Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Angel Bob]

Nale has always seemed to me like the poster child for Neutral Evil, although I think I understand why he's specified as Lawful Evil. (It's just to complete his whole "evil opposites" theme, no?)

I don't think all clerics have to have a personal code... far from it. They can just follow their deity's commandments as an external code, like the Giant was just saying. And Lawful Evil characters like Kubota still technically follow an external code... just an ancient, spotty, and loophole-open one like Azure City's.

[Sky_Schemer]

Also, what about Lawful Evil characters. They don't submit to the authorities. They manipulate to get what they want. Look at Kubota. He didn't really have a code. He spent his screen time messing with loopholes to look "innocent" for Hinjo whilst he plotted his highly un-lawful take over. He wouldn't punish himself for breaking any code he may have had if he got his city.

Well, looking at the SRD's description for LE, we get:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

The issue here is that LE characters do have a code, but it is one that more or less benefits themselves by providing a structure in which they can maintain power. Civil laws are followed in so far as they enforce order, but loyalty is higher up the ladder in importance. It's also important for an LE character to put on the appearances of being within the law, even when they are not. That is a fundamental difference between LE and CE: appearances matter.

I think Kubota works as LE because he was willing to use the law mercilessly to manipulate events that would benefit his own standing, but his own "family" was more important than the law. He was willing to kill Hinjo because Hinjo was a barrier that he had to eliminate because Hinjo could not be manipulated. Note, though, that he used other agents to accomplish this goal, and worked hard to make events look like outside forces rather than his own actions.

Nale is harder for me to work at, but I think it still comes down to loyalty to his team. He may not be as lawful as Kubota, but alignment isn't a binary state, either.

[Warren Dew]

Not just Miko. Would a Cleric not always have a personal code they must follow? Certainly Durkon and Malack follow Thor's and Nergal's tennants rather strictly (Redcloak's an iffy case). I know they're lawful but then again there haven't been any major chaotic or neutral clerics since Firehelm.

Also, what about Lawful Evil characters. They don't submit to the authorities. They manipulate to get what they want. Look at Kubota. He didn't really have a code. He spent his screen time messing with loopholes to look "innocent" for Hinjo whilst he plotted his highly un-lawful take over. He wouldn't punish himself for breaking any code he may have had if he got his city.

In these examples, Thor's, Nergal's, and Azure City's rules all seem like external codes, not personal codes, to me.

[137beth]

Nale has always seemed to me like the poster child for Neutral Evil, although I think I understand why he's specified as Lawful Evil. (It's just to complete his whole "evil opposites" theme, no?)

Aside from Nale's own words, do we have any proof that he is Lawful? Maybe he is really neutral evil and says he is lawful to fool Elan into buying the evil opposites theme
(yea, he does seem NE to me, though).

Kuboto does seem like he could be lawful. I mean, look at his interaction with Therkla here. Manipulating the system to get what you want for selfish gains? Sounds LE to me.

[Sky_Schemer]

By the way, I want to say how much I love this thread. I've read every word everyone has written, including the abbreviated history of Batman. :) I really do hope we can avoid getting it shut down.

Alignment can so easily just become a stat on a character sheet. I really like seeing it discussed as something far more tangible and central to the game.

[The Giant]

Not just Miko. Would a Cleric not always have a personal code they must follow? Certainly Durkon and Malack follow Thor's and Nergal's tennants rather strictly (Redcloak's an iffy case).

Those codes are not "personal," they are external. Thor's code is Thor's code, and if Durkon breaks it, Thor (or the church) punishes him. It's no different than following the laws of a nation, though it can get interesting when the two disagree. I was talking about truly personal, internally generated codes. Those are a different "shade" of Lawful than those who follow externally generated codes like a nation's laws or a religious order's ethics.

Also, what about Lawful Evil characters. They don't submit to the authorities. They manipulate to get what they want. Look at Kubota. He didn't really have a code. He spent his screen time messing with loopholes to look "innocent" for Hinjo whilst he plotted his highly un-lawful take over.

Again, Kubota is operating within an existing legal framework. He is warping it, because he's Lawful Evil, but he's not inventing the laws on his own. He's gaming them for his own benefit. So he does not count as someone whose claim to Lawfulness rests solely on a personal code.

