A comment on Good and Evil in the OoTS universe

[Shreav]

It seems to me that in the OotS universe, Rich is trying to emphasis that being Good, Neutral or Evil is a choice (or a consequence of choices).

I realise that this is already the case for PCs in D&D, but he seems -- to me -- to also make the point for NPCs and monsters that would normally be fully defined as one specific alignment.

It gives far greater believability to the OoTS characters than you would ordinarily see in a D&D story to show their inner conflicts as they struggle with their individual desires, instincts, beliefs and ambitions.

Vaarsuvius is one of the more obvious examples as a PC (Belkar, too), but Tsukio in strip #700 is another great case. Redcloak, too.

There also seems a point being made that nobody is so firmly entrenched in their "natural" alignment that they cannot change. Witness the fall of Miko or O-Chul's observation that the MiTD is (or at least can be) "a good man."

[As an aside, this is why I see no problem, from an alignment perspective, with the MiTD being a Pit Fiend; and the Wish thing really tips it over the line for me.]

[Optimystik]

Yay alignment!

*popcorn*

(On the subject of NPCs changing alignments (or trying to), another good example is Therkla.)

[TriForce]

a alignment is always a choice, most simply stick with their general racial alignment becouse having any other would give them trouble fitting in with the world as they know it

[Ancalagon]

(On the subject of NPCs changing alignments (or trying to), another good example is Therkla.)

I think it was never about "changing" alignments.

OotS has always been about "Alignment is more a guideline than a rule (as it should be)" - that is what makes it great and interesting and I think that is also what many people struggle with.

[FujinAkari]

I realise that this is already the case for PCs in D&D, but he seems -- to me -- to also make the point for NPCs and monsters that would normally be fully defined as one specific alignment.

Well, remember that D&D defines "Always Chaotic Evil" as "Chaotic Evil 90% of the time"

So no, NPCs and Monsters are never fully defined as one specific alignment.

[Optimystik]

I think it was never about "changing" alignments.

OotS has always been about "Alignment is more a guideline than a rule (as it should be)" - that is what makes it great and interesting and I think that is also what many people struggle with.

I agree it's not a hard and fast rule in the comic - after all, Roy gets into Celestia despite technically being able to qualify as NG.

But if you're arguing that Therkla was never evil before she met Elan, you and I are going to have to disagree.

[Skorj]

It seems to me that in the OotS universe, Rich is trying to emphasis that being Good, Neutral or Evil is a choice (or a consequence of choices).



I think it's a theme of Rich's writing (including his gaming guides) that things are more interesting if you "play alignment deeply". Many people, including myself, prefer alignment as a simple tabletop wargame mechanic to identify which side the pieces are on: we play alignment shallowly. Some of D&D's many editions really offered no more than this shallow idea about alignment.

However, many people like the roleplaying more than the wargaming aspect if D&D, and for that crowd a deep alignment system is where it's at. And Rich makes a great point about that: if you're going to treat alignment as more than "what side the piece is on", then you have to consider individual motivations and differences.

We can never settle the argument about "it's OK to kill all the black Dragons, because the rules say they're evil!", because your playstyle determines whether you see that as true. In my play style, that's a simple truth - the pieces are on the other side, and that's all you need to know. Same for paladins slaughtering goblin childeren in the name of all things lawful and good.

But Rich is certainly right: from any sort of storytelling perspective, that view just makes poor writing and shallow stories, and "playing alignment deeply" gives us characters we can care about, connect with, and really root for or against. OOTS draws attention to this difference between shallow and deep views of alignment as a central theme.

"Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool."


[As an aside, this is why I see no problem, from an alignment perspective, with the MiTD being a Pit Fiend; and the Wish thing really tips it over the line for me.]

Sorry, Pit Fiends don't have fathers, and the MitD had a father.

[Sanguine]

Sorry, Pit Fiends don't have fathers, and the MitD had a father.

We have no proof it was his biological father though.*

*Note this does not in anyway shape or form mean I think :mitd: is a Pit Fiend

[Kish]

We can never settle the argument about "it's OK to kill all the black Dragons, because the rules say they're evil!", because your playstyle determines whether you see that as true.

We can certainly settle the question of whether that's the case in a universe defined by Rich Burlew. Whether everyone accepts the answer is of course another question.


OOTS draws attention to this difference between shallow and deep views of alignment as a central theme.

"Welcome to the deep end of the alignment pool."

Erm...given that the person saying that was Belkar, and that he clearly meant "welcome to evil," I think that particular quote is ill-chosen for your point (a point which, in and of itself, I agree with).

[Skorj]

We can certainly settle the question of whether that's the case in a universe defined by Rich Burlew. Whether everyone accepts the answer is of course another question.

Rich could settle it, the rest of us are reduced to literary analysis, a field in which no one can ever be proven wrong. :smallamused: But most people come to alignment threads to argue about their beliefs, not Rich's.


Erm...given that the person saying that was Belkar, and that he clearly meant "welcome to evil," I think that particular quote is ill-chosen for your point (a point which, in and of itself, I agree with).

Heh - in context though it's perfect: "welcome to evil - it's not as simple as you thought, is it?". Or at least that's my analysis. :smallbiggrin:

[veti]

I've said it before: the whole comic is about alignment. Roy says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) "best not to dwell on it", because he knows instinctively that "alignment" - at the beginning of a campaign, at least - is just something written on a character sheet. It's a distraction. Belkar is on his team, and that's what matters.

Durkon and Hilgya (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html), the goblin teenagers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html) - these episodes highlight how alignment is a matter of choice. Even Elan understands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html) it. ("It's my solemn duty to seduce female bad guys. It's like in the bard charter or something." Why? - because as alignment is a matter of choice, so changing it is just a matter of motivation. He gets to test this theory later with Therkla.)

