Julia is going to...

[Ceaon]

... get a different afterlife then the rest of her family. She's the only True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) member of the family.

Which makes you think: with the afterlife a certainity in the OotS-verse (and DnD in general), why would you 'misbehave' yourself during life?

[Ancalagon]

Because "misbehaving" people get their own afterlife, that they think they might like.

Or, as in the case of Belkar, they do not think at all. Or in the case of Xykon, they do not care at all (and in the case of the Lich-Xykon, they do not assume they'll ever end in there anyway).

[SadisticFishing]

Because it's hard to prove, for one thing. Most people have no ranks in knowledge religion.

For another, delayed gratification isn't one of most people's strength.

[Murdim]

Because it's hard to prove, for one thing. Most people have no ranks in knowledge religion.

For another, delayed gratification isn't one of most people's strength.Afterlifes are elemental parts of the religious mythos, and there's so much people who are Raised daily that no one would doubt of their existence.

That would be like automatically not knowing that bears attack with their natural weapons as long as you haven't any rank in Knowledge (nature), and requiring a total +5 modifier to this skill to automatically know that. Oh, wait...

[Zevox]

Because it's hard to prove, for one thing. Most people have no ranks in knowledge religion.
I'm pretty sure that in this case that would be Knowledge (The Planes), not Knowledge (Religion). Religion would deal more with the gods and their teachings, but the afterlife in D&D and the OotS is not tied to religion, but simply to the nature of the planes that make up the multiverse.

Zevox

[SadisticFishing]

Except, unlike bears, not everyone dies and comes back to life. Plus, usually you don't remember much...

Actually, are you seriously saying that the workings of death and the afterlife are knowledge as common as that bears use claws?

...

WHAT!?

[NerfTW]

Yes, because people are raised regularly, and others can simply plane shift there and write a book on it, as we saw when Roy was in Celestia.

It's probably very likely that people know about the afterlife, with a few minor details still unknown.

[Random832]

Because it's hard to prove, for one thing. Most people have no ranks in knowledge religion.

Given the amount of information that would be available, it's unlikely that the idea that there's not an afterlife would be seriously considered by anyone in the first place. It's not like this world where you don't have outsiders, people getting resurrected, etc.

[Optimystik]

Would she care? Her parents spoiled her, but that doesn't mean she'd want to live in Celestia that badly.

[SadisticFishing]

How much does your average person know about quantum physics?

Most small towns will not have huge libraries with tons about the afterlife.

Most large towns will not have people going INTO the huge libraries and reading tons about the afterlife. I'm sure there is tons of misinformation and the like.

[Random832]

How much does your average person know about quantum physics?

Most small towns will not have huge libraries with tons about the afterlife.

Most large towns will not have people going INTO the huge libraries and reading tons about the afterlife. I'm sure there is tons of misinformation and the like.

But when what is known is knowable with absolute certainty, without needing complex experiments that most people will understand, not knowing will just be _not knowing_ - people won't "know" false stuff - it's unlikely anyone has ever seriously considered the notion of there not being an afterlife.

[Keshay]

This also begs the question as to how Eric got to Celestia.

He was a toddler when he died. All toddlers are pretty much chaotic neutral, and are never, ever Lawful Good.

I'd suggest that in matters of individuals of non-strongly aligned alignments the afterlife housing authority (or whoever decides who goes where) pretty much keeps families together.

Or it could be that the first levels of the afterlife planes are open to any alignment that is somewhat compatable so that families can saty together or visit, only the deeper areas would be accessable by individuals of stongly aligned morality.

[slayerx]

Which makes you think: with the afterlife a certainity in the OotS-verse (and DnD in general), why would you 'misbehave' yourself during life?

Well, one think i seem to recall is that the after life for evil people is different in DnD than it is in real life portrayals... where as real life religions portray hell as only a place of torment for all souls that go down there, in DnD how you are treated can be largely dependent on the evil deity... i think in numerous cases, evil people could end up being rewarded in death, or atleast have a good afterlife... ofcourse there is also the possibility of becoming some demon's b*tch

[Ellye]

The most important thing is: who said that the TN afterlife is unlikable for TN individuals?

[Ancalagon]

This also begs the question as to how Eric got to Celestia.

He was a toddler when he died. All toddlers are pretty much chaotic neutral, and are never, ever Lawful Good.

Without wanting to sound rude but this is a textbook example of "Who Cares"? That scene with Roy meeting his brother was one of the best five in this already great story.

It makes no sense that toddlers end up in the LG afterlife (the one of their partents? What if the parents have different alignments, but both are equally good and loving parents?) but that raises the question (that RL-religions also had and still have problems with) what happens with (very young) children when they die. But still... that's a question that's really pointless because it pales so much in comparison to the great plot that it fades entirely out of the Realm of Relevancy.

Some questions are perfectly valid to ask but just are so unimportant compared to what "was or is" that they cannot and should not be dealt with.

[Ancalagon]

... get a different afterlife then the rest of her family. She's the only True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) member of the family.

Answer this to find your own answer: Does it matter if she visits the Tavern of Unlimited One Night stands in the LG afterlife or the Tavern of Unlimited One Night Stands in the TN afterlife?

The afterlife in the OotS-verse seem to be some sort of alignment-fitting place you really like to be (at least I deduct that from Belkar's comment on what Shojo is probably doing now, so the CG afterlife will be as nice as the one we have seen). So, if you are true neutral you get a cool place, if you are lg you also get a cool place. I do not see the problem here.

And we do not know if it's impossible to come for a visit once in a while. For example, I fail to see why the celestials should disallow a family member to come for a short visit (if that visitor behaves and he'll be accompanied by an archon (who kicks the visitor out as soon as he misbehaves (according to their LG rules))).

[Ytaker]

The most important thing is: who said that the TN afterlife is unlikable for TN individuals?

The official true neutral one, outlands, isn't especially fun. The town of Plague Mort, say, where everyone is a masochist so they can reach the lady of pain, except rich people, who laugh at your pain. Or Rigus, a land of constant war.

[Sotharsyl]

Going by spoiled rotten I'm guessing that TN is Julia's "true aligment" she didn't have anything to stop her from living how she wants and thinks it's best,now think would you force yourself to act extremely different in your every day life (TN is pretty far from LG on both axes) against your whole philosophy just for a chance to spend eternity with your family.

[dbsousa]

Miko is a perfect object lesson in why people misbehave in the OOTS universe when they know the truth of the afterlife. She believed she was doing the right thing to honor her god until her second to last breath...

