hank: Evil or neutral

[krossbow]

Which would you say hank is? While his proffession is clearly one of dubious morality, he seems to view it incredibly professionally, not in a malicious way. Though he's perfectly willingly and able to murder and kill when required, his actions seem to indicate a willingness to forgo such actions when its possible.




The last comic and haley's statements about him just seem to indicate a bit of lawful neutral; anyone else agree?

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd personally say Lawful Evil due to the fact that he is willing to kill for the guild (or at least get his buddies to do it for him).

[David Argall]

The presumptive alignment has to be evil. He is in a distinctly evil profession and under a boss whose evil tendencies seem clear. We don't have to say he is evil evil, but talking of Neutral is going against the evidence.

[Tholok Razescar]

Wait who the hell is Hank.

[Greep]

I dunno I really guess it depends on your perspective of neutral.

If 0 is totally evil, and 10 is totally good... a 5 (will do evil 50/50 about and what I believe is neutral) would mean yes he is probably is. However, most people think D and D neutral is about 7, and that may even be the case, in which cause I doubt it.

[Setra]

Wait who the hell is Hank.
The Halfling with the Goatee I believe.

I'd say he is Lawful Evil, but a wordly evil.. not some ridiculously evil guy you only see in games and movies.

[Kaytara]

I don't think we've seen enough of him to be sure. He doesn't seem malicious or blood-thirsty like most evil characters we've seen, but that doesn't mean he's good.

We know he's working for the Thieves Guild, but they seem to be a rather lawful, mercenary-like organisation, with a lot of paperwork at that.

Also, he warns Haley about Bozzok in Origins. Since she's about to leave the city, presumably forever, there's not a thing he could have expected to get out of it himself. One would assume that a selfish Evil person wouldn't bother. So that's a point in his favour.

[small pumpkin m]

He's Polite Evil. The best kind of Evil. (Or worst kind, if you view it that way)

[Zevox]

Eh, I don't think we know enough about him to guess. The only roles he has played are his quick warning to Haley in OtOoPCs and chasing Celia just recently. We know less about him than we do about pretty much anyone other than nameless NPCs, or maybe the Cleric of Loki.

I really don't think we can default to "evil" just because he's in the Guild, either. After all, Haley was in the Guild too, and she's Chaotic Good-ish.

Zevox

[Tempest Fennac]

Whether the entire guild was there or not will be highly relevant, assuming that there are other members who didn't want to kill non-guild members (unless they were all forced to help to hunt Haley down). Having said that, Haley suggested that the vast majority of the people she grew up with were jerks, which could suggest they were evil (the 2 who she killed in the comic where she made that comment are probably evil).

[Evil DM Mark3]

Lawful evil, but Le if you see what I mean. My reasons:
He works for the bad guys (circumstantial but often a good indicator).
He has a goatee (also circumstantial)
He seems to look at things based on "what he can get away with".
Seems to have legal expertise (again with the circumstantial).
Origins of the PCs spoiler warning He warned Haley of the guilds intent to kill her suggesting some level of honour/loyalty.
He is in a kill team that has been assembled to kill a person outside the organisation, most neutral types would avoid this.
The guild (and indeed city) seems to be very Evil heavy.

[dark-sage 95]

I dunno I think (hope) neutral.

he seems more like a mislead guy who's just out for himself.

I mean how many evil acts has he done?? working with an evil guildmember??

Roy worked with belkar

capturing a Celia/ fighting against haily was meerly his job in the guild.
It didn't seem like he wanted to kill either of them.

I think LN or NE

[SSGW Priest]

I dunno I think (hope) neutral.

he seems more like a mislead guy who's just out for himself.

I mean how many evil acts has he done?? working with an evil guildmember??

Roy worked with belkar

capturing a Celia/ fighting against haily was meerly his job in the guild.
It didn't seem like he wanted to kill either of them.

I think LN or NE

Fighting :haley: merely because it is his job implies the worst kind of evil, the bureaucratic, banal evil that sneaks up on you. I think theatrical evil has clouded our eyes to the more common forms of evil. "I was just doing my job," is the most common of excuses amongst war criminals.

[Assassin89]

*stabs character alignment thread*

I think the Giant is the true judge of a character's alignment. If all of the less violent members of the thieves' guild were good or neutral, then Hank would be neutral if he was one of the less violent members, but some of less violent members could have been evil in alignment, showing a problem in speculating a minor character's alignment.

[David Argall]

I think the Giant is the true judge of a character's alignment.
He is the one who decides what it will be in the story, but in the last analysis, he is merely our servant on the point. If he does not do as we desire, we start saying the story is nonsense and go to different comics, which is what he wants to avoid.

[Optimystik]

One one hand, he wants to kill for no better reason than that the guild maintain its reputation (#617). On the other, Haley pegs him as not being as bloodthirsty as Bozzok and Crystal (#604). I'm leaning towards evil but he could easily be neutral.

[SSGW Priest]

One one hand, he wants to kill for no better reason than that the guild maintain its reputation (#617). On the other, Haley pegs him as not being as bloodthirsty as Bozzok and Crystal (#604). I'm leaning towards evil but he could easily be neutral.

Not being blood thirsty does not make someone not evil. It is quite possible to commit all sorts of evil without ever spilling a drop of blood. "Separate but equal" comes to mind as an example of non-bloodthirsty evil.

In fact, however, :haley: doesn't say he is less bloodthirsty, she expresses surprise in his being worked up over a territorial dispute. (#604) If anything that makes him more evil because he is willing to kill without even being worked up over some perceived slight. He seems quite willing to spill blood both by setting up :haley: for the failed sneak attack and during his pointing out blithely the fighter outreach program.

99.99% of the evil in the world is not sitting in a volcano base stroking a cat while giggling like a psychotic clown.

[Optimystik]

In fact, however, :haley: doesn't say he is less bloodthirsty, she expresses surprise in his being worked up over a territorial dispute. (#604) If anything that makes him more evil because he is willing to kill without even being worked up over some perceived slight. He seems quite willing to spill blood both by setting up :haley: for the failed sneak attack and during his pointing out blithely the fighter outreach program.

That depends on how you define "worked up." I took it to mean that Hank wouldn't have the entire guild out looking to murder Haley, which is what Bozzok has done. It's difficult to say also whether he would have used lethal force against Haley BEFORE she perforated his minions.

"Willing to spill blood" doesn't necessarily make him evil either.


99.99% of the evil in the world is not sitting in a volcano base stroking a cat while giggling like a psychotic clown.

Strawman noted.

[Shatteredtower]

"I was just doing my job," is the most common of excuses amongst war criminals.

And by the D&D alignment system, that's a neutral attitude. It is how you "follow" those "orders" that decides. Neutral is all about "the way it is", not "the way it should be". It has no bearing on their criminal status either way.

(Consider the time Roy impersonated a king for personal gain. That was a crime committed by a lawful good character. though it's worth noting that he was willing to pay for it if necessary.)

[SSGW Priest]

That depends on how you define "worked up." I took it to mean that Hank wouldn't have the entire guild out looking to murder Haley, which is what Bozzok has done. It's difficult to say also whether he would have used lethal force against Haley BEFORE she perforated his minions.

"Willing to spill blood" doesn't necessarily make him evil either.

Strawman noted.

Your definition for "worked up" does not work given Hank's response of, "I'm still not. Now I have flunkies get worked up for me." By Hank's response, Bozzok may not be worked up either as he has flunkies, including Hank, to get worked up for him. Apparently "worked up" can be delegated.

Technically not a strawman since I did not portray the comment as representative of your position. It needed an intro like, "my opponent would have you believe that..." It was meant as a blunt commentary of the tendencies on this forum to attempt to paint the continuum of good and evil in simplistic broad strokes. You have to concede there are people on this forum who would try to argue Xykon is not truly evil.

A history teacher of mine once pointed out the banality of evil by showing a picture of the senior leadership of the third Reich. If you did now know who they were it would be hard to guess the magnitude of their evil. Especially since not a one was the blond and blue-eyed Aryan archetype.

And no that is not a reductio ad Hitlerum.

The same example could be given using Kim Jung-il. A goofy looking fellow with a heart of darkness. And Stalin, and Pol Pot, and Mao, and...

[SSGW Priest]

And by the D&D alignment system, that's a neutral attitude. It is how you "follow" those "orders" that decides. Neutral is all about "the way it is", not "the way it should be". It has no bearing on their criminal status either way.

Isn't "'the way it is', not 'the way it should be'" indicative of lawful rather than neutral?

[silvadel]

"Join the Cult of and get your ceremonial pair of daggers. Franchise opportunities still available so call now."

Why would one ever want a CEREMONIAL pair of daggers -- sheesh what supporter of belkar would be caught dead with daggers that couldnt stab?

