Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Carry2]

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

I'm not disputing that Shojo took many unlawful actions subsequent to the attempt on his life. My point is that Tarquin manages to be Lawful despite taking many similar actions, either because his long-range motives or ultimate consequences of his decisions have the net effect of political stability. In Shojo's case, I'm curious about what actions he took that actually made Azure City less politically stable, and what motives he could have for doing so consistent with a Good alignment.

First: Shojo may have issued edicts that were unpopular ... but unpopular among which people? Unpopular among evil nobles like Kubota?... ...A Chaotic Good ruler might ignore bad laws, while a Lawful (and Good) ruler would repeal them. Same net effect: increased good.

I'm not saying this isn't a plausible scenario. I'd just like to have some kind of confirmation on this point from the author as to what kind of policies Shojo specifically enacted on that front.

...What we do know is that Shojo ignored the paladin oath to save the universe.

Well, the thing about saving the world is that just about anyone has a selfish reason to want to do that. I don't need to be especially altruistic to preserve the universe, because the universe contains me.

[Sunken Valley]

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.

Who says Kubota had an evil aura His prestige class prevents lie detecting. One of the prestige classes which does that (Master Spy), also allows Kubota to change his aura.

[Sir_Leorik]

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.

Rich, could you elaborate on this point a bit more? Tarquin told Elan that the rationale for his plan is that if he is overthrown he'll live as a king until then and then be remembered as a legend. If he's never overthrown he'll still live as a king and be remembered for founding the empire; but what specific steps has he taken to ensure that if he and his five cronies are all taken out that the empire will continue on? Is Tarquin counting on Malack taking over when the mortal members of Tarquin's band die?

[Carry2]

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.

That's perfectly plausible, but this doesn't really answer the question of whether Shojo/Tarquin count as Chaotic/Lawful or not for our purposes, and whatever criteria you settle on are likely to have unexpected ramifications.

(e.g, Tarquin was Lawful only by western continent standards => Tarquin is Lawful => local standards trump personal conduct => Paladins crusading in goblin territories become Chaotic Evil. Or, Shojo can be blamed for fall of Azure City => Shojo can be blamed for Miko going haywire => alignment includes responsibility for the re/actions of others which you might have conceivably prevented or forseen => Roy and Elan are responsible for the Linear Guild's atrocities in Cliffport. Et cetera. Now maybe alignment doesn't boil down to any single measure or criterion, but whatever weighting you assign here is going to have side-effects.)

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but as I've remarked elsewhere, the idea that squabbling nobles felt free to attempt assassination on their superiors is more reminiscent of Menzobarranzan politics, the archetypal CE society, than of a LN feudal oligarchy. So while Shojo might have done better, I don't see clear evidence that he made things worse, unless he was actively doing something to stir up the nobles in the first place. In which case I'd like to know why and how he would do such a thing, and still count as well-intended.

[tomandtish]

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!

Actually no. I was specifically using Hinjo for purposes of the example since he is both Paladin and noble. I know he wouldn't do this, but for example purposes I'm able to cover more ground using him. (After all, this is hypothetical).

[Warren Dew]

* 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 don't think it was the political instability that was good, per se. Rather, the political stability was a side effect of preventing evil people like Kubota from making the lives of the average citizen worse.

[theNater]

* If one concedes that Shojo made Azure City less politically stable, why does this count as a capital-G Good thing?

Political stability is neither Good nor Evil by itself. Not everything a Chaotic Good character does is both Chaotic and Good.

* 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."

Deceit is not the same as lying. Tarquin tries to avoid outright lies where he can, while Shojo seems like he doesn't really care about such things. Tarquin promised to send soldiers to the Free City of Doom and did. Shojo, in contrast, took an oath upon becoming the leader of the Sapphire Guard and broke it the moment he thought it was in the way.

[Grey Watcher]

...

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but as I've remarked elsewhere, the idea that squabbling nobles felt free to attempt assassination on their superiors is more reminiscent of Menzobarranzan politics, the archetypal CE society, than of a LN feudal oligarchy. So while Shojo might have done better, I don't see clear evidence that he made things worse, unless he was actively doing something to stir up the nobles in the first place. In which case I'd like to know why and how he would do such a thing, and still count as well-intended.

