Serini: Good or Evil?

[Dausuul]

Serini's actual alignment: Insufficient information. (Probably not Lawful, but that's about all we can say.)

The alignment of the person Serini is pretending to be in her monologue: True Neutral. Pretend-Serini is focused on what she considers the greater good. Unlike, say, Redcloak, she is not willing to commit atrocities in that pursuit; she's going to some trouble to wipe the paladins' memory instead of just killing them. But she is also not willing to stick her neck out in defense of more immediate good. Facing the possibility of Xykon taking over the world, pretend-Serini just shrugs and figures it'll work out in the end. I'd call that Neutral.

As far as Law and Chaos go, pretend-Serini seems to be pretty methodical, disciplined, and focused on her cause. On the other hand, she practically breathes deception and trickery (which is one of several reasons you should really really really not take at face value anything she says in this comic). So, again, using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful obligations strikes me as fairly Neutral.

[Good Coyote]

Strongly disagreed with what? That we have understood each other on other threads of the conversation.

I think the question of whether the capture of the order is kidnapping or not is largely semantic. But it would appear to be by several of the dictionary definitions, but probably not by a more legal definition. I would have no problem with you describing it as such.

Yes. I strongly disagree that you have understood my points throughout this conversation.

This entire conversation began because I explained (to someone else) the definition of kidnapping that was in use, and pointed out that it also applied to Shojo's actions, so that they would understand it is not a judgment call, and does not imply Evil. I linked my evidence that it was a false imprisonment, outside the bounds of the law.

You disagreed with that, and did not address my evidence, but simply claimed that it was covered in another thread. I disagreed with that claim, because I had not seen my evidence addressed in any other thread.

You responded again saying it was irrelevant, and that countries can have jurisdiction outside their borders. (Which was irrelevant because the Sapphire Guard is not a country, and doubly irrelevant because hypothetical jurisdiction does not disprove Hinjo and Roy's agreement that it was unlawful.)

I explained the relevance to the thread - that it goes to show the even application of the term "kidnapping," that it is consistently applied to both and should not imply Evil.

If you agreed that Shojo's actions were a kidnapping, or believed that it's pure semantics and doesn't matter anyway, and it therefore isn't important to define Serini's actions as kidnapping, then this conversation would never have happened. It kind of seems that the goalposts have shifted now that you have actually read my evidence.

[Liquor Box]

Yes. I strongly disagree that you have understood my points throughout this conversation.

This entire conversation began because I explained (to someone else) the definition of kidnapping that was in use, and pointed out that it also applied to Shojo's actions, so that they would understand it is not a judgment call, and does not imply Evil. I linked my evidence that it was a false imprisonment, outside the bounds of the law.

You disagreed with that, and did not address my evidence, but simply claimed that it was covered in another thread. I disagreed with that claim, because I had not seen my evidence addressed in any other thread.

You responded again saying it was irrelevant, and that countries can have jurisdiction outside their borders. (Which was irrelevant because the Sapphire Guard is not a country, and doubly irrelevant because hypothetical jurisdiction does not disprove Hinjo and Roy's agreement that it was unlawful.)

I explained the relevance to the thread - that it goes to show the even application of the term "kidnapping," that it is consistently applied to both and should not imply Evil.

If you agreed that Shojo's actions were a kidnapping, or believed that it's pure semantics and doesn't matter anyway, and it therefore isn't important to define Serini's actions as kidnapping, then this conversation would never have happened. It kind of seems that the goalposts have shifted now that you have actually read my evidence.

I think that what Serini did was kidnapping. What Shojo did (through his subordinates) could be classified as kidnapping through some definitions, although I think it turns on whether you think Shojo had jurisdiction to make the arrest (even he exercised it wrongly). But really, i do think the argument is semantic - I have no objection if you want to refer to what Shojo did as kidnapping. Whether it fits the definition of kidnapping doesn't decide the issue of whether it's good or evil.

In my opinion depriving someone of their freedom (whether it be called kidnapping or not) is evil, unless there is sufficient justification for it. One justification might be if the person has done something against the law, and the law provides for the m to be detained because of it. Of course in Shojo's case there is the question of jurisdicton which we disagree on, and the fact that Shojo also had an ulterior motive.

As I understand it, the argument is that Serini's deprivation of the paladin's freedom is justified because either (1) they were trespassing on 'her' territory; or (2) because Serini believed (rightly or wrongly) that the paladins were a threat to the world and kidnapping them was therefore justified.

