Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Reddish Mage]

Here's a thing. What if (as I believe it was in 2E D&D) detect evil only registered high level Priests of evil deities,inherently evil creatures, and people who have already undertaken very evil acts? Would that be acceptable criteria for immediate action?

I tend to think the way the alignment system works even in 3E plain ordinary people with an evil alignment have always, or almost always, committed very bad acts or they wouldn't have gotten the way they did. You don't get to be "evil" by everyday acts of petty nastiness, you need to be really willing to do some serious oppression to get that way.

[Kish]

Shojo would be CE in another thread)

Actually, no. I just said he wouldn't be good. He probably wouldn't be Chaotic either.

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).

Fascinating. So, if we got proof that the slaves Haley and Vaarsuvius rescued were all evil-aligned, and this had been known to Tarquin? (Say, he insists all palace slaves are evil-aligned, for whatever reason.) Then, his burning them alive would suddenly no longer be an act of horrific evil?

[Morty]

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.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how you can look at a man who uses subterfuge to manoeuvre around scheming nobles in order to run an effective and prosperous nation and a man who runs a fascist police-state and orchestrates wars, and then call their approaches and motives similar.

[Sir_Leorik]

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).

Here are my thoughts on this issue: the Dwarves in your example seem to be doing just fine; they are a Lawful Good society with a clan/feudal structure and a functioning court system. I would imagine that not every Dwarf in that society is always honest or never steals, but when someone does break the law there are ways to investigate the crimes, try the subject impartially and if he is found guilty, punish him. Dwarves are quite happy with this system; even if they commit a crime and are caught they know that they will have a fair trial and the punishment will be fair as well.

Oscar the Orc might not be Lawful; yes he wants to replace the values of his society with more structured ones, but my question would be why? Why does Oscar want to do this? Is it because Oscar's tribe is at a disadvantage compared to the Hobgoblins, Dwarves and Lawful Humans? Or is it because Oscar is sick and tired of being picked on all the time and prefer to sleep without keeping one eye open all the time? Basically, is Oscar interested in creating a well ordered society that benefits everyone or is he looking out for number one?

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.

You pretty much summed up the difference between Daredevil and the Punisher. Matt Murdock may be breaking the law as Daredevil (he certainly risks being disbarred), but he operates by a strict moral code. His ability to follow that code has been pushed to its limit on at least four separate ocaissions, but he's managed to bounce back each time. The Punisher just shoots people he suspects of criminal activity. No trial, no appeal, just bullets, grenades and bazooka shells.

Despite the way he bends the law, I feel that Daredevil is Lawful Good. The best I can say for The Punisher is that he's a Chaotic Neutral loose cannon, if not outright Chaotic Evil.

[Copperdragon]

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?"

I suggest reading the webcomic on this site: giantitp.com

Does what happens there look like what you just ask? I really cannot find any trace of that. What was said is that the character that is determines alignment and actions, where it comes from is not said - nor does it always matter (Belkar, Xykon). For Shojo, we simply do not know.

[Carry2]

To be blunt, being evil is not a crime.

You only become evil by doing distinctly crime-like things, in the sense of 'things that are universally considered reprehensible and harmful'. That's what evil means. You can argue about the precise threshold needed to actually trigger DE, but it's trivial to imagine a homebrew spell to the tune of Detect Evil Of Sufficient Magnitude As To Warrant Immediate Terminal Smiting. How does it work? Like DE, only more so. What is it going to be? 3rd, 4th level at most?

You can argue that having the alignment system is kinda silly in the first place, but if you accept the basic premise- that the metaphysical laws of a fantasy universe are capable of automagically and categorically assessing very complex moral and ethical quandaries- then it's a pretty minor step to Evil == Needs Smiting. The legwork has been done.

[SavageWombat]

I suggest reading the webcomic on this site: giantitp.com

Does what happens there look like what you just ask? I really cannot find any trace of that. What was said is that the character that is determines alignment and actions, where it comes from is not said - nor does it always matter (Belkar, Xykon). For Shojo, we simply do not know.