Fair enough. I had always assumed that the attempts on his life were a new development, otherwise, I'm sure his father would have taught him a more thorough way to deal with such things. Without more evidence, this could easily turn into a chicken-and-the-egg kind of question. Had Shojo already relaxed his formal authority, making nobles think they could get away with an assassination, or did Shojo relax his formal authority in response to said assassination attempt?

Also, on the Tarquin half of the question, just how much is Tarquin outright lying? I mean, the puppet rulers he's using KNOW they've delegated a lot of the day-to-day responsibilities to him, and the guards and the military all seem to answer to him or to Malack, so they KNOW that the's the one actually making sure the Evil Trains run on time. The degree of stability he's seeking suggests that he keeps a lot of the mid- and low-level hierarchy in place with each "revolution". So, really, apart from not publicly admitting the long-term plans and interaction with his counterparts in the other two empires, how much lying is he actually doing?

(As I type, I realize that betraying each figurehead to back the next is a pretty serious blow against this whole Tarquin-is-technically-honest theory I have going here. Plus, it all hinges on whether you consider "deliberately allowing people to draw incorrect conclusions by withholding information" to be a kind of lying or not.)

[Porthos]

Plus, it all hinges on whether you consider "deliberately allowing people to draw incorrect conclusions by withholding information" to be a kind of lying or not.)

Generally speaking, lies by omission are considered a form of lying, yes.

But, swinging this back to 'Rigid Personal Code' if a person who declared to themselves that they will never tell a lie really are saying that they will never tell an overt lie.... Well, they are leaving themselves all sorts of wiggle room, aren't they? 'Technical Truth' being one of the lower rungs and 'From a Certain Point of View' being the highest rung of the ladder.

[Grey Watcher]

Generally speaking, lies by omission are considered a form of lying, yes.

But, swinging this back to 'Rigid Personal Code' if a person who declared to themselves that they will never tell a lie really are saying that they will never tell an overt lie.... Well, they are leaving themselves all sorts of wiggle room, aren't they? 'Technical Truth' being one of the lower rungs and 'From a Certain Point of View' being the highest rung of the ladder.

And I guess that was my point. Most reasonable people would consider a lie of omission to be morally equivalent to a straight lie. But it's a favorite way to weasel out of it.

[David Argall]

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.

The two sides need to be equal in power [or whatever, just so the result is in doubt]. If not, the result is a lot of dead lemures [or a dead solar] and no more opposition. Our alignment system does not survive imbalance.

Also, not everyone who has the same alignment is going to get along.

A mere complication, like saying 2+2=4 vs 1+3+5-3-2=4. It does not reduce the need for balance. It merely adds different ways it will be achieved.

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.

That it is official does not make it right or logical. Both [all that are not made bounded] planes should be infinite in size and resources, and thus of "equal" numbers. I suspect the cause here is a general bias in favor of the superiority of law. So they posited law would use superior tactics despite the many generals whose blunders have destroyed their armies. Then they had to put in a reason why the law was not winning, and tried numbers without really thinking about it.
A better choice would have been to base it on the nature of the planes. The devils are native to the Hells and thus better suited to it while the demons fit the Abyss better. Thus a LE devil unit obeys its orders to take a CE hill, but due to its chaotic nature, it is now a lake. The unit obeys its orders and tries to capture it, drowning in the process. Our CE unit after a LE hill finds itself at a similar disadvantage because it doesn't change and they were prepared for the change.
For our purposes, the point is that they did have to create a balance, where law=chaos. The Blood War required it.

[OctoberRaven]

My 2 cp re the OP:

The way I always interpreted LG is that they respect authority as long as it's legitimate, unoppressive, and with as little corruption near the top as possible.

Or, in other words, they wouldn't respect an LE (or any evil for that matter) power center too much.

So, if a Xykon were to hide in a kingdom with an Evil power center, would a Lawful Good character (like Roy) find good reason to take matters in his own hands? Probably. Would doing so be a Lawful act? No, but not one that would merit him slipping down to Neutral Good land. But, as said in the PHB and many other sources, alignments do not completely control a person's personality, only what they are likely to do in a situation. Otherwise, every Paladin ever would be like Miko.

Lawful Neutral, OTOH, would be less willing to it. After all, while LN does usually have some want of the proverbial greater good, (after all, most Neutral types would prefer being under Good leaders than Evil), it isn't enough of a driving force for them to act... otherwise, you know, they'd be LG.

