OOTS #1274 - The Discussion Thread

[dancrilis]

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

Belkar also said it was an evil act (panel 3), and Belkar is apparently a god (panel 14, and panels 22 and 23) and he likely has a greater connection to evil then Roy does.

[Dasick]

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.

The argument here is that Miko followed the lawful good description to the letter though, even as she killed the "unarmed octogenarian". Executing corrupt officials is something that one would expect to be lawful in the societies Azure City draws on. She jumped through a lot of hoops to get to the point where she executed Shojo on the spot, but it's been established that the beings of Pure Good and Order care more about people's intentions than they do about them being correct

Except in this case I guess. Or maybe the Twelve have different standards than the {scrubbed}

Gray Wolf is arguing that she should be lawful neutral. Which kind of makes sense from the perspective that she is willing to do evil actions to uphold the laws and her code of conduct. Except... her motivation wasn't to do evil or even uphold law, she was genuinely convinced Shojo was working with evil people to betray Azure city.

[Peelee]

The argument here is that Miko followed the lawful good description to the letter though, even as she killed the "unarmed octogenarian". Executing corrupt officials is something that one would expect to be lawful in the societies Azure City draws on.

Your expectations are apparently quite different than mine.

[Tzardok]

No? Executing corrupt officials without a trial or at least a "I, the ruler, command you to do this", is a big no-no in pretty much any society.

Besides, the Twelve Gods (despite being worshipped as a whole by the Sapphire Guard) is not completely Lawful Good, but a pretty even mix of alignments, according to Word of Richard.

Edit:

Gray Wolf is arguing that she should be lawful neutral. Which kind of makes sense from the perspective that she is willing to do evil actions to uphold the laws and her code of conduct. Except... her motivation wasn't to do evil or even uphold law, she was genuinely convinced Shojo was working with evil people to betray Azure city.

And her motivation is irrelevant. Even (especially) in a world with external and objective morality, people can be wrong about wether they are good or evil (or lawful or chaotic). She thought she was doing the right thing. She was wrong. Not just wrong by the standards of the gods; objectively wrong. Gods are subject to alignment just like mortals, they don't make it.

[Dasick]

Belkar also said it was an evil act (panel 3), and Belkar is apparently a god (panel 14, and panels 22 and 23) and he likely has a greater connection to evil then Roy does.

Belkar is emotionally invested in Miko losing her status though, of course he will say whatever he has to on the off chance any god thinking about restoring her paladin status would be listening

[dancrilis]

Besides, the Twelve Gods (despite being worshipped as a whole by the Sapphire Guard) is not completely Lawful Good, but a pretty even mix of alignments, according to Word of Richard.

Each and every one of them is true neutral to memory - which is not what I would consider a mix of alignments even if it would be even.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No? Executing corrupt officials without a trial or at least a "I, the ruler, command you to do this", is a big no-no in pretty much any society.

Oh, oh, oh that reminds me of... something. A Main Character who is a leader ordering a Good soldier to execute someone in cold blood to demonstrate what isn't a lawful order. Something along the lines of they're having a discussion about it with another character, and then they shout to a soldier to execute a prisoner, and the soldier sort of freezing in the act, as his brain overrides the "jump to the action" before turning around and sort of saying "why?" and "the hell I am".

Aaargh, it's going to drive me crazy until I remember where it's from.

GW

[Tzardok]

Each and every one of them is true neutral to memory - which is not what I would consider a mix of alignments even if it would be even.

Source please?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Gray Wolf is arguing that she should be lawful neutral. Which kind of makes sense from the perspective that she is willing to do evil actions to uphold the laws and her code of conduct. Except... her motivation wasn't to do evil or even uphold law, she was genuinely convinced Shojo was working with evil people to betray Azure city.

1) Have the common decency to spell my name right
2) That is an extremely poor interpretation of my position, so in future please abstain from attempting to put words in my mouth or pretend your conclusions follow mine.