[Grail]

He is Lawful Evil.
Evil characters don't have to be violent, egotistical, maniacal sociopaths. He is not above killing, but would rather avoid that if possible, not because it is morally wrong, but it's easier to have your enemies in your employ than also trying to kill you. He is the probably the nastiest sort of evil. Calculating, cold and cunning. You don't know if he is truly going to be on your side or is planning to slide a dagger in your kidneys (or get someone else to do it).

Saying this, he is also the evil that you can trust (well as much as you could ever trust evil).

[SSGW Priest]

"Join the Cult of and get your ceremonial pair of daggers. Franchise opportunities still available so call now."

Why would one ever want a CEREMONIAL pair of daggers -- sheesh what supporter of belkar would be caught dead with daggers that couldnt stab?

Ceremonial did not always imply fake. It used to mean dressier, but functional. The knives the Aztecs used in their ceremonies could stab. And one would certainly hope the knife used for the Bris is sharp and functional.

I can assure you the daggers used in ceremonies for the SSGW are fully functional. One of the acolytes will be by shortly to give you a demonstration.

Besides where in the actual definition of ceremonial do you see non-functional? :smallconfused:

cer⋅e⋅mo⋅ni⋅al
   /ˌsɛrəˈmoʊniəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ser-uh-moh-nee-uhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characterized by ceremony; formal; ritual: a ceremonial occasion.
2. used in or in connection with ceremonies: ceremonial robes.
–noun
3. a system of ceremonies, rites, or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite.
4. Roman Catholic Church.
a. the order for rites and ceremonies.
b. a book containing it.
5. formal behavior found at, or appropriate to, a certain occasion: the ceremonial of a state banquet.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME < ML cēremōniālis, LL caerimōniālis. See ceremony, -al 1

[B.I.T.T.]

Tough call....

On one hand he save's Haley's life with some key information in Origin of PC's, on the other hand he was also skimming the guild's cut in the same book.

On one hand he is willing to kill to maintain the guild's rep, on the other hand he'd like to avoid it.

On one hand he does kill "just because it's his job" but then so do good adventurers, only to the bad guys.

If you put a gun to my head I'd put him as about one of the neutrals, probably either Neutral Neutral or maybe even Lawful Neutral.

[Setra]

Tough call....

On one hand he save's Haley's life with some key information in Origin of PC's, on the other hand he was also skimming the guild's cut in the same book.

On one hand he is willing to kill to maintain the guild's rep, on the other hand he'd like to avoid it.

On one hand he does kill "just because it's his job" but then so do good adventurers, only to the bad guys.

If you put a gun to my head I'd put him as about one of the neutrals, probably either Neutral Neutral or maybe even Lawful Neutral.
The main problem is.. killing good people, unless you have a damned good reason, is evil. Even if you don't like to. I doubt just it being his job would make it a good enough reason.

Though on the other hand it seems like it would be quite hard to get another job for him seeing as "no one leaves the guild".

[Optimystik]

Your definition for "worked up" does not work given Hank's response of, "I'm still not. Now I have flunkies get worked up for me." By Hank's response, Bozzok may not be worked up either as he has flunkies, including Hank, to get worked up for him. Apparently "worked up" can be delegated.

The "I'm still not" indicates he doesn't get worked up about the comings and goings of his fellow miscreants. It may not make him neutral by itself, but it certainly makes him less evil than Bozzok, since he doesn't actively seek to disembowel interlopers unless ordered to.


Technically not a strawman since I did not portray the comment as representative of your position. It needed an intro like, "my opponent would have you believe that..." It was meant as a blunt commentary of the tendencies on this forum to attempt to paint the continuum of good and evil in simplistic broad strokes. You have to concede there are people on this forum who would try to argue Xykon is not truly evil.

Whether you meant it as a general comment or not, you quoted my post when you wrote it. The logical assumption therefore is that you considered it related to my position.

[Ravenred]

Interesting debate.

Killing Haley is not per se an evil act, especially since she:

* re-entered the city despite "resigning" from the theives guild
* stole whilst in the city (on a pretty massive scale) despite knowing that Greysky is very much a "closed shop" in this regard
* stealing from someone who she very probably knew had guild protection

Haley very much put her head in the lion's mouth by doing what she did (yes, I know it was Celia's fault originally). But from the Guild / Hank's perspective, they're offering nothing more or less than the expected rough justice.

Hank (fairly obviously) takes no personal pleasure in pursuing Haley, in contrast to Bozzok and Crystal. On what basis is Haley not pursuable, based on the circumstances of the case as the guild knows them?

[Kish]

Interesting debate.

Killing Haley is not per se an evil act, especially since she:

* re-entered the city despite "resigning" from the theives guild
* stole whilst in the city (on a pretty massive scale) despite knowing that Greysky is very much a "closed shop" in this regard
* stealing from someone who she very probably knew had guild protection

Haley very much put her head in the lion's mouth by doing what she did (yes, I know it was Celia's fault originally). But from the Guild / Hank's perspective, they're offering nothing more or less than the expected rough justice.

Hank (fairly obviously) takes no personal pleasure in pursuing Haley, in contrast to Bozzok and Crystal. On what basis is Haley not pursuable, based on the circumstances of the case as the guild knows them?
None of the things you listed have jack to do with good and evil, unless Hank genuinely believes the guild is lawful good, in which case he's both stupid and insane. He knew Haley was knowingly going against a Lawful Evil power to which he belongs, and therefore killing her would not be Chaotic. Killing a good person for an evil organization is certainly an evil act.

[Morchaint]

hmm. I see it as one of two ways. he belongs to Evil However
in my book, is how neutral or Lawful is that Evil. he isnt chaotic.
I would put him as LE/N ( Lawful Evil with neutral tendencies
or NE/L ( Neutral evil with Lawful tendencies. )
hes sitting on that Law/Neutral fence. the only chaotic I see in him is his moment by moment whim decision to be lawful or not.

he SEEMs to prefer law, but isnt solid about it.

and for telling haley to leave, sometimes evil ppl do stuff that isnt bound
by an alignment.

and so do good ppl..

as for me I wear the hat of Chaotic sillyness. based on whim.. so there. :P

[BossMuro]

None of the things you listed have jack to do with good and evil, unless Hank genuinely believes the guild is lawful good, in which case he's both stupid and insane. He knew Haley was knowingly going against a Lawful Evil power to which he belongs, and therefore killing her would not be Chaotic. Killing a good person for an evil organization is certainly an evil act.

What you're forgetting is that for all intents an purposes, the Thieves guild is the government of Greysky city and the closest thing to a force of law and order around. They let people like Grubwiggler live and operate in the city without them robbing him (and, since all thieves have to be members, without anyone robbing him) He's really just upholding a law he doesn't agree with for an organization he's loyal to, and doing a pretty terrible job at it. While he hadn't outright refused to take part in the attack (something that would probably get him killed/banished), he's taken every opportunity to avoid bloodshed, both by chasing Celia instead of joining in the fight and by stopping to negotiate in the latest strip. So, while he's certainly not a good guy, he's probably as good as you can be in Greysky city and succeed/live.

Plus, I really get the impression that if/when Bozzok dies, his body might just happen to get lost/decapitated on it's way to the temple.

[Optimystik]

Killing Haley is not per se an evil act, especially since she:

* re-entered the city despite "resigning" from the theives guild
* stole whilst in the city (on a pretty massive scale) despite knowing that Greysky is very much a "closed shop" in this regard
* stealing from someone who she very probably knew had guild protection


Wrong axis, buddy. All those actions by Haley are Chaotic, making killing her a Lawful act. Execution for theft is still Evil.

[Ravenred]

None of the things you listed have jack to do with good and evil, unless Hank genuinely believes the guild is lawful good, in which case he's both stupid and insane. He knew Haley was knowingly going against a Lawful Evil power to which he belongs, and therefore killing her would not be Chaotic. Killing a good person for an evil organization is certainly an evil act.

Haley broke the law (for, it has to be admitted, a given value of law). Dem's de rules. As the (effective) government of Greysky, should Hank assist in bringing her to account because of this?

To a degree, the source of the authority isn't amazingly relevant, it's how one acts for it. Miko was representing a lawful good power, but her "villainy" certainly surpasses Hank's (demonstrated) at this point in time. Or does Belkar following Roy make him Chaotic good? ;)

And although rescuing Celia was defninitely a good act committed for selfless motives, nicking Grubwiggler's stash was not, unless you morally contort yourself to believe that theft is a "good" act in this context. (You can always take this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) as a precedent)

I don't think that belonging to the guild, or dispassionately administering Guild justice is a strong enough indicator of evil at this point. Of course, Giant may clarify things in the strips to come.

[holywhippet]

I'd say he's either neutral or chaotic as far as that axis goes. He tips off Haley in the Origins of the PCs book which goes against the "law" they are supposed to be enforcing and she notes that he is skimming funds from the guild which is also a non-lawful act.

