Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Sir_Leorik]

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.

They don't have to be equal in power or numbers, they only have to oppose each other. One Solar opposing dozens of Lemures is not an even fight, but the Solar is opposing the Lemures. Also, not everyone who has the same alignment is going to get along. Just look at how Miko was snubbed by the rest of the Sapphire Guard because of the way she treated them disdainfully, or the IFCC's declaration that they have nothing in common with Xykon or Redcloak and don't want them to succeed. Devils conspire against each other for station, Daemons compete for mercenary work and Demons treat each other as part of the food chain, and that's without taking the Blood War into account.

Speaking of the Blood War, in every incarnation of the War, since it was introduced in the "Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium" for 2E, the Demons (Ta'annari) always outnumber the Devils (Ba'atezu) 500 to 1. The Devils make up for that with better tactics, organization and weapons. Every Lord of the Nine is expected to pull his or her weight or answer to Asmodeus, while the Demon Princes bicker among themselves. Demogorgon's priorities are not the same as Graz'zt's, Kostchie and Baphomet hate each other passionately, Obox-Ob just wants to reminisce about the good old days, and Orcus is furious that he went through all that effort to resurrect himself from a mere Vestige only to find everyone slacking off. Not to mention Lolth became an actual goddess but now she's too busy planning to invade the Prime in her spider-ship. No wonder Orcus looks so mad on the cover to the 4E "Monster Manual".

[ChristianSt]

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.

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.

But numbers alone doesn't make a difference. Sure there is a struggle at every scale, but in any conflict there more variables than number of players on each side. If the overall power-level is close enough that neither site can win (or doesn't want to try if it can win - maybe the losses are too high to try), that's enough. And especially if you have gods and other such powerful entities, most mortal beings doesn't add that much. I wouldn't be surprised if say 50% of people in the Stickverse (or any other random fantasy setting) would be Good-aligned, 40% Neutral-aligned and only 10% Evil-aligned.

[Carry2]

Tarquin is Lawful partly because order is specifically one of his goals. To wit: "Everyone needs my kind of order."

Alignment is not just about methodology but also about desires and intents. Tarquin works to bring about an orderly law-driven empire that just so happens to have him at or near the top....

Since this is a point I raised in a previous thread and was, I feel, somewhat glibly dismissed, I'd appreciate it if you could find time to expand on this topic a little further. Specifically, I was sort of confused by why Shojo counts as Chaotic Good and Tarquin as Lawful Evil when both use fairly similar methods- deceit, manipulation, blackmail, subversion of the legal system- for fairly similar purposes- keeping a lot of squabbling local warlords in check and politically united under their rule. (We certainly have more evidence that Tarquin is Evil- though there's precious little evidence that Shojo is Good- but here I'd like to focus on their Law/Chaos credentials.)

If you concede that methodology at least influences alignment, it's hard to see how you can characterise Tarquin's methods as much less Chaotic than Shojo's. If, on the other hand, you can say that Tarquin is Lawful because the overall effect and intention of his policies is to unite and organise the continent, and that trumps or cancels out his methods, then I'm curious about how the overall effect and intention of Shojo's policies was so different, given that they served the purpose of keeping Azure city politically stable and unified for several decades. (Yes, yes, I know, Shojo's efforts went badly awry in the end. But if the Chaos that resulted cancels out his by-all-appearances-Lawful long-term intentions- i.e, alignment is predicated on effectiveness- then that also calls his Goodness into question.)

[Carry2]

I wouldn't be surprised if say 50% of people in the Stickverse (or any other random fantasy setting) would be Good-aligned, 40% Neutral-aligned and only 10% Evil-aligned.

Those numbers don't add up.

[Fish]

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. ... So again we need this to be a near thing.

No, I do not believe this assertion either.

An evil person can strike anywhere, any time, any victim. He may lay low for months or years. He is not compelled to forward his evil goals at all times and in all things. Nor is it necessary that every Good person devote his waking life to tracking down that Evil person, unceasing, never resting. Often, the good people and neutrals, and the evil as it suits them, go on with the business of building and running a city ... because someone must. Bridges must be built, walls repaired, soldiers trained, merchants taxed, bread baked, crops tended, and so on. 100% war, 24/7 vigilance, is not possible on the earthly planes.