Grey Wolf

[dancrilis]

Source please?

Here.

Relevant Element:

11.) Henri Mäntysaari: What is the alignment of each of the twelve gods? I interpreted Rat to be evil, how about others? Since, according to your previous answer, most Azurites worship the pantheon as one, how do good aligned worshipers feel about revering evil gods this way and vice versa? Does this imply that many of the followers of the religion are neutral aligned? How about the paladins in Azure city, how can they worship evil gods by proxy of worshiping the whole pantheon and still be strictly good?

Functionally speaking, the Twelve Gods are all True Neutral—partly because they’re animals, but partly because the specific metaphysics of the gods in this setting are that they are influenced by what their worshippers think about them. Since the Twelve Gods are all worshipped as a group, their alignment is pulled in all directions at once by different believers projecting their own morals onto them, and they end up in the middle somewhere. Even when they are singled out for individual devotion, it’s usually by people who were born under their astrological sign, which would naturally include the entire gamut of alignments. But the gods still govern each individual priest by that priest’s own alignment, so that a Good cleric who breaks her moral code would find herself cut off from her spellcasting powers even while an Evil cleric of the same pantheon who does the same action would not.

It’s important to note that this process is not well understood by the mortals of the world, so what you get is a lot of conflicting religious interpretations where the gods seem to be supporting opposed ideas at once. This extends right down to Redcloak not understanding that Rat is no more Evil than any of the others but assuming he must be, because why else would he give the Dark One a chance?

[Dasick]

Oh, oh, oh that reminds me of... something. A Main Character who is an officer ordering a Good soldier to execute someone in cold blood to demonstrate what isn't a lawful order. Something along the lines of they're having a discussion about it, and the officer shouts to a soldier to execute a prisoner, and the soldier sort of freezing in the act, as his brain overrides the "jump to the action" before turning around and sort of saying "why?" and "the hell I am".

Aaargh, it's going to drive me crazy until I remember where it's from.

GW

There's a similar situation in Elex.

Spoiler

Show

If you join the berserkers, they have a rule against using technology. One of the clan leaders asks you to retrieve some technology for him. It is a test. You can retrieve the piece of technology and dispose of it, which will result in the clan leader praising you and being more friendly towards you

[gbaji]

However that is not the situation Roy is in - using Sunny as bait seems a bad plan for reasons beside morality, Team Evil doesn't know him, won't care about him and could likely kill him without thinking about it he doesn't 'lure' them anywhere he just dies - and where Julia was talking about luring the Oona there is no particular way to seperate her from the others without her being already seperated and thereby able to be ambushed without needing a sacrifice.
For the rest of Team Evil Roy, Vaarsuvius, Durkon, O-Chul (or maybe any of the others) would likely be better bait as Redcloak would likely recognise them - where Sunny might just get a shrug if he isn't actively bothering them (Xykon might even think he is a cool thing to recruit).

I think you're the only person who brought this up, and (moral issue aside), it's another bit that bothered me with that suggestion:

It's absolutely terrible tactical advice. The entire value of Sunny is the anti-magic field, which they discuss. The flaw/difficulty in using Sunny to nail down Redcloak and Xykon is that Oona and Greyview can attack Sunny physically, and would, to disrupt/stop the AMF. Any plan to use Sunny must figure out how to deal with those two as well. So Julia (or Eugene) proposes putting Sunny out as bait to take out Oona and Greyview *first*, and then suggests that it doesn't matter if Sunny dies in the process.

Um... But then you have no AMF, which was the entire reason you needed to take out Oona and Grewview in the first place. So...

Obviously, Roy's personality (and alignment) will first recoil at the suggestion of sacrificing Sonny. But it was a terrible plan for other reasons as well.

