OOTS #1274 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

That's not how Paladins work. They are bound to their own internal code, not to any external Law system. Oh great Banana, I invoke thee, can you please give us Rich's explanation on this? I'm fairly sure he wrote about it, and therefore I'm not going to embarrass myself by attempting to ape it.

Grey Wolf

Like this?

Interesting how you repeatedly assume that Shojo is a secular leader and that he is acting based on the legal procedures of a mortal nation. Instead of, you know, a direct servant of one or more gods granted a holy mandate that knows no borders. Generally, paladins and clerics can be following a divine law that is, in their eyes, superior to any law written by Man and still be 100% Lawful.

It's also interesting that everyone thinks Miko captured the OOTSers in another nation, rather than the lawless region just outside Wooden Forest, and that she is somehow breaking the law of the Kingdom of Somewhere when she just personally saved the king from a burning building. Generally, in an absolute monarchy, saving the king's life gives you a free pass to do whatever you want. The fact that the only thing Miko does with that freedom is enforce her Lord's will is about as Lawful as you can get.

If you want to argue that Miko is only borderline Good, go ahead; that is, in many ways the very point of the character and the main thrust of #251. But to say she's not LAWFUL? No. From the description of Lawful:
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Let's see...
• Tell the truth: Miko has never lied, to the best of our ability to tell.
• Keep their word: Miko risked her life to keep her word to her lord that she would bring those responsible to justice.
• Respect authority: She certainly respects Shojo's authority, as well as that of her gods. She probably also respected the King of Somewhere, though that was off-panel. She also respected Durkon, who while not strictly an authority does count as an "elder" to Miko. Note this does NOT say, "Obey every law you come across."
• Honor tradition: Such as the traditions of her homeland? Check.
• Judge those who fall short of their duties: Oh hell yes.

Remember, folks, being Lawful has NEVER meant you obey every law for every nation whose borders you cross. You can choose to have a character that acts like that, but it is NOT part of the alignment description. After all, such a character would be required to obey the mandates of an orc chieftain the moment she entered his swamp. They would be seen as wishy-washy and easily swayed, kowtowing to whatever person could assert themselves the strongest.

Most lawful characters, though, will pick a certain set of authorities that they respect and ignore all others as "illegitimate". An LG cleric of Pelor doesn't obey the authority of the High Priest of Vecna, for example. That doesn't make the cleric not Lawful.

[pendell]

Respect authority: She certainly respects Shojo's authority, as well as that of her gods.

Right up until she gutted him, that is.

You've made a strong case, in the rest of your post, that Miko has been lawful for the balance of the comic act. The question is: Is one extremely chaotic act, assassination of a liege lord, enough to cancel that all out enough for her to be put in the neutral category on the law-chaos axis?

I would say "no". But then, this is also the same comic strip which almost cancelled Roy's lawfulness because he almost abandoned Elan. At least, in the eyes of that one Deva. Who knows? Maybe TN wouldn't accept Roy either and he'd have to go round the houses looking for a fit until the planes finally give up and convince someone -- ANYONE -- to cast resurrection and get the problem out of their files.

The consensus seems to be settling on either lawful neutral or true neutral. I'm willing to leave it at that.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

Right up until she gutted him, that is.

You've made a strong case, in the rest of your post, that Miko has been lawful for the balance of the comic act. The question is: Is one extremely chaotic act, assassination of a liege lord, enough to cancel that all out enough for her to be put in the neutral category on the law-chaos axis?

I would say "no". But then, this is also the same comic strip which almost cancelled Roy's lawfulness because he almost abandoned Elan. At least, in the eyes of that one Deva. Who knows? Maybe TN wouldn't accept Roy either and he'd have to go round the houses looking for a fit until the planes finally give up and convince someone -- ANYONE -- to cast resurrection and get the problem out of their files.

The consensus seems to be settling on either lawful neutral or true neutral. I'm willing to leave it at that.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Roy's act of abandoning Elan didn't almost kick him over. His act of abandoning Elan coupled with a lifetime of seeking Lawful ends by chaotic means almost did.

Context.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Right up until she gutted him, that is.

You've made a strong case, in the rest of your post, that Miko has been lawful for the balance of the comic act. The question is: Is one extremely chaotic act, assassination of a liege lord, enough to cancel that all out enough for her to be put in the neutral category on the law-chaos axis?

What Peelee said, but in addition, this is where I disagree with you. Miko didn't simply murder her liege lord in a vacuum. She judged him ("I find you guilty of treason"), under the "judge those who fall short of their duties" clause, and found him wanting. That she was delusional and wrong doesn't stop it from having been an extreme Lawful act, on the basis that her entire action was built on having judged him to have strayed from the True Path (as misunderstood by Miko).

Grey Wolf

[danielxcutter]

It's also true that Shojo's actions, while definitely not worthy of immediate bisection, weren't exactly that Lawful.

[Crusher]

It's also true that Shojo's actions, while definitely not worthy of immediate bisection, weren't exactly that Lawful.

Yeah, I mean, Shojo wasn't doing what Miko thought he was doing.

