OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm surprised you didn't have to read it at least twice in school.

[arimareiji]

JEEZ that makes me both want to read it and also never let it within 5 miles of me at the same time.

Indeed. Another reason to feel that way: Like The Jungle, it has too much current relevance to not be worth a read, and has too much current relevance to not be depressing as heck.

[Arathorne]

now that I think about it, I have read "1984" more than once, but "Catch-22" would not keep my attention long enough to finish, which is unusual for me. Note I have read Lord of the Rings probably 7 times, the Dune series over 3 times, Roger Zelazny's works multiple times, and all of Heinlein's writings over and over... sigh. Why I could not finish Catch-22 I will never understand.

[arimareiji]

now that I think about it, I have read "1984" more than once, but "Catch-22" would not keep my attention long enough to finish, which is unusual for me. Note I have read Lord of the Rings probably 7 times, the Dune series over 3 times, Roger Zelazny's works multiple times, and all of Heinlein's writings over and over... sigh. Why I could not finish Catch-22 I will never understand.

The way it jumps around in time makes it hard to follow, especially since it's frequently unclear when it happens or how it's related. Slaughterhouse-5 jumps around as well, but it's easier to pick up the dangling ends of the story threads because Vonnegut makes them both obvious and distinctive.

[Goblin_Priest]

That's canonically not the case. Judicial and executive/legislative (the latter seems to be indeed exercised by the monarch) powers are most thoroughly separated, and the monarch does not exercise judicial power. That aside, it's also telling that Shojo had to work behind the collective backs of the Sapphire Guard and other Azurite officials to get the desired results. Were you correct, his saying „Mr. Scruffy thinks these people look nice. I find them not guilty and they are free to go” would have solved the issue without Shojo having to resort to shadier means.

I mean, what he says there could be passing over a lot of nuance.

Power comes in various forms, for example soft power and hard power. Sometimes, you have the legal authority to do something, but not the political clout to actually get away with it. And vice versa. And constitutional monarchies often come with somewhat uncomfortable compromises where the monarch is expected to do something, but with little provision about what to do if it doesn't. Parliamentarism comes to mind, with the Governor General being the representative of the head of state, and whose signature is required to pass legislation (essentially a veto), despite being named by the Prime Minister. The GG also has some other powers, like shutting down parliament (proroguing it). If a GG went "rogue", that'd be pretty uncomfortable. Because the system as it is has the monarchy as both above and below the elected government.

[Ruck]

Spoiler: Explanation and spoiler for Catch-22

Show

Throughout the book, the mysterious regulation "Catch-22" is used as the basis for all sorts* of irrational and/or unfair decisions... but without ever being cited. Near the end, the protagonist finally finds out Catch-22 means (paraphrased) "We can do anything you can't stop us from doing." When he asks whether they showed it to the person telling him this, she says she was told Catch-22 says they don't have to.

_{* - Memorably, many of the situations are something like this: You can only prove you're loyal by signing a Loyalty Oath. But you're not allowed to sign one unless you can prove you're loyal. It's why "Catch-22" became a slang term for a situation where it's impossible to get permission or the ability to do something, until you already have it.}

_{Edit: Fixed broken tag
Edit 2: Footnote}

The one I always remember is

Spoiler: Catch-22, very paraphrased

Show

You can't get out of fighting the war unless you're certified insane, but trying to get certified means you're trying to get out of the war, and if you're trying to get out of the war, you're obviously sane.

[KorvinStarmast]

now that I think about it, I have read "1984" more than once, but "Catch-22" would not keep my attention long enough to finish, which is unusual for me. Note I have read Lord of the Rings probably 7 times, the Dune series over 3 times, Roger Zelazny's works multiple times, and all of Heinlein's writings over and over... sigh. Why I could not finish Catch-22 I will never understand.

I finished it but didn't want to read it again. 1984 I wanted to read again, as an adult, because I had been exposed to more of life and wanted to see if Orwell's story felt different or showed me anything different. It did.

The way it jumps around in time makes it hard to follow, especially since it's frequently unclear when it happens or how it's related. Slaughterhouse-5 jumps around as well, but it's easier to pick up the dangling ends of the story threads because Vonnegut makes them both obvious and distinctive.

The latter also made for a more enjoyable movie.

[Jasdoif]

I mean, what he says there could be passing over a lot of nuance.

