Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Kish]

I'm trying to remember the exact panel but I believe the results of alignment-detection magic are inadmissable under Azure City law.

You're thinking of Cliffport. There is no equivalent panel for Azure City.

The law may well exist. It's a good law. But there is no actual indication that it does.

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.

Mm...other rulers were able to rule without faking senility. Shojo chose to use "deception" as a countermeasure because he had a limited list of tools, and "deception" was near the top of his personal toolbox. I'm kind of twitching at the idea that Shojo was born with an alignment, but not at the idea that Shojo's being deceptive was because Shojo was deceptive by personality and preference, not because he was forced into it.

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.

I have a problem with the concept that Azure City is so morally bankrupt that it forces its ruler to deceive and ignore the laws if he wants to do good, actually. I don't get the impression that Shojo's ascension was supposed to be "the first Good ruler this generally Lawful Evil society has had in centuries"--to say the least.

Of course, we never get to see pre-Shojo Azure City.

[SavageWombat]

He was born Chaotic Good, and as a result...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Is this an official statement of how you feel about alignment (in or out of game world) or an oversimplification - shorthand for "that's how he turned out in his life / that's how I always intended to write him?"

Was Roy born Lawful Good? Or did he choose to be Lawful Good? He was certainly born into an LG family, but he clearly believes in it. You could say he was raised LG, too.

Is Redcloak LE because he's a goblin, and all goblins are LE? Was Xykon predestined to be CE?

It seems to me to be a radical, but interesting, statement to say that a particular individual is born with a certain alignment, even in a particular campaign world. I didn't want to let that pass without comment.

[Sir_Leorik]

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.

The truth is I haven't seen "TDKR" since seeing it in theatres last summer. I enjoyed most of the movie (especially Ann Hathaway's Selina Kyle), but I had a few quibbles with parts of the movie, beyond Bruce's extended period of isolation. Bane's scheme with the stock market was actually a bigger challenge to my willing suspension of disbelief than any other plothole in the movie; I don't care how depressed Bruce Wayne is, surely there was someone at the SEC who would have called shenanigans and realized what Bane and the League of Shadows was planning, even if they didn't know Bane was behind it. However I'm definitely willing to see it again and see if my opinions change afterwards.

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.

I guess my point about DCAU Bruce continuing to be Batman even after that incident needs to be elaborated on. Yes he hung up his costume and sealed off the Batcave; but in a later episode from Season one of "Batman Beyond", when Shriek is attempting to gaslight Bruce, he realizes the voices he's hearing aren't coming from his subconsciousness because the voices keep calling him "Bruce". As Bruce tells Terry at the end of the episode "That's not the name I call myself." In his thoughts he's Batman, even if he can't trust himself to put on the suit and fight crime anymore.

Bruce didn't trust Terry to fight crime either, and he was going to turn Terry in to the police before the third act of the pilot. As much as Bruce was a mentor to Terry, Terry pulled Bruce back from the brink of depression, just like Robin has done in many other continuities.

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.

There were other options for DCU Bruce to take besides using a Lazarus pit: cybernetics, magic, alien technology, nanotech. Given that Nightwing was a founding member of the Teen Titans, Bruce could have asked his old partner to find out if Starfire or Lilith could help him (at the time Raven was in one of her more evil periods, and I'm not sure if Cyborg was around). The Atom could have inspected the damage and tried to repair the spinal damage on the cellular level (Ray Palmer wouldn't regress to a teenager for another year, during "Zero Hour"). Zatanna could have tried to heal Bruce with her magic, as could Dr. Fate. Dr. Mid-Nite was still active (during "Zero Hour" the JSA were aged to their actual ages and forced to retire) so he might have been able to do something. The Martian Manhunter might have tried using Martian medical techniques. While Neron would not be created by Mark Waid until 1995, Blaze and Lord Satanus could have tried to tempt Bruce, as could Glorious Godfrey (acting on behalf of Darkseid).