BUT

She was probably even more right than she thought about how thoroughly Shojo was violating rules she thought he was supposed to live by.

[Precure]

I agree that killing her lord was a major chaotic act and was incompatible with both the laws, the paladin code and Miko's personal code of honor. But I still can't see Miko as anything other than Lawful Good even after her breakdown.

I can definitely buy it at this point. What has me curious is whether this was the case in her last appearance as well.

I believe that it was Eugene in the Mechane too.

Panel 6: She panics when Roy asked her to teach the same spell to V, and makes up a excuse that her spell is somehow linked to Blood Oath, which seems strange in hindsight considering she claimed to create it as part of her academic studies.

Panel 5: She was totally nonchalant about the possibility that earth might be destroyed. When Roy confused by that, she panics and then exclaims an unusual trust on Roy's capabilities to not let that happen, which, again, seems strange.

Panel 10: She overreacts to Roy when he mentioned about the possibility of her direct involvement, and overcorrects him that she's only interested in giving her advice. Because "she" can't directly involve.

[bunsen_h]

I am not going to defend utilitarianism here, but in my opinion, this isn't an effective strategy to attack it. Instructors need to present a problem in such a way that the precept becomes clear to students; metaphors must be simplified. When it comes to ethics and moral behavior, you have to highlight the nature of the problem by refusing to allow any loopholes to squeeze through (especially if the loopholes allow the student to evade thinking about the problem at hand).

See also: Kirk and the "Kobayashi Maru" test. Rather than deal with the truth that sometimes there aren't any good choices, he cheated by reprogramming the simulator.

I love how that makes no sense. "ok, I need everyone trying out for Macbeth to line up here, all the Macbeths up front. We're doing the Scottish play, so we need a strong Macbeth, again, casting for Macbeth, any Macbeth hopefuls please line up now!"

Allow me to recommend Raymond Smullyan's What Is the Name of This Book?

[Dasick]

You have to make trade-offs in life. To do the best for your family, you need money. So you work. You may be fortunate enough to be able to do a job that you enjoy and that has meaning for you and that accomplishes other goals to build a better future for others. The commuting is a sacrifice that you pay for that. And, yes, you can do thing to make the commute more enjoyable and more meaningful. But that does not mean that the commute and what you do on it is the most meaningful thing that you do in your life. In that situation, I would not make the commute; I would spend the last half-hour with my family at home. If virtue ethics forbids that, then virtue ethics breaks at that edge case, at least for me. There is nothing ethical about travelling to a work that you will not reach when you could spend it with your loved ones.

Hippies went to living out of vans and off the land as communes or whatever in protest of their society and in order to align their lives with their moral frameworks. I'm not a hippy and some of their principles run counter to mine, but at the same time, I can't help but respect that conviction. That is, that's not the solution I would advocate, but it is a VE solution.

I'm going to throw my case in the lawful bin and say that there's really never a reason to compromise or make "trade-offs" in life. Socrates chose death over changing what he taught the youths of Athens. Diogenes was once approached by a sophist who said "if you could learn to praise the king, you wouldn't have to live in a wine barrel". To which Diogenes replied "if you could learn to live in a wine barrel, you wouldn't have to praise the king"

Yes, there are people like that. There are even worse people - people who say, at least, that they would rape someone. Those are not driven by utilitarian ethics, as far as I can tell.

In the discussions I've had, people would use utilitarian ethics to justify whatever actions they would take.

I have no issue with it. As a teacher, I use this method on occassion. And I do not even need certainty. If I have good reason to believe - for example - that a child in my care is at risk of self-harm or of committing harm to others, I take steps to reduce the likelihood of that occurring. And this sometimes means containing them if it is safe for me to do so or accompanying them - some kind of intervention. And sometimes these interventions could be said to cause some harm to the young person - for example, grabbing their arm, restricting their passage through a door and so on.

Regarding the AI example, you do not necessarily need to restrain or arrest someone to prevent them from murdering another. A phone call. A social worker knocking on their door. If an AI is that good at prediction, there will be multiple pathways to prevent, or at least reduce the likelihood, of the offence. Like we do with students.

Those are very good points, and sure, we can do that. To try to be a positive influence in people's lives is the most optimal VE option, even though it is more of a longshot than acting decisively and forcefully. I honestly don't think our moral frameworks are that different tbh. But when we talk about the dystopian unease, the worry is that we're not going in the direction you describe. One of these worries is the cost in resources.

Paying a social worker is a massive investment in resources. A bullet to the back of the head is like 50 cents. You can easily set up situations where the secret police execute potential troublemakers as painlessly as possible, and then the society is brainwashed into being totally ok with this and not particularly feeling bad about it, or just prescribed enough drugs to take care of it. Books like 1984, Farenheit 458, Brave New World, aren't considered to be just paranoid nonsense - they're chilling in how prophetic they are. There's factors somewhere in the utilitarian equation that would make this scenario the absolute best thing to do, sometime somewhere, a situation like this would be optimal.