Read what I quoted next time. Rich literally said "Shojo was born CG", which is a much stronger statement than what you're describing. It implies that he popped from his mother's womb with CG already on his character sheet, so to speak.

Personally, I don't think that's really what he meant, and was hoping for clarification.

[BroomGuys]

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.

I think it is fair to assume that Shojo was trying his best to serve his people as well as he can. The assassination of the monarch of a state probably wouldn't be too helpful in preventing infighting between that state's feudal lords, so Shojo may quite reasonably have seen protecting his own life as a way of protecting many other innocent lives. It certainly seems a stretch to say that all was hunky-dory between the lords until Shojo stirred things up.

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.

That he is trying to do Good things with Chaotic means is pretty much the opposite of an informed attribute. Trying to save the world by going behind the backs of Paladins, faking senility to free himself from fear of assassination and with it any obligation to pander to the nobles, these are very very clearly Chaotic Good acts.

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.

Tarquin's motives are entirely selfish: he wants to live like a king (by only technically not actually being one) and look really awesome in the process. Shojo's motives are not (exclusively) selfish: he wants to protect his people from the end of the world. Yes, it is selfish for him to want to protect his own life as well, but self-preservation doesn't really register on the Evilometer. I really see very little similarity between their motives.

In terms of approaches, the key difference is their respective general tendencies. Tarquin achieves his goals by using, upholding, and even strengthening the legal system and the rigidness of its enforcement. Shojo simply ignores the law whenever he sees fit, but it is always because he thinks it serves the greater good. Sure, Shojo turned out to be wrong that some of those actions were the best ones, but we don't penalize people for ineffectiveness.

[OctoberRaven]

Here's a thing. What if (as I believe it was in 2E D&D) detect evil only registered high level Priests of evil deities,inherently evil creatures, and people who have already undertaken very evil acts? Would that be acceptable criteria for immediate action?

Well, in 3.5 there's various degrees of evil aura, your average Kobald would be faintly Evil, a Red Dragon would be strongly or even overwhelmingly Evil. So reasonably you can go by how strong the aura is.

You still have yet to address how this will be truly effective when there's not only very simple ways to conceal alignment, but also ways to trick spells into pinging for people not actually of that alignment.

I mean, if I were a high-level Evil character going into a place like Azure City, the first thing I would do is get someone to craft a Ring of Undectable Alignment for me. And I mean literally the first thing, as in "before I actually leave to go to Azure City" first thing. Why? Because Paladins at the gates won't get a ping, and more powerful divinations wouldn't be used unless I was actually tried for something.

Any high-level villain who doesn't do this either A) Is powerful enough to not care about being arrested or attacked, or B) is Skeletor levels of Stupid Evil and would probably get thwarted anyway.

Alignment Police is just not practical.

[hamishspence]

I tend to think the way the alignment system works even in 3E plain ordinary people with an evil alignment have always, or almost always, committed very bad acts or they wouldn't have gotten the way they did. You don't get to be "evil" by everyday acts of petty nastiness, you need to be really willing to do some serious oppression to get that way.

In Eberron Campaign Setting, it mentions - in the section that discusses alignment- that Evil characters vary a lot- and a player can't assume that a person being evil means that they deserve to be attacked by adventurers- they might be a cruel innkeeper, or a very mercenary legal advocate.

Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-
one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copy behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path go good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.

[Porthos]

You only become evil by doing <things>

Untrue. Alignment is just as much about personal philisophy and motivations as it is some sort of Karmic Justice Meter. Someone can be evil if they have evil desires, motivations and wants, even if they never get the opportunity to act on those desires.

[SavageWombat]

Untrue. Alignment is just as much about personal philisophy and motivations as it is some sort of Karmic Justice Meter. Someone can be evil if they have evil desires, motivations and wants, even if they never get the opportunity to act on those desires.

Not saying you're wrong, but that's the kind of statement you need to back up with something. I don't know that D&D has ever made such a statement - it sounds like something from philosophy class, or catholic school.

