So was Miko right?

[pendell]

Back in 285 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html), Miko was prepared to kill Belkar. Vaarsuvius and Roy saved him, saying they preferred the psychotic, murderous halfling to the stuck-up self-righteous paladin.

Roy was later called to account (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) for his association with Belkar. He justified it by saying that he was channeling Belkar's rage to a more useful purpose.

Haley attempted to kick him off the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html), but he got better.

They discussed it at the end of the last book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html). They decided to "run out the clock".

And now the bill comes due. Now Death's Little Helper is their worst enemy. Death's Little Helper has BECOME Death, the destroyer of worlds.

Perhaps Roy should have just let Miko cut his throat. Miko would have fallen, and a serious threat to the world would have ended that day. It's hard for me to see any downside. Might it have been a better solution for all involved?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bulldog Psion]

Considering that I always considered that Roy and V were totally in the wrong for saving Belkar there, I guess it's possible Miko was right in that regard at least.

Mind you, I preferred from a story viewpoint that they saved Belkar, since I find him amusing after a fashion. :smallsmile: But considered from the standpoint of what was right to do, I always figured he had a swift blade coming and that his teammates shared responsibility for his villainies after that point, since they effectively enabled them by saving him.

[Kish]

Indeed. Roy decided that his sense of loyalty to Belkar and, I've always believed, his desire not to agree with Miko trumped his obligations to everyone Belkar had and would continue to hurt and kill. Morally, it was a bankrupt decision.

[hamishspence]

The No Cure for the Paladin Blues commentary does suggest that the lesson Roy's learned over the duration of the book is "stand by your friends, even the annoying ones."

And that it's something for the whole party- not just Roy. Durkon is also keen to say "Let there be no more death today".

[Mike Havran]

In the latest Miko thread, I argued quite a bit that Roy's decision to defend Belkar there in the AC throne room was bad, and V's reaction was absolutely... wierd, given how she viewed Belkar. Of course the story demanded Belkar to remain, but in-universe, it was a bad, bad decision.

[hamishspence]

Might have been bad from a pragmatic point of view- but it may make sense as the result of Roy's character growth through that arc- he forged a team- and as a result- even V grew some loyalty to Belkar.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't think it was out of character for V considering just how much she loathed Miko. Any excuse to shoot spells at her is a good excuse.

[sam79]

Miko would have fallen, and a serious threat to the world would have ended that day. It's hard for me to see any downside. Might it have been a better solution for all involved?


Given all this, would Miko have even fallen, had she killed Belkar?

[Cog]

I recall Gandalf had something to say in a situation like this:

Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.Perhaps, in retrospect, the party's defense of Belkar may not have been the correct decision. That doesn't mean it was an unwise decision.

[Mike Havran]

The No Cure for the Paladin Blues commentary does suggest that the lesson Roy's learned over the duration of the book is "stand by your friends, even the annoying ones."

:roy:: "I think (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html) I'm going to take exception with the word "friend". More like "unfortunate responsibily" or "lodestone"."

Seems to me like now, he would let Miko do it. It's also interesting that the moment wasn't brought up at his session with the deva.

[hamishspence]

His attitude's probably grown increasingly harsh, having seen what Belkar's been doing since he died.

The Deva brought up "adventuring with Belkar" in general, even if not that specific moment- his decision not to leave Belkar in Azure City jail, and so forth.

[pendell]

A moment to act as Belkar's advocate. (Thought "Devil's Advocate", but realized this was more appropriate)

1) He saved Hinjo's life (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html)

2) He did contribute to the battle of Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0450.html), enslave an eye of fear and flame who would prove instrumental in their escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html).

3) Saved us, the readers, from an icky and gratuitous sex scene (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0468.html).

4) Saved Haley from the MiTD (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0476.html) by superior cooking.

5) Saved Thanh from wights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html)

6) Saved Haley from Tsukiko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html)

7) Saved Haley and Celia's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html) in Greysky city. That has to count double because Roy's girlfriend can't be resurrected, being an Outsider.