And the thing is, people worried about increased government surveillance, lack of accountability, human rights, believe that we're on a reasonably realistic course in the reasonably foreseeable future to somewhere in the neighbourhood of that scenario.

Lying is a no-no, as honesty is a virtue, right (at least, it is for some versions of the Virtue Ethic)? This seems an ethical no-brainer - of course you would lie, right? If your ethics say otherwise, that is against our moral intuitions also ...

This is why appealing to what people feel is right is not a very good option. Intuition can be a guide in some circumstances. But reason seems a better method if our moral system has some goal.

I don't think there's ever a realistic scenario where you absolutely have to lie. It's just something we say to ourselves because lying is usually more convenient. Little white lies or bigger ones.

(I should also just state here that I do not believe in 'a correct morality' in the sense that there is some standard 'out there' somewhere. All there can be are actions that get us closer to an agreed upon goal or actions that get us further away from that goal. Chess has an agreed upon set of rules and an agreed upon goal. Thus, there are moves that get you closer to that goal or futher away from that goal.)

There's a reason why imo 80% of moral frameworks are similar across different societies. We can roughly say that the core goal of life is to survive, prosper (that is, get as far away from having to survive as possible), leave future generations in a good enough position to do so as well. If someone really disagrees with that, they get filtered out relatively quickly. But the thing is that things like cooperation and learning, good work ethics, are bonkers broken OP in this regard.

That's a false dilemma if I ever saw one. Consider how Blind Pete protected Haley from Crystal.
"Have you seen Starshine?"
"No."
Completely honest answer, yet accomplished the task the same way a lie would by getting rid of the assailant temporarily

It's not an honest answer because Pete knows what they're asking and he purposefully plays a legalistic gotcha, it goes against the spirit of honesty and why we value it.

Back to the example of Socrates. Socrates said he could have easily won the court case. But doing so would have been dishonest because he honestly believed the Athenians were correct about the charges, he just disagreed that his was the immoral path. So the honest action was to accept the charges, and instead of fleeing the city when given the chance, he chose to stay and take on the death penalty.

Also .. here's some epileptic tree spoilers for you. Two strips later, Belkar says ... "funny, I always thought I would be killed by a paladin."

...

And we have two paladins in our group at this time.

I wonder if this is foreshadowing? If part of the reason O-chul and his partner are here is because they have the story purpose of killing Belkar?

I dont think that's the direction Rich is going in, given that Belkar has been getting good rubbed off on him by Durkon. It's very clearly that storyline shook him to his core. Or when he was talking to someone, and he says something along the lines of "well, people who choose to bury their feelings and lash out on others instead of facing their own shortcomings are cowards, huh?"

Belkster is going to do a heroic sacrifice and redeem himself.

What Peelee said, but in addition, this is where I disagree with you. Miko didn't simply murder her liege lord in a vacuum. She judged him ("I find you guilty of treason"), under the "judge those who fall short of their duties" clause, and found him wanting. That she was delusional and wrong doesn't stop it from having been an extreme Lawful act, on the basis that her entire action was built on having judged him to have strayed from the True Path (as misunderstood by Miko).

Grey Wolf

I think this really encapsulates the issue of the alignment system being broken.

Miko is following the lawful good alignment to the letter. Even to the spirit of it, because if you have a corrupt liege who is rigging the system, you're honour bound to more or less do what she did.

Miko lost her paladin status because the Twelve in their collective wisdom approved of what Shojo was doing, especially since Shojo was doing an incredibly good job of keeping the rift sealed. Even if Shojo was neutral or evil, I'm pretty sure the Twelve would still strip Miko of her status for killing him, because she went against their Divine Will, and that's kind of the schtick of clerics and paladins. Her downfall is due to her pride and arrogance, she imagined that she was important enough that the gods were talking to her through every little thing, but pride and arrogance aren't anywhere on the alignment scale.

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Case in point. I mentioned hippies up above. Hippies are the poster child of chaotic neutral, right? Elves are basically fantazy hippies and they're usually chaotic good aren't they?

Except under this interpretation, hippies are lawful. Either lawful good or lawful neutral.

Hippies are known to follow strong personal codes. Pacifism and vegetarianism as a core self imposed principle. They didn't object to war on the ground of it not being their fight and staying neutral, they objected to war in principle on the ground that killing people is wrong - period. They faced ridicule and persecution for it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Miko is following the lawful good alignment to the letter. Even to the spirit of it, because if you have a corrupt liege who is rigging the system, you're honour bound to more or less do what she did.

No she is not. There is nothing Good about bisecting an unarmed octogenerian.

Miko lost her paladin status because the Twelve in their collective wisdom approved of what Shojo was doing, especially since Shojo was doing an incredibly good job of keeping the rift sealed.

No, she didn't. She lost her Paladin status for committing an Evil act.

Even if Shojo was neutral or evil, I'm pretty sure the Twelve would still strip Miko of her status for killing him, because she went against their Divine Will, and that's kind of the schtick of clerics and paladins. Her downfall is due to her pride and arrogance, she imagined that she was important enough that the gods were talking to her through every little thing, but pride and arrogance aren't anywhere on the alignment scale.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

Case in point. I mentioned hippies up above. Hippies are the poster child of chaotic neutral, right? Elves are basically fantazy hippies and they're usually chaotic good aren't they?