The question really boils down to "are you ok with taking direct action to kill someone to save a net positive of four lives". Which has so many factors to it, the answer doesn't really tell you anything. People will pull the lever or not for various reasons, if you listen closely, for assumed details (imo, I dont think you can overthink a scenario which starts with "so regardless of what you do someone dies but you can decide who dies"). Its the rationale as to why that contains useful information that you can extract.

I can't answer that question as is because both I'm good at understanding when I start assuming things, and because a) I believe certain lives are simply worth more or less when compared to one another and b) Im ok assuming the position to judge in some situations but not others.

I think it's simpler than that (and also where the Trolly problem falls apart a bit). Yes, utilitarianism would suggest a mathematical assessment and decision based on the result. Which is why it's good for making *non-ethical* decisions (how much flour should I buy today? Should I work on project A or project B right now?), but terrible at making moral/ethical choices.

The ethical choice is what actions *you* are taking. If you are killing someone, that is an evil act. Period. It's why the Trolly Problem is absurd. You didn't put the people on the tracks. But if you pull the level, then *you* are choosing to kill people. Which makes your act evil. That may be the choice you make, but then you have to live with it. The whole "chosing not to act is a choice" only applies when the choice is between life and death itself, not death and death. If sticking a pole into the water to safe a drowning person or not doing that is the choice, you should choose to help save the person (that's "good"). But if the only way to save someone who is put in risk of dying through no act of your own is to choose to act in a way that kills another person, you are the one choosing to kill someone. That makes that act by you "evil".

The Truck driver did not place the child on the road. He didn't choose to have that situation occur. If the only way to avoid hitting the child is to turn off the road and kill everyone on board, then making that choice is him choosing to kill people. That choice would be evil. That sucks and all, but the key ethical question here is the choices you make and the effects they have on others. And yeah, intent matters as well. A tragic accidental death? Or an intentional killing of a dozen or so people?

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.

Couple people have commented on this, I'll chime in as well. That was not a chaotic act. It was an evil one. She chose to kill a helpless man instead of a dozen other non-lethal choices she had.

It was still lawful, because in her mind, she was following the code she believed in. She believed that Shojo had violated that code, and she was "bringing him to justice". And, to be perfectly honest, from a lawful point of view, she was not actually wrong at all. Shojo had violated the oaths of the Paladins, and was playing a game to get around "the rules". She was absolutely right to be outraged by this (as was Hinjo).

It was her choice of action (to kill an unarmed man) that makes her act an evil one.

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.

And to follow up. No. The Twelve god's judgement of Miko's act had nothing at all to do with their view of Shojo's actions. It's not about whether you agree or disagree with a "side" that makes things "Ok" or "not-ok". The Twelve's position on Shojo's chocies and actions are utterly irrelevent. They judged her act (killing an unarmed man) as evil and in violation of the Paladin code. Period. Full stop.

As to the strip itself:

I also raised an eyebrow at the bits in panel 10. It's a strange set of language for Julia to use. And yeah, it does suggest that Eugene may be using a Julia illusion or something else being up. I'm still a bit hung up on why Eugene would feel the need to do this. As a couple people have mentioned, it's not like their last conversation was so horrible ending that Eugene would assume Roy wouldn't listen to him or talk to him, if he showed up as himself. Roy's main issue was that Eugene was distracting him, and not helping. I'd assume that if Eugene showed up actually wanting to discuss strategey, Roy would be ok with it. He always has been in the past (even if they've disagreed on most of Eugene's proposals).

Dunno. I can almost see it in a wierd kind of "maybe he's rejecting my ideas because he doesn't like me" bit and thinking that by disguising himself as Julia, Roy will be more accepting. Kinda fits with Eugene's personalty, maybe. And yeah, the whole "sacrifice Sunny" bit can fit with that as well. I guess we could see it one of two ways:

Eugene thinks Roy will accept advice if it comes from Julia, but then Roy rejects his suggestion, and Eugene maybe has an honest realization that it's not just him, but a difference in how they percieve things, and maybe that puts him in a more speculative mood, shifting to talking about his problems being alone and relatively helpless. Could work.