With Lawful Evil, the difference between "external code" and "internal code" is even more stark. An external code LE is probably spending his time manipulating the code to his benefit, using it when it suits his purposes and relying on others to enforce it when it doesn't. An internal code LE would have a strict set of rules that he would believe set himself "above" other criminals or tyrants—stuff like, "would never kill a child." If he violates that, he might well take it upon himself to punish himself for his own transgression, flogging himself for straying from his unholy righteous path. I don't know that there are any characters in OOTS that rise to that level, though.

And of course, some of these ideas get muddled when the character is themselves responsible for creating the law, since the system was not really designed for characters that have that level of autonomy over civilization.

He wouldn't punish himself for breaking any code he may have had if he got his city.

True. But he was willing (eager, even) to allow himself to be tried and punished by the existing legal system of Azure City once he was defeated, because he judged it to be to his advantage. His Lawfulness was on display in the way that he planned to work within the system through the spectacle of a trial to get his goals, rather than, say, planning a jailbreak and escaping Hinjo's grasp.

Even bigger example. Nale. He never seems to do anything Lawful at all. He doesn't have a code. He doesn't follow traditions of law. He would break any code he had if he got his father's empire and his brother's eternal torment. He'd probably backstab Sabine if he had to.

Interesting, that. Don't you think?

Finally, do chaotics have to buck societal trends. I'm sure a lot of Chaotic people are happy with how the government runs things.

I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?

[137beth]

With Lawful Evil, the difference between "external code" and "internal code" is even more stark. An external code LE is probably spending his time manipulating the code to his benefit, using it when it suits his purposes and relying on others to enforce it when it doesn't. An internal code LE would have a strict set of rules that he would believe set himself "above" other criminals or tyrants—stuff like, "would never kill a child." If he violates that, he might well take it upon himself to punish himself for his own transgression, flogging himself for straying from his unholy righteous path. I don't know that there are any characters in OOTS that rise to that level, though.

Arguably, LE fiends have an internal code, which they refuse to break.

On the other hand, you could argue that their code is enforced by their higher ups (or lower downs), and if Qarr broke a deal, he would have to have a serious "talk" with a pit fiend.

Which might then suggest that Asmodeus or whoever is running the nine hells in this setting has an internal code. But then that entity would be in the murky place of "following an external code you control."

[Sir_Leorik]

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

This definitely fits with certain vigilante superheroes from comic books. The most obvious example would be the Batman (especially from the Bronze Age to the present), who breaks the law in order to bring violent criminals to justice, but who has a personal code of conduct that includes a vow never to take another person's life and to never use a firearm (among others). Daredevil would also be a good example of such a character, especially one who breaks their own code and has a nervous breakdown as a result (in the "Born Again" story by Frank Miller).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

Speaking as a DM, I'd be a bit loathe to allow a player to adopt such a personal code for their Lawful Good PC unless they provide me a written copy of exactly what the code entails. If I felt the code (and the punishments they'd need to go through to atone for violating) were too lax I'd reject it.

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

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

[The Giant]

Speaking as a DM, I'd be a bit loathe to allow a player to adopt such a personal code for their Lawful Good PC unless they provide me a written copy of exactly what the code entails. If I felt the code (and the punishments they'd need to go through to atone for violating) were too lax I'd reject it.

I think that's an entirely valid way of handling it in a game. The burden should be on the player to prove that their character is actually bound by their code if they want to claim that the character is Lawful.

But Miko was also a Paladin and a Samurai. As a Paladin she was expected to follow the Paladin Code and the rules of the Sapphire Guard, which she was at best paying lip service to. And as a Samurai she probably should have committed suicide the second she was punished for murdering Lord Shojo. Instead she tried to rationalize her actions. That's a Chaotic attitude, one that she was probably headed for much earlier.

The ways in which Miko failed to live up to her obligations are many and varied.

[Sir_Leorik]

By the way, I want to say how much I love this thread. I've read every word everyone has written, including the abbreviated history of Batman. :)

Thanks! My thoughts on Batman's alignment were originally inspired by an alignment graph showing nine different incarnations of the character, each one being used as evidence that Batman could be considered that alignment. (Adam West was used for the Lawful Good incarnation. )

The idea of being Lawful Good because of a personal code that a person can never violate ties in nicely with the way the Joker tried to bait Batman into breaking his code in "The Dark Knight". Essentially the Joker is Chaotic Evil because there is no act he isn't willing to perform in pursuit of his goals; he has nothing but disdain for societies rules, and he has no personal code to hold him back. All that's left is sheer anarchy. But despite his protestations about "planners", the Joker is an incredibly organized and meticulous individual in "TDK". He sees what he wants and makes a strategy for how to get it, with bizarre contingency plans in case the first one fails. But he has no loyalty (as the bank robbers in the opening scene of the movie learn), no moral restraints and no code of conduct to tell him "you're going to far", because as far as the Joker's concerned, there's no such thing as too far.