Hank seems willing to get Haley back into the guild (presumably because they are friends) despite her disregard for their code. This definetly not a lawful act even if he is trying to act within the rules of the guild.

I'd say either true neutral or chaotic neutral. Possibly neutral evil or chaotic evil, even if he doesn't appear overtly evil.

[Ravenred]

Wrong axis, buddy. All those actions by Haley are Chaotic, making killing her a Lawful act. Execution for theft is still Evil.

Why? Disproportionate response? Or is it just because she's one of the good guys so should be exempt from anyone wanting to kill her?

Hey, I'm not arguing whether guild bylaw 404(b) is good or evil in formulation, just that Hank's actions (to date) don't indicate that he's ideologically committed or personally motivated for killing Haley or causing her suffering. (yeah, he facilitated the sneak attack... so?)

[Optimystik]

Haley broke the law (for, it has to be admitted, a given value of law). Dem's de rules. As the (effective) government of Greysky, should Hank assist in bringing her to account because of this?

He absolutely should and would. He is Lawful (or at least a Neutral member of a Lawful organization), as the most recent strip confirms.


To a degree, the source of the authority isn't amazingly relevant, it's how one acts for it. Miko was representing a lawful good power, but her "villainy" certainly surpasses Hank's (demonstrated) at this point in time. Or does Belkar following Roy make him Chaotic good? ;)

It's worth noting that until Miko slew Shojo she didn't really do anything evil, she was just an ass. But, I digress.

Belkar follows Roy for the same reason any CE person plays follow-the-leader: (a) it's more fun than being alone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html), and (b) he'll get beat up if he doesn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) You can't really apply Miko or Belkar logic to Hank because his alignment actually jives with that of his organization, so he has no reason to deviate.


And although rescuing Celia was defninitely a good act committed for selfless motives, nicking Grubwiggler's stash was not, unless you morally contort yourself to believe that theft is a "good" act in this context. (You can always take this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html) as a precedent)

It's neutral -she's stealing from the evil rich guy, but doing it for personal reasons (The Starshine Liberation fund, given what happened to the dragon's hoard.)

[Optimystik]

Why? Disproportionate response? Or is it just because she's one of the good guys so should be exempt from anyone wanting to kill her?

The first option. Good only kills as a last resort - either in self-defense, or an irredeemable villain. Haley's theft from Grubwiggler is neither.

[Ravenred]

It's worth noting that until Miko slew Shojo she didn't really do anything evil, she was just an ass. But, I digress.


The difference between ass and evil? ;) Perhaps hoping to feel warm blood gushing over the ground? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html)

Oh yeah, I take your point. I suppose one thing we're discussing on how "nice" interacts with "good".



Belkar follows Roy for the same reason any CE person plays follow-the-leader: (a) it's more fun than being alone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html), and (b) he'll get beat up if he doesn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html) You can't really apply Miko or Belkar logic to Hank because his alignment actually jives with that of his organization, so he has no reason to deviate.


Well, as I'm saying, applying alignment by association where it hasn't been demosntrated by action (or a Paladin's detect evil ability) is a bit tricky. Besides, you can apply both of the above arguments to Hank, given the implied penalties for "resignation".

I'm still thinking true neutral.



It's neutral -she's stealing from the evil rich guy, but doing it for personal reasons (The Starshine Liberation fund, given what happened to the dragon's hoard.)

Yeah. The Starshine Liberation fund / Greenhilt Resurrection Behest are pretty good causes... although we still don't definitively know why Starshine senior was imprisioned...

... or DO we?

<dun dun DUN!>

[Ravenred]

The first option. Good only kills as a last resort - either in self-defense, or an irredeemable villain. Haley's theft from Grubwiggler is neither.

Irredeemable? That's shading more towards neutral, isn't it? ;)

Elan's threatened killing of Kubota fulfills the rules... sort of, but V's killing of him only conforms in the latter sense. Of course, V hasn't really been put forward as a paragon of good. I see he and Hank as occupying similar moral space.

The killing of the bandit leader and his daughter also explicitly fits this, although surely Miko could have resolved the confrontation a bit better.

It's sort of interesting. Most of the gratuitous killing in the comic is done by the Word-of-God-defined Chaotic Evil Belkar or Redcloak and Xykon.

[Optimystik]

Irredeemable? That's shading more towards neutral, isn't it? ;)

Neutrals only care about redemption of villains if doing so improves their quality of life. Good characters are actually worried about the person in question.


Elan's threatened killing of Kubota fulfills the rules... sort of, but V's killing of him only conforms in the latter sense. Of course, V hasn't really been put forward as a paragon of good. I see he and Hank as occupying similar moral space.

V's killing of Kubota doesn't count as a good act, which is really where a lot of the debate over his current alignment is stemming from. Notice that Elan did not follow through on his threat once Kubota surrendered.


The killing of the bandit leader and his daughter also explicitly fits this, although surely Miko could have resolved the confrontation a bit better.

Again, self-defense - the threat of being enslaved certainly counts as authorizing lethal force. It IS a fine line, but she didn't commit any evil acts there, either.


It's sort of interesting. Most of the gratuitous killing in the comic is done by the Word-of-God-defined Chaotic Evil Belkar or Redcloak and Xykon.

I'm with you on the two Chaotics, but none of Redcloak's kills are "gratuitous." He shows no remorse, true, but neither is he random or excessive in the least.

[Ravenred]

V's killing of Kubota doesn't count as a good act, which is really where a lot of the debate over his current alignment is stemming from. Notice that Elan did not follow through on his threat once Kubota surrendered.

Yup. It's questionable what would have happened had Kubota not EXPLICITLY surrendered.



Again, self-defense - the threat of being enslaved certainly counts as authorizing lethal force. It IS a fine line, but she didn't commit any evil acts there, either.

Sure, although her one evil act arguably caused more hurt than anyone else's.

You can always question whether the lethality of her stupid counts as an (unintentional) evil in and of itself.



I'm with you on the two Chaotics, but none of Redcloak's kills are "gratuitous." He shows no remorse, true, but neither is he random or excessive in the least.

Redcloak's an interesting case. He'll fill a cream pie with acid-spitting beetles, but deliberately seeks to reduce bloodshed in the battle for Azure City. He'll feed a group of humans to the Snarl without qualm, but not if there's no point to it. He services Xykon for extrmely pragmatic reasons, and fancies himself a nation-builder for goblins.

BTW, I still think Hank's neutral. Hopefully word of god will clarify the issue by displayed deeds over the course of the next couple of strips.

[SpacemanSpif]

I'm not seeing any good reason to definitively mark Hank as evil, rather than neutral. He works for an evil guild, but tends toward avoiding evil or good if he has a reason for it. I would expect an evil character to show more desire or willingness to commit some evil.

That's just with what we've seen so far, though, which isn't much. I'd call him Lawful Neutral based on what we've seen, but I could still see him as evil given further development.

[golentan]

He services Xykon for extrmely pragmatic reasons, and fancies himself a nation-builder for goblins.


Hahaha. Oh my.

Sorry, infantile, sophomoric moment over.

I think the coolest and most rewarding sort of evil is that which is not obvious and doesn't take the role of "I kick the cat and spit on the baby. Muahahaha!" It is the sort of evil which puts an acceptable price on a human life, even the life of a friend. It is the sort which says "If I get power, I can do better for myself and those I love. That is worth hurting others." It is Redcloak's brand (btw, one of my favs from the comic). I always give my villains a reasonable motivation, and let the evil sneak up on them unless we're explicitly going over the top.

On the subject of the OP: Evil. Either LE or NE, but definitely evil (Neutral makes more sense: Willing to go against guild for a friend/personal profit, works in an organized fashion for a chaotic/criminal enterprise. But once more, alignment is not a straightjacket.)

[SSGW Priest]

The "I'm still not" indicates he doesn't get worked up about the comings and goings of his fellow miscreants. It may not make him neutral by itself, but it certainly makes him less evil than Bozzok, since he doesn't actively seek to disembowel interlopers unless ordered to.

You take Hank's comment as a true statement of his feelings and continue to ignore Hank's next sentence, that he has flunkies to get worked up for him. If anything that is a facetious response to Haley's inquiry, as he sets her up for the sneak attack.


Wrong axis, buddy. All those actions by Haley are Chaotic, making killing her a Lawful act. Execution for theft is still Evil.

By your own comments earlier, execution for theft is an evil act. Hank is more than merely involved in this evil act, he is in a leadership position and actively directing the actions of his flunkies.

Bozzok did not actively seek to disembowel Haley either. (#580) He stated he let her slide on leaving the guild so long as she maintained her self-imposed exile. It was only when she returned and disrupted the business by robbing a protected businessman that the death edict was issued.

On a side note: Miko's slaying of the bandit father and daughter was not self-defense, it was hasty, gratuitous overkill and not a good act. The ease with which she dispatched them indicates they were not a credible threat to her. In fact, she could have subdued them as easily as she later did the OOTS.