[Optimystik]

The official true neutral one, outlands, isn't especially fun. The town of Plague Mort, say, where everyone is a masochist so they can reach the lady of pain, except rich people, who laugh at your pain. Or Rigus, a land of constant war.

You pick the worst examples and make them representative of the entire plane. Plague Mort is between Outland and the Abyss, so of course it sucks, and ditto for Rigus on the border with Acheron. Why would she live in either of those places rather than, say, Sylvania, or Automata, or Ecstasy?

[Bibliomancer]

Ah, but if you assume that people are inherently good and only get corrupted later in life, then young people would get a free pass to whichever afterlife seemed best. I also would dispute the argument that all toddlers are CN, although most in our society are.

Also, for the most part alignment is simply a part of who you are, whether you attempt to deny it or not. It can change, but often only in response to life experiences. Thus far, Julia finds it most enjoyable to be TN.

Lastly, not many people would know about the afterlife. If they knew the true nature of it, evil would go out of business. It specifically mentions in the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells that even very powerful evil people don't know the true nature of the afterlife, and those that do assume that they get an exemption for their power. Thus, for the most part, it is a Catch-22 in terms of avoiding 'bad' afterlives: The weak don't know, and the strong don't care OR hide from it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html)

[73 Bits of Lint]

Which makes you think: with the afterlife a certainity in the OotS-verse (and DnD in general), why would you 'misbehave' yourself during life?
What's the cliche? "One man's heaven is another man's hell?"
Take Belkar as an example: He needs violence. An idyllic afterlife of contemplation, social pleasures and quiet fulfillment (like Celestia) would leave him bored and frustrated. The Abyss might not necessarily be the happiest place in the Universe, but at least it's not boring.

[Haven]

I don't think the majority of the people in this world are anywhere near high level enough for resurrection to ever be a factor in their lives, so most people presumably wouldn't. I imagine that, except for the fact that it's known to be real, for most people in this world the afterlife is a lot like it is in our world for people who believe in it: something you hear about to motivate you, but which is nonetheless so vague and distant as to be unimaginable.

Another factor, spoiled for possible speculation: I also don't think that people who're resurrected retain any memory of their experience on the other side--I'm not sure Roy is going to be an exception. It'll probably work that way for purposes of dramatic irony.

That said, I hadn't considered the impact of all this on Julia. That's actually kind of sad, although Soon's ghost mentions that "visiting" is possible, so.

[Optimystik]

That said, I hadn't considered the impact of all this on Julia. That's actually kind of sad, although Soon's ghost mentions that "visiting" is possible, so.

"He'll visit you as much as he is able" could mean anything; daily, once a millennium, or even not at all. I'm not saying visitation is impossible, but I doubt the barriers between afterlives are very porous either.

[Almaseti]

This also begs the question as to how Eric got to Celestia.


They generally don't consider childhood escapades (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html). Eric probably got a free pass to go wherever he would be happiest. Since the only other family member if his we know about is his LG grandfather, they probably sent him up to hang out with gramps until mom arrived.

[Jaltum]

They generally don't consider childhood escapades (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html). Eric probably got a free pass to go wherever he would be happiest. Since the only other family member if his we know about is his LG grandfather, they probably sent him up to hang out with gramps until mom arrived.

By the same lights--Julia is an adolescent; everything she does currently probably falls under childhood escapades. There's no reason to think she's going to be True Neutral all her life.

In fact, I would guess she isn't True Neutral even now; that scene was very much a parody of teenage girls claiming a trendy bisexuality.

Based on her behavior, I'd say she's Neutral Good, even trending Lawful--when Durkon calls her to task she straightens up pretty quickly.

[Random832]

You pick the worst examples and make them representative of the entire plane. Plague Mort is between Outland and the Abyss, so of course it sucks, and ditto for Rigus on the border with Acheron. Why would she live in either of those places rather than, say, Sylvania, or Automata, or Ecstasy?

Well - the problem is the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlands#Gate-towns) only lists descriptions for the bad ones.

[Bibliomancer]

Also, we should keep in mind that she's probably arbitrarily rejecting her elder's belief system (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html), only to conform to it later. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0100.html)

[Optimystik]

Well - the problem is the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlands#Gate-towns) only lists descriptions for the bad ones.

That isn't a problem for the Giant. :smalltongue:

In any case, a measure of common sense works wonders here. That article, for instance, tells me nothing about the city of Ecstasy except that it's on the border of Elysium. But I know that Elysium is NG heaven. Conclusion: Ecstasy is probably a better place to live than Plague Mort. Simple, no?

[Murdim]

Another factor, spoiled for possible speculation: I also don't think that people who're resurrected retain any memory of their experience on the other side--I'm not sure Roy is going to be an exception. It'll probably work that way for purposes of dramatic irony.That's actually the case in most of, if not all, the D&D settings ; but the "revolving door to Heaven" joke and Horace's secret anti-spellcasting move seems to contradict this.

[Ytaker]

You pick the worst examples and make them representative of the entire plane. Plague Mort is between Outland and the Abyss, so of course it sucks, and ditto for Rigus on the border with Acheron. Why would she live in either of those places rather than, say, Sylvania, or Automata, or Ecstasy?

Mainly they were the only ones I could remember.

So, what alignment is she closest to? Which bit would she go to?

[Bibliomancer]

Well, in the case of the revolving door joke, it's possible that, as a joke, it's only semi-canon, or that people regain previous memories of the afterlife when they die again.

[Keshay]

There has been speculation as to whether or not Roy will remember anything after being raised. The conversation he had with his grandfather in strip #600 would appear to indicate that both Roy and Horace fully expect for Roy to remember the training he did while on the mountain.

[Optimystik]

Mainly they were the only ones I could remember.

So, what alignment is she closest to? Which bit would she go to?

It depends. She might want to be close to family (in case Soon's "visitation rights" are a realistic occurrence) so she might live on the border of Celestia or Arcadia. Or, she might really like magic, so she'd live near the Library of Lore. Or she likes a wild party, so she'd live near Arborea, Ysgard or Limbo. But one thing that isn't likely with her is living closer to the lower planes than necessary.

[Porthos]

This also begs the question as to how Eric got to Celestia.

He was a toddler when he died. All toddlers are pretty much chaotic neutral, and are never, ever Lawful Good.

Projecting biases much here? :smallamused:

[Bibliomancer]

I mentioned earlier that I disagreed with this but, to be fair, kids can be fairly self-centered before they realize that there's an entire world out there just as real as they are. Some people don't realize this until adulthood, if ever.

