My friend insists V is TN.

[Burpcycle]

But I say LN. We both know that early in the strip V is affected by that one spell that only affects good characters like that, but funny > rules in the comic and every other instance seems to show V as more neutral than good.

[kpenguin]

This has been discussed many times on the board. For the most part, there are still many who disagree on exactly what V's alignment is

[Kallisti]

V is not lawful. At all. V abandons companions in a time of need and blasts people into dust, not because of any provocation, but because it is convenient.

V could be TN, but I guess either CN or NE... Originally either TN or CN, but now...

[SadisticFishing]

Arguing V as NE is virtually impossible. He does too much self sacrifice. He's just very goals oriented.

For some reason everyone (including myself) assume Lawful Neutral, but I think he may indeed be Neutral. Very difficult to tell, what promises has he made? Has he ever broken any laws?

Abandoning friends is not about law or chaos. In fact, a lawful person would probably be more likely to abandon friends in the face of rules or the like.

[Haven]

I think V is true neutral. In the beginning I thought he might be LN, but then he mentioned disdaining the "intrusions of secular legalities" or something.

So, yeah, TN (with one seriously evil act), maybe NE if he keeps up that trend.

As for that one spell in the beginning: it affects all non-evil characters that way, I thought.

[Liwen]

Unholy blight affects all no-evil characters indeed, but the effect on a neutral character a less severe than on a good character (before we start considering the saving throws of course) I would fetch the SRD description, but I feel lazy :smalltongue:

[David Argall]

It is likely our writer started out with a vague idea of V as TN. In #11, he forgot that the spell affects neutrals different than Goods, but in 53, Celia directs that a good member of the party touch the sigil. Haley and Sabine [pretending to be good] go in one direction while V goes in another. While other ideas are possible, the presumption is that this means that V was neutral, and thus unable to operate the sigil.
But whether we start V in a good or neutral alignment, there seems to be considerable suspicion of a movement in an evil direction, to the point where she is now a 50-50 shot to end up evil. I'll bet on ending up good.

[Spiky]

But I say LN. We both know that early in the strip V is affected by that one spell that only affects good characters like that, but funny > rules in the comic and every other instance seems to show V as more neutral than good.

I'm confused. You disagree with your friend about the Lawful-Chaotic axis, but your proof is about the Good-Evil axis?

[Zevox]

I've always seen V as True Neutral. She's neither particularly lawful nor particularly chaotic. And I don't think there's any real way to argue she's good. Recent events have opened up evil as an option though, if only mildly overall, and she's likely to return to the point where she can't really be claimed to be evil either if she continues as she has since the Splice ended.

Zevox

[NYYanks6083]

I would say at this point V is Neutral, if for no other reason than we've seen him/her do things that make both Good or Evil extremely unlikely.

We've seen instances were V probably isn't good, like in comic #399. Suggesting the execution of unconscious prisoners and binding their souls doesn't exactly get you nominated for PC of the year. And then of course we have that minor incident when V, how do how say, obliterated several dozen sentient beings in one spell. So yeah, not exactly good :smalltongue:

On the other hand, he/she goes back for O-Chul, despite facing grave danger doing so. Like 21+ angry undead levels of danger. That act alone is selfless enough that that I'd say it precludes V from being evil, along with several other examples of genuinely good acts throughout the comic.

I'd say V's Neutral simply because the other two don't really fit.

[Itamarcu]

We've seen instances were V probably isn't good, like in comic #399. Suggesting the execution of unconscious prisoners and binding their souls doesn't exactly get you nominated for PC of the year.

V SAID she was representing it from the halfling viewpoint...

EDIT: oh, and I think she's CN (Chuck Norris, Chaotic Neutral, Cartoon Network...it doesn't matter which)

[NYYanks6083]

Exactly, V's representing the actions that the Chaotic Evil character would have probably suggested, and V wouldn't have mentioned them unless he/she thought they were an acceptable course of action(V wouldn't represent Belkar "just to make sure Belkar's voice is heard"):smalltongue:


heh heh, Chuck Norris,:smallamused:...

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding self sacrifice, the same thing could be said for Red Cloak, and he's still classed as evil. Thinking about when V argued for killing the Linear Guild, I'd class that as sensible rather then evil based on how much damage they caused after the Order decided against killing them (I know Belkar just likes killing things, but it was OOC for V at the time to kill people because they were inconvenient).

[LuisDantas]

True Neutral is sort of a "catch-all" alignment, isn't it? One would be hard pressed to act unlike a TN alignment.