[Sir_Leorik]

I mean, if I were a high-level Evil character going into a place like Azure City, the first thing I would do is get someone to craft a Ring of Undectable Alignment for me. And I mean literally the first thing, as in "before I actually leave to go to Azure City" first thing. Why? Because Paladins at the gates won't get a ping from you, and more powerful divinations wouldn't be used unless I was actually tried for something.

Any high-level villain who doesn't do this either A) Is powerful enough to not care about being arrested or attacked, or B) is Skeletor levels of Stupid Evil and would probably get thwarted anyway.

Alignment Police is just not practical.

In one of the bonus strips to Book three, two of the Paladins point out to Miko that they are specifically not the police; they are a secret order of Paladins and they do not have jurisdiction over petty crimes, like waiters throwing dice on the back steps of a restaurant. The Sapphire Guard existed solely to protect Soon's Gate; one of the ways they did this was by patrolling the walls of the city, but they didn't fight crime.

There are only two canonical examples of a cleric or paladin trying to root out evil based on the detect evil spell or ability: The Kingpriest of Istar, who was the high priest of Paladine on the Continent of Ansalon (home of the "Dragonlance" saga) and Lady Elena Faith-Hold, a fallen Paladin and the Darklord of the Domain of Nidala in the "Ravenloft" campaign setting. Both the Kingpriest and Lady Elena launched crusades against "Evil" in the names of their respective gods (the King-Priest for Paladine, Lady Elena for Belenus), and they were both punished by their deities: Istar was struck by the Cataclysm, and the Gods turned away from the people of Krynn for centuries; Belenus stripped Lady Elena of her Paladin abilities; when she continued her Crusade, the Dark Powers drew her into the Land of the Mists, making her Darklord of Nidala. The Dark Powers restored Lady Elena's powers (albeit as a Blackguard) but they put a special twist on her detect evil power: she is now capable of detecting any strong emotion (hate, love, happiness, anger, sadness, etc.) but she always senses these emotions as if she were detecting Evil.

In short, using the ability to detect evil in this manner is an abuse of the authority a divine caster (especially a paladin) has received. It is a tool, just like the Paladin's mount or holy sword is. Just like there are times that the paladin's mount wouldn't be helpful, or a paladin would cause more harm than good by drawing her sword, there are times when using detect evil is either self-defeating or harmful. There are also times when it's very useful to have; that's why the Dark Powers have banned its use in the Domains of Dread.

[hamishspence]

Not saying you're wrong, but that's the kind of statement you need to back up with something.

It would apply to newborn dragons, I suspect. According to the MM, a creature with "Always X alignment" is born with it, and exceptions are rare (or even unique)- implication, on hatching/birth, it already has a personal philosophy and motivations- and these are what give it an alignment.

[Carry2]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how you can look at a man who uses subterfuge to manoeuvre around scheming nobles in order to run an effective and prosperous nation and a man who runs a fascist police-state and orchestrates wars, and then call their approaches and motives similar.

The thing is, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a reader who hasn't, say, read the prequels or is aware of Word of God (who should in any case be showing, not just telling.) From that perspective, it's not particularly obvious that Shojo has made Azure City more anarchic or that Tarquin has made the western continent less pleasant. It's possible, but it's not actually demonstrated- the key evidence is either completely off-panel and off-record, or muddies the picture considerably (i.e, the behaviour of azurite nobles hardly being LN, the prior state of the western continent being less organised but also more violent.)

Tarquin, approaches: Subversion of justice, blackmail, manipulation, deceit, arbitrary imprisonment, use of violent force when people won't see it his way.
Tarquin, motives: Unite the continent and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

Shojo, approaches: Subversion of justice, blackmail, manipulation, deceit, arbitrary imprisonment, use of violent force when people won't see it his way.
Shojo, motives: Unite azure city and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

Now, Tarquin is, by all appearances, more extreme is his approach, but that's largely a difference of degree, not kind. Going by in-comic evidence, I'd have pegged Tarquin at somewhere between TN and NE, and Shojo at somewhere between TN and NG. These guys could productively swap notes, is what I'm saying.

[factotum]

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.