[Sanguine]

I mentioned earlier that I disagreed with this but, to be fair, kids can be fairly self-centered before they realize that there's an entire world out there just as real as they are. Some people don't realize this until adulthood, if ever.

Being Self-Centered has nothing to do with alignment. Look at Miko she was Lawful Good.

[Porthos]

I mentioned earlier that I disagreed with this but, to be fair, kids can be fairly self-centered before they realize that there's an entire world out there just as real as they are. Some people don't realize this until adulthood, if ever.

Self-centered != Chaotic Neutral thou. :smallsmile: Sure, it can. But it doesn't necessarily mean that.

Moving back to my central point about childlike characters, let's take Thog for an example. The loud protestations of a vocal minority notwithstanding, Thog is unquestionably Chaotic Evil (perhaps with the so-called "Neutral Tendencies": i.e he is more likely headed to Pandemonium than the Abyss when he dies). Yet he also has what has been called a childlike outlook. Then we have Eric, who is by Word of God, in the Lawful Good afterlife.

So we have two examples of "childlike" personas. One is in a LG paradise while another, unless he has a radical change in philosophy, is destined for some sort of CE plane. This would seem to point to the idea that Rich does not ascribe to the idea of Child Like Mentality Equals No Alignment.

Let's actually remember what kids are like. WIthout going into RL, I think there are clear cut differences between kids who are naturally rambunctious and kids who are just "bad seeds". More often than not, kids take after their parents. So if the parents were shining examples of LGness, then more likely than not, the kids would be at least nominally LG.

With the occasional "youthful indiscretion". :smallwink:

Kids, like adults, come in all shapes, sizes, and temperaments. And, yes, they also come in all sorts of philosophical outlooks (for lack of a better phrase).

Can they change outlooks as they grow up? Of course. But I think it's foolish to say that they don't have at least some tendencies, even at a very young age.

[Optimystik]

Concerning Eric: I'm of the opinion that he could have gotten into any of the good afterlives, and ended up in Celestia since that's where his relatives were/would be. His own alignment was incidental to that decision.

[Bibliomancer]

If his alignment was incidental, does that mean that all toddlers go to the Upper Planes?

[Snake-Aes]

The distinct difference between a baby and an adult, in this case, is the animal-like intelligence score. It could have 4, tops.
And the alignment is built as the kid grows up into adulthood. Don't you remember the good aligned teen gobilns!?

[Optimystik]

If his alignment was incidental, does that mean that all toddlers go to the Upper Planes?

Why wouldn't they? If anyone is innocent, it's a toddler.

[Snails]

And we do not know if it's impossible to come for a visit once in a while. For example, I fail to see why the celestials should disallow a family member to come for a short visit (if that visitor behaves and he'll be accompanied by an archon (who kicks the visitor out as soon as he misbehaves (according to their LG rules))).

Miko: Will...will I get to see Windstriker again?
Soon: Of course. He has been waiting for you. He will visit you as much as he is able.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html

[King of Nowhere]

About Julia: I don't think the idea of not seeing her family again troubles her. She still shows a bit of affection for her brother, but she was in the magic school for years and never wrote home.
Se may gladly pay a visit in the afterlife once in a while, but afterliving with her family, don't think so.

About why people behave badly with the certainty of afterlife: it is a sure thing that smoke is harmful, and no smoker ignores it, yet lot of people do actually smoke. I don't see why for evilness it needs to be different.
Also, the Belkar argument (he would be bored in celestia) could work, but it apply only to psycopath like him.

About Eric in the lg afterlife: show me a good reason he should be elsewhere.

[Callista]

Toddlers, chaotic neutral? No. Not really. They just have low mental ability scores which naturally increase with age.

Kids at that age haven't learned self-control, inhibition, etc., and can't control the expression of emotions. That's because their brains literally aren't mature enough to handle those tasks very well--kind of the way you can't expect an average two-year-old to learn to tie his shoes because he hasn't got the fine motor skills yet. Cognitive development is like that too--the way you judge an adult's decisions isn't equivalent to the way you judge a very young child's. (The brain isn't fully mature until the mid-twenties, actually, though most development is done by six and the last major developments by 12.)

Back to the OotSverse, you remember when Roy was talking to the Deva about what afterlife he should get into, and she said that Roy "was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities--including his ability to judge what was best"?

Toddlers are in the same category. Their ability to judge isn't as good as an adult's. They're impulsive; they react emotionally; they're the most violent people on the planet. (Seriously. Researchers have counted todders' violent acts.) They're almost completely unable to anticipate the consequences of their actions.

A toddler's ability to make moral and ethical judgments is quite limited. However, he can be Lawful--within those limits. My early memories have me as Lawful Neutral; as a toddler, I loved fairness, order, and predictability. I played the same way over and over and would outright pitch a fit if someone cheated on a game, sprung something unexpected on me, or tried to trick me. I had the same temper tantrums as any toddler--probably more, actually; my mom insists I just about drove her crazy. I disobeyed my mom, of course; Mom says I was "strong willed" and when I got an idea in my head, I had to carry it out. But from my memories and the baby books, I was definitely a Lawful toddler--within the limits of my ability, which back then was of course as limited as any toddler's. See how that works?

I do doubt a toddler's ability to be either Good or Evil, though. I think Good and Evil depend on having a concept of other people as having a separate consciousness; and that doesn't happen until about four years old. Until a child understands that other people can suffer just like they can, most of morality seems to be along the lines of obeying or not obeying authority, and that's not true Good/Evil at all.

[Snake-Aes]

"Lawful Toddlers Gone Wild" New on Nickelodeon!

[Kol Korran]

just my opinion, but julia is "misbehaving" as the OP wrote, because she's a teenager. plain and simple- youth rebelling and whatnot. as most youth, she isn't concerned with death and so on, probably acting on the assumption that "death happens to other people" as so many teenagers seem to do.

plus- alignment changes through time. she may be true neutral now, but give life a few more years, a few more experiences and who knows... why worry about that when she's so young?

just my thoughts...
Kol.

[Callista]

Come on, it's not actually that far-fetched. Toddlers can be lawful. If you judge it on expended effort within their abilities, you begin to understand that waiting for a full two minutes after Mom leaves to steal forbidden cookies is actually an epic feat of Lawfulness--for a kid that age, anyway.

[TheYoungKing]

As for Eric, I assume that the powers-that-be can record someone's potential alignment rather early.

After all, they tracked Belkar's possible evil without Roy- so why couldn't they track Eric's possible alignment if he had remained alive?

They probably wouldn't judge the possible Evil children too harshly, I don't think, but that does bring up worse issues.