So if Roy had allowed Belkar to be killed -- instead of sticking him with a Mark of Justice and dragging him along with supervision -- neither Haley nor Hinjo nor Celia would be alive now.

Does that make Roy's decision a better decision? Or doesn't it. Because the gnome Belkar murdered for his candy would ALSO be alive. Is the life of three named characters worth the life of a nameless NPC?

Tough, tough questions.



Given all this, would Miko have even fallen, had she killed Belkar?


Yes. Because Paladins must be lawful good. Executing a prisoner out of hand instead of handing him over for trial and lawful punishment is an un-lawful act, and would have caused Miko to fall. Besides which, murder of a helpless prisoner -- even a prisoner as evil as Belkar -- is not a good act. If I understand it correctly, good creatures are only to use lethal force in order to protect themselves or others from lethal harm. An enemy who has been beaten into submission and is helpless and is located in the middle of your stronghold surrounded by your guards, with a convenient maximum security block just a few floors down, no longer constitutes a lethal threat.

It's a bit different in a dungeon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). Roy's killing of the sleeping goblins was appropriate in that situation because they were in the middle of an enemy dungeon, had no reasonable way of imprisoning the goblins, and said goblins would be again a lethal threat once they woke up. I don't think Miko would have fallen either. But taking advantage of a few rounds of incapacitation to dispose of a lethal foe is not in the same league as killing a helpless prisoner right in front of the judge.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Does that make Roy's decision a better decision? Or doesn't it. Because the gnome Belkar murdered for his candy would ALSO be alive. Is the life of three named characters worth the life of a nameless NPC?
A better question would be, is strict consequentialism the only form of morality you're considering here?

[Winter]

I think the answer depends which of two possible perspectives you look from:

You can take the angle of "What results does this have?"
In this case, Miko was right. They should have jailed Belkar or even just have him executed. It was very clear he was bad news and not containable. Yet, with this perspective, we always have the problem we do not know "What would have happened" but we are forced to speculate even for the outcome "It would have been better".

You can also take the angle of "intention".
It is possible to blame Roy here and claim his intention was to foil Miko, but I think Roy tried to "do the right thing". In this regard, Roy was correct all along. He could not have known what happens to Belkar, but he knew he was responsible for a comrade, even such a horrible one as Belkar. Roy also he knew he needed as much help as he can get and Belkar seemed containable (and he was containable, as the comic very clearly has shown).
Belkar becoming a Vampire was not forseeable and even if it was, it stands to assume that might even corrupt other members of the Order as well (imagine Malack took Haley as "Child").

Given the two options I pick the one that more in line of Roy's alignment and does not require me to speculate as much, so I think the second is the better one.
Roy did no wrong thing, which makes Miko wrong.

We also do not know how/where this will end and what Belkar's future role is going to be. I'd not be unsurprised if Vampire-Belkar joined the Order again (note I'd also not be unsurprised should he get destroyed soon or join Team Evil).

[pendell]

A better question would be, is strict consequentialism the only form of morality you're considering here?

No. I'm making two arguments, and I'm interested in other ones as well. "morality" is about more than the results that follow from actions, but they can't be totally divorced from them either.

If you have an argument for or against Roy's course of action that does NOT depend on consequentialist morality, I'd be pleased to read it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Coat]

I'm not sure.

I think the point about morality in OotS is that an evil act is an evil act regardless of the consequences.

Letting Milko kill the Belkster would certainly be a net benefit, but is also betrayal of a comrade.

There's no significant difference between that, and slaughtering a goblin village because goblins are always evil.

I'm not sure I agree with this as a moral position - it's a bit absolute for my taste - but it's an interesting question to explore, and I look forward to seeing what the Giant does with it.

