Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Porthos]

Besides O-Chul, do we see any other paladins being evasive?

The ones in the bonus strip in War & XPs with Miko (who don't want to go to dinner with her) spring to mind- but what about the main strip?

Was Lein techincally telling the truth when she played along with the idea that Elan was indeed the prophet of Banjo? I doubt she really thought so, but she was willing to go along with it to save her neck.

At the very least, I suppose one could say that she absolved herself of lying by saying "If you really are the prophet of Banjo, say something". The 'if' being highlighted by me. But I think it is trying to play along with the deception.

[hamishspence]

"Good, not dumb" does seem to be Lien's credo, after all.

[EmperorSarda]

Was Lein techincally telling the truth when she played along with the idea that Elan was indeed the prophet of Banjo? I doubt she really thought so, but she was willing to go along with it to save her neck.

At the very least, I suppose one could say that she absolved herself of lying by saying "If you really are the prophet of Banjo, say something". The 'if' being highlighted by me. But I think it is trying to play along with the deception.

Or at least trying to get Elan to do something.

[warrl]

Was Lein techincally telling the truth when she played along with the idea that Elan was indeed the prophet of Banjo? I doubt she really thought so, but she was willing to go along with it to save her neck.

Factually, Elan WAS the prophet of Banjo. Appointed to the job by the highest authority that might be expected to appoint a prophet of Banjo.

What Lien would logically have doubted (and never even hinted might be true) is whether said highest authority is Banjo. The alternative option: Elan.

[ORione]

I feel foolish. Ignore my ramblings.

I misread it at first, too.

[pendell]

or (C), stop participating in message board arguments with people who want me to change what I'm doing to fit their own ideas.

I think I'll do that one.

Probably a good idea. It's not worth this.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Carry2]

Miko was the poster child of "If it's Evil, I get to Smite It." As she spiraled into her own madness it became "If it's Evil, I have to Smite It."

Whatever highly-conditional lessons might be taken from Miko's character arc, "don't rely solely on detect evil as a basis for smiting" is not one of them. She never relied exclusively on DE as a basis for executing foes- she used it simply as another form of evidence (the others being, for example, sapphire guard divinations and witness testimony.) By the time she started overstepping her bounds she had more-or-less abandoned those investigative standards, but she had also abandoned reliance on Detect Evil.

On other points- I only have time for a couple of posts today, so forgive me if I've glossed over any other responses. I'll just try to hit the main notes.

[Carry2]

He misleads people; he doesn't lie to them. It's Lawful deception, just like how a Good adventurer stabbing an Evil villain who was trying to murder orphans is Good violence...

It can be good based on indirect consequences, not based on the nature of the act itself. If violence was morally neutral, murdering orphans wouldn't be evil to begin with. Likewise, while deceit may have the indirect effect of increasing order in the world, deceit, in itself, is essentially a force for discord. In addition, it is not clear that all of Tarquin's lies (and yes, they are lies) have well-defined lawful side-effects.

Subversion of the legal system (perhaps I shouldn't say 'justice') might or might not be an evil thing, but it is definitely a chaotic thing to do, even when it's your own system.

Except that's not even a real rebellion; it's a staged one that he does to (once again) prevent rebellion...

Regardless of whether it's staged or not, he's still throwing out one government and installing a different set of folks to run the place. While the indirect effect is greater organisation, the act itself is chaos-aligned.

Also, you're taking the Giant's comments out of context. If committing Evil for some vaguely Good ideology could balance each other out, RC would be Good....

That is precisely my point. By the same logic that Tarquin is Lawful, you're basically a hair's breadth away from declaring Redcloak Good-to-Neutral. Since this rather contradicts my intuition on the matter (and, as it happens, the author's own position,) I can only conclude that there is something wrong with the logic.

Chaotic methods for a Lawful cause would be ignoring one major law to enforce another major law (see: Batman).

