Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4487065" data-attributes="member: 307">When Elan (thought to be Nale) and Thog were imprisoned in Cliffport, they were to be put on trial, with the suggestion that they would be executed. Miko announced that the penalty for treason in the Sapphire City was death (although her evaluation of the situation that led her to kill Shojo was entirely wrong, but that doesn't matter much here, since V's evaluation with respect to Kubota was entirely correct, and V isn't a paladin).No he wasn't. Of course, at the time he had been wrongfully imprisoned by an extremely lawful order of paladins, and was supposed to be put on trial. By, you know, a bunch of guys for whom upholding the law is a class requirement. V isn't under that same restriction.Given that they are rarely inside a town or city, it doesn't happen often. The adventurers Belkar hired in Cliffport sure seemed willing to kill inside a city though.Because usually Roy is with them, and he is lawful. Durkon too.Which mitigates against the lawfulness of V's actions, not the goodness or non-goodness of them. Not following the rules of a lawful society with respect to things like process is acting non-lawfully, but also non-evilly so long as the end is not evil - in this case, the end sought was to eliminate a determined major villain in a manner that was similar to that which the law probably would have given had it been justly applied.And it was completely irrelevant, since that isn't my argument. I think you missed the entire point.Yes, I think you did miss it. V determined that Kubota was guilty of heinous crimes - because Elan had taken him prisoner. In the OotS universe this is a valid way to evaluate culpability, since storytelling conventions are not merely conventions in the OotS world, but are laws that govern the bahaviour of certain individuals - including Elan. Based upon this metagame determination V took matters into his own hands and meted out justice. The fact that it was quicker than a trial was a benefit V sought, but it doesn't change the fact that the just result was achieved, and that V knew he was doing so (as he would not have killed Kubota unless Elan had him tied up, revealing Kubota's status as a major villain).The difference between lawful and chaotic in this case is process. But the ends (the moral outcome) is the same. V evaded the process (a chaotic act) to reach the same end a fair and just trial would have achieved: Kubota sentenced for his crimes (a non-evil result). You are hung up on the idea that lawful authority should be obeyed and trials with due process should be given to accused criminals. Those aren't "good" concepts, they are lawful concepts. if V had killed Kubota because he was annoying him with no other justificiation, that would be evil - but V didn't V killed Kubota because Elan had taken him prisoner, signifying his status as a major villain in the story.Chaotic, yes. Evil, no.You need to work on why we have trials, and why we think lawful authority is worth paying attention to. It isn't because we think those things are morally good (according to a number of important historical figures, including several founders of the U.S., both are evil in and of themselves, but are necessary evils).</blockquote>

Verification