Where, exactly, do you get the idea that Shojo deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to antagonise the nobles? Where do you get the idea that the nobles of Azure City are a bunch of feudal warlords? You seem to have made up a bunch of things that Shojo did out of whole cloth, and concluded from these that Shojo isn't acting in a Chaotic Good manner--despite the fact there is no evidence for these things in the comic as presented.

[Carry2]

Untrue. Alignment is just as much about personal philisophy and motivations as it is some sort of Karmic Justice Meter. Someone can be evil if they have evil desires, motivations and wants, even if they never get the opportunity to act on those desires.

In theory, yes. In practice, sooner or later, there's always an opportunity. More to the point, the purpose of smiting isn't really about preventing past crimes, because you can't. It's about preventing or deterring future crimes. In which case, again, the alignment system has effectively done your legwork. It's kind of a silly basic premise, but again, if you accept it, reflexive smiting is actually a logical policy extension.

EDIT: But okay. Let's imagine a homebrew magic spell called Detect Evil Guys Who Have Actually Done Really Bad Stuff And Can We Smite Them Now? ...Same difference.

[Sir_Leorik]

Untrue. Alignment is just as much about personal philisophy and motivations as it is some sort of Karmic Justice Meter. Someone can be evil if they have evil desires, motivations and wants, even if they never get the opportunity to act on those desires.

Not saying you're wrong, but that's the kind of statement you need to back up with something. I don't know that D&D has ever made such a statement - it sounds like something from philosophy class, or catholic school.

I would add a caveat to Porthos' statement: in order to be considered "Evil" in the D&D alignment system, you need to either commit evil acts or you need to be committed to performing acts as part of a moral framework. A serial killer who reassures himself that murdering street urchins is a "Good" thing because they'd probably starve to death otherwise, is clearly Evil.

But what about a villager who dedicates herself to the worship of Vecna in the hopes that the "Whispered One" will reward her with power? If she joins a cell of Vecna cultists and she becomes a sleeper agent (a "Finger of Vecna" if I recall), if the head of her cell never calls upon her to do anything beyond listening to her neighbors' gossip, is she evil or not? On the one hand she worships one of the most malign entities in the D&D game; on the other hand she's only guilty of eavesdropping on simpletons and passing their secrets along. Would her alignment be Evil?

I think the answer is yes. She worships Vecna, and is serving him; as part of that service she maintains a tight cover and does not perform any overtly Evil acts until the time is right and the cell's hierarchy calls on her. But in her case, not performing overtly Evil acts is an Evil act, because she's laying low in order to further Vecna's schemes (and is hoping that Vecna will reward her for her service).

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Oscar the Orc might not be Lawful; yes he wants to replace the values of his society with more structured ones, but my question would be why? Why does Oscar want to do this? Is it because Oscar's tribe is at a disadvantage compared to the Hobgoblins, Dwarves and Lawful Humans? Or is it because Oscar is sick and tired of being picked on all the time and prefer to sleep without keeping one eye open all the time? Basically, is Oscar interested in creating a well ordered society that benefits everyone or is he looking out for number one?

I think that affects whether Oscar is LG or LE, but not whether he's lawful. He wants order, rules, discipline, organization, due process, binding contracts, all that good Lawful stuff. He thinks, as a practical matter, that's what it takes to get things done.

If he wants to create a strong centralized bureaucratic state to crush the disorganized opposition with him at the top reaping the rewards, he's lawful evil (which is basically how I see Tarquin for what it's worth). If he wants to create a strong centralized bureaucratic state with representative democracy and justice so everyone prospers and is assured rights and protection he's LG.

No matter which he's aiming at his practical beliefs that rules, organization, and discipline are how you get things done make him lawful.

The tribe's Shaman who preaches that anarchy, unconstrained competition, and struggle make the Orcs sharp witted, flexible, and strong is the opposite (Chaotic) viewpoint.

It's really important that Dan and Oscar have the same lawful/chaotic axis alignment because they have the same views of how to most effectively organize society.