[with an e]

How much does your average person know about quantum physics?

Most small towns will not have huge libraries with tons about the afterlife.

Most large towns will not have people going INTO the huge libraries and reading tons about the afterlife. I'm sure there is tons of misinformation and the like.
Julia isn't an average person. The average person is a commoner. She is a level 3 wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html) and attends (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0256.html) a magic academy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html). In the real world, she would be a student of science or engineering, who would certainly know the important basic conclusions of quantum mechanics and relativity, even if she doesn't know their derivation, which she probably would have been taught.

[SadisticFishing]

But not necessarily the planes, or religion.

I always assumed exact knowledge of the under/overworld was extremely rare, requiring basically epic levels to know.

But now I don't know why. I know there's not much proof AGAINST that, but I don't know that I've actually read than anywhere...

[David Argall]

That's actually the case in most of, if not all, the D&D settings ; but the "revolving door to Heaven" joke and Horace's secret anti-spellcasting move seems to contradict this.

Horace's move is not that powerful a reason. Roy will still have to pay a feat in order to actually make use of that knowledge, and that feat is presumed to represent training and practice, so Roy's heavenly practice is pretty much useless, and his memory would likely be limited to knowing there is such a feat and he would like it.

[factotum]

Many hundreds of years ago, people in the real world believed in religion, er, well, religiously. Eternal punishment for doing evil wasn't just an abstract concept, it was something most of the population genuinely believed would happen. Yet people still did evil. Why? Well, you'd probably have to ask them that, but it's probably partially down to getting instant gratification NOW and what happens in the hereafter can go hang...

[FeAnPi]

Widespread knowledge of the afterlife because there are resurrection spells?:smallfrown:

According to the base rules, a commoner (in a medieval-like world, commoners are the majority part of the folk) gains 3 gp per month, and spends 2 of them just to keep himself alive. Now, a raise dead spell costs 450 gp, plus a diamond valued at least 5000 gp.
So, how many years must a commoner work, before he can afford a raise dead?

Yes, a king will be suddenly raised, if not resurrected. But the majority part of the folk? I do not think so.

And they would not even know about the afterlife.

A medieval-like world is not our world. If you speak of Einstein, nearly everybody in a city (but not elsewhere) will know who is the guy you are speaking about. But during the middle ages, knowledges were not so widespread: during their middle age, Greeks forgot how to write.
During the Middle Age, at Byzantium the common folk (and the priests) belived the earth to be flat and the floor of a temple-like universe, while the scholars knew the shape of the planet thanks to hellenistic texts.
And how many Europeans knew Abelard in the XII-XIII centuries?


Yes, pheraps Julia would know something about the afterlife... but not the common folk.

[Callista]

It won't be quite medieval. With things like Remove Disease spells, communication magic, etc., you end up with the flavor of the medieval world but not quite the same realities. Sure, commoners don't earn much, and information doesn't travel as fast; but it's different from the medieval world. The addition of magic changes critical factors like warfare, food production, medicine, and--yes--religion. Sure, your village priest won't have seen a resurrection; but his superior's superior, over in the next big city, may have performed one; and he himself might have performed miracles like creating water out of nothing--a cantrip, something you could safely say many commoners would have experience with. (Oh, and that's another change: Cities. Those only really took off near the beginning of the Renaissance.) You can't take the medieval world, add magic, monsters, different races, different planes, and whatnot, and assume that it's still going to be the same. It won't be.

[Optimystik]

Horace's move is not that powerful a reason. Roy will still have to pay a feat in order to actually make use of that knowledge, and that feat is presumed to represent training and practice, so Roy's heavenly practice is pretty much useless, and his memory would likely be limited to knowing there is such a feat and he would like it.

What? No character development is related to "training and practice" in OotS. In Origin, Haley brags that her lockpicking ability improved during a mission in which she didn't pick a single lock. Belkar learned Evasion without even realizing it. Elan and Belkar even mock V for wasting his time studying/practicing magic for a century instead of "cruising through bard camp" and just picking up wizardry later.

[Red XIV]

"He'll visit you as much as he is able" could mean anything; daily, once a millennium, or even not at all. I'm not saying visitation is impossible, but I doubt the barriers between afterlives are very porous either.
If it would be impossible for Windstriker to visit Miko, that would mean that Soon lied. He specifically said that she'd be able to see him again.

[Random832]

What? No character development is related to "training and practice" in OotS. In Origin, Haley brags that her lockpicking ability improved during a mission in which she didn't pick a single lock. Belkar learned Evasion without even realizing it. Elan and Belkar even mock V for wasting his time studying/practicing magic for a century instead of "cruising through bard camp" and just picking up wizardry later.

Right - all he needs in the world that's been established is the name of the feat, space on his character sheet to write it (i.e. gain a level that comes with a feat), and, if it's non-core, the fact that this world uses it / if it's homebrew, a description of it. The first and last of these is what is being provided by Horace, and he can easily retain that even if he only has a hazy recollection.

[FeAnPi]

Well Callista, even a simple spell as Create Water is too expensive for a commoner.
He would probably have heard of similar powers, but shurely it is rather hard that he saw many of them himself.
And, anyway, it is really, really unusual for a commoner to see a raise dead spell.


PS: Actually, in the middle ages existed big cities. Byzantium, for example, had a population of at least 60.000 during all his medieval history.

[dps]

If it would be impossible for Windstriker to visit Miko, that would mean that Soon lied. He specifically said that she'd be able to see him again.

Miko fell, and was no longer a Paladin, but it's not at all clear whether or not she was no longer LG. Miko and Windstalker might well both be in Celestia, in which case it would not be necessary to travel to a different afterlife for him to visit her.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Many hundreds of years ago, people in the real world believed in religion, er, well, religiously. Eternal punishment for doing evil wasn't just an abstract concept, it was something most of the population genuinely believed would happen. Yet people still did evil. Why? Well, you'd probably have to ask them that, but it's probably partially down to getting instant gratification NOW and what happens in the hereafter can go hang...
Or more simply -- they didn't really believe in the religion anyway.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Toddlers, chaotic neutral? No. Not really. They just have low mental ability scores which naturally increase with age.

Kids at that age haven't learned self-control, inhibition, etc., and can't control the expression of emotions. That's because their brains literally aren't mature enough to handle those tasks very well--kind of the way you can't expect an average two-year-old to learn to tie his shoes because he hasn't got the fine motor skills yet. Cognitive development is like that too--the way you judge an adult's decisions isn't equivalent to the way you judge a very young child's. (The brain isn't fully mature until the mid-twenties, actually, though most development is done by six and the last major developments by 12.)