[Roland Itiative]

Well, Miko was most certainly right in the black-and-white, murder-is-good-if-it's-done-on-evil standard D&D view, and I don't think she would have fallen for killing Belkar (unless the falling occurred for ignoring the Lawful way to do things, not the Good way). Then again, Order of the Stick is usually all about subverting the strict alignment system of D&D, so there is no clear answer.

In the end, I think a more LotR way to look at things would make more sense. Had Bilbo killed the "obviously evil" Gollum back when he first got the One Ring, Sauron would have won, so his mercy (and Frodo's) ended up being vital for the victory of good, even though it allowed some lesser evil to remain existing for some time. So, if Belkar being alive helps the Order accomplish their mission, the net result of his actions might end up being on the positive side. The difference being Gollum didn't really do much evil (certainly no on-screen killing) after Bilbo spared him.

[Mike Havran]

So if Roy had allowed Belkar to be killed -- instead of sticking him with a Mark of Justice and dragging him along with supervision -- neither Haley nor Hinjo nor Celia would be alive now.


I'm not sure if it's correct to assume that "if XY wasn't here, this event would have gone this way". From the very moment of Belkar's death, a completely new story would start to unfold and it could have been entirely different. For example:

If there was no Belkar in Cliffport to protect Elan, Roy would need to take a different approach, perhaps leaving Elan with the casters and the switcheroo wouldn't have taken place. Miko wouldn't flip and slay Shojo, the Order would have been on the Western Continent at the time of goblin invasion. Kubota would kill both Shojo and Hinjo, then would get snuffed by Xykon. Xykon and Redcloak would get to the Gate and would get nailed by Soon. Happyend?

About Miko falling because of killing Belkar, it could have gone either way. Miko was injured and in the battle amok, after all.

[pendell]

Need to clarify something.

When I asked if Miko was "right" I did not necessarily mean morally right. Reason: The Giant frowns heavily on "is so-and-so morally justified" discussions.

I meant: Was Roy making the best choice possible under the circumstances, given the information that he had and what followed from it? "Right" may very well mean "the choice that the good gods would approve of." But it may also mean "the greatest good for the greatest number." Or "that which most efficiently accomplishes the party's goals."

So it becomes two questions, really:

1) By what metric do you consider Roy's and Miko's actions to be a good or bad choice?

2) Based on that metric, WAS it a good choice or not?

I realize both those questions impinge closely on real-world morality and will overlap to some degree, but I didn't intend to start the thread in order to discuss real-world morality and see it strangled in its crib for violating the forum rules. So I'll try to discuss things in game terms with game rules and avoid real-world morality.

With that said, I can see two possible ways Roy could evaluate his actions:
1) Do they enhance his standing as Lawful Good with his gods?
2) Do they save the lives of other intelligent creatures?

Maybe this makes me a bit consequentialist, but the question that pops into my mind is: "So how many innocents have to die in order for you to be a paladin?"

So if I were in OOTS-world, I would probably be a fighter and not make a paladin. Because I would not sacrifice the lives and well being of others in order to strengthen my own personal holiness. If that means lying or killing or turning a shade of tan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html) , as Belkar put it -- or even being sent to the lower planes myself -- then, if that's the price of life and love for others, then so be it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

From my perspective, the Order interfering to stop Miko from killing Belkar was always wrong, because it put loyalty above moral concerns. Belkar was a monster who had recently murdered and decapitated a guard, who killed apprentice barbarians and surrendering goblins and hapless bar-patrons-and-workers, and had neither the capability nor the desire to understand that he was doing anything wrong. He needed killing at least as much as anyone Roy had killed to that date*, and his being in Roy's party did not change that fact.

Adding consequentialism makes it less bad, because Roy would have seemed hopelessly optimistic then had he guessed that Belkar's subsequent murders while among the living would be limited to one gnome and an Oracle who got better. (Plus, Belkar might have saved other lives, although I'm a believer in time tapestries rather than timelines, i.e., I don't think we know that because how the Order would have moved forward from Azure City would have been totally different had Belkar been killed by Miko.)