[Morty]

The thing is, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a reader who hasn't, say, read the prequels or is aware of Word of God (who should in any case be showing, not just telling.) From that perspective, it's not particularly obvious that Shojo has made Azure City more anarchic or that Tarquin has made the western continent less pleasant. It's possible, but it's not actually demonstrated- the key evidence is either completely off-panel and off-record, or muddies the picture considerably (i.e, the behaviour of azurite nobles hardly being LN, the prior state of the western continent being less organised but also more violent.)

Tarquin, approaches: Subversion of justice, blackmail, manipulation, deceit, arbitrary imprisonment, use of violent force when people won't see it his way.
Tarquin, motives: Unite the continent and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

Shojo, approaches: Subversion of justice, blackmail, manipulation, deceit, arbitrary imprisonment, use of violent force when people won't see it his way.
Shojo, motives: Unite azure city and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

Now, Tarquin is, by all appearances, more extreme is his approach, but that's largely a difference of degree, not kind. Going by in-comic evidence, I'd have pegged Tarquin at somewhere between TN and NE, and Shojo at somewhere between TN and NG. These guys could productively swap notes, is what I'm saying.

Alright, let's see. You're refusing to acknowledge in-comic evidence because it's not explicit enough... but earlier you were assuming that Azure City's nobles are the type to start a civil war if incited. You're cherry-picking to the highest degree in order to support your conviction that Shojo can't be Chaotic Good. I wash my hands on this argument.

[hamishspence]

On the one hand she worships one of the most malign entities in the D&D game; on the other hand she's only guilty of eavesdropping on simpletons and passing their secrets along. Would her alignment be Evil?

I think the answer is yes. She worships Vecna, and is serving him; as part of that service she maintains a tight cover and does not perform any overtly Evil acts until the time is right and the cell's hierarchy calls on her. But in her case, not performing overtly Evil acts is an Evil act, because she's laying low in order to further Vecna's schemes (and is hoping that Vecna will reward her for her service).

BoVD does characterise worshipping evil deities as evil in itself. A case could be made that with every prayer, the character is committing a very tiny evil act- as such, they are "repeatedly, deliberately committing Evil acts"- which tends to be the mark of an Evil character according to Champions of Ruin.

Now if they'd been doing Good acts as much, it might be different.

I wonder if being devoted to a Chaotic deity or Outsider Lord (like the eladrin monarchs) or being devoted to a Lawful deity/Outsider Lord, would work the same way- each act of devotion being aligned, albeit weakly?

[Carry2]

Alright, let's see. You're refusing to acknowledge in-comic evidence because it's not explicit enough... but earlier you were assuming that Azure City's nobles are the type to start a civil war if incited...

Kubota was, for quite some time, actively trying to kill the head of state and subvert the judicial system. Shojo, likewise, was the victim of an assassination attempt. Many of the nobles deserted the city in the middle of a foreign invasion. For all the bloviation about standards of honour, there is almost nothing in the strip to suggest that the azurite nobles were particularly honour-bound or respectful of the rule of law. (Except for deferring to Shojo's cat, which would be Lawful Stupid.) And if Shojo caused the nobles to become that way, then his Good alignment is dependant on vague and off-panel references to benign social policy.

Is this all theoretically compatible with a CG alignment? Yes. I can retroactively imagine some set of policies that would make Shojo both chaotic and good. Will the actual in-comic record provide a useful example to those who want to role-play CG political masterminds themselves? I'm not so sure.

.

[Porthos]

Not saying you're wrong, but that's the kind of statement you need to back up with something. I don't know that D&D has ever made such a statement - it sounds like something from philosophy class, or catholic school.

Mostly Planescape and related products. Rich's post a while back:

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,

is part and parcel of it.

I suppose I was simplifying my statement. Alignment is BOTH a Cosmic Karmic Meter and an Internalization of an Outlook On Life.

In short, in the eternal debate about over Intent Versus Actions when it comes to alignment, I fall square in the Both category. Sometimes with one mattering more than the other, depending on the circumstance.

My standard example is as follows.

Let's say you have a throughly wicked, evil person. But he is a SMART wicked, evil person. He's found out a way to gain immense power by sacrificing a bunch of souls to J Random Evil.

But he decides to be manipulative about doing it. He decides to become one of the most respected members of his town. He helps local orphanages. He feeds the needy. He helps grandmothers across the street. You name it.