And even if his spine couldn't be healed, Bruce might have tried to invent a cybernetic armored harness, similar to the one Batman wore in "Kingdom Come", which provided mobility and fighting ability while he wore it, but kept him in a wheelchair otherwise. That way Bruce would have the perfect cover identity for not being Batman: he's a paraplegic, while Batman is clearly running across rooftops and fighting criminals with Kung Fu!

So why didn't he take any of these routes? Bruce didn't tell Nightwing about his back being broken either out shame or pride. Superman had died fighting Doomsday, and none of the Superman Pretenders knew Bruce's secret identity. By the time Kal-El was revived and defeated the Cyborg Superman, Jean-Paul Valley was already wearing the brand new Batcostume, and Bruce wasn't around. (Why on earth Superman didn't look for Bruce was not explained.) I don't think any of the members of the Justice League of the time knew Batman's secret identity, except maybe Wonder Woman and Metamorpho (a former member of the Outsiders). So basically Bruce did not tell his colleagues who knew his identity out of shame or pride and for the same reason refused to tell anyone else.

Which raises tons of questions. If Batman can't trust Wally West, Oliver Queen, Dinah Lance or King Orin Atlanson with his greatest secret, why on Earth did he agree to train Jean Paul Valley and take him on as a protege? And if the original members of the JLA (and their sidekicks) did know Bruce's secret identity, why not turn to them for help? The Bruce Wayne from "TDKR" has exactly five allies: Alfred Pennyworth, Lucius Fox, Commissioner Gordon, Officer Blake and Selina Kyle (who betrayed Bruce's trust to Bane). There's no Justice League, no Titans, no Outsiders. The only other urban vigilantes are copycats he disapproves of, there are no aliens, mages, or superscientists, and Bane made sure to isolate him from any of his allies after their fight. In "Knightfall" Bane dumped Batman in the middle of a crowded Gotham street (which resembles Time Square) and left him there. Barbara Gordon should have immediately alerted every superhero she could to converge on Gotham and provide aid. But Bruce decided to keep it a secret from the whole world for ... reasons? There are quite a few plotholes in that part of the story, which is a shame because the build up to the confrontation between Batman and Bane was very well handled. Even decided that Jean Paul should fill in for him wasn't a stupid decision, provided that Bruce kept some of his allies in the loop. But he didn't, and next thing you know he and Alfred are chasing after the kidnappers who took Shondra and Tim Drake's dad.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm trying to remember the exact panel but I believe the results of alignment-detection magic are inadmissable under Azure City law.

You're confusing Cliffport's ban on using Divination magic to determine guilt because it "is considered an illegal search and seizure" with Azure City's policy of summoning beings "of Pure Law and Good" to serve as finders of fact in trials.

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.

Agreed. Overreliance on detect evil to solve crimes is a crutch. Daimyo Kubota is a great example; even if he's not using some PrC ability to fool the paladins, he's taken extreme measures to always remain several degrees removed from the crimes he commits.

[Reddish Mage]

You're confusing Cliffport's ban on using Divination magic to determine guilt because it "is considered an illegal search and seizure" with Azure City's policy of summoning beings "of Pure Law and Good" to serve as finders of fact in trials.



Agreed. Overreliance on detect evil to solve crimes is a crutch. Daimyo Kubota is a great example; even if he's not using some PrC ability to fool the paladins, he's taken extreme measures to always remain several degrees removed from the crimes he commits.

Detect Evil doesn't do anything to solve crime. It just tells you whose evil. Detect Chaos might be even more useful in sniffing out potential lawbreakers.

[Copperdragon]

Detect Chaos might be even more useful in sniffing out potential lawbreakers.

... but overlooks all Lawful and Neutral lawbreakers, which probably are as numerous as the chaotic ones. The chaotic ones are even more harmless because it's esier to know even without Detect X they might not respect rules.