For the record:

Spoiler: War and XPs Bonus Content

Show

Government: The Lord of Azure City is, in theory, a hereditary absolute monarch. In practice, the nation's powerful and fractious noble class holds a great deal of the power, as they own much of the city's resources....While the Lord of the City can order a noble to do something, it is more common that the nobles threaten to withhold resources from the Lord's plans if they don't approve. Since the Lord is bound strictly by law in terms of what punishment (if any) he can levy against the nobles, while the nobles suffer from no such restriction, the city is de facto ruled by the nobility--unless the Lord is very clever.

Strictly speaking, being bound by law in any form means it's not actually an absolute monarchy; but I imagine the authors of travel guides and comic book bonus material have little to gain from digging up more specific terminology.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

JEEZ that makes me both want to read it and also never let it within 5 miles of me at the same time.

I, for one, enjoyed the book tremendously. It is perhaps a little hard to follow at the beginning due to the non-linear nature of the story, but I think you get used to it. The ending is...dark, to say the least.

[Goblin_Priest]

For the record:

Spoiler: War and XPs Bonus Content

Show

Strictly speaking, being bound by law in any form means it's not actually an absolute monarchy; but I imagine the authors of travel guides and comic book bonus material have little to gain from digging up more specific terminology.

Yea that's a bit contradictory.

Though it's also possible that the law stems from the absolute monarch, and that it's more of a social contract that the nobles expect him to go by, that he promised them to rule by. De jure, he could alter the deal at any time. But since doing so would turn the nobles on him and starve him of resources, it'd be politically suicidal to do so.

This interpretation might not be what was in mind, but would seem to me like the one that breaks away the least from the stated contradictory descriptions.

Like, in Hinjo's example, maybe he could trial Kabuto himself, but doing so would put the whole clan, and its allies, against him. While delegating this to a third-party, the magistrate, would presumably not incur this retaliation. Thus, he has the authority to judge them himself, but he can't really afford to do it. Going back to Shojo, for example, he might very well have had the authority to do the shady trials he did. But doing it publicly could have cost him a lot.

This being the case would make a lot more sense than otherwise, regarding Shojo. If the barriers were political and not judicial, then it would make a lot more sense for Shojo to get away with his crazy antics and irregular orders. If I remember correctly, even paladins were carrying out his irregular judgements. This looks like a paladin carrying out an order he feels legal but immoral. If the order was outright illegal, illegitimate, I would expect more resistance than that.

Counterpoint, though, I'm not sure how to interpret Hinjo's aim to have the courts depose the monarch. And on what basis the motion would have depended. Feigning senility doesn't sound like such a serious offense to me.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Rigging trials is.

[arimareiji]

Counterpoint, though, I'm not sure how to interpret Hinjo's aim to have the courts depose the monarch. And on what basis the motion would have depended. Feigning senility doesn't sound like such a serious offense to me.

It does seem a bit of a puzzler, how it would be worse for your ruler to feign incompetence than to be incompetent. (^_^)°

A couple of points:
~ Technically, Hinjo doesn't say he's going to have the magistrates depose Shojo (except perhaps in the punny sense). He says it'll be up to the magistrates what'll happen next. At the time I thought of it as "Uh oh, he's in trouble" - but now that you've brought this to mind, I wonder what the heck that statement was supposed to mean. Because...
~ The "offenses" Hinjo probably heard about were lying to paladins / hiding things from them, staging a trial on behalf of "the gods" in the name of the Sapphire Guard, and using SG resources to get the Order down there to do a quest that's a de-facto violation of Soon's oath. None of those have more than a trivial bearing on his position as ruler of Azure City, only on his position on commander of the SG. I don't know why an Azure City magistrate would have (or want) jurisdiction.

[danielxcutter]

"People die when you kill them" is entirely true but it's hardly a novel take.

I am the blade of my sword...

[elros]

now that I think about it, I have read "1984" more than once, but "Catch-22" would not keep my attention long enough to finish, which is unusual for me. Note I have read Lord of the Rings probably 7 times, the Dune series over 3 times, Roger Zelazny's works multiple times, and all of Heinlein's writings over and over... sigh. Why I could not finish Catch-22 I will never understand.