All of this is part of a grand plan to be elected mayor or something else that can put him in a position of trust and authority. He then plans on calling some sort of meeting/gathering at the local town hall where he will bolt the doors shut, and massacre everyone in a blaze of fiendish glory.

Now I ask you: If a random paladin walked down the street and pinged this guy while he was in the middle of his Do Good Deeds For Bad Intents phase, how would be ping? If only actions matter, and if said person didn't do any actual evil deeds, then he should ping as Good. If the Cosmic Karmic Scale is the only thing that matters. After all, he hasn't done anything overtly evil yet.

I find this ludicrous on its face.

Now if one is going to claim that the duplicitous nature of his plan taints all of his actions.... Well, we're back to intent, now aren't we?

Finally, lets get back to my original point of being evil without getting the chance to act on it. Let's say this random person starts hatching this plan. He thinks its fab. He starts to do some minimal research into what it would take to do it. But he hasn't actually done any of the plan yet. Nor has he really had much opportunity in his life to do much evil. Maybe he's a slacker in that department. Maybe he never got around to torturing kittens as a hobby. Maybe he was too afraid of getting caught? Who knows. But now he's stumbled upon a pretty neat idea (by reading a random book while out exploring), and he's going to take the chance now.

How does he ping now?

I know how I would answer, personally. Yet he hasn't actually done anything.

Of course, sometimes actions are so horrific that it doesn't matter what the intent was behind it. But those sorts of situations are covered more than enough on this thread and this board so I don't feel the need to talk in depth about them.

Thus both matter.

It would apply to newborn dragons, I suspect. According to the MM, a creature with "Always X alignment" is born with it, and exceptions are rare (or even unique)- implication, on hatching/birth, it already has a personal philosophy and motivations- and these are what give it an alignment.

Well personality, motivations, and an outlook on life generally don't come about till one ages in life. It also lets someone change their alignment when their outlook changed. But I was more talking about people who might have the motivation to 'do evil' and would really want to do so, but don't for whatever reason. As noted above.

[Sir_Leorik]

The thing is, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a reader who hasn't, say, read the prequels or is aware of Word of God (who should in any case be showing, not just telling.) From that perspective, it's not particularly obvious that Shojo has made Azure City more anarchic or that Tarquin has made the western continent less pleasant. It's possible, but it's not actually demonstrated- the key evidence is either completely off-panel and off-record, or muddies the picture considerably (i.e, the behaviour of azurite nobles hardly being LN, the prior state of the western continent being less organised but also more violent.)

You want evidence that Lord Shojo's actions left Azure City in a state of increased Chaos?

How about this?

Or this?

Or the left panels in this one? (Not the ones with the Hobgoblins.)

Tarquin, approaches: Subversion of justice, blackmail, manipulation, deceit, arbitrary imprisonment, use of violent force when people won't see it his way.
Tarquin, motives: Unite the continent and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

That's not Tarquin's motive, its a side-effect of his long term motives: live like a king without making himself a target. In order to do so effectively he needs to forge law and order where there was none.

[Morty]

Kubota was, for quite some time, actively trying to kill the head of state and subvert the judicial system. Shojo, likewise, was the victim of an assassination attempt. Many of the nobles deserted the city in the middle of a foreign invasion. For all the bloviation about standards of honour, there is almost nothing in the strip to suggest that the azurite nobles were particularly honour-bound or respectful of the rule of law. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the exact opposite. And if Shojo caused the nobles to become that way, then his Good alignment is dependant on vague and off-panel references to benign social policy.

Is this all theoretically compatible with a CG alignment? Yes. Will the actual in-comic record provide a useful example to those who want to play machiavellian CG masterminds themselves? I doubt it.

None of it suggests that they would start sending armies at each other if they didn't get their way. What you're doing is extrapolating wildly in order to support your argument... while, at the same time, dismissing other evidence as not being on-screen enough. And yet you're completely blind to the double standard involved.