Except under this interpretation, hippies are lawful. Either lawful good or lawful neutral.

Hippies are known to follow strong personal codes. Pacifism and vegetarianism as a core self imposed principle. They didn't object to war on the ground of it not being their fight and staying neutral, they objected to war in principle on the ground that killing people is wrong - period. They faced ridicule and persecution for it.

I do not recognize this description of hippies you are employing. No definition of hippies, in fact, I can think of would insist that they enforce "Pacifism and vegetarianism". Instead, the usual definition is "go with the flow, be one with the universe, there are no rules but kindness" which are hallmarks of CG. Does extending kindness to all living creatures makes it difficult to be a carnivore and be pro-war? Sure, but that's a consequence of the G, not of the C. If they catch someone eating cow, would they throw them in jail? No, they'd be disappointed at them, and try to talk them into being kinder. Because they won't believe in imposing their beliefs on others, or indeed in restricting liberty at all. That is what the C brings to the table.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

Miko lost her paladin status because the Twelve in their collective wisdom approved of what Shojo was doing, especially since Shojo was doing an incredibly good job of keeping the rift sealed. Even if Shojo was neutral or evil, I'm pretty sure the Twelve would still strip Miko of her status for killing him, because she went against their Divine Will, and that's kind of the schtick of clerics and paladins. Her downfall is due to her pride and arrogance, she imagined that she was important enough that the gods were talking to her through every little thing, but pride and arrogance aren't anywhere on the alignment scale.

Mmm, you're conflating "good" with "Good". Remember, in the D&D world (and I'm 90% sure in the Stickverse as well), being Good (as a paladin is supposed to be), doesn't so much mean walking old ladies across the street and saving orphans from a burning building. It means you are on Team Good which means respecting the will of a very specific set of gods. They're the gods who, in aggregate, you'd associate with walking old ladies across the street and saving orphans from burning buildings, but they're individuals and some of them lean a lot less toward "good" than others. So, there's overlap, and they do mostly want you to do "good things", but they aren't exactly the same.

Really, its more like rooting for one sports team vs another as much as it is morality. As you say, its certainly possible to come up with an argument that Miko's actions were good. But since it directly defied the will of the Good gods, by definition it wasn't a Good act, because that's the standard that matters. So, even if it was "good" (Assuming for the moment you came up with an astoundingly convincing argument) it was also SO "Not Good" that it got her defrocked as a paladin anyway. You do a good deed, but show up at the Eagles clubhouse wearing a Dallas Cowboys jersey. They're going to kick you out no matter how decent a person and supportive of Eagles-oriented and aligned behavior you may be.

Case in point. I mentioned hippies up above. Hippies are the poster child of chaotic neutral, right? Elves are basically fantazy hippies and they're usually chaotic good aren't they?

Except under this interpretation, hippies are lawful. Either lawful good or lawful neutral.

Hippies are known to follow strong personal codes. Pacifism and vegetarianism as a core self imposed principle. They didn't object to war on the ground of it not being their fight and staying neutral, they objected to war in principle on the ground that killing people is wrong - period. They faced ridicule and persecution for it.

That's kind of an interesting point. What are druids but monks with worse hygiene? Monks are generally considered the exemplars of "Lawful" behavior while Druids are the same for "True Neutral". I suppose the implication is that your personal standards and code of conduct *towards other people* is what matters? Druids (and hippies) vary, but generally they are pretty fired up about their personal cause which they take seriously and adhere to rigidly. Just with Druids, an outside observer might have a tough time parsing how the Druid's belief system intersects with traditional humanoid-centric morality and thus label them as TN, when they probably see themselves as LN.

[Sir_Norbert]

In the discussions I've had, people would use utilitarian ethics to justify whatever actions they would take.

That says that people are good at coming up with rationalisations to justify actions they are actually taking for non-moral reasons. It doesn't say anything about utilitarianism or what the actually right choice to make in the situation would be.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's kind of an interesting point. What are druids but monks with worse hygiene? Monks are generally considered the exemplars of "Lawful" behavior while Druids are the same for "True Neutral". I suppose the implication is that your personal standards and code of conduct *towards other people* is what matters? Druids (and hippies) vary, but generally they are pretty fired up about their personal cause which they take seriously and adhere to rigidly. Just with Druids, an outside observer might have a tough time parsing how the Druid's belief system intersects with traditional humanoid-centric morality and thus label them as TN, when they probably see themselves as LN.

What? No. Druids believe in nature being neither rule-bound nor completely chaotic. They might agree that saving a child's life from a predator to be Good, but they won't want to do it, because it's still natural for nature to kill and that's the way it is. Note the predator could even be self-conscious -i.e. above int 3 - and they'd still hold to that belief (but also, they won't allow destruction for destruction's sake). Similarly, they dislike both laws and chaos, looking for a balance just like in nature. You won't catch a druid thinking they must be awake at hour X to do the daily ritual. They'll get to it when they get to it, presumably as dictated by the season or the weather - they won't impose structure on the world, but also they won't let the natural rhythms be disrupted. In short, they are NOT "monks that don't bathe" or whatever.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

That says that people are good at coming up with rationalisations to justify actions they are actually taking for non-moral reasons. It doesn't say anything about utilitarianism or what the actually right choice to make in the situation would be.