To me those potential justifications are different. They may both be flawed for sure though. I am not sure that what Shojo did was not evil (I'm undecided) - it may well have been. We know his canon alignment is still good, but that might because he has done a lot of good stuff which outweighs it.

Of course not (the paladins aren't okay with it either). But that's not what was happening here.
They weren't just "observing". They were reconnoitering, as in "gathering intelligence before entering the area" otherwise known as "casing the joint". They weren't random nobodies, they were members of a group that had agreed to stay away and not interfere and that in Serini's mind has a reputation for breaking that agreement and destructively interfering, and they are the prime suspects for having destroyed the other gates with their interference (and she's essentially correct - the Order are largely responsible for the destruction of most of the other gates). She's not going to use "roofies", but a magic amnesia potion that can be carefully controlled to perform as advertised. And it's not a random wilderness area near where she lives, it's the hidden location of a rift in reality that could destroy the world if interfered with, which she has actively fortified, and she only lives there in the first place in order to protect this rift.

Where did you get that definition of 'reconnoiter' because every definition I can find simply says its to observe for military purposes. So, let's say they were reconnoitering (which means observing), what difference does that make?

How does Serini know they have a reputation for breaking the agreement, unless Serini had also broken the agreement by observing other gates?

Why would Serini think that they were prime suspects for other gates, or that they had any connection to the Order, unless she was breaking the agreement by observing (which we don't know she was)?

For practical purposes what's the difference between roofies and a magical amnesia poison? Roofies usually perform as advertised don't they (admittedly I have no experience with them)?

She may have fortified the canyon, but she hasn't fortified the part where they are - observing (or reconnoitering) from telescope distance.

Ownership, mostly, but ownership and sovereignty are close cousins. There aren't many modern cases of someone setting up shop in an unclaimed wilderness and then being recognized as the legal owner, mostly because there aren't very many wilderness areas that aren't already claimed by some government. But what legally-recognized nation today didn't start out as a bunch of people who moved into an area, built their homes there, and started defending it from trespassers?

Modern squatters do something similar all the time. It's called adverse possession.

Ok, ownership then.

Likewise in the OotSverse it is likely that some kingdom claims the territory, even if they don't actively exert control over it.

But if you don't have modern examples, do you have any historic examples?

Squatters rights do not allow individuals to claim vast tracts of land which have bugbear villages in them

Belkar's job is to oppose Xykon. That's literally what Roy originally hired him to do in On the Origin of PCs.

That's not mentioned in the discussion between the two of them, but I hardly think it's relevant. It's Serini's duty too, given her agreement with the Scribble when they broke up. But in neither case do I think it makes them risking their lives for those goals not good, if they would otherwise be good.

Serini's goals are 1) Protect the world from being destroyed and 2) Protect her gate. Xykon is a threat to Goal #2 but not (as far as she knows) Goal #1. The Paladins and the Order together are a threat to Goal #1, as demonstrated by the other gates they've destroyed to stop Xykon from getting them. Therefore stopping them is a higher priority than stopping Xykon.

From what Serini has actually said she knows, Xykon (or any future adventurers who come to depose him) are more of a threat to (1) than the Order or Paladins are.

[Good Coyote]

I think that what Serini did was kidnapping. What Shojo did (through his subordinates) could be classified as kidnapping through some definitions, although I think it turns on whether you think Shojo had jurisdiction to make the arrest (even he exercised it wrongly). But really, i do think the argument is semantic - I have no objection if you want to refer to what Shojo did as kidnapping. Whether it fits the definition of kidnapping doesn't decide the issue of whether it's good or evil.

In my opinion depriving someone of their freedom (whether it be called kidnapping or not) is evil, unless there is sufficient justification for it. One justification might be if the person has done something against the law, and the law provides for the m to be detained because of it. Of course in Shojo's case there is the question of jurisdicton which we disagree on, and the fact that Shojo also had an ulterior motive.

As I understand it, the argument is that Serini's deprivation of the paladin's freedom is justified because either (1) they were trespassing on 'her' territory; or (2) because Serini believed (rightly or wrongly) that the paladins were a threat to the world and kidnapping them was therefore justified.

To me those potential justifications are different. They may both be flawed for sure though. I am not sure that what Shojo did was not evil (I'm undecided) - it may well have been. We know his canon alignment is still good, but that might because he has done a lot of good stuff which outweighs it.

Of course the term "kidnapping" does not determine whether it is Good or Evil. That was my point.