Detect X (law chaos, good, evil, magic) is not worth much when it comes to "finding stuff out". In the end, what matters, is the footwork and the thinking (which is good, as this is how it should be).

[Reddish Mage]

... but overlooks all Lawful and Neutral lawbreakers, which probably are as numerous as the chaotic ones. The chaotic ones are even more harmless because it's esier to know even without Detect X they might not respect rules.

Detect X (law chaos, good, evil, magic) is not worth much when it comes to "finding stuff out". In the end, what matters, is the footwork and the thinking (which is good, as this is how it should be).

Sure, if what you want is to find out who did a particular deed. In a world were you can know whose evil though, why not just lock the evil people up?

[hamishspence]

Possibly because Good people feel that it is unjust- causing suffering that cannot be proven to be necessary?

[OctoberRaven]

Detect Evil doesn't do anything to solve crime. It just tells you whose evil. Detect Chaos might be even more useful in sniffing out potential lawbreakers.

Not to mention that even a low level character can afford to have a Ring of Undetectable Alignment. And there probably would be a sizable (if not possibly black market) demand in a society where Detect X spells are used to determine potential suspects.

[Copperdragon]

Sure, if what you want is to find out who did a particular deed. In a world were you can know whose evil though, why not just lock the evil people up?

And then? You find that shopkeeper over there is evil. Does he cheat his customers? You do not know.
You know that police-guy is evil. Does he beat up people or does a bad job? You do not know.
You find that this count is evil. And? What does that tell you? What about that elf there? That woman? That Halfling?

Knowing how is evil and who not in the streets is not helping at all. All the neutral thieves do not even register, neither do all those CG Robin-Hood types who currently do more damage to your nobles (it's unjust to steal from them just because they "have", btw) than all evil characters in town combined do over five years.
Those spells are nice additions to what adventurers or others do, but in themselves, they are not worth much.

Like a record someone was in jail a while ago. It might mean something. But what does it mean in general or for your current situation? Nothing at all.

[Kish]

Sure, if what you want is to find out who did a particular deed. In a world were you can know whose evil though, why not just lock the evil people up?

Aside from the fact that a kingdom which passed an explicit, "Being evil is punishable by life imprisonment" law would be begging for someone like Xykon to amuse himself by casting a spell on random citizens that would make them detect as evil?

I would consider the passing of such a law a highly Lawful Evil act, such that the person who passed it would be thrown in prison based on it the next time someone cast Detect Evil near him/her. It's not Good to punish people for what you think they're probably going to do at some point.

[Dedwrekka]

I was rereading through some old strips, and something stuck out. Hinjo is unwilling to go after Kubota partially because it could cause civil war, but also partially because he believes it would be "wrong" (which in this context seems to imply "chaotic").

In itself it's nothing unusual. However, the implications of such a worldview in a D&D setting gave me pause.

Say Xykon wasn't a lich, but a regular human. Say he wasn't sitting in a dungeon somewhere outside the jurisdiction of any kingdom, but in a civilized town. Say Roy were to find him there and attack, in that city with a legal framework for arresting and prosecuting criminals.

Would it still be a Lawful act?

Such a situation would be classified as an act of vigilantism, as our hypothetical Roy would be taking the law into his own hands.

The prevailing opinion is that being Lawful does not require one to obey the laws of the region they are in (thus, a Paladin need not execute non-Orcs on sight in an Orc village), but has more to do with following through on one's principles. And yet, Hinjo seems to be convinced that taking the law into his own hands would be chaotic, despite the fact that slaying Kubota on the spot for crimes he cannot prove in court should logically be no different to Roy slaying Xykon for crimes he cannot prove in court (setting aside the absurdity of Xykon in a courtroom, were such a thing to happen it would be Xykon's word against the word of Roy's dead father).

If vigilantism in a place with a legitimate police framework is chaotic, then it carries deeper alignment implications. For example, if a villain wipes out everyone in your village except you, and then hides in a place with a proper police force, can you ever lawfully mete out justice for the fallen? After all, it's your word against his.