Miko is someone who thinks the opposite - that 'alignment' is synonymous with 'side'. Ultimately, it's that belief that leads to her fall.

[Ancalagon]

But if you're arguing that Therkla was never evil before she met Elan, you and I are going to have to disagree.

I say she was still evil after she met Elan...

[factotum]

(On the subject of NPCs changing alignments (or trying to), another good example is Therkla.)

I'm not convinced she did. I think Therkla was possibly Lawful Neutral all along; there's very little she did in the strip that was outright Evil apart from associating with Kubota, and I'm sure he had members of his house of all alignments.

[Optimystik]

I say she was still evil after she met Elan...

She might not have succeeded in changing her alignment entirely, but she died trying - which may be enough for her judges, as it was for Roy's.

Besides, I doubt Rich's intention was for us to think - "Yep, she's off to burn in hell. Good riddance!" after having her save Elan's life twice, as well as Kazumi, Daigo, and their baby.

EDIT:


I'm not convinced she did. I think Therkla was possibly Lawful Neutral all along; there's very little she did in the strip that was outright Evil apart from associating with Kubota, and I'm sure he had members of his house of all alignments.

Murdering repeatedly and without remorse does not become Neutral just because your Evil employer orders you to do it. (Nor does murdering the valedictorian because you don't want to be salutatorian, but that's another matter.)

[[TS] Shadow]

I'm surprised that nobody's brought up Redcloak as a counter-arguement to the "alignment's a choice" arguement. Without spoiling too much of SoD, let's just say that he was forced into an awful lot; very few things have really been a matter of choice for him. The same could be said for a few different characters, with another big example being V. You could argue that he could have chosen to NOT make a deal with the IFCC, but in that circumstance it really was his only option.

However, there are some characters that completely contradict this example. One of the first ones that comes to mind is Therkla. She was evil (or if not evil, then definately not good in motivation) before she met Elan, and she changed herself to be with him. She could have kidnapped him early on and finished off the rest of the mission. It wouldn't have been that hard for a ninja to sneak onto a boat in the middle of the night and take one person away. And knowing Elan, it wouldn't be hard to trick/manipulate him into being semi-okay with it. However, she chose to do things the way she did.

So in reality, it really isn't about choice, but it isn't railroaded either. It's somewhere mixed inbetween.

[veti]

Shadow;7733455']I'm surprised that nobody's brought up Redcloak as a counter-arguement to the "alignment's a choice" arguement. Without spoiling too much of SoD, let's just say that he was forced into an awful lot; very few things have really been a matter of choice for him.

While it's true that Redcloak's choices have been more pressured than some people's, he's still had alignment-forming choices at various points. The most obvious being the episode in SoD where he chooses to side with Xykon against his own brother. Xykon rightly notes that as showing a strong commitment to Evil.

There's a very common fallacy, which existentialist philosophers call "bad faith", that holds that your future actions and choices are somehow dictated by your past. That is, the idea that you have to do something, because you're somehow committed to it. In reality (say the existentialists) every choice is free - every commitment is only binding if you freely choose to make it so.

Redcloak is the poster boy for "bad faith". He will do horrible things in the name of the Dark One's plan, telling himself that he's committed to them, whereas in fact he is choosing, one day at a time, to go on with it.

Xykon is an existentialist: he knows all this, and he trusts Redcloak because it would be such a wrench for Redcloak's worldview to accept that what he's done was his own choice.


Shadow;7733455']The same could be said for a few different characters, with another big example being V. You could argue that he could have chosen to NOT make a deal with the IFCC, but in that circumstance it really was his only option.

Certainly, the pressure on V to make that deal was extremely strong - I think most anyone, of any alignment, would have accepted at that stage. But she did have a moment of undeniably free choice about two minutes later, when she defeated the dragon. And again, 3 minutes 6 seconds into the splice, when Inky begged her to end it.

Edit: other places where Redcloak makes free choices that reflect his alignment include here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html) (:xykon: "*sniff* My little Redcloak is all grown up."), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0433.html). He does have a slight change of heart here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html), and it's vaguely possible - although pretty unlikely - that one day we'll be dating his redemption from that moment...

[JonestheSpy]

I think both Tsukiko and Redcloak are well-done examples of evil folks with realistic motivations - they both feel wronged (Tsukiko in a shallow, adolescent way, Redcloak from completely understandable reasons) and that drives them to commit undeniably evil acts. Neither of them really think of themselves as evil, except in terms of embracing the label the people they don't like give them. Pretty much the way it goes in real life - eveyone really regards themselves as the good guys. Even the IFCC seem to regard themselves as the sympathetic ones, and don't bother with any evil shenanigans to show off that they're the ultimate baddies (they treated Qarr far better than Xykon treats his underlings, for instance).

Xykon and Belkar are caricatures - "We're Evil, woo-hoo!". Well written and entertaining, and appropriate for the world, but nothing like you'll ever see in the real world.

[factotum]

Neither of them really think of themselves as evil, except in terms of embracing the label the people they don't like give them.

However, Good and Evil are matters of objective reality in this setting. It doesn't matter what Tsukiko and Redcloak think of themselves as--and, incidentally, Redcloak has acknowledged that not only he but his entire race are generally Evil, and I'm sure he's savvy enough to know it's not just a label applied by "people who don't like him"--they're Evil and behave accordingly. One cannot imagine a Good-aligned creature of any race being willing to destroy the world and annihilate the souls of everyone in it just in the hope that his people will have a better life when the NEXT world is created!

[Larkspur]

One cannot imagine a Good-aligned creature of any race being willing to destroy the world and annihilate the souls of everyone in it just in the hope that his people will have a better life when the NEXT world is created!