I wonder if the cartoon nature of evil that people are exposed to in the various entertainment media are part of the reason that Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc were/are allowed to continue without mass condemnation and action. The perpetrators do not meet the cognitive threshold of evil in the common perception. This could explain the existence of threads such as this and the Belkar is neutral threads.

[JT Jag]

I'm starting to wonder about where in the Order/Chaos axis the entire Thieves' Guild is. I mean, besides Crystal who is obviously chaotic.

Sure, they lie, cheat and steal, but they seem to put a LOT of weight on contracts and order.

[Ravenred]

...This could explain the existence of threads such as this and the Belkar is neutral threads.

But after his vision quest, I he is neutral.

Neutral evil, with the latter characteristic multiplied by infinity plus one.

[Setra]

On a side note: Miko's slaying of the bandit father and daughter was not self-defense, it was hasty, gratuitous overkill and not a good act. The ease with which she dispatched them indicates they were not a credible threat to her. In fact, she could have subdued them as easily as she later did the OOTS.
I am loathe to use oversized fonts but..

WRONG!!

Join me or die. Hold Person.

You fail your save? Good I can kill you with no problems, sucks to be you.

You make your save? Darn lemme try again, I'm a spellcaster if you give me a second I can easily destroy you if you fail a save, which you will eventually, maybe even with the next spell. Don't worry though, my low Hit Point Total and armor class means I am not a credible threat.

Hold Person alone is probably more of a threat than a melee attack from an enemy of the same level. Especially since Will isn't a good save for a Paladin and Miko has questionable Wisdom.

After that there is no way she could negotiate with the other person who was clearly going to attack her.

I can tolerate Miko hate, but any time someone uses that as an example I facepalm in sheer annoyance.

There are countless other examples you could use.

Oh and earlier someone linked her about to kill Belkar, that would be a Good Act (Probably a Lawful Good Act), since Belkar is almost(?) as evil as the man they quest to kill.

[golentan]

I am loathe to use oversized fonts but..

WRONG!!

Join me or die. Hold Person.

You fail your save? Good I can kill you with no problems, sucks to be you.

You make your save? Darn lemme try again, I'm a spellcaster if you give me a second I can easily destroy you if you fail a save, which you will eventually, maybe even with the next spell. Don't worry though, my low Hit Point Total and armor class means I am not a credible threat.

Hold Person alone is probably more of a threat than a melee attack from an enemy of the same level. Especially since Will isn't a good save for a Paladin and Miko has questionable Wisdom.

After that there is no way she could negotiate with the other person who was clearly going to attack her.

I can tolerate Miko hate, but any time someone uses that as an example I facepalm in sheer annoyance.

There are countless other examples you could use.

Oh and earlier someone linked her about to kill Belkar, that would be a Good Act (Probably a Lawful Good Act), since Belkar is almost(?) as evil as the man they quest to kill.

Wrong: She has at least a few levels of monk and at least mid levels in paladin: +3 + 3 + WIS + CHA (both good stats to pump for paladin, wis good for monks). Even if she's got weird mental stats for a paladin/monk (say, 12 in each), she has a minimum save of +8. And I'd guess it to be higher, probably around +11. That's without any sort of item. I'd consider that a reasonable save, likely to succeed against hold person; the dc on that will be maybe around 17? Oooh, Scary! Much better to kill the person, than say take a -4 against their pathetic AC with your almost full BAB and knock them out.

And killing the dad: Completely unjustified. It seemed to be along the lines of "You are upset I killed an evil blood relative of yours. You are therefore also evil. Even though you are NO THREAT due to being lower level and unable to use magic, I will cut you in half rather than subduing you."

[Faceist]

And killing the dad: Completely unjustified. It seemed to be along the lines of "You are upset I killed an evil blood relative of yours. You are therefore also evil. Even though you are NO THREAT due to being lower level and unable to use magic, I will cut you in half rather than subduing you."
It was more like "You're trying to kill me, have no purpose to me, will plot to escape and kill me if I take you prisoner and will probably try to hunt me in revenge if I leave you helpless. I can't take you to jail. Therefore, I will kill you."

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding Miko's Wis, it has to be at least 11 because Rich mentioned her casting Cure Light Wounds when describing the 2nd Miko vs. Order fight (I'll try to get a link). I'd put the guild as a whole as being LE.

EDIT: Here's the fight description: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291639#post291639 .

[Setra]

Wrong: She has at least a few levels of monk and at least mid levels in paladin: +3 + 3 + WIS + CHA (both good stats to pump for paladin, wis good for monks). Even if she's got weird mental stats for a paladin/monk (say, 12 in each), she has a minimum save of +8. And I'd guess it to be higher, probably around +11. That's without any sort of item. I'd consider that a reasonable save, likely to succeed against hold person; the dc on that will be maybe around 17? Oooh, Scary! Much better to kill the person, than say take a -4 against their pathetic AC with your almost full BAB and knock them out. The point still remians that if it worked her father would probably try to Coup De Gras her.

The Sorceress was able to take out V, Elan and Haley, and technically Belkar as well though I won't count him since he was tied up. She is not weak enough to be considered not a threat. Not to mention she had a Reflex Save DC High enough that Haley complained about it, which in itself suggests SOMETHING.

And even ignoring any stats of the Sorceress she will always have at least a 1 in 20 chance.

Of course even just knocking them out would leave dangerous people around, ones willing to kill others for not serving them... so yeah.


And killing the dad: Completely unjustified. It seemed to be along the lines of "You are upset I killed an evil blood relative of yours. You are therefore also evil. Even though you are NO THREAT due to being lower level and unable to use magic, I will cut you in half rather than subduing you."
After she kills the girl she asks him to help her again before he unsheathes his swords in a clearly threatening manner.

Why risk him trying to slit her throat while she sleeps, which given what had just occured would be entirely likely?


Regarding Miko's Wis, it has to be at least 11 because Rich mentioned her casting Cure Light Wounds when describing the 2nd Miko vs. Order fight (I'll try to get a link). I'd put the guild as a whole as being LE.
Given her ... insanity, I'll just call it that, I presume it can't be too high.

[Kish]

After she kills the girl she asks him to help her again before he unsheathes his swords in a clearly threatening manner.
And actually takes a swing at her.

For that matter, "Clearly not a threat due to being lower level and unable to use magic" presumes Miko has information she had no way of having. This isn't WoW. She couldn't look at him and see a lower number by his head and a lack of mana bar.

[Dacia Brabant]

On a side note: Miko's slaying of the bandit father and daughter was not self-defense, it was hasty, gratuitous overkill and not a good act. The ease with which she dispatched them indicates they were not a credible threat to her. In fact, she could have subdued them as easily as she later did the OOTS.

If this were true, she would have fallen right then and there (killing an intelligent being needlessly is Evil). A paladin who commits a single Evil act immediately loses all paladin class abilities, and if it was done knowing that it was Evil there's virtually no chance of redemption.


I wonder if the cartoon nature of evil that people are exposed to in the various entertainment media are part of the reason that Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc were/are allowed to continue without mass condemnation and action. The perpetrators do not meet the cognitive threshold of evil in the common perception. This could explain the existence of threads such as this and the Belkar is neutral threads.

That stuff gets condemned all the time. Action, however, is a completely different thing and has nothing to do with recognition of evil and everything to do with human (un)willingness to do what it takes to stop it from happening to others, especially others half a world away. Heck most people don't even act when their own neighbors are being victimized.

[Morchaint]

For that matter, "Clearly not a threat due to being lower level and unable to use magic" presumes Miko has information she had no way of having. This isn't WoW. She couldn't look at him and see a lower number by his head and a lack of mana bar.

Rotflmao.

but perhaps she could detect what magic items and stuff he had on him.
she should have broken his weapon, knocked him unconscience, and gone
her way. or thrown him in a tent so wild animals dont make a pub snack out of him. but what she did was not totally self defence. nor firmly a evil act.

remind me in a thread for figuring out hanks alignment we get on the
subject of miko the non paladin, in two parts corpse?

hank is not chaotic. and he could be evil. I would say LE or perhaps NE/L

[Setra]

hank is not chaotic. and he could be evil. I would say LE or perhaps NE/L
To me, Hank is somewhat of an opposite Miko, kinda like Redcloak.

Miko is proof that "rude, insensitive, ass" doesn't mean evil and the other two showing traits that don't seem too evil (Willingness to negotiate, in this case), while being most likely evil (certainly evil in Redcloak's case).

I'd still say Hank is Evil, but probably more fun to hang around with.

[Tempest Fennac]

Redcloak actually strikes me as being incredibly like Miko for a lot of reasons (eg: they are both incredibly judgemental due to their past experiences, killed people they were previously loyal to bcause they were both convinced it was the right thing to do, and they both have issues with admitting they are wrong).

