The Snarl Not Evil?

[Devonix]

Just a theory here but we don't have any proof that the Snarl is actually malevolent. Highly dangerous but perhaps not evil. As far as destroying souls... well what proof do we have that that is what's happening. For all we know he just ... (Pardon the horrid memory this brings up.) "sends them to another dimension".

It was created out of the frustration of Deities so I'm betting it has Divine Ranks. it could have its own afterlife and since it knows that the gods can be petty and selfish it is actually just sending these souls to a place that it feels are better for them.:smallconfused:

[Atcote]

I always thought the Snarl was not, by nature, evil. What is does is evil, as I would take the view of unmaking the world, but it does not seem to have any real pleasure or cruelty in doing the deed.

It was born out of discord, not hatred or cruelty - it's pure unmaking chaos, like a maddened wild animal.

[xyzzy]

Yeah, if the Snarl even has an alignment, it's probably CN. It doesn't have any known motives of any kind, and the way it was produced suggests that it's acting entirely on instinct.

[Zerg Cookie]

The Snarl is TN, just like an animal

[SadisticFishing]

I'd argue that chaos to the point of KILLING EVERYONE is chaotic evil, by definition.

Even if it's not intelligent enough to know what it's doing, the thing has literally unmade a universe, killing and destroying the souls of everyone that was alive at the time.

That is quite the evil act - in fact, probably the most evil act ever committed. Even mindless things can be CE by nature, and this is one of them.

[TheNameIsDumas]

What if the wavy-lines thing we see is really a prison created to hold the "real" gods inside, and the "gods" present are interlopers? The Snarl hasn't been "unmaking souls", instead the gods have been pulling in recruits, waiting for the moment they can come out ready for battle to take their world back.

Maybe the beautiful thing that The-Raven-Miss-Starshine-Named saw was really the City of the Gods?

[Atcote]

What if the wavy-lines thing we see is really a prison created to hold the "real" gods inside, and the "gods" present are interlopers? The Snarl hasn't been "unmaking souls", instead the gods have been pulling in recruits, waiting for the moment they can come out ready for battle to take their world back.

Maybe the beautiful thing that The-Raven-Miss-Starshine-Named saw was really the City of the Gods?

But that would defy everything we've learnt, and Xykon and Redcloak learned, and The Order of the Scribble, for which we've actually seen absolutely no tangiable evidence towards the Snarl being real or not!

See how silly your theory is now?... Wait...

[PId6]

I'd argue that chaos to the point of KILLING EVERYONE is chaotic evil, by definition.

Even if it's not intelligent enough to know what it's doing, the thing has literally unmade a universe, killing and destroying the souls of everyone that was alive at the time.

That is quite the evil act - in fact, probably the most evil act ever committed. Even mindless things can be CE by nature, and this is one of them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
By the D&D alignments, you can't be evil if you can't consciously make moral decisions. Thus, a rampaging lion that eats people isn't evil nor is a mindless robot programmed to kill everything.

[Sanguine]

By the D&D alignments, you can't be evil if you can't consciously make moral decisions. Thus, a rampaging lion that eats people isn't evil nor is a mindless robot programmed to kill everything.

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.

[Drakevarg]

The Snarl is Chaotic Evil. I don't believe it's just an instrument of chaos exclusively, since every single one of its actions have been violent in nature. It didn't stab Ares one round and give Hades a pet rabbit the next. Ergo, not Chaotic Neutral. Obviously not Chaotic Good, since it wiped out an entire pantheon in a matter of seconds.

[David Argall]

We may not have proof that the Snarl is malevolent, but we do have evidence, even if it all comes from suspect sources. And we have no evidence that it is not malevolent. Until we get some evidence it is not dangerous, you can lead any peace mission, while we stay well back.

[Babale]

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.

Because they are infused with evil magic.

[kpenguin]

In this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0273.html), the Snarl is described as "intelligent" and "hateful" and in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), it is said to be "malevolent and powerful" as well stating that "it wanted nothing more than destruction"

Now, that, to me sounds rather evil. It is from a second-hand source, however.

[Sanguine]

Because they are infused with evil magic.

But it states creatures incapable of making moral decisions are True Neutral, so the creation should be an evil act but by that passage they shouldn't be evil themselves. Plus sapient undead are capable of not being evil.

[PId6]

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.
I think that's partially because undead are powered by negative energy, which is inherently evil. Meh, D&D is rarely perfectly consistent.


We may not have proof that the Snarl is malevolent, but we do have evidence, even if it all comes from suspect sources. And we have no evidence that it is not malevolent. Until we get some evidence it is not dangerous, you can lead any peace mission, while we stay well back.
Oh it's certainly dangerous, but the question of whether it's actually evil depends on whether it's intelligent enough to contemplate its actions. If it's just acting purely on destructive instinct, it's as true neutral as wild animals.

[shadzar]

Snarl is true neutral.

[Drakevarg]

KPenguin wins.

The Snarl is:
-Intelligent. Can make moral decisions.
-Hateful. Is capable of emotional responses.
-Maleovent. Basically means evil.

And of course it's pretty obviously chaos encarnate.

Chaotic Evil it is.

[Prowl]

The Snarl would have to be chaotic neutral.

Chaotic because, well, it's a being of pure chaos; if that's not chaotic then what is?

The Snarl can't be Good or Evil because those things require the ability to choose one or the other. From what we have been told, the Snarl has no ability to make a moral choice; it just is what it is. And indeed, from the perspective of such a creature, morality is likely to be a very different thing if it exists at all.

[doodthedud]

I'd argue that chaos to the point of KILLING EVERYONE is chaotic evil, by definition.

Even if it's not intelligent enough to know what it's doing, the thing has literally unmade a universe, killing and destroying the souls of everyone that was alive at the time.

That is quite the evil act - in fact, probably the most evil act ever committed. Even mindless things can be CE by nature, and this is one of them.

No, Good and Evil are based on motives.

CN is probably the most accurate alignment.

[PId6]

KPenguin wins.

