alignment, but I disagree with some parts of your interpretation. First, I think it's important to note that the end of The Dark Knight doesn't show Batman breaking his code per se. That is, while Harvey does end up dying as direct result of Bruce's actions, his death was an unintended consequence of saving Gordon's son. That doesn't make it okay (certainly not in Bruce's eyes), but it wasn't a case of Batman deciding to forsake his code in order to achieve his goals. The code was still right, and he still believed in in it, but maintaining its ideals was at that moment beyond what he was physically capable of. (Unfortunately, Batman did have limits, despite Bruce's resolve to the contrary). As such, the reclusion in between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is not, or at least not primarily, penance for breaking a code. It's the essential non-existence of a man who believes himself to have nothing really to live for. Batman isn't needed anymore (and is wrongly believed to be a villain anyway) because Batman's reason for being was to save Gotham City. Since Rachel was the only thing giving him hope for a life after Batman, her death made Bruce Wayne's life pointless as well. So for eight years, Bruce was essentially just waiting around to die. When Gotham City is threatened again, Batman has a reason for existing again--but Bruce as a man still longs for death (as Bane recognizes). The redemption of TDKR, then, is not about atoning for past failures. It's about coming to terms with the fact that the eight-year-old boy whose world ended thirty years ago could have--and deserved to have--a happy life of his own. Batman "dies" saving Gotham City, and the dreams of Thomas and Martha Wayne are finally brough to fruition: a better life for the people of Gotham... and for their son, Bruce.

As a side note, I also found Bruce's months of rehabilitation (after being injured by a strong but not Venom-enhanced man) to be much more believable than being healed by sex with a psychic healer, but maybe that's just me.

[Sir_Leorik]

Approximately one thousand years ago, murder was not really a crime.

Do you have a source for that assertion Snails?

[Sir_Leorik]

I think you're right in broad strokes about Batman's (and the Joker's) alignment, but I disagree with some parts of your interpretation.

First, I think it's important to note that the end of The Dark Knight doesn't show Batman breaking his code per se. That is, while Harvey does end up dying as direct result of Bruce's actions, his death was an unintended consequence of saving Gordon's son. That doesn't make it okay (certainly not in Bruce's eyes), but it wasn't a case of Batman deciding to forsake his code in order to achieve his goals. The code was still right, and he still believed in in it, but maintaining its ideals was at that moment beyond what he was physically capable of. (Unfortunately, Batman did have limits, despite Bruce's resolve to the contrary). As such, the reclusion in between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is not, or at least not primarily, penance for breaking a code. It's the essential non-existence of a man who believes himself to have nothing really to live for. Batman isn't needed anymore (and is wrongly believed to be a villain anyway) because Batman's reason for being was to save Gotham City. Since Rachel was the only thing giving him hope for a life after Batman, her death made Bruce Wayne's life pointless as well. So for eight years, Bruce was essentially just waiting around to die.

True, but if Bruce hadn't felt overwhelmed with guilt for failing to save Rachel, failing to redeem Harvey and letting down Lucius and Alfred, he might have bounced back much faster from his physical injuries. Bruce living as a recluse for eight years makes more sense if we think of it as a self-inflicted penance rather than a result of not inventing renewable energy. (I think that whole bit with the reactor is easily the weakest element of "TDKR's" plot, and there are plenty of weak elements in that plot.) After his parents' murder the Bruce Wayne of the Nolan-verse had only one thing to live for: vengeance. Becoming Batman gave him something else to live for: an ideal of justice, hope that he could reform the city and that someday he'd be able to settle down with Rachel. But now Rachel's dead, the city's revival is based on a lie, and he broke his one rule: he doesn't kill anyone, not even by accident, not even to save a life. By setting his moral bar so high, Bruce Wayne set himself up for failure, which is part of what the Joker was hinting at to him in "TDK".

When Gotham City is threatened again, Batman has a reason for existing again--but Bruce as a man still longs for death (as Bane recognizes). The redemption of TDKR, then, is not about atoning for past failures. It's about coming to terms with the fact that the eight-year-old boy whose world ended thirty years ago could have--and deserved to have--a happy life of his own. Batman "dies" saving Gotham City, and the dreams of Thomas and Martha Wayne are finally brough to fruition: a better life for the people of Gotham... and for their son, Bruce.

I guess that's the main difference between the Nolan-verse Batman and the DCAU Batman; the Bruce Wayne from the DCAU never stops being Batman, even when he's grown too old and weak to put on the suit. The only reason Bruce Wayne retired (and ultimately went into seclusion) was revealed in the pilot episode of "Batman Beyond": decades after the events of "The New Batman Adventures" and "Justice League Unlimited", Batman tried to take on a group of kidnappers and save a young girl. During the fight, Bruce suffered a mild heart attack, and grabbed one of the kidnapper's guns to defend himself. He didn't actually fire the gun, just threatened the kidnapper, but Bruce was so disgusted with himself he hung up the suit. But he never stopped thinking of himself as Batman, and when Terry McGuinnis stole the Batsuit and Batmobile to bring his father's murderer to justice, Bruce decided to train Terry to be the new Batman. Even if he's nearly eighty, walks with a cane, has a heart condition and glaucoma, the Bruce Wayne of the DCAU is still Batman, even if he has to fight crime vicariously through Terry McGuinnis and his friend Maxine.

As a side note, I also found Bruce's months of rehabilitation (after being injured by a strong but not Venom-enhanced man) to be much more believable than being healed by sex with a psychic healer, but maybe that's just me.

That's because they didn't foreshadow her sexy healing superpowers properly! The Superman writers had already introduced Project: Cadmus, the Eradicator and Hank Henshaw (as a Fantastic Four expy) years before, so the pieces were all in place for three of the four "pretenders". (I'm not sure if Dr. John Irons, aka Steel, was introduced before "Adventures of Superman" #500 or not.) But at least Shondra was appearing in "Robin" as the therapist for Tim's dad for over a year before she cured Bruce's permanent spine injury.

[David Argall]

That's not how the Alignment Axis works. Law opposes Chaos, Good opposes Evil; you pick a side and follow its way. If you don't want to pick a side you stay Neutral on that axis.

I suspect you are misunderstanding. However, your argument supports mine. For Law to oppose Chaos, the two must be in some way equal in power. Otherwise you have one side winning, and the end of the opposition. You can pick either side, but in one way or another, somebody else will pick the other, and balance is maintained.
If we look at this from the game view, we also see the need for balance being the result. We don't want evil winning, but if good were to win, why would we have reason to go off and do heroic stuff? Our side is going to win anyway. So we need a situation of close to balance. Our boys won't win unless we get out of the bar and fight. So again we need this to be a near thing.

[hamishspence]

Equal in power doesn't necessarily mean equal in numbers.

The demons vastly outnumber the devils in the blood war, yet in this particular Law vs Chaos conflict, it's a stalement.