If Tsukiko was really evil... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Conuly

2010-03-04, 03:54 PM

I'm always up for debating the nature of evil, but c'mon. Tsukiko is evil. She does evil things. She does them for some very twisted motives, but you can hardly call "The Undead Are SO Nice" to be a good reason. She lusts after Xykon, and ew!

And maybe she has turned children into wights before.

Saph

2010-03-04, 03:57 PM

I bet you 20 gp that there's someone on the forums who thinks she's not evil at all.

No bet. I found one already. :smalltongue:

Tijne

2010-03-04, 04:00 PM

I bet you 20 gp that there's someone on the forums who thinks she's not evil at all.

She thinks Xykon is "caring, sensitive, honest; who was oppressed by the living majority and the negative stereotypes." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html)
She also claimed "I want to be evil!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html), not that she is evil.

Therefore, she must not be evil; just badly misinformed with a love-complex for the poor underappreciated undead.

Optimystik

2010-03-04, 04:07 PM

EENick

2010-03-04, 04:12 PM

She thinks Xykon is "caring, sensitive, honest; who was oppressed by the living majority and the negative stereotypes." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html)
She also claimed "I want to be evil!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html), not that she is evil.

Therefore, she must not be evil; just badly misinformed with a love-complex for the poor underappreciated undead.

Just because she isn't awakened to her own evil doesn't mean she isn't evil. Miko wasn't aware she was going insane and spiralling rapidly away from lawful good but that didn't keep her from falling. Besides she is willfully on TEAM EVIL, so I'd argue she is in fact aware of how evil she is.

I've been out of D&D for a while but don't you have to be evil tl cast cause wounds and turn good? (Which is something she lamented she cant' do ONLY because of the edition they were playing suggesting she is in fact both evil and aware she is evil.)

licoot

2010-03-04, 04:31 PM

either shes evil or she had some kind of seriously disturbed childhood.

Asta Kask

2010-03-04, 04:35 PM

either shes evil or she had some kind of seriously disturbed childhood.

I think a serious case can be made for 'both'.

TriForce

2010-03-04, 05:44 PM

I think a serious case can be made for 'both'.

indeed, those are not exactly mutually exclusive.

also, sorry for turning it in a alignment thread, i was actually only curious about the wording the OP used, i underestimated the desire of others to play the devils advocate :smallsmile:

Kish

2010-03-04, 06:24 PM

also, sorry for turning it in a alignment thread, i was actually only curious about the wording the OP used, i underestimated the desire of others to play the devils advocate :smallsmile:
Devil's...? Are you implying that Tsukiko is Lawful? *ducks*

Acero

2010-03-04, 06:31 PM

Devil's...? Are you implying that Tsukiko is Lawful? *ducks*

She could be Lawful Evil. All she does is follow Xykon and his commands. (just like another lawful evil humanoid used to do)

Haven

2010-03-04, 06:34 PM

Tsukiko views the undead as objects of lust. Turning children would probably be really uncomfortable for her.

Orzel

2010-03-04, 06:56 PM

But She loves undead.
Really loves them
If she turned kids into wights then...

*brain bleach*

What were we talking about?

Pyron

2010-03-04, 07:18 PM

... she would take the children of Azurites and turn them into wights.

The problem with wight children that they're easy XP and hard to protect - unless she creates diving suit golems to protect them.

MReav

2010-03-04, 08:07 PM

But She loves undead.
Really loves them
If she turned kids into wights then...

*brain bleach*

What were we talking about?

*Looks at post...*
*Considers implications*
*Guzzles Brain Bleach*

Huh... Alright, I know there's an empty can of Brain Bleach so I must have read something that abused my sensibilities.

Shhalahr Windrider

2010-03-04, 08:08 PM

Tsukiko views the undead as objects of lust. Turning children would probably be really uncomfortable for her.
Assuming she’s not a pedophile in addition to her other, uh… traits, of course…

NerfTW

2010-03-04, 08:23 PM

No, but the children who are already there can be sent out to combat the army.

There are no children there. They all evacuated when they knew an army was approaching. Standing around with your kids in a war zone isn't exactly the brightest idea. Even if they stayed till the last minute, they would have had plenty of time to get to the docks when the tower fell.

denthor

2010-03-04, 09:39 PM

either shes evil or she had some kind of seriously disturbed childhood.

Why not both?

Yes she is EVIL

She likes the undead, uses spells to focus negative thoughts and energy. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0465.html) comic 465

She kills people that uphold the values that most people aspire to. (Paladins).

She has openly turn coat against her own people that just did her a favor of freeing her. With a plan to do so.

And last but not least she wants to have Sex with dead things and would dig up the graves to do so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) comic 446

derfenrirwolv

2010-03-04, 10:15 PM

You can be evil and still have standards.