As for the divines, that's a debatable point. Can a being of Good attack and destroy someone because of his alignment alone? That's the path of Miko, which Rich was attempting to parody as being shallow and psychopathic, barely better than the evil she claimed to be against.

[Sky_Schemer]

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.

No. And his argument does not support yours at all.

Even your revision of "equal in power" is not necessary for defining an alignment system, nor is it desirable. Good is good, evil is evil. It doesn't matter how many people choose evil and how powerful they do (or do not) become when they do so. The alignment system in D&D does not care one whit about how many people choose one alignment over the other. Alignments can be defined in absolutes.

[Sky_Schemer]

Those numbers don't add up.

Why do they have to?

There is not a relative scale here. For every person who believes in A, there does not also need to be a person who believes in B.

[Snails]

Do you have a source for that assertion Snails?

The usual practice under Salic law would be weregild -- a payment of compensatory "blood money" for injury/death regardless of fault. In our modern terms, that effectively makes murder a civil offense, not a crime in manner we think of criminal law.

Of course, sometimes the family might not choose to accept the weregild (or the perpetrator lacked the ability to pay), in which case punishment is the responsibility of kinsmen with skill for violence, and that means a clan feud, if one has the stomach for that kind of thing.

Charlemagne once famously bemoaned how he lacked the comforting company of kin. That was an "interesting" bit of testimony on his part. Charlemagne was a monster who managed to turn the usual Germanic justice system on his head. By acquiring great personal wealth, he was free to prey on his own clan and add their property to his own. As punishment was the responsibility of one's relatives, no one had direct responsibility for defending Charlemagne's relatives from Charlemagne -- that is a fight other German princes chose not to volunteer for.

The rise of the modern sense of criminal laws is explained by the musical "Camelot" -- Good King Arthur gave us courtly manners. Figuratively speaking, of course.

To achieve more political stability and crawl out of the Dark Ages, kings added pre-conditions to important appointments. The key innovation was that a holder of a king's high office may not choose to enter into combat (or prosecute a personal war) without first asking the king's permission. In the return, it was understood that to fight a high officer of the king without offering the king an opportunity to intercede would be interpreted as open rebellion against the king himself.

This cut down on the random deaths common to the testosterone-laden leadership class of the time, thereby helping kings have the fun opportunity to attack other kingdoms, rather than fight yet another boring civil war because a key ally died on the point of a sword (e.g. avenging some drunken insult at what passed for dinner parties).

Of course, some arrogant men of wealth in power would happily rub others' nose in this arrangement. Being a king's man meant you could, to some degree, insult others, while begging off defending oneself with steel, i.e. "I am so important I am not allowed to fight you. If you have a problem with that, you need to talk to my personal friend, the king."

Thus was born the courtly formalisms around handing out challenges and accepting duels, as minor nobles mimicked the habits of the high nobles of the king's court.

[veti]

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.

The complication there is that Lord Shojo would very likely prefer to be on good terms with the Cliffport authorities, which is hard to guarantee if his representatives start kidnapping people on their territory without reference to their laws. Miko is, among other things, an ambassador, and what she does reflects on Azure City itself.

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.

Yes, I don't doubt the Empire of Blood would be fine with that. It's not responsible for enforcing the law in Cliffport, after all. Cliffport law, on the other hand, would likely be quite upset, and Enor wouldn't safely be able to show his face there again for a long time. But unless there's an extradition treaty between the two (unlikely), and someone lodges an official request through channels for the EoB to return Enor to Cliffport for lawful trial, the EoB authorities would have no reason to do anything about it.

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

This has already been well answered, but just to throw in a little more:

To answer that question, all you need to do is think about what "accountable" means. Who can hold him to account? - obviously, anyone who knows about him can do that - O-Chul, any Azurite citizen, Elan, you or me. But whose accounting would he actually respect?

In his capacity as leader of various factions, he needs those factions to respect him enough to follow his lead. So "accountable" there means that they could lose respect and stop following him. In that sense, he's accountable to a working majority of Azurites, and to what's left of the Sapphire Guard. And as a paladin, he's also accountable to either the Twelve Gods (who could withdraw his paladinhood if he transgresses), or his paladinic code (which apparently is distinct and separate from Soon's oath). (We don't really know for sure whether 'Falling' is a punishment imposed by the gods, or as many people seem to argue, an automatic effect triggered by something above and beyond them. But whichever it is, it's something he's likely to keep in mind.)