The Snarl is:
-Intelligent. Can make moral decisions.
-Hateful. Is capable of emotional responses.
-Maleovent. Basically means evil.

And of course it's pretty obviously chaos encarnate.

Chaotic Evil it is.
First of all, as mentioned, secondary source.

Secondly, just because it's intelligent in the thinking sense doesn't mean it's intelligent in the moral sense. If its fundamental nature is to destroy and kill, and it can't choose to change that nature, then it may as well be true neutral. In the same way that a construct built by an evil wizard to destroy all humans isn't evil in and of itself, the Snarl wouldn't be evil if it isn't able to decide for itself whether to choose good or evil.

I think there's quite a bit of ambiguity here since we really don't know that much about the Snarl. But from what I have seen so far, I'm guessing it's more like a construct than anything else.

[Trizap]

gah. you are all completely missing the point, alignment-wise, DnD can't classify
The Snarl, because simply, its a Cosmic Horror, an Eldritch Abomination (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination) a Cosmic Horror (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CosmicHorrorStory) its a thing that you cannot comprehend, which at the same time, is a thing that cannot comprehend you, without any comprehension at all, the whole "is snarl evil?" question is moot since its too frickin' alien to us, just do yourselves all a favor and don't try come with an alignment, because the Snarl does not have one, end of discussion.

[doodthedud]

KPenguin wins.

The Snarl is:
-Intelligent. Can make moral decisions.
-Hateful. Is capable of emotional responses.
-Maleovent. Basically means evil.

And of course it's pretty obviously chaos encarnate.

Chaotic Evil it is.

Malevolent means wanting to do harm to others.

Where do we 'know' the Snarl is these things from?

[Drakevarg]

...the Snarl wouldn't be evil if it isn't able to decide for itself whether to choose good or evil.

If that's the case, wouldn't fiends qualify as neutral, since they are predisposed from their creation to be evil? No choice, ergo doesn't count. True, the Snarl was a maleovent creature by design, (although obviously an accidental design) but that doesn't give it a moral free pass. It was created by anger and discordance, and like the Furies of Greek mythology, IS evil because it was created FROM evil.

@doodthedud: Shinjo the Narrator. Admittedly a biased source, but at this point the only one we have.

[Sanguine]

If that's the case, wouldn't fiends qualify as neutral, since they are predisposed from their creation to be evil? No choice, ergo doesn't count. True, the Snarl was a maleovent creature by design, (although obviously an accidental design) but that doesn't give it a moral free pass. It was created by anger and discordance, and like the Furies of Greek mythology, IS evil because it was created FROM evil.

@doodthedud: Shinjo the Narrator. Admittedly a biased source, but at this point the only one we have.

No it is stated in the back of the Monster Manual that creatures listed as Always X-alignment are capable of changing such alignment though less than 5% of the population do so.

[Xondoure]

When the giant introduced the snarl he described it as a being of pure chaos that watched the gods fight amongst themselves and became more and more tangled until it hated everything. It is CE but no matter what I or anyone else says, we will still have this argument for the same reasons people are still waiting for the four words to ultimate arcane power; where's the fun in agreeing on something?

Of course even I don't agree with myself, because I still think there is a chance that the MitD is the snarl; especially considering recent events.

[PId6]

If that's the case, wouldn't fiends qualify as neutral, since they are predisposed from their creation to be evil? No choice, ergo doesn't count. True, the Snarl was a maleovent creature by design, (although obviously an accidental design) but that doesn't give it a moral free pass. It was created by anger and discordance, and like the Furies of Greek mythology, IS evil because it was created FROM evil.

@doodthedud: Shinjo the Narrator. Admittedly a biased source, but at this point the only one we have.
Like undead, fiends are inherently evil since they are essentially "evil elementals". I admit that this isn't a very satisfying explanation, but as I've said before, the game isn't always consistent. On the one hand, things that kill instinctively without moral choice aren't evil. Yet on the other hand, fiends are evil even though the same could be said of them.

I suppose the designers just wanted archetypical demon creatures without worry over the logical consistency of their moral system. I'd put outsiders along with undead as more of special cases, since they have archetypically set alignments and I think the game designers, drawing upon myths and fantasy archetypes, wanted it that way without caring that under their system, they shouldn't really be that way.

[Chameon]

One COULD argue (and I'm not saying I agree with this at all!) that it could be viewed as lawful. It's consistent in its methods, never straying from the primary objective, never changing away from its target. (random destruction)

Mostly joking in this post, I apologize the internet makes sarcasm harder to be perceived, as such, I will also state that if you view long term effects it can be viewed as good as well, because without its influence the chaos and arguments of the gods would've continued! (Irony is fun, isn't it?)

[Foryn Gilnith]

gah. you are all completely missing the point, alignment-wise, DnD can't classify
The Snarl, ...its a thing that you cannot comprehend, which at the same time, is a thing that cannot comprehend you, without any comprehension at all, the whole "is snarl evil?" question is moot since its too frickin' alien to us.

Some people like Lovecraft. Some people tolerate Lovecraft. Some people think that he was talking out of his ass. I'm in the last category. The deities of this setting seem easily comprehensible, and the Snarl is no different (most fiction, IMO, does not defy comprehension). It's chaos incarnate, it's malevolent+thinking=evil, and by D&D alignment it's Chaotic Evil.

Not that it matters, because no alignment-related effects can really even touch the Snarl, and game effects are all alignment is good for anyway (but it's very good for those effects IMO)

[doodthedud]

Like undead, fiends are inherently evil since they are essentially "evil elementals". I admit that this isn't a very satisfying explanation, but as I've said before, the game isn't always consistent. On the one hand, things that kill instinctively without moral choice aren't evil. Yet on the other hand, fiends are evil even though the same could be said of them.

I suppose the designers just wanted archetypical demon creatures without worry over the logical consistency of their moral system. I'd put outsiders along with undead as more of special cases, since they have archetypically set alignments and I think the game designers, drawing upon myths and fantasy archetypes, wanted it that way without caring that under their system, they shouldn't really be that way.