Back to the OotSverse, you remember when Roy was talking to the Deva about what afterlife he should get into, and she said that Roy "was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities--including his ability to judge what was best"?

Toddlers are in the same category. Their ability to judge isn't as good as an adult's. They're impulsive; they react emotionally; they're the most violent people on the planet. (Seriously. Researchers have counted todders' violent acts.) They're almost completely unable to anticipate the consequences of their actions.

A toddler's ability to make moral and ethical judgments is quite limited. However, he can be Lawful--within those limits. My early memories have me as Lawful Neutral; as a toddler, I loved fairness, order, and predictability. I played the same way over and over and would outright pitch a fit if someone cheated on a game, sprung something unexpected on me, or tried to trick me. I had the same temper tantrums as any toddler--probably more, actually; my mom insists I just about drove her crazy. I disobeyed my mom, of course; Mom says I was "strong willed" and when I got an idea in my head, I had to carry it out. But from my memories and the baby books, I was definitely a Lawful toddler--within the limits of my ability, which back then was of course as limited as any toddler's. See how that works?

I do doubt a toddler's ability to be either Good or Evil, though. I think Good and Evil depend on having a concept of other people as having a separate consciousness; and that doesn't happen until about four years old. Until a child understands that other people can suffer just like they can, most of morality seems to be along the lines of obeying or not obeying authority, and that's not true Good/Evil at all.
To boil it all down:
Kids can be capable of both great altruism and great cruelty. Kids can be very mean to other kids.

Adults just don't think to hold kids responsible on the same level as they do. Rather, the adults are the ones accepting most of the responsibilities for the child's actions.

Innocence and guilt are merely our evaluations for the kinds of acts a person should be held responsible for. For our purposes, this society's judgment.

If we want to get really nerdy and apply this to cosmic justice in D&D-like settings, then it's really most reasonable to simply have kids tried as juveniles.

Hence, people in real life invented the idea of purgatory to get around this troubling question. How can an afterlife punish a child that yet hasn't developed an ability to accept or reject our values? Simple. They fall under their own category in the cosmic law or what-have-you.

[spargel]

Thog is unquestionably Chaotic Evil


I thought he was chaotic neutral.

[SadisticFishing]

I thought he was chaotic neutral.

haha NOOOooooo...

The dude's INCREDIBLY Chaotic Evil. Just also really, really, really dumb.

[Random832]

haha NOOOooooo...

The dude's INCREDIBLY Chaotic Evil. Just also really, really, really dumb.

What's the evidence for this other than "Roy is LG and he's Roy's opposite" - which doesn't really work for Sabine.

[TheYoungKing]

Got to admit, Thog seems a bit too simple-minded to be big E evil.

[factotum]

Or more simply -- they didn't really believe in the religion anyway.

My whole point was that most people did (the phrase "fear of God" really meant something back in those days), and it seems pretty unlikely that only the ones who didn't believe were doing evil. Reminds me of the Victorian idea that criminals must be stupid to want to commit crime, yet surveys of prisons showed the population to be about on a par with the population outside in terms of intelligence etc.--and considering that the ones in the prison were the less successful criminals who actually got caught, it kind of torpedoed the whole idea!

[Dalenthas]

What's the evidence for this other than "Roy is LG and he's Roy's opposite" - which doesn't really work for Sabine.

Well, he muders children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html), takes part in mass murder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html), and thinks resisting arrest is fun (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html).

Yeah, he's Chaotic Evil.

[mistformsquirrl]

Miko fell, and was no longer a Paladin, but it's not at all clear whether or not she was no longer LG. Miko and Windstalker might well both be in Celestia, in which case it would not be necessary to travel to a different afterlife for him to visit her.

This is what I've been thinking.

Yes, she fell, yes she committed an evil act - and it was a doozy; but it was not a repeated occurrence that indicated a shift of philosophy on her part. She believed she was doing the right thing - and if she'd been a Fighter instead of a Paladin, she'd likely get a (more sternly worded) variation on the speech Roy got from his intake Deva.

A key thing to remember of course is that the Paladin code is intended to be substantially stricter than merely being LG. You aren't 'just' LG, you are a paragon of what it means to be LG. (This incidentally still does not mean you must insert a stick in your rear to be a Paladin.)

So although she fell from Paladinhood... her alignment didn't necessarily change at all. I'd say there's a solid chance she made it to Celestia; despite a truly awful mistake. Just being horribly unlikable and failing miserably at a major life goal doesn't preclude the LG afterlife. (See Eugene.)

[Haven]

Well, he muders children (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html), takes part in mass murder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0339.html), and thinks resisting arrest is fun (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html).

Yeah, he's Chaotic Evil.

There's also "Stupid Isn't Always Cute" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html) and his "puppy" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots00142.html), which I remember that the Giant wrote was actually intended to remind us that just because he's dumb doesn't mean he's innocent.

Also, mistformsquirrl: IAWTC.

[Porthos]

What's the evidence for this other than "Roy is LG and he's Roy's opposite" - which doesn't really work for Sabine.

What? Murdering 500+ people (combined total from various sources) isn't enuf? :smalltongue:

OK, here we go:

Dude enjoys causing chaos and destruction.
Dude knows right from wrong, but he just doesn't care.
And one shouldn't take dude's statements about "puppies" at face value. :smalltongue:

I've repeated myself on this subject waaaaaaaaay too many times, so I'll give the Cliff Notes™ version here:

Roy, Eugene (at least before he died), Hinjo, Miko (well, until "The Incident" at least :smalltongue:) and Durkon all have radically different personalities with radically different modus operandi. Yet all of them are/were Lawful Good. And Xykon, Belkar, and Thog all have radically different personalities and modus operandi as well. Yet all of them are Chaotic Evil.

It's been said time and time and time again: Alignments aren't straightjackets.

Thog is CE because the joy he gets out of life is by causing mayhem and slaughter. Could he be reformed? Perhaps. But he hasn't yet. And I seriously doubt he will while he keeps hanging around the Linear Guild. :smallamused:

As Haven alluded to, Thog is a subversion of the Dumb is Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood) stereotype. As TV Tropes notes, he really is a Psychopathic Manchild (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychopathicManchild) instead.

Besides when it comes to alignment in DnD, there are no "Get Out of Hell Free" cards for being dumb. It's only things that have plant/animal intelligence that are given a pass for not knowing any better. One would literally have to be a drooling idiot (i.e. INT of 2 or lower) to get the GOOHF pass.