[Snails]

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.

To tell an interesting story, our protagonists must find those places where conflict has larger stakes. The multiverse as a whole could well be 99.9999999999999999% Lawfully Lawful Goody Good (or any other alignment flavor). Heroes worth talking about wander into those niches where the balance makes for excitement.

I suspect the exact nature of Tarquin's LE-ness would be less fun to discuss if the Giant were telling a tale that entirely took place within the confines of Hell. He would be just another devil who fits in well enough.

[factotum]

Specifically, I was sort of confused by why Shojo counts as Chaotic Good and Tarquin as Lawful Evil when both use fairly similar methods- deceit, manipulation, blackmail, subversion of the legal system-

The critical difference would be, to my mind, that Tarquin uses the law to get what he wants--e.g. the two bounty hunters ended up in prison because the paperwork proving they were justified in their bar-room brawl went mysteriously missing, so the normal legal process dealt with them. Shojo, on the other hand, treated the law as little more than an inconvenience, frequently ignoring it entirely. Thus the difference in philosophy between them.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Specifically, I was sort of confused by why Shojo counts as Chaotic Good and Tarquin as Lawful Evil when both use fairly similar methods- deceit, manipulation, blackmail, subversion of the legal system- for fairly similar purposes- keeping a lot of squabbling local warlords in check and politically united under their rule.

Importantly, Tarquin created an orderly system, whereas Shojo subverted one.

[EmperorSarda]

The critical difference would be, to my mind, that Tarquin uses the law to get what he wants--e.g. the two bounty hunters ended up in prison because the paperwork proving they were justified in their bar-room brawl went mysteriously missing, so the normal legal process dealt with them. Shojo, on the other hand, treated the law as little more than an inconvenience, frequently ignoring it entirely. Thus the difference in philosophy between them.

Also, had the Bounty Hunters not gotten into that brawl or a similar situation that would require their bounty hunter paperwork, they likely would have left the city and nation in one piece.

[Amphiox]

As an aside into the realm of world-building, I would posit that, in a D&D setting, where adventurers wandering about is a common thing, the various states, principalities, cities and other legal authorities will have, on the books, a variety of codes and ordinances governing the issue of adventurer vigilantism.

Some of those codes may even supercede national laws, and have the force of international treaty.

It would be pretty irresponsible for any established legal authority not to have such laws (and means of enforcing them) in such a setting. It would be like a city in Tornado Alley not having building codes for tornado damage.

[tomandtish]

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.

Note: I’m avoiding any discussion of how I feel about these laws (or whether they are right or wrong), and am simply pointing out their existence.

Actually (thanks to multiple classes in ancient history), Greece had murder as a crime (with a punishment of exile) around 600 BC. China’s Quin law (written copies known to exist around 200 BC) had a death penalty for murder. Egypt’s Code of Ma’at discussed murder and punishments. So murder as a crime has been around for quite a while (much longer than just 1000 years).

Where problems may arise is changing definitions of murder and how /if the existing law of the time was enforced. Since murder is the unlawful killing of another, an act that might be murder if committed by one person (a slave or lower class citizen) might not be murder if committed by the nobility, and the law might actually spell this out.

Of course, even if the law said the act was murder, whether the decision was made by those in power to address the murder can always be a separate matter.

So using Azure City as a hypothetical example (we don’t know that much about their laws):

Xykon (human) arrives and is hiding out there and being quiet for a change.
Roy shows up and attacks and kills him.
Alternate scenario: Hinjo enters the tavern Xykon is in, detects overwhelming evil, attacks and kills him.

Depending on the laws of the city, this could go many ways:

Both charged with murder.
Roy charged but Hinjo not because he is noble.
Roy charged but Hinjo not because he is a Paladin and his word is therefore automatically good.
Roy charged but Hinjo not because the powers that be just don’t want to charge Hinjo.
Neither charged (doubtful).

Presumably there would be a trial where Roy could present a defense.