Ultimately, your primary issue seems to be an inability to differentiate between Chaos and Evil.

I believe I am capable of distinguishing the two. But we don't see Tarquin actually sitting down and paying particlar attention to drawing up something like the Code of Hammurabi. We don't see him going all Javert-on-steroids in the scrupulous enforcement of a bad system. (He does delegate that sort of thing to others, but ignores or undoes their efforts when it suits him.) We certainly don't see him pledging unwavering loyalty to a nefarious higher power, yet alone seeking to fill the universe with emotionless constructs.

As for the yet-another-Batman-example: I think the problem here is a tendency to (A) lump the various qualities of an example under one alignment heading and/or (B) cherry-pick the qualities a given person wants to dissociate. For example, "The Joker makes elaborate plans, the Joker is CE, therefore planning is not Lawful." No, it just means the Joker is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Chaotic, just as Batman is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Lawful thanks to technical violations of the legal system, despite having a strong LG batting average (no pun intended,) based on other stuff he does. This doesn't make planning any less Lawful or criminality non-Chaotic.

Likewise, to refer to a later post, it is conceivable that the Lords of Hell can be Lawful Evil despite underhanded dealings, but this does not make manipulation and deceit non-Chaotic, any more than the rudimentary pecking order among the denizens of the Abyss means that hierarchies are somehow non-Lawful. (Or maybe the source material is just confused or contradictory on this point: It wouldn't be the first time.)

.

[Carry2]

From the Player's Handbook:

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

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Looking over this description, I can see elements of Law that probably fit Tarquin, and elements of Chaos that probably do. He doesn't seem to promote freedom or recklessness, but he isn't reliable, trustworthy or traditionalist. He resents being told what do, and does what he promises only if he feels like it. While he probably cracks down on insubordination, he doesn't seem judgemental or closed-minded per se. He seems to believe that a lawful society will let people depend on eachother, but he's also adaptable, takes arbitrary actions, goes to great lengths to avoid actual responsibility. He certainly favours 'new ideas'.

Let's just try a thought experiment here for a second. Imagine that you had never before heard of this Tarquin or had any formal information about his alignment. I explain to you that there is a machiavellian schemer, fond of wine, women and song, who systematically overthrows the governments in his part of the world in the process of successfully forging a larger, secretive political alliance across the continent. Toward this end, he regularly lies, cheats, dupes and manipulate others, not to mention ignoring local legal systems whenever it suits him, including his own. Sometimes he even does it just for the lolz! Now, be honest- and without any particular comment on the G/E side of the spectrum- is this person Lawful or Chaotic?

So why worry about a hypothetical gaming party where someone might do this?

Again, if no-one's mind is likely to be changed, why write the book?

.

[Kish]

Sometimes he even does it just for the lolz! Now, be honest- and without any particular comment on the G/E side of the spectrum- is this person Lawful or Chaotic?

Lawful Evil.*

Again, if no-one's mind is likely to be changed, why write the book?

There is a slight difference between "no one's mind is likely to be changed," your strawman, and "no one who can be influenced is likely to make the fundamental and ridiculous misreading you're arguing Rich should be vitally concerned about some unspecified people making," what EmperorSarda is actually proposing.

*Yes, I know you said not to comment on the Good/Evil spectrum. I chose to anyway.

[theNater]

...deceit, in itself, is essentially a force for discord.

Assuming that by discord you mean chaos, this is not true. Misdirection through exact wording is a lawful method of deceit.

Regardless of whether it's staged or not, he's still throwing out one government and installing a different set of folks to run the place.

The same six people are ruling Tarquin's three empires before and after his staged rebellions. He is not installing different folks to run the place, he is installing different folks to appear to run the place. The government itself is unchanged.

But we don't see Tarquin actually sitting down and paying particlar attention to drawing up something like the Code of Hammurabi.

We know he developed a very clearly organized manual for his prison guards, and a structured emergency procedure for dealing with suspected shapeshifters. Neither is nationwide, but both show an inclination for structure as a way of handling safety concerns.