That depends how bad the world is, I should think. And obviously one's opinion of that is going to vary by race.

Redcloak is LE, of course, but I'm not convinced the Plan is what did it; the goblins are up against divinely sanctioned genocide and there's no secular recourse available to them. You can kill in self-defense and maintain Good alignment; it's just a question of how far the mandate of self-defense extends. (Can you, for instance, firebomb a city to bring a brutal war to a swifter end, even though it's going to result in civilian casualties? On Earth we generally consider that acceptable.)

[Optimystik]

the goblins are up against divinely sanctioned genocide and there's no secular recourse available to them.

Of course there was - Right-Eye's village somehow managed to make peace with its human neighbors for years.

[Morty]

Of course there was - Right-Eye's village somehow managed to make peace with its human neighbors for years.

Who can tell what would happen to a larger goblin settlement, though? Now, I don't really have any access to SoD, but the way I see it, a low-profile village can survive, but a larger goblin town could become a target for adventurers.

[Ancalagon]

Who can tell what would happen to a larger goblin settlement, though? Now, I don't really have any access to SoD, but the way I see it, a low-profile village can survive, but a larger goblin town could become a target for adventurers.

You mean... like any OTHER town as well? Where all sorts of travellers, merchants, adventurers etc show up and cause trouble? ;)

[veti]

You mean... like any OTHER town as well? Where all sorts of travellers, merchants, adventurers etc show up and cause trouble? ;)

There's a difference between "causing trouble" - which might run to a few murders, bit of arson, perhaps a quick riot or so - and setting out deliberately and systematically to wipe the town off the map, killing every single inhabitant regardless of their age or sex.

The goblin races in the OOTSverse - and arguably in many other D&D campaigns as well - undeniably got a very raw deal, and have since been oppressed with some pretty serious discrimination. The Dark One's initial plan, as Redcloak tells it, was not evil at all - any reasonable paladin could have gone along with it, or even come up with it. (The Dark One's current plan is another story.)

[Optimystik]

Who can tell what would happen to a larger goblin settlement, though? Now, I don't really have any access to SoD, but the way I see it, a low-profile village can survive, but a larger goblin town could become a target for adventurers.

It's possible, but it's just as possible that someone among their human neighbors would realize what jerks said adventurers were being (as Roy did for the "marauding orcs" in Origin.)

[Morty]

You mean... like any OTHER town as well? Where all sorts of travellers, merchants, adventurers etc show up and cause trouble? ;)

No. I mean that a larger goblin settlement might be seen as adventurers as a vile lair of evil to be eradicated - in other words, a cheap XP source.


It's possible, but it's just as possible that someone among their human neighbors would realize what jerks said adventurers were being (as Roy did for the "marauding orcs" in Origin.)

Yeah, I guess that's possible too.

[Optimystik]

The biggest problem with Redcloak's method - it "proves" that the other humanoids' anti-goblin attitude is justified. His goblin civilization will be built on tyranny of the other races.

I don't see an easy way out of this dilemma - but then again, if I did I would know how the comic will end.

[Wardog]

Well, remember that D&D defines "Always Chaotic Evil" as "Chaotic Evil 90% of the time"

So no, NPCs and Monsters are never fully defined as one specific alignment.


I thought "always" meant "always, except in very special, plot-related reasons. (Vampires in the Buffyverse would be a good example - becoming a vampire involves litterally losing your soul and becoming taken over by a demon, so every single vampire is evil, apart from Angel, who had his soul restored, and (eventually) Spike, after a great deal of Plot).

AFAIK, all the "allways evil" creatures in D&D are likewise supernatural beings that are in some way either made of or powered by evil. (Except for dragons, which never struck me as being the sort of creature that should have an "always" alignment in the first place).

"Merely" 90% evil doesn't seem to me to nearly evil enough to count as "always evil". That would be that if you got attacked by a group of 10 "always evil" creatures, odd s one would be non-evil.

90% evil would just be a particularly severe case of "usually evil". IMO, "always" would be more like 99% or more are evil. (Maybe 100%, to the nearest whole %).

[Drakevarg]

The biggest problem with Redcloak's method - it "proves" that the other humanoids' anti-goblin attitude is justified. His goblin civilization will be built on tyranny of the other races.

I don't see an easy way out of this dilemma - but then again, if I did I would know how the comic will end.

Tyranny? His master scheme is to basically blackmail the gods into retconning existance so that goblinoids will have EQUAL STANDING with the other races. The whole world-conquering thing is basically a combination of a means to an end and a backup plan.

[Optimystik]

Tyranny? His master scheme is to basically blackmail the gods into retconning existance so that goblinoids will have EQUAL STANDING with the other races. The whole world-conquering thing is basically a combination of a means to an end and a backup plan.

And if he gets his weapon, the DO will blackmail the gods, who will then open up tracts of their worshipper's land for goblins to settle - displacing or disenfranchising the current owners of that land.

I doubt he will have their consent in causing this - thus, tyranny.

[Drakevarg]

Yes, how DARE you pull yourself up from oppression, you cruel TYRANT!

[Optimystik]

Yes, how DARE you pull yourself up from oppression, you cruel TYRANT!

It's less of a "pull" and more of a "step on the others to hoist myself."

Redcloak makes this exact observation himself in SoD, right before Xykon reappears.

[Drakevarg]

I wouldn't call it a "good" action in any sense of the word, I'm more specifically iffy about the idea that it's an act of tyranny. Tyranny generally implies ruling, where this is more displacing.

[Optimystik]

I wouldn't call it a "good" action in any sense of the word, I'm more specifically iffy about the idea that it's an act of tyranny. Tyranny generally implies ruling, where this is more displacing.