[Sir_Leorik]

The usual practice under Salic law would be weregild -- a payment of compensatory "blood money" for injury/death regardless of fault. In our modern terms, that effectively makes murder a civil offense, not a crime in manner we think of criminal law.

Of course, sometimes the family might not choose to accept the weregild (or the perpetrator lacked the ability to pay), in which case punishment is the responsibility of kinsmen with skill for violence, and that means a clan feud, if one has the stomach for that kind of thing.

That doesn't mean that murder wasn't a crime; it just means that under Salic Law the punishment was that the murderer was required to pay blood money rather then be executed.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, had the Bounty Hunters not gotten into that brawl or a similar situation that would require their bounty hunter paperwork, they likely would have left the city and nation in one piece.

I think that if Tarquin really wanted to get vengeance on Gannji and Enor he'd have found a way. Sooner or later, when they least expected it, they would end up in the Arena. The only difference is that Tarquin's message would have been "I have you now!"

[The Giant]

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.

And that situation will last exactly as long as it takes one villain to realize that this is the situation, and then hide himself in the middle of a city to get away from the adventurers.

Seriously, I don't think I've ever ran or played in a plot-driven campaign that didn't include adventures in a town or city. Protecting the town from hidden dangers lurking within is a standard of the genre. If you're battling the evil Thieves' Guild or exposing the doppleganger that has swapped places with the prince or simply getting ambushed by bounty hunters hired by your last foe, adventures happen in cities all the time. Unless your DM is arbitrarily enforcing the idea that D&D happens in a dungeon and that's it. In which case, well, I think one's game is probably poorer for it.

Since this is a point I raised in a previous thread and was, I feel, somewhat glibly dismissed, I'd appreciate it if you could find time to expand on this topic a little further. Specifically, I was sort of confused by why Shojo counts as Chaotic Good and Tarquin as Lawful Evil when both use fairly similar methods- deceit, manipulation, blackmail, subversion of the legal system- for fairly similar purposes- keeping a lot of squabbling local warlords in check and politically united under their rule. (We certainly have more evidence that Tarquin is Evil- though there's precious little evidence that Shojo is Good- but here I'd like to focus on their Law/Chaos credentials.)

If you concede that methodology at least influences alignment, it's hard to see how you can characterise Tarquin's methods as much less Chaotic than Shojo's. If, on the other hand, you can say that Tarquin is Lawful because the overall effect and intention of his policies is to unite and organise the continent, and that trumps or cancels out his methods, then I'm curious about how the overall effect and intention of Shojo's policies was so different, given that they served the purpose of keeping Azure city politically stable and unified for several decades. (Yes, yes, I know, Shojo's efforts went badly awry in the end. But if the Chaos that resulted cancels out his by-all-appearances-Lawful long-term intentions- i.e, alignment is predicated on effectiveness- then that also calls his Goodness into question.)

I have answered this before, and it's very simple: Tarquin created Order out of Chaos, Shojo created Chaos out of Order. They are exact opposites. Methodology is only part of the equation, and not even the most important part.

Instead of thinking about the end state and whether it was a stable government, think about the delta-v: Did the rule of law have more of a hold in Azure City at the end of Shojo's rule—compared to when he took office—or less? Clearly, less. Before Shojo ascended the throne, it is highly unlikely that his father ignored the rules that he found inconvenient, encouraged the nobles to blame each other for his unpopular edicts via an elaborate ruse, seized citizens of other countries on charges he knew to be false, and snuck around making secret policy behind the backs of even his own most trusted advisors. You can't separate the fact that his government fell apart when Shojo died, because that was a direct result of him kneecapping that government over the years so that it depended on him, personally. Shojo was handed a Lawful system and made it more Chaotic than it was before, so that only his own personal scheming was holding it together.

Then, look at Tarquin. Does the rule of law have more of a hold in the Western Continent today than it did before he and his allies came to power, or less? Clearly, more. Before Tarquin, small tribes and city-states warred with each other constantly, resulting in no civilized settled territories that would last more than a few years. To the point that people didn't even expect them to last anymore. Tarquin unified dozens of these small tribes into three coherent states, such that they have greater stability. If Tarquin died unceremoniously tomorrow, the whole thing might well keep on functioning indefinitely because the people barely even know he's involved beyond being a really good military leader. Tarquin was handed a Chaotic system and made it more Lawful than before.