I don't know if Miko would have Fallen for killing a helpless, albeit utterly vile, person or not. That (Belkar's temporary helplessness) is certainly the only reason she would have Fallen, if she would have.

*Bearing in mind that Roy had not succeeded in killing Xykon.

[hamishspence]

Belkar was a monster who had recently murdered and decapitated a guard, who killed apprentice barbarians and surrendering goblins and hapless bar-patrons-and-workers, and had neither the capability nor the desire to understand that he was doing anything wrong. He needed killing at least as much as anyone Roy had killed to that date*, and his being in Roy's party did not change that fact.

The Order didn't know about some of those though.

Still, a case could be made that after they saw the dead guard, they really should have questioned standing by him.

[sam79]

Yes. Because Paladins must be lawful good. Executing a prisoner out of hand instead of handing him over for trial and lawful punishment is an un-lawful act, and would have caused Miko to fall. Besides which, murder of a helpless prisoner -- even a prisoner as evil as Belkar -- is not a good act.

If I understand it correctly, good creatures are only to use lethal force in order to protect themselves or others from lethal harm. An enemy who has been beaten into submission and is helpless and is located in the middle of your stronghold surrounded by your guards, with a convenient maximum security block just a few floors down, no longer constitutes a lethal threat.


Ah yes. I'd forgotten that Belkar was somehow disarmed before he and Miko came crashing into the court scene; in my memory, he was still an armed and potentially dangerous escaped prisoner, rather than an unarmed and (now) not so dangerous one.

I'm not so sure that Good creatures in D&D (or in OOTS-verse) are that restricted in their use of lethal force; as the character of Miko herself is designed to show, it is possible to remain (just) on the side of Good using 'Scan and Smite' tactics (providing, obviously, you only actually smite the things that ping as Evil). Her mistake is basically thinking that this is all Goodness amounts to, rather than just a rather narrow starting point.

[Winter]

1) By what metric do you consider Roy's and Miko's actions to be a good or bad choice?

Intent. Here is intent all that matters. As outlined above. Roy did good.

[Winter]

From my perspective, the Order interfering to stop Miko from killing Belkar was always wrong, because it put loyalty above moral concerns.

I think it is more complicated than that.

Miko would have killed someone who deserved it and provoked it, but in that situation, it was not her place to kill him. Miko was supposed to be more than a mere executioneer, and she surely was not supposed to it out of hatred.
So no matter if she did have any moral high ground, she lost it in that specific situation and it would not have been right to let her kill anyone who cannot get contained in any other way or is a immediate threat.

But where it gets really tricky is this: "loyalty" is a "moral concern" as well. For Roy and Vaarsuvius, the immediate concern for Belkar was higher than Miko's concern to "do good" and we have no external mean to determine which of the involved "moral concerns" is the higher one. So have to admit that both ways to see it were possible and which one actually is chosen depends on the people involved, yet we cannot say afterwards if that was "good" or "bad".
We can only judge from the standpoint of solid facts (as in what DID happen before and after) but even here we have possible interpretations and as the future is concerned, we are down to speculations (aka "We have no clue").

[Kish]

But where it gets really tricky is this: "loyalty" is a "moral concern" as well.
I disagree. Not when it comes to the defense or lack-thereof of vicious killers, anyway.

That being the case, I consider the actual moral concern, i.e., Belkar is a serial murderer, to, not so much outweigh as out-exist the "moral concern" of "Belkar is a member of the Order of the Stick."

[hamishspence]

That said, Roy had figured out Belkar was a "complete psychopath" as early as Origin of PCs, and would have kicked him (and V, and Haley, and Elan) out of the party and tried to recruit new members- if it hadn't been for Durkon's advice that he should "give them a chance" (reminding him that he gave Durkon one).

[Winter]

I disagree.

