OOTS #595 - The Discussion Thread

[Shady_halfling]

also, this good/evil crap is bugging me. he just caused them like 6 months of misery, and he had already attempted to kill V, Hinjo, the Katos, and Elan (anyone i miss?) so i think disintigrating him, although a sloppy curve ball, was less then he deserved. (i had in mind something involving mr. met tearing him apart, but oh well)

[Shatteredtower]

The only difference between a mass murderer and a good cop is how they feel about killing.

Uh, no. Very few good police officers ever kill anyone, necessarily or otherwise, and they'd be rightly offended by the comparison you just made.

[SteveDJ]

I just had to add my own "Best Strip Ever"! I'm still laughing.

P.S. 25 pages of comments, for one strip - could this be a record?

[Taojnhy]

I registered just now because I wanted to say this to Mr. Burlew:

Thank you, so very, very much.

I can't recall ever laughing so hard as I did when I finished reading this strip. I think it was for the following reasons: 1) I didn't see V's "final solution" coming at ALL, 2) the look on Elan's face was so appropriate and 3) smirk being literally wiped off of Kubota's face was immensely satisfying (and frankly hilarious when contrasted with the skeleton in the next panel).

You, sir, definitely brought some much appreciated laughter to my day. Thank you again.

[Holammer]

We have some posts discussing real life ethics & morality with examples of famous real life people to prove points across the discussion. Remember that we're talking about the alignment system as described in AD&D to 3.5e rulebooks. Specifically as described in 3.5 I'd say. Because it's intrinsically interwoven with how the storyline works as some characters are even aware of their alignment. Not only in alignment mechanics but also combat etc.

Furthermore it's a system where there is absolute Good/Law/Evil/Chaos and some middle ground. Real life comparisons become a problem right away. Plus, dragging real life issues into the mix only increases the probability that Godwin's Law is invoked.

If V acted in an evil manner or good, bring out the core rulebooks!

[A Quiet Person]

And besides, even if Kubota (not Kabuto) just "avoided a fight", he is still unarmed and restrained, any good character knows that you don't kill an unarmed and restrained enemy.

Oops. I think I was making that typo...

Still... apparently not all good guys know not to kill helpless enemies. The Sapphire Guard, as I recall from The Start of Darkness, have no problem with killing non-combatant goblins...

Putting aside picking over points, I think that V's current arc is not a swing towards evil, but the result of her becoming a very big picture-focussed person. V has just been in a war in which thousands died, including her compatriot Roy, and the end of the world came a step closer as one of the gates was destroyed. And she could do nothing but watch, because she ran out of spells. And she hasn't rested in who-knows-how long.

V has basically experienced extreme helplessness, and is now on a fierce rebound. Anything that would suggest to V that she is helpless would be utterly devastating. And what did Kubota do? He explained within earshot of V that he had everything worked out already and that the heroes would be helpless to prevent him from cheating the legal system. That must have pressed her buttons.

On top of this, V hasn't rested properly since she saw hundreds slaughtered; she's still on a war footing, unlike the rest of the cast. Kubota's life must have seemed pretty expendable in that mindset.

Lots of posters have used "good" and "evil" as quick labels, but the motivations in this comic are surprisingly more complex than that. Could you argue that Varsuvius is traumatised?

Also, I like this touch: Kubota clearly always regarded himself as extremely important. It's quite ironic that the bad guy, while at the climax of his "And I will be the triumphant centre of attention" speech, gets killed in an out-of-hand manner.

Oh, and of course, this strip proves one of the oldest tropes in the book: the plan that is explained on screen before it is executed is destined to fail. The plan that is not explained on-screen, but only revealed when it is executed, is far more likely to succeed.

[Eric]

No one has done anything of the sort.

Only by YOUR definition of "proving Kabuto was harmless".

Kabuto was certain of getting out of jail free. He'd know how the system works. He'd even done the EXACT same thing before. In that case, though there were not actual witnesses, the attempt to prosecute wasn't even considered.

Kbuto was NOT arrested because the end point of that arrest would be his release.

NOTE: Elan is not an officer of the law. Surrendering to him means NOTHING in a legal sense.

[Eric]

Uh, no. Very few good police officers ever kill anyone, necessarily or otherwise, and they'd be rightly offended by the comparison you just made.

Why?

Would a good cop feel impugned that I didn't think they enjoyed killing????