I don't see why people insist in thinking of V as neutral in the Good-Bad Axis, however. At least, not until his Kubota fiasco, which came quite out of the blue and jumpstarted him from Neutral Good straight into Neutral (or perhaps even Chaotic) Evil territory.

Before Kubota it would be weird to describe V as "non-Good"; he took lots of personal sacrifice and had plenty of good moments minding for Elan, Haley and others. Not to describe his part on the defense of Azure City, emphasized by how guilty he feels now about failing.

[Rhuna_Coppermane]

I think V's alignment has changed over time.

[Tempest Fennac]

I never remember V acting in an NG fashion (s/he had issues with rescuing the Dirt Farmers, for instance, and s/he has been happy to blow people up over lost horse claim tickets or being kissed).

[Snake-Aes]

I never remember V acting in an NG fashion (s/he had issues with rescuing the Dirt Farmers, for instance, and s/he has been happy to blow people up over lost horse claim tickets or being kissed).

A neutral Good character wouldn't do that =P
V is not evil, that we know: Early from the blight, recently from his conscience not letting him ungratefully leave O-Chul to die.
the order/chaos axis? We have nothing there, but V seems to be indeed "XN"

[Zevox]

Before Kubota it would be weird to describe V as "non-Good"
I think it would be weird not to.


he took lots of personal sacrifice
When? I don't recall her ever doing any such thing.


and had plenty of good moments minding for Elan, Haley and others.
Caring about your friends does not make you good-aligned. Hell, evil people can do that.


Not to describe his part on the defense of Azure City, emphasized by how guilty he feels now about failing.
She was involved in the defense of Azure City because it was relevant to the quest she took up in deciding to continue accompanying Roy. As for her guilt, there was much discussion over whether that was because of any concern over the people, or simply because her arcane power had failed - and the result was "inconclusive." Even if it was concern for them, though, that alone would not make her good-aligned, just not wholly apathetic towards the plight of others who are getting murdered by an invading army.

Zevox

[Raphite1]

We can debate whether V is good/neutral/evil endlessly, and nearly have. The bottom line is that he has done both good acts (taking a needless risk to rescue O-Chul) and evil acts (Familicide). However ...

V is absolutely NOT lawful! V cares about accomplishing goals, and sometimes cares about friends and family, but V could not care less about the letter of the law. Elan is chaotic and he cared about lawful justice for Kubota more than V!

[Snake-Aes]

We can debate whether V is good/neutral/evil endlessly, and nearly have. The bottom line is that he has done both good acts (taking a needless risk to rescue O-Chul) and evil acts (Familicide). However ...

V is absolutely NOT lawful! V cares about accomplishing goals, and sometimes cares about friends and family, but V could not care less about the letter of the law. Elan is chaotic and he cared about lawful justice for Kubota more than V!

That is a poor interpretation. Yes, lawful characters are naturally inclined to following laws and chaotic the opposite, but that is a too limited interpretation of it. If a paladin saw through Kubota's plan for the trial, knowing that it would indeed end up in his favor, he'd have been in his right to behead Kubota there without losing his powers.Elan sought justice, V sought to be spared of unnecessary struggle. Both are equally acceptable on pretty much any alignment.

[Raphite1]

That is a poor interpretation. Yes, lawful characters are naturally inclined to following laws and chaotic the opposite, but that is a too limited interpretation of it. If a paladin saw through Kubota's plan for the trial, knowing that it would indeed end up in his favor, he'd have been in his right to behead Kubota there without losing his powers.Elan sought justice, V sought to be spared of unnecessary struggle. Both are equally acceptable on pretty much any alignment.

But V just saw a man in custody, and decided it was a hinderance. He was clueless about Kubota's plot, or even who Kubota was.

[Snake-Aes]

But V just saw a man in custody, and decided it was a hinderance. He was clueless about Kubota's plot, or even who Kubota was.

He (correctly) deduced, because of Elan's typical behavior, that Kubota was going to be a hassle in the future. If you want to question this deed, it was evil, not chaotic.

[Optimystik]

V is TN. Not only does it perfectly capture both his disdain for disorder and his disdain for authority, it also captures his morally grey outlook.

From the PHB:

"As an example Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral."

That seems to describe V.

[Iranon]

V's everyday demeanor screams Lawful. His underlying attitude screams Chaotic.
Since I consider the latter a lot more important, I'd pick CN if I was to play a character like that.

I have played in groups where the DM held that everyday actions matter - Evil characters being reprimanded for being too nice, Chaotic ones for being too organised etc. Personally, I find that attitude stifling not conductive to playing a fleshed-out character.