And if a LE character were the one in the scenario (after all, Evil sometimes fights Evil too)... well, they'd just exploit the corrupt system to get what they want.

EDIT- Typo

[EmperorSarda]

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

Actually, Roy says he wants to expose what is going on, reveal the puppetmasters. Not utterly destroy the empire.
[/QUOTE]

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.

While it is hard to say precisely, but if Shojo ruled less by force of will and more by rule of Law, Hinjo might have been able to prevent the nobles from fleeing. A command that fleeing in such an action is tantamount to treason and if they don't want their estates confiscated and their titles removed, they would have to participate with their forces. The sort of thing that can be done with existing laws. Note that it wasn't the laws that kept the nobles in check, it was Shojo himself. The whole system was modified around him, not laws. While we may not know the specific laws, we see the end results.

I'm not disputing that Shojo took many unlawful actions subsequent to the attempt on his life. My point is that Tarquin manages to be Lawful despite taking many similar actions, either because his long-range motives or ultimate consequences of his decisions have the net effect of political stability.

If he's never overthrown he'll still live as a king and be remembered for founding the empire; but what specific steps has he taken to ensure that if he and his five cronies are all taken out that the empire will continue on? Is Tarquin counting on Malack taking over when the mortal members of Tarquin's band die?

Umm, aside from a few small smattering of people, no one knows that he or his teammates have founded the empire. As for what has he done to ensure the empire will continue? He's created a culture of laws and given the people a taste of being more than just a village or tribe that could be wiped out after a couple of years. There is a system of laws in place as well, which will continue operating after his death.

[Sir_Leorik]

The way I always interpreted LG is that they respect authority as long as it's legitimate, unoppressive, and with as little corruption near the top as possible.

Or, in other words, they wouldn't respect an LE (or any evil for that matter) power center too much.

That really depends on the Lawful Good hero and the nature of the Lawful Evil regime. If the hero is on a mission which he can't deviate from without facing grave consequences (such as hunting down a Chaotic Evil villain), finds himself in a Lawful Evil dictatorship which suppresses dissent, but otherwise allows the population to go about their daily routine (so long as the taxes, which aren't that high are paid), the hero would probably not go out of his way to break the law or overthrow the regime. If the hero finds out that the villain he's hunting has been appointed the dictator's second-in0command, then the hero may need to confront the dictator.

Likewise if the Lawful Evil regime is committing genocide (let's say they seek to wipe out all Halfllings in the area because the dictator blames them for a rash of thefts) the hero should stop his quest and try to rescue as many Halflings as he can and smuggle them out of the country.

As far as just walking into a town and stabbing someone because you believe him to be Evil, most societies, especially Lawful Good ones, look unkindly on that kind of behavior. (There's a reason that Emerikol "I cast lightning bolts at people in the streets of Greyhawk" the Chaotic isn't called Emerikol the Lawful.)

[Sir_Leorik]

Umm, aside from a few small smattering of people, no one knows that he or his teammates have founded the empire. As for what has he done to ensure the empire will continue? He's created a culture of laws and given the people a taste of being more than just a village or tribe that could be wiped out after a couple of years. There is a system of laws in place as well, which will continue operating after his death.

But what's to keep the three fiefs that make up his grand empire from destroying each other without at least one of Tarquin's group there to manipulate the freiers they recruited to serve as figureheads? Or to stop the figureheads from overreaching and having the other two team up against the first?

[hamishspence]

As far as just walking into a town and stabbing someone because you believe him to be Evil, most societies, especially Lawful Good ones, look unkindly on that kind of behavior.

I remember Heroes of Horror making a point of how this is just one of the reasons why Detect Evil doesn't in fact ruin mystery plots.

[EmperorSarda]

But what's to keep the three fiefs that make up his grand empire from destroying each other without at least one of Tarquin's group there to manipulate the freiers they recruited to serve as figureheads? Or to stop the figureheads from overreaching and having the other two team up against the first?

You mean assuming that not just Tarquin has died, but his entire team? Probably the only thing that would keep them from attacking each other is their respective military might. They're big enough that such a battle would be detrimental to them. Plus the side that decides to go all out and start attacking the others could possibly face a coalition similar to what Tarquin had thrown at him.

[Snails]

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.