But what you really seem to be having problems with is this idea that both used similar methods, to which I say: So what? Deception is not inherently Lawful or Chaotic. Unless you have sworn not to lie, specifically, a Lawful character can choose to deceive if it's the best option. Shojo and Tarquin both use trickery to achieve opposite results. Xykon and Dorukan both use arcane magic to achieve opposite results. Roy and Thog both hit people with big weapons to achieve opposite results. Tools are tools.

In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most. But self-image certainly matters, and Tarquin sees himself as a stabilizing influence on a land gripped by anarchy, while Shojo saw himself as putting one over on those uptight sticks-in-the-mud.

[Reddish Mage]

In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most. But self-image certainly matters, and Tarquin sees himself as a stabilizing influence on a land gripped by anarchy, while Shojo saw himself as putting one over on those uptight sticks-in-the-mud.

Amen to that conclusion.

[factotum]

Alternate scenario: Hinjo enters the tavern Xykon is in, detects overwhelming evil, attacks and kills him.

You appear to be confusing Miko with Hinjo--she would kill someone who pinged as Evil without a thought, he would need to find out what that person was doing and, if necessary, send them for trial if they'd broken any local laws. Plus, paladins aren't usually prone to doing a Detect Evil when walking into random taverns, unless they have a reason to be looking out for someone in there!

[Carry2]

I have answered this before, and it's very simple: Tarquin created Order out of Chaos, Shojo created Chaos out of Order. They are exact opposites. Methodology is only part of the equation, and not even the most important part...
...Instead of thinking about the end state and whether it was a stable government, think about the delta-v: Did the rule of law have more of a hold in Azure City at the end of Shojo's rule—compared to when he took office—or less?

While I appreciate the clarification here, I would have a couple of extra caveats.

* I'm not sure this is consistent with the order of events actually depicted in the comic. Now, sure, maybe there are all sorts of undisclosed details which modify this picture, but the little we know is that (A) Shojo issued unpopular (but not, to our knowledge, unlawful) edicts, (B) he has a close call with an assassin over said decisions, and (C) he begins to resort (at least to a much greater extent) to blackmail, manipulation, subverting the legal system, et cetera. In other words, the nobles' discontent prompted and preceded his disregard for legal convention, and not vice versa.

* If one concedes that Shojo made Azure City less politically stable, why does this count as a capital-G Good thing? You're saying that "Shojo saw himself as putting one over on those uptight sticks-in-the-mud", but among his last words were "Everything I did, I did for my people". If you're saying 'the ultimate effect was increased Chaos, therefore Chaotic', then it's hard to see how the net effect was increased Good, unless Shojo pissed off the nobles through some kind of explicit social-reformist agenda. (Which seems plausible, but the evidence for it is pretty scattered. I'm just sort of presuming that Shojo wasn't so petty as to threaten his city with outright anarchy just for the lolz.)

* I dispute that deceit is not strongly associated with Chaos, at least going by SRD definitions that "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties", while "Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it." By analogy, it is possible in D&D to use, say, violence toward Good ends, but that does not make violence a morally indifferent thing. (And, FWIW, there is nothing about the latter description which does not fit Tarquin and his methods.)

In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most.

Well, my feeling is that this can easily become an excuse for unconscious double-standards with respect to different characters and/or behaviours, either between their players and/or the GM, and is in fact the source of most problems with the alignment system. It means that disagreements on the subject have to be resolved with primate dominance mechanics instead of actual rules, and that rarely ends well.

.

[davidbofinger]

If you concede that methodology at least influences alignment

The celestial who examined Roy clearly stated that methodology was important. On the other hand it's not obvious she was right. She had a bunch of ideas like not using bad language that might not be valid criteria for this.

But I guess you're relying on Implicit Word of Giant.

Tarquin created Order out of Chaos, Shojo created Chaos out of Order. [...] Did the rule of law have more of a hold in Azure City at the end of Shojo's rule—compared to when he took office—or less?