[linkhyrule5]

To all the prophecy people: Technically, the Disintegrate-Gust of wind combo isn't four words. Remember, he isn't actually saying "Disintegrate", "Gust of Wind", he's saying a bunch of arcane words - that's the point of the Spellcraft check. The onscreen words are just translations.

[EvilElitest]

EvilElitest, it seems to me that all of your arguments can be roughly summed up as 'killing a defenseless men is ALWAYS evil, regardless of the circumstances'. Indeed, you pretty much said that yourself.

Yeah, because it is established as an always evil act. Because good and evil are absolute in D&D, circumstances are irrelvant to the action

I find myself in strong disagreement with that kind of radical thinking. Circumstances DO matter. The problem, in part, stems from our attempts to define things that naturally defy definition. For example, how do you define defenseless? Simply unarmed? So what if Kubota isn't wielding a knife or a sword? His has different weapons at his disposal, and I'm not even talking about the poison ring, which, as far as Elan knows, might still be a threat. However, Kubota is really armed to the teeth with his guile, cunning and ability to evade and dodge through legal loopholes, so much that he doesn't even bother concealing it from his enemies and deliberately rubs it in.

1) Um, defenseless, unable to fight back should you kill him, unable to fight back
2) Guile doesn't count as an active threat. He is still a prisoner, and so killing him is still evil. Just because he is still a threat doesn't justify murder, it just means you have to face him on a legal basis. That is part of what good is, restraint

If it's a man with a gun threatening to shoot you, any action against that man can be justified as a pre-emptive strike or simply self-defense.

Witch is a totally irrelevant example, because Kubato is not a direct threat.

If it's a man who can twist the laws and is threatening to use them against to discredit and kill you, any action against that man is also self-defense.

No its not, because he isn't a direct threat. He can still become dangerous, but as of now he is a prisoner. And so that isn't self defense, thats murder. Its not self defense because you are simply murdering him when he hasn't done anything to make his status as a prisionor irrelvant

Kubota was armed and dangerous all right, he simply had weapons of a different kind.

then fight him with different weapons. THe good solution

Also, I think you should drop the extremes. Things are never as simple as just 'that man you killed was unarmed, therefore you're a murderer!!!' and there is, IMO, nothing more foolish than having such categorical notions, if only because they simply aren't applicable in practical situations and are therefore little better than having no notions at all.

The D&D system is built upon the extremes, taht is how it works. Good and evil are absolute in D&D and so murder is always evil

But they all fall into the category of "things the BoED says are always evil." You chose certain parts of that category that shouldn't apply because they are stupid. Therefore, anyone can choose parts of that category that shouldn't apply because they are stupid.

don't misquote me. I never said that the parts in teh BoED taht are silly don't apply, just that that they are silly. You are denying the whole book because it doesn't support your unbacked point in compression

The book also makes it clear that poison use is always evil. You can't cherry-pick the parts that everyone is supposed to accept as "law."

And using poison is always evil in D&D. I EE personally think its silly, but my personal morals are irrelevant. Within D&D poison is always evil and i never said otherwise

So is Belkar a hypocrite? He also works with the Order and is saving the world. I'm pretty sure no one ever took that as an announcement that he was Good.

no because he honestly admits he is an evil bastard

Last time I checked, "cowardly" implies that the action was taken out of fear. I could see this argument if V was afraid to take Kubota in a fair fight, but I feel entirely justified in claiming that V would have opened up a king-sized can of Apocalypse on Kubota even if he was armed.

Cowardly is when you don't face the hard way and take the easy way out for selfshiness. V is doing that, instead of doing the Good thing trying to convict Kubato, she simply kills him because she doesn't want to actually take the responsibility for her actions. In the same way Miko is a coward in her inabilty to confront herself, V is being cowardly in taking the easy way out. As she is netural, this isn't going to have a major effect yet, but it is still an evil action

Hinjo himself admitted that his word against Kubota's wasn't good enough in the ninja incident, so I don't see how the Katos (who rank considerably lower) would do it.

The ninja incident had too little evidence, while this one has much more

I say it again, you have nothing to prove that the trial woudlnt' have worked

So are you saying that if V let them go through with the trial, waited for them to find Kubota not guilty, and then disintegrated him, that would have been okay (since he tried the other option?)

Don't make false assumptions, because we can't know Kubato will get off. even if he does, he would be weakened greatly. If he strikes again, v can kill him as long as he doesn't surrender

Who exactly is "them?" I'm pretty sure Kubota wouldn't consider that a victory.

the force of evil would, because apperently good can hold itself to its own standard

He wasn't "surrendering." Surrendering implies a cessation of hostilities. He was just moving on to the next phase of his plan to start a civil war.

he gave up and let himself be captured. By both BoED and Geneva convection standards, that is surrendering.