It's Julia, and her suggestion fits into the TN alignment anyway. Her reaction is because from her perspective she has a lot to loose if Roy fails (her life. everyone's life). And she also feels helpless to do anything directly. Panel 10 is still a problem, but IMO, the outburst before that fits better with Julia than Eugene.

And that's kinda my final issue with this. The outburst itself. Eugene would have no reason to do this. He's basically in a win-win scenario here. Roy defeats Xykon. He wins. Xykon succeeds, the world is destroyed, and he wins. He only loses if some sort of status-quo is maintained (Xykon and Redcloak are stopped from completing the plan, the gate isn't destroyed, and all parties go their separate ways or something). He should be ok with just watching things play out from up on his perch. Heck. If anything, he wants the final gate to be destroyed, since that would hasten the end. The only question is whether that would actually destroy Xykon anyway though. If Xykon gates off to his astral fortress, while the gods destroy the prime material plane, does that mean that Eugene is stuck for eternity? Or does the reset mean that all spirits (even oathspirits) get pulled into their respective planes for assimlation or whatever, in preparation for the next world?

Too many unknowns IMO. But yeah. Panel 10 does give me pause. Could just be an odd linguistic thing. I've encountered lots of people who use "up/down" in ways that don't align with "north/south". And the stumbling "my... family's burden" also be Julia fully realizing that the oath is also on her as well. Dunno.

[Tzardok]

Here.

Relevant Element:

Thank you!

[pendell]

Oh, oh, oh that reminds me of... something. A Main Character who is a leader ordering a Good soldier to execute someone in cold blood to demonstrate what isn't a lawful order. Something along the lines of they're having a discussion about it with another character, and then they shout to a soldier to execute a prisoner, and the soldier sort of freezing in the act, as his brain overrides the "jump to the action" before turning around and sort of saying "why?" and "the hell I am".

Aaargh, it's going to drive me crazy until I remember where it's from.

GW

You're thinking of Terry Pratchett in "The Fifth Elephant". Vimes, Commander of the City Watch, is having trouble with a police official in Uberwald. As part of his discussion...

“Ah, Detritus.” The troll saluted. “You’ve got your bow, I see. Treated you well, did they?”
“Dey called me a ficko troll,” said Detritus, darkly. “One of dem kicked me inna rocks.”
“Was it this one?”
“No.”
“But he is their captain,” said Vimes, stepping away from Tantony. “Sergeant, I order you: Shoot him down.”
In one movement the troll had the crossbow balanced on his shoulder and was sighting along the massive package of arrows. Tantony went pale.
“Well, go on,” said Vimes. “It was an order, Sergeant.”
Detritus lowered the bow.
“I ain’t dat fick, sir.”
“I gave you an order!”
“Den you can do wid that order what Boulder der Lintel did wid his bag of gravel, sir! Wid respect, o’course.”
Vimes walked across an d patted the shaking Tantony on his shoulder.
“Just making a point,” he said.
“However,” said Detritus, “if you can find der man dat kicked me inna rocks, I should be happy to give him a flick around der earhole. I know which one it was. He’s der one walkin’ wid der limp.”

Vimes point is that a police officer serves the law, rather than following the orders of superiors blindly; that's not a constable, but a henchperson in a slightly prettier uniform.

Someone asked what a lawful paladin would do in the case of corrupt Shojo. The answer is right there in the next strip, because it's what Hinjo did: Arrest him and put him on trial even with the problems. You've got a whole order of paladins with powers specifically granted to ensure those laws are uphold. What you do NOT do is act as judge, jury, and executioner.

The next strip , I think, shows Miko's further descent into true neutral territory: Having killed Shojo, she resists arrest at the hands of Hinjo rather than do what a lawful person would do, which is surrender and face trial.