Yeah. People in the US view the Post Office as being extremely unreliable and inconsistent. Not because they're particularly unreliable, I've seen a good bit of data. They're hardly perfect but they're generally pretty solid (a few horror stories aside). The issue is that they're such an incredibly convenient scapegoat for anyone who forgets to mail anything on time that they're constantly blamed by a wide range for folks. "Oh, yeah, I ABSOLUTELY got that done in time! Oh, no, the post office must have lost it! I'll resend it right away."

Utilitarianism isn't so much to blame itself, as that its similarly a convenient scapegoat for people trying to rationalize things.

[Dasick]

No she is not. There is nothing Good about bisecting an unarmed octogenerian.

You mean a corrupt government official who can escape any court sentence because the courts are corrupt and in his pocket and he just admitted to tampering with the summoning of an avatar of good and justice?

And who, if not stopped, will continue to be a corrupt leader?

Hinjo can't even get Kabuto prosecuted while that guy was causing the death of innocent civilians, what was he going to do about Shojo? What's the actual lawful good remedy here

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

In a world where it's not actually that difficult to communicate with an avatar of Good and Justice, doing what said avatar tells you to do is more or less the requirement for being good.

I do not recognize this description of hippies you are employing. No definition of hippies, in fact, I can think of would insist that they enforce "Pacifism and vegetarianism". Instead, the usual definition is "go with the flow, be one with the universe, there are no rules but kindness" which are hallmarks of CG. Does extending kindness to all living creatures makes it difficult to be a carnivore and be pro-war? Sure, but that's a consequence of the G, not of the C. If they catch someone eating cow, would they throw them in jail? No. Because they won't believe in imposing their beliefs on others, or indeed in restricting liberty at all. That is what the C brings to the table.

Grey Wolf

By that definition, monks are not lawful either, despite the monk class requiring a lawful alignment. Monasteries generally speaking are founded somewhere far away from others, and they enforce their rules only among the people who chose to adhere by their rules - if one of their own breaks the rules there might be punishment if the monk wants to stay, but I think in most cases, they're just as likely to throw that particular monk out.

People can enforce their rules through peer pressure, not just violence. Hippie communes can and will expel people who don't align with their code of conduct. Hippies went to protests and formed human chains and sabotaged machinery, which is a non-violent form of enforcing their beliefs, and the reason vegetarians have a bad rep is cause hippie-adjacent vegetarians have a tendency to get all in people's face about it.

Mmm, you're conflating "good" with "Good". Remember, in the D&D world (and I'm 90% sure in the Stickverse as well), being Good (as a paladin is supposed to be), doesn't so much mean walking old ladies across the street and saving orphans from a burning building. It means you are on Team Good which means respecting the will of a very specific set of gods. They're the gods who, in aggregate, you'd associate with walking old ladies across the street and saving orphans from burning buildings, but they're individuals and some of them lean a lot less toward "good" than others. So, there's overlap, and they do mostly want you to do "good things", but they aren't exactly the same.

You mega ninjad me here

That's kind of an interesting point. What are druids but monks with worse hygiene? Monks are generally considered the exemplars of "Lawful" behavior while Druids are the same for "True Neutral". I suppose the implication is that your personal standards and code of conduct *towards other people* is what matters? Druids (and hippies) vary, but generally they are pretty fired up about their personal cause which they take seriously and adhere to rigidly. Just with Druids, an outside observer might have a tough time parsing how the Druid's belief system intersects with traditional humanoid-centric morality and thus label them as TN, when they probably see themselves as LN.

You mega ultra ninjad me

I mean, my point is that the alignment system is kinda nonsensical. People who put it together were fantasy nerds, not morality scholars. They slapped together a bunch of archetypes and didn't think too hard about it. There's absolutely no reason to stick by it in any serious kind of attempt to roleplay deep moral quandaries or tell stories about real world morality.

That says that people are good at coming up with rationalisations to justify actions they are actually taking for non-moral reasons. It doesn't say anything about utilitarianism or what the actually right choice to make in the situation would be.

Ok you tell me. There's 30 minutes till nukes land. No way you can save yourself. Someone says "you know what, I've always felt what it's like to kill someone". That someone finds someone else, kills the victim in a way the victim is not even aware of death. There's no one around, the death won't be discovered in the next 30 minutes, so there's basically no negative "suffering" here, just the murderer's "happiness" from the joy of discovery and learning new experiences.

What's the issue here according to utilitarianism?

[Crusher]

You won't catch a druid thinking they must be awake at hour X to do the daily ritual. They'll get to it when they get to it, presumably as dictated by the season or the weather - they won't impose structure on the world, but also they won't let the natural rhythms be disrupted.