Again, Hinjo said he, the ruler of Azure City and commander of the Sapphire Guard, couldn't take him down with just his testimony. Hinjo knows the political situation extremely well.

and again, you have a different situation this time. And again, you are only speculating Kubato would get off, we can know for certain the trial would have gone his way.

See above for my explanation why he wouldn't be found guilty.

it would weaken your argument?

Alright, hit me. What were some of V's other options?

try him. If he tries to cheat his way out, banish him.

It's also quite amusing how people are debating the ethics of murder in a game that is based around breaking into the homes of beings that have most likely never done anything to you, killing them, stealing their valuables, and leaving.


Come on, guys, lighten up.
__________________

considering the game isn't about that, no

But your stance is entirely predicated on "Follow the law == Good". You quote selectively from BoED where that statement is true and avoid sections that say otherwise.

Dear gods, back these points up with something more than snide remarks, you aren't proving anything then an apperent lack of evidence. I haven't denied any part of teh BoED, the parts people mock aren't relevant to the discussion

If you kill a billion insects with "Death Spell" that are swarming and merely wanting lunch, they had no chance to surrender, no malice and comiting no crime.

And for you this act would be evil.

Animals have a different standard in D&D, as do Demons/Devil ect

And taken to the extreme, the Evil Overlord with the doomsday device isn't *actually* pressing the "boom" switch *right this instance* so is only a POTENTIAL threat. So shooting that SOB in the head when their hand goes toward it MUST be evil. Yeah?

again, using fallacies to prove your point only weakens your argument and makes you look silly. Taht isn't a potential threat, because as i already said, a man charging you with a sword is an active threat. you know, what i already said and you haven't acknowledged? If the Evil Over lord glanced over at the switch while tied up and surrendered, that is a potiental threat

Stop using fallacies to prove a point, it only shows how unbacked your statements are

And in Japan, only those without honour surrendered. And those without honour were not humans and were not deserving of life.

Don't put western culture (which has been broken COUNTLESS times anyway) on another culture's moral system.

dear gods, do any of your arguments have actual backing.
1) Azure city, while like Japan isn't japan in the real world sense
2) Good and evil are not subjective, they are objective in D&D, and those the morals systems being dicussed. This isn't one culture over another, this is an overall set of rules. That is how D&D works, so don't use supposed ethnocentrism as a defense

It could be that V's actions are, to the nobles, EXACTLY the right thing to do. His actions cannot be proven, he's won his aim. He's right. And that's a viewpoint that HAS been accepted in literary fiction many times. Read "Daughter of the Empire" for one example.

what V thinks is right and what D&d says is good are not the same

To reiterate my point, EE, look at page the latter half of page 73 of the book of exalted deeds, keeping in mind that assassination is murder.

They assassinate in the sense of killing people in a sneaky way. They are not killing people who have given up, still good rememeber?
from
EE

[Eric]

They assassinate in the sense of killing people in a sneaky way. They are not killing people who have given up, still good rememeber?
from
EE

And the asassinees are unable to defend themselves. They are not CURRENTLY an IMMEDIATE threat. They may even be old.

And according to you, that means EVIL.

[RosesOnConcrete]

Alright, yes, he's definitely starting to slide down that slippery slope of trope-y infamy. I don't know enough about how D&D alignments work to raise anything new in that argument (other than that my vote is still for True Neutral), but the hell with all the arguing.

Can we just appreciate how damned awesome that was?

Badassery, thy name is Vaarsuvius.

Oh, and the only thing V has to say to make Elan not give a damn about Kubota being pulverized is

Spoiler

Show

"I got a lock on Haley". Which I hope he does, because right now, the Order is so pissed at each other that seeing those two being lovey-dovey (and more importantly, not angry at each other) would make it a lot less likely that the Order splits up and goes their seperate ways.

[Manoftyr]

Wow...just wow...I feel obligated at this point to say something, I thought this issue would fizzle itself out over time but apparently I was wrong.

This is silly, completely and utterly silly. You're arguing esoteric notions based from interpretations of a gaming rule set, applying it to a comic that is rather loosely based on said rule set and using it as a medium to either justify or demonize the actions of a particular character.