Temotei

2010-03-04, 10:28 PM

The problem with wight children that they're easy XP and hard to protect - unless she creates diving suit golems to protect them.

:smallsigh:

You have to stat it out now. Diving suit golem. New monster. I want CR 5 or higher.

derfenrirwolv

2010-03-04, 10:39 PM

I think the diving suit golems would have to look for lost treasure, counterfeit bills, chase ineffectively after meddling kids, and be fooled by the most blatent disguised, only to fall into a trap and be unmasked.

Thanatosia

2010-03-04, 10:54 PM

There are no children there. They all evacuated when they knew an army was approaching. Standing around with your kids in a war zone isn't exactly the brightest idea. Even if they stayed till the last minute, they would have had plenty of time to get to the docks when the tower fell.
There's still Azurite Children around, Tsukiko would just have to do a bit of Dumpster Diving (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0549.html) to find them.

Watcher

2010-03-04, 11:01 PM

Of evil: There are mainly two kinds: those looking out for themselves (and willing to plow over those who get in their way), and those who make an effort to purposefully destroy the good things of the Good people. Tsukiko always struck me as the first kind. Evil. And that makes us all one big happy family? Screw that. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)

Ancalagon

2010-03-05, 03:35 AM

Any other ideas?

Q: Yes... you are saying she is not "really evil"?

A: Get over it. She already is "really evil".

Asta Kask

2010-03-05, 08:21 AM

As far as the rules go, 'Wight' is not a template. The child wights would be just as hard to kill as adult wights.

As far as Tsukiko goes, she'd probably think of them as her children - she pretty much does that with the adult wights already.

hamishspence

2010-03-05, 09:26 AM

in Savage Species, Wight is a template.

Asta Kask

2010-03-05, 09:29 AM

I'm sure it is. However, OotS is mostly core and Savage Species is 3.0 anyway.

hamishspence

2010-03-05, 09:31 AM

one of the few exceptions, was a 3.0 exception- "evocations that use touch attacks" being the orbs. Those orbs are only evocations in 3.0.

Optimystik

2010-03-05, 11:02 AM

Pyron

2010-03-05, 12:17 PM

Concerning the evocation orbs - It's possible that she simply used the wrong terminology. We know she hasn't banned conjuration after all - she can teleport.

So it's possible she's using 3.5 orbs, just mislabeled.

It's also possible that she's had the 3.0 version house-ruled, and it wouldn't be the first time that happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html).

Deca

2010-03-08, 05:46 AM

It's also possible that she's had the 3.0 version house-ruled, and it wouldn't be the first time that happened (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html).

Why is it always the bad guys who use house rules?

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 05:52 AM

Why is it always the bad guys who use house rules?

Belkar seem to use quite some house-rules as well. Ok, you could argue he's also some sort of Bad Guy.
Vaarsuvius used a custom spell with cheat-power (powers of cosmic evil giver super-spell to player character. Don't tell me the player in question did not sleep with the DM to get that.).
Elan got a prc house ruled to rescue his powerless character.

I'm not going to collect more examples but I think there are numerous examples where not only the bad guys get something they should not have/can use house rules. ;)

Morithias

2010-03-08, 06:02 AM

Edit: Ignore my last post I missed a small clause at the beginning of the feat section.

However I would like to point out that no where in BOED, BOVD, or the DMG says that certain sexual fetishes require you to be evil.

Heck if loving the undead made you evil, half of today's teenage girls would be half-way to hell. (Vampires are undead no matter how shiny you make them)

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 06:09 AM

However I would like to point out that no where in BOED, BOVD, or the DMG says that certain sexual fetishes require you to be evil.

Look... I'm not sure how I can put it... so I'll be very blunt in form a question:

You actually do think that killing people(!) and re-animating their corpses(!) so they become a sexual fetish - that is actively used for actual sex(!) - is not evil?

Morithias

2010-03-08, 06:29 AM

Look... I'm not sure how I can put it... so I'll be very blunt in form a question:

You actually do think that killing people(!) and re-animating their corpses(!) so they become a sexual fetish - that is actively used for actual sex(!) - is not evil?

In the Fiend Codex 2 according to the pact made with the devil asmodeus by the gods. Murder is a '5' on the corruption scale, and casting an evil spell is I think '1'. However there is no such inclusion on the chart for "likes to have sex with dead people".

The action as a whole is evil. The last part of it being a sexual fetish is not.

If she was to have sex with a zombie that was just randomly given to her as a gift and she didn't kill or animate herself, RAW she would be no closer to the lower planes than before.