...does what he promises only if he feels like it.

Please identify one promise he has broken, rather than loophole his way out of.

Let's just try a thought experiment here for a second. Imagine that you had never before heard of this Tarquin or had any formal information about his alignment.

All right, let's look at these traits one at a time.

machiavellian schemer

Lawful.

fond of wine, women and song

Humanoid.

who systematically overthrows the governments in his part of the world in the process of successfully forging a larger, secretive political alliance across the continent.

Lawful, due to (a)doing it systematically and (b)forging a large political alliance.

lies

Chaotic.

cheats, dupes and manipulate others

Neutral, depending on method. Convincing someone to sign a contract with harsh penalties for default and then forcing them to default is a lawful method of cheating people, for example.

ignoring local legal systems whenever it suits him, including his own.

Neutral, as lawfulness is not tied to local legal systems.

Sometimes he even does it just for the lolz!

Humanoid.

Now, be honest- and without any particular comment on the G/E side of the spectrum- is this person Lawful or Chaotic?

Well, that's two lawfuls and one chaotic, with a dash of "depends on method". I'd have to say lawful, unless the methods of cheating/duping/manipulating were chaotic, in which case it would work out neutral, shading into chaotic only if they were extremely chaotic methods.

[Tragak]

Personally, I don't think that this conversation is going to go anywhere definitive because the Wizards of the Coast have been excessively vague about what Law and Chaos mean. I've heard that they were worried that if they didn't accommodate all of the contradictory ethical theories in their system, then somebody would get mad at them for being immoral (not remembering that it was fiction), so they ended up not saying anything in their attempts to say everything.

Personally, I like to define the L-C spectrum as follows:

Lawful: Systematic, loves those who are stronger

Neutral (Lawful tendencies): Organized, cares more than normal about those who are stronger (Could fall under a Lawful or Neutral in a 3x3)

Neutral: Average/normal, tolerates those who are stronger about as much as the next guy

Neutral (Chaotic tendencies): Independent, doesn't care about those who are stronger and tries to stay out of their way as much as possible (Could fall under Neutral or Chaotic in a 3x3)

Chaotic: Disruptive, hates those who are stronger and wants to make it clear to authorities that he feels he is better than them.

(Whether you care about those who are weaker falls under the Good/Evil spectrum rather than being a zero-sum on the Law/Chaos spectrum)

The fact that Tarquin is super-systematic about the way he topples regimes specifically to replace them with one even tighter, rather than just trying to prevent any regime from telling people what to do and not to do, personally screams Lawful for me. And other people will disagree with me because they are supposed to interpret the spectrums differently because the rules describing the spectrums don't actually say anything meaningful.

[137beth]

Personally, I don't think that this conversation is going to go anywhere definitive because the Wizards of the Coast have been excessively vague about what Law and Chaos mean. I've heard that they were worried that if they didn't accommodate all of the contradictory ethical theories in their system, then somebody would get mad at them for being immoral (not remembering that it was fiction), so they ended up not saying anything in their attempts to say everything.

Yea, I always interpreted the system as being intentionally vague, so that anyone could
1. interpret it how they want, and
2. insert highly complex characters into the system.

Problems only arise when a few people start promoting their own highly specific interpretation as the "right" one.

[davidbofinger]

or (C), stop participating in message board arguments with people who want me to change what I'm doing to fit their own ideas.

I think I'll do that one.

Sounds good to me. Nobody (well, nobody worth speaking of) wants you distracted from OOTS to argue with the unreasonable and obdurate.

Speaking for myself, I'd like you to spend your strictly limited commenting time budget on messages where you've thought of something interesting to say. If you have something cool to say in response to an interesting question then go for it. If you have something interesting to say in response to some idiot flaming you for failing to admit Hayley is a ripoff of Katniss Everdeen, do that too. The rest leave to volunteers.