It's relegating. He's wouldn't just be moving them, he'd be actively keeping them from moving back, by holding their gods hostage.

Not that said gods don't deserve it, but I think there's a better way.

[Larkspur]

Um, they're gods. What's to say they couldn't create a new, uninhabited landmass?

It seems unlikely, given their lazy and immoral solution to the "Our clerics need XP" problem, that they're going to have a non-lazy, moral solution to the "Oh crap the Dark One is threatening us" problem, so yeah, we're probably looking at ethnic cleansing, but

a) that's a problem with the other gods, not the Plan

b1) they're currently asking their followers to commit genocide on their behalf. Somehow I don't find them asking their followers to move on their behalf to be more evil; crazy, I know.

b2) Things that reduce net evil are good

[Optimystik]

Um, they're gods. What's to say they couldn't create a new, uninhabited landmass?

It's possible. But unless I'm grossly mistaken about Rich's campaign setting, the threads of reality are all occupied. Any reweaving that creating a new landmass would require risks freeing the god-killing abomination it's all holding in.


It seems unlikely, given their lazy and immoral solution to the "Our clerics need XP" problem, that they're going to have a non-lazy, moral solution to the "Oh crap the Dark One is threatening us" problem, so yeah, we're probably looking at ethnic cleansing, but

a) that's a problem with the other gods, not the Plan

b1) they're currently asking their followers to commit genocide on their behalf. Somehow I don't find them asking their followers to move on their behalf to be more evil; crazy, I know.

Please note that I am not defending the other gods here. I think they're bastards. But the solution is not to induce innocent goblins to evil acts.

I wasn't aware that whipping elderly human slaves was a big part of the Equality Intiative.


b2) Things that reduce net evil are good

How do you measure "net evil?" Certainly the hobgoblins following Redcloak, are doing more evil now than they ever were left to themselves in their mountains. They had no humans to whip, there.

[Drakevarg]

It's possible. But unless I'm grossly mistaken about Rich's campaign setting, the threads of reality are all occupied. Any reweaving that creating a new landmass would require risks freeing the god-killing abomination it's all holding in.

See also, Plan B.

[Optimystik]

See also, Plan B.

Forcing previously innocent goblins to do evil? I can't accept that.

[Drakevarg]

Forcing previously innocent goblins to do evil? I can't accept that.

No, plan B is "Let the Snarl out, undo creation, let the gods rebuild the world, but this time, the Dark One gets a say."

[lio45]

No, plan B is "Let the Snarl out, undo creation, let the gods rebuild the world, but this time, the Dark One gets a say."

Just curious, by what means exactly can Redcloak and the Dark One enforce this deal?

Why couldn't the Gods simply say: "Go ahead, let the Snarl out, but if you do that, once creation is undone, know that we'll design our new world with goblins in an even poorer position than before. Sure you want to go ahead with this?"

(I haven't read SoD, but am not afraid of spoilers.)

[Drakevarg]

Because the only reason creation can hold in the Snarl is because all the gods cooperated in its creation. With the Dark One now in their ranks, if they don't allow him to make goblinoids on equal measure with the other races, his own threads of creation would screw up the nessicary order of the prison, thus ruining the whole thing and letting out the Snarl.

So, if they don't cooperate with the Dark One, the Snarl doesn't get reimprisoned and kills them all. Simple as that.

[lio45]

The way I saw it, the Snarl came into existence as the product of some major godly noncooperation... when they re-did the world, they didn't need absolutely perfect cooperation and harmony: "mostly harmony" was enough to keep the Snarl locked (see last panel of #0274 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html)).

If next time all gods except the Dark One fully cooperate, I would assume the resulting not-100%-but-still-harmonious world could hold the Snarl entrapped as well.

Of course, that's only my take on it, and you might be right & I wrong, especially if there's anything in SoD that reinforces your position (I haven't read it and I don't know).

[Zevox]

No, plan B is "Let the Snarl out, undo creation, let the gods rebuild the world, but this time, the Dark One gets a say."
No, that is not plan B. No one plans to do that. Redcloak discussed that in Start of Darkness only when Right-Eye asked what would happen if the Snarl was accidentally released. It's strictly his consolation knowledge for the possibility that the worst may happen by accident while tampering with the Gates, nothing more.

Zevox

[Drakevarg]

The way I saw it, the Snarl came into existence as the product of some major godly noncooperation... when they re-did the world, they didn't need absolutely perfect cooperation and harmony: "mostly harmony" was enough to keep the Snarl locked (see last panel of #0274 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html)).

If next time all gods except the Dark One fully cooperate, I would assume the resulting not-100%-but-still-harmonious world could hold the Snarl entrapped as well.

Of course, that's only my take on it, and you might be right & I wrong, especially if there's anything in SoD that reinforces your position (I haven't read it and I don't know).

"Mostly harmony" was probably snark on the part of Shojo, for one. And the concern isn't "will it make a new Snarl?" It's "if you have a prison that the Snarl can comprehend, will it hold it in?"

The only reason the Snarl couldn't destroy the new world as easily as it could the last one was because it didn't even know what it WAS. If the world was chaotic, and the Dark One would certaintly be able to make it that, then the Snarl could understand it, and hence break it.

And there aren't nearly enough gods to render the Dark One's contributions irrelevent. The ENTIRE Southern Panteon is composed of 12 gods. The other Pantheons could be expected to be of similar numbers. So, a world that has 1/37th of its gods being uncooperative would probably make for a shoddy prison.

[lio45]

So, Redcloak's Plan B entirely depends on whether or not a world that's 1/37th chaotic and 36/37th harmonious is unchaotic enough to resist the Snarl... a question to which the answer isn't known to anyone in advance, including the gods.