Hmm, I don't think druids "get to things when they get to them". They just rigidly follow a non-human clock. They harvest the holly at midnight on the winter solstice with a silver sickle, or whatever. Hmm. Maybe its a definitional question: if a Rilmani of the "Don't mess with other people and they shouldn't mess with you" school of TN-ness has an extremely detailed and precise philosophy on how to live their lives (or whatever the correct term would be) which they follow rigidly and without deviation, are they really still TN or do they drift into LN at some point?

In short, they are NOT "monks that don't bathe" or whatever.

I'm unbending on this point.

Edit - I mean, the "Druids don't bathe" part.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You mean a corrupt government official who can escape any court sentence because the courts are corrupt and in his pocket and he just admitted to tampering with the summoning of an avatar of good and justice?

No, I mean an unarmed octogenerian. Which is what I said. And more importantly, what the comic said. You making up out of whole cloth an entire different scenario is irrelevant: Miko murdered an unarmed octogenarian in cold blood. That is Evil.

In a world where it's not actually that difficult to communicate with an avatar of Good and Justice, doing what said avatar tells you to do is more or less the requirement for being good.

Wow, it's almost like that is one of many means Miko could've used to set up an actual judgement BEFORE murdering an unarmed octogenarian. Can you think of any others, to further undermine your own argument that Miko's only possible action was murder, and that because it was the only option, that somehow made it Good? (By the way, even if it had been her only option, that doesn't make it Good).

By that definition, monks are not lawful either, despite the monk class requiring a lawful alignment. Monasteries generally speaking are founded somewhere far away from others, and they enforce their rules only among the people who chose to adhere by their rules - if one of their own breaks the rules there might be punishment if the monk wants to stay, but I think in most cases, they're just as likely to throw that particular monk out.

So you've just proved that they are Lawful, since they do enforce the rules on others.

People can enforce their rules through peer pressure, not just violence. Hippie communes can and will expel people who don't align with their coe of conduct. Hippies went to protests and formed human chains and sabotaged machinery, which is a non-violent form of enforcing their beliefs, and the reason vegetarians have a bad rep is cause hippie-adjacent vegetarians have a tendency to get all in people's face about it.

And any group such organised would be lawful. But most stereotypical hippy groups were incapable of those things, to the point that they were extremely loose groups who frequently fell apart over internal differences precisely because they didn't impose their beliefs on one another.

Hmm, I don't think druids "get to things when they get to them". They just rigidly follow a non-human clock. They harvest the holly at midnight on the winter solstice with a silver sickle, or whatever.

But it's not a rigid anything. "Midnight" is variable, just as dawn and anything else: they happen when they happen. Yes, there is a certain order to nature, but it is a messy, fuzzy rhythm. No clock can ever measure it, which was kinda my point.

Grey Wolf

[Tzardok]

1. Druids are neutral because they revere nature and, as nature doesn't care about morals, need to be detached from moralistic (is that the right word?) thinking.

2. I don't think that the plumach have an intricate philosophy. They are just doing what comes naturally to them, similiar to how dretches or other low demons are a pretty instinctual type of chaotic evil.
Developing a better understanding of what neutral means is part of evolving into more "refined" forms.

[Dasick]

No, I mean an unarmed octogenerian. Which is what I said. And more importantly, what the comic said. You making up out of whole cloth an entire different scenario is irrelevant: Miko murdered an unarmed octogenarian in cold blood. That is Evil.

That's what Roy said. Roy is (not yet) a god.

The unarmed octogenarian remains a corrupt official that will not be persecuted for his crimes. Hinjo is too "lawful stupid" to deal with Kabuto who is continuously causing the deaths of innocent civilians, Miko was absolutely right on the point that Shojo would never see justice.

The only issue here is that I'm not sure the charges warrant a death penalty. But setting up a proper trial in these circumstances is more or less impossible.

Wow, it's almost like that is one of many means Miko could've used to set up an actual judgement BEFORE murdering an unarmed octogenarian. Can you thik of any others, to further undermine your own argument that Miko's only possible action was murder, and that because it was the only option, that somehow made it Good? (By the way, even if it had been her only option, that doesn't make it Good).

Said octogenarian just confessed he can rig such trials, and Im not sure paladins can do these kinds of things on their own. But the cleric summoning Eugene didn't know it was just an oathspirit who can cast illusions. I dunno, maybe Miko could commit seppuku and ask the Twelve in person, and then hope the city run by a corrupt official who would benefit from having her gone will resurect her? Well, she could make Durkon swear he would rez her.

I'm not interested in being right, I am interested in being right. I'll undermine my own argument as much as I want in pursuit of Truth, Justice and Apple Pie, thank you very much.

So you've just proved that they are Lawful, since they do enforce the rules on others.

Monks have a general policy of "the world does their thing, we do ours".

And any group such organised would be lawful. But most stereotypical hippy groups were incapable of those things, to the point that they were extremely loose groups who frequently fell apart over internal differences precisely because they didn't impose their beliefs on one another.