[OOTS_Supporter]

Redcloak actually strikes me as being incredibly like Miko for a lot of reasons (eg: they are both incredibly judgemental due to their past experiences, killed people they were previously loyal to bcause they were both convinced it was the right thing to do, and they both have issues with admitting they are wrong).

Well, Redcloak isn't as crazy. And he doesn't jump to conclusions as much. I think.

I haven't read SoD yet, so I really am not sure.

[Tempest Fennac]

SoD will explain a lot about RC's past (it was hinted at in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html and panel 3 of http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0550.html ). He isn;t as insane as Miko was before her death, but he is still as fanatical, as well as potentially being much more dangerous.

[OOTS_Supporter]

Ahhhhhh.

I think Redcloak is more dangerous.

I have a minor theory that isn't true: Redcloak allowed Tsukiko to turn Miko into one of the undead, and she is locked away somewhere.

Not going to happen ever though.

[Zevox]

Eh, I don't think the "they both can't admit they were wrong" thing is a particularly good parallel between Miko and Redcloak.

Miko couldn't admit she was wrong because she was genuinely convinced that she was always right, and simply could not be wrong, ever. She thought she was that special. Basically, she was completely delusional.

Redcloak, however, knows exactly what he did, why, and that he was wrong. He had the whole situation laid out for him by Right-Eye and Xykon at the end of SoD. What he's unwilling to do is abandon Xykon and the Plan, because if he does, he did those horrible things, put the Goblin people he cares so much for (or tells himself he cares so much for, one or the other) through all that, all for nothing. He knows he did wrong, he's just dead-set on making that wrongdoing mean something. And likely unconsciously terrified of the kind of self-loathing he'll end up going through if he ever has to admit that it was all for nothing.

Zevox

[krossbow]

I have to admit; while Hank's actions could rank up there as self serving, His recent actions in the comic do tend to lean towards neutral, what with his statements of whats best for the city and all.

[Querzis]

Oh come on, killing Haley is not even remotely an evil act in that case. She already killed so many people in the guild and Hank know perfectly well killing Bozzok just means lots of trouble for everybody in Greysky city. Shes killing them all, he had absolutely every right to kill her before you even bring the «but hes killing a good guy» nonsense (and yes its really nonsense because in this case it make good and evil look like absolutely nothing more then two side.) Its self-defense at best and saving lots of his guildmembers at worst and both are not evil regardless of the alignement of the attackers and your guildmembers.

Beside, regardless of what she think, there is absolutely no way I can see Haley as anything else then Chaotic Neutral and deep down I'm sure she know that perfectly well (which is why she said chaotic good...ish and her rant about never being good enough).

As for the other argument, Haley was in the guild too. So no the fact that Hank work for Bozzok really doesnt make him evil. This is Greysky city, its not like he has any other choice and, apparently, killing Bozzok would just make things much worse.

And here I'm not saying that Hank is neutral, just that the argument for him being evil in this thread really make no sense. But really, as far as I'm concerned, Hank is as good as its possible to be in Greysky city without getting killed.

[Voyager_I]

Haley killed the guild members in self defense. Murder doesn't become less evil if your victim starts fighting back, and defending yourself from lethal force with lethal force is not evil.

His current appeals to Haley's better nature also prove nothing about his own goodness. He is doing it because it is the argument most likely to work with a good person like her, and it could be said that he does so out of concern for his own position rather than any particular interest in Bozzok or the city's well-being. He wants Bozzok alive because he'll probably lose his right-hand-man position whenever the new leader asserts themselves, and he's trying to convince Haley that she also wants Bozzok alive because innocent people will suffer if he dies.

He might be neutral, but I don't think D&D rules would think to well of a person who willingly associated with someone so violently evil for their own gain, even if they themselves weren't particularly malicious.

[Rotipher]

Beside, regardless of what she think, there is absolutely no way I can see Haley as anything else then Chaotic Neutral and deep down I'm sure she know that perfectly well (which is why she said chaotic good...ish and her rant about never being good enough).

If she weren't Good, why would she bother to rant about it? She's imperfect, but she's trying to be a good person. If honest effort was enough to get Roy into the Celestial Realm, I think the Giant/the Powers-That-Be-Good will count that in Haley's favor too.

[Boaromir]

He might be neutral, but I don't think D&D rules would think to well of a person who willingly associated with someone so violently evil for their own gain, even if they themselves weren't particularly malicious.



In this story, Roy associates with Belkar, and the only reason it's even an issue is because he is the leader. Had he been Elan or Durkon, the Celestial Deva wouldn't have even brought it up.

[Optimystik]

You take Hank's comment as a true statement of his feelings and continue to ignore Hank's next sentence, that he has flunkies to get worked up for him. If anything that is a facetious response to Haley's inquiry, as he sets her up for the sneak attack.

That still isn't proof that he would have gotten worked up himself had he not had flunkies to do it for him.


By your own comments earlier, execution for theft is an evil act. Hank is more than merely involved in this evil act, he is in a leadership position and actively directing the actions of his flunkies.

Yes, but unlike Bozzok and Crystal, he has not explicitly taken any action or given any order to murder Haley, only subdue her (if rather roughly).


Bozzok did not actively seek to disembowel Haley either. (#580) He stated he let her slide on leaving the guild so long as she maintained her self-imposed exile. It was only when she returned and disrupted the business by robbing a protected businessman that the death edict was issued.

Haley isn't special - Bozzok actively seeks to disembowel ALL thieves that lead the guild (#609). Even when presented with an alternative means of dealing with them (i.e. chasing them out of town), he rejects it out of hand. It really wouldn't have mattered if Haley hadn't robbed anyone during her stay in Greysky, once Bozzok found out she was there he would have taken his chance to remove her from play - permanently.


On a side note: Miko's slaying of the bandit father and daughter was not self-defense, it was hasty, gratuitous overkill and not a good act. The ease with which she dispatched them indicates they were not a credible threat to her. In fact, she could have subdued them as easily as she later did the OOTS.

I never said it was a good act, only that it wasn't evil, since they struck first. It also wasn't good because it was excessive force. That leaves...


I wonder if the cartoon nature of evil that people are exposed to in the various entertainment media are part of the reason that Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc were/are allowed to continue without mass condemnation and action. The perpetrators do not meet the cognitive threshold of evil in the common perception. This could explain the existence of threads such as this and the Belkar is neutral threads.

Correlating real world tragedies and comic book message boards is rather poor taste, even in jest, don't you think?

[Optimystik]

Beside, regardless of what she think, there is absolutely no way I can see Haley as anything else then Chaotic Neutral and deep down I'm sure she know that perfectly well (which is why she said chaotic good...ish and her rant about never being good enough).

She felt guilt over abandoning O-Chul, a guilt which led her to be almost reckless in saving Thanh's life later. She wanted no reward from the Dirt Farmers. She booted Belkar from the Order... briefly. What more do you want?

[Voyager_I]

If she weren't Good, why would she bother to rant about it? She's imperfect, but she's trying to be a good person. If honest effort was enough to get Roy into the Celestial Realm, I think the Giant/the Powers-That-Be-Good will count that in Haley's favor too.

Roy associates with Belkar primarily because he is on a quest to save the world and needs all the help he can get, and because he feels that Belkar would be a danger to society if dismissed from the Order. When they are together, Roy restrains Belkar from his normal evil proclivities. Conversely, Hank willingly participates in evil actions with Bozzok as a means of gainful employment.

[Querzis]

If she weren't Good, why would she bother to rant about it? She's imperfect, but she's trying to be a good person. If honest effort was enough to get Roy into the Celestial Realm, I think the Giant/the Powers-That-Be-Good will count that in Haley's favor too.

Roy honest effort was enough to get in a LAWFULL afterfull which make sense when you think about it, thats really what being lawfull is all about, trying to follow a code and respect laws and authority but of course you cant always do that. The deva was thinking about sending Roy to the NG afterlife not the LN afterlife. Every knight templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar), well intentioned extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) as well as many evil people in the real world were also really trying to be good, it sure as hell doesnt change anything. The deva speech about trying was about being Lawfull not being Good!


She felt guilt over abandoning O-Chul, a guilt which led her to be almost reckless in saving Thanh's life later. She wanted no reward from the Dirt Farmers. She booted Belkar from the Order... briefly. What more do you want?

I dont see how guilt is supposed to be good but its true that I was really impressed when she saved Thanh, thats her most good act we saw her do until now as far as I'm concerned. The Dirt farmers could not give them any rewards either way and its not like any other member of the party, even Belkar, wanted a reward from them so I really dont see how thats supposed to be good.

As for booting Belkar, yeah thats the point. Thats what she did that annoyed me the most. So what, when he kill a poor defenseless gnome she just throw his candy bar away but when hes not usefull to them anymore she boot him from the order? Killing the gnome was a lot more evil then killing the oracle and, at that point, Belkar was becoming really dangerous for everyone as long as Roy was still dead. But at that point she does nothing. Then he kill the oracle and she throw him out not because what he did was evil but because, in her own word: «You've been on the fence between asset and liability for a while, and you just dove headfirst down the liability side.» And thats despise the fact that, at that point, Belkar was not a danger for anyone anymore and would probably die of starvation before he can reach the next village since he cant even walk with the disease.