Perhaps. But it does prove that it may not be a crime in the way most people in this thread habitually think about crimes, because murder becomes just another kind of property dispute. If you are a warlord with a disagreement about a sheep contract or a dead nephew, you either accept the offered payment or you do not. If not, you pick up your sword and consider how much bloodletting when get your point of view properly understood. That is how it was.

A lot of people in this thread have their heads wrapped up in the legalisms and attitudes about society that only become common in the16th or 18th or 19th or 20th century, and they are confusing themselves. It may make enough sense to think this way when discussing, say, Azure City. But to carry these assumptions into D&D wilds that are more barbaric than the Dark Ages is just plain silly.

[veti]

You mean assuming that not just Tarquin has died, but his entire team? Probably the only thing that would keep them from attacking each other is their respective military might. They're big enough that such a battle would be detrimental to them.

That's a consideration that would keep the peace precisely as long as it took for one of the three powers to come up with a plan that, they think, would allow them to beat the other two. There's the most basic "Ally with B against C, then betray B", which is so obvious that both B and C will know from the get-go what you're doing, but it may be possible to arrange things so that that doesn't matter.

I wish I could mention real-life historical analogues, but that's not allowed, so I'll direct you to the climactic three-way standoff in the classic western "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly".

Plus the side that decides to go all out and start attacking the others could possibly face a coalition similar to what Tarquin had thrown at him.

That's true, but that implies Tarquin's insight - that 'not being dominant' is the key to domination - after his death, becomes common currency. Since he hasn't explicitly shared it with a wide circle of people, and it's not self-evident (or else he wouldn't have been the first to realise it), there's no reason to assume that.

[BroomGuys]

Generally speaking, lies by omission are considered a form of lying, yes.

But, swinging this back to 'Rigid Personal Code' if a person who declared to themselves that they will never tell a lie really are saying that they will never tell an overt lie.... Well, they are leaving themselves all sorts of wiggle room, aren't they? 'Technical Truth' being one of the lower rungs and 'From a Certain Point of View' being the highest rung of the ladder.

I'm afraid Tarquin isn't the only one who gets away with this. In Tarquin's case, he is a far more iconic villain (and has more fun in the process) if he can con so many people without technically telling a lie, but Durkon and O-Chul are (or were ) two of the straightest arrows in the whole comic. Since The Giant has mentioned that the codes of Lawfulness in this 'verse are not typically personal codes but external (i.e. coming from the gods) I think it makes sense to say that Thor and the Twelve Gods do indeed view deception by technical truth as different from outright lies. This is also reflected in the characters' values, since even Tarquin certainly appreciates a man who stands by his word.

[Kish]

Since The Giant has mentioned that the codes of Lawfulness in this 'verse are not typically personal codes but external (i.e. coming from the gods)

Blarf?

You mean "i.e." in the drifted "this is one example" form, not the original "this is what it means" form, right?

I think it makes sense to say that Thor and the Twelve Gods do indeed view deception by technical truth as different from outright lies.

I don't see any indication that Thor cares about lies, particularly. And I doubt he hates trees. Durkon's code was the code of his people and his ancestors--likely the same code Durkon would have had had he become a priest of Odin instead, or any other deity the living Durkon would ever have considered becoming a priest of.

[The Giant]

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.

It's not relevant. It really isn't. It in no way affects the outcome of the story. I've said, in-comic and out, that he's Chaotic Good. Therefore, invent whatever scenarios would make you feel better about the outcome as I've shown it in the comic, but don't expect some sort of recounting of a bunch of unnecessary made-up facts.

I have no idea what actions Shojo may or may not have taken prior to the beginning of the comic, because I didn't spend any time figuring that out. What I did was have a plot that required that guy on the throne to be pulling schemes behind the backs of the paladins while still serving as a patron to the mostly-Good OOTS, and thought, "Yeah, that sounds Chaotic Good to me. Write it. Done."

If one concedes that Shojo made Azure City less politically stable, why does this count as a capital-G Good thing? [snip] 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,

In Shojo's case, I'm curious about what actions he took that actually made Azure City less politically stable, and what motives he could have for doing so consistent with a Good alignment.

So while Shojo might have done better, I don't see clear evidence that he made things worse, unless he was actively doing something to stir up the nobles in the first place. In which case I'd like to know why and how he would do such a thing, and still count as well-intended.