[...] 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.

So if you want to commit evil acts, but don't because you're (wisely) terrified of Miko, what does that make you?

[Morty]

So if you want to commit evil acts, but don't because you're (wisely) terrified of Miko, what does that make you?

Personally, I think it makes you evil. Not very evil, but evil all the same.

[pendell]

So. Been thinking overnight.

I had interpreted the noble's attempted assassination of Lord Hinjo as sort of being a Count Stauffenberg-type action: The leader is incompetent and leading us to destruction, so we must get rid of him before it's too late.

Rich corrected me: The reason the nobles attempted to murder Hinjo was not because they feared his competence, but because they feared that he would actually rule and put a stop to their intrigues and games.

So I've been wondering : Why didn't I come to that interpretation independently?

And the answer comes: Because in me experience, that's not how law-abiding people in a lawful system fight against a reformer.

My experience was in the late 80s and early 90s with the DOD and the ADA programming language . A directive came down from on high that the DOD was centralizing on one computer language, and one only. Henceforth all computer programs will be written in Ada. Which essentially meant we would be inoperable with anything written in the commercial world.

No one disobeyed those orders. They saluted and said "yes, sir". But they dragged their feet on implementation. They found exceptions to the rule. They played procedural games. Eventually the people whose brilliant idea it was transferred or got promoted, and things went on as they always had.

That wasn't the last time. I was part of an effort to build a brand new campaign-level simulation which was to replace all the existing simulations in use by all the services. A "one size fits all" sim. When everyone was using the same simulation, it was hoped that the different cases put by different advocates could be usefully compared, since in many cases the simulations and methodologies used by the different advocates were so different as to be impossible to compare. At least, by political laymen.

Problem: People didn't WANT an objective standard of comparison for their powerpoint presentations and case studies. Can't imagine why.

Did they stand up and outright say "No, I'm not going to do this?" Of course not. Instead they simply slow-rolled the changes. They criticized and made objections, some fair and some not. They continued their own development efforts. And again, eventually turnover occurred and the new guy didn't care about any initiatives the previous guy had built. If anything , he was anxious to shut down programs becuase as a bureaucrat he had to show that he was "cutting waste". Naturally that program was one its enemies offered up on the chopping block , and equally naturally the person in charge had a vested interested in making himself look good by getting rid of his predecessor's "wasteful" legacy. The project was terminated.

So to me the concept of lawful people murdering a new reformer simply because he wants to change the system is simply implausible. I lived and worked for more than a decade in such an environment, and IME it's very hard for one man to make any meaningful reforms, long term. It is VERY hard to avoid being captured by the system, because your reforms are only as meaningful as the information you're getting on what's going on in the system. And if you're trusting the people who've been running the system for years or decades to tell you what's going on, well, I can guarantee you that you won't hear anything that will upset their applecart. You've got to get out of the office and into the trenches yourself. You can't even rely on appointed observers, because they can be captured the same way. No, if you want to know what's really going on, there's no substitute for your own eyes and ears.

And when you do, you can be sure that the reforms you make will last exactly as long as you're there to keep an eye on things. The minute you turn your back, things go back to the way they were. Of course you'll fire a few people you catch out as an example to the rest, but the people you put in their place will be veterans of the same system with second-degree black belts in bureaucracy-fu. Eventually, the system wears down reformers through sheer inertia. Reformers come and go, but the Machine rolls on forever.

And that's why, if I were an Azurite noble, I would not feel unduly threatened by a heroic reforming soldier-king such as Lord Hinjo. I would dutifully applaud his coronation, but wait to take action until I'd actually seen what he intended to do. And he may want to rule more lawfully, but in fact I don't think he will.

Why not? Well, first because when his city is being invaded inter-noble squabbles are going to be so far down his to-do list he'll never bother with it unless we make such a mess of things that it comes to his attention as a problem in the war. That I would make all efforts to avoid doing.