And of course there is also some other things like shooting a guy in the leg instead of solving an enigma the first time they went to the oracle. And for those arguing Hank is evil for no other reason then working for Bozzok and obeying his orders, do I really have to point out that Haley also did that for years? That being said if you think shes chaotic good its alright, I dont care, but definitly not how I see her.

[Optimystik]

I dont see how guilt is supposed to be good but its true that I was really impressed when she saved Thanh, thats her most good act we saw her do until now as far as I'm concerned.

It's not just the guilt itself, it's the length of time that abandoning O-Chul tortured her conscience. A neutral or evil person would have chalked that act up to necessity long ago and moved on.


The Dirt farmers could not give them any rewards either way and its not like any other member of the party, even Belkar, wanted a reward from them so I really dont see how thats supposed to be good.

Wrong on 3 counts.

1) Belkar DID want a reward: "Well, actually-" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html). HALEY interrupted him.

2) Vaarsuvius didn't want a reward from the farmers, but he DID expect compensation for his efforts. Surprise surprise, he's the Order's other non-good member.

3) If Haley turning down any chance at a reward wasn't a good act, why did Elan then say "Even so, I'm really proud of you Haley," and why was it in the middle of V's "hidden qualities" speech? That moment marked a prime shift from CN to CG for her due to Elan's influence.


As for booting Belkar, yeah thats the point. Thats what she did that annoyed me the most. So what, when he kill a poor defenseless gnome she just throw his candy bar away but when hes not usefull to them anymore she boot him from the order? Killing the gnome was a lot more evil then killing the oracle and, at that point, Belkar was becoming really dangerous for everyone as long as Roy was still dead. But at that point she does nothing. Then he kill the oracle and she throw him out not because what he did was evil but because, in her own word: «You've been on the fence between asset and liability for a while, and you just dove headfirst down the liability side.» And thats despise the fact that, at that point, Belkar was not a danger for anyone anymore and would probably die of starvation before he can reach the next village since he cant even walk with the disease.

Actually, she didn't boot him because he was no longer useful - she booted him because he was too sick to forcefully stick with them. ("Since I don't think you're in any shape to force me to take you, this is where we part company.") In other words, telling Belkar to get lost when he was healthy would be ineffective at best and dangerous at worst.


And of course there is also some other things like shooting a guy in the leg instead of solving an enigma the first time they went to the oracle. And for those arguing Hank is evil for no other reason then working for Bozzok and obeying his orders, do I really have to point out that Haley also did that for years? That being said if you think shes chaotic good its alright, I dont care, but definitly not how I see her.

She couldn't speak when she shot her way through the Test of the Mind, it was a non-lethal attack, and it was Rule of Funny anyway. I'm not even sure Left and Right are real people.

[Querzis]

It's not just the guilt itself, it's the length of time that abandoning O-Chul tortured her conscience. A neutral or evil person would have chalked that act up to necessity long ago and moved on.

This is getting really off topic. Anyway, she said it bothered her ever since but tortured her conscience... Either way,no amount of guilt actually change anything, you arent more evil if you stop feeling guilty two seconds or two years after doing something. And honestly, there is more then enough evil people who feel LOTS of guilt about everything they have done. Just look at Redcloak. You are just more evil if you dont try to make up for it and she did. As I already said, saving Thann was really admirable.


Wrong on 3 counts.

1) Belkar DID want a reward: "Well, actually-" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html). HALEY interrupted him.

2) Vaarsuvius didn't want a reward from the farmers, but he DID expect compensation for his efforts. Surprise surprise, he's the Order's other non-good member.

3) If Haley turning down any chance at a reward wasn't a good act, why did Elan then say "Even so, I'm really proud of you Haley," and why was it in the middle of V's "hidden qualities" speech? That moment marked a prime shift from CN to CG for her due to Elan's influence.

1. whatever. But honestly I'm pretty damn sure Belkar was about to ask if he could harvest her husband kidneys.

2. V rant was because he hate Miko, not because he actually wanted a reward. The bill was to : «That paladin» and he even charged Miko for every mile outside of the elven land even though he was already very far away from elven land before he met Miko. V even said to Roy that he would have done this for him for free but that if «this one» ask him to do something she will be charged. He even said right from the start that «it is more the principle of the thing.» V did not want a reward except if you think humiliating Miko count as a reward.

3. Look its not because Haley is smart enough to realize that the dirt farmer cant give her any gold that it change anything. Of course, the fact that its in V rant would indicate that Elan is a good influence for Haley and he most definitly is. Haley is also a good influence for Elan too of course, hes less random and try to use his head more now. But they sure as hell havent reached equilibrium yet...not even close.


Actually, she didn't boot him because he was no longer useful - she booted him because he was too sick to forcefully stick with them. ("Since I don't think you're in any shape to force me to take you, this is where we part company.") In other words, telling Belkar to get lost when he was healthy would be ineffective at best and dangerous at worst.

Hum yes she still booted him because he was no longer usefull. She merely pointed out that Belkar cant do anything against it now because hes too sick.

And thats the whole point. Booting Belkar when hes sick is basically just letting him die slowly and painfully which sure as hell aint good. Hes no danger to anyone anymore, why did she do that? Same thing when he was healthy too actually. Before being innefective or dangerous, it would just have been stupid since he would have become sick as soon as he was a mile away from Roy body. Getting the gnome in the kart and rezzing him with Belkar future share of treasures like they were supposed to do with the prison guard from AC Belkar killed now that aint hard.


She couldn't speak when she shot her way through the Test of the Mind, it was a non-lethal attack, and it was Rule of Funny anyway. I'm not even sure Left and Right are real people.

Yeah she coudnt speak, doesnt change the fact that it would have took V one minute max to figure it out on his own. Look if we can explain those kind of things with Rule of funny, Belkar never did anything wrong since some people always thought it was funny. Non-lethal or not, an arrow in the leg is a freaking arrow in the leg. And finally...where did that come from? Of course they are real people. Most definitly not humans but they arent illusions if thats what you meant (I never heard about illusions that remember you).

[Optimystik]

1. whatever. But honestly I'm pretty damn sure Belkar was about to ask if he could harvest her husband kidneys.

What he was going to ask for isn't the point; the point is that only the non-good members of the party wanted something in return for helping the peasants. Since Haley didn't ask for anything, she must be good.


2. V rant was because he hate Miko, not because he actually wanted a reward. The bill was to : «That paladin» and he even charged Miko for every mile outside of the elven land even though he was already very far away from elven land before he met Miko. V even said to Roy that he would have done this for him for free but that if «this one» ask him to do something she will be charged. He even said right from the start that «it is more the principle of the thing.» V did not want a reward except if you think humiliating Miko count as a reward.

V never really expected her to pay (hence the Explosive Runes invoice.) However, his attitude towards the farmers was certainly a neutral one, since he considered the entire side-trip a waste of time. Since his outlook on the issue of assisting helpless people was so vastly different from Haley's, it lends credence to my argument that they are placed differently on the Good-Evil axis.


3. Look its not because Haley is smart enough to realize that the dirt farmer cant give her any gold that it change anything. Of course, the fact that its in V rant would indicate that Elan is a good influence for Haley and he most definitly is. Haley is also a good influence for Elan too of course, hes less random and try to use his head more now. But they sure as hell havent reached equilibrium yet...not even close.

Equilibrium or not, they are both Chaotic Good from at least that point in the comic onward.


Hum yes she still booted him because he was no longer usefull. She merely pointed out that Belkar cant do anything against it now because hes too sick.

And thats the whole point. Booting Belkar when hes sick is basically just letting him die slowly and painfully which sure as hell aint good. Hes no danger to anyone anymore, why did she do that? Same thing when he was healthy too actually. Before being innefective or dangerous, it would just have been stupid since he would have become sick as soon as he was a mile away from Roy body. Getting the gnome in the kart and rezzing him with Belkar future share of treasures like they were supposed to do with the prison guard from AC Belkar killed now that aint hard.

You yourself just exonerated her - she kept him around because she didn't want to trigger his curse, not because she approved of his actions. Once said curse was activated, and deservedly so, expulsion was the most logical action.

As for getting the gnome in the cart, yes let's start hauling all of Belkar's victims through hostile territory to the cleric whose location they don't even know yet.


Yeah she coudnt speak, doesnt change the fact that it would have took V one minute max to figure it out on his own. Look if we can explain those kind of things with Rule of funny, Belkar never did anything wrong since some people always thought it was funny. Non-lethal or not, an arrow in the leg is a freaking arrow in the leg. And finally...where did that come from? Of course they are real people. Most definitly not humans but they arent illusions if thats what you meant (I never heard about illusions that remember you).