I know what you mean. I had to read Catch-22 in high school and when I started, I thought Joseph Heller was being absurd for no good reason. When he finally revealed Snowden's death (which chronologically happened much earlier), I understood one of the points he was trying to make. The only thing that separates us from a bag of organs is our "spirit", which is the part of us that cannot be destroyed by guns or knives, but can be relinquished when we abandon what we hold dear. Yossarian was afraid that people were trying to kill him (which to be honest, they were), and he could sell out to authority and have an easy life, but by doing so he would lose the only thing that the war could not take from him.
Not a new concept (it has existed for thousands of years!), but as a 17 year old I thought that Heller did a good job of making it real.

[Dion]

I finished it but didn't want to read it again. 1984 I wanted to read again, as an adult, because I had been exposed to more of life and wanted to see if Orwell's story felt different or showed me anything different. It did.

I read them both again recently; I honestly think I found more in Heller the second time.

Orwell had a terrifying vision, but in many ways it was the standard dystopian novel: the author warns of a possible future where a bunch of supermen engineer the "end of history". And there was a scene where a superman demonstrates to the protagonist that they understand everything and control everything, and another scene where a superman describes the philosophy in a cold monologue.

Heller had something far worse. He imagined no supermen, no engineered future, no end of history. He warns of a concrete present where a bunch of mediocre bunglers have stumbled into power for no reason or purpose. His generals are mostly helpless in the face of history. In one scene, the generals don't even know where the front line is (because someone moves some thumbtacks on a map, and nobody wants to tell a general anything that will upset them); in another a group of generals can't even control the room they're in (because their clothes have been thrown out the window, and without clothes there's nothing to show that they're generals). And in one of the most depressing parts of the whole novel, the underlying philosophy which is evaded for most of the book is finally described in its raw form by a powerless old woman in an anguished wail.

And yeah, nearly everyone dies, and the way the story jumps around it takes you until nearly the end to realize that nearly everyone has been dead for most of the book.

[GeoffWatson]

"People die when you kill them" is entirely true but it's hardly a novel take.

The anime meme?
That's more a poor translation than superior wit.

[Liquor Box]

Kidnapping is wrong, yes. But this was not a kidnapping.

Kraagor's gate and the ravine that encloses it, for all intents and purposes, is Serini's territory. Nobody else, no sovereign nation, is laying claim (minus the bugbears, who have already been shown to kill on sight). Serini is defending a strategic location of literal world-shattering importance, and she detects two intruders who stand a solid chance of bungling that defense -- or at least causing an unneeded mess.

Serini is the local authority in many meaningful ways, and she's acting in that capacity right now. Her actions are more like taking trespassers into custody. Kidnapping implies personal benefit or malicious intent, but so far her only plan is to capture the paladins and then release them after confiscating what they stole...the only difference is that they stole information, rather than material goods. This is a fantasy world, and not every single real-world law is going to be applicable, or even be a good barometer for somebody's morality. Heck, Elan stole from a shopkeeper in Cliffport twice (plus planned to steal a cola) and it was played off as a joke.

Again, would it have been better for Serini to reveal her presence and negotiate with the paladins? Possibly. Would that option have been much more Lawful Good? Yes. Was it the only Good option? I would argue no. What Serini did was immensely rude. But as others have pointed out, there are far "less Good" ways of removing people who know too much from the equation. The fact that she went the extra mile to bring them in nonlethally and release them with amnesia just doesn't fit at all with Evil action-taking framework. This is a fantasy world, and not every single real-world law is going to be applicable or even be a good barometer for their morality.

Yeah, i don't buy that because someone lives somewhere, they have the right to do whatever to people who come into the surrounding area. As you point out, the bugbears have a village there, and were probably there first, so do they have the right to reject Serini?

Kidnapping doesn't require any malicious intent, it just means capturing another person without lawful authority. If you take you own children because you love them this can be kidnapping, if it deprives another parent of their custodial rights (this is actually one of the more common forms of kidnapping).

Putting aside real world laws - pretend they don't exist, if you were walking in the countryside, and someone who happened to live nearby threw a dart into your neck with a tranquilizer attached, taunted you with promised of freedom, then gave you roofies and dumped you somewhere, would you think of that as a good, neutral or evil act?I think it is somewhat evil. Granted not as evil as if they killed you, but killing is pretty much the gold standard of evil (you have to be creative to do worse).