An animal doesn't have a brain pre-programmed to enjoy pain and suffering. A demon does. And that enjoyment and indulgence of it makes them evil.

[Drakevarg]

Like undead, fiends are inherently evil since they are essentially "evil elementals". I admit that this isn't a very satisfying explanation, but as I've said before, the game isn't always consistent. On the one hand, things that kill instinctively without moral choice aren't evil. Yet on the other hand, fiends are evil even though the same could be said of them.

I suppose the designers just wanted archetypical demon creatures without worry over the logical consistency of their moral system. I'd put outsiders along with undead as more of special cases, since they have archetypically set alignments and I think the game designers, drawing upon myths and fantasy archetypes, wanted it that way without caring that under their system, they shouldn't really be that way.

Well what I'm saying is that fiends are inherently evil because whatever forces that created them DESIGNED them that way. They may be sentient beings, but they have a deep-seated predisposition towards evil acts.

The Snarl is the same way, I believe. The gods didn't intend to make it, but by causing so much discord they accidently created what you could almost call an epic level demonic ranger with gods as their favored enemy. :smalltongue:

But! More accurately, I mean to say that although it wasn't intentional, the Snarl is Chaotic Evil by design, since it was created by arguing gods. Had they somehow created a chaotic world without being inherently arguementive about it, the Snarl would have been Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral and probably WOULDN'T have slaughtered an entire pantheon. If it was Chaotic Neutral it might kill a few at random just because it's utterly nonsensical, but it wouldn't be actively and exclusively violent if it was anything other than Chaotic Evil.

[doodthedud]

Well what I'm saying is that fiends are inherently evil because whatever forces that created them DESIGNED them that way. They may be sentient beings, but they have a deep-seated predisposition towards evil acts.

The Snarl is the same way, I believe. The gods didn't intend to make it, but by causing so much discord they accidently created what you could almost call an epic level demonic ranger with gods as their favored enemy. :smalltongue:

But! More accurately, I mean to say that although it wasn't intentional, the Snarl is Chaotic Evil by design, since it was created by arguing gods. Had they somehow created a chaotic world without being inherently arguementive about it, the Snarl would have been Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral and probably WOULDN'T have slaughtered an entire pantheon. If it was Chaotic Neutral it might kill a few at random just because it's utterly nonsensical, but it wouldn't be actively and exclusively violent if it was anything other than Chaotic Evil.

True, they had to imprison it, which means it wasn't killing things around it (as a CN would do) but was in fact, actively seeking to destroy them all. That IS CE behavior. So this is correct.

[PId6]

An animal doesn't have a brain pre-programmed to enjoy pain and suffering. A demon does. And that enjoyment and indulgence of it makes them evil.
If it's programmed that way, and didn't have a choice in the matter, then no, it wouldn't be evil. If a wizard casts a spell to make a human feel enjoyment at others' suffering, and then casts Dominate Person to make him indulge that enjoyment without a choice to do otherwise, would he be evil?

[Drakevarg]

If it's programmed that way, and didn't have a choice in the matter, then no, it wouldn't be evil. If a wizard casts a spell to make a human feel enjoyment at others' suffering, and then casts Dominate Person to make him indulge that enjoyment without a choice to do otherwise, would he be evil?

Hence my opinion of sentient with deep-seated predisposition towards evil. They have the option to be good, but 99.99% of demons just prefer evil. The other 0.01% are probably PCs who think that having a good-guy demon is a totally awesome idea.

[Sanguine]

Hence my opinion of sentient with deep-seated predisposition towards evil. They have the option to be good, but 99.99% of demons just prefer evil. The other 0.01% are probably PCs who think that having a good-guy demon is a totally awesome idea.

It is actually closer to five percent who have a different alignment, it states so in the MM. But many of that 5 are only one step away.

[doodthedud]

Hence my opinion of sentient with deep-seated predisposition towards evil.

That's what i mean. they are wired to enjoy pain and suffering. Not dominated or forcefully controlled, but born with a natural love towards (predisposition of) pain and suffering. it may know it is wrong, but still does it. It is a matter of self control. And more would be necessary, but there is still a choice. Which is completely different from your scenario with a mind-spell.


If it's programmed that way, and didn't have a choice in the matter, then no, it wouldn't be evil. If a wizard casts a spell to make a human feel enjoyment at others' suffering, and then casts Dominate Person to make him indulge that enjoyment without a choice to do otherwise, would he be evil?

[PId6]

Well what I'm saying is that fiends are inherently evil because whatever forces that created them DESIGNED them that way. They may be sentient beings, but they have a deep-seated predisposition towards evil acts.

The Snarl is the same way, I believe. The gods didn't intend to make it, but by causing so much discord they accidently created what you could almost call an epic level demonic ranger with gods as their favored enemy. :smalltongue:

But! More accurately, I mean to say that although it wasn't intentional, the Snarl is Chaotic Evil by design, since it was created by arguing gods. Had they somehow created a chaotic world without being inherently arguementive about it, the Snarl would have been Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral and probably WOULDN'T have slaughtered an entire pantheon. If it was Chaotic Neutral it might kill a few at random just because it's utterly nonsensical, but it wouldn't be actively and exclusively violent if it was anything other than Chaotic Evil.
I'm saying that morality doesn't even apply to the Snarl. It's not CN, it's TN BECAUSE it "lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior". The SRD is pretty clear about this part. If fiends have no choice but to do evil, you cannot morally condemn them for their actions and call them evil because they have no choice in the matter. You can pity them, but they do lack the capacity for morality and thus morality does not really apply to them. If they are still classified as evil, then they are the exception, not the rule.

[PId6]

That's what i mean. they are wired to enjoy pain and suffering. Not dominated or forcefully controlled, but born with a natural love towards (predisposition of) pain and suffering. it may know it is wrong, but still does it. It is a matter of self control. And more would be necessary, but there is still a choice. Which is completely different from your scenario with a mind-spell.
If they do actually have the ability to choose good over evil, then yes, that would be correct. But with the snarl, it's literally created out of pure chaos and hatred. I highly doubt such a combination left it much capacity for moral choice. Thus, if even a small percentage of fiends choose good, then they cannot be used as an argument that the Snarl is evil.