That is not my argument, as you understand it or not, since I have never argued whether Serini's "deprivation of the paladin's freedom" is justified or not.

I am not part of a horde with shared opinions who are all amassed against you. I am a particular person who is saying specific things.

Not to mince words, I am not interested in saying things to people who are not interested in what I have to say. And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

[dancrilis]

And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

I don't know whether they were unlawful - Shojo was clear he arrested them on the authority of The Twelve Gods who were not limited in jurisdiction (which I find debatable - but we have seen no divine push back the way we have with Thor).

As such it could be argued that Shojo was acting lawfully*.

I suppose it depends onif Shojo was correct in that the juristiction of the Twelve Gods was limited - at least when it came to protecting the gates.

*This would open a potential can of worms such as Redcloak (or the like) claiming people have commited crimes against 'The Goblin Peoples' and then acting as he saw fit to redress such - but that wouldn't make it less lawful under this framework.

[Good Coyote]

I don't know whether they were unlawful - Shojo was clear he arrested them on the authority of The Twelve Gods who were not limited in jurisdiction (which I find debatable - but we have seen no divine push back the way we have with Thor).

As such it could be argued that Shojo was acting lawfully*.

I suppose it depends onif Shojo was correct in that the juristiction of the Twelve Gods was limited - at least when it came to protecting the gates.

*This would open a potential can of worms such as Redcloak (or the like) claiming people have commited crimes against 'The Goblin Peoples' and then acting as he saw fit to redress such - but that wouldn't make it less lawful under this framework.

My evidence is here. Hinjo (the new lawful authority of Azure City) agreed with Roy that it was false imprisonment, by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law.

He agreed so hard that he dropped a murder charge to manslaughter, because Belkar technically killed a man who was keeping him unlawfully captive at the time.

It's at the last panel of the first page.

[dancrilis]

My evidence is here. Hinjo (the new lawful authority of Azure City) agreed with Roy that it was false imprisonment, by a ruler acting outside the bounds of the law.

I personally think that Roy likely passed a Diplomacy check rather then a Profession: Lawyer check for that one.

But ignoring that Belkar was being tried for secular crimes (murder) committed when held by secular authority for religious crimes commited (damaging the fabric of reality - of which he had been found innocent of) - as Shojo had previously established at trail a seperate of church and state then the state could have been out of line to hold prisoners on behalf of the church - so Roy could have used that to argue for a reduction of sentance to manslaughter (particularly given that Belkar was actually found innocent of the earlier charges against him).

But we would need to know a lot more about the legal practice of Azure city to be sure.

[Liquor Box]

Of course the term "kidnapping" does not determine whether it is Good or Evil. That was my point.

Well then, we are agreed on your point. I suggest that if you had just made your point straight up, instead of leading up to it, I would simply have agreed.

That is not my argument, as you understand it or not, since I have never argued whether Serini's "deprivation of the paladin's freedom" is justified or not.

I didn't attribute that to you at all. I answered your question about whether Shojo was kidnapping, then I talked about what I think the implications are.

I am not part of a horde with shared opinions who are all amassed against you. I am a particular person who is saying specific things.

Not to mince words, I am not interested in saying things to people who are not interested in what I have to say. And I also don't have anything else to say, since it's now established that Shojo's actions were unlawful, not legal, outside the bounds of his lawful authority, which was the only point of contention.

If you want to end the conversation then no problem, nice chatting to you.

To clarify the conclusion though, I do think Shojo had jurisdiction to arrest the order for their destruction of the first gate - but I accept that at some point Shojo exceeded his authority (not sure how he did this - it wasn't specified), at least with respect to Belkar (who Roy identified in particular). For clarity we are taking Hinjo as confirming this by his silence, just like he confirmed the extent of Shojo's jurisdiction with his silence (which you didn't accept in that case).

[Peelee]

kidnapping

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "kidnapping" more or less a legal term? Or, at least, requires inherent illegality? I would imagine "capture" would be a better term to use. Especially so as to not unduly load any question about its Stickworld morality. Everyone can agree that Serini captured the paladins, I would imagine. Not everyone can agree that she kidnapped them. And changing to "capture" from "kidnap" is akin to no longer asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

[Good Coyote]

I personally think that Roy likely passed a Diplomacy check rather then a Profession: Lawyer check for that one.