Not a very reliable Plan B to me... the gods could still give him the answer I made up in my first post in this thread, and tell him that they are confident enough that their cooperation, even without the Dark One, is sufficient to make a world the Snarl won't understand. Then what?

[factotum]

The way I saw it, the Snarl came into existence as the product of some major godly noncooperation... when they re-did the world, they didn't need absolutely perfect cooperation and harmony: "mostly harmony" was enough to keep the Snarl locked (see last panel of #0274 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html)).


Er, except it wasn't enough to keep it locked, was it? You might have noticed the entire story is about five rifts in the Snarl's prison, and those might well have come about due to the small amount of disharmony between the gods when they created World #2.

[Optimystik]

No, plan B is "Let the Snarl out, undo creation, let the gods rebuild the world, but this time, the Dark One gets a say."

How is that preferable? Not only is he risking the eradication of many goblin souls, he's even risking the eradication of his race's benefactor. It's irresponsible at best.

[Larkspur]

I wasn't aware that whipping elderly human slaves was a big part of the Equality Intiative.

It's also totally irrelevant to the Plan, and therefore has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not the Plan itself would cost Redcloak a Good alignment.


Certainly the hobgoblins following Redcloak, are doing more evil now than they ever were left to themselves in their mountains. They had no humans to whip, there.

They've also eliminated the Sapphire Guard, which was running around murdering children. We can't really tally the net cost-benefit of sacking Azure City without more information about the total crimes committed by both sides.


How is that preferable? Not only is he risking the eradication of many goblin souls, he's even risking the eradication of his race's benefactor. It's irresponsible at best.

Irresponsibility is risking a price you wouldn't be willing to pay. It was the Dark One's idea in the first place, so I'm pretty sure he's okay with Plan B, and Redcloak seems pretty sanguine about the prospect as well. His priorities may be misplaced, but he's not irresponsible.

(Elan, Miko et al., on the other hand... if destroying all five gates unmakes the world, that's a hell of a lot worse than allowing the Dark One (or Xykon) to obtain a gun to hold on the gods).

[Setra]

What if they.. you know.. ignored the Dark one when they weaved the threads?

As in, not even letting him weave any threads. They did it without him before, if I am not mistaken. Then even if he IS uncooperative, it doesn't really matter, as he has no effect on what happens.

[Caleniel]

One cannot imagine a Good-aligned creature of any race being willing to destroy the world and annihilate the souls of everyone in it just in the hope that his people will have a better life when the NEXT world is created!

Hmm, I'm not sure this comment is allowed, but even at the risk of being modded I have to say that I remember a certain myth about a good creature flooding the entire world and annihilating everyone but a shipload of them in the hope that his people would have a better life in the next world...

I always did find the morality of that particular story hard to swallow anyway! But is it kind of similar to what Redcloak's deity has in mind isn't it?
(Hoping I don't cause offense, none intended)

[Ancalagon]

They've also eliminated the Sapphire Guard, which was running around murdering children. We can't really tally the net cost-benefit of sacking Azure City without more information about the total crimes committed by both sides.

Hum... no. We don't. Doing evil does not get better if you also do good. In terms of alignment it totals up (so evil -10 and good +10 gives you 0), but the utter evil still stays utter evil (only the -10 does not vanish because you also do +10).
In case of the goblins we can say for sure they do -10, but they surely don't do +10 good (maybe +2).

So, we don't have to "tally the net-cost-benefit". The goblins now are much more evil (in general) as compared to those in the city or in the village.

[Calenestel]

@Caleniel: I could give you a long answer to that. Both theological and exegetical (is that how I should translate it? My primary language is swedish, which is a bit of a bother at times).

But since that would DEFINETLY be against the rules I'm only going to say: I see what you mean and agree with you partly. But only about halfways. :smallbiggrin:

Aure entuluva!
Calenestel

[Optimystik]

It's also totally irrelevant to the Plan, and therefore has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not the Plan itself would cost Redcloak a Good alignment.

Incorrect - shepherding your entire race to Evil is a very Evil act, whether it is an intentional aspect of the Plan or not.


They've also eliminated the Sapphire Guard, which was running around murdering children. We can't really tally the net cost-benefit of sacking Azure City without more information about the total crimes committed by both sides.

Stopping the SG is great, but I really fail to see how keeping civilian slaves who weren't even aware of the SG's existence is a "benefit."


Irresponsibility is risking a price you wouldn't be willing to pay. It was the Dark One's idea in the first place, so I'm pretty sure he's okay with Plan B, and Redcloak seems pretty sanguine about the prospect as well. His priorities may be misplaced, but he's not irresponsible.

It is irresponsible. The Dark One knows nothing about the Snarl besides what the other gods told him, and Redcloak himself knows even less.

[Larkspur]

Hum... no. We don't. Doing evil does not get better if you also do good. In terms of alignment it totals up (so evil -10 and good +10 gives you 0), but the utter evil still stays utter evil (only the -10 does not vanish because you also do +10).

Stopping evil is good. The question becomes one of "How evil was the evil you stopped vs. the evil you committed in stopping it?" which is not a question we can answer until we know more about the extent of the Sapphire Guards' crimes. Certainly enslaving people gives you +10 to your evil, but in all likelihood they're also preventing the deaths of future goblin children. Why is that only worth 2 points?


Incorrect - shepherding your entire race to Evil is a very Evil act, whether it is an intentional aspect of the Plan or not.

a) "entire race"? Please, it's a village and a half plus one horde of hobgoblins.
b) It has bearing on Redcloak's alignment, sure. But it has none on the goodness of the Plan itself- the Plan didn't require any war crimes to be committed. And no one is debating Redcloak's alignment.