I can see where you're coming from. And I suspect the conclusion is correct, even in the sense in which it's possible for the Word of Giant to be incorrect. But I'm not sure we can conclude from the shift that Shojo is chaotic and Tarquin lawful.

The first issue is results versus intent, etc..

More importantly, does the shift really mean Shojo is chaotic and Tarquin lawful? Or does it mean Shojo is chaotic by the standards of Azure City, and Tarquin lawful by the standards of the western continent?

Azure City is I guess lawful on the average - the paladins are obviously strongly lawful, and the nobles are at least working within what they perceive as rules. (As I recall The Giant has called Kubota lawful-evil.) Whereas the pre-Tarquin Western Continent is pretty obviously chaotic, everything built on shifting sand.

So even a neutral-good or mildly-lawful-good ruler might tend to pull Azure City towards a more chaotic state, and even a neutral-evil ruler might tend to drag the Western Continent toward law. Simply because it's almost impossible for change to push them the other way, they're already near one end of normal variation.

I think we need to look to other criteria, at least in addition, to make these calls. All that said, chaotic good for Shojo and lawful evil for Tarquin are entirely consistent with any other criterion I could come up with.

his government fell apart when Shojo died

Which wasn't his fault. But his refusal to let himself be resurrected was. Maybe he would have been too politically compromised to make everyone pull together against Xykon, but he should have tried. I guess everyone gets tired, but it's still hard to forgive him this, abandoning his city in its hour of need. I wonder if there's a chaotic-good equivalent of the celestial that judged Roy, hesitating between the chaotic-good and chaotic-neutral boxes.

[Reddish Mage]

While I appreciate the clarification here, I would have a couple of extra caveats.

* I'm not sure this is consistent with the order of events actually depicted in the comic. Now, sure, maybe there are all sorts of undisclosed details which modify this picture, but the little we know is that (A) Shojo issued unpopular (but not, to our knowledge, unlawful) edicts, (B) he has a close call with an assassin over said decisions, and (C) he begins to resort (at least to a much greater extent) to blackmail, manipulation, subverting the legal system, et cetera. In other words, the nobles' discontent prompted and preceded his disregard for legal convention, and not vice versa.

You're talking to the author who is giving us additional information about the characters through the forums and revealing his intent. I was under the impression (perhaps not reading close enough) that Shojo's actions, indeed his entire ruling style, was forced, or at least appeared to him to be forced, by the actions of the nobility. I'm not sure if that would make him less Chaotic (forced or not, it became a reflexive part of his entire personality). I don't think the timing matters. What the Giant added, is that Shojo's actions made the nobles much more fractious as they blamed each other for what went on rather than being willing and able to gang up on Shojo and kill him.

I don't see how the fact that the one preceded the other in time precluded that Shojo committed chaotic acts and made Azure city less stable.

Unless the Giant is unintentionally actually contradicting his own story, he's fully within rights to have his own perspective on his own characters.

Invoking late 20th century literary theory, you might say you like your own reading, that is read smoother or more stimulating somehow, or perhaps even utilizes those high school New Criticism reading conventions about character development and foreshadowing and such better, but arguing which perspectives is better is arguing over the better of chocolate and vanilla. I admit you are merely saying you see an inconsistency, but what you are actually pointing out is merely a timeline in the comic, suggestive of very little.

why does this count as a capital-G Good thing? You're saying that "Shojo saw himself as putting one over on those uptight sticks-in-the-mud", but among his last words were "Everything I did, I did for my people". If you're saying 'the ultimate effect was increased Chaos, therefore Chaotic', then it's hard to see how the net effect was increased Good, unless Shojo pissed off the nobles through some kind of explicit social-reformist agenda. (Which seems plausible, but the evidence for it is pretty scattered. I'm just sort of presuming that Shojo wasn't so petty as to threaten his city with outright anarchy just for the lolz.)

* I dispute that deceit is not strongly associated with Chaos, at least going by SRD definitions that "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties", while "Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it." By analogy, it is possible in D&D to use, say, violence toward Good ends, but that does not make violence a morally indifferent thing. (And, FWIW, there is nothing about the latter description which does not fit Tarquin and his methods.)

VIOLENCE is your analogy here!? I'd personally agree that violence-in-itself lends towards chaos and evil, that doesn't preclude it being used by very Lawful Good Paladin's all the time! If deceit is like violence, then it can be wielded the same way.