But ignoring that Belkar was being tried for secular crimes (murder) committed when held by secular authority for religious crimes commited (damaging the fabric of reality - of which he had been found innocent of) - as Shojo had previously established at trail a seperate of church and state then the state could have been out of line to hold prisoners on behalf of the church - so Roy could have used that to argue for a reduction of sentance to manslaughter (particularly given that Belkar was actually found innocent of the earlier charges against him).

But we would need to know a lot more about the legal practice of Azure city to be sure.

I'm inclined to think that Hinjo has the most insight of anyone we're likely to hear from about what is lawful in Azure City, since he is the lord of Azure City, and in the same strip we see that he is able to act as a magistrate and sentence Belkar.

The only better person to hear from is a magistrate, who would have spent more time studying law, since they don't have to balance with all of Hinjo's other duties. Failing that, Hinjo is the greatest authority.

But I agree, Diplomacy played a large role. It was Hinjo's discretion in what to do in order to handle Belkar's crime balanced against the injustice.

Well then, we are agreed on your point. I suggest that if you had just made your point straight up, instead of leading up to it, I would simply have agreed.

Here is the original post where I did so.

[Liquor Box]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "kidnapping" more or less a legal term? Or, at least, requires inherent illegality? I would imagine "capture" would be a better term to use. Especially so as to not unduly load any question about its Stickworld morality. Everyone can agree that Serini captured the paladins, I would imagine. Not everyone can agree that she kidnapped them. And changing to "capture" from "kidnap" is akin to no longer asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

Kidnap has both legal and non-legal meanings. When people were bandying around definitions a page or so back, some of those definitions had reference to the law and some didn't. I think that Serini's actions toward the paladins fit into most of those definitions.

I agree "capture followed by imprisonment" would also describe what happened accurately. I also agree that captured is a less loaded term.

Here is the original post where I did so.

Yep, you are right, my bad. I got caught up in discussing different aspects of the Serini evil question with different people, and lost track of who was saying what.

[dancrilis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "kidnapping" more or less a legal term? Or, at least, requires inherent illegality? I would imagine "capture" would be a better term to use. Especially so as to not unduly load any question about its Stickworld morality. Everyone can agree that Serini captured the paladins, I would imagine. Not everyone can agree that she kidnapped them.

This is fair.

And changing to "capture" from "kidnap" is akin to no longer asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".

I don't think this is fair.

Asking 'would this action count as kidnapping' is a reasonable question which might have negative conatations in a lot of instances like the question 'would this action count as spousal abuse' but it is different then 'when did you stop beating your wife'.

Stating 'this is kidnapping' is similiar to saying 'this is spousal abuse' but again it is different then 'when did you stop beating your wife' as at least the accused can argue the facts without being accused of dodging the question.

[Peelee]

This is fair.



I don't think this is fair.

Asking 'would this action count as kidnapping' is a reasonable question which might have negative conatations in a lot of instances like the question 'would this action count as spousal abuse' but it is different then 'when did you stop beating your wife'.

Stating 'this is kidnapping' is similiar to saying 'this is spousal abuse' but again it is different then 'when did you stop beating your wife' as at least the accused can argue the facts without being accused of dodging the question.

I'll take the hit there - it was the first example off the top of my head of a potentially loaded question, is all. Probably could have gone with a better one.

[Good Coyote]

Yep, you are right, my bad. I got caught up in discussing different aspects of the Serini evil question with different people, and lost track of who was saying what.

Thanks, I appreciate you saying so. I didn't catch on for a while that you weren't arguing against my evidence, you hadn't registered it.

But in the future I'll pay attention, and if it seems like that's happening, I'll try to say "hold up" and wait for confirmation, and not continue responding to arguments in the meantime. Because there really are a ton of words in these threads, and sometimes stuff may get swamped.

[KorvinStarmast]

My decision is that O-Chul is awesome.

In other news, fish perform conjugal acts in water.

Because there really are a ton of words in these threads, and sometimes stuff may get swamped.

Most of them amounting to sound and fury, signifying nothing (and some of those words are mine).

[Jason]

Where did you get that definition of 'reconnoiter' because every definition I can find simply says its to observe for military purposes. So, let's say they were reconnoitering (which means observing), what difference does that make?

The point is that everybody, the paladins and Serini, knew that they didn't come just to observe. They were observing before taking action.

How does Serini know they have a reputation for breaking the agreement, unless Serini had also broken the agreement by observing other gates?

Probably because she knew Soon and Draketooth, and Draketooth was convinced Soon would break his word and interfere with the other gates.

Why would Serini think that they were prime suspects for other gates, or that they had any connection to the Order, unless she was breaking the agreement by observing (which we don't know she was)?