[Sir_Leorik]

BoVD does characterise worshipping evil deities as evil in itself. A case could be made that with every prayer, the character is committing a very tiny evil act- as such, they are "repeatedly, deliberately committing Evil acts"- which tends to be the mark of an Evil character according to Champions of Ruin.

Now if they'd been doing Good acts as much, it might be different.

I wonder if being devoted to a Chaotic deity or Outsider Lord (like the eladrin monarchs) or being devoted to a Lawful deity/Outsider Lord, would work the same way- each act of devotion being aligned, albeit weakly?

I think it would be. This is certainly how EGG intended Alignment to work in AD&D 1E, its deliberately mentioned that the "Powers" need this devotion in the Planescape setting (which is part of the reason the Athar denigrate the "gods") and there's evidence for it working that way in some 3.X products. A character like this would only radiate as "faintly evil" (or lawful, chaotic, or good). In the Planescape campaign in particular, one of the themes of the campaign was that "belief shapes reality". The young washerwoman who is secretly a Vecna cultist is making Vecna stronger by both aiding the cell she belongs to and by giving power to Vecna with each prayer. And even if she's not committing murder, or theft, or any other overt crime, in Keoland she would be committing a capital crime just by joining the cult.

[pendell]

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."

I can well imagine assassination of a civic ruler being a good act. What if someone bumped off Tarquin? While it's easy to jump to the assumption that murdering the lawful ruler of the city is an evil act, I'm trying to minimize the assumptions I'm having to make. Non-lawful is easier to defend than non-good.

Several people tried to kill Hinjo. It may be that they seriously believed this was the only way to save the city from his misrule (which might be plausible for a good character) or because they wanted to increase their own power (evil).

Rich's words in this thread appear to indicate that Kubota was Lawful Evil.

Absent his actually saying that, I don't see that it follows. I can well imagine a chaotic evil aristocrat doing the exact same thing Kubota did. Murder, intrigue, constant lying and deceit could be chaotic behavior as it was in Shojo's case. The fact that it is done for his personal gain rather than for the good of the city, and the fact that Kubota seems much quicker to murder, is what makes him evil instead of good.

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."

Certainly Lord Shojo believed that it was necessary for him to survive. Had he been more open and straightforward many more assassination attempts might have been made than they were. You survive 100% of the assassination attempts that aren't made because they think you're a senile pawn.

Whether this is actually true has not been established in comic. But it's not an unreasonable viewpoint.

By the same perspective, we can be pretty sure Shojo had a father but we have no indication said father was any more lawful than Shojo was. Shojo had to learn the art of ruling from someone, after all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[tomandtish]

BoVD does characterise worshipping evil deities as evil in itself. A case could be made that with every prayer, the character is committing a very tiny evil act- as such, they are "repeatedly, deliberately committing Evil acts"- which tends to be the mark of an Evil character according to Champions of Ruin.

Now if they'd been doing Good acts as much, it might be different.

I wonder if being devoted to a Chaotic deity or Outsider Lord (like the eladrin monarchs) or being devoted to a Lawful deity/Outsider Lord, would work the same way- each act of devotion being aligned, albeit weakly?

Actually, since you can technically be one alignment step away from the god you worship, a worshipper of Venca COULD non-evil (for example, worshipping him because of his knowledge domain). Where trouble comes in is the passing of information to other cult members. If she knows or suspects that the information is going to be used for evil purposes, she's moved into evil territory since she's now part of any evil they commit. So, it's not the worship of Vecna that makes her evil, but the actions she is taking. Now, whether Vecna and/or his cultists will allow worship at all without some support is another matter entirely. Does Vecna have worshippers (those who pray to him as their patron) AND cultists (those who actively work to further his ends) or just cultists? The woman in the example above is a cultist. She's taking an active (if minor) role in furthering Vecna's ends and as such is responsible (along with others) for any evil resulting from the information she obtained.

[Kish]

I can well imagine assassination of a civic ruler being a good act. What if someone bumped off Tarquin? While it's easy to jump to the assumption that murdering the lawful ruler of the city is an evil act, I'm trying to minimize the assumptions I'm having to make. Non-lawful is easier to defend than non-good.