Does 'anyone' actually realize what a *TREMENDOUS* waste of time this is?, You're arguing for pages upon pages upon countless pages over something that is in the grand scheme of things, this comic included, utterly irrelevant.

None of you are actually 'writing' the comic so anything you say or argue is pure conjecture anyway, and to argue over conjecture is an exercise in futility. You could argue for days and days about whether or not such and such's actions were evil or good because of such and such and such and such should happen...only to have everything you just said utterly blown out of the water in a few strips, it's pointless.

What means what and how someone's actions are going to effect whatever are ULTIMATELY at the Author/DM's discretion...you could argue this nonsense from now until doomsday and it still won't matter whatsoever because it isn't up to you any more then it's up to me...it's up to Rich, no one else therefore making this entire exercise which seems to have been going on for nearly two days COMPLETELY futile.

Unless of course you, for whatever reason, want to argue just for the sake of arguing and nothing more...which if is the case then more power to you, but I find such a mentality nigh impossible to fathom.

[JKLantern]

Another statement of "Holy Crap that was awesome!"

[EvilElitest]

And the asassinees are unable to defend themselves. They are not CURRENTLY an IMMEDIATE threat. They may even be old.

And according to you, that means EVIL.

In order to be of that class, you can only hunt and kill immediate threats. And if a target never surrendered, it isn't granted immunity. basically, they are only allowed to commit "good" assissinations, like sniping out a high priest of bbane. they can't kill prisoners.
from
EE

[Ithekro]

Arguing one side of two different points does not make a debate. It makes an argument. Usually one that cannot be a debate because the two points have nothing to do with each other, thus cannot be debated properly. Especially one when the two points miss each other completely (the abortion-right to life "debates" are a good example of an argument were the points being addresses are not the opposite points of the other sides argument, and thus cannot be properly debated. This was actually pointed out to us in Political Science Class and demonstrated when we attempted to make a debate of it).

Then there is the type of argument or debate which continues only because one or both parties involved want to have the last word, regardless of the subject matter...they just like to argue and be the "winner".

Personally, I don't care if this act was good, evil, or a sandwich....the comic was funny and in some ways spontanious (which is usually the best sort of delivery for humor). That is what matters right now. The rest of it will be answered, or not, in the following comics.

[Shatteredtower]

Only by YOUR definition of "proving Kabuto was harmless".

He is harmless. You try claiming self defense after having shot someone handcuffed in the back of a police car sometime, and see how far that gets you.

Kabuto was certain of getting out of jail free.

False. A possibility, sure, but that's all.

He'd know how the system works.

As do a lot of people serving 20 to life.

He'd even done the EXACT same thing before.

Oh, well, going by that logic, it was pointless for Roy to stand against Miko after she killed Shojo, wasn't it? May as well leave Xykon to his own devices while they're at it.

That's not a valid argument. You might as well argue that the best thing to do is release the Snarl again, thereby preventing anyone anywhere from ever having a chance to perform any evil ever again -- because that, sir, is the only way to be sure.

NOTE: Elan is not an officer of the law. Surrendering to him means NOTHING in a legal sense.

Irrelevant. Again.

Would a good cop feel impugned that I didn't think they enjoyed killing????

You claimed that the only difference between a mass murderer and a good cop is how they feel about killing, thereby implying that all police officers are professional killers.

Does 'anyone' actually realize what a *TREMENDOUS* waste of time this is.

Less waste of time than pointing out was, I'm sure.

[Murphoid]

I'm afraid there is, actually. You're reading the same thread that I am right?

Phrasing your opinion reasonably doesn't make it true. You need points, counterpoints, reference, -something-. Otherwise we're just beating our heads against opposite sides of a brick wall.

What makes the point true isn't the way I phrase it. It is true because it is. Things don't become moral or immoral because you debate them away. Something isn't Evil because of relevance or situation or demeanor. Morality is not defined by choice.

V's action was not self defence. V's action was not justice. V's action was I am gonna kill this guy cause I don't want to waste time on him. Nothing can make that moral.