V could certainly have solved it quickly, but he was willing to expound at length on the nature of the test until the avariel came home to roost. That was time they couldn't spare with Xykon running loose.

[hamishspence]

Characters can have many traits that differ- having one trait associated with an alignment doesn't guarantee a person is of that alignment- its just supporting evidence.

Haley is generous with her time and effort and risks to herself for no reward- Good.

Haley is also a thief, willing to con her own party members out of treasure (though she manages to do so without actually telling lies), and the first thing she does to get into the party in Origin of PCs is deceive Roy. Not So Good.

If you feel her goodness outweighs her minor evils significantly, CG but close to the CN border is a pretty fair assessment.

[Kish]

I dont see how guilt is supposed to be good but its true that I was really impressed when she saved Thanh, thats her most good act we saw her do until now as far as I'm concerned. The Dirt farmers could not give them any rewards either way and its not like any other member of the party, even Belkar, wanted a reward from them so I really dont see how thats supposed to be good.

I've noticed that a lot of people online seem to think "good" means "better than that character usually is." For Haley to not act greedy might mean she's improving from what she's been in the past, but it doesn't mean she deserves more moral points than Durkon would for acting not-greedy in the exact same way.

[Berserk Monk]

Hank is neutral.
Belkar is neutral.
Xykon is neutral.
Red Cloak is neutral.
Tsukiko is neutral.
Thog is neutral.
Nale is neutral.
Sabine is neutral.

[Querzis]

Cant help but to notice you didnt answer my first argument so I'll just assume you agree with me.


What he was going to ask for isn't the point; the point is that only the non-good members of the party wanted something in return for helping the peasants. Since Haley didn't ask for anything, she must be good.

....since she didnt ask for anything she must be good. I'm I supposed to laugh?


V never really expected her to pay (hence the Explosive Runes invoice.) However, his attitude towards the farmers was certainly a neutral one, since he considered the entire side-trip a waste of time. Since his outlook on the issue of assisting helpless people was so vastly different from Haley's, it lends credence to my argument that they are placed differently on the Good-Evil axis.

As far as I'm concerned, it just means they have different personnality. V is arrogant. Like really arrogant. Of course he consider a dirt farm to be beneath him when he could be chasing after a legendary lich.


Equilibrium or not, they are both Chaotic Good from at least that point in the comic onward.

This isnt a fact or an argument, its your opinion. And you know, its usually considered polite to had a «I think» or «as far as I'm concerned» or anything like that when you say your opinions.


You yourself just exonerated her - she kept him around because she didn't want to trigger his curse, not because she approved of his actions. Once said curse was activated, and deservedly so, expulsion was the most logical action.

...are you even reading my post? Get the gnome on the freaking kart and pay for his rez with Belkar part of the treasure! Its not that freaking complicated! I never talked about expulsing him and even said it was a really bad idea. Even if they're woudnt be the curse it would still be a bad idea since Belkar is a lot more dangerous for anyone when hes not in the order!!!!! Geez I'm almost wondering who you are talking to here.


As for getting the gnome in the cart, yes let's start hauling all of Belkar's victims through hostile territory to the cleric whose location they don't even know yet.

Dude thats just one victim, not two thousands. And how is it even remotely supposed to be harder to do this then to just carry Roy in the kart? Its a gnome not an orc. The only important thing is that people like Belkar understand nothing else then punishment. You cant expect him to feel guilty about this so punish him by taking his part of the treasure and then he'll think about it before killing bystanders. This is actually exactly what Shojo and Roy did when Belkar killed the guard and it would have worked withotu AC destruction. This aint rocket science.


V could certainly have solved it quickly, but he was willing to expound at length on the nature of the test until the avariel came home to roost. That was time they couldn't spare with Xykon running loose.

I'm not even sure if you are serious there or if its sarcasm but honestly, they had already spent much more time then it would have took V just cutting hydra heads.

[Kish]

Dude thats just one victim, not two thousands..
I would add to this that saying "all Belkar's victims" is an implicit concession that Haley's method of dealing with Belkar was a failure on every level.

[Optimystik]

Cant help but to notice you didnt answer my first argument so I'll just assume you agree with me.

You said saving Thanh was good and that we're getting off topic. There was nothing in that to refute. The guilt part I had a lot of trouble actually reading and deciphering - I assume you're saying that your alignment is independent of how guilty you feel at failing to protect someone, which if so is ridiculous.


....since she didnt ask for anything she must be good. I'm I supposed to laugh?

Wrong again. It's not that she didn't ask for anything - she actually turned down the villager's offer of a reward. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0222.html) That's a textbook Good act.


As far as I'm concerned, it just means they have different personnality. V is arrogant. Like really arrogant. Of course he consider a dirt farm to be beneath him when he could be chasing after a legendary lich.

Different alignments usually mean different personalities. Congratulations.


This isnt a fact or an argument, its your opinion. And you know, its usually considered polite to had a «I think» or «as far as I'm concerned» or anything like that when you say your opinions.

Your entire argument for her being neutral is based on the fact that she described herself as "Chaotic Good-ish." Unlike you, I'm basing mine on her actions.


...are you even reading my post? Get the gnome on the freaking kart and pay for his rez with Belkar part of the treasure! Its not that freaking complicated! I never talked about expulsing him and even said it was a really bad idea. Even if they're woudnt be the curse it would still be a bad idea since Belkar is a lot more dangerous for anyone when hes not in the order!!!!! Geez I'm almost wondering who you are talking to here.

Pay for his rez where? From who? With what treasure? And please calm down, your posts are hard enough to read even when you're not excited.


Dude thats just one victim, not two thousands. And how is it even remotely supposed to be harder to do this then to just carry Roy in the kart? Its a gnome not an orc. The only important thing is that people like Belkar understand nothing else then punishment. You cant expect him to feel guilty about this so punish him by taking his part of the treasure and then he'll think about it before killing bystanders. This is actually exactly what Shojo and Roy did when Belkar killed the guard and it would have worked withotu AC destruction. This aint rocket science.

So the fact that she didn't take his treasure - again, I'm compelled to ask "what treasure?" since they hadn't gone near Greysky yet - overrides her Good acts?


I'm not even sure if you are serious there or if its sarcasm but honestly, they had already spent much more time then it would have took V just cutting hydra heads.

What's your point? Those are two different challenges, you can't use the time it took one as a basis for measuring the duration of the other. For all you know, that was the fastest way to deal with the Hydra.

[Kish]

Different personality usually means different alignment.
The hell? No it doesn't. Alignment is not personality. There are nine alignments in the world, and billions of personalities.

[Optimystik]

The hell? No it doesn't. Alignment is not personality. There are nine alignments in the world, and billions of personalities.

Right, and if I have exactly the same personality you do, then chances are that our alignments are the same also.

For instance, two sociopaths that enjoy killing are likely both Chaotic Evil. Or are you saying one of them in Neutral Good?

[drakokirby]

I would say Hank is Lawful evil. He does want to kill but he still compromises with enemies. He also doesn't really seem to be really a killer since he hasn't shanked anyone yet. He seems like the one who runs the guild with Bozzok.

[Kish]

Right, and if I have exactly the same personality you do, then chances are that our alignments are the same also.

For instance, two sociopaths that enjoy killing are likely both Chaotic Evil. Or are you saying one of them in Neutral Good?
Unworthy of you. You said, "Different personality usually means different alignment." Now you're arguing for, "Different alignment usually means different personality." This is fallacious, like supporting, "All creatures with feathers are chickens" by pointing to two chickens and asking sarcastically if one of them is a dog. Roy, Durkon, Miko (at least pre-Fall), Roy's father (at some point in his life), Celia, Hinjo, and Soon are all examples of people with the same alignment whose personalities differ to greater and lesser extents.

(Incidentally, without more information--say, about their methods--I would only agree that the two sociopaths must both be Evil. One could be obsessed with control and Lawful Evil, while the other was just in it for fun like Belkar or Xykon and was Chaotic Evil.)

[Optimystik]

Unworthy of you. You said, "Different personality usually means different alignment." Now you're arguing for, "Different alignment usually means different personality." This is fallacious, like supporting, "All creatures with feathers are chickens" by pointing to two chickens and asking sarcastically if one of them is a dog. Roy, Durkon, Miko (at least pre-Fall), Roy's father (at some point in his life), Celia, Hinjo, and Soon are all examples of people with the same alignment whose personalities differ to greater and lesser extents.

Fair enough. That calls for an edit.

The more correct reversal that you proposed, however, still disproves Querzis' point as mine was meant to - he was denying any correlation between alignment and personality, saying effectively that V would have been just as disdainful to the dirt farmers had his alignment matched Haley's. Perhaps he would have ACTED that way, but he certainly wouldn't have been itemizing his expenses afterward, not to mention detonating his teammate.