[doodthedud]

If they do actually have the ability to choose good over evil, then yes, that would be correct. But with the snarl, it's literally created out of pure chaos and hatred. I highly doubt such a combination left it much capacity for moral choice. Thus, if even a small percentage of fiends choose good, then they cannot be used as an argument that the Snarl is evil.

Perhaps if there were more Snarls we could see if 5% of them went good :smallwink:

[Drakevarg]

I'm saying that morality doesn't even apply to the Snarl. It's not CN, it's TN BECAUSE it "lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior". The SRD is pretty clear about this part. If fiends have no choice but to do evil, you cannot morally condemn them for their actions and call them evil because they have no choice in the matter. You can pity them, but they do lack the capacity for morality and thus morality does not really apply to them. If they are still classified as evil, then they are the exception, not the rule.

Where do we get the clue that it lacks the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior? When I said "Chaotic Evil by design." I meant it in the same way that I meant fiends are evil by design. They can decide to not be evil, its just the vast majority of them wouldn't.

Same with the Snarl. If for whatever reason the gods were dumb enough to repeat their mistake a few thousand times, they might come up with one or two Snarls that AREN'T deicidal monstrocities. Of course, you'd also probably run out of gods by then. Since the Snarl is a unique being, we can't really tell if it is BY DEFINITION the way it is, or is that just it's usual default.

Edit: Damn, got ninja'd.

[PId6]

Where do we get the clue that it lacks the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior? When I said "Chaotic Evil by design." I meant it in the same way that I meant fiends are evil by design. They can decide to not be evil, its just the vast majority of them wouldn't.

Same with the Snarl. If for whatever reason the gods were dumb enough to repeat their mistake a few thousand times, they might come up with one or two Snarls that AREN'T deicidal monstrocities. Of course, you'd also probably run out of gods by then. Since the Snarl is a unique being, we can't really tell if it is BY DEFINITION the way it is, or is that just it's usual default.

Edit: Damn, got ninja'd.
My argument on fiends was to refute attempts to use fiends as example of truly "Always Chaotic Evil" creatures being actually evil, assuming for the sake of argument that there are no good fiends. I'm pretty sure in some previous editions "Always Chaotic Evil" actually means Always Chaotic Evil, so I just wanted to make the "Undead and Outsider exemption" clear.

As for the Snarl, we have no reason to believe that it has any choice in the matter. It seems to me that a creature of pure chaos born out of the struggles of the gods wouldn't develop the capacity to make moral choices, much like a construct designed to kill. But as I've said before, we know very little about the Snarl so anything we presume about it is up to personal interpretation. Yes, it's possible that it chooses to kill, in which case it would be evil. What I am arguing against is the idea that a Snarl that is just a mindless killing machine without no moral capacity COULD STILL be evil. Obviously, if it can actually make a choice in the matter, my arguments wouldn't apply.

[Drakevarg]

Well with as little information to go on as we do, it should have been pretty obvious to all parties that each of our arguements would be subjective and purely speculative. But still, I'm having fun with the debate, aren't you?

[doodthedud]

Well with as little information to go on as we do, it should have been pretty obvious to all parties that each of our arguements would be subjective and purely speculative. But still, I'm having fun with the debate, aren't you?

I am! :D

This is awesome :D

[Drakevarg]

But to continue said arguement, heres the basic points of veiw;

You: The Snarl is a deicidial construct. Ergo, Neutral.
Me: The Snarl is some form of obscenely powerful proto-demon. Chaotic Evil.

Do I have the basic arguements down right?

[doodthedud]

DoodTheDud: The Snarl is a being with a moral compass. However, it has a magnet pulling it to one side rather strongly. It CAN resist the magnet, but it's hard.

[Drakevarg]

Kinda a subcontext to my arguement, DtD.

[doodthedud]

Kinda a subcontext to my arguement, DtD.

Well duh, I started out with a CN idea and your arguments swayed me. I'm like a little minion or something.

[PId6]

Well with as little information to go on as we do, it should have been pretty obvious to all parties that each of our arguements would be subjective and purely speculative. But still, I'm having fun with the debate, aren't you?
I see no such thing. My arguments for the alignment of the Snarl in the case that it has no moral capacity to choose is not subjective at all. The question of whether the Snarl has moral capacity is speculative, but that isn't my primary argument. But yeah, I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't like debating.


I am! :D

This is awesome :D
Vaarsuvius is female. Your move.

[doodthedud]

I see no such thing. My arguments for the alignment of the Snarl in the case that it has no moral capacity to choose is not subjective at all. The question of whether the Snarl has moral capacity is speculative, but that isn't my primary argument. But yeah, I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't like debating.


Vaarsuvius is female. Your move.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0009.html

First Panel. "V-Man"

[Drakevarg]

Okay, true it's not really subjective. Just an objective assessment with almost no information to go on. Same here.

Personally I've always assumed V was male myself. I think it's mostly the hairstyle that does it for me. It seems more 'long haired male' than female. However, since V does rather insistantly bunk with Haley, it lends to the arguement that s/he'd be female.

But that's not the topic of discussion, is it?

Edit: @doodthedud: That's because Ray and Belkar generally think of V as male, although they don't know either.

[doodthedud]

Okay, true it's not really subjective. Just an objective assessment with almost no information to go on. Same here.

Personally I've always assumed V was male myself. I think it's mostly the hairstyle that does it for me. It seems more 'long haired male' than female. However, since V does rather insistantly bunk with Haley, it lends to the arguement that s/he'd be female.

But that's not the topic of discussion, is it?

Or else that V is very respectful of women. V seems to be very passionatly in love with his spouse, so chances are V is also very faithful to the point V would not look at another female.