[ColonelFuster]

Mr. Burlew, there are not enough internets and cookies to award to you. That was a comic masterpiece, and I find myself reading it over and over at random times just because it is so awesome. I don't care how many idiots will argue whether V is good or bad, or even male or female: this is a joke about D&D games, and it is a good joke.
Killing the evil prisoner is a real duty, and it falls upon the shoulders of N/CN (my assumption is that since the steryotypical wizard is N, V is) party members to do that. That being said, DMs love to plan and plan and plan their games- I know this from experience- and sometimes the plot just dosen't follow through to what the Master thought it would be, because someone kills of an important NPC (or a plot-relevant PC dies- another subject touched upon.)
If this is far too verbose, stop me. Or, as they say on the internets, tl;dw.
Giant is a truly great artist- that's what he does, he writes and draws stick figure comics as his art, maybe not as traditional as singing like me or painting like those other "artists," but it's his art form. By endlessly bellyaching over the semantics of plot, you are merely proving Rich's real point- that some people that play D&D are really annoying when it comes to the plot.
The Giant dosen't rock- He's a Rock Lobster! And I don't say that about just anyone. Now stop debating about morality as it applies to elves and dwarves and pixies and people with halberds and start having fun with him!
Keep up the good work, Giant! You're living up to your name when it comes to comedy!

[LordVader]

This also makes good sense, from a plot perspective, because it saves us a lot of tedious strips about a trial when we really need the plot advanced.

[EvilElitest]

Killing the evil prisoner is a real duty, and it falls upon the shoulders of N/CN (my assumption is that since the steryotypical wizard is N, V is) party members to do that. That being said, DMs love to plan and plan and plan their games- I know this from experience- and sometimes the plot just dosen't follow through to what the Master thought it would be, because someone kills of an important NPC (or a plot-relevant PC dies- another subject touched upon.)

Killing your own prisoners is a duty. Wow, i love the implications
from
EE

[bengator]

I really enjoyed this comic. It made me laugh, which, frankly, is all I care about from a web comic.

I wonder if V and Elan and Durokan will get kicked out of the fleet now by Hinjo? He may have to exile them or something like that to avoid trial or because of a trial, and with Kubota gone, there really isn't any immediate threat to Hinjo, so it makes sense in the story arc. I think this arc is just about played out, and with Episode 600 coming up, hopefully something big is brewing? Maybe he has to drop them at the first port, like the city where Haley and Belkar are. I'm hoping they all get together again soon. I'm personally ready, like V, for them to get back to saving the world . . .

[Blanth]

I do not have the time to read through all 25 pages (!). So let me paraphrase:

That was farkin' awesome.

Now yes, please let us get back to the main story.

Thank you and goodnight.

[docstrange]

Unless of course you, for whatever reason, want to argue just for the sake of arguing and nothing more...which if is the case then more power to you, but I find such a mentality nigh impossible to fathom.

I think you just nailed it. Can't wait for the update - if for no other reason, for the chance at some new awesome to take over the discussion.

[RedWizard]

Legal execution is the killing of an defenseless person. Laws are not Good or Evil, so due process has no bearing on moral alignment. A Chaotic Good person, by definition, is someone who does Good without regard to the law's feelings on the matter; if a court can come to a decision, so can a single person. That decision can be "guilty as all hell and has it coming," and Good does not have its hands tied by court findings.

I don't exclude the BoED from my arguments because it disagrees with me, but because it's a waste of perfectly good paper. It's rubbish. It says that poison is evil unless it's called something else and only effects evil people. It says that forcible conversion to good by magical mind-screw is a good act. When I say it's good for one thing, I mean it's good for hygiene. And by that I mean cleaning myself. And by 'myself' I mean my butt. And that would be a significant improvement to the quality of the content of several pages. I'm talking about alignment as defined in the core and the SRD, not a supplement, unless you can show me something to indicate that Rich is using the rules on alignment from the book. (Taking a monster from BoVD doesn't count; monster stats in that book are cool, most of the rest is almost as bad as BoED.)

Being Evil is, by definition, a crime on the scale of Good and Evil. Again, evil characters aren't evil for angrily making macrame. That aside, Kubota is guilty of a whole lot of things besides "being evil," including, say, many counts of murder and several more counts of attempted murder. Lawful might call for V to wait for a court to confirm what s/he already knows, but Good doesn't.

Short version: laws and process are not Good or Evil. If it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it because a judge says so, it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it without a judge's approval. We also know that killing people for being Evil (not "evil and trying to kill me," but "Detect Evil; if Evil, then Smite!") is not evil, because Miko brags about doing it, and had never committed an evil act.

[Shatteredtower]

One thing I forgot to mention: the Giant's reference to the Katos' testimony in a strip with this title was very amusing.

I hope that one joke is the only reason he named it that, though.

[Shatteredtower]

If it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it because a judge says so, it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it without a judge's approval.