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

[Sir_Leorik]

The ways in which Miko failed to live up to her obligations are many and varied.

Amen.

[oppyu]

Stuff about lawful characters and personal codes

So, if a character utterly devoted themselves to preserving the civil and personal liberties of all and promoting a Chaotic society, but otherwise followed all conditions for adhering to a strict personal code, would they be Chaotic or Lawful?

[Waargh!]

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful

Vigilantism is by definition acting outside the law. The point is that there is no one law, there are several. Several personal ones and several external ones that often contradict with each other. A lawful person tends to follow the law, ideally they want to follow all laws, but that is just not possible. So a vigilante might have an external and personal law that contradict. For me it is just not a good example to justify an alignment, it just shows which law you prefer more.

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

Thus I disagree with this. Having a personal code is simple. You know what the code is exactly. You have complete control. You likely agree with it as nobody is forcing you to do it. External laws are more complicated and they can rely on a lot of things that are outside your control which means you are also forced usually to follow part of the laws you don't agree in order to follow the law as whole which you do agree. As a player you also need to put effort to actually find out what are the external laws for a given society and take more variables into account. The fact that adventurers in D&D just don't follow the laws of a given society is because it is easier to just not take them strictly into account and usually they don't act in an environment that everyday people of that imaginary world act. For me it is far more interesting giving social roles to characters rather than giving them a personal code regardless how strict the code is.

[The Giant]

So, if a character utterly devoted themselves to preserving the civil and personal liberties of all and promoting a Chaotic society, but otherwise followed all conditions for adhering to a strict personal code, would they be Chaotic or Lawful?

They'd probably be Neutral. Using Lawful means to achieve Chaotic goals is no different than using Evil means to achieve Good goals.

Also, remember that in actual D&D, there are other aspects to alignment. Mainly, that they are objective cosmological forces vying for control of the multiverse. If you use Lawful methods to put more Chaos into the world, Team Law will hate you and Team Chaos won't trust you.

[Sir_Leorik]

So, if a character utterly devoted themselves to preserving the civil and personal liberties of all and promoting a Chaotic society, but otherwise followed all conditions for adhering to a strict personal code, would they be Chaotic or Lawful?

They'd be Chaotic. I think that the heart of matter, at the end of the day, is why is this character deciding to follow this code of conduct. If the answer is "The Greater Good", then the character is most likely Lawful (or trying to be lawful); if the answer is "Don't Tell Me or Anyone Else What to Do and We'll Get Along Just Fine", then the character is Chaotic. If the character falls somewhere in the middle, then they're Neutral.

For example, a Lawful Good character could very easily promote individual liberty and freedom, while also promoting good government and social welfare. That's basically what Captain America and Superman try to do all the time. Its the only way to justify Cap's decision to oppose the SHRA during "Civil War" without claiming that a drunken Scotsman derailed his character: the SHRA was an example of poor government (it was rammed through Congress virtually overnight with little debate and no opportunity for Cap or any other opponents to testify before Congress); it harmed the public's welfare, since it prevents heroes who refuse to register from being available to save lives in cases of fires, natural disasters, HYDRA plots, Masters of Evil attacks, Thanos' latest date and Galactus' midnight snack run; and it infringes on the individual liberties of the superheroes who have sacrificed so much for the people of the world and puts their friends and families in jeopardy. (All Cap would have needed to do if given the opportunity to testify before Congress was present a slide show of Matt Murdock's life after he was outed as Daredevil by a New York tabloid. Or Matt's life after Karen Page sold his secret identity to the Kingpin. Or Matt's life after Deadpool stole Matt's seeing-eye dog.)

From Cap's point of view, his personal code requires him to take a stand against unjust laws. Normally he'd try to lobby against them, but he was unable to do so against the SHRA (because "Civil War" was written by a drunken Scotsman); or he'd try to promote passive resistance. But he felt that everything he'd worked for as Captain America, both before and during World War II and from the moment the Avengers thawed him out on their submarine to the present required him to fight the SHRA. It was only when he realized that the American people objected to his fight that he surrendered to the police.