I understand your position but we also have to consider Roy's perspective. I do not want to talk about mine, but I am fairly certain that Roy's view on "Loyalty" is very probably much stricter than yours or mine.

What I do find interesting is that we do now know what Roy did in that moment (we only know what Trigger-Happy Vaarsuvius did in the fraction of the moment*).


That being the case, I consider the actual moral concern, i.e., Belkar is a serial murderer, to, not so much outweigh as out-exist the "moral concern" of "Belkar is a member of the Order of the Stick."

Yes, that's Roy's initial wrongdoing (associating and staying associated with Belkar). If anything, we can blame him he helped Belkar jump prison after that scene.

* which we also have to notice. We had years now to ponder it, the Order had two seconds.

[pendell]

Let me see if I understand Roy's choices, based on the knowledge he had at the time he made his decision WRT Belkar.

Granted, it may have been a good idea to prevent a paladin from murdering him out of hand. Did he then have to get him out of jail? What other options did he have?

1) Leave Belkar in prison. I'm not sure I find Roy's argument convincing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html). He had no way of knowing the prison would be smashed to rubble. After all, his party had just put the Linear Guild in prison there. If he was concerned that they were not secure there, should he not have raised an objection to their confinement at the time?

It smells to me of Ex Post Facto justification. Although he probably did really believe at the time that no jail could hold Belkar. He'd just escaped from Azure City Jail once , after all.

So: Probable outcomes: Belkar remains in jail (low), Belkar escapes and becomes a recurring villain (high).

2) Let Belkar go free unconditionally.
Probable outcome : ARE YOU MAD?

3) Kill Belkar on the spot. This is the same as "Let Miko do it", except that Roy takes personal responsibility to the task. Still, killing a team-mate who has not personally harmed you is neither a lawful nor a good act. It doesn't seem to me it ever even occurred to Roy.

Which brought Roy to option 4)
4) Free him , but with a mark of justice activated by Roy's command word. Thus, so long as Belkar is under Roy's permanent supervision, Belkar can't do anything too evil because Roy can activate the command word even if Belkar wriggles around the literal terms of the Mark. If he kills outside a city and Roy doesn't like it, Roy can zap him on the spot.

...

I guess the critical flaws in option 4 is that it required Roy to always be present to supervise Belkar, and it depended on him not finding some way around or out of the terms of the mark. In other words, he's betting on himself and on magic against the free, willing choice of Belkar to do evil. I don't think either of those two things can be expected to prevail, in the long run. I think even Roy was starting to realize that, which is why he changed his strategy to "run out the clock".

Given the information he had, I think the best thing for Roy to do was to leave Belkar in prison. Maybe he will escape. Maybe he'll be killed by a falling chunk of rock like the old prisoner was. Maybe if both he and Miko were in jail, then when Miko gained the opportunity to escape she would have attacked Belkar first, and then she and Belkar would have killed each other, so she never went to the throne room and never destroyed Azure City. Maybe he'll escape and be killed by hobgoblins. Maybe he'll JOIN The hobgoblins. Maybe he'll murder Tsukiko and become Xykon's new left-hand halfling next to Redcloak. If. If. If. Too many ifs.

The thing I can't get around is that Belkar is a willing, unrepentant murderer who causes harm to everyone around him given half a chance. So I don't want him on my team. "Bonds of loyalty" should not stretch to covering for a mass murderer.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[gooddragon1]

All I know is that Roy owes Haley 10 gp. Unless he already payed it somewhere.

[Winter]

It smells to me of Ex Post Facto justification.

It was. At the time Roy got him out, it was not clear at all one of the most secure prisons on the continent would be a rubble soon.
Belkar in the anti-magic cells in Azure City under the guard of the Sapphire Guard would have locked him away for good.

From the perspective of the shattered city it was good Belkar got out, but at that point Roy could not have known it would get that bad.