Clearly, I'm missing something here, but what is it?

Lawful characters follow a code or a set of ideals, it doesn't mean that they have to follow "Laws" (Local, Kingdom, Realm, Dimension, what have you) per se.
Imagine a lawful Paladin walking into a town and accidentally breaking a law because he/she didn't know every local law.
Imagine a lawful mage losing their alignment because they cast fly and ignored the law of gravity.

[Porthos]

Sure, if what you want is to find out who did a particular deed. In a world were you can know whose evil though, why not just lock the evil people up?

To be blunt, being evil is not a crime.

[Reddish Mage]

And then? You find that shopkeeper over there is evil. Does he cheat his customers? You do not know.
You know that police-guy is evil. Does he beat up people or does a bad job? You do not know.
You find that this count is evil. And? What does that tell you? What about that elf there? That woman? That Halfling?

Knowing how is evil and who not in the streets is not helping at all. All the neutral thieves do not even register, neither do all those CG Robin-Hood types who currently do more damage to your nobles (it's unjust to steal from them just because they "have", btw) than all evil characters in town combined do over five years.
Those spells are nice additions to what adventurers or others do, but in themselves, they are not worth much.

Like a record someone was in jail a while ago. It might mean something. But what does it mean in general or for your current situation? Nothing at all.

I wouldn't say it doesn't help you at all. Evil people do bad things if given the chance. It's in the description!

Sure, you don't know what they did wrong, or what they will do, but our conventions regarding crime here doesn't apply. Rather, it is more in line with knowing someone is wears your enemies uniform in the cosmic war of Good v. Evil or if you prefer, knowing that an insane person is "a danger to themselves and others."

Not to mention that even a low level character can afford to have a Ring of Undetectable Alignment. And there probably would be a sizable (if not possibly black market) demand in a society where Detect X spells are used to determine potential suspects.

Who said suspects? I'm not talking about crime at all. I'm suggesting that a society might want to exile, jail or otherwise take care of evil people.

[Kish]

Who said suspects? I'm not talking about crime at all. I'm suggesting that a society might want to exile, jail or otherwise take care of evil people.

And again, no, that doesn't work, because a society that implements "thoughtcrime" is an evil society.

[Reddish Mage]

And again, no, that doesn't work, because a society that implements "thoughtcrime" is an evil society.

That's a very modern viewpoint developed by people living a society that does not have magical means of figuring right from wrong. We are talking about regimes where angels are literally a part of the justice system.

[Kish]

There is no possible answer I could make that wouldn't be on the wrong side of the "no morally justified threads" line.

Indeed, I'm not sure your argument is not there already.

Nor, even if I wanted to break the forum rules to argue with you, would I expect it to do much good.

So. Um. How's about that Shojo?

[EmperorSarda]

That's a very modern viewpoint developed by people living a society that does not have magical means of figuring right from wrong. We are talking about regimes where angels are literally a part of the justice system.

But those angels are not using detect evil to determine guilt. They are being used occasionally as an unbiased and incorruptible judge/jury.

So yes, they are being used. But to judge someone guilty for thoughts, even if detected magically, is very evil, very authoritarian. Why should something be less evil just because magic helps enable it?

[Porthos]

That's a very modern viewpoint developed by people living a society that does not have magical means of figuring right from wrong.

A) Isn't odd then that you rarely see a fantasy society (as depicted by the various arts) attempt to throw people in jail simply for pinging as evil?

B) Isn't also odd that on the rare times it is attempted, the people in charge of it suddeny ping as evil themselves?

Most of fantasy lit/gaming/works of art is based on modern viewpoints after all. With appropiate twists for flavor.

[OctoberRaven]

Who said suspects? I'm not talking about crime at all. I'm suggesting that a society might want to exile, jail or otherwise take care of evil people.