Edit: Oh and to add one more thing 'engaging in INTIMIDATING torture' and 'Humiliating an underling' are also 1s on the scale. That's right Roy humiliating Elan got him the same amount closer to hell as casting animate dead did for our necromancer. To again put this in perspective, intimidating torture is torture that does no damage. So basically tieing a person to a table helpless and basically harshly ASKING them questions, without ever actually hurting them.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 06:32 AM

It was a simple enough question, I think. So: Yes or no?

Morithias

2010-03-08, 06:35 AM

It was a simple enough question, I think. So: Yes or no?

I did answer you. Note my second paragraph/sentence.

"The action a whole is evil. The part about it being a sexual fetish is not."

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 07:15 AM

To again put this in perspective, intimidating torture is torture that does no damage. So basically tieing a person to a table helpless and basically harshly ASKING them questions, without ever actually hurting them.

Actually, I see it as closer to using someone's phobias against them- Room 101 style, as per the book 1984.

Psychological- rather than physical- but still very serious- serious enough to register on the Evil scale.

Asta Kask

2010-03-08, 07:16 AM

Tying Durkon to a tree might qualify...

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 07:19 AM

Tying Durkon in the middle of a circle of awakened trees, and having them make fake swipes at him, and going "Talk, or I'll let the trees loose on you"-

that's more in line with Intimidating Torture.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 07:58 AM

Torture is ALWAYS also psycological.

The only difference between physical and purely non-physical torture is that one can leave visible scars in the flesh.

Get rid of that idea that "just because it was not physical it means nothing".

Check out the mythbusters-episode on the "Chinese Water Torture" and see how it backfires even in their totally controlled environment (and how the torture-expert they had there reacted to it)!

megabyter5

2010-03-08, 08:02 AM

Yeah, if Tsukiko was REALLY evil, she'd eat this kitten. And molest this puppy. And set this bunny on fire. And strangle this hamster. And throw this guinea pig at a wall. And shoot this parakeet. And take a sledgehammer to this turtle. And poison this pet rock...

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 08:05 AM

Yeah, she's not really evil unless she kicked & shot that cute animal with it big, black, shiny eyes.

In that sense, not even Redcloak or Xykon is evil. Even the IFCC has not done that so... they are clearly lawful good.

TriForce

2010-03-08, 08:12 AM

Heck if loving the undead made you evil, half of today's teenage girls would be half-way to hell. (Vampires are undead no matter how shiny you make them)

and they really should be going to hell for that :) if for nothing else, then allowing something as mindshattering as that exist is enough to have a date with the devil :P:smallbiggrin:

Morithias

2010-03-08, 08:12 AM

Oh I never said that just cause it wasn't physical didn't mean it didn't mean anything. I was just simply pointing out that doing it fell on the same line as animating the undead.

The mythbusters doing water torture? Yeah, that got them as much closer to hell as our girl raising her first zombie would've been.

If you had not read the trees through the forest you would've seen my whole arguement is that while murder and casting evil spells is, yes, evil. Having sex with undead does not fall as evil under the sources I have referenced.

Hell, if it was evil wouldn't that put like 30% of today's teenage girls into the evil category? (Vampires are undead too people)

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 08:36 AM

There is a Vile feat (evil aligned characters only) specifically to represent it.

And BoVD lists it as especially terrible.

Though FC2 doesn't mention it one way or another.

Kish

2010-03-08, 09:10 AM

Hell, if it was evil wouldn't that put like 30% of today's teenage girls into the evil category? (Vampires are undead too people)
Wait, I'm confused. Is this supposed to be an argument that necrophilia isn't evil, or that it is?

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 09:15 AM

Aren't we talking about undeadophilia specifically?

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 09:39 AM

The mythbusters doing water torture? Yeah, that got them as much closer to hell as our girl raising her first zombie would've been.

Who talked about that? No one did.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 09:43 AM

Hell, if it was evil wouldn't that put like 30% of today's teenage girls into the evil category? (Vampires are undead too people)

You are aware that the "Vampires" modern teenage-girls adore are fiction, no? There is, wordlwide, not even a single modern teenage girl that huggles, kisses, or sleeps with a real undead.

The difference here is that from an in-game perspective the undead Tsukiko (who is also from that world) deals with are real and not fiction.

So you compare two things that are not comparable.

As much as True Blood, Anne Rice stories, Blade, or Twilight might be good entertainment (in some cases more than others)... Vampires are not real.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 09:49 AM

Also- what the Mythbusters did probably doesn't qualify, since its not "real"- the actors volunteered for it.

Even training people to resist it might not qualify- since its not actually being done as punishment or to get info.

Only when it happens "for real" should it be deemed an evil act (in the context of a D&D setting).

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:15 AM

Also- what the Mythbusters did probably doesn't qualify, since its not "real"- the actors volunteered for it.