[Kish]

3) Kill Belkar on the spot. This is the same as "Let Miko do it", except that Roy takes personal responsibility to the task. Still, killing a team-mate who has not personally harmed you is neither a lawful nor a good act.

Th-that's quite a statement. "Personally harmed you"? So if Belkar was enough faster than Roy, Belkar could slaughter everyone on the continent who wasn't in the Order, and Roy would never be justified in using lethal force to stop him?

I would say the Lawful Good attitude for Roy to take, would involve treating the attack on Solt the gnome (...or one of the goblins who was trying to surrender, for that matter...) as worse than an attack on Roy himself, not better.


It doesn't seem to me it ever even occurred to Roy.

It occurred to him. He asked the deva whether she wanted him to kill Belkar in his sleep. She said, "No, but--" and he said that then he didn't see what the problem was.

And for some reason, the deva didn't say, "He doesn't need to be asleep, if that would make you feel bad about killing him."

[pendell]

It occurred to him. He asked the deva whether she wanted him to kill Belkar in his sleep. She said, "No, but--" and he said that then he didn't see what the problem was.

And for some reason, the deva didn't say, "He doesn't need to be asleep, if that would make you feel bad about killing him."


The deva is lawful good.

I think the Deva would argue that lawful good beings cause the death of others under two circumstances*:
1) Immediate defense of self or others.
2) An execution, as a result of trial and sentencing by a competent authority.

So -- the Deva would not blame Roy if he , on seeing Belkar attempting to kill Solt, killed him instead. The Deva might not even complain if Roy killed Belkar immediately afterwards, since it's not practical to restrain or arrest him in the wilderness.

But -- as far as the Deva is concerned -- Roy does not have the right to kill Belkar for what Belkar MIGHT do in the future. Put him to death as a result of lawful trial, yes. Kill in immediate defense of self or others, yes. But Roy is not judge, jury, and executioner. That's what makes him lawful good, not neutral good.

OF course, at this point Roy might point to her projected evil chart and say "That is your projection for the evil he's going to do. Are you saying I have to wait UNTIL he crosses that line of the offspring of Cruelle De Vil and Sauron before I actually do something about it?"

Respectfully,

Brian P.

* Ignoring war and other complexities for the moment.

[Mike Havran]

Belkar in the anti-magic cells in Azure City under the guard of the Sapphire Guard would have locked him away for good.

Only if he got locked up for the rest of his life. Which seems to be a very hypothetical sentence given the environment (execution was allowed in the AC). What if he got like, 15 years? Would Roy write it into his diary? Or would he hope that ...heh-heh-heh... Belkar would become a better person in the prison?

Leaving Belkar in prison means as much as letting him loose upon the world X years later, tops. Oh, it also relieves Roy of responsibility. But leaving the matter in Miko's hands would do exactly that as well.

[pendell]

Leaving Belkar in prison means as much as letting him loose upon the world X years later, tops

This assumes Belkar is a picture-perfect angel in jail. I think it more likely that putting him in jail results in the deaths of many other prisoners and guards before either A) he escapes B) is killed C) is put in the equivalent of Supermax solitary for the rest of his life.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, basically, things have to stay a little vague in order to keep a chaotic evil halfling murderer in a non-evil team anyway. :smallwink: So let's not be too hard on Roy; the comic's got to work, and that means some details need to be smoothed over. It isn't a 100% serious comic, after all.

[Man on Fire]

Back in 285 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html), Miko was prepared to kill Belkar. Vaarsuvius and Roy saved him, saying they preferred the psychotic, murderous halfling to the stuck-up self-righteous paladin.

Roy was later called to account (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) for his association with Belkar. He justified it by saying that he was channeling Belkar's rage to a more useful purpose.

Haley attempted to kick him off the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html), but he got better.

They discussed it at the end of the last book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html). They decided to "run out the clock".

And now the bill comes due. Now Death's Little Helper is their worst enemy. Death's Little Helper has BECOME Death, the destroyer of worlds.