On the other end of the superhero spectrum, one of the anti-heroes Batman often has to deal with is a kid named Lonny, aka the vigilante Anarky. Anarky (who's only fourteen years old) believes that all governments are inherently corrupt and he wishes to destroy them. Batman wishes the DA could get the kid sent to Blackgate or Belle Reve prison, since he's incredibly intelligent, but very emotionally immature. Its bad enough to have the Joker or Two Face running around sowing chaos, but at least they're insane. Lonny isn't crazy, just idealistic. But his idealism often takes a back seat to his pragmatism. He may claim he wishes to promote individual liberty, but Anarky is more likely to rob a bank to fund his crusade than he is to set the bank on fire. (Two Face would flip his coin; good heads he doesn't rob the bank at all, bad heads he robs half the money in the vault and burns the rest.)

The reason I'm using Anarky to illustrate why a character you described would be Chaotic rather than Lawful, is that Anarky wants to create an anarchic society, one with no laws or government. Other than an ochlocracy (mob rule) an anarchy is the closest to having a Chaotic society that would still resemble a society. But is an anarchy really a society, or a collection of individuals who live in the same place and have no laws restraining their behavior? And is that really good for those individuals? Batman may break the law, but he's doing so to bring violent criminals to justice. He believes in law and order, but his personal code says that so long as Gotham City is in the grip of violent criminals and supervillains, Batman needs to be able to skirt the law. When Batman's no longer needed, Bruce will hang up the cape and cowl (and possibly turn himself in to be tried for all of Batman's many alleged felonies). Anarky doesn't believe in law and order; he views them as an evil thing that keep people from reaching their full potential and wants to violently do away with them. That's Chaotic, not Lawful, even though Lonny sincerely believes in his personal code.

[veti]

And of course, some of these ideas get muddled when the character is themselves responsible for creating the law, since the system was not really designed for characters that have that level of autonomy over civilization.

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

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

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, remember that in actual D&D, there are other aspects to alignment. Mainly, that they are objective cosmological forces vying for control of the multiverse. If you use Lawful methods to put more Chaos into the world, Team Law will hate you and Team Chaos won't trust you.

Ooh, that's a good point: the Modrons, the Fraternity of Order, the Harmonium and the Inevitables all stand opposed to Chaos for various reasons. And they believe in a type of Absolute Standards of Law; they would not accept someone with a personal code as being Lawful unless that personal code matched their Absolute Standards of Law. The Guvners have spent centuries researching Laws that function as axioms of the universe; the Modrons march throughout the Great Wheel every seventeen cycles in order to keep reality as we know it intact; the Harmonium hit people who break the law with sticks; and the Inevitables drop by to let Addlecoves know not to get too cheeky when it comes time to pay the piper (whether the piper in question is an unfulfilled oath, like Eugene Greenhilt's, or someone attempting to stave off death). These groups and entities take Law seriously.

On the flip side, you have Demons, Demodands, Slaadi, Loki, Xaositects and the Doomguard. (I know that the Demons and Demodands are Chaotic Evil, but honestly the Slaadi are borderline Chaotic Evil in 3.X and in 4E they've become outright Chaotic Evil.) These creatures either don't care about your promotion of Chaos, or (in the case of the Sinkers) view it as futile, since Entropy, not Chaos, is what will be the fate of the Multiverse. In fact your attempt to promote Chaos may set back the goal of Entropy if the Modrons or Hardheads got wind of it, so the Doomguard might decide to write your name in the deadbook beforehand.

[tomandtish]

Quick disclaimer: I normally stay out of alignment debates because generally speaking, while alignments are absolute, that is only from a DM's perspective (hopefully with the input of his players). Therefore, my world's definition of Lawful behavior compared to yours, or the Giants, will almost certainly differ at least slightly, and may differ greatly.

Arguments like this also show the problem with using alignment to try and combine how the character views society (external) and how they handle themselves (internal). The Paladin's LG requirement is pretty obviously external. It's based on helping society and self-sacrifice to benefit others. The Monk's Lawful requirement is internal. It's based on self-discipline (internal focus and control). Two totally separate things. In truth, it should be possible to have a Paladin who's a complete mess at self-discipline and control, and a Monk who firmly believes that individuals should do as they will. With that said…

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Good and Evil are what determine how and to what extreme a character may do these things.

A LE character will use the letter of the law to get what they want. If that doesn't work, they may manipulate others into breaking the law, thus keeping their hands clean (Kubota is a good example of this). They will keep their word, but only the letter of the agreement (and will have done their best to leave a loophole). They'll respect authority (that is, those with the power) and always work within the system to become the power themselves.