Hippies as a movement more or less fizzled out due to that. But hippies that do remain did that. And hippies were not above enforcing their beliefs on others through non violent means, its why they're somewhat famous.

Which is still my point. Hippies, the poster child of chaotic good/neutral are actually lawful. The alignment system is broken.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's what Roy said. Roy is (not yet) a god.

OK, so do you have any other canon that suggests he is wrong? No, you don't. Therefore you do not have a leg to stand on.

The unarmed octogenarian remains a corrupt official that will not be persecuted for his crimes. Hinjo is too "lawful stupid" to deal with Kabuto who is continuously causing the deaths of innocent civilians, Miko was absolutely right on the point that Shojo would never see justice.

That is a very interesting story you've come up with, but it is not the story we have. You claiming there are no other options to justify your own conclusions doesn't demonstrate anything. But hey, you want to play that game, two can play: just like you claim to know better than the comic what is "actually" happening, I can play that card too: you are wrong, and Miko Fell because of an Evil act, so says me, Grey Wolf.

Now, either up the ante by presenting better canon than Roy, or stop with this spinning of tales to justify your own conclusions.

Said octogenarian just confessed he can rig such trials, and Im not sure paladins can do these kinds of things on their own. But the cleric summoning Eugene didn't know it was just an oathspirit who can cast illusions. I dunno, maybe Miko could commit seppuku and ask the Twelve in person, and then hope the city run by a corrupt official who would benefit from having her gone will resurect her? Well, she could make Durkon swear he would rez her.

And you keep digging further. Yes, all those things are possible. There are spells. There are other courts. There are prayers. There were plenty options other than murder in cold blood.

Monks have a general policy of "the world does their thing, we do ours".

Monasteries run on rules. Accepting the rules is part of being in them. You don't come up with them, you accept them. Those rules carry enforcement mechanisms. That is hallmark of a Lawful structure. It doesn't matter if the individual monk thinks that waking up at 5 is stupid and he should be allowed to sleep in; the rules are the rules and if he's not up, he can be kicked out. Clearly a Lawful structure.

Hippies as a movement more or less fizzled out due to that. But hippies that do remain did that. And hippies were not above enforcing their beliefs on others through non violent means, its why they're somewhat famous.

Which is still my point. Hippies, the poster child of chaotic good/neutral are actually lawful. The alignment system is broken.

If you change the hippies to the point where they are Lawful because they are capable of enforcing beliefs on the group, then yes, they are Lawful. But that's not the stereotypical hippy that is Chaotic Good. You've literally taken a chaotic group and said "but what if we remove the chaotic part and say that we also count as hippies the ones with rules". Well, they don't. Not anymore. Not at that point. Just because you can call both types hippies doesn't mean they both must have the same alignment. The stereotypical hippy group with no rules and no enforcement is CG. A group, even if it calls itself hippy that does have rules is not C anymore. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Grey Wolf

[arimareiji]

I mean, my point is that the alignment system is kinda nonsensical. People who put it together were fantasy nerds, not morality scholars. They slapped together a bunch of archetypes and didn't think too hard about it. There's absolutely no reason to stick by it in any serious kind of attempt to roleplay deep moral quandaries or tell stories about real world morality.

I don't know if I would agree with "absolutely no reason", but it's a rather good point that it's not an inviolable standard of measure. D&D alignment has always been a glorified slapdash set of rationalizations that keeps refining itself, starting from the origin of "What did the original designers personally find repugnant?". (For instance Law started out as being synonymous with Good, and Chaos with Evil.)

It's a seed for discussion that grew into a somewhat-misshapen tree, not Holy Writ.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't know if I would agree with "absolutely no reason", but it's a rather good point that it's not an inviolable standard of measure. D&D alignment has always been a glorified slapdash set of rationalizations that keeps refining itself, starting from the origin of "What did the original designers personally find repugnant?". (For instance Law started out as being synonymous with Good, and Chaos with Evil.)

It's a seed for discussion that grew into a somewhat-misshapen tree, not Holy Writ.

I am perfectly happy to agree that the alignment system is, as Rich put it, the training wheels for roleplaying morality. The D&D alignment system does have plenty of issues. But one of them is not "murdering an unarmed octogenarian should be Good, actually".

GW

[Tzardok]

Also, monks achieve their abilities through disciplin, self-mastery and striving for perfection, all very Lawful concepts. Nothing about that sounds hippy-like.

[Dasick]

That is a very interesting story you've come up with, but it is not the story we have.

That's literally what happened. The paladins made a big whooping deal about how they're lawful good not lawful stupid, and then they went full "Batman puts Joker into Arkham Asylum" (that was a very poignant fantasy Threkla was having, although in reverse) and failed completely to do anything about Kubota summoning monsters that killed off entire civilian crews. Kubota would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for the meddling elf and his bard, neither of whom are lawful or were working within the scope of the Azurite law. We can only assume that Shojo being older and in the game longer, he was much better at rigging the system than Kubota was, and having a higher position would have had more power. Two paladins testifying to overhearing a part of a conversation is not that powerful in this court system. Shojo never would have seen justice.

And you keep digging further.

Like I said, I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in being right.