Perhaps Roy should have just let Miko cut his throat. Miko would have fallen, and a serious threat to the world would have ended that day. It's hard for me to see any downside. Might it have been a better solution for all involved?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Argumentum ad consequentam - at the time she was about to kill him nobody knew or could predict Belkar will turn into a vampire and against them. it was a possibility, but nothing could tell them in 100% it's gonna happen. You cannot act on fear of possibility something bad might happen, by that logic we should be completely inactive, because our every action has a possibility of brinign horrible consequences.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But -- as far as the Deva is concerned -- Roy does not have the right to kill Belkar for what Belkar MIGHT do in the future. Put him to death as a result of lawful trial, yes. Kill in immediate defense of self or others, yes. But Roy is not judge, jury, and executioner. That's what makes him lawful good, not neutral good.

Don't agree. A LG character isn't required to have either an immediate emergency or a go-ahead from a legal authority to mete out deserved justice.

If they were that vulnerable to the whims of various nation's legal systems and codes then they'd be forced to be schizophrenic. It is enough to pick one moral code and then follow that dutifully.

It would be better to have him properly tried and executed, but if that just isn't practical then there's nothing that isn't LG about cutting him down yourself.

[pendell]

If they were that vulnerable to the whims of various nation's legal systems and codes then they'd be forced to be schizophrenic. It is enough to pick one moral code and then follow that dutifully.


Possibly I misunderstand D&D alignment system (do we still have it in 4E?) but what you describe sounds to me like chaotic good, not lawful good.

A good person puts the welfare of others above his own. A chaotic good person does so in accordance of his moral code regardless of whether such actions are technically within the laws of his parent society or not. A lawful good person, by contrast, must obey the laws of the society he exists in. Miko, for example, was bound to obey the laws of the Sapphire Guard but not those of Cliffport, but when in Cliffport even she must observe and respect their laws to the extent they do not conflict with the laws of the Sapphire Guard.

If a lawful person finds they do not agree with the laws of their society, they are under obligation either to work to change those laws or to leave their society and find one that better suits them. But they can't simply pick and choose what laws they will and will not obey. That's what makes them lawful good instead of simply good.

A person who takes it upon himself to act as judge, jury, and executioner is at best a vigilante (chaotic good -- assuming the people they kill really ARE villains) and at worst a serial killer with a misguided sense of right and wrong. But in none of the spectra of cases does that add up to "lawful good". By D&D rules, anyway.

Awaiting correction if I am wrong.

ETA: How does sanity impact alignment? If a lawful good person becomes insane and starts killing red-haired people because he believes all red-haired people are evil, does that person remain lawful good?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Koo Rehtorb]

A lawful good person, by contrast, must obey the laws of the society he exists in. Miko, for example, was bound to obey the laws of the Sapphire Guard but not those of Cliffport, but when in Cliffport even she must observe and respect their laws to the extent they do not conflict with the laws of the Sapphire Guard.

It's not "must". It's "strongly encouraged to". Disobeying laws is a bad thing to be doing everything else being equal. However if you're a LG character in a society with evil laws then you're not required to be following them. A LG character would still prefer to be changing them lawfully, but if that's not possible then there's not actually anything wrong with breaking them for the greater good. You don't tell a tortured slave that you're very sorry he's a tortured slave, but it's illegal to free him so shucks. Buying that slave legally and freeing him might be preferable, but it also might not be possible.

If Durkon was aware that Roy was sentenced to be executed instead of merely imprisoned for a little while then he would have absolutely been willing to have broken him out of jail, because that society's laws are evil and go against a legitimate legal code. Evil laws are illegitimate laws in a LG person's mind, the only question is at what point it's not worth spreading more chaos in the world by ignoring them.

If you're putting the lawful ahead of the good then you're LN.


A person who takes it upon himself to act as judge, jury, and executioner is at best a vigilante (chaotic good -- assuming the people they kill really ARE villains) and at worst a serial killer with a misguided sense of right and wrong. But in none of the spectra of cases does that add up to "lawful good". By D&D rules, anyway.