[Snake-Aes]

V's everyday demeanor screams Lawful. His underlying attitude screams Chaotic.
Since I consider the latter a lot more important, I'd pick CN if I was to play a character like that.

I have played in groups where the DM held that everyday actions matter - Evil characters being reprimanded for being too nice, Chaotic ones for being too organised etc. Personally, I find that attitude stifling not conductive to playing a fleshed-out character.well, a lawful character IS more likely to be disciplined. It's the type of guy you'd expect to always follow a personal routine, like morning exercises, and at the table of his favorite inn, he'd ask "the usual"!

Tendencies are either something the character actively follows, or something that he just "is". Either way, expect that to govern his typical response to the world.

[Jaltum]

That is a poor interpretation. Yes, lawful characters are naturally inclined to following laws and chaotic the opposite, but that is a too limited interpretation of it. If a paladin saw through Kubota's plan for the trial, knowing that it would indeed end up in his favor, he'd have been in his right to behead Kubota there without losing his powers.

That depends highly on who is DMing your campaign.

A cop isn't allowed to shoot a suspect because he knows the suspect is guilty but can't be convicted. Not if he wants to stay a cop. Dirty Harry ain't a paladin. (Maybe a Grey Guard.)

To me, at least, being Lawful mean working within the system, even if the system is sometimes imperfect, because the system--the fact that people live in a society where a trial decides their fate, not the certainty of a guy with a sword (or an elf with a ranged touch attack)--is more important than any individual case.

I'm honestly shocked to hear the idea that executing a captive because you think the trial in a more-or-less Lawful and Good society wouldn't go your way wouldn't be a gross violation of a paladin's code.

[Blue Ghost]

I think that V is True Neutral and has always been. Sure, she has undergone a lot of character development, but I don't think that her alignment has ever changed. Her goals have basically stayed the same for the whole campaign. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if she takes a major turn and becomes Good later on.

[derfenrirwolv]

Its not a bad alignment to pick for him. I would have him pegged as LN myself since he gets very upset when the rules of.. well.. anything, are violated, be they economics (the potion sellers) probability (The imps summoning) or sense (don't adventure when the wizard is a lizard)

[hamishspence]

I'm honestly shocked to hear the idea that executing a captive because you think the trial in a more-or-less Lawful and Good society wouldn't go your way wouldn't be a gross violation of a paladin's code.

According to BoED, for LG paladin for whom "good is the highest priority" if the trial doesn't go your way- its probably time to A: capture person before they kill again, and B: root out the corruption in the legal system. But the corruption has to be proven.

However, it still takes the assumption that if prisoner surrenders, you must accept, and you may not kill prisoner while they are in your custody. and these two apply to all strongly Good characters, not just paladins.

So, yes, Dirty Harryish behaviour is "out of the question" for any paladin short of a Grey Guard.

[hamishspence]

And V did not "Know" Kubota was certain to get off. Elan didn't seem to think so, and "I think I can make it fly" is a bit different from "I've bought the whole legal system"

EDIT:
Hey- what happened to the previous post?

[Snake-Aes]

And V did not "Know" Kubota was certain to get off. Elan didn't seem to think so, and "I think I can make it fly" is a bit different from "I've bought the whole legal system"

EDIT:
Hey- what happened to the previous post?

It was easier to write another from start than to edit and bear the angst from everyone else.

[hamishspence]

I can still remember some of it- and the point that sometimes the player may have to do the executing does make sense- in low-law regions where paladins and the like are forced to be judge, jury and executioner.

According to Faiths & Pantheons, paladins of Tyr play this role on the frontiers, and according to Power of Faerun, rangers may sometimes be in this role.

However, the Azure City fleet doesn't really fit this.

[SilentNight]

Well, in On the Origin of PC's, we see TN on V's character sheet application. So at the time of joining the order, V was TN. Now, who knows?

[Jaltum]

Right, like Miko in the forest. I'd expect in Greysky City, too, where there doesn't seem to be an legitimate authority.

"I'm happy to work within the system as long as I'm sure I'll get the results I want, but if not I'll just take care of it myself and cover it up," is textbook neutral on the law-chaos axis. Which leads us neatly back to the original topic, I guess.

EDIT: If Kubota was evil enough, a paladin might slay him and not lose powers, but it should be a VERY difficult choice, IMO, and he should surrender himself to the civil authority for justice. No one is above the law.

[Snake-Aes]

I can still remember some of it- and the point that sometimes the player may have to do the executing does make sense- in low-law regions where paladins and the like are forced to be judge, jury and executioner.