And while Thog may be dumb, he ain't THAT dumb. :smallamused:

PS: Yes, this was me being brief. At least when it comes to this debate. :smalltongue:

[TheYoungKing]

I disagree. If thog really is as stupid as we are led to believe, he doesn't understand his actions whatsoever, and so, he's little more than an animal. I'm thinking his INT is way below 8.

I hate to bring this up- but people with mental handicaps can be quite cruel and well, brutal. But we can't judge many of them on the morality of their actions because they simply don't understand. thog, I don't think, is any different.

I vote CN, though he associates with obviously Evil individuals. I guess a - would better represent his alignment there- he simply can't have one on that axis.

:thog: thog just pawn in game of life.

[Porthos]

I disagree. If thog really is as stupid as we are led to believe, he doesn't understand his actions whatsoever,and so, he's little more than an animal. I'm thinking his INT is way below 8.

I hate to bring this up- but people with mental handicaps can be quite cruel and well, brutal. But we can't judge many of them on the morality of their actions because they simply don't understand. thog, I don't think, is any different.

I vote CN, though he associates with obviously Evil individuals. I guess a - would better represent his alignment there- he simply can't have one on that axis.

:thog: thog just pawn in game of life.

Real Life != DnD though.

In Real Life, people who are mentaly handicaped are judged differently by the courts than people who aren't. But on the DnD scale, they are judged the same, at least when it comes to alignments.

Besides, in the Real World, people can't just shrug off a Fireball Detotnation to the face either. So comparing things to the Real World, while useful, isn't always applicable. :smalltongue:

And lets not forget Thog admits to be guilty of crimes when he is captured by the Cliffport police. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html) This proves that he knows Right from Wrong.

Moreover DnD has had example after example after example of people who weren't very bright (to say the least) but were very evil.

If anyone can find me ANY WotC sourcebook that says people who are from 3-7 INT aren't responsible for their actions.... Well I would be very surprised.

BTW: If you want, I can list plenty of Thog's statements and actions that incontravertably point to him being CE. I'll start with "oh, little ice cream friends. thog delays borden-ridden rampage only for you!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html) and work my way down. :smallamused:

And, INT wise, Thog is probably around a five or six. He certainly isn't someone who is cataonic, or someone who can only speak in grunts and snorts.

Is his speech a bit simple?

Yes.

Sadly in DnD that doesn't get one a Get Out of Hell Free Card. :smallamused:

[Haven]

I disagree. If thog really is as stupid as we are led to believe, he doesn't understand his actions whatsoever, and so, he's little more than an animal. I'm thinking his INT is way below 8.

I hate to bring this up- but people with mental handicaps can be quite cruel and well, brutal. But we can't judge many of them on the morality of their actions because they simply don't understand. thog, I don't think, is any different.

I vote CN, though he associates with obviously Evil individuals. I guess a - would better represent his alignment there- he simply can't have one on that axis.

:thog: thog just pawn in game of life.

Thog takes active delight in murder and abuse. I don't know if we can say one way or the other if he understands--personally, I think that he does understand, he makes the deliberate choice, and what makes it fun for him is knowing that he's causing others pain.

But in the context of Order of the Stick, it's irrelevant. Take Belkar and Elan: both are extremely low-Wisdom characters, but Elan is good and Belkar is evil. Based on his cunning, I'd say Belkar is more intelligent than Elan (though Elan's character development indicates the gap is a little closer now). It was indicated in the "owl's wisdom" strip that Belkar might be good if he had more wisdom--I don't think it would have stuck--but that doesn't change the fact that he is evil as he is. Similarly, Thog's lack of intelligence, and the possibility that he might be good if he wasn't so unintelligent, doesn't excuse him.

[TheYoungKing]

Rich's world seems to be based on the individual's perception of things, the Deva says that it matters that they did what they THOUGHT was best.

thog, I don't think, can comprehend good and evil. He can comprehend what thog wants to do, and thats it. he has such a low grasp on reality that it can be hard to say whether he has any sense of morality.

And, BTW, mundane animals have no alignment. They are true neutral when judged. Thog isn't a 1 or a 2, I'll grant. But he has to be below an 8. Elan and Belkar are at least a modifier or two above thog.

I recall reading a design and development article somewhere that talked about how, for 3.5, they tried to get a natural curve of ability scores based on the real world. thog would be on the low end of (human) intelligence if that were the case.

Scaling up from an animal, and assuming some real world rules hold true, thog could understand Law (Order) and Chaos (a lack of order) before he could possibly understand Good and Evil. Remember, thog's morality has been seen as malleable- he doesn't do anything evil in the presence of not-Nale. But he's quickly pushed to evil with Nale-not-not-Nale. That type of malleability suggests thog does not understand his actions.

You're right that WoTC never delved into this, but they probably never expected people to speculate on mental handicaps in the world. They did offer animals as an example and they did try and hold to some real world rules, so there is a case to be made.

(And as for Thog saying he's guilty- that's merely a matter of understanding Law. He knows he did something, even if he doesn't know it was wrong. He knows the Cliffport authorities don't like what he did.)

[Porthos]

But in the context of Order of the Stick, it's irrelevant. Take Belkar and Elan: both are extremely low-Wisdom characters, but Elan is good and Belkar is evil.

This is a very good point, and one worth highlighting. :smallsmile: While Elan is almost certainly smarter/wiser than Thog, he is a usefull counterpoint. Elan is (or at least was) EXTREMELY child-like. Yet he was unquestionably Good.

Then we have the (perhaps controversial) example of Eric Greenhilt. This was just a young boy, but the Gods determined that even though he was young and (quite literally) childlike, he should be in a LG afterlife. Yes yes yes, I realize that people can and have made arguments about this.

But after three "childlike personality" examples (Thog, Eric, and Elan) all with radically diffferent alignments, perhaps we should come to the conclusion that irrespective of what you would rule in your personal games, it would appear that Rich thinks that people with a childlike personality are still able to have definable alignments".

Sure we won't absolutely 100% know until/if Rich shows Thog landing in Pandemonium (the N flavored CE plane) when he kicks the bucket. Or, if he gives a Word of God statement along the way. But even without Iron Clad Word of God proof, I'm willing to say that he's given plenty of clues for people. :smalltongue:

PS: Again, nothing in my arguments suggests that Thog can't one day change alignements/outlook on life. All I iz saying is that, a brief moment with Elan notwithstanding, he hasn't shown any :smallsmile: of changing his ways/motivations.