And even if the city was at peace, well, Hinjo's a Paladin. That means I expect him to be constantly at the head of the sapphire guard going on constant crusades to save the world outside the city. Sort of like Richard the Lionheart . Which means that so long as we provide funds and men for his crusades and don't raise any actual challenge to his rule we'll have a free hand to do what we like in the city, because he's going to be too busy slaying goblins and liches to worry about the details of ruling a city. Ruling is boring and dull and involves a lot of smiling at people you really can't stand -- hypocrisy and deceit and compromises which a lawful good person can't stand, and so can be expected to avoid as much as he can.

So, were I an Azure noble, I would not fear a reformer-king who promised to govern lawful good, not when said king is also a heroic paladin whose primary mission in life is to go off and get killed fighting monsters elsewhere far from home. So I wouldn't send ninjas after him. I'd simply let him try to tackle the system, get bored, and then find an excuse to go off and kill monsters, which he's actually good at.

That's the way I see things. I'm not demanding that Rich change his story and I'm not saying Rich is writing a bad one. I think this is a GREAT story and I'm enjoying every minute of it. This is his story and not mine, and since I can't write a better story I'll enjoy his without carping. I'm simply posting my reaction based on my experiences. Maybe someone will find it useful or enriching or something. If so, there it is. :)


ETA: Thinking on this some more ... it may be that the phenomenon I describe, of bureaucratic sclerosis, is what happens when the lawful alignment is a victim of his own success. Rich explained earlier that the point of law is stability -- that changing a king or a ruler makes little difference to the running of the city.

But that's precisely my point -- the fact that a king or ruler has little impact on society is precisely why the nobles shouldn't fear Hinjo. Because the fact that the system is so stable that death of the king has no impact also means that the LIFE of a king has scarcely more. It's just as difficult to make reforms or meaningful change in an overly-stable system as it is to break it. Good kings, bad kings, the system rolls on. After awhile, it's not lawful good or lawful evil. It's simply lawful.

Thinking on this further -- it may be that the Chaotic Lord Shojo running Azure City is not an accident. It may be just what the city needed. Because only a chaotic person would "shake things up", play the system and make it *work*, rather than simply let it roll on unhindered, regardless of whether changing circumstances mean the rules still made sense or not.

Because Lord Shojo was such an out of the box thinker, he was able to thrive in this lawful environment and be a great ruler because he rose above the system, found ways to do good in spite of the system when it got in the way.

Perhaps an overly lawful society sometimes needs a chaotic ruler.

Just as an overly-chaotic society, perhaps, needs a lawful ruler.

Tarquin is the mirror-image opposite of Lord Shojo. Lord Shojo was the chaotic good ruler of a lawful good city. Tarquin is the lawful evil ruler who dominates the chaotic evil western continent. Which is the opposite of Azure City in almost every way. Where the Azurites were Blue, the bloodies wear red. Where Azurite society is a lawful society at peace, the Empire is a lawful society just barely carved out of a chaotic wilderness of war and anarchy.

It may be that what the western continent needs more than anything is law. Which is why a lawful ruler is able to become master of chaos. Just as Azure City needed a chaotic ruler to unstick the gears and literally get the plot moving.

I realize Rich wasn't thinking of any of this when he wrote the story. He was simply trying to tell a good story and all the background is just that -- background to give more depth, the way a landscape in a painting makes a portrait more real than a flat white background. But maybe the story needed this because that's the way humans *work*.

And hey, just because Rich wasn't worried about this doesn't mean I can't speculate on what the story tells us about the human condition, wittingly or no. Tolkien's lecture on applicability versus allegory comes to mind.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Carry2]

The same six people are ruling Tarquin's three empires before and after his staged rebellions...

But in order to actually expand his empire, he has had to overthrow one bunch of people and install his own, secretly or otherwise. Not to mention that this involves systematically deceiving literally millions of people.