A LG character generally believes that an orderly society is beneficial to most people. However, they are more likely to look at the spirit of the law when needed than a true LN character, and will not hesitate to ignore or disregard laws that seem obviously designed to support the causes of evil. (Example: Even if Goblintopia passes a law saying all humans must leave the area, the Sapphire Guard is not going to leave). They may also break a law if it helps the greater good (depends on if they are more Lawful or more Good).

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.

A lot depends on what happens after. If Roy is able to sneak in, fight Xykon and kill him, sneak out, and no one is the wiser? Then probably it could still be considered a lawful act (or rather, it wouldn't move him away from lawful).

Where a lot of problems come is what happens with others. Let's say guards interfere, demanding that both parties surrender and Xykon does (for some strange reason). Does Roy fight them to try and get to Xykon? We're starting to move out of lawful territory at this point. Even if he kills Xykon, if the guards try and detain him and he injures them while trying to leave, we're still moving outside lawful territory.

This can be part of the problem with saying Batman is Lawful Good. In some versions, he's willing to injure police officers to keep from being captured. He may have a code, but (Year 1, Dark Knight Returns, some others), he's willing to risk the lives of police to keep from being captured. (Despite his claims, he can never be certain that he won't hit an officer and a gun won't discharge into another officer).

LG characters probably also have a problem with the idea of vigilante justice because you don't want everyone running around thinking it's OK to avenge wrongs outside the law. After all, sooner or later word gets out.

[Sir_Leorik]

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

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

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

[EmperorSarda]

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

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

He doesn't change the law on the spur of the moment though. He enforces existing laws. Doesn't matter if he can change them in the future, he still enforces them. Also, see how Tarquin allowed Roy to free Haley's dad and uncle from prison because Roy gave his word.

[NZNinja]

But Miko was also a Paladin and a Samurai

I think this points at a disconnect between the Samurai and Paladin codes: a samurai would never do anything to dishonor their master, regardless of their master's worthiness; they are the very personification of unswerving loyalty unto death. As the Hagakure puts it, 'a samurai must be willing to die at any moment in order to be true to his lord' - even (or especially) if his lord orders evil acts to be committed.
Whereas a paladin would never do anything unlawful/evil, even if ordered to, and this is one of the ways that the two codes can conflict.

In the Hinjo/Miko/Shojo situation:

• An ideal paladin would have had Shojo arrested and placed on trial (ala Hinjo).
• An ideal samurai would have rationalized that Lord Shojo knew what was for the best and continued to serve him.
• A less than ideal (but not necessarily unrealistic) samurai could have rejected Lord Shojo's deception, and abandoned him to become a ronin.

Certainly, none of the above would have come to the summary execution solution that Miko did; that's her own special brand of madness.


On a tangentially related note, seeing as samurai suicide was brought up earlier; the Hagakure was written by an ex-samurai retainer who did not commit junshi (suicide when his master died) because a) it had been made illegal by the Tokugawa Shogunate, and b) his master had specifically disapproved of the tradition.

Also, I'm using the Edo period samurai restrictions, as that's when the Hagakure was written, although it's only arguably Japan's feudal era; in other periods there were fewer restrictions on samurai (see the Wikipedia ronin page for more details).

But as Miko said: "What is this 'Japan' you speak of?"

[veti]

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

You're right, Mr Jones' statement is direct evidence for his being LE, that might explain why I (and most others) have always taken it for granted. I'd forgotten all about it.

However, it's only hearsay, and it's some 20+ years out of date, so probably not terribly reliable.

As for 'benefiting the Western Continent' - even if he believes that himself, which I for one am not willing to buy without a lot more direct evidence - what's Lawful about it? Benefiting people is a Good goal, not Lawful.

[EmperorSarda]

As for 'benefiting the Western Continent' - even if he believes that himself, which I for one am not willing to buy without a lot more direct evidence - what's Lawful about it? Benefiting people is a Good goal, not Lawful.

If few suffer for the greater good, by showing forth examples, then that is evil.

Tarquin is lawful because he uses the laws to get his purpose through.

[Sir_Leorik]

You're right, Mr Jones' statement is direct evidence for his being LE, that might explain why I (and most others) have always taken it for granted. I'd forgotten all about it.

However, it's only hearsay, and it's some 20+ years out of date, so probably not terribly reliable.