[PId6]

But to continue said arguement, heres the basic points of veiw;

You: The Snarl is a deicidial construct. Ergo, Neutral.
Me: The Snarl is some form of obscenely powerful proto-demon. Chaotic Evil.

Do I have the basic arguements down right?
That's my opinion on this issue, yes, but there's little enough to actually argue either direction on. But I suppose in the interest of arguing for the sake of arguing...

* "Malevolent and powerful, it wanted nothing more than destruction." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html)
* Its first action was to undo creation, indicating that it really doesn't have much on its mind beyond killing.
* It is created out of the conflict and strife of gods, not leaving much material for developing moral considerations.
* "The Snarl was a thing born of chaos." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html)

Well, that's all I found for now.

[doodthedud]

Edit: @doodthedud: That's because Ray and Belkar generally think of V as male, although they don't know either.

I cannot imagine v as female. i just can't. Nothing about V LOOKS female. Unless V is a VERY ugly female. Which does not fit with elves.

[Drakevarg]

Well, lesse... "it WANTED nothing more than destruction."

To want seems to point towards the fact that it is capable of desires, and unlike an animal, it wanted destruction, where an animal sees destruction as just a means to obtain food.

Remember also that our primary source of info is a paladin reciting a legend.

Edit: Or rather, the leader of the paladins... :smalltongue:

[PId6]

I cannot imagine v as female. i just can't. Nothing about V LOOKS female. Unless V is a VERY ugly female. Which does not fit with elves.
Um, stick figures! How pretty can they be?

[doodthedud]

Well, lesse... "it WANTED nothing more than destruction."

To want seems to point towards the fact that it is capable of desires, and unlike an animal, it wanted destruction, where an animal sees destruction as just a means to obtain food.

Remember also that our primary source of info is a paladin reciting a legend.

Edit: Or rather, the leader of the paladins... :smalltongue:

Indeed. The retelling of the story repeatedly could very well obscure some of the details.

[Drakevarg]

Well, I believe Soon was actually Shinjo's grandfather, so it wasn't retold THAT many times. But it's also true that there's no mortals left from Snarl Round 1.

[PId6]

Remember also that our primary source of info is a paladin reciting a legend.

Edit: Or rather, the leader of the paladins... :smalltongue:
As I've said before, secondary source. The only true wisdom lies in knowing that we know nothing, at least, about the Snarl. But if you want to argue for the sake of arguing...


Well, lesse... "it WANTED nothing more than destruction."

To want seems to point towards the fact that it is capable of desires, and unlike an animal, it wanted destruction, where an animal sees destruction as just a means to obtain food.
Also can be seen as a figure of speech. And if it wants "nothing more", couldn't it be because it can want nothing more? An animal can be seen as wanting to survive, after all, does that mean it's capable of moral thinking?

[Drakevarg]

We've been reduced to debating Shinjo's turn of phrase... we've beaten this topic into the ground, haven't we?

[PId6]

We've been reduced to debating Shinjo's turn of phrase... we've beaten this topic into the ground, haven't we?
Into the earth and out the other side more like it.

[doodthedud]

We've been reduced to debating Shinjo's turn of phrase... we've beaten this topic into the ground, haven't we?

Yup. A shame. I wanted to talk some more.

[Eloel]

Snarl is CN. Chaotic Evil has 2 alignments to hold upto, thus reducing the chaos component. Snarl is pure Chaos, e.g CN.

[Drakevarg]

You're making the (erroneous) assumption that Neutral isn't an alignment in and of itself.

[doodthedud]

Snarl is CN. Chaotic Evil has 2 alignments to hold upto, thus reducing the chaos component. Snarl is pure Chaos, e.g CN.

Anything on the far side of the Chaos spectrum is 'Pure Chaos'

It could be CG, CN, or CE so long as it was the far extreme of Chaotic.

It is shaped like This:

| LG | NG | CG |
| LN | TN | CN |
| LE | NE | CE |

Not like this:

--/ LG | NG | CG \
< LN-- | TN |-- CN >
--\ LE | NE | CE /

[Drakevarg]

Well put, DtD.

[doodthedud]

Well put, DtD.

Thanks. It was a pain lining that second one up.

[PId6]

Snarl is CN. Chaotic Evil has 2 alignments to hold upto, thus reducing the chaos component. Snarl is pure Chaos, e.g CN.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
And again,

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
Though it may be pure chaos, it doesn't necessary mean that it belongs to the chaotic alignment. If it has no moral reasoning, it cannot be chaotic for the same reason it can't be evil.

However, since the Snarl is said to be actually made of chaos, you could plausibly argue that he belongs in the outsider exception as an elemental representation of that alignment. Then it becomes more of an interpretation than anything else. I find it more consistent to treat it as True Neutral, but I suppose a concept such as alignment doesn't really matter when discussing something that would destroy everything.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Pretty much. As a character, we know as much about the Snarl as we're likely to in the next week at least. Attaching an alignment would only serve to determine whether or not Holy Smite and the like would damage it. And it's beyond that sort of magic anyway.

[doodthedud]

Pretty much. As a character, we know as much about the Snarl as we're likely to in the next week at least. Attaching an alignment would only serve to determine whether or not Holy Smite and the like would damage it. And it's beyond that sort of magic anyway.

But here we have the thrill of the argument.

[PId6]

But here we have the thrill of the argument.
She kissed Belkar, thus she must be a chick.

[doodthedud]

She kissed Belkar, thus she must be a chick.

Belkar kissed him, thus Belkar was freaking drunk.

[Gri]

Hence my opinion of sentient with deep-seated predisposition towards evil. They have the option to be good, but 99.99% of demons just prefer evil. The other 0.01% are probably PCs who think that having a good-guy demon is a totally awesome idea.

Wait this does'nt make sense. Isn't there an infinity of demons...? And 0,000000001% of infinity is......infinity.

[Hexen_Hase]

Well, given that the gods (presumably) created alignment, and the Snarl is a mess of everything created by the gods, doesn't that mean the Snarl is essentially every alignment?