I generally don't put much stock in D&D wikis, and especially isolated incidents: just because that one example of drow poison having side effects exists, that does not mean the vast majority of games & stories will use that side effect if drow poison shows up in the games. And regardless, this requires a lot of assumptions when Serini has already stated the poison was completely harmless. Sure, she might be lying again...but why? How would that improve the flow of this current narrative? It's an awful lot of extra assumptions to justify, and in the end it's just easier to follow the "standard" d&d rules about sleeping potions: they work, barring a successful Fort save.

If Pendall, you or anyone else want to investigate whether the side effects of sleeping poisons, be my guest. The first one I found on google had some side effects (and you'd need somethign strong to fell a high level paladin) which is consistent with real world tranquilizers.

I don't thin Serini did say it was harmless, and she is not a reliable narrator anyway (her lies per strip ratio is very high). In any case, she may not consider it harmful because it has no long lasting effects, just like real world tranquilizer. It harms you in the sense it knocks you out when you really want to be awake and probably makes you feel a bit sick, but not in the sense that it does permanent damage.

I want to take a second to acknowledge that you've been very consistent throughout this discussion about judging Serini's individual actions, rather than Serini herself, and I appreciate that.

Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge it.

Mutual agreement between the people and their governments, and on an international scale nations and each other. Now, Shojo can spin the "I am authorized by the twelve gods but you can't see the paperwork stop asking" all he likes, but I'm under no obligation to assume that it's turning from straw to gold.

That's not correct. Judicial authority is assigned by law, law being derived from the legislature (or in a more old fashioned setting like OotS, by the monarch). Nation states can do this however they like. Not ever from mutual agreement between citizens and the government, except to the extent that elected governments probably assign judicial authority in a way that their population approves of.

Azure City clearly was able to do this, Serini clearly isn't. More questionable is whether Gobtopia or Azure City in its present form can do it.

Didn't Hinjo (an actual paladin) depose Shojo immediately upon finding out what he was up to with the Order of the Stick? That seems like a strong contradiction that Shojo had legitimate authority (particularly from the gods) to do it.

Edit: Wanted to make sure I went back to the facts. Comic #406. Hinjo technically does not arrest Shojo, because the magistrate needs to come and do it, but legal proceedings would have been in the works if Miko hadn't gotten extrajudicial.

Obviously we don't know what the outcome of that trial would have been. But it is certainly not explicit in canon that Shojo had proper authority. Hinjo is the most in the know about what the local laws and the divine mandate actually say.

Actually, Hinjo (who you point out is likely to know the law) was present when Shojo asserted that he had jurisdiction to arrest the Order in the north, and he did not object to the comment.

His later arrest of Shojo was for Shojo's chicanery, not for his assertion of jurisdiction.

Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien and the rest of the Sapphire Guard were completely fine witj Shojo having a bunch of foreign suspects arrested on foreign soil to face judgement provided the trial was genuine and not a sham cooked up by a manipulative octogenarian with trust issues. This suggests that the law of the land, at least as interpreted by the SG does grant Shojo the legal authority to have bunch of foreign suspects arrested on foreign soil to face judgement when the Gates are involved.

Put better than I did.

[Ruck]

Yeah, i don't buy that because someone lives somewhere, they have the right to do whatever to people who come into the surrounding area.

I don't buy framing "keeps watch on the last seal that could end up destroying the world if it's broken" as "living somewhere."

[Liquor Box]

I don't buy framing "keeps watch on the last seal that could end up destroying the world if it's broken" as "living somewhere."

True. But the fact that she lived there was the reason put forward by Ionathus (and before him, by Peelee) as why she would have the right to capture people who "trespass". So that was the point I answered.

Others have raised the importance of her apparent mission as a justification, and I have answered them. More than happy to go through it with you, but I get the feeling you just wanted to make that point, rather than a back and forth.

[Good Coyote]

Shojo was an accomplice in the impersonation of the mandated juror of a trial by the father of one of the accused with the intent of having the accised be declared innocents so that he could then pressure the accused into helping him commit oathbreaking (which may or may not be illegal on its own). That's all kinds of illegal and Shojo never denied that. That's what Hinjo planned to charge his uncle with, since he discovered at the same time that his uncle retained the full extant of his mental faculties and therefore was responsible for his actions which blows away the defense tjat Shojo had planned for, namely: I'm a delirious old man who thinks his cat is the actual ruler of the kingdom, I can't be blamed for this random oathspirit taking advantage of my diminished state (not formuled like that of course).

Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien and the rest of the Sapphire Guard were completely fine witj Shojo having a bunch of foreign suspects arrested on foreign soil to face judgement provided the trial was genuine and not a sham cooked up by a manipulative octogenarian with trust issues. This suggests that the law of the land, at least as interpreted by the SG does grant Shojo the legal authority to have bunch of foreign suspects arrested on foreign soil to face judgement when the Gates are involved.

Thank you, that makes wayyyy more sense than the way I was misreading it.



So basically I keep thinking of it as one whole action, like "arresting on false pretenses," but it's true that arresting and false pretenses are separate things. And Hinjo never confronts the false pretenses part because he doesn't really know what the truth was about the Order. He's only swayed to their side because Roy protects him from Miko, and Xykon is breathing down everyone's necks. Otherwise he might have arranged a new trial for them first.

So now I think Hinjo doesn't suggest one way or the other whether Shojo had a right to do that even though he knew they weren't really a danger to the existence of the world. Only that he would have had a right to do that if he wasn't withholding information.

If he was like a normal paladin leader, I would say he doesnt, because their laws don't work like mundane laws do. It's more like.. "do the honorable thing" than "fill out form 2038 first." Harder to escape on a technicality. But of course he's not a paladin.

Since the right comes from the Sapphire Guard and not Azure City though, ultimately Shojo gets that authority from Soon. Which would put Serini on equal or better authority there, if it comes from "being a part of the Scribbler Gate Protection Squad."

Shojo might actually have been telling half a truth that he got the authority from the gods. It's unlikely he consulted on the specific action, but since the gods can talk about the Snarl to mortals who already know about it, it's possible the Scribblers all got some token sign of approval at some point.

If it's true that all divination comes from the gods (not that I'm sure this is established, but if) then the fact that they have a rudimentary divination thing set up to inform each other about the Gates might support this. Again though, pure speculation.


On Catch-22.... Yeah I tried in high school but I could not follow it at all. Maybe about time I gave another go.

[Ruck]

True. But the fact that she lived there was the reason put forward by Ionathus (and before him, by Peelee) as why she would have the right to capture people who "trespass". So that was the point I answered.

Others have raised the importance of her apparent mission as a justification, and I have answered them. More than happy to go through it with you, but I get the feeling you just wanted to make that point, rather than a back and forth.

Yeah, you're pretty much right, so, fair enough, I'll give you my fuller analysis.

My stance here is more or less that of the things we have seen Serini done, the worst of them is the kidnapping, which is fairly justifiable given the circumstances and the information from her perspective; and the rest of her actions are essentially so minor that we can't determine anything about her alignment from them. (Or, perhaps, that her treatment of the trolls is more indicator of Good than lying to paladins and bonking them on the head is of Evil.) Based on the reason we know who she is in the first place and the way she came across in those strips, I would lean more toward Good than Evil, and there's been nothing significant enough in these new strips that moves the needle for me yet.

[Fyraltari]

I am the blade of my sword...

Do you have to hold yourself by the ankle? That doesn't seem very practical.

The anime meme?
That's more a poor translation than superior wit.

I do not have a single clue what you are talking about.

Put better than I did.

Thanks

Thank you, that makes wayyyy more sense than the way I was misreading it.



So basically I keep thinking of it as one whole action, like "arresting on false pretenses," but it's true that arresting and false pretenses are separate things. And Hinjo never confronts the false pretenses part because he doesn't really know what the truth was about the Order. He's only swayed to their side because Roy protects him from Miko, and Xykon is breathing down everyone's necks. Otherwise he might have arranged a new trial for them first.

There wasn't any false pretense, though. The SG's divinations pointed to the Order of the Stick because they (well Elan) did destroy Dorukan's Gate which is what they were tried for. While it's likely that absent Miko's kingslaying followed by Roy's intervention and Xykon's imminent arrival he would have had them retried, I think he also was convinced by the argument they made that destroying Dorukan's Gate was the right call and guesses that an actual trial would have resulted in a "Not Guilty" verdict.

By the way my position on the whole Serini thing is "she's been in three strips calm down, people."

[Good Coyote]

There wasn't any false pretense, though. The SG's divinations pointed to the Order of the Stick because they (well Elan) did destroy Dorukan's Gate which is what they were tried for. While it's likely that absent Miko's kingslaying followed by Roy's intervention and Xykon's imminent arrival he would have had them retried, I think he also was convinced by the argument they made that destroying Dorukan's Gate was the right call and guesses that an actual trial would have resulted in a "Not Guilty" verdict.