[Koshiro]

Committed to keeping order, even if it's not a good order.
Following morally questionable orders, but not enthusiastic about it.
Worked himself up from underling to commander and seems to be comfortable about it.
Willing to settle things by treaties and formal negotiations.
Reasonable respect for the lives of the common people.

Pretty clearly LN to me.

[hamishspence]

LN's cross to LE if the objectionable orders are sufficiently bad and followed anyway. Narguzons from Fiendish Codex 2 are the souls of those who follow orders no matter how bad they are.

that said, sufficiently heroic and kind-hearted thieves can be Neutral to Good rather than Evil. Robbing the Needy is the act called out as very Corrupt (though thieving in general is evil if done too much, by BoVD)

[Koshiro]

LN's cross to LE if the objectionable orders are sufficiently bad and followed anyway.
Hank's orders were to execute lawbreakers. And he actually agreed to an alternative - within the system - to that.

Berserk Monk has involuntarily made the distinction clear: He listed Hank along with a number of characters who have all shown that they enjoy the death and suffering of others. Hank doesn't - as far as we can tell by now.

[David Argall]

Right, and if I have exactly the same personality you do, then chances are that our alignments are the same also.

For instance, two sociopaths that enjoy killing are likely both Chaotic Evil. Or are you saying one of them in Neutral Good?
You seem to be misdefining personality here. We can assume our two sociopaths are both evil [tho whether Lawful or Chaotic may vary], but they can have markedly different personalities. Joe is very friendly and charming, until he lures them into his basement for torture and sacrifice to some evil god. Sam is crude and unfriendly, and when he gets a chance he knocks people out to drag them into his basement for torture and sacrifice to that evil god. Their alignment is the same, but their personalities differ widely.

On the other direction, we have Nale as quite arrogant, and LE, and we have V as quite arrogant, and not LE.

Our personality traits are at best only loosely related to alignment and we can find most of them in most alignments.

[Optimystik]

You seem to be misdefining personality here. We can assume our two sociopaths are both evil [tho whether Lawful or Chaotic may vary], but they can have markedly different personalities. Joe is very friendly and charming, until he lures them into his basement for torture and sacrifice to some evil god. Sam is crude and unfriendly, and when he gets a chance he knocks people out to drag them into his basement for torture and sacrifice to that evil god. Their alignment is the same, but their personalities differ widely.

I conceded that direction already in my edit, although it seems they don't get read around here.


On the other direction, we have Nale as quite arrogant, and LE, and we have V as quite arrogant, and not LE.

Hence the term "usually." Looking at the habitually arrogant characters, we have: Xykon, Nale, Bozzok, Vaarsuvius, Belkar, and Miko. Of those, the only non-evil one is Vaarsuvius... oh wait, he's turning evil too.

Regardless, the thread's about Hank, so to get things back on track - he's LN by my estimation, bordering on LE. But we'll know more once we see his end of the bargain that Celia wrote up.

[hamishspence]

Origin of PCs- he is a skimmer of takes (and, on the bright side, a deliverer of warnings) Which, it turns out, was a honest warning. He might lean more to Neutral or even Chaotic than Lawful.

[hamishspence]

in addition to which, the thieves guild are probably the strongest power group, by 619 description- power vacuum. That doesn't make them the legitimate rulers. They are Lawbreakers, so in that sense Hank's Orders aren't to Execute Lawbreakers, but to Kill Rulebreakers.

[Koshiro]

in addition to which, the thieves guild are probably the strongest power group, by 619 description- power vacuum. That doesn't make them the legitimate rulers. They are Lawbreakers, so in that sense Hank's Orders aren't to Execute Lawbreakers, but to Kill Rulebreakers.
Same thing. There is no such thing as "the Law" in the context of D&D alignment. Hank follows the laws of his group.
Under your definition, basically all lawful evil monsters couldn't be lawful because almost everything they do would be illegal in many jurisdiction. Your definition suffers from a shortsighted adherence to "the Law" as experienced in modern states.

[Underground]

From what I've seen so far from Hank, I would guess he has a high Int, Wis and Cha score, as he seems to be pretty nifty, down to the ground, and a leader type.

Alignment ? Hard to say. He certainly isnt good. Neither on the most evil side either. But he's overall not exactly the type of person you want to meet in a dark alley, so I rather vote evil than neutral.

[Jan Mattys]

1- Hank is not Lawful (see Origin of PCs, where Haly says he's been cheating Bozzok about his revenue in the last three months).

2- Hank is not Good (that pretty much explains itself)

These are Facts.

As for the original question... I'd say Hank is more of the neutral type. He was nice to Haley in Origin of PCs (and didn't need to). Plus, working for the Guild doesn't make you evil: Haley worked for the Guild for years and she is Chaotic Good.

Hank seems to be the professional type.

But what's his alignment?
- He's not Lawful (see Origin of PCs)
- He's not Good (I guess we all can agree)
- I can't see him True Neutral.
- I can't see him Chaotic Neutral.
- I can't see him Chaotic Evil.

I guess in the end Hank is Neutral Evil, the only choice out of nine alignments that makes sense. Even though I think little Hank is midly evil to say the worst.

[hamishspence]

point to be made is- phrases along the lines of "hank is enforcing the law of greysky city" are unwarranted- since they aren't exactly the law.

CE organizations exist in D&D, and routinely punish those who break such rules as they have. That doesn't make those who declare the rulebreaker guilty and authorize the punishment Lawful.

What makes an organization, criminal or otherwise, Lawful, is not rules and punishments, but organization.

Drow priestesses, usually CE, enforce very brutal punishment on houses that break the rules and get caught doing so, in Drizzt books.

EDIT: True Neutral can just be "I want to get along" doesn't have to be a balance-obsessed Druid type.

Chaotic Neutral can be wheeler-dealer- doesn't have to be whimsical. CMOT Dibbler or Del Boy are pretty fair examples.

[Harperfan7]

Hank doesnt strike me as evil, I doubt he wants to hurt people, I think he is just selfish (like most neutral thieves).

[kerberos]

Hank doesnt strike me as evil, I doubt he wants to hurt people, I think he is just selfish (like most neutral thieves).

Evil doesn't have to mean full blown, movie style psycho. If he's generally willing to hurt innocent people to serve his selfish needs then he's evil.

[JGoldenberg]

Personally I would say Hank is N/E, but leans towards lawful.
As had been said before he is sometimes prone to acts that disobey The Thieves' Guild Code, like Warning Hayley and skimming profits.

And I think that people who believe Hank is neutral and cite the fact that he had little choice in following The Guild have a valid point.

In Greysky you have basically 3 or so choices:
A) You join The Thieves' Guild
B) You don't join The Thieves' Guild, but theres a higher chance you are robbed or murdered.
C) You leave Greysky.

As someone of any Alignment would have a sense of Self-Preservation, they would likely choose A or C.
Good Characters would almost always choose Option C (Hayley was C/N at the time so she doesn't count.)
Neutral and Evil characters, often being selfish would more likely choose option A because of Profit, Benefits, etc.

Now Given that, Hank could be Neutral or Evil, he's now in a situation where he cannot leave the Guild or oppose it, which would risk him being killed himself, as he is not Good he does not have any moral opposition to protecting his skin if it includes murder. So Either way he could be N or E, I just personally think he leans to E more than N

[whatchamacallit]

I'm going Lawful Neutral, Hank's a good soldier but he doesn't cry over spilt milk. People die, sure, and sometimes that's necessary, but Hank seems to be more about the profit and the smooth application of business then simple revenge on past slights against the guild or wanton acts of violence just for XP/treasure's sake.

The way he jumped at (and was prepared for) negotiations with Celia indicates he's more apt to look for compromise, blood-thristy he is not, he's a business man with a credo and more than a little honour amongst thieves.

[hamishspence]

"as he is not good he does not have any moral opposition to protecting his skin if it includes murder"

One problem with that- by this principle, a N, or even LN, person on the run from the law, innocent or otherwise, would be willing to murder defeated cops rather than risk being caught. Which is a bit of a stretch.

Or kill someone to get in the lifeboat when they are all filled up thanks to "women and children first". Again, killing others to save your own life (when it is not deemable as self-defense) is Evil, not Neutral.

[Rotipher]

Even if Hank did skim off funds, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him from being Lawful. If such under-the-table skimming is ubiquitous within the Thieves' Guild, it could qualify as an unspoken tradition of the organization ... and adhering to "tradition" can be considered Lawful, even if it's technically against the rules (e.g. English peasants who kept celebrating Christmas under Cromwell's rule were just maintaining the status quo).

[hamishspence]

"Tradition" is one of the ways Chaotic to Neutral groups keep some kind of stability. In the Dark Elf Trilogy one of the chapter headings focussed heavily on the importance of tradition to the drow.

Races of the Wild mentions this for elves, and Dragon Compendium mentions tradition and taboos for the even more Chaotic Diaboli.