According to Faiths & Pantheons, paladins of Tyr play this role on the frontiers, and according to Power of Faerun, rangers may sometimes be in this role.

However, the Azure City fleet doesn't really fit this.

That's the thing, when a character that embodies justice is faced with an enemy that defies it, you have a conundrum.

[Jaltum]

That's the thing, when a character that embodies justice is faced with an enemy that defies it, you have a conundrum.

But a Lawful character should value the system of justice over any individual case, because unless it's applied consistently and systematically, there is NO justice; it's not 'just' or lawful to murder someone if you can't prove their guilt, even if you're sure. That's the basic difference between chaotic good and lawful good.

A Lawful character sometimes has to suck up the fact that people break the rules and get away with it, because he can't break the rules to get them without defying his own principles. Just like a Chaotic character has to suck up the fact that in a free society, people are free to make bad, dangerous or evil decisions, and he may not have the power to stop them the harm himself.

EDIT: (Quick example of the latter, of course, being Voltaire's famous quote about disagreeing with what you say, but defending to the death that you have to right to say it.)

[hamishspence]

and according to BoED and FC2, even Chaotic Good people shouldn't be committing outright murder if they are strongly Good.

The precursor to the CG Paladin of Freedom, Dragon Magazine 310's Avenger:

"They aim to temper their acts of vengeance so the punishment fits the crime. Execution is a punishment of last resort, reserved only for the tuly evil and despicable"

"Killing should be the last resort of the avenger when a more appropriate and less destructive form of vengeance will do, and even then, slaying an oppressor should be reserved for the most evil villains"

[Susano-wo]

***Disclaimer: If this is too wordy for anyone, or really not where someone wants to go with this thread, please, feel free to skip to the part where I throw in my two cents worth***

I think, to really have a fruitful discussion about any alignment, we have to start with some definitions. Of course, those may not be able to be agreed upon by people, but at least it gets to the heart of the real disagreement :P
So, let me put away my poster's keyboard, and put on my Plato toga...
There are several things that need to be clarified.
1st: What are the parameters of each axis? (does being 'nice' count as being good, is it ok to kill someone, just for being 'evil,' etc)
2nd: Which is most important, Actions or Thoughts?
3rd: At what point does a person's alignment shift? Would a sufficiently evil act drop you to evil immediately, or would even Familicide not be enough to counteract a sufficiently good life aside from it.

Here's a start on my thoughts on these (though I think we will have to take some things about good and evil to be understood, since many before have tried and failed at completely defining it)
Good isn't about politeness, or niceties, though kindness (generally helping others, not inflicting unnecessary harm) would be a good quality, assuming it applied to everyone--not just your friends
Law is really Order. Meaning that is a matter of behaving in a systematic way, and attitude-wise respecting systems and the need for rules--though it by no means needs to respect any individual rule

Actions definitely trump thoughts, and I would consider thoughts without, for lack of a better word, intent to be basically meaningless. "I oughta kill that guy," is idle venting, and does not represent an actual intent to kill, though planning out someone's death in meticulous, gruesome detail would be at least somewhat evil, even if you did not actually plan to do it at the time.

The last one is trickier for me. I don't think a single act of theft would drop someone from good to bad, or even neutral, especially since alignment is the norm, or middle ground--most people act out of their alignment, from time to time. ON the other hand, V not suffering some alignment repercussions from that very evil act seems wrong. Back to the first hand, dropping him from Good to Neutral, or Neutral to Evil does seem appropriate. Not that he would be all N or E, but that being capable of such an act puts him nearer those realms.

Oh and for by own two cents worth, I think V is NE right now, NN before. NN because he follows and respects many systems of order, but does not seem to feel that he has to obey rules if his goals conflict with them, and ditto with morality. NE now, because he showed himself capable of great evil, even if he was influenced by other entities.
--Susano-wo

[Pip]

We can debate whether V is good/neutral/evil endlessly, and nearly have. The bottom line is that he has done both good acts (taking a needless risk to rescue O-Chul) and evil acts (Familicide). However ...

V is absolutely NOT lawful! V cares about accomplishing goals, and sometimes cares about friends and family, but V could not care less about the letter of the law. Elan is chaotic and he cared about lawful justice for Kubota more than V!


I agree completely with this. I'd add that I don't think V is chaotic either.

[Xaxyx]

What's tricky about true neutral is that unlike the other alignments, TN doesn't have an intrinsic cause, focus, or devotion. Indeed: TN is the very definition of *causelessness*.