By the way my position on the whole Serini thing is "she's been in three strips calm down, people."

The false pretense is the pretense that they were being retrieved for an actual trial. I am probably not using the right words to refer to that, but it does seem important.

That's a very reasonable position. Authority is irrelevant to my opinion on Serini, I'm just speculating for fun.

[Kelenius]

This page is relevant to the discussion of Shojo's authority.

[Ionathus]

True. But the fact that she lived there was the reason put forward by Ionathus (and before him, by Peelee) as why she would have the right to capture people who "trespass". So that was the point I answered.

Others have raised the importance of her apparent mission as a justification, and I have answered them. More than happy to go through it with you, but I get the feeling you just wanted to make that point, rather than a back and forth.

No, "she happens to live there" was NOT the reason I put forward. Your example of "if I'm just walking through the countryside and you tranquilize me because you happen to live nearby" also misses the point entirely.

She is defending the Gate. The paladins are clearly meddling with the Gate. She does not just happen to live there. She is defending reality & existence itself.

We are clearly talking ourselves in circles, and will continue to do so, because it seems you don't draw any distinction between real-world behavior and fantasy world behavior -- especially the fact that this fantasy world has a single, unambiguous "kill switch" lurking in Kraagor's Tomb. That factor will, by necessity, change some of the equation.

If the existence of that fantastical, existential threat and the necessity to protect it doesn't affect any of the conclusions you draw about Serini, and get you to accept that a 1-for-1 perfect equivalent to real-world morality is therefore impossible, I can't see any way you will ever accept Serini's actions as not-Evil. It all kind of hinges on that difference.

[F.Harr]

Of course he'd guess that. :)

And of course he'd be right. :))

She'll let them go eventually. It's a story after all.

:)))

I'd wondered how he got the diary. I'd assumed it was a yard sale, but I suppose this is more in keeping.

[Dion]

Capturing paladins and lying to them isn’t a nice thing to do.

But most adventurers, if they needed to get rid of martial combatants, would have killed the martial combatants.

So we know she avoids killing Trolls AND paladins.

Is she good? Certainly not! If she were good, she’d have to be all murder murder on the trolls! You have to commit a LOT of murders to be good in D&D.

Is she lawful? Certainly not! If she were lawful, she would send away for the Sheriff of Nottingham or the Dwarf High Council or whatever to ineffectively defend the gated every time there’s trouble. You have to let a LOT of worlds be needlessly destroyed to be lawful in D&D.

[Peelee]

As you point out, the bugbears have a village there, and were probably there first, so do they have the right to reject Serini?

I didn't read their post as pointing out the bugbears were there first, which is an incorrect assertion anyway; the bugbears live there because of Monster Hollow, which Serini built, so she by necessity predates the bugbears village.

That's not correct. Judicial authority is assigned by law, law being derived from the legislature (or in a more old fashioned setting like OotS, by the monarch). Nation states can do this however they like. Not ever from mutual agreement between citizens and the government, except to the extent that elected governments probably assign judicial authority in a way that their population approves of.

And the law is fiat rests on the belief that the authority is present. If nobody listens to the legitimate king, that person is no longer the king. Doesn't matter that they have the law decreeing them the king, the person who everyone listens to and obeys is the actual king. Authority only rests in the office that people are willing to recognize. This is the most fundamental basis of governance and authority.

[danielxcutter]

Do you have to hold yourself by the ankle? That doesn't seem very practical.

I do not have a single clue what you are talking about.

We're referencing Fate/Stay Night; "People die when they are killed" is a meme from there due to bad translation and "I am the blade of my sword" is part of the chant for one of the most iconic spells, Unlimited Blade Works.

[Peelee]

This page is relevant to the discussion of Shojo's authority.

Indeed, that has been linked before in this discussion and rebuttals to it have been made (for example, my rebuttal was something similar to "that sounds like an entirely self-serving statement with no ability to back up or prove it, made by someone who was already in the middle of abusing his own actual authority left right and center. Or in other words, most likely hogwash.")

After all, Shojo was killed by someone claiming divine authority to do so, and we all saw how that worked out. Shojo has zero credibility.