The Dark One knows nothing about the Snarl besides what the other gods told him, and Redcloak himself knows even less.

Unless you can envision a worse worst case scenario than the Snarl unmaking reality, I don't see how their alleged lack of knowledge could cause a bigger problem than the one they've anticipated and chosen to regard as a positive outcome.

[lio45]

Er, except it wasn't enough to keep it locked, was it? You might have noticed the entire story is about five rifts in the Snarl's prison, and those might well have come about due to the small amount of disharmony between the gods when they created World #2.

Yes, but it's still holding up.

World #1 : creation not harmonious. Destroyed.
World #2 : creation mostly harmonious, five rifts, but world still manages to hold.

If for World #3 all the gods FULLY cooperate (which they didn't for World #2) while the Dark One doesn't cooperate at all (but is he really necessary anyway? I'm getting that he wasn't involved the other times), the result will be something that might be better than World #2, or might worse than World #2, depending on how involved/necessary exactly the Dark One is in the Creation process -- something about which I have no clue.

Unless the answer, or hints, is/are in SoD, I would say no one knows for sure at this time.

[Optimystik]

Stopping evil is good. The question becomes one of "How evil was the evil you stopped vs. the evil you committed in stopping it?" which is not a question we can answer until we know more about the extent of the Sapphire Guards' crimes. Certainly enslaving people gives you +10 to your evil, but in all likelihood they're also preventing the deaths of future goblin children. Why is that only worth 2 points?

It sounds like you get your alignment from Neverwinter Nights.

"If I commit -8 worth of Evil to negate -10 points, the net result is a +2 for good."

Alignment does not work that way in D&D.

"With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."


a) "entire race"? Please, it's a village and a half plus one horde of hobgoblins.

He is leading by example, even to those goblins not immediately present in his chain of command.

"It's my job to shepherd the goblin people - ALL the goblin people!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)


b) It has bearing on Redcloak's alignment, sure. But it has none on the goodness of the Plan itself- the Plan didn't require any war crimes to be committed. And no one is debating Redcloak's alignment.

Doesn't it? SoD: The Dark One's directive is "go forth and seize the rift" and we are treated to a view of goblin soldiers marching behind the first mantle-bearer. He doesn't seem overly concerned with how they go about it, or what will happen to their souls as a result.


Unless you can envision a worse worst case scenario than the Snarl unmaking reality, I don't see how their alleged lack of knowledge could cause a bigger problem than the one they've anticipated and chosen to regard as a positive outcome.

How about the Snarl unmaking the Dark One, before the other gods can get it under control again? That would certainly be a worse case (for the goblins) than unmaking everything equally.

[Axolotl]

I think both Tsukiko and Redcloak are well-done examples of evil folks with realistic motivations I disagree, whilst they certainly have more interesting and complex motivations they're far from realistic. Xykon is a far more realistic figure than either of them (from a motivations pointy of view).

[Ancalagon]

Stopping evil is good. The question becomes one of "How evil was the evil you stopped vs. the evil you committed in stopping it?" which is not a question we can answer until we know more about the extent of the Sapphire Guards' crimes. Certainly enslaving people gives you +10 to your evil, but in all likelihood they're also preventing the deaths of future goblin children. Why is that only worth 2 points?

The numbers were just examples and don't mean anything. So, let's not argue what evil is worth how many points.

To address the more interesting issue: You seem to think the the means justify the end. If you reach a lot of "good", then it simply does not matter what you did to reach it (as "enough good" somehow "makes up for the evil that was done to reach it").
To use an extreme but very valid example: If there are two countries that constantly wage war against each other and both sides commit horrible acts of war crimes and then YOU (as rich, industrial billionaire) buy 20 strategic nukes and totally and uttery destroy one of the countries (you either pick the one that is not-yours or even flip a coin to be "fair").
All wars are over for the next three thousand years. The remaining country flourishes into an age of prosperity and peace. Everyone is happy, governments and money are no issue anymore, really, everything is awesome because you used your nukes to destroy all that stood in the way of peace.

The act that made that happen is still utterly, utterly evil. It does not matter "what good you gained". The "mean" was an appropiate and working way to get all that good, but it's still very, very evil.
The end simply does not justify the means.

(And for a different example, that is a little less clear because it happens in a fantasy-setting you could say... "destroy black dragons with a Familicide-spell". Changes nothing. Evil. No matter of the motive or the gained "good".)

[Larkspur]

Op:

That's not quite what I was saying. D&D doesn't recognize utilitarian morality arguments- if I have to kill you to prevent a plague from spreading, I still take an alignment hit for murder.

But it does recognize moral arithmetic. That's why one of the ways to achieve a neutral alignment, as described in Core, is to deliberately do an equal number of good and evil deeds: if you set one cat on fire and save another from drowning, it apparently cancels out. Weird, but D&D alignments don't correspond particularly well to Earth morality.

So if the war was a just war, then presumably it could be just enough that prosecuting it would put enough good credit in their alignment account to balance out the war crimes. But that depends on how evil the enemy they were fighting was.

Since Xykon is apparently impossible to find, I think we can safely assume the other goblins don't know what Redcloak is doing and are therefore not being corrupted by him.

Why would the Snarl preferentially unmake the Dark One? And even if the other gods kill him, they're not likely to put themselves in this position again by creating a new race of sentient Untermenschen in World mk. 3.

Ancalagon:

Obviously I'm not arguing that any end justifies any means; that would be stupid. Genocide is a sufficiently bad means that it's very, very hard to come up with an end that justifies it. Peace is insufficient. A world without dragon predation might be sufficient, but V's only motive was hir own physical protection, so Familicide was deeply evil.