So, if I shoot some guy for his wallet, not because he was a hitman that killed the people next door to me, it's all good, right?

[EvilElitest]

Legal execution is the killing of an defenseless person. Laws are not Good or Evil, so due process has no bearing on moral alignment.

After a fair trial and conviction, which is an exception to the rule

A Chaotic Good person, by definition, is someone who does Good without regard to the law's feelings on the matter; if a court can come to a decision, so can a single person. That decision can be "guilty as all hell and has it coming," and Good does not have its hands tied by court findings.

Even a chaotic person needs to abide by the laws of goodness if he hopes to stay good. Otherwise, he will fall.

I don't exclude the BoED from my arguments because it disagrees with me, but because it's a waste of perfectly good paper. It's rubbish.

Thank you for proving me right. your simply nitpicking at minor flaws in order to make your point look good, which is basically what i said. what your personal morals are or mine are irrelvant, whats relevant is what the D&D books say and they say, absolutely, that this is evil

It says that poison is evil unless it's called something else and only effects evil people. It says that forcible conversion to good by magical mind-screw is a good act.

Weather its morals are what you personally think is right or wrong is not relevant, whats relevent is its status as a rule book.

When I say it's good for one thing, I mean it's good for hygiene. And by that I mean cleaning myself. And by 'myself' I mean my butt. And that would be a significant improvement to the quality of the content of several pages.

Good thing i haven't heard that joke before, now witty and orginial.......

I'm talking about alignment as defined in the core and the SRD, not a supplement, unless you can show me something to indicate that Rich is using the rules on alignment from the book. (Taking a monster from BoVD doesn't count; monster stats in that book are cool, most of the rest is almost as bad as BoED.)

1) its the statbook on the subject, excluding it simply because it doesn't support your argument doens't render it irrelevent
2) miko's fall would be evil by BoED deeds definition and he has been following its rules so far

Being Evil is, by definition, a crime on the scale of Good and Evil. Again, evil characters aren't evil for angrily making macrame. That aside, Kubota is guilty of a whole lot of things besides "being evil," including, say, many counts of murder and several more counts of attempted murder. Lawful might call for V to wait for a court to confirm what s/he already knows, but Good doesn't.

1) Being evil can be anything, a selfish buisness man could be evil.
2) And being evil is not a crime
3) he may be guilty yes, that doesn't exclude the fact taht he is a prisioner. And simply being gulity doesn't mean that death is the proper solution

Short version: laws and process are not Good or Evil. If it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it because a judge says so, it's Good to kill a prisoner who deserves it without a judge's approval. We also know that killing people for being Evil (not "evil and trying to kill me," but "Detect Evil; if Evil, then Smite!") is not evil, because Miko brags about doing it, and had never committed an evil act.

1) It isn't good to kill a prisioner because a judge says so, it is tolortable to kill a prisioner who is found innocent in a fair tral
2) Killing is never good, only netural at times
3) Miko's smite was only used in combat. She got lucky that she never killed an innocent until shojo
from
EE

[Kaihaku]

Ahem.

Solution 1: Laws and the PC

Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration. For a chaotic character, the most expedient action is generally the most appropriate one, whether or not it is legal. A chaotic good character takes pains to ensure that others are not harmed by his actions, but a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil one cares about little besides personal convenience.

Solution 2: The Paladin's Code

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[RedWizard]

So, if I shoot some guy for his wallet, not because he was a hitman that killed the people next door to me, it's all good, right?

Ahh, well--now that's an interesting conundrum. Couple points.

First, do you think V would have reacted the same way if it had been a misguided but good person obstructing their path? I can see an argument that, yes, s/he would have... not the impression I got, though. This was a villain who'd killed people, and had tried to kill V's friends. That he deserved what he got wasn't in doubt, just that he was eager to waste the PCs' time by making them work on his terms... rather than dealing with the problem by resorting to violence.

Second, look at Miko; was she really interested in making the world a better place, or was she just absorbed in selfish self-righteousness? How pure were her motives? And yet, until she murdered a Good man, she had never in her life performed an evil act.

Third, we have at least one example of a Lawful Good judgment that rested entirely on results, rather than intent; while the whole thing was, basically, a frame-up, no one in the Sapphire Guard seemed to raise an eyebrow at the possibility of people being found guilty for accidentally weakening the foundations of reality itself, and with a death sentence on top of it.

Fourth and last, isn't killing evil people and creatures for whatever money they have on them the basic definition of what Good adventuring PCs do with their time?