It's a pretty obvious conclusion to draw, and O-Chul basically confirmed it.

For practical purposes what's the difference between roofies and a magical amnesia poison? Roofies usually perform as advertised don't they (admittedly I have no experience with them)?

One is in the real world and has to deal with dose-to-weight ratios and metabolism differences and unexpected side effects and unreliability of what memories may or may not be affected and manufacturing defects and such; whereas the other is magic and works exactly as the rules that control magic amnesia potions dictate, with one-size-fits-all dosing and absolutely predictable supernaturally-efficient effects with no unexpected side effects.

Likewise in the OotSverse it is likely that some kingdom claims the territory, even if they don't actively exert control over it.

Maybe, maybe not. It's obvious no one exerts any real control over the area. The dwarven kingdoms would be the most likely claimants.

But if you don't have modern examples, do you have any historic examples?

Like I said, just about every nation ever started out as a group of people who just moved in.

For a specific historical example, since I live in Utah I'll use one obvious to me: the Mormon pioneers. What is now Utah was technically Mexican territory when the pioneers moved into the Salt Lake valley in 1847. They had no government permission to move in and didn't ask anyone for it. They settled in and started building permanent homes. Mexico never said a word of protest (they were at war with the US at the time anyway). When the US got to organizing the territory won from Mexico in the Mexican-American War that included the Salt Lake Valley they recognized the Mormon settlers as the legal owners of the land they had staked out.

Squatters rights do not allow individuals to claim vast tracts of land which have bugbear villages in them.

It's very likely that the bugbear village was built after Serini built the tomb. Otherwise they would know who built "Monster Hollow" and why.

From what Serini has actually said she knows, Xykon (or any future adventurers who come to depose him) are more of a threat to (1) than the Order or Paladins are.

She's already said that she knows from "firsthand" experience that Xykon wants to rule the world rather than destroy it, and the paladins confirmed that the other gates where destroyed by the good guys to prevent Xykon from getting them.
So no, she sees the paladins and the Order as the greater threat. And she is correct - Xykon has never tried to destroy any of the gates and likely never would.

[Thecommander236]

I'm not sure if Serini having lordship over Kraagor's Gate thing has any real merit. After all, the Order of the Scribble gave themselves authority over the Gates via "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means". She does have Lordship over the Gate because might really does make right. If you can defend your territory with violence, ranging from unprovoked to in self-defense, you own that land. If no one can stop you, it's yours. That's where right of conquest comes from. Serini, therefore has "legal authority" over the land surrounding the Gate. You could make an argument that Xykon ir the Bug village has legal authority as they are mightier than Serini in theory. But it's kinda moot point.

Might come in many forms, such as the form of the Bugbears and Team Evil not having the "might" to detect and defeat the Gate's defenses, but they could eventually figure out the trick and conquer the Gate and, therefore, the territory. So is Serini the legal authority of the land because her Gate is yet undefeated? Or is Xykon the authority by being the strongest around? Do both they have authority because the Gate is in conflict or does Serini have more authority because she was here first? Do the Bugbears have authority because Serini has allowed them to claim the land? Did she cede the land to them meaning they "conquered" it?

I think it's all semantics that distracts from the "is she good or evil" question. I think she's good, but misguided and foolish. Seems not a lot of you agree with me. However, her psychotic smirk in the second to last panel of 1229 is very Belkar like and doesn't strike me as "sane".

[hamishspence]

However, her psychotic smirk in the second to last panel of 1229 is very Belkar like and doesn't strike me as "sane".

Haley gets the same expression here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1051.html

And so does Roy here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html

It seems to be the default for anyone expecting to enjoy the fight that's about to come.

[Thecommander236]

Haley gets the same expression here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1051.html

And so does Roy here:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html

It seems to be the default for anyone expecting to enjoy the fight that's about to come.

Haley's not exactly sane either. She literally went so insane that she lost the ability to SPEAK for like 100 strips. To quote one particularly smart Joker named Jack the Foolamancer, most of us can only put on a mask of sanity. (Can't find that link right now).

She's also a pathological liar and admitted that just being honest with Elan is hard enough as is and being more open with everyone else is on her "to do list". She was basically forced to tell Roy the truth about her father. She didn't really do that willingly.

Plus a certain Deva would argue that Serini is enjoying this a little too much to be healthy.

[Liquor Box]

The point is that everybody, the paladins and Serini, knew that they didn't come just to observe. They were observing before taking action.