[Drakevarg]

There's no more an infinite of demons as there is an infinity of mortals. It's just such an obscenely big number that it's really kinda meaningless. You won't run out unless someone's destroying the Lower Planes or something.


Well, given that the gods (presumably) created alignment, and the Snarl is a mess of everything created by the gods, doesn't that mean the Snarl is essentially every alignment?

Or none of them.

[Hexen_Hase]

None of them makes less sense as all of them, really.

Consider: The Snarl is basically the embodiment of everything "wrong", contentious, illogical, etc. about the world of OotS (D&D), so thusly it is also the avatar of everything "wrong" with (all of) the laws of alignment as well.

[Morquard]

Ok, now let me have a go:


The snarl killed the pantheon of the Gods of the East, which are the Greek gods.
Considering what I remember of the greek gods, they usually weren't very nice to humans. Therefor they all were evil. A whole freaking pantheon of evil gods.
The snalr killed them all (I'm repeating myself, I know). Killing evil things is a good act.
It then went on to kill the other evil gods, but they ran to the good gods and said "Help us, that thing is out to kill US ALL!".
The good gods, being naive and stupid believe that and helped imprison the snarl.
Well it did destroy the world. But only because it felt that it was a place of evil and chaos, that should never be. Better destroy it and give the good gods a chance to do better next time.
As you see, when they rebuild the world a second time, the snarl didn't attack anyone, even though it had the chance. Because this time there was no arguing and stuff, so it was pleased and didn't think it had to act.
When it finally realised it had been tricked it was too late.


Therefor after presenting these evidences, I hereby conclude that the Snarl is indeed a lawfull good paladin, who wanted to rid the Gods of their evil brethren.

Oh and of course history gets written by the winner, which in this case are the gods.
Also who are our sources anyway?

Shijo, who got his information from Soon. Who got it from who? Perhaps made it up, or thought they figured it out. I'm not sure the gods would actually tell them of their complete screwup.
Even if they did they might have changed some minor or major details to make them look better and the snarl even worse. Just because Shijo says the Snarl became more intelligent doesn't mean thats the case.
Redcloak who in SOD gets that information from the Dark One, who in turn got it from the other gods, who hadn't told him about it for a couple of thousand years, and only did after he had found out already. THey might have twisted it in their favor. ANd the Dark One might have twisted it again when he told it to Redcloak. And Redcloak might actually have twisted parts of it when he told it to Xykon.

[King of Nowhere]

I was under the impression that the snarl was mindless, and therefore TN. Just like a rabid animal that crush everything in his path.
But there are no definite proofs about the sentience of the snarl

[Drakevarg]

Considering what I remember of the greek gods, they usually weren't very nice to humans. Therefor they all were evil. A whole freaking pantheon of evil gods.


Spoken like someone who truely doesn't have a clue as to what they were talking about. If not being nice makes you evil, then Miko was a friggen Blackguard.

No. While the Greek Gods had alot of petty infighting, that happens to members of any group, regardless of alignment. As for their treatment of mortals? The majority of their acts on mankind were as punishment for almost comical acts of stupidity. Midas asked for unlimited wealth. They gave it to him, and punished his greed by not letting him turn it off. Icarus ignored both his fathers warnings AND the gods' pretty basic idea of 'humans can't fly'. So, he fell and drowned. Narcissus was as self-centered as could be. So they let him fall so madly in love with his own image that he wilted into a flower.

Right from the beginning Greek mythology has been a cycle of stupidity and punishment for aforemented stupidity. Oranos tries stuffing his ugly kids inside Gaia, so Gaia has on of his kids, Cronus, castrate the jerk. Cronus in turn gets paranoid and starts eating his own kids so they wont overthrow HIM. Of course, they wind up doing so, for the very fact that he tried to keep them from doing so.

The Greek Gods weren't evil. They were stupid. Most of them were probably closer to Lawful Neutral; you're fine if you're not stupid. if you are stupid, you get punished for it. The problem? you're probably stupid.

K, done ranting. I'm going to bed now.

[Morquard]

Gee, you didn't really take what I wrote there for real right?
I mean, come on, the snarl lawful good?

Ancient gods were usually impersonating all the good and bad things, so yeah most of them were either neutral, or the good and evil gods balanced each other.

However we know nothing of the Gods of the East just that their names are the same as the Greek gods, so THEY might all have been evil :)

[Devonix]

Another thing is that The Snarl had been alive for basically a half hour during the time when it destroyed creation and was locked up. It was too dangerous to try and find out its motives or anything,but perhaps it was just throwing a tantrum or something I basically was a baby an all powerful baby.

How rational would a baby act after just coming out of the womb and swinging its arms around while its parents argue loudly.

This baby then gets locked up with no nurturing and from what we can tell, all of its attacks were just it swinging its arms out of holes in the air.

[Carisbourg]

Wait this does'nt make sense. Isn't there an infinity of demons...? And 0,000000001% of infinity is......infinity.

Howabout the other demons watch when a new one is formed, cast Detect Good and then destroy the good ones.

[Zael Zuran]

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.

This is one of those goofy things about alignment, and one that makes little sense, save as a reflection of previous versions of D&D.

In the case of mindless undead, they are animated by pure evil(tm). Since they have no minds of their own, their actions are those of their creators or taskmasters. Left to their own devices, no one would know they were animated because they'd just lie there.

BUT...

As creations of evil magic, they are still vulnerable to "holy" attacks. It seems to be a holdover from older editions of D&D where monster resistances and vulnerabilities were poorly defined, at best.

[Zael Zuran]

I seem to recall 1st edition AD&D skeletons being Neutral (Evil tendencies). Implying that the negative energy would urge them to be hostile without instruction to anything but their creator.

I think Liches were the same way. Not by default dedicated methodical evil, but quite content to spread mayhem when opportunity knocks.

[Optimystik]

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.

BoVD: Undead are powered by negative energy, which makes the world a darker and more evil place. They are also filled with a ravenous desire to end life, just as anti-matter exists to cancel out matter. This balances out any good acts they might be commanded to do.


KPenguin wins.