That doesn't change the fact that Detect X spells are very easy to fool, so doing things like that just serves to get rid of the incompetent undesirables while luring the police force into a false sense of security, thus making the system more vulnerable to the intelligent criminals.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Before you criminalize being evil you'd want answers to two questions. First, how bad do you have to be to get an alignment of Evil? Second, are there evil acts you don't want to criminalize?

Take the first. If only mass murdering puppy kickers register as Evil then sure, you might want to criminalize it. On the other hand if being a curmudgeonly jerk is enough then you probably don't. How much selfishness and cruelty does it take to not be Neutral any more?

Second, are you sure you want to lock people up for all evil acts? Take infidelity. Cheating on your spouse is wrong, worthy of an evil alignment depending on the circumstances, but in our society isn't criminal. Crimes are offenses against the state, public order issues, physical safety issues. Adultery is a crummy thing to do to your spouse, and it will get you the bad opinion of your neighbors, but it isn't the sort of threat to public order that we criminalize. There are societies that do, but before you criminalize Evil alignments you want to be sure all the things that make one Evil are also things you think the state needs to get involved in.

The idea that everything wrong is also something the state should be involved in punishing is a lot of stuff and what gives rise to worries about police states and totalitarianism.

Still, there are lots of ways a judicial system could use a evil alignment short of arresting people. In the US the police need a warrant before they can search someone, and they need "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed before they can get a warrant. An evil alignment could serve as probable cause. Maybe the local paladin can't arrest you for being evil, but he can investigate you more aggressively than would normally be allowed. Maybe an evil alignment is a legal bar to certain posts? Can't be appointed a judge if you're evil? Can't inherit a noble title?

Back to the original question, 'Can a lawful good character be a vigilante who punishes evildoers outside of a legal system?' I'd say sure. Personally I think treating a Lawful alignment as having anything to do with prevailing cultural rules is a mistake.

Take Dan the Dwarf. Dan lives in a dwarven hold with legal rules, written down, impartially applied, and basically fair. Everyone is connected to everyone else by family and feudal ties into a well organized society. The community as a whole can respond as a cohesive unit to outside threats and has courts to handle internal disputes. Dan loves this, he thinks this is how people should behave, and is capital L Lawful.

Take Oscar the Orc. Oscar lives in an orc tribe where there are no property rules beyond "what you can hold onto is yours, what can be taken from you isn't". Disputes between orcs aren't governed by any sort of rules, the aggrieved party just tries to murder the other orc. Leadership of the tribe isn't based on any sort of constitution or theory of rulership, there is just an orc who is bigger and scarier than the others so people mostly do what he says. Oscar *hates* this. He wishes his people would stop wasting their talents on infighting and private vendettas. He wishes they could get organized, work out a chain of command, and get some order in place so everyone wasn't spending half their time trying not to get stabbed by another orc who is pissed off about something. Oscar sounds pretty lawful to me, but compare him to the PHB definition. He doesn't "respect authority", he thinks the authorities in his tribe are idiots, he doesn't "honor tradition" he thinks his traditions are dooming his species. I'd stat him up as Lawful, even though he is totally opposed to the cultural values of his people.

More importantly I think it is important that people with identical views have the same alignment. If Dan is lawful, Oscar needs to be too because they think the same thing about how to organize society. The best way to accomplish that (IMO) is to have lawful/chaotic be about adherence to ideals rather than cultures (which may or may not have lawful ideas).

A lawful character on my scheme would be really troubled by vigilante action. He'd want checks and balances, he'd want to arrest and try villains rather than kill them, he'd want to have objective standards about who he goes after and what evidence against them he needs to have first.

A chaotic vigilante on the other hand would be more pragmatic, if he thinks someone is guilty but can't prove it he might go after them anyway. If a trial before an impartial judge isn't practical he might just punish the villain on his own judgment.