We've discussed this, I think: A lawful person by the giant's interpretation either adheres to an external code or to an extremely rigorous internal moral code which they don't deviate from. Miko adheres to the rules of the Sapphire Guard, but she's discarded them twice -- first in an extrajudicial killing, second in resisting arrest at the hands of Hinjo. She's completely off the reservation going off her own internal sense of right and wrong in defiance of the "law" she pledged to obey. So, yeah, true neutral in my view. Those there are other people here who disagree, and that's fine.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dasick]

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.

The Kubota arc. Kubota is actively threatening the lives of innocent civilians (unlike Shojo). Hinjo is more or less certain Kubota is doing this, but he can't get enough evidence to persecute the case. Kubota is too savvy and would have escaped again were it not for V just disintegrating the guy just because Elan was fighting him and talking about a court subplot.

Given that Shojo had more power and was in the game longer than Kubota, he most likely knows how to game the system better. The only evidence they have is an overheard fragment of a conversation.

That is an extremely poor interpretation of my position, so in future please abstain from attempting to put words in my mouth or pretend your conclusions follow mine.

Well, apologies on both counts. I'm not trying to strawman your position. I'm just trying to paraphrase what I think your position is, to make sure I got it right.

[Peelee]

The Kubota arc. Kubota is actively threatening the lives of innocent civilians (unlike Shojo). Hinjo is more or less certain Kubota is doing this, but he can't get enough evidence to persecute the case. Kubota is too savvy and would have escaped again were it not for V just disintegrating the guy just because Elan was fighting him and talking about a court subplot.

Given that Shojo had more power and was in the game longer than Kubota, he most likely knows how to game the system better. The only evidence they have is an overheard fragment of a conversation.

Ignoring that there are multiple witnesses who could testify to Shojo doing exactly what Miko accused him of, Hinjo, the very person who is aware enough that he does not have a strong enough case against Kubota, thinks they have a strong enough vase against Shojo. Your own example says the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're thinking of Terry Pratchett in "The Fifth Elephant". Vimes, Commander of the City Watch, is having trouble with a police official in Uberwald. As part of his discussion...

Thank you! That was exactly it.

Someone asked what a lawful paladin would do in the case of corrupt Shojo. The answer is right there in the next strip, because it's what Hinjo did: Arrest him and put him on trial even with the problems. You've got a whole order of paladins with powers specifically granted to ensure those laws are uphold. What you do NOT do is act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Again, this is where we disagree, because like I said, Dredd is the archetypical LN, and he is judge, jury, and executioner. Heck, there are scenarios where an actual LG Paladin is not only allowed but expected to be one (say, when confronting a BBEG in their lair), but this wasn't it.

The resisting arrest I'll grant you is Neutral (if not full-on Chaotic), but at that point, she's so far around the bend that I don't think it really constitutes proof of her actual alignment, but of the fact she is extremely confused as to what she has done.

Grey Wolf

[dancrilis]

The answer is right there in the next strip, because it's what Hinjo did: Arrest him and put him on trial even with the problems. You've got a whole order of paladins with powers specifically granted to ensure those laws are uphold. What you do NOT do is act as judge, jury, and executioner.

The paladins of a secret order - I am not sure they would hold much weight with the legal system.

Another issue might be that Shojo likely didn't actually break any laws, hiring adventurers behind the backs of his secret order of paladins likely doesn't have any legal element associated with it, nor does Soon's oath of non-interferance with other gates and where revealing the existance of the gates might be a crime Shojo did that under the framework of a trail and thereby seems to have allowed it within the context of the law.

Of course Miko killing Shojo for imagined crimes doesn't get any better just because he likely didn't commit any actual crimes.

[pendell]

Again, this is where we disagree, because like I said, Dredd is the archetypical LN, and he is judge, jury, and executioner

I agree that Judge Dredd is LN. The difference between him and Miko is the legal framework they operate under. Judge Dredd is an official Judge of MegaCity One; he's specifically authorized and required to try and past sentence on suspects.