The Snarl is:
-Intelligent. Can make moral decisions.
-Hateful. Is capable of emotional responses.
-Maleovent. Basically means evil.

And of course it's pretty obviously chaos encarnate.

Chaotic Evil it is.

I don't see where this conclusion came from at all.

Intelligent: There is certainly no evidence of this yet.
Hateful: "Aversion to being restrained" is an instinctive response and not necessarily an emotional one. If you lock up a wolf he will chew at his bars and throw himself against the door, but that doesn't mean he hates or is even aware of his captors.
Malevolent: It destroys everyone equally regardless of their alignment. There is no malevolence in its actions.

The closest D&D entity I can think of to the Snarl is Garagos from Faerun:
"The other deities on Toril deal with Garagos by staying the hell away from him." His alignment? CN.

[73 Bits of Lint]

The snarl seems like more of a force of nature than anything else. Debating it's alignment is like saying that a hurricane is good or bad based upon whether it gets blown over a populated area versus an unpopulated one.
Sure, Shojo's description makes it sound Chaotic Evil, but he's a paladin at the head of an order of paladins that is sworn to keep a force that they barely understand from getting loose on the world. What are the chances that they might apply a moral dichotomy to their situation simply to keep things making sense?

[Rotipher]

Trying to pin the Snarl down to an alignment seems like an oversimplification to me. We don't know if it's sentient, or if so, if it has free will. We don't even know if it destroys things voluntarily, or simply by reflex, or out of fear and/or stark raving insanity.

The most likely scenarios I can think of:

1) The Snarl isn't an entity, it's more like a force of (super)Nature. A tornado or tsunami are inherently destructive without being Evil. Any descriptions of the Snarl as sentient are a result of unconscious anthropomorphism by those who tell the story.

In this case, the Snarl would be unaligned, even pre-4E. Not everything bad has to have an alignment, let alone an Evil alignment.

2) The Snarl is a whiny brat out to smash whatever it doesn't like. We know that it embodies the gods' disagreement over what the world should contain -- "Trolls should regenerate!" "No, trolls should sit on top of office workers' desks with their big hair sticking straight up!" -- so it makes sense that it would seek to erase absolutely everything that any particular deity -- even the ones it killed -- ever found remotely objectionable within the world ("Grrr! Trolls not perfect! Will smash trolls!").

In short, the Snarl is a living, all-powerful embodiment of Unpleaseable Fanbase rage. In which case, "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't even begin to express how utterly malignant it is. :smallwink:

3) The Snarl's actions and motives have been misrepresented, or overlooked, by the few sources who've told us anything about it. Perhaps it actually had perfectly valid reasons to do what it did, or perhaps its agenda -- or that of some other entity which set it off; again, anything could've been going on back then! -- was far more ambitious and malign than even the wholesale erasure of reality.

In this case, it's too soon to go assigning an alignment to this thing. We just don't know enough.

[Ellen]

When it first came to life, the Snarl was destructive. It was intelligent but may or may not have had any ability to make moral decisions. This could be because it lacked that ability or because it lacked the experience to consider what it was doing.

If the difference was experience, that could change.

The Snarl has had a few eons with nothing to do but think (or rage, if thinking really isn't its thing). However, it has only recently begun to interact with the world around it again.

The primary examples of that interaction seem destructive. It seems that the characters who had contact with it were destroyed.

However, this runs up against narrative laws (as Elan might say). Narrative laws mean things like the guy at the beginning of the murder mystery found holding the murder weapon and doing a dance over the victim singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" may be proven innocent in the last chapter when someone else confesses to everything in front of witnesses. In fact, the safest bet you can make is that the guy dancing over the corpse didn't do it. When narrative laws aren't in effect, that bet is a really good way to lose money.

Narrative laws, in this case, mean something unexpected will happen. It also means very surprising character development is possible.

To this, add the fact that that the Snarl's behavior has changed. Despite now having a really big tear to deal with, it doesn't seem to be actively reaching out for beings to tear apart.

We also have the raven's reaction to it, which may suggest it is changing as an individual/entity or that it is using its godlike powers to change the world of its prison in a positive way, a way that may even allow the beings we've believed it destroyed to survive in some way (or maybe some of them . . . or maybe some could).

Add to that the fact Redcloak's holy symbol didn't wind up in there. That served two narrative purposes. The obvious one is that, while made more vulnerable by its loss and not knowing whether it will be destroyed at any moment, Xykon isn't as weakened as he would be if it had been destroyed (or he isn't as easy to destroy permanently).

But the second one is that a holy symbol that might make it possible for the Snarl to somehow communicate with the gods didn't make it in. Evidence that the Snarl may have changed didn't make it into the story.

Granted, neither did evidence that it hasn't changed. It may still just be a deicidal abomination.

[doodthedud]

This is one of those goofy things about alignment, and one that makes little sense, save as a reflection of previous versions of D&D.

In the case of mindless undead, they are animated by pure evil(tm). Since they have no minds of their own, their actions are those of their creators or taskmasters. Left to their own devices, no one would know they were animated because they'd just lie there.

BUT...

As creations of evil magic, they are still vulnerable to "holy" attacks. It seems to be a holdover from older editions of D&D where monster resistances and vulnerabilities were poorly defined, at best.

Mindless Undeads are an extension of their master's will.

[Doug Lampert]

Yet somehow mindless undead are evil.
That's one of the worst changes from 3.0 to 3.5.

3.0 they detected as evil because all undead do, but their actual alignment listing was TN because they weren't capable of moral choice.

3.5 didn't change a thing about alignment definitions or the detect spells or anything else that would have made a change neccessary or desirable, but they changed the alignment thus contradicting their own reasoning for how to determine alignments.

3.5 even retains the ability of an undead or outsider with the [Evil] subtype to choose to be non-evil and still detect as evil due to it's inherent evilness, and of a non-evil priest of an evil diety or of someone under an [Evil] spell to also detect as evil without actually being evil, so the change is totally unneccessary except to make them vulnerable to smite and Good aligned weapons. Bah!