In my D&D games there can be lawful vigilantes and chaotic ones, they just go about it differently.

[Tragak]

The idea that everything wrong is also something the state should be involved in punishing is a lot of stuff and what gives rise to worries about police states and totalitarianism.

Still, there are lots of ways a judicial system could use a evil alignment short of arresting people. In the US the police need a warrant before they can search someone, and they need "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed before they can get a warrant. An evil alignment could serve as probable cause. Maybe the local paladin can't arrest you for being evil, but he can investigate you more aggressively than would normally be allowed. Maybe an evil alignment is a legal bar to certain posts? Can't be appointed a judge if you're evil? Can't inherit a noble title?

So it would function more like a psych evaluation; I like that, that's a lot better.

[EmperorSarda]

That's a very modern viewpoint developed by people living a society that does not have magical means of figuring right from wrong. We are talking about regimes where angels are literally a part of the justice system.

Additional note, if curtailing liberties, and jailing dissidents are evil, why wouldn't imprisoning people for their thoughts not be evil?

[Sir_Leorik]

We are talking about regimes where angels are literally a part of the justice system.

Yes, but the summoned Celestial is acting as a juror, not as a detective, a prosecutor or a judge. The prosecution still has to present their case, based on evidence the paladins legally acquire and that the judge/magistrate rules to be admissable. Is that unusual, even for a fantasy world? Yes, but it is not that farfetched: if the spells to summon an Outsider exist and only cost a small amount of gold or XP, why not use them for tasks other than fighting monsters in a dungeon? Plus, by summoning an Outsider, the court system in Azure City doesn't have to worry about citizens trying to get out of jury duty!

[Sir_Leorik]

To be blunt, being evil is not a crime.

True, but many criminals in D&D style fantasy worlds are evil. There are also plenty of Neutral and Good criminals (eg. Haley Starshine). Detect Evil only becomes useful when the criminal you're looking for is so evil that their aura is Strong or Overpowering. It would be useful when used on magical items that are found on the person of a suspect, or to track a fleeing suspect who has a Moderate, Strong or Overwhelming Aura. Even in those two cases, you would need to have already had probable cause to search a suspect, and then found his mace of blood or heard a gunshot, seen someone flee a dead body and set chase. Just walking into a bar and detecting evil won't cut it; Sir Francois, for example, planned to make a few Gather Information checks in a wretched hive of scum and villainy in Greysky City (before Elan tipped off everyone in the bar that Sir Francois was a paladin); he didn't just use his detect evil power because it was a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

EDIT:

Sure, if what you want is to find out who did a particular deed. In a world were you can know whose evil though, why not just lock the evil people up?

Possibly because Good people feel that it is unjust- causing suffering that cannot be proven to be necessary?

Aside from the fact that a kingdom which passed an explicit, "Being evil is punishable by life imprisonment" law would be begging for someone like Xykon to amuse himself by casting a spell on random citizens that would make them detect as evil?

I would consider the passing of such a law a highly Lawful Evil act, such that the person who passed it would be thrown in prison based on it the next time someone cast Detect Evil near him/her. It's not Good to punish people for what you think they're probably going to do at some point.

I would add that any Good aligned kingdom that wanted to "outlaw evil" might want to learn about what happened to the Kingpriest of Istar first. Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, Mishakal and Majere, among others, were really pissed off by the Kingpriest's pogroms, Takhisis was accusing Paladine of deliberately endorsing the Kingpriest's actions, Gilean demanded that Paladine address the situation, and next thing you know an asteroid is smacking into Ansalon, right on top of Istar, during the Kingpriest's weekly sermon. I bet that if the Cataclysm hadn't taken place, the Dark Powers would have jumped at the chance to place Istar between Barovia and Darkon; instead they had to settle for making Yagno Petrovna the Darklord of G'Henna. And that's terrible.