On the other hand, I think we can all agree that some ends justify some "evil" means. No one seems to have a problem with the Order hunting down Xykon and slaughtering their way through a dungeon full of sentient beings who weren't threatening them until they showed up and attacked them. Normally it wouldn't be kosher to invade someone's castle and start massacring the defenders, but because Xykon is a horrifically evil mage/the murderer of Eugene's mentor/possessed of stolen property, suddenly all this homicide becomes justifiable.

We're just haggling over the price.

[Lecan]

I thought "always" meant "always, except in very special, plot-related reasons. (Vampires in the Buffyverse would be a good example - becoming a vampire involves litterally losing your soul and becoming taken over by a demon, so every single vampire is evil, apart from Angel, who had his soul restored, and (eventually) Spike, after a great deal of Plot).

That's an interesting and very appropriate example. Buffy (as the defender of Good) makes choices about what Evil she fights and when. Some Evil is not a threat and may even be useful (Anya, Spike) and some is just not a threat (Clem) but she always knows they are Evil and if the balance changes, she is the first to stop Evil.

Roy (and to a lesser extent Haley when she is leader) knows Belkar is Evil but continues on with him because he is useful to the party's goals. The inevitable conflict when Belkar proves to be more detriment than help may not occur as Belkar is scheduled to die soon, but it was shown what Haley's response was in that kind of a situation.

[Optimystik]

Op:

That's not quite what I was saying. D&D doesn't recognize utilitarian morality arguments- if I have to kill you to prevent a plague from spreading, I still take an alignment hit for murder.

But it does recognize moral arithmetic. That's why one of the ways to achieve a neutral alignment, as described in Core, is to deliberately do an equal number of good and evil deeds: if you set one cat on fire and save another from drowning, it apparently cancels out. Weird, but D&D alignments don't correspond particularly well to Earth morality.

You misunderstand me. I'm well aware that "commit acts on both sides to end up neutral" exists in D&D.

But there are acts that are so heinous that they are exempt from this calculation. Intentional murder of an innocent = instant evil, no matter how good you were before - BoVD, BoED, and FC2 all agree. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


So if the war was a just war, then presumably it could be just enough that prosecuting it would put enough good credit in their alignment account to balance out the war crimes. But that depends on how evil the enemy they were fighting was.

The war is not what I'm condemning Redcloak for. His race had a grievance, he resorted to the only means available to him. Fine.

The ongoing slavery is what is totally unnecessary, and what is turning his people into the monsters the other races label them as.


Since Xykon is apparently impossible to find, I think we can safely assume the other goblins don't know what Redcloak is doing and are therefore not being corrupted by him.

Yet they are the ones whipping civilian slaves, not Redcloak.


Why would the Snarl preferentially unmake the Dark One? And even if the other gods kill him, they're not likely to put themselves in this position again by creating a new race of sentient Untermenschen in World mk. 3.

Preference isn't necessary. The Dark One is a) the youngest god, and b) has no experience vs. the Snarl at all. The odds are quite simply against him if the thing breaks free.

As for "Untermenschen," I would hope the gods wouldn't repeat their mistake, but I don't have much faith in their mental acuity. Nor do I think it would be much consolation to the goblins if their only legacy in the cosmos is a footnote in the "race creation manual."

[Zxo]

Stopping evil is good. The question becomes one of "How evil was the evil you stopped vs. the evil you committed in stopping it?" which is not a question we can answer until we know more about the extent of the Sapphire Guards' crimes. Certainly enslaving people gives you +10 to your evil, but in all likelihood they're also preventing the deaths of future goblin children. Why is that only worth 2 points?


I don't know how many points it is worth, but there are many ways of achieving this goal other than enslaving Azurites and a Good aligned person would at least try these less-evil methods first. Like, explaining what you do not want them to do and then resettling them somewhere where you can watch them and react in case they break their word. Or even keeping them in Azure City, but not as slaves, but second class citizens with no access to positions of power, but able to move and do business freely - that would be much less evil and since the city would be ruled by goblins, there would be no more Azurite attacks on goblin villages.

Not to mention that ordinary Azurite citizens had probably no idea what the SG was doing and we do not even know if they would support it. So, a Good/Neutral person would imprison/destroy the SG who was directly responsible for killing goblin kids, but treat the rest of AC population better than that.

[Larkspur]

But there are acts that are so heinous that they are exempt from this calculation. Intentional murder of an innocent = instant evil, no matter how good you were before - BoVD, BoED, and FC2 all agree. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

But that can't be true in OoTS, or V's alignment wouldn't still be up for grabs after Familicide. V killed eggs; by that reasoning s/he'd be permanently condemned, not 50% chance condemned. And Shojo seems to be comfortably ensconced in the Chaotic Good afterlife after ordering the massacre of Redcloak's village. You could handwave Shojo, possibly- he was acting under orders from the gods, so they'll protect him from the alignment hit- but there's no way to get around V.

You probably drop down from Good for deliberately killing an innocent, but it can't be true that you permanently forfeit Neutral.

The slavery/general occupation policy is awful, and I've always argued such. And I agree that Redcloak is enabling the corruption of the hobgoblins.

You seem to be arguing that he's corrupting all of goblinkind everywhere, which strikes me as unlikely given that they have no idea what he's doing.

[Kish]

But that can't be true in OoTS, or V's alignment wouldn't still be up for grabs after Familicide. V killed eggs; by that reasoning s/he'd be permanently condemned, not 50% chance condemned.
We don't know that s/he wouldn't drop straight to the bottom of Hades if s/he died now. Only that the fiends estimated a 50% chance of getting his/her soul at the time s/he actually does die.

[Ancalagon]

But that can't be true in OoTS

"Alignment" and your "true alignment, based on the DEEDS you did in life, that determine to what afterlife you go" seem to be two different things in the order of the stick world.