We know he developed a very clearly organized manual for his prison guards, and a structured emergency procedure for dealing with suspected shapeshifters.

Huh. I'd forgotten about that. Fair point.

Neutral, as lawfulness is not tied to local legal systems.

I don't understand that logic. As for the 'technically, he doesn't lie' arguments- I'm sorry, I just don't consider that position defensible.

[Morty]

As for the 'technically, he doesn't lie' arguments- I'm sorry, I just don't consider that position defensible.

Awfully convenient, that.

[Kish]

And the answer comes: Because in me experience, that's not how law-abiding people in a lawful system fight against a reformer.

Uh...

Where on earth did you get that the nobles are, or have ever been, law-abiding?

And even if the city was at peace, well, Hinjo's a Paladin. That means I expect him to be constantly at the head of the sapphire guard going on constant crusades to save the world outside the city.
[...]
said king is also a heroic paladin whose primary mission in life is to go off and get killed fighting monsters elsewhere far from home.

I'm sorry, I think the Azurite nobles are one-up on you, just for recognizing that there's a problem rather than going, "Hinjo will act like a shallow stereotype of his class, so we don't have to worry about him sticking around long enough to find out how we've been breaking the law and throw us in prison!"

[theNater]

Because in me experience, that's not how law-abiding people in a lawful system fight against a reformer.

There's a few things that distinguish your experience from the situation in the comic that I think are worth noting.

1)Some of the Azure City nobles are Evil, in the sense of being willing to use murder as a way to meet their goals. I suspect that virtually all of the people you deal with have some respect for life, and wouldn't kill the reformer even if they could get away with it.

2)The opening moments of this war make it more likely they can get away with killing Hinjo. If he's assassinated, they can easily lay the blame on the incoming army; forensic science is not very advanced in D&D. Unless the reformers you've worked with have had some unusual things going on in their lives, such opportunities are unlikely to have come up.

3)As king, Hinjo's punishment options extend well past firings. He can have people executed to make his examples, which raises the stakes for anyone who's at risk of being an example.

4)D&D societies don't often allow for much social mobility. If a noble did get "fired" rather than executed(that is, losing lands, wealth, and title), it is extremely unlikely that regaining a noble position is within the cards. Plus, as nobility is usually inherited, most of the nobles wouldn't even know how to go about regaining their status. Someone who loses a job in a modern society knows how to look for a job(like they had to in order to get the first job), and has a decent chance of getting one(even if it turns out not to be in the same field).

With those considerations in mind, does it make more sense that some nobles, maybe ones a bit more short-sighted than yourself, might decide to go for the assassination attempt?

[Burner28]

For example, "The Joker makes elaborate plans, the Joker is CE, therefore planning is not Lawful." No, it just means the Joker is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Chaotic, just as Batman is, in fact, less-than-perfectly Lawful thanks to technical violations of the legal system, despite having a strong LG batting average (no pun intended,) based on other stuff he does. This doesn't make planning any less Lawful or criminality non-Chaotic.

Planning has nothing to do with how Lawful or Chaotic you are, just how smart you are. Otherwise, all Chaotic characters would be morons, so that is a terribble example to use against the Joker being Chaotic.

[Carry2]

Awfully convenient, that.

You're right. That's a much more compelling argument.

[Carry2]

Planning has nothing to do with how Lawful or Chaotic you are, just how smart you are. Otherwise, all Chaotic characters would be morons, so that is a terribble example to use against the Joker being Chaotic.

Well, I'm sorry, but maybe that's a legitimate drawback to being perfectly Chaotic. Maybe that really does mean you wind up behaving in a totally random, non-directed fashion. Maybe it's even impossible for a sentient lifeform to really be that way (in the same sense that a perfectly Lawful being might be incapable of adapting themselves to any new stimulus, and therefore neither alive nor intelligent.) But nobody ever said being Lawful or Chaotic was smart or effective, just that it was one way or another.

.