[pendell]

Mm...other rulers were able to rule without faking senility. Shojo chose to use "deception" as a countermeasure because he had a limited list of tools, and "deception" was near the top of his personal toolbox. I'm kind of twitching at the idea that Shojo was born with an alignment, but not at the idea that Shojo's being deceptive was because Shojo was deceptive by personality and preference, not because he was forced into it.

I'm not in a position to research the specific panels, but I'm thinking of the "This is what we think of meatloaf day" assassination , the withdrawal of all the nobles with their private armies from the city just before the big battle, and a number of other things.

My conclusion just from what I've read is that Azure City is not the Sapphire Guard. I don't believe Shojo is by any means the only non-lawful aristocrat manipulating the system. In fact, at least one noble (Kubota) is both non-lawful and non-good.

The upper levels of society remind me almost of Kabuki. People wear a mask and play a role, but it isn't who they are. Deception, intrigue, and sudden death by ninja are the rule rather than the exception. IIRC, Roy had to fight off a ninja horde shortly after Hinjo succeeded to the throne.

Note the Ninja's colors closely match the colors of many of the aristocrats seen in the immediately preceding panels.

Conclusion: Many of the aristocrats , and not just Kubota, have no problem at dispatching a ninja squad to kill the city's king.

I postulate the murdering the city's king is a non-lawful act.

From that I assume that many of the aristocrats are non-lawful, and possibly also non-good. Certainly few of them seemed motivated by the good of the city in their actions. If they were, why did they abandon it with their armies, in the hope of returning later to pick up the pieces?

So this is my conclusion: The upper echelons of the Azure City aristocracy have a significant non-lawful minority, possibly even a majority. Shojo's deceptions in the hope of saving his life were entirely justified. Hinjo has a different way of doing things and a different plan. Whether he will be proven right, or whether he will have to adopt Lord Shojo's methods, remain to be seen.

Personally, if I had to take a leader I'd take Shojo.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Carry2]

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.

I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with the phrasing here, since it seems to be sitting nextdoor to the Always Chaotic Evil Baby Kobolds standpoint, but okay, let's say that wasn't what you meant. Whether or not saying actions determine alignment is putting the cart before the horse, we can still reasonably infer that in the absence of a horse, that cart isn't going anywhere. Which is to say, if a person shows a conspicuous absence of clearly Good behaviour, then either they are not going to become, or never were, Good-aligned. At least, that would be the default conclusion.

...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.

I am in no respect arguing that Law intrinsically equals Good, either within the D&D alignment framework or elsewhere. But while things like, say, creativity, free speech and freedom of travel might be considered more on the positive end of the alignment spectrum, stirring up trouble with a bunch of feudal warlords is an extremely dangerous thing to do. When these guys have serious disagreements, they often resolve them with armies of footsoldiers who pillage the countryside. And kidnapping, blackmail and subversion of justice are not good things. So I'm not basing my argument on C=E, but on the idea that deliberate endangerment and coercion of others is, all else equal, a rather bad thing. And I think you need a pretty heavy counterweight to balance that out alignment-wise.

As for details on this point being beyond the pale of relevance: Given that Durokan's tryst with Lirian, a random encounter between Right-Eye and Eugene, or even Haley's bubble-bath made the cut in other prequel books, I don't think it's unfair to suggest the public policy of a man who directly or indirectly affected millions of in-setting lives and vast stretches of the storyline- basically anything after strip 200 and/or involving any of the Azurites- might merit being more than just an informed attribute.

You are, naturally, free to disagree, which is to say, ignore me entirely. But given that you have some vague ambitions of imparting moral lessons with your storyline and/or fondness for D&D as a hobby, you may not be serving either through ambiguous standards or incomplete examples. It's an awkward but minor point that, e.g, Miko has CHA 16+ and traumatises toddlers*, while O'Chul's knack for persuasion, tact and gravitas somehow works out as a stat penalty. It's another matter when two characters can have one-hundred-percent opposite alignments despite, going by in-comic evidence, eerily similar approaches and motives.