So your point is that she guessed that they were going to do something more than look and attacked on suspicion.

Do even we as readers have any indication of what they were going to do, let alone Serini.

Probably because she knew Soon and Draketooth, and Draketooth was convinced Soon would break his word and interfere with the other gates.

Soon is dead and did not break the agreement. She did not know Hinjo.

It's a pretty obvious conclusion to draw, and O-Chul basically confirmed it.

How is it an obvious conclusion from what we know she knows? All she knows is that someone used O-Chul's sword to destroy one gate (which means she knows it wasn't him).

One is in the real world and has to deal with dose-to-weight ratios and metabolism differences and unexpected side effects and unreliability of what memories may or may not be affected and manufacturing defects and such; whereas the other is magic and works exactly as the rules that control magic amnesia potions dictate, with one-size-fits-all dosing and absolutely predictable supernaturally-efficient effects with no unexpected side effects.

Does it? I haven't seen the rules on amnesia potions. Do they not allow fort or will saves?

Maybe, maybe not. It's obvious no one exerts any real control over the area. The dwarven kingdoms would be the most likely claimants.

I agree with all of this.

Like I said, just about every nation ever started out as a group of people who just moved in.

No, that's not how just about every nation started.

For a specific historical example, since I live in Utah I'll use one obvious to me: the Mormon pioneers. What is now Utah was technically Mexican territory when the pioneers moved into the Salt Lake valley in 1847. They had no government permission to move in and didn't ask anyone for it. They settled in and started building permanent homes. Mexico never said a word of protest (they were at war with the US at the time anyway). When the US got to organizing the territory won from Mexico in the Mexican-American War that included the Salt Lake Valley they recognized the Mormon settlers as the legal owners of the land they had staked out.

i suggest we don't delve to deep into this particular example because of forum rules. But I do not that even your own account notes that these people became legal owners of the land because the were recognised as such by a country. They didn;t just claim it an it was there's. Has any country recognised Serini's ownership of the valley.

It's very likely that the bugbear village was built after Serini built the tomb. Otherwise they would know who built "Monster Hollow" and why.

Maybe, but I don't think that makes a difference. They appear to have been there for some time (with no objections from anyone else). Also remember that Serini went adventuring again after building monster hollow, so the Canyon was likely uninhabited when they moved in.

I'd have more sympathy for what you were saying (from a practical perspective at least) if you were claiming she owned that warehouse where she lives (and chains up her prisoners). but claiming that a single person owns a huge area of land (large enough to need telescopes to see from one part to another) which includes a village of bugbears that are unaware of her stretches credulity.

She's already said that she knows from "firsthand" experience that Xykon wants to rule the world rather than destroy it, and the paladins confirmed that the other gates where destroyed by the good guys to prevent Xykon from getting them.
So no, she sees the paladins and the Order as the greater threat. And she is correct - Xykon has never tried to destroy any of the gates and likely never would.

Sure, she knows Xykon doesn't want to destroy the world, and she also acknowledged the paladins don't want to destroy the world. But is presuming that the paladins might destroy the world as a last resort (even though that's not their primary goal) and it would be equally rational to assume Xykon might destroy the world as a last resort (even though that's not his primary goal).

That is even without oing into the fact that nay adventurers that come to stop Xykon after he controls the gate (something Serini expects, she said so) would have all the same reasons to destory the gate as the paladins if they fail to simply kill Xykon. From what Serini knew, it is more liekly to conclude that the world would safer if she had not kidnapped the paladins.

You keep referring to things the paladins have 'confirmed' or said after being captured, but aren't we talking about what Serini knew when she captured them?

[Jason]

Do even we as readers have any indication of what they were going to do, let alone Serini.

Are you arguing that they were only ever going to observe and would never have entered the Hollow if Serini hadn't captured them? That seems unlikely.

i suggest we don't delve to deep into this particular example because of forum rules. But I do not that even your own account notes that these people became legal owners of the land because the were recognised as such by a country. They didn;t just claim it an it was there's.

The land was theirs as soon as they claimed it, and a nation later recognized that fact. In the period between when they settled the land and when the United States officially organized the territory (July 1847 to September1850) the Mormon pioneers were the owners, without any government recognition. When the territory was organized the government just recognized an already existing ownership.

How did Sweden come to be? Well, the short version is that tribes of people called the Geats and Swedes moved in to previously unclaimed (as far as we know) territory and started planting crops and building homes. When formal governments were organized they recognized the ownership of these people, but the ownership had already lasted centuries.