This of course will always seem contradictory. How can a person have no cause at all? An adventurer in particular? Hence, we'll often find ourselves doing two things: either searching for a cause that motivates that particular character and attempting to associate that cause with an alignment extreme; or trying to identify TN as its own cause, i.e., "I'm devoted to balance!" or some such.

I think it's safe to eliminate the latter from V's personality profile. V doesn't seem all that keen on attempting to restore "balance" to the world. No, I think that the concepts that motivate V simply are intrinsically alignment-neutral. Here are the causes that motivate V, in my eyes:

- Devotion to family. V is greatly concerned with protecting V's family. While at first glance this seems like a good-associated cause, it'd hardly be surprising to find that many neutral folks would share a similar concern. Heck, even evil characters could potentially harbor a genuine interest, emotional or otherwise, for protecting their family members. Being *capable* of ruthlessness isn't equivalent to doling it out 24/7.

- Devotion to the party. V is somewhat concerned with the well-being of the Order of the Stick and the success of its missions. But not overly so, and not out of a sense of justice or the greater good. Nor out of a greedy desire for wealth and power. Mind you, V does have a strong and obvious lust for arcane power. But I don't get the impression that V is flat-out using the party to serve an interest in this regard, either.

- A strong interest in gaining personal power. The desire to gain personal power is not necessarily an evil concept. Nor is a stringent devotion toward achieving such a goal necessarily a lawful concept. All adventurers seek power in some form or another, whether that be combat prowess, wealth, renown, a combination, or any variant thereof. HOW they go about earning this power; and WHY they seek it; these are the factors that ultimately reflects the alignments of those characters.

It is possible to be a passionate, vibrant and focused individual, yet still wear the badge of "true" neutral. I for one have never cared for that term, really. There's nothing "true" about the Neutral alignment type any more so than any other alignment type. I guess "Neutral Neutral" is a bit of a tongue-twister, though. And just saying "Neutral" always begets the question: "Neutral what?"

[Snake-Aes]

***Disclaimer: If this is too wordy for anyone, or really not where someone wants to go with this thread, please, feel free to skip to the part where I throw in my two cents worth***

I think, to really have a fruitful discussion about any alignment, we have to start with some definitions. Of course, those may not be able to be agreed upon by people, but at least it gets to the heart of the real disagreement :P
So, let me put away my poster's keyboard, and put on my Plato toga...
There are several things that need to be clarified.
1st: What are the parameters of each axis? (does being 'nice' count as being good, is it ok to kill someone, just for being 'evil,' etc)
2nd: Which is most important, Actions or Thoughts?
3rd: At what point does a person's alignment shift? Would a sufficiently evil act drop you to evil immediately, or would even Familicide not be enough to counteract a sufficiently good life aside from it.

1: Likability has no connection to alignments. Some of the worst villains are quite beloved, and it wouldn't be the first time you meet an annoying good guy. Being good is about caring about others more than for yourself. The good guy is the guy who goes out of his way to help a stranger. The bad guy gives no value to others and/or enjoys making others suffer. Neutral is just a middle point, a neutral guy would of course help someone they care about or that aren't strangers to them, but asking a neutral guy to give off a handful of his grains to just about anyone is unlikely. Chaos and Order are a little harder to define, but they definitely seem to orbit around the other axis, being mostly how they approach what confronts them.

2: Hm, tough one. Do thoughts matter? Then what about a barbarian that has been cursed in such a manner that whatever intention he has, it turns out to the betterment of others? His deeds are surely good, but he really is just wishing them all to be good targets for his axe. I'd say acts matter more, and thoughts are just how you view yourself. Societies comprised mostly of evil humanoids can totally think they are right and be ignorant to the alignment system, but they are still evil. Alignments are global on that matter, it doesn't matter how you perceive yourself.
3: That's totally a dm-only call. I wouldn't drop V's alignment for what she did during the splice, but I'd totally sink her to evil had she done it for any less reason than that.

The part about a natural compulsion to obey order does not sound very good. It's more about sympathizing, I believe. A Lawful character sees a society as a machine and it's rules and traditions as part of it's maintenance. If a lawful character is being harmed by something, he will try alternatives to breaking it, like exceptions or simply bailing.
Chaotics would, on the other hand, not comprehend or accept that social machines are necessary, and rather just value people being together because they like it, and value the individual more than the society. A chaotic character has no qualms going against the will of a group.

[hamishspence]

Being good is about caring about others more than for yourself. The good guy is the guy who goes out of his way to help a stranger. The bad guy gives no value to others and/or enjoys making others suffer.

true up to a point, but within D&D sourcebooks there are exceptions- such as the person who values others, but is willing to commit atrocities on their behalf- the sample Witch Hunter in Tome of Magic is of this type.