Miko is not a Judge; Azure City does not grant the powers of a magistrate to an arresting officer. We know this because , if this were not so, Miko would have been entirely within her rights to execute Belkar out of hand. As it was, she was told that Belkar would be arrested and tried lawfully on those charges -- but not by her, and not here. She's a paladin. She has authority to arrest and detain suspects but she doesn't have authority to use lethal force save in self-defense or the defense of others, much like real-world police.

When Judge Dredd acts as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, he is entirely within the framework of Law that he has sworn to uphold. Miko is .. well, she's way off the map at this point. Though I can see the argument that a moment of madness is merely that, not a permanent alignment change. Still more than enough reason for her boss to demand she turn in her badge, which is what happened.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The paladins of a secret order - I am not sure they would hold much weight with the legal system.

Another issue might be that Shojo likely didn't actually break any laws, hiring adventurers behind the backs of his secret order of paladins likely doesn't have any legal element associated with it, nor does Soon's oath of non-interferance with other gates and where revealing the existance of the gates might be a crime Shojo did that under the framework of a trail and thereby seems to have allowed it within the context of the law.

Could be argued that conspiring with an illusionist to fake a representative of the Gods is against some law. Don't have the Big Blue Book of Bylaws in front of me to check, but I'd hope an orderly city like Azure City would have something against that. Even if it is never RICO.

Grey Wolf

[Dasick]

Ignoring that there are multiple witnesses who could testify to Shojo doing exactly what Miko accused him of, Hinjo, the very person who is aware enough that he does not have a strong enough case against Kubota, thinks they have a strong enough vase against Shojo. Your own example says the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

Two witnesses. Shojo and Miko. Who overheard a fragment of a conversation. Shojo being an "interested" party wanting to become the lord instead of the senile uncle. The word of the paladin doesn't seem to have much weight in this society as some of the nobles and resistance leaders think Shojo killed his uncle anyways.

We learn in Kubota arc that the words of the adventuring party don't hold much weight, because they had Elan, Daigo and Kazumi who witnessed Kubota not just saying something as an overheard conversation, but he ordered his troops to murder everyone in the room and he expected to get away with it. Shojo thinks that Threkla testifying against Kubota would be good enough, but Kubota isn't particularly concerned about it, so it's a toss up. Since Shojo is a paladin and thinks like one, I'd give more weight to Kubota here, cause Shojo doesn't know how many loopholes the system has but Kubota is much more experienced in this matter.

We don't know if the Order of the Stick would even testify against Shojo, because Roy is onboard with Shojo's plan, Elan and Hayley aren't lawful enough and Belkar loves the dude.

[Peelee]

Shojo ordered the extrajudicial trafficking of a band of adventurers. In the process of tracking them two unrelated people were killed and a hotel was burned down. He then staged a sham trial under his authority as lord of the city, and used the adventurers as an extrajudicial arm to enforce his personal will, which ended up with at least one wizard dying.

Yeah. There's probably a crime in there. Or a dozen.

[Frozenstep]

I think it's simpler than that (and also where the Trolly problem falls apart a bit). Yes, utilitarianism would suggest a mathematical assessment and decision based on the result. Which is why it's good for making *non-ethical* decisions (how much flour should I buy today? Should I work on project A or project B right now?), but terrible at making moral/ethical choices.

The ethical choice is what actions *you* are taking. If you are killing someone, that is an evil act. Period. It's why the Trolly Problem is absurd. You didn't put the people on the tracks. But if you pull the level, then *you* are choosing to kill people. Which makes your act evil. That may be the choice you make, but then you have to live with it. The whole "chosing not to act is a choice" only applies when the choice is between life and death itself, not death and death. If sticking a pole into the water to safe a drowning person or not doing that is the choice, you should choose to help save the person (that's "good"). But if the only way to save someone who is put in risk of dying through no act of your own is to choose to act in a way that kills another person, you are the one choosing to kill someone. That makes that act by you "evil".