The fact that you insist on repeatedly confusing "more Chaotic" with "worse" and "Lawful" with "Good" is probably more the problem than anything else. Stability is not always Good; instability is not inherently Evil. Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

Basically, if your argument is that Law is inherently Good and someone who increases the amount of Chaos in a system is incompatible with the idea of doing Good, you are playing with a very different alignment system than the one that has been published.

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.

Good thing I'm not running a game here, then. If you have a problem with how I interpret the alignment system, feel free not to join any D&D campaigns I run in the future. But I don't really need to spend any more time justifying it publicly.

[The Giant]

I would also point out that using a series of actions to try to forensically justify Shojo's alignment is backwards. Shojo is not Chaotic Good because he took certain actions within the narrative. He was born Chaotic Good, and as a result of that worldview, took certain actions. Not all of those actions are required to be Chaotic, not all are required to be Good, but we can assume that they more often were than not. That's why I said temperament and self-image matter: that's how he viewed himself, that's how he tried to act, so barring some drastic disqualifying situation like murdering a bunch of people, that's what he is.

[BroomGuys]

Blarf?

You mean "i.e." in the drifted "this is one example" form, not the original "this is what it means" form, right?

I don't see any indication that Thor cares about lies, particularly. And I doubt he hates trees. Durkon's code was the code of his people and his ancestors--likely the same code Durkon would have had had he become a priest of Odin instead, or any other deity the living Durkon would ever have considered becoming a priest of.

Perhaps it is my misunderstanding (since I haven't played DnD) but I was under the impression re the LG judgment process that Roy went through that the gods evaluate whether characters follow their alignments. I suppose it does not necessarily follow that this means the gods set the codes the characters follow, since they might simply evaluate the efforts of those characters to follow whichever codes they subscribe to and/or fall under the jurisdiction of. I had simply assumed that Thor's clerics' moral code was very closely aligned with or derived from Thor himself, but now that you mention it that assumption does seem erroneous. Thus my "i.e." meant I actually thought I was clarifying the source of those codes rather than an example (using abbreviations correctly is something I take very seriously ).

All that is really secondary to my point, though: the Lawfulness of honesty--wherever the code for it might have originated--seems to allow a loophole for technical truths, and methinks that is pretty darn crucial to the ultimate assessment of Tarquin's alignment.

[tomandtish]

Generally speaking, lies by omission are considered a form of lying, yes.

But, swinging this back to 'Rigid Personal Code' if a person who declared to themselves that they will never tell a lie really are saying that they will never tell an overt lie.... Well, they are leaving themselves all sorts of wiggle room, aren't they? 'Technical Truth' being one of the lower rungs and 'From a Certain Point of View' being the highest rung of the ladder.

Since courtesy is part of most Paladin codes, the "technical truth" might even be something they do on occasion. "As humorous as always, My Lord" in response to a poor joke from a Lord who consistently tells poor jokes. Paladins are probably allowed the diplomatic "half-truth" in that context. For that matter, O'chul does an excellent job of doing this when talking about the destruction of the gate in Azure City (since he led Hinjo and others to believe he was the one who destroyed the gate).

Lies are deceptions. Deceptions are not necessarily lies. How they are used determines how evil they are. For example, (at least so far), O'chul's statement above seems to harm no one and protects the reputation of a badly battered and fallen Paladin (I see if generally good if not 100% lawful). Of course, if for some reason it turns out to be relevant that Miko was the one who destroyed the gate….

[Holy_Knight]

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".

Right, but again, it's more a sense of meainglessness than even penance, though I agree that he probably would have bounced back much more quickly if the losses hadn't been so heavy. As far as the plot of TDKR, I'm guessing you probably have seen it more than once, but in my case I think it holds up much better on subsequent viewings than it does on the first. Some things which seemed like weaknesses initially actually fit together more than I realized at first, and there's a myriad of ways in which it connects and unifies all three of the films. It's not perfect, but I think it's stronger than perhaps you're giving it credit for.

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.