[Anteros]

True Neutral is sort of a "catch-all" alignment, isn't it? One would be hard pressed to act unlike a TN alignment.


Virtually every other character in the strip manages it.

[Snake-Aes]

true up to a point, but within D&D sourcebooks there are exceptions- such as the person who values others, but is willing to commit atrocities on their behalf- the sample Witch Hunter in Tome of Magic is of this type.

An atrocity is going to harm others. If he is willing to behead the Cutie because Betty was sad because Cutie was cute, then he is just an evil guy that likes to help people. Talk about selective. A Good guy would see it more or less like this:

<girl crying>
<Good guy> What's wrong, little <sees Betty's face>UGH..little girl?
<betty> Cutie is cute! It's so unfair!
<good guy> well... Maybe you should try a new facial cream?
<Betty> Can't you just scar her face permanently?
<good guy>...
/*optional part*/

<good guy>where do you live?
<good guy> okay then, what if we...<gags Betty and brings her home>
<good guy, to Betty's dad> She's kind of a psychopath, please teach her that permanently scarring other people is not nice.

[hamishspence]

or the man who believes that the only way to protect a population as a whole is to commit atrocities against enemies, torture the children of a villain in front of him to get him to talk, etc.

The Operative from Serenity is a typical example- the guy who hates doing his evil deeds, but feels them to be necessary.

[Snake-Aes]

or the man who believes that the only way to protect a population as a whole is to commit atrocities against enemies, torture the children of a villain in front of him to get him to talk, etc.

The Operative from Serenity is a typical example- the guy who hates doing his evil deeds, but feels them to be necessary.

That's a neutral person. A good person simply wouldn't do that.

[hamishspence]

A neutral person "has compunctions against hurting the innocent" The Operative doesn't appear to have those compunctions- at least, not enough to stop him from doing it.

Evil does not only mean sadistic. Some evil people in D&D hate what they do on the orders of their masters- and do it anyway. the Narguzon devils in Fiendish Codex 2 are what Lawful Evil people of this type become in death.

Others hate what they do on their own initiative. And some just don't think about the moral implications of their acts. Not all that many evil beings love doing evil acts.

[Snake-Aes]

A neutral person "has compunctions against hurting the innocent" The Operative doesn't appear to have those compunctions- at least, not enough to stop him from doing it.

Evil does not only mean sadistic. Some evil people in D&D hate what they do on the orders of their masters- and do it anyway. the Narguzon devils in Fiendish Codex 2 are what Lawful Evil people of this type become in death.

Others hate what they do on their own initiative. And some just don't think about the moral implications of their acts. Not all that many evil beings love doing evil acts.
True, and the same wya you can make good people that aren't quite proud of it either. My point was that a good person would not commit an evil deed knowingly. In the aforementioned example, harming one to help the other. That just isn't a moral possibility.

[Susano-wo]

Snake: as I was writing the bit about Lawful, I did feel that what I was writing didn't seem to hit the nail on the head, but it was the best phrasing I could come up with. So I will have to revise it.

The thing that I am trying to express is that an Ordered [Lawful] person would behave according to rulesets, but not necessarily your rulesets. IE a Devil will abide by his word, and follow certain procedures, but he will murder in the blink of an eye as long as his procedures are followed. Also, agaqin its a matter of doing. I can say I'm lawful all I want, but I'd be deluding myself. I am Neutral-Good(/Neutral--but good and evil are complicated, and on can fall short in certain moral areas while excelling at others). Rules sets can be a good thing, but I will break the law in a heartbeat if it is impeding a moral necessity... also if I see no real harm in breaking it... ;;>.>

[hamishspence]

True, and the same wya you can make good people that aren't quite proud of it either. My point was that a good person would not commit an evil deed knowingly. In the aforementioned example, harming one to help the other. That just isn't a moral possibility.

Unless you believe David Argall, who insists Choosing The Lesser Evil is always a good or nonevil act, even if it is torturing the villain's children to find out from him where The Ticking Time Bomb is, or horribly sacrificing somebody to save the world, if it is The Only Way. (He also suggested in one thread that if selling your soul to fiends will save a lot of lives, it may be "cowardly, selfish, and evil" not to do so.)


However, if it is reasonable, the idea of sacrificing your life/soul for the rescue of one hundred others strikes one as noble, not evil. Indeed, one can argue it would be cowardly and evil not to. That a hundred burn so you can stay cool, that sound at all good? Or does it not seem quite selfish on your part.