If you change the hippies to the point where they are Lawful because they are capable of enforcing beliefs on the group, then yes, they are Lawful. But that's not the stereotypical hippy that is Chaotic Good.

The stereotypical hippie forms human chains, goes to protests, puts potatoes in exhaust pipes, and gets preachy at people about eating meat. They were pretty energetic about enforcing their beliefs on others. They just pursued non violent means.

Which, I'm taking Rich's definition here. Lawful means you follow your own set of rules and principles to the letter. Hippies took a very principled stand, they were a very "the ends don't justify the means" group.

Im not arguing hippies are lawful. Im arguing the system is broken.

Also, monks achieve their abilities through disciplin, self-mastery and striving for perfection, all very Lawful concepts. Nothing about that sounds hippy-like.

That covers most classes except for sorcerers, bards, and maybe barbarians. But the barbarian class is super dumb. If you want to roleplay a tribal, or even R Howard Conan the Barbarian you're much better off picking ranger.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also, monks achieve their abilities through disciplin, self-mastery and striving for perfection, all very Lawful concepts. Nothing about that sounds hippy-like.

Oh, right, that's the monasteries we're talking about. The David Carradine type, not the Sister Act kind. Mind you, it really applies to both, thus the common name.

Like I said, I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in being right.

Well, whatever the hell you think you meant here, you ain't. Cold blooded murder of unarmed octogenarians is Evil. And I'm tired of repeating the same two basic concepts over and over, so I'm calling my conversation with you quits, on the basis this will go nowhere.

GW

[Tzardok]

That covers most classes except for sorcerers, bards, and maybe barbarians. But the barbarian class is super dumb. If you want to roleplay a tribal, or even R Howard Conan the Barbarian you're much better off picking ranger.

Yeah, no. Other classes may hold similiar ideals, but they don't have to, and they certainly don't gain superpowers from trying to put these ideals into practice (no matter how crappy these powers may be rules-wise).

[Dasick]

Well, whatever the hell you think you meant here, you ain't. Cold blooded murder of unarmed octogenarians is Evil. And I'm tired of repeating the same two basic concepts over and over, so I'm calling my conversation with you quits, on the basis this will go nowhere.

I said, and I quote

"The unarmed octogenarian remains a corrupt official that will not be persecuted for his crimes. Hinjo is too "lawful stupid" to deal with Kabuto who is continuously causing the deaths of innocent civilians, Miko was absolutely right on the point that Shojo would never see justice.

The only issue here is that I'm not sure the charges warrant a death penalty. But setting up a proper trial in these circumstances is more or less impossible."

My point isn't that Miko should have killed him there and then. My point is that she was correct in that he would never see justice - so what should a lawful paladin who is not lawful stupid do in this situation (or the Kubota situation for that matter)

Yeah, no. Other classes may hold similiar ideals, but they don't have to, and they certainly don't gain superpowers from trying to put these ideals into practice (no matter how crappy these powers may be rules-wise).

Literally wizards. They spend their lives in study and pursuit of arcane mastery and they literally get superpowers.

I mean, given how broken high level characters tend to be, and how easy it is to build an OP one, they all qualify for the superpowers, and given that all those character classes are assumed to get to that point through hard work and discipline...

[arimareiji]

I am perfectly happy to agree that the alignment system is, as Rich put it, the training wheels for roleplaying morality. The D&D alignment system does have plenty of issues. But one of them is not "murdering an unarmed octogenarian should be Good, actually".

GW

I would definitely agree with your above statement as well.

I didn't see any obvious indication that the statement I was responding to was being used to argue against it, and I didn't sift too deep through the discussion for context. I know it's a bad idea nowadays, but I'm still in the unfortunate habit of agreeing with standalone statements I perceive as true without investigating to be certain that they're not being conflated with a false statement somewhere else.

(None of which I know or would assume to be the case here.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I would definitely agree with your above statement as well.

I didn't see any obvious indication that the statement I was responding to was being used to argue against it, and I didn't sift too deep through the discussion for context. I know it's a bad idea nowadays, but I'm still in the unfortunate habit of agreeing with standalone statements I perceive as true without investigating to be certain that they're not being conflated with a false statement somewhere else.

(None of which I know or would assume to be the case here.)

My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest you'd disagree, but I can see now how it might come across as such. I was just using your post as a springboard to assert my own position on the alignment system, which I do not believe to be perfect - I'd been looking for an opening to do so, and when you gave me one, I jumped at the opportunity.

But given that I was also defending it's appropriateness, I felt I needed to also establish that just because I didn't think it perfect, that didn't mean I felt my previous post on the topic was therefore weakened. None of which, of course, had much to do with what you were saying, so, again, sorry for making it look like I might be suggesting you were saying any such thing.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

The unarmed octogenarian remains a corrupt official that will not be persecuted for his crimes.

Do you have a source in this other than Miko? Because Hinjo thinks otherwise, and he had the dual benefits of being heir to the throne the second Shojo is no longer on it and also not suffering a psychotic break when he makes his thoughts known, neither advantage being shared by Miko.