Oh believe me, I'm quite familiar with that episode, haha. And that's just the thing--he does stop being Batman, and the use of the gun is why. It's not just a physical failing, but a moral one--he breaks his personal code by wielding the gun to save himself, which is why the last thing we see of him for the next twenty years is shutting down the power to the Batcave and saying "Never again." It's reminiscent of an honorable suicide--Batman does not use a gun, and hence the moment he resorted to using one, he couldn't be Batman anymore. Remember, what ultimately brings him out of retirement to help Terry is the revelation that Waynetech is being used to manufacture illegal weapons. At that point, he agrees to mentor Terry to continue the fight against evil and injustice.

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.

Haha, yes, they probably could have foresahdowed it better, but still. I think it would have been better for the story if he had been healed through physical training rather than mysticism. (At the very least, a desperate use of a Lazarus Pit might have been a better story option if they were going to go that route.) He did still have to train to get his fighting edge back, so there was that. But yeah, I find the movie version a lot more plausible and satisfying.

[Cavenskull]

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.

You're making an overly-simplistic argument that fails to consider many factors. As one hypothetical example, imagine a city populated by 100,000 Good people. One day, an Evil person moves into the city, and decides that to wage a personal war against Good. Knowing that Good outnumbers Evil in this city by several orders of magnitude, the Evil person acts in a very cautious fashion, killing only people who are isolated and vulnerable. After several weeks of operation, the Evil person has managed to kill 35 people. There is a great deal of fear and outrage, and of course everyone is increasingly wary as the death toll rises. The city's law enforcement makes apprehending this Evil person its top priority. As the heat builds, the Evil person finds that it is becoming increasingly difficult to locate suitable targets. To counteract this, the Evil person obtains a large quantity of potent poison, and uses it to contaminate several wells used by the citizens of the city to obtain water. Over the next several days, there is chaos. Hundreds of people die, and thousands more become severely ill from drinking water tainted by the poison. Every well that is even remotely suspected of being contaminated is shut down, and the known good wells get mobbed by more people than they were meant to handle. Fights break out--not only in competition for scarce opportunity to draw water--but also because everyone is paranoid about someone surreptitiously poisoning more wells. The authorities are out in force, stopping anyone who is acting even remotely suspicious, and doing their best to maintain order at the wells. Having been very careful to avoid leaving an incriminating trail of evidence, the Evil person remains in town and watches the chaos with amusement. Having stocked up on water beforehand, the Evil person revels in the resulting chaos before finally becoming bored and moving on to another city to spread more chaos.

By your logic, the hypothetical Evil person in the story is at least as powerful as a city populated by 100000 Good people. While the Evil person certainly does not have the power to annihilate the entire city, the combined power of 100000 Good people was not enough to bring the lone Evil person to justice.

To use a more story-relevant example on the other alignment axis, there's Shojo. He was an aging Chaotic aristocrat who managed to single-handedly manipulate an entire order of Lawful paladins to do his bidding. Surely a legion of holy warriors is more powerful than a frail, old man. So how did they not manage to persuade him into being Lawful or remove him from power? Surely these opposing ends of the alignment spectrum would have clashed, resulting in the Lawful paladins ending the Chaotic rule of Shojo. But that clearly didn't happen, and in fact it took a serious Chaotic act in order to bring about his downfall.

In any conflict where one side is much more powerful than the other, a smart underdog goes into hiding, starts playing by different rules, or outwardly appears to give up while secretly building up a power base. It's quite possible and indeed quite common for a group to be hopelessly outmatched, yet still manage to thrive. It's also important to keep in mind that people who share the same alignment don't automatically get along. The IFCC even said as much. So it is possible for a side to weaken itself, just due to differences in opinion. On the flip side, differing alignments don't automatically have to mean conflict. The Chaotic Good members of the Order of the Stick get along just fine with the Lawful Good members without either group forcing the other to conform. When those factors are combined, a seemingly unstoppable faction can weaken itself considerably by falling into a state of complacency and intra-faction conflict. By the same token, a hopelessly outmatched faction can pull together to achieve a unified goal, and overcome a seemingly unbeatable foe.

One could argue that there would inherently be a stalemate of sorts, but that's not the same thing as a balance of power. There's room for a great deal of ebb-and-flow in the scenario I described.

[factotum]

The two sides need to be equal in power [or whatever, just so the result is in doubt]. If not, the result is a lot of dead lemures [or a dead solar] and no more opposition. Our alignment system does not survive imbalance.