Several people tried to kill Hinjo. It may be that they seriously believed this was the only way to save the city from his misrule (which might be plausible for a good character) or because they wanted to increase their own power (evil).

You think the murder of a new ruler who you think is probably unqualified--but you have no real reason to believe that--is a nonevil act? That's quite a claim.

Absent his actually saying that[...]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=36

By the same perspective, we can be pretty sure Shojo had a father but we have no indication said father was any more lawful than Shojo was. Shojo had to learn the art of ruling from someone, after all.

Really? You think Soon handed over leadership of his paladin order to a habitual liar?

[BroomGuys]

Subversion of justice

Conflation of Evil and Chaos through too wide an interpretation of the word justice. Tarquin subverts justice by putting people in prison who do not deserve it but did indeed break the law, therefore Evil but not Chaotic. Shojo subverts justice by disregarding the legal system to put people who do deserve it (Nale et al) in jail and to assist the folks he's hoping will help save the world (mark of justice instead of jail for Belkar), therefore Chaotic but decidedly not Evil.

blackmail, manipulation

I don't recall any blackmail that Shojo ever does, but what you're probably referring to falls under the umbrella of manipulation. The fact that the word describes both of them tells us very little of the inherent alignment implications it has, since manipulation just means "getting people to do stuff for you," usually by appealing to emotions that the manipulator knows will cause the manipulatees to act as expected. If you think this is inherently Chaotic or Evil, then you're obviously not familiar with one of a paladin's key class abilities: Summon Conscience.

deceit

I'm assuming deceit is Chaotic; correct me if I'm wrong. As I've mentioned before, Tarquin seems to care about telling the truth to people, even if it's a misleading truth, and that since Durkon and O-Chul engage in it, that seems to be a legitimate loophole of Lawfulness in the Oots-verse. This is why Tarquin tells Roy that he appreciates a man who keeps his word, a trait that he has displayed himself. So yes, while Tarquin deceives people, one might say he has a strict personal code about how he deceives them. A stretch? Maybe, but if Lawful Evil meant you couldn't be dishonest, I don't think anyone would be Lawful Evil.

arbitrary imprisonment

When did Shojo ever do this? Imprisoning the Linear Guild was a special request made with particular reasons to jail someone who murdered dozens of innocent people.

use of violent force when people won't see it his way

When did Shojo ever do this?

Tarquin, motives: Unite the continent and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

Shojo, motives: Unite azure city and reduce long-term conflict and suffering.

With Tarquin, it's really clear that he isn't actually trying to make anyone's life better in the Western Continent. This is pretty much lampshaded; do you think he really believes that you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others? What he does want is as much power as he can get and to look really awesome, and anything he says otherwise is self-delusion. Thus, Tarquin wants to reduce long-term conflict so he has a greater degree of control, and he is quite obviously indifferent to the suffering part.

With Shojo, Azure City was already united in the sense that the Western Continent is not: it was a cohesive state. Whatever the extent of the infighting between nobles, it certainly did not remotely approach the chaos of the Western Continent. Yes, Shojo did consolidate and unify the power structure (to within himself) by deceiving the nobles, the important part is that he did so by undermining the rule of law rather than by strengthening it, as The Giant has already pointed out.

Going by in-comic evidence, I'd have pegged Tarquin at somewhere between TN and NE, and Shojo at somewhere between TN and NG.

Tarquin gratuitously murders people, ergo Evil; this really cannot be in doubt. I also think the evidence is pretty strong that he is Lawful, but could you give an example of a character you do consider Lawful Evil for comparison? I really think your standard for honesty is a bit too steep.

I really don't understand why you would say Shojo isn't Chaotic. Pretty much his standard modus operandi is to disregard the legal system whenever he finds it convenient. My point of view about his Goodness is expressed above.

These guys could productively swap notes, is what I'm saying.

That, I think, has much more to do with the fact that they both rule[d] countries than to anything related to their alignment. Getting a good public opinion, minimizing the number of enemies you have, and keeping yourself from getting killed (which is dramatically easier for Tarquin than it is for Shojo) are all things that a ruler of any alignment would value.