Again, I did say that it is greatly preferable that Belkar be lawfully sentenced and executed under a LG legal system. That shows the system works and helps everyone a lot more.

However, if a LG legal system isn't available then the LG character is under no obligation to go dragging the murderous psycopath all over the world seeking out a place that will try, convict, and execute him. If his guilt is assured then a LG character can legitimately carry out the sentence on the spot, provided it's actually a justified punishment for the crime.


ETA: How does sanity impact alignment? If a lawful good person becomes insane and starts killing red-haired people because he believes all red-haired people are evil, does that person remain lawful good?

The personal code being followed still has to be a LG code for the person to be LG, which will obviously include provisos like "It is best to use a legal system whenever possible."

Here's an example of why alignment is stupid and I hate it. A paladin who's been Dominated with magic and forced to commit evil acts still falls. It's just easier for her to atone for the evil acts at a later date.

[Winter]

Only if he got locked up for the rest of his life. Which seems to be a very hypothetical sentence given the environment (execution was allowed in the AC). What if he got like, 15 years? Would Roy write it into his diary? Or would he hope that ...heh-heh-heh... Belkar would become a better person in the prison? .

Errm... put in prison, put on trial. If that gives a Death Sentence for whatever legit reason: It would be an entirely different situation.

[Mike Havran]

If you're putting the lawful ahead of the good then you're LN.


I agree with most that you said but not with this. There are LG characters who are more Lawful than Good as well as there are those more Good than Lawful. (Compare Roy and Soon, for example)


Errm... put in prison, put on trial. If that gives a Death Sentence for whatever legit reason: It would be an entirely different situation.

Providing Belkar would get that Death Sentence, which is very uncertain at this point. And Roy did not know he may ask Shojo for favors at that point.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I agree with most that you said but not with this. There are LG characters who are more Lawful than Good as well as there are those more Good than Lawful. (Compare Roy and Soon, for example)

You're right. I take it back. I still consider Miko to be LG, after all, and she's definitely an example of a character that's much more strongly L than G.

[MReav]

Still, killing a team-mate who has not personally harmed you is neither a lawful nor a good act. It doesn't seem to me it ever even occurred to Roy.

I take it you mean recently. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html)

[pendell]

Pffh. 1d4 damage against a fighter in the double digit levels? That's like a backslap to us low-level experts and commoners. I note that Roy didn't even have a damage mark in that panel.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Trazoi]

My take on it was it was reasonable for Roy to stick up for Belkar when he was facing being murdered while helpless instead of facing a fair trial, but his motives in bailing Belkar out to rejoin the order came across as more than a little arrogant. Maybe it's time for him to face some karmic retribution now for that.

[Tragak]

Pffh. 1d4 damage against a fighter in the double digit levels? That's like a backslap to us low-level experts and commoners. I note that Roy didn't even have a damage mark in that panel.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Isn't the damage to his CON (≈15) instead of his HP (≈50-60)?

[pollyanna]

I think you guys are too hard on poor Belkar. Most of his actions in the comic are justified. Hell, I would have done more intelligent versions of the same thing in many situations :D

Anyway, its more important to protect your teamates than it is to protect strangers. An evil teamate is still a teamate. letting those stuck up paldins punish him would have been worse than letting him commit any number of murders of socalled innocents.

[TaiLiu]

Isn't the damage to his CON (≈15) instead of his HP (≈50-60)?

No; it's a dagger (It's small sized, though: shouldn't it do 1d3 damage?).

[Tragak]

No; it's a dagger (It's small sized, though: shouldn't it do 1d3 damage?).

Oh, I thought we were talking about Malack's blood-drain :redface:

[The Giant]

This is the spitting image of a "Morally Justified" thread.

Don't start those. If you see them, don't contribute.

Thread locked.