England, France, Spain, China, Russia, Japan, etc. all have pretty much the same story. People moved in and settled an area, and the governments that eventually formed recognized the ownership of those people from the point they moved in, started building permanent structures, and began defending the territory they had claimed.

You keep referring to things the paladins have 'confirmed' or said after being captured, but aren't we talking about what Serini knew when she captured them?

We're talking about Serini's intent, which includes what she suspected. The fact that most of her suspicions were largely correct means that her actions are more justified than if they had been completely incorrect.

[Good Coyote]

I personally think that Roy likely passed a Diplomacy check rather then a Profession: Lawyer check for that one.

But ignoring that Belkar was being tried for secular crimes (murder) committed when held by secular authority for religious crimes commited (damaging the fabric of reality - of which he had been found innocent of) - as Shojo had previously established at trail a seperate of church and state then the state could have been out of line to hold prisoners on behalf of the church - so Roy could have used that to argue for a reduction of sentance to manslaughter (particularly given that Belkar was actually found innocent of the earlier charges against him).

But we would need to know a lot more about the legal practice of Azure city to be sure.

I realized I didn't actually talk through my thoughts on the middle part. To be clear I'm not gonna get invested in changing anyone's mind on this... but it's a good hypothetical, I was just tired. So I do want to explain my thought process, because I think it goes to Hinjo's characterization, and, well... I like Hinjo.

So manslaughter is defined in a wide variety of ways in the real world, and we don't know exactly what Azure City's definition is. But basically, manslaughter as a charge is "we aren't going to call this murder, because of the circumstances in which the homicide took place."

Depending on where you are, that can include "because the killer was in an altered state of mind," or "because it was in self defense technically, but you didn't have to go that far," or "because you were doing something legal (like driving) and you were just super careless about it." What we don't know about Azure City law is exactly what mitigating circumstances they would accept. But I think Hinjo is an expert on the law in the matter of "is an imprisonment unlawful" and also "what is the difference between murder and manslaughter."

Assuming that "murder in the second degree" and "manslaughter" have at all similar definitions to the real world (and the whole thing about dropping a murder charge to manslaughter in the first place makes it seem like they do), then the only way that a crime would legitimately change from murder 2 to manslaughter, is with a mitigating circumstance that applied to the act itself.

So if Hinjo determined that Shojo's capture and imprisonment of the Order was unlawful (once he had the full picture and wasn't bound to follow his liege lord with minimal questions asked, and also was judging Shojo as a person in full control of his faculties), then Belkar did have a mitigating circumstance. At the time that he committed his homicide, he was being unjustly crimed upon. Maybe the argument could go "it was in self defense against being held captive, even though he didn't have to go that far - he could have just run away." The specific distinction would depend on what exactly the law of Azure City says.

In that case, I envision the conversation going like, "Hey, about Belkar - [Diplomacy] I know he killed your guard, but to be fair, you did already decide that Shojo had no right to lock us up in the first place." "That's a good point. The law gives me room to decide that this is a mitigating circumstance, which lowers Belkar's culpability. I will charge him with manslaughter."

However, if the unlawful imprisonment was a bureaucratic issue where he got put in the wrong cell after he committed the homicide, (or anything else that doesn't actually change the conditions under which he killed the guard), then it would have to go more like:

"Hey, about Belkar - he committed a murder against a guard who was lawfully holding him at the time, but uh... [Diplomacy noises]." "Well, okay, I like you and I want you to have a pleasant stay in Azure City. Belkar was kind of unjustly treated technically somehow for a paperwork reason, so I will deny his victim full justice." Which is kind of a two wrongs make a right move.

That second one is not technically impossible. Hinjo does have a lot of discretion. For example, in that same strip, he's reducing sentences for help against Xykon, which probably is based on actual Azure City law allowing "time off for good behavior," but he doesn't have to get a parole board involved. It's likely that he could just choose to not charge someone with something that he believes they did, as a favor for someone else, without being in such gross violation of the law that it jeopardizes his alignment or paladinhood or anything like that.

But it contrasts heavily with Hinjo's depiction as someone who takes his job of upholding the system pretty seriously. He doesn't, in general, treat the law or his oaths as something that he should ignore until he runs up against it, and as long as it's technically not forbidden, he can do whatever he wants. He's one of those actual paladins. In Cliffport, plea bargaining and stuff like that is probably routine, but Hinjo seems to have a different paradigm for the law. I think doing that second one would make him feel pretty icky, and I'm not sure Roy is Diplomatic enough to pull it off.