[Blue Ghost]

Howabout the other demons watch when a new one is formed, cast Detect Good and then destroy the good ones.

That's what I always thought. It's probably more likely for devils, though. Cast detect law and detect evil systematically, and destroy all the non-LE ones. The demons might not care.

[73 Bits of Lint]

Right from the beginning Greek mythology has been a cycle of stupidity and punishment for aforemented stupidity. Oranos tries stuffing his ugly kids inside Gaia, so Gaia has on of his kids, Cronus, castrate the jerk. Cronus in turn gets paranoid and starts eating his own kids so they wont overthrow HIM. Of course, they wind up doing so, for the very fact that he tried to keep them from doing so.

The Greek Gods weren't evil. They were stupid. Most of them were probably closer to Lawful Neutral; you're fine if you're not stupid. if you are stupid, you get punished for it. The problem? you're probably stupid.

K, done ranting. I'm going to bed now.
And Leda was stupid for being a woman, so she was punished by Zeus turning into a swan and raping her. The Greek Gods were just children with super powers, and they had about as much to do with Law or Goodness as a four year old throwing a temper tantrum.
But, that's not exactly relevant in this case because the Gods of the East might have been based on and bear a superficial resemblance to the Greek Pantheon, but they weren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, they couldn't be, because the Gods of the East were there in the beginning (at least as far as we know), as opposed to being the offspring of Titans, etc.

[Bibliomancer]

There's something that's being overlooked here:

The Snarl is malevolent. Therefore it hates. What does it hate?

Order

It doesn't care what kind of law, it just wants to destroy it. It reminds me of the leviathan from Elder Evils. Thus, like the leviathan, it is CN, whether or not it has a mind, because it is a manifestation of discord. Discord = chaos, because in a perfectly lawful world, everyone would agree. Chaos = change and discord causes change.

[Snails]

Perhaps if there were more Snarls we could see if 5% of them went good :smallwink:

Well, we have one Snarl that declined to eat Azure City, even when served up on a silver platter.

I strongly suspect that the Snarl has changed in some fashion. In what way I am not sure, and I doubt the Twelve Gods know either.

[Drakevarg]

I don't see where this conclusion came from at all.

It's quite easy to see where these conclusions came from. The phrases 'intelligent' 'hateful' and 'maleovent' were the exact words Lord Shojo used to describe the Snarl. THAT'S where I came to the conclusion.

As for Leda, I think that was less punishment and more the fact that Zeus had the biggest libido in history. His life's goal was apparently to screw everything AS everything.


To this, add the fact that that the Snarl's behavior has changed. Despite now having a really big tear to deal with, it doesn't seem to be actively reaching out for beings to tear apart.

Well, there's also the fact that the world is a place utterly incomprehensible to it, unlike the one it destroyed. It's also possible that since it was present at the initial creation of the world, it knew where the incomprehensible mess was and noticed the cracks in it. Since Soon and the others built the gates later, it wasn't entirely sure where they were anymore, since as far as we know the walls of it's prison look like a multicolored blur to it. It lost track of where the holes were and thus doesn't even realize that they're there.


The primary examples of that interaction seem destructive.

It's very convincing destruction, since an entire world is gone and a pantheon along with it.


Gee, you didn't really take what I wrote there for real right?


Give me a break. It was four in the morning when I wrote that; I wasn't thinking straight. That's why I went to bed immeadiantly thereafter. Besides, I've heard dumber theories. Aim for the lowest common denominator, y'know?


There's something that's being overlooked here:

The Snarl is malevolent. Therefore it hates. What does it hate?

Order

It doesn't care what kind of law, it just wants to destroy it. It reminds me of the leviathan from Elder Evils. Thus, like the leviathan, it is CN, whether or not it has a mind, because it is a manifestation of discord. Discord = chaos, because in a perfectly lawful world, everyone would agree. Chaos = change and discord causes change.

Well, actually the world it destroyed was completely chaotic, caused by arguementive gods. It doesn't UNDERSTAND order, hence why it couldn't escape the prison made for it.

Basically this is what I think of it: Born of chaos, doesn't understand order. However, in both the chaotic world and this, a far more coherent, lawful world, it sought to destroy. So it's not destroying a world for it being chaotic or lawful, it tried to destroy it because it EXISTS. I'd call that evil, not just opposition to the opposite alignment.

This is, again, assuming that the Snarl is a sentient being, which is my opinion. Obviously others think of it as being a construct or even some weird sort of deity-level weather pattern.

[Bibliomancer]

The original world wasn't chaotic, it was conflicted. The different gods were all attempting to impose their own order on the world, and as a result ripples formed in the magical equivalent of space-time, resulting in a blackhole the snarl. The world was a construct of order, just not an order designed to enclose the snarl. The snarl wants to destroy any order, but it can't destroy the current world because it is trapped by it.

The world-that-was, despite being fragmented, was also ordered. It had the law of gravity, didn't it?

Answer to my rhetorical question before someone attempts to debate the nature of the old world: Yes it did. If it didn't, people would have escaped by jumping off into space, which they didn't do because they are clearly shown being eaten on the ground.

[quick_comment]

Did we all agree that the soul splice that said "Tear down creation just to see if you can" was the CE one?

The snarl DID tear down creation just because it could.

[Optimystik]

Did we all agree that the soul splice that said "Tear down creation just to see if you can" was the CE one?

The snarl DID tear down creation just because it could.

Yes, but not to SEE if it could. There's a subtle but important difference there.

Hunger is a Neutral motivation; morbid curiosity like Jephthon's is Evil.

[EmperorSarda]

I think that for the moment it is impossible to really know what the Snarl's alignment is beyond chaotic.

What evidence we have is what Shojo told the Oots, who he was told by Soon (or his father from Soon) who was told by the Gods. How do the gods know that the Snarl is malevolent or intelligent? For all they knew it was born of their frustration, and destroyed everything.

We don't know it's personal motives except for what the Gods have witnessed. It might just be a deific construct that can only undo creation. We just don't know.