[Morty]

I'm serious. You're basically deflecting someone's argument without having to actually address it by claiming it's "not defensible".

[Carry2]

I'm serious. You're basically deflecting someone's argument without having to actually address it by claiming it's "not defensible".

I've addressed it many times over in this thread, including earlier in the very post you quoted. In addition, I have seen no substantiation of the claim that lies through omission are less chaotic than other kinds of lies. Over to you.

[Warren Dew]

So. Been thinking overnight.

I had interpreted the noble's attempted assassination of Lord Hinjo as sort of being a Count Stauffenberg-type action: The leader is incompetent and leading us to destruction, so we must get rid of him before it's too late.

Rich corrected me: The reason the nobles attempted to murder Hinjo was not because they feared his competence, but because they feared that he would actually rule and put a stop to their intrigues and games.

So I've been wondering : Why didn't I come to that interpretation independently?

And the answer comes: Because in me experience, that's not how law-abiding people in a lawful system fight against a reformer.

The reformers in your examples were not the rulers. If the reforms had been pushed personally by the secretary of defense, the equivalent of the "ruler" in that situation, I think you would have seen things play out differently.

Not that I'm completely convinced by Rich's explanation in this thread, mind. There's plenty of evidence that Hinjo was not competent to lead against the invasion, and I think the commentary in one of the books might even have remarked on that.

[theNater]

But in order to actually expand his empire, he has had to overthrow one bunch of people and install his own, secretly or otherwise.

Replacing a government with a more centralized and structured government isn't chaotic just because a government has been overthrown.

Not to mention that this involves systematically deceiving literally millions of people.

Note the keyword systematically in there. This is a well-structured, well-organized deception. Indeed Tarquin's got it set up nearly to the point where he doesn't have to personally deceive very much at all, because the system is doing all the work. Making systems to achieve your goals is very appealing to lawful characters.

I don't understand that logic.

Lawfulness isn't inherently about legal systems. It's inherently about a desire for structure and organization. This often results in lawful characters approving of and working with legal systems, but not always. Because of the desire for structure, almost all lawful characters have a code of conduct: some things they will always do, some things they will never do, and some things they will do in certain situations. These codes of conduct are sometimes, but not always, explicit. If a lawful character's code of conduct conflicts with local laws, that character will(and should) act in accordance to their own code, even to the detriment of the local legal system.

Note that we also see Tarquin's desire for order with his views on narrative structure. He tells himself that the universe has certain rules, which he tries to manipulate to his advantage. Whether that structure is actually there or not, he's trying to find structure in the way the universe works.

As for the 'technically, he doesn't lie' arguments- I'm sorry, I just don't consider that position defensible.

It comes back to the code of conduct. A very common part of a code of conduct is refusal to tell explicit lies. The fact that Tarquin rarely, if ever, tells explicit lies indicates that he may be following such a code.

A very small percentage of codes of conduct replace not lying with not engaging in deception, and even fewer replace it with not permitting deception. Tarquin is clearly not following such a code, but neither are Durkon, O'chul, Hinjo, or Roy.

[ChristianSt]

I never played D&D, so I have no practical information about the alignment system, but from my understanding of it, it is (for me) pretty clear that Shojo is Chaotic Good and Tarquin Lawful Evil.

They maybe use sometimes the same tools (mostly manipulating and deceiving), but these tools are mostly alignment-indifferent. It mostly depends on how these tools are used. A weapon or any other tools also have no default-alignment for deeds done with them. (Sure there are some tools (or definitions of tools) that maybe have some sort default-alignment in normal circumstances, but I don't think manipulating/deceiving falls into that category.)

We don't have enough information, but I think that someone that knows more can with a pretty high accuracy guess what Tarquin will do next. He follows the rules (it would be no problem to just dispose the bounty hunters, but he let goes the extra length with going the way the legal system supports) - sure that point is a bit murky, because he does set up the rules, but we don't see that he changes them every other week (and from what we see of Shojo, I wouldn't be surprised if he changed the rules more often, because if he would have preserved status quo, the nobles wouldn't be so angry at him, because probably most changes he made where to the benefits of non-nobles).