That's not where the trolley problem falls apart at all? The answer you gave shows us one aspect of how you view ethics (which is totally valid). It's a hypothetical only meant to draw that out.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In the process of tracking them two unrelated people were killed

Errr... who are you thinking of? A lot of people got killed in the process, but I'm unsure how that'd be on Shojo?

(Also, Brian, that's an example of a Paladin being judge-thingy-executioner and not outright Neutral; Paladins do get a rather broad mandate to do these things when there are extenuating circumstances such as "they're kidnappers, heavily armed and outnumber you")

Grey Wolf

[Dasick]

The Truck driver did not place the child on the road. He didn't choose to have that situation occur. If the only way to avoid hitting the child is to turn off the road and kill everyone on board, then making that choice is him choosing to kill people. That choice would be evil. That sucks and all, but the key ethical question here is the choices you make and the effects they have on others. And yeah, intent matters as well. A tragic accidental death? Or an intentional killing of a dozen or so people?

In my moral framework, if you have the opportunity to prevent something bad from happening, but choose not to, you're morally culpable for it. In some jurisdictions, legally culpable as well, and someone brought up the example where the US army provided the "correct" answer,

So from my perspective, the driver either allows one person to die, or five. That he has to do an action to kill five is irrelevant, inaction is a type of action.

Where it falls apart is that how we measure the worth of five lives versus one. For example, I disagree with the US Army instructions. In my opinion, soldiers being designated combatants, their lives are forefeit for the sake of civilians. Some people say that no, you can't do that, five lives is more than one - or some people will say no, you can't do that, one life is equal to five or five billion, doesn't matter.

[dancrilis]

Could be argued that conspiring with an illusionist to fake a representative of the Gods is against some law. Don't have the Big Blue Book of Bylaws in front of me to check, but I'd hope an orderly city like Azure City would have something against that. Even if it is never RICO.

Grey Wolf

Perhaps - but proving he did that to Azure city's populace would be boarderline impossible without revealing what the trail was about, and revealing what the trial was about would seem to go against the paladin's oaths.

I don't see how Hinjo could have publicly charged Shojo with anything (I might of course be missing things), and where Hinjo could have perhaps secretly stored Shojo like Shojo himself stored the Linear Guild it would almost certaintly seem like a coup to any of the noble families who have gotten used to dealing with the 'senile old man' and could have caused much more chaos then merely Shojo's death (which did seem to cause some chaos).

Shojo ordered the extrajudicial trafficking of a band of adventurers. In the process of tracking them two unrelated people were killed and a hotel was burned down. He then staged a sham trial under his authority as lord of the city, and used the adventurers as an extrajudicial arm to enforce his personal will, which ended up with at least one wizard dying.

Yeah. There's probably a crime in there. Or a dozen.

I am not sure that the trafficking was extrajudicial (Shojo did cover this at trial and Hinjo, Celia, etc didn't object) - and to memory nobody in universe ever suggested any of the rest was outside the law.

Errr... who are you thinking of? A lot of people got killed in the process, but I'm unsure how that'd be on Shojo?

I suspect that was a reference to these two but if so they were outside any legal jurisdiction.

[Jasdoif]

Could be argued that conspiring with an illusionist to fake a representative of the Gods is against some law. Don't have the Big Blue Book of Bylaws in front of me to check, but I'd hope an orderly city like Azure City would have something against that. Even if it is never RICO.

Impersonating a functionary weakens the authorities' authority and authorities don't like that, so I think a charge of fraud would be a safe bet here.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Regarding Miko
I don't think Miko gets a pass to be judged by her crazy conclusions, because she's not seeking the truth in good faith. At the very least, the twelve gods didn't judge her according to what she claimed to believe, because she immediately fell.