[Last Quote is quoting the Giant regarding the conclusion of alignment being a mix of many things including temperament.]

Well, my feeling is that this can easily become an excuse for unconscious double-standards with respect to different characters and/or behaviours, either between their players and/or the GM, and is in fact the source of most problems with the alignment system. It means that disagreements on the subject have to be resolved with primate dominance mechanics instead of actual rules, and that rarely ends well.

We are talking about an alignment system that was left vague enough to allow us to have a huge thread arguing (among other things) about whether a vigilante, ignoring the law of his locality, can still be committing a lawful act in extra-judicial killing solely because its his/her personal code!

Of course there's going to be room for double standards! The D&D description of alignment is done through short generalized explanations and by example, it's not a philosophical treatise about the nature of Law and Lawful.

[EmperorSarda]

* I'm not sure this is consistent with the order of events actually depicted in the comic. Now, sure, maybe there are all sorts of undisclosed details which modify this picture, but the little we know is that (A) Shojo issued unpopular (but not, to our knowledge, unlawful) edicts

Actually, making the deal with Roy about freeing Belkar until after Xykon was free, was illegal. The Mark of Justice? Not a part of the legal system. Which Shojo has done numerously.

Plus the fake trial, plus the fake verdict. Plus imprisoning Nale, Thog and Sabine indefinitely without a trial.

And those are just the unlawful acts that we are aware of.

[Fish]

...the little we know is that (A) Shojo issued unpopular (but not, to our knowledge, unlawful) edicts, (B) he has a close call with an assassin over said decisions, and (C) he begins to resort (at least to a much greater extent) to blackmail, manipulation, subverting the legal system, et cetera.

* If you're saying 'the ultimate effect was increased Chaos, therefore Chaotic', then it's hard to see how the net effect was increased Good, unless Shojo pissed off the nobles through some kind of explicit social-reformist agenda.

First: Shojo may have issued edicts that were unpopular ... but unpopular among which people? Unpopular among evil nobles like Kubota? Unpopular with everyone? Unpopular among the rich? Among the soldiers. Among the paladins. There are many possibilities.

Second: increased capital-C Chaos can result in increased good, without resulting in anarchy. Shojo could pardon people, or grant amnesty; he could protect a peasant from the trumped-up (yet Lawful) charges that an aristocrat levies against him. A Chaotic Good ruler might ignore bad laws, while a Lawful (and Good) ruler would repeal them. Same net effect: increased good.

We have no evidence that these were Shojo's methods, but it is not hard to imagine. There is no reason to exclude the middle and say "Chaos always only results in anarchy and riots and looting and evil." What we do know is that Shojo ignored the paladin oath to save the universe.

[The Succubus]

Not to say the entire system of D&D is wrong but I think folks have alignment back to front.

It'd be an interesting experiment, at the start of a campaign, for each player to write their character's alignment down and then keep it a secret. Throughout the course of the campaign, the other players take a guess at what that character's alignment is, based on their actions and then at the end the player reveals that alignment and see how it matches up with other people's perceptions.

You'd need to heave class alignment restrictions out the window but meh, it's a small loss.

[Sunken Valley]

If Tarquin died unceremoniously tomorrow, the whole thing might well keep on functioning indefinitely because the people barely even know he's involved beyond being a really good military leader.

No it won't. Roy, Haley and Elan really want to destroy the empire. Elan's plan will stop Tarquin's evil creation.

You've talked a lot about Law and Chaos and how they run things. What about an ethically neutral character (NG, N, NE)? How do they run governments and there lives. It's an untouched topic as the number of these characters who have names in the comic is small. Very small (V, Z, Tsukiko, Leeky Windstaff, MITD, Therkla, Ganji, Enor, Cedrik and based on your wink Nale).

[Carry2]

I was under the impression (perhaps not reading close enough) that Shojo's actions, indeed his entire ruling style, was forced, or at least appeared to him to be forced, by the actions of the nobility. I'm not sure if that would make him less Chaotic (forced or not, it became a reflexive part of his entire personality).