[TheYoungKing]

I have my own theory on the Greenhilt child- the powers-that-be could judge his future alignment, just as they did with Belkar's potential evil. Then, there is the fact that separating a child from their family could hardly be regarded as Good- especially if the child ceased developing mentally in the afterlife, as it appears his brother did.

And again, I think Elan has a modifier or two on thog.

[Kish]

What's the evidence for this other than "Roy is LG and he's Roy's opposite" - which doesn't really work for Sabine.
It doesn't?

Sabine is certainly evil, and other than that she's finally been confirmed as a succubus (which, in an IFCC fiend whose direct superior is Director LEe, might not mean much), I see no evidence that she's chaotic rather than lawful. The one it didn't work for is Yikyik, though it's slightly suboptimal for Leeky (had to be Neutral Evil, opposed to the Lawful Good Durkon).

[Porthos]

Rich's world seems to be based on the individual's perception of things, the Deva says that it matters that they did what they THOUGHT was best.

Huh. So I guess that means that Miko never Fell, eh? :smalltongue:

Let's not take the Celestial Deva's words out of context here. I am quite sure that she would boot someone from Celestia faster than you can say Kentucky Fried Soul if anyone who was deluded enough that they thought that murdering scores of babies in their sleep was really proper Lawful Good behavior showed up at her desk.


thog, I don't think, can comprehend good and evil.

Cite a strip please. :smallsmile:

I've cited a strip where he CAN tell the difference between right and wrong. Can you do the opposite?


He can comprehend what thog wants to do, and thats it. he has such a low grasp on reality that it can be hard to say whether he has any sense of morality.

And, BTW, mundane animals have no alignment. They are true neutral when judged

Absolutely correct.

Thog isn't a 1 or a 2, I'll grant. But he has to be below an 8. Elan and Belkar are at least a modifier or two above thog.

I recall reading a design and development article somewhere that talked about how, for 3.5, they tried to get a natural curve of ability scores based on the real world. thog would be on the low end of (human) intelligence if that were the case.

Scaling up from an animal, and assuming some real world rules hold true, thog could understand Law (Order) and Chaos (a lack of order) before he could possibly understand Good and Evil. Remember, thog's morality has been seen as malleable- he doesn't do anything evil in the presence of not-Nale. But he's quickly pushed to evil with Nale-not-not-Nale. That type of malleability suggests thog does not understand his actions.

He really didn't have a chance to do much Evil, you know. And in the bonus only material of War and XPs...

Julio Scoundrél specifically (and in a foreshadowing way) warns that Thog might not be the best of traveling companions.

Plus there's the whole "Thog attacks Haley even though it's clear that Elan doesn't want him to" thing.


You're right that WoTC never delved into this, but they probably never expected people to speculate on mental handicaps in the world. They did offer animals as an example and they did try and hold to some real world rules, so there is a case to be made.

See, I think you are (and quite understandably) projecting Real World Biases/Concerns unto a system that really starts to break down if you do that. Heck trying to map alignments on Real Life is problematic in the best of cases (and one might say foolhardy).

But Thog ISN'T that stupid anyway. He really isn't.

And even if he was, after a while (say 500+ murders), sooner or later you just have to say "screw it" and move on.

Also, and I don't have the source material with me, at one point WotC did give a general guideline for what 3, 4-5, 6-7, and 8-9 INT characters would be like (under the idea of how to play a character who had taken ability damage). And since they said (paraphrasing) "that plant/animal characters have INTs 2 and under, therefore they are TN (for not being able to tell right from wrong)" it would seem to follow that anyone with a 3 or more INT does have an alignment. Otherwise they would have put the cutoff at a higher level (say, 5 or 6).

There are plenty of characters in DnD who had very low INTs but were unquestionably Good (thanks to the aforementioned stereotype, Dumb is Good). Are you saying that all of those characters can't be Good either? Because that is one of the implications of your argument.

And that is an implication that I certainly can't agree with. Waaaaay too many examples in fiction of "Dumb is Good", after all. As TV Tropes attested to. :smallwink:

Anyway a good character who was had those INT scores would be simple, yes, but they would also be polite, helpful (perhaps painfully so), and would go out of their way to please people.

An evil person of those INT (or WIS if one prefers) scores however, probably would act out in egregious behavior, while not quite understanding why some people were pissed at them. Alignment can work at a semi-instinctual level after all. Or habitual, if one prefers.

Call it the "standard mode of thought/knee jerk reaction" to something. A good person will knee jerk in a certain way (usually) while an evil person will knee jerk in another.

Now, as I said in the previous post, if you want to strip alignments from people who are INTs 3-7, feel free. It just doesn't appear that baseline DnD agrees.

[Random832]

Dude knows right from wrong, but he just doesn't care.

This is the part that's not clear to me.


And lets not forget Thog admits to be guilty of crimes when he is captured by the Cliffport police. This proves that he knows Right from Wrong

Only if you take the dictionary definition of guilty - someone with a poor understanding of the legal system (like :thog:) could simply mean that he did do what they are saying he did (which, of course, he did), it doesn't mean that he understood it to be wrong.

[Porthos]

This is the part that's not clear to me.



Only if you take the dictionary definition of guilty - someone with a poor understanding of the legal system (like :thog:) could simply mean that he did do what they are saying he did (which, of course, he did), it doesn't mean that he understood it to be wrong.

Well you see, I interpeted that scene as saying Thog isn't going to try to concoct some sob story that the cops wouldn't beleive. Instead he will tell the unvarnished truth... In only the way Thog can. :smalltongue:

But even if he had a.... dimishied... capacity for determining right from wrong, sooner or later one just has to say a line has been crossed. Sure you might be able to cut him some slack, alignment wise. I can see that debate and perhaps even agree with it. But after multiple mass murder sprees and the clear delight that he takes while doing it, I eventually have to drop him in the Destined for Pandemomium file.

Here's the thing. IMO, there are three seperate factors at play here. One is the very real (and one I happen to share in RL) aversion to assigning guilt to people who have mental handicaps. Then there is the legacy idea from previous editions (1e and 2e) that people who are crazy (as Thog arguably is) are Chaotic Neutral. But I think the overwhelming factor is that Thog is funny in a Demented Childlike Way, and thus people don't want to slap the Evil tag on him.

I mean look at how many years and how many Word of God statements it took from Rich (in comic and out) for people to, more or less, accept that Belkar is Evil. And even after all that, some people are starting to climb aborad the Belkar's Dream Quest Now Means He's Chaotic Neutral bandwagon.

Not wanting to think a character that you like as being evil is a powerful allure, after all.