That would only be true if Law and Chaos (or Good and Evil) were only ever fighting each other. This is manifestly not the case; in fact, given the very nature of Chaos, there are likely to be many internecine conflicts between those of the Chaotic persuasion, whereas this is less likely on the Lawful side. (Heck, this is how the devils have managed to fight the demons to a standstill in the Blood War despite being massively outnumbered--they're simply a lot more organised than their opponents are!).

[pendell]

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.

I'm trying to remember the exact panel but I believe the results of alignment-detection magic are inadmissable under Azure City law. A person must be found guilty of some deed to be punished by the law. A lawful good person who commits theft will not escape prison by virtue of their alignment, while a lawful evil person who adheres to the letter of the law can exist within the city and never be molested by the law.

That is, unless Miko is around and does the detect evil + slash combo. But there seems to be a limit to her ability to do that. She wasn't allowed to kill Belkar, out of hand , for example, despite not only his alignment but his written confession that he had murdered a guard -- written in the guard's own blood.

WRT Lord Shojo -- Rich Burlew obviously knows the character better than I do but I have to wonder how much of that is chicken-and-egg. Part of the reason Lord Shojo is a liar and a schemer is because he's been having to survive assassination attempts all his life. From Rich's description, Lord Shojo has always been chaotic good but has been forced into "playing along" with his lawful good society due to his role and status.

So if I understand Rich correctly, Lord Shojo as leader of Azure City made the city both more chaotic and more good. But I think the 'more chaotic' was expressed through lying, treachery and deceit because Azure City doesn't offer many legitimate avenues for chaotic expression, even by its own ruler, and can be quite a hazardous place for anyone too obviously out of line. In a society more tolerant of chaotic behavior, perhaps Lord Shojo's chaotic tendencies could have been expressed more as a desire for personal liberty and freedom than as a need to scheme and "play the system".

ETA: What I'm getting at is the assumption that chaotic = lying, deceitful, tyrannical, imprisoning people without trial etc. Lord Shojo, Elan, and Haley are all chaotic good. But the three of them express that alignment very differently. Elan is a free spirit. Haley, being born in a chaotic environment, expresses that as a do-gooder robin hood/resistance leader. Shojo, being born into the treacherous environment of Azure City, expresses it as a duplicitous ruler of the city. Yes, he went outside the law and would have been rightly arrested by Lord Hinjo for conduct unbecoming the leader of the Sapphire Guard, if nothng else. Let us only hope that Lord Hinjo, a paragon of law and order, can be half as good a ruler of his people as Shojo was.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[wumpus]

One great example of a lawful character's personal code would be Samuel Vimes, top cop [titles vary across the books] of Ankh-Morpork in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

There isn't an obvious reason that Vimes needs a personal code: he is head of the night watch and reports to the lord of the city, so he has all the external code a lawful type could need. Vimes, on the other hand, is well aware that the contempt the criminals he chases have for the law is matched only by the upper crust who make the law. Sam thus decides he "works for the law": the Patrician may sign his pay chit, but Sam makes it clear he works for "the law", not Vetinari (his nominal boss).

Contrast this to Carrot Ironfoundsson. [Various ranks] Carrot is not an agent of the law, but an agent of the city. Due to odd personal quirks and strategies, he will never be a veiwpoint character and we will never find out if he ever has a personal code or not (my guess would be "if the city requires an action, Carrot must do it"). In D&D terms, Carrot could well qualify for paladinhood (while he might not believe in "the law" the same way as Vimes, his devotion to duty is absolute. Consider "the personal and the important" when deciding what your paladin should do). Still Carrot really doesn't match Sam's lawfulness, his lg alignment gets in the way much like a non-Miko paladin.

I suppose it is considered obsolote now, but back in the 1e days the Dragon magazine published a class called the duelist. This class was limited to chaotic alignments (not sure if nuetrals were allowed, but he would always lean chaotic). Duelists were expected to follow a harsh code that could easily penalize them, basically they insisted on being seen as "fighting fair" (and still winning). The explanation of the harsh code was that it existed soley to exault the duelist's skill with the blade and nothing else. Batman may keep his code to justify why "he gets to break all these laws". Duelists didn't care about that. The honor of the duelist (basically winning through skill with the blade) was the only justification for the code. Note that he didn't keep it for other duelists (just his own reputation with the blade) and wasn't at all concerned if others broke their code. Had the code been lawful; other duelists would be expected to challenge the codebreaker.