Yes, but if the nobles squabbling among themselves and trying to assassinate superiors over second-guessed decisions was actually status quo prior to Shojo's reign, then that doesn't really say much for the political stability of Azure City beforehand, and undermines the 'net increase in chaos' argument. If, on the other hand, Shojo actually enacted public policy which caused the aristocrats to get noticeably more uppity and murdersome, then I'm curious about what those policies were, and how those might reflect on Shojo's alignment. This is not the sort of data I can infer from the author's comments except in the vaguest ways, and I think it's kinda relevant.

VIOLENCE is your analogy here!? I'd personally agree that violence-in-itself lends towards chaos and evil, that doesn't preclude it being used by very Lawful Good Paladin's all the time!

Well, yes. But my point is that these folks are Lawful and Good despite the use of violence, and ensuring their application of violence actually ensures a net increase-in/adherance-to Law and Good takes considerable effort to prove. The author has already stated that using Evil methods to Good ends, or Lawful to Chaotic, typically washes out as a Neutral thing to do, so I'm not sure that using Chaotic methods- deceit, manipulation, blackmail, usurpation, and/or subverting the legal system- to Lawful ends- uniting the continent- automatically counts as a net win for Team Law.

We are talking about an alignment system that was left vague enough to allow us to have a huge thread arguing (among other things) about whether a vigilante, ignoring the law of his locality, can still be committing a lawful act in extra-judicial killing solely because its his/her personal code!

Yes, but why is this a good thing? Just saying 'it's all very fuzzy and complicated' doesn't really give meaningful answers.

[Grey Watcher]

While I appreciate the clarification here, I would have a couple of extra caveats.

* I'm not sure this is consistent with the order of events actually depicted in the comic. Now, sure, maybe there are all sorts of undisclosed details which modify this picture, but the little we know is that (A) Shojo issued unpopular (but not, to our knowledge, unlawful) edicts, (B) he has a close call with an assassin over said decisions, and (C) he begins to resort (at least to a much greater extent) to blackmail, manipulation, subverting the legal system, et cetera. In other words, the nobles' discontent prompted and preceded his disregard for legal convention, and not vice versa.

....

To respond to this part of your post: I would imagine that the Lawful response to an assassination attempt by the nobles would be to beef up security and launch an investigation. Show the nobles that they're not above the law and attacks on the ruler will not be tolerated, no matter their status. I can't imagine that murdering or threatening the Lord of the City was in any way legal, so Shojo almost certainly had a Lawful recourse available to him. Would it have taken longer? Yes. Would the guilty nobles do everything in their power to frustrate the investigation. Absolutely. Shojo decided that it was more expedient to ignore the rules and instead fake senility to deflect blame and scrutiny off of himself rather than deal with the problem at its source. In the short term, this worked quite well, as the corrupt nobles could be thwarted with no fear of reprisal. But it ultimately ended up crippling Hinjo's ability to lead. Had Shojo attempted to reign in the nobles more formally and forcefully years prior, Hinjo would probably have inherited the clout necessary to prevent them from abandoning the City at the first opportunity. (Whether that would have changed the outcome of the war is unknown.)

In short, yes the nobles seem to have started it, but faking senility and turning the government into an elaborate con was hardly the only response available to Shojo. But the fact that that's the one he went with speaks volumes.

[Sir_Leorik]

Alternate scenario: Hinjo enters the tavern Xykon is in, detects overwhelming evil, attacks and kills him.

How about this scenario:

Hinjo (a Lawful Good paladin) and Elan (a Chaotic Good Bard) are at a wedding, when they both notice a Lawful Evil aristocrat is one of the guests. This Lawful Evil aristocrat hired ninjas to assassinate Hinjo, but the aristocrat has not been indicted for the crime, because a magistrate has declared there to be insufficient evidence. The noble is gloating in front of Hinjo and Elan, but Hinjo lets him go, despite Elan's protests. Don't you think Hinjo could have used detect evil on Daimyo Kubota? Of course he could; he probably did when Kubota was summoned before the magistrate. But just having an evil aura is not grounds for a paladin to go around killing people in a Lawful society. Hinjo needs to obey the law and let Kubota go. However nothing in the paladin code prevents Hinjo from conducting a sting operation to get proof about Kubota's crimes.