Which I tend to disagree with. A Neutral person might get away with this kind of Evil act once or twice, but if they do it routinely, if it is, in effect, their career, they should generally drop to Evil, as Champions of Ruin recommends.

A "Scoundrelly" good person, a la Complete Scoundrel, might also do fairly minor evil things in a "good cause" but again, won't stay good, or even Neutral, for very long.

[Snake-Aes]

Snake: as I was writing the bit about Lawful, I did feel that what I was writing didn't seem to hit the nail on the head, but it was the best phrasing I could come up with. So I will have to revise it.

The thing that I am trying to express is that an Ordered [Lawful] person would behave according to rulesets, but not necessarily your rulesets. IE a Devil will abide by his word, and follow certain procedures, but he will murder in the blink of an eye as long as his procedures are followed. Also, agaqin its a matter of doing. I can say I'm lawful all I want, but I'd be deluding myself. I am Neutral-Good(/Neutral--but good and evil are complicated, and on can fall short in certain moral areas while excelling at others). Rules sets can be a good thing, but I will break the law in a heartbeat if it is impeding a moral necessity... also if I see no real harm in breaking it... ;;>.>
That's why I say it's hard to use outer laws as a defining point at all. A lawful person would be like that, sticking to it's own word(belief/whatever), and would sympathize with the "bigger machine we are part of" that a society is.

[hamishspence]

Law/Chaos is hard to define- in general though, Law is associated with the group over the individual.

Fiendish Codex 2 had Obesiant acts tending toward trusting superiors over own opinion- obeying people you do not personally respect- risking yourself at your own expense for them- these are typical Obesiant (strongly lawful) acts.

The D&D soldier whose respect for the chain of command is so strong he will obey obvious tactical blunders, is a typical Lawful archetype.

The D&D soldier who will (while he hates it) commit atrocities such as the torture and massacre of civilians, including children, on orders, has probably crossed the line into LE.

Chaos (being Chaos) is harder to define- strong individualism plays a part, yet Chaotic monarchies such as Elven Kingdoms exist in D&D worlds- probably rule with a much lighter hand than most Lawful realms.

[Susano-wo]

(meant to put this with previous post, but took way to long to finalize it)
hamishspence: I think what you are talking RE: Awesome Assassin Guy from Serenity about is the difference between your moral standing with the universe [black and white, end 'score' wise, with alignment system], and personal morality [not so black and white, many different opinions depending on what means are acceptable for what ends]

Snake: Yeah, that's a really good way to put the issue of Lawful as relating to actual laws.

and Hamishspence again: The soul selling issue presents an interesting question (though the general atrocity for good purpose isn't evil thing I don't buy). I think the evilness of it depends on what, if anything the fiend gets for your soul. Just the satisfaction of your suffering? demonic rank? or will your soul fuel its power, thus making you responsible for whatever evil it commits with it? In the first two, I don't see it as an evil act at all--you are not harming anyone but yourself, really. The latter, however, is at best neutral, though I would not necessarily condemn it personally.

[hamishspence]

they turn the soul into "a creature of irredeemable evil" (another fiend) mostly. Or expend it in a sacrifice.

As a rule though (in the case of "selling soul to devils") it becomes another devil- a lemure.

Some people go with harming self being evil (though sometimes less so) in the same way harming others is- both show "lack of respect for life" and a willingness to hand soul over to fiends and allow fiends to turn it into another fiend, shows lack of respect for souls (which according to BoVD, can be even worse)

My view on "evil acts" was- it doesn't matter if the person enjoys them or hates them, if they have a long term good end in view or are simply obeying somebody out of fear for self or others- if they are routinely doing Evil in a D&D universe, their alignment should be evil.

Though "ends justify means" might be passable in less idealistic settings, in D&D, its associated with Evil-

it is one of the archetypes in Champions of Ruin. Torture and murder of innocents is pretty awful, and hard to justify as Neutral in most D&D settings.

[Susano-wo]

sorry, I should have specified this, but regarding the what happens when you sell your soul, I was meaning in a more hypothetical sense, not a dnd sense. Though, by those guidelines, yeah, its definitely not a good act.

And any ends justify any means is certainly an evil attitude. :P

[Blackjackg]

Rather than getting into a long explanation of reasons that would not change anyone's opinion on the subject, I will just state that I agree with the OP's friend that V is true neutral.