But here's the thing. As I said before, if one says that Thog can't be Evil, then an anti-Thog couldn't be Good. To be consistant you'd have to say that someone is "too dumb to be a good person". And I don't think too many people are willing to say that. :smallwink:

But let's step back from all of that, and just look at this objectively:

Thog enjoyes killing, rampaging, and causing chaos in his wake.
Thog thinks that torturing people is in fact a fun activity.
Thog has homicidial urges that he can barely keep restrained.
Thog is self-aware, even if he isn't an Einstein.

All of this points to Chaotic Evil.

Now as has been pointed out repeatedly in the Thog debates, yes, if Thog had a decent role model, perhaps he would be different. If Thog exclusively hung out with Elan istead of Nale, perhaps he would slowly change his way.

Yes, there is a chance.

On the other hand there is every likelihood in the world that Thog would just go on a bordem-driven rampage if Elan wasn't providing enough distractions for Thog. :smallamused:

And I, for one, ain't going to bet on the (Even Slightly) Reformed Thog theory. :smalltongue:

[Callista]

My mom's an OT and has actually worked with a lot of people with MR in the real world. According to her, they DO know "right from wrong", even at surprisingly low IQs. It's the ability to interpret a situation that seems to be lacking. They sometimes don't understand why something might be good or bad; but when they do understand, they usually know the difference. Some of these people have vocabularies of 20-some words and have to be helped to eat and dress... Apparently morality is a very basic human universal.

[valce]

To boil it all down:
Words.

A toddler's alignment is about as meaningful as a duck's alignment. If a toddler can be lawful good, so can a duck.

I guess the deeper question is when a toddler crosses the line between not having a meaningful alignment and having one. Ducks, on the other hand, never have to worry about this*.

-V

*In the D&D world, admittedly, for a given value of 'never'.

[Callista]

Past about age 2, you're above animal intelligence (here "intelligence"="problem solving ability", IQ without age-matching). That's about as far as a monkey or a dolphin can get in terms of problem solving--as far as a human 2-3 year old, with a few specialized abilities above that. I could agree that babies are true neutral, having individual personalities but not individual alignments; toddlers can definitely be chaotic or lawful, though.

By age four to six, it should be possible to start moving up or down the Good/Evil axis, too, when you start to be able to take another person's perspective.

Have you guys ever had NPC toddlers and children in your games? What did you do about their alignments?

[SoC175]

I disagree. If thog really is as stupid as we are led to believe, he doesn't understand his actions whatsoever, and so, he's little more than an animal. I'm thinking his INT is way below 8.
Doesn't matter. As long as it's 3+ he has an alignment (and if it's 2 or less it's animal level and Thog is clearly above that)

[Snails]

I think the point of Thog in the story, is to fill out the "third axis" of alignment: Likeability.

Elan is Likeable Good. Thog is Likeable Evil. Miko is Unlikeable Good. Belkar is Unlikeable Evil.

(We may like Belkar as a character in a strip, but it would be difficult imagining wanting to spend any time with the sadistic rascal.)

[Snake-Aes]

I think the point of Thog in the story, is to fill out the "third axis" of alignment: Likeability.

Elan is Likeable Good. Thog is Likeable Evil. Miko is Unlikeable Good. Belkar is Unlikeable Evil.

(We may like Belkar as a character in a strip, but it would be difficult imagining wanting to spend any time with the sadistic rascal.)

I don't think i'd like having thog around either. His dumbness is fun only during his shining strips, like the inner greeness one. Otherwise he's as bad as Belkar.

[SadisticFishing]

In a way, not at all as bad.

Thog, unlike Belkar, is not at all malicious.

[Souhiro]

I'm the only one that thinks Julia is, at least, a secondary character, and apart from being kidnapped and rescued ONCE, she won't appear again?

[Doug Lampert]

I disagree. If thog really is as stupid as we are led to believe, he doesn't understand his actions whatsoever, and so, he's little more than an animal. I'm thinking his INT is way below 8.

His Int is at least 3. Minimum to speak at all. Creatures with 3 in can have any alignment and his actions and attitudes are clearly CE.

He is capable of moral choice and makes (im)moral choices.

[Bibliomancer]

Sabine is certainly evil, and other than that she's finally been confirmed as a succubus (which, in an IFCC fiend whose direct superior is Director LEe, might not mean much), I see no evidence that she's chaotic rather than lawful. The one it didn't work for is Yikyik, though it's slightly suboptimal for Leeky (had to be Neutral Evil, opposed to the Lawful Good Durkon).

When was Sabine confirmed as a succubus? Did it occur in comic?

I know that one of the directors referred to a succubus working under him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html), but has this been confirmed as Sabine? It seems likely, but there is still room left for another agent to be present, given the shape-changing abilities of succubi.

[Rev. George]

Well Callista, even a simple spell as Create Water is too expensive for a commoner.
He would probably have heard of similar powers, but shurely it is rather hard that he saw many of them himself.

I dunno... You would think the local priest would do it on occasion, in order to prove the power of the gods. Harkening back to the allusions to the Real middle ages, Catholic priests changed bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (according to their belief).

Miko and Windstalker might well both be in Celestia, in which case it would not be necessary to travel to a different afterlife for him to visit her.
But he would have to travel to visit her- From what we've seen of Argent, Paladin mounts "pop" to the higher levels of the upper planes, where the gods dwell. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html (see the last panel)

Child Like Mentality Equals No Alignment.
But and increase in wisdom can change one's world view, as evidenced by belkar and the owls wisdom http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html

-+G

[Optimystik]

I know that one of the directors referred to a succubus working under him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html), but has this been confirmed as Sabine? It seems likely, but there is still room left for another agent to be present, given the shape-changing abilities of succubi.

That there could be another such being who knows of both the Gates and Vaarsuvius' connection to them would be pretty incredible.

[factotum]

That there could be another such being who knows of both the Gates and Vaarsuvius' connection to them would be pretty incredible.

And Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation for something is probably the correct one--in this case, that Sabine is the succubus being referred to; after all, we saw her reporting to the IFCC back when she first learned about the gates.

[Optimystik]

And Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation for something is probably the correct one--in this case, that Sabine is the succubus being referred to; after all, we saw her reporting to the IFCC back when she first learned about the gates.

That's... what I was saying. :smalltongue:

[FeAnPi]

Yes, Rev. George, according to their belief... but, in fact, the "real" (or supposed reals, I've seen the relic and it is very hard to prove anything from that) changes as the one of Bolsena were regarded as miracles.

Or, in D&D terms, the "spell" is not so common.