We have seen Roy's trial and even while he assumed to be lawful good and also behaved like that, it was still open to debate during his trail - until the "powers that are" determined where he belongs.
So, in this world, it seems quite possible that you ARE (for example) "true neutral" but still get to be sent to an evil afterlife, based on what you did in your life.

Alignment and "what you deserve based on your deed" probably are *usually* the same but it seems the *do not have to* be the same in extreme cases (for example adventurers who do extreme things for all kinds of things).
Thus it might very well be that the trail for Vaarsuvius determines "You are mostly true neutral but when we compare your good and evil deeds, the motives for them and your reactions and reflections about them afterwards, we find that you are actually evil. Thus, that afterlife will be more fitting for you."
I'm not saying this will happen, but it is - apparently - how it can work in the OotS-World.

[hamishspence]

Its also how Fiendish Codex 2 works- if you are Lawful, you destination is determined by your un-atoned-for deeds, regardless of your actual alignment.

So, if you were LE, have a long career of nastiness, have an epiphany and become LG, but die before any actually atonement, you get condemned to the Nine Hells.

Similarly, if you are LN, very "ends justify means" but haven't slipped all the way to LE yet- it doesn't matter, if your acts were bad enough, your afterlife will be Nine Hells.

If you die genuinely repentant, then it is possible that you will be reborn as a Hellbred, getting a "second chance" to save your soul from its fate, rather than going straight to the Nine Hells.

And if if you only repented at the moment your soul arrived in the Nine Hells, it becomes a spectre, rather than a soul shell.

[SPoD]

Shadow;7733455']I'm surprised that nobody's brought up Redcloak as a counter-arguement to the "alignment's a choice" arguement. Without spoiling too much of SoD, let's just say that he was forced into an awful lot; very few things have really been a matter of choice for him.

The counter-argument to this runs exactly two words (or one hyphenated word, actually:

Right-Eye.

To expand on that (SoD spoilers):
Both Redcloak and Right-Eye have similar genetics, the same upbringing, and go through many of the same situations in their adult life. And yet, every step of the way, Right-Eye chooses one thing and Redcloak chooses another. Redcloak had plenty of choices, he just chose poorly every single time.

[Larkspur]

(SoD spoilers):
Both Redcloak and Right-Eye have similar genetics, the same upbringing, and go through many of the same situations in their adult life. And yet, every step of the way, Right-Eye chooses one thing and Redcloak chooses another. Redcloak had plenty of choices, he just chose poorly every single time.

You mean like SoDChoosing to make a deal with Xykon rather than preferring not to get involved with the psychotic human mage? Or choosing to foist the responsibility of deciding what to do about the Goblin problem on some other poor schmuck and running away? Or choosing to hide from the consequences of his failed assassination attempts amid a crowd of innocent people, thus encouraging Xykon to kill everyone?

I'll concede the alignment difference, but citing Right-Eye as an examplar of great moral planning is absurd. At least Redcloak had the guts to try to do something about the overall political situation He's also a murderer, but Right-Eye's not much better.

[Optimystik]

But that can't be true in OoTS, or V's alignment wouldn't still be up for grabs after Familicide. V killed eggs; by that reasoning s/he'd be permanently condemned, not 50% chance condemned. And Shojo seems to be comfortably ensconced in the Chaotic Good afterlife after ordering the massacre of Redcloak's village. You could handwave Shojo, possibly- he was acting under orders from the gods, so they'll protect him from the alignment hit- but there's no way to get around V.

As Kish pointed out, the 50-50 refers to "even if he does a bunch of good things to try and shift his alignment last-minute."


You probably drop down from Good for deliberately killing an innocent, but it can't be true that you permanently forfeit Neutral.

"An" innocent? V killed dozens. Even if you restrict it to just the eggs and hybrid dragons, that's an awful lot of murder to go around.


The slavery/general occupation policy is awful, and I've always argued such. And I agree that Redcloak is enabling the corruption of the hobgoblins.

You seem to be arguing that he's corrupting all of goblinkind everywhere, which strikes me as unlikely given that they have no idea what he's doing.

He himself identifies as the "shepherd of ALL the goblin people." It is he who is taking on the responsibility, not I who have ascribed it to him.

[veti]

But that can't be true in OoTS, or V's alignment wouldn't still be up for grabs after Familicide. V killed eggs; by that reasoning s/he'd be permanently condemned, not 50% chance condemned. [...]

You probably drop down from Good for deliberately killing an innocent, but it can't be true that you permanently forfeit Neutral.

Where are you getting "permanently" from? It's perfectly possible to change alignment, then change back again. It's also possible for a DM to rule that a particular action does not necessarily signal an alignment change, particularly if there are extenuating circumstances, and you show genuine remorse. That's why the Atonement spell exists, after all - sometimes people do things that they regret, and wouldn't do again if the circumstances repeated.


He himself identifies as the "shepherd of ALL the goblin people." It is he who is taking on the responsibility, not I who have ascribed it to him.

But clearly, he's not literally affecting the behaviour of "all of the goblin people". Not currently, anyway. He may perceive himself in that way, but according to the ethos of judging people on the basis of reality, there's no reason to hold him to that responsibility.

[Optimystik]

But clearly, he's not literally affecting the behaviour of "all of the goblin people". Not currently, anyway. He may perceive himself in that way, but according to the ethos of judging people on the basis of reality, there's no reason to hold him to that responsibility.

Perhaps. The fact is, we don't know how widespread his successes (and reputation) have become among other goblins yet, as the only ones we've seen are actively following him.

The important thing is that he is actively considering how his actions will influence his race - he cannot claim ignorance after a statement like that.