[Ormur]

Although we don't see much evidence of compassion and such from V through the strip she might have been good and would now be heading somewhere else on the alignment chart. I'd like to believe here whole issue was about her failure to protect the city and keep her group together and that might imply that she did fit into all that self sacrificing good-aligned stuff. Since then she'd changed and was willing to off Kubota which is defiantly not good but might slip as neutral since he's a bad guy and all, it's also clearly not lawful.
Selling her soul and killing a bunch of dragons was clearly an evil act but she did it to safe her family (although with the ulterior motive of not having her magic fail her again). Perhaps if she repents and never ever does anything like that again she'll pass as neutral, you know that one atrocity that makes her a neutral antihero with a dark past.

Her disrespect for authority that stands in the way of her goals would rule out lawful in my eyes but since she's also pretty fond of having things orderly it might balance out as neutral. That axis is more problematic though. It must eventually be the mean of many separate tendencies whereas good and evil is more of a single line where you can debate what moves you up and down. I'd say TN might be right but that the future will tell whether she goes over to the dark side.

TN also doesn't mean you have no causes or just think about balance. Like with V you could be on a quest to kill the bad guy but on the way you break too many laws and codes and hurt enough people not to be either good or lawful. If you don't do a lot of evil stuff and not for yourself you don't qualify as evil either and since you are pretty single minded and have this whole quest going on and act consistently you aren't chaotic either. Bingo you're TN but not apathetic or a druid.

[Tempest Fennac]

Regarding what counts as good or evil in situations where it may be necessary to commit a less evil action, I'd say it would depend entirely on the situation. For instance, I'd class V taking the Soul Splice to save his/her family as neutral due to it being done for the benefit of his/her family. On the other hand, I'd class using Familicide as evil due to how it involved so many innocent dragons being killed (and there's always a chance that those dragons had friends who would go after V anyway). I'd class teleporting the fleat as a good action, but V's motivations were solely neutral, and I'd class getting rid of Xykon once and for all as a good action, if V had succeeded based on the Order's understanding of what Xykon and RC's aims are.

[spargel]

V before post-time-skip: Somewhere between Chaotic Good-True Neutral
V after post-time-skip and before the end of the Soul Splice: Somewhere between Chaotic Neutral-Neutral Evil
V after Soul Splice: Somewhere between Neutral Good-True Neutral

[pnewman]

To quote another wizard from the comic, Julia "I'm True Neutral. I go both ways."

If it is true that in the OOTSverse true neutral characters really do go both ways [1] than V's recent evil acts may not make her evil but may just balance her earlier good acts.

[1] And ignoring the whole insinuation of bisexuality, which might well also fit V....

[Snake-Aes]

To quote another wizard from the comic, Julia "I'm True Neutral. I go both ways."

If it is true that in the OOTSverse true neutral characters really do go both ways [1] than V's recent evil acts may not make her evil but may just balance her earlier good acts.

[1] And ignoring the whole insinuation of bisexuality, which might well also fit V....

That's a very tough call. Personally if someone commited roughly equal acts of good and evil together, I'd tax him as evil.

[waterpenguin43]

V has done evil things (1-3), there is no denying that, but all of her evil things were done in times you could not expect his/her mind to be clear: -She killed Kubota after a big violent incident and (s)he had been stuck on a boat for 6 months plus not trancing at all (I would be pretty crazy if I hadn't slept for weeks). -His/her other arguably evil acts were caused by rage for his/her family and the Soul Splice made her think (s)he was being forced to be evil (see here:http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html). And V doesn't seem very chaotic but sort of lawful, so I find V to be TN or LN.

[Crafty Cultist]

V seems to act without regard considering good or evil, choosing the most convenient option at the time. This would make V neutral at best or possibily evil. However V is dedicated to stopping Xykon above all. I think the two seem to balance each other, making V Neutral

[SadisticFishing]

That's a very tough call. Personally if someone commited roughly equal acts of good and evil together, I'd tax him as evil.

It's more complicated than that. Real Evil acts are far more Evil than Good acts are Good.

Playing Black and White helped make that make sense :P

For example - saving a town because a dragon is attacking, and no other real reason, is Good. Killing and eating a baby is Evil.

One of each? Holy crap, Evil.


However V is dedicated to stopping Xykon above all. I think the two seem to balance each other, making V Neutral

Actually that last bit is generally an evil stance. "No matter the cost" is like the Evil mantra.

[Crafty Cultist]

Actually that last bit is generally an evil stance. "No matter the cost" is like the Evil mantra.

I guess so.

if V is evil, he/she is definitely an antihero, though that may change in time

[Snake-Aes]

I guess so.

if V is evil, he/she is definitely an antihero, though that may change in time

Technically, antiheroes are common people.

[SadisticFishing]

Meh, V isn't Evil. It's obvious from his character.

He may still be screwed though.