Given that we already know Shojo is a (Good aligned) lying liar who lies, I don't think it's a comparable smear on him if it was his initial imprisonment of the Order that was unlawful. I don't think there's anything to really be gained by sacrificing Hinjo's characterization. But again, it's not technically impossible, just my thought process on why I won't personally take that speculation. (I really like Hinjo.)

[halfeye]

England, France, Spain, China, Russia, Japan, etc. all have pretty much the same story.

This is rubbish in at least the cases of Britain and Japan, and probably Spain and France too. We can't discuss the facts here, but they are not as you suggest.

[Dion]

This is rubbish in at least the cases of Britain and Japan, and probably Spain and France too. We can't discuss the facts here, but they are not as you suggest.

Yes, and I actually wasn’t joking when I suggested that if we were going to look for “real world” historical precedence for stickverse laws, we shouldn’t go back into the dim recesses of history.

We should look instead at 1974 and 1975. Anything that occurred before those years has nothing to do with stickverse or its laws.

In 1974, D&D came out, with the history of an imaginary world.

And in 1975, Monty Python and the Holy Grail came out, with the history of an imaginary world.

The right question to ask is not “does Serini respect the rules and customs of 11th century Japan”. The only thing that matters is whether Serini is following the rules and customs of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And in Monty Python, if you build a tower in a swamp, you own it.

Edit: because Monty Python and the Horny Grail was a different movie altogether.

[dancrilis]

Monty Python and the Homy Grail

Think that is meant ot be a 'l' which I wouldn't have commented on (I make plenty of actual spelling/grammar mistakes without including typos) except that I read it as a 'rn' rather then an 'm', and had to do a double take.

[Thecommander236]

Again, I think Serini can protect her Gate by right of conquest. This is the wilderness and they are clearly there to mess with her stuff, so she's defending it. I just think she's defending it from the wrong people.

[Dion]

Again, I think Serini can protect her Gate by right if conquest.

I have to agree 100%.

The people who are trying to figure out Seeini’s alignment by finding some “comparable” real world place and time period and then judge Serini’s actions based on the laws and customs they imagine might have applied in those comparable real world situations seem... uhh... a little off the mark.

I mean, I totally get it. So much of our real history deals with conquest and colonization, and much of the history they teach us in school is just about the many and varied ways that real people used writs and laws and contracts signed by distant monarchs to seize and colonize land and control the people on them. It’s fascinating stuff, and I love reading about it.

But nobody seriously believes that a king’s seal on some document was what distinguishes between good and evil acts by would-be conquistadors.

I simply can’t follow the arguments that try to figure out if Serini is good vs evil by trying to determine if the proper authorities put the proper sea seal on the proper piece of paper before Serini captured the Paladins.

I just keep thinking when I read their thread “How does our imagination of what feudal England might have been like tie back into this argument? I’m so lost”

[Thecommander236]

I have to agree 100%.

The people who are trying to figure out Seeini’s alignment by finding some “comparable” real world place and time period and then judge Serini’s actions based on the laws and customs they imagine might have applied in those comparable real world situations seem... uhh... a little off the mark.

I mean, I totally get it. So much of our real history deals with colonization, and the many and varied ways that real people used writs and laws and contracts signed by distant monarchs to seize and colonize land. It’s fascinating stuff, and I love reading about it.

But nobody seriously believes that a kings seal on some document was what distinguishes between good and evil acts by would-be colonists.

I simply can’t follow the arguments that try to figure out if Serini is good vs evil by trying to determine if the proper authorities put the proper sea seal on the proper piece of paper before Serini captured the Paladins.

I just keep thinking “ok, so what does our imagination of what feudal England might have been like tie back into this argument? I’m so lost”

Yeah, a King's Seal only matters because people THINK it matters. A lot of you other guys are acting like the Seal is what gives the authority. What gives the authority is the ability to FORCE someone to give in to your authority if they fight back. If enough people are willing to fight for your Seal to matter, then your word is law.

[KorvinStarmast]

Plus a certain Deva would argue that Serini is enjoying this a little too much to be healthy.

Serini doesn't answer to a deva, does she? She's got no pretensions about being lawful good.

[dancrilis]

Serini doesn't answer to a deva, does she? She's got no pretensions about being lawful good.

She did consider becoming a paladin at one point - and nothing in her behaviour specifically rules her out of being LG (or any other alignment).