She swore an Oath to Soon and betrayed that, which is arguably the least Lawful thing possible.

And finally, if her mind is so inconsistent, does it make sense to describe her actions as self consistent or consistent to some legal framework?

For instance, a geometry instructor might say, "You know the length of this side of the garden, and the length of that side, and the angle of this fence here, and you know the garden is on a flat surface. What is the length of the hypotenuse?" The instructor wants the students to come up with an answer based on what they are given, not an answer like "It's my garden, so I get a tape measure." This isn't a perfect analogy to teaching ethics, but I hope it shows that it makes little sense to attack trigonometry because the teaching method or the thought experiment contains "artificial problems."

Philosophy is all "artificial problems."

Computing a solution from well defined axioms and definitions is pretty trivial in anything usually called philosophy. But anywhere a philosopher's work needs to be done, the wrong problem is being asked, or a definition is bad, or axiom is absurd, or something.

The original statement had three variations of the problem. The interesting question isn't the actual answer, or even what various individuals' intuitions are about the answer, the real question being discussed is how changing the problem changes the answer.

Its only bad luck to say the name of the play though, not the name of the character.

Nope, you have to say "The Scottish King" or "Mr. M.".

[Dasick]

I don't see how Hinjo could have publicly charged Shojo with anything (I might of course be missing things), and where Hinjo could have perhaps secretly stored Shojo like Shojo himself stored the Linear Guild it would almost certaintly seem like a coup to any of the noble families who have gotten used to dealing with the 'senile old man' and could have caused much more chaos then merely Shojo's death (which did seem to cause some chaos).

I doubt Hinjo would be ok with that.

I suspect that was a reference to these two but if so they were outside any legal jurisdiction.

Wow, that was absolutely cold blooded and unwarranted. Wasn't there a non-lethal way to deal with those two? Or maybe she was wrong in releasing them?

Impersonating a functionary weakens the authorities' authority and authorities don't like that, so I think a charge of fraud would be a safe bet here.

The issue here is proving the charge imo.

For instance, a geometry instructor might say, "You know the length of this side of the garden, and the length of that side, and the angle of this fence here, and you know the garden is on a flat surface. What is the length of the hypotenuse?" The instructor wants the students to come up with an answer based on what they are given, not an answer like "It's my garden, so I get a tape measure." This isn't a perfect analogy to teaching ethics, but I hope it shows that it makes little sense to attack trigonometry because the teaching method or the thought experiment contains "artificial problems.

Geometry instructors are notoriously bad at teaching geometry and making sure it's applicable. I mean, most people go through life without ever applying the math they learn.

We do know that greek and roman mathematicians used geometry to build tunnels and aqeducts. Which, imo, would be a lot cooler to learn about. Or even have the teacher construct a situation where students have to figure out or apply the geometry themselves. In physics class, we went to an amusement park and used known distances and hypotenuses to determine things like the height of any particular ride high point (so we could later determine things like potential and kinetic energies and such). It was pretty fun actually.

If you're teaching philosophy and morality in the way geometry instructors teach useless geometry idk, that's kind of a weak point

[Peelee]

Errr... who are you thinking of? A lot of people got killed in the process, but I'm unsure how that'd be on Shojo?

Intent follows the bullet.

I don't see how Hinjo could have publicly charged Shojo with anything

We don't know that AC has public trials. Also, we know that state secrets are a valid rebuttal when the defense does not rely on knowing that they are (eg a witness testifying that Shojo ordered her to go kidnap some people doesn't need to reveal she is part of a secret organization).

I am not sure that the trafficking was extrajudicial (Shojo did cover this at trial and Hinjo, Celia, etc didn't object)

The person who was still in law school and the person who thought there was a valid divine mandate? Not the best examples to use.

The issue here is proving the charge imo.

Which Hinjo thinks is possible, and as you linked with Kubota, we can see that he is capable of reasonably determining when such might be possible or not.