I can't remember any lie Tarquin told, and I think it is very probably that there are no lies - sure he doesn't share all information he has, but he doesn't even try to hide it (best example: he doesn't even try to hide is Evil-ness from is son, though he knows Elan is a good guy). Closest thing to a lie (I can remember) would be the flying carpet story from 817, but if Elan would have asked more, I think he would have told how the carpet was acquired. And withholding critical information without lying is (at least for me) really a prime example of a LE treat.

From what we see I think it is pretty clear that Shojo and Tarquin are on opposing ends of the alignment system. Tarquin cares how the system is working, and he wants it working. Shojo spends not a single though about using the system (compare what Taqruin did to the bounty hunters to that what Shojo did with the Order/Belkar. Shojo staged a fake trial and used the Mark of Judgement on Belkar, but from the legal system the MoJ wasn't even supported - he didn't care about what the system said, he just made stuff up).

And even if Tarquin sometimes does something Chaotic, he is just a human being - as the Deva told Roy: It is pretty hard for a normal human to live up to the ideals of an alignment. Some flunking here and there doesn't make you neutral (if it would do, >99% of all humans would be True Neutral)

[Carry2]

And the answer comes: Because in me experience, that's not how law-abiding people in a lawful system fight against a reformer...
...No one disobeyed those orders. They saluted and said "yes, sir". But they dragged their feet on implementation. They found exceptions to the rule. They played procedural games. Eventually the people whose brilliant idea it was transferred or got promoted, and things went on as they always had.

Interesting post. I appreciate taking the time to lay that out.

Because Lord Shojo was such an out of the box thinker, he was able to thrive in this lawful environment and be a great ruler because he rose above the system, found ways to do good in spite of the system when it got in the way.

Perhaps an overly lawful society sometimes needs a chaotic ruler.

It's entirely plausible, I just felt that specific in-comic evidence for Shojo doing good were kind of thin on the ground, and, as you point out, they were not reacting to the succession in a typically Lawful fashion.

It also struck me as strange that more of the bickering between the nobles didn't spill over into the everyday lives of the citizens, since **** has a tendency to roll downhill. (I of course don't claim that Azure City is, on the whole, comparable to drow society, but that doesn't make their particular style of politics any more palatable.)

I realize Rich wasn't thinking of any of this when he wrote the story. He was simply trying to tell a good story and all the background is just that -- background to give more depth, the way a landscape in a painting makes a portrait more real than a flat white background. But maybe the story needed this because that's the way humans *work*.

Well, I wouldn't say the author didn't give this some thought. I just get the feeling that he may have been thinking different things at different times and places. I mean, sure, I can get absolutely aboard with the idea that Tarquin is lawful by western continent standards, but that doesn't make him particularly lawful on an absolute scale, and having local standards trump a personal code has implications elsewhere.

[Burner28]

Well, I'm sorry, but maybe that's a legitimate drawback to being perfectly Chaotic. Maybe that really does mean you wind up behaving in a totally random, non-directed fashion. Maybe it's even impossible for a sentient lifeform to really be that way (in the same sense that a perfectly Lawful being might be incapable of adapting themselves to any new stimulus, and therefore neither alive nor intelligent.) But nobody ever said being Lawful or Chaotic was smart or effective, just that it was one way or another.

Then why is wisdom and intelligence scores separate from the alignments? if what you say is true, then by the rules someone who is extremely Lawful or Chaotic would take a penalty to their Intelligence and Wisdom score the more Lawful/Chaotic they are, mechanically speaking. But the fact that this does not happen obviously shows that there is indeed a possibility to be extremely Chaotic/ Lawful and smart.

Besides, what is so "Lawful" about using your intelligence to create strategies?