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

As for 'benefiting the Western Continent' - even if he believes that himself, which I for one am not willing to buy without a lot more direct evidence - what's Lawful about it? Benefiting people is a Good goal, not Lawful.

Tarquin's goal is to unify the Western Continent into three Empires, all under his control. He and his cronies get to live like kings until they die, and unless they're overthrown, Malack gets to inherit the whole shebang. Until then, Tarquin is creating a more orderly society which he claims benefits the masses. It doesn't; he's using the setup to prosper, creating an unjust society where someone caught urinating on the sidewalk gets thrown into an arena where they need to fight for their lives.

( "yay!!! thog is having lots of fun!")

But in the end I feel that Tarquin, like Kubota, is Lawful Evil. He's gaming the system to work to his advantage, he's just doing it on a far greater scale than Kubota could imagine.

[Warren Dew]

But in the end I feel that Tarquin, like Kubota, is Lawful Evil. He's gaming the system to work to his advantage, he's just doing it on a far greater scale than Kubota could imagine.

I think the difference between lawful good and lawful evil is more whether one is good or evil than whether one games the legal system. Tarquin makes the laws; he doesn't have to game the system to make it evil.

In fact, I'd argue that with laws like Tarquin's, it might be the lawful good folks who would tend to game the system, rather than the lawful evil folks. Durkon gamed the system mildly to avoid getting into trouble for not having papers, for example.

[Reddish Mage]

They'd probably be Neutral. Using Lawful means to achieve Chaotic goals is no different than using Evil means to achieve Good goals.

Also, remember that in actual D&D, there are other aspects to alignment. Mainly, that they are objective cosmological forces vying for control of the multiverse. If you use Lawful methods to put more Chaos into the world, Team Law will hate you and Team Chaos won't trust you.

I would think that for a character that solely follows a personal code to be Lawful, in addition to following a personal code strictly, that this code should be a code that promotes the very idea of "lawfulness." A code that promotes order, civilization, and harmony. I say this for two reasons:

1. Acting out a code of honor that doesn't promote an orderly system just seems like it doesn't belong on Team Law nor would such behavior seem "lawful" in practice (think of strictly following very arbitrary laws).

2. "Lawfulness" or even "Law" as a philosophical/psychological concept has traditionally been a concept of order and civilized harmony (see Plato or Kant or Kohlberg on law). I'm pretty sure that such Philosophical notions inspired the Gygax's sources of inspiration if not the D&D itself.

[The Giant]

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

Alignment is not just about methodology but also about desires and intents. Tarquin works to bring about an orderly law-driven empire that just so happens to have him at or near the top. He could easily take his vast personal power and run around killing whomever he felt like, racking up loot and living the good life, but he doesn't. He channels his time and energy into building a new social structure out of nothing. Regardless of the tenor of that structure (or whom it benefits), that's still incredibly Lawful.

Compare this to Xykon, who had total control of occupied Azure City and had no interest in governing it at all. Only Redcloak, his Lawful associate, took it upon himself to try and turn that territory into a functioning state.

[ZarDaranth]

I guess my simplified version of law vs. chaos and good vs. evil in D&D has always come down to two rules:

1.) What are you striving for, ultimately? (Good or Evil)
2.) How far are you willing to go to outside of societal norms and social contract to achieve those goals? (Law or Chaos)

If we have a Wild West campaign, vigilantism is not outside of the societal norms that much, so it may be more neutral. But in Azure City, with a rigid justice structure, it would be more chaotic. And in the Empire of Blood, there is Bounty Hunting, which is fairly close to lawful vigilantism.

[EmperorSarda]

Compare this to Xykon, who had total control of occupied Azure City and had no interest in governing it at all. Only Redcloak, his Lawful associate, took it upon himself to try and turn that territory into a functioning state.

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

[Sir_Leorik]

I think the difference between lawful good and lawful evil is more whether one is good or evil than whether one games the legal system. Tarquin makes the laws; he doesn't have to game the system to make it evil.

In fact, I'd argue that with laws like Tarquin's, it might be the lawful good folks who would tend to game the system, rather than the lawful evil folks. Durkon gamed the system mildly to avoid getting into trouble for not having papers, for example.

The system he's gaming is the political landscape of the entire Western Continent. Thanks to his con game he has the freedom to expand an Empire that most rulers (let alone the average person on the street) knows about. And so he and his cronies lure in suckers like the Free City of Doom and effortlessly conquer them, without provoking the other kingdoms into banding together against them.