* ...Miko, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. You don't actually traumatise toddlers. I'm sure they benefit from your stern instruction. Yes, I know. You were just trying to help. Such poor motor coordination at their age is appalling. Now take your pills.

[Porthos]

So this is my conclusion: The upper echelons of the Azure City aristocracy have a significant non-lawful minority, possibly even a majority. Shojo's deceptions in the hope of saving his life were entirely justified. Hinjo has a different way of doing things and a different plan. Whether he will be proven right, or whether he will have to adopt Lord Shojo's methods, remain to be seen.

Personally, if I had to take a leader I'd take Shojo.

I would point out that Azure City didn't seem to do too badly when Lord Shojo's father was in charge. Or if one wants to doubt Shojo's father's alignment as being unproven, then Lord Soon.

So it would seem that someone doesn't have to be Chaotic to rule Azure City.

I would also point out that Azure City became so dependant on Shojo than when he died, there was no acceptable structure for Hinjo to take over. OK, the bigass friggin' army at the gates exacerbated the crisis. But if there was a proper system in place (or in Hinjo had been let into the power structure enough) that could have served as a rallying cry to band the various power groups together.

As it is, the city's infighting doomed it just as much as the other factors did.

Doesn't mean a Chaotic ruler is automatically a bad one, nor does it make it a unjustiable way to rule. But I think one cannot simply brush away the power vaccum once Shojo left the scene, either.

[Kish]

So this is my conclusion: The upper echelons of the Azure City aristocracy have a significant non-lawful minority, possibly even a majority. Shojo's deceptions in the hope of saving his life were entirely justified. Hinjo has a different way of doing things and a different plan. Whether he will be proven right, or whether he will have to adopt Lord Shojo's methods, remain to be seen.

Personally, if I had to take a leader I'd take Shojo.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Your argument is hard for me to wrap my mind around. You seem to be blurring between "chaotic" and "evil" in a way that ignores--even contradicts--Shojo's having been chaotic, as you're describing his deceptions, not as a response to the nobles' evil, but to their "non-lawfulness."

Rich's words in this thread appear to indicate that Kubota was Lawful Evil. So...no to "In fact, at least one noble (Kubota) is both non-lawful and non-good." I do not believe anyone has proposed that the nobles of Azure City--at the time of Shojo's death--were universally Lawful Good and civic-minded. Shojo chose to use deception to deal with them throughout his reign. It's a big jump from there to "Deception was the only way for the ruler to deal with his nobles and survive."

[Reddish Mage]

Hmm, I do see the perspective in treating thinking of certain invasions of privacy by the State as "evil" in itself but I don't think its an OOTS perspective.
I wouldn't run my D&D game that way, though I might run a game in which Paladin agents of such a state end up in the villain role or the totalitarian state implodes. I would play in your D&D game if you want to treat these procedures that way.

I think the any procedures in themselves have been judge as "tools" like deception, or violence, weapons, magic and so forth. Their usage and the goodness or evilness of them depended in large part on what they were used for.

Miko has used detect evil a justification for attacking in the comic. Presumably she has been doing this her entire career. The Giant mentioned detect evil it as something the Paladins might have done in the massacre in SOD as a way to avoid falling by slaughtering innocent goblins. Miko also accepted that a dragon can be killed if its scales weren't shiny.

Shojo perverted the entire justice system and did lots of extra-judicial things and he is confirmed to be Chaotic Good (though we are now getting to why some people may disagree, including Kish, who surprised me by saying in his game, Shojo would be CE in another thread). That includes imprisoning Nale indefinitely without trial (an order carried out reluctantly by Ochul, who did not fall for that actions).

I understand why some people would like to say that chasing "thought-crime" (more accurately "aura-crime") is EVIL by itself. However, I think that imprisoning, or even killing known evil can be done for any reason and it will not count as evil act in this universe (it may be a Chaotic one).