Ok, as more people did not get the point:

Even WHILE they volunteered for it and even WHILE it was not a real torture situation and even WHILE the test was cancelled quite early (really, she just started to break down, so far "nothing" had happened) - they realised they went into regions where people should not go.

The point is that even this puny experiment that was barely "torture" at all already had quite extreme effects.

Point: the psycological effects of any torture (psycological as well as physical ones) are extreme. I could go more into examples but that very quickly leads into regions where I won't go on a forum like that.
So, stop making a distinction between physical and psycological torture and stop assuming it's "not that bad" just because there was no physical component involved.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:21 AM

Agreed on the "psychological effects are extreme"- that's why Intimidating Torture counts as an evil act.

I tend to disagree with the "it's not that bad" perspective anyway.

Maybe a 1 point Evil act is a lot more serious than people are suggesting? Thats why only a few of them can be enough to lead to afterlife-changing?

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:26 AM

As I see it, the entire scale is evil. Even 1-point-evil is already "full evil" and not "just a little bad".

Things that are "just a little bad" or "borderline" don't show up on the scale. It is there to value HOW evil an already evil deed(!) was.

It's like the scales of gods: When seen from below it does not matter at all. All godlevels are the same for mortals. But to have a sub-hierarchy among that group, you can value the powerlevels with numbers.

Even a mere 1 is already something that is quite evil. It's not "lambasting your friends a bit more than necessary".

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:28 AM

true- maybe it's the GMs job to add up all those "fractionally evil" acts and see if they should count, when totalled.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 10:35 AM

Yes. Or those could decide in borderline cases etc. But I think in most cases those borderline cases are not an issue.

As player in a game (that's what the book is for) you usually play a "good" char and if you decide to let the character fall, it usually is no question at all if he fell or not (as that simply has a greater punch for the story and is more fun on the table). Characters who are doomed (because their player decided to let them fall) sooner or later do that in a way that really "leaves cracks in the floor" (simply because it's fun to do it with full force if you decide to do it :)).

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 10:38 AM

In some campaigns, them falling might come at the end of a chain of morally ambiguous acts, showing their decaying respect for life, and the rights of others.

The sample Witch Hunter in Tome of Magic seems like a typical example- eventually he falls, but he doesn't interpret the loss of his powers, and his "deity ceasing speaking to him" as a Fall- instead he thinks's he's being tested, very like Miko.

Ancalagon

2010-03-08, 12:43 PM

Yes. Adventurers live a life filled with killing and violence. That has to influence them at least somehow.

And with "falling" I'm not only talking about Paladins. It can be fun to degrade any character to a level where you either kill him/get him killed in a final, cool battle or where you just give him up and he becomes an NPC because he literally became unplayable as a PC.

hamishspence

2010-03-08, 01:15 PM

true- BoED took the falling mechanic and made it applicable to everybody- Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic Good (if they'd taken Exalted feats).

A character falling all the way to the Dark Side can be interesting- but so can ones who have fallen a long way, but want to redeem themselves.

Morithias

2010-03-08, 02:00 PM

Ok let's try putting this in another example.

A fighter dies protecting his village and in order to continue defending it rises as a 'holy ghost' of sorts.

In said village he had a wife, both characters are good aligned. Now if the ghost takes the ghost touch feat so that he can interact with material objects including his wife as if they were like erethal (sp?).

You're telling me it would be an evil act for him to sleep with his wife again? Even though they were married under the church of pelor, and the whole point he is now undead is so that he can continue to protect her?

Teddy

2010-03-08, 04:19 PM

Ok, as more people did not get the point:

Even WHILE they volunteered for it and even WHILE it was not a real torture situation and even WHILE the test was cancelled quite early (really, she just started to break down, so far "nothing" had happened) - they realised they went into regions where people should not go.

The point is that even this puny experiment that was barely "torture" at all already had quite extreme effects.

Point: the psycological effects of any torture (psycological as well as physical ones) are extreme. I could go more into examples but that very quickly leads into regions where I won't go on a forum like that.
So, stop making a distinction between physical and psycological torture and stop assuming it's "not that bad" just because there was no physical component involved.

It's not that psychological torture (or more precisly: torture that causes no physical harm) is "not that bad", but the fact that physical torture not only causes psychological traumas, but it may also cause lasting physical traumas and criple the body for the rest of the life. Physical torture isalmost allways supposed to keep the victim alive, but it may still involve such horrible acts as crushing or cutting of less vital body parts (such as fingers or ears). Psychological torture is almost to horrible to contemplate and clearly evil. Physical torture takes it one step further.

RecklessFable

2010-03-12, 11:50 AM

This thread has gotten really sideways...

The fact is, Tsukiko's mental state does not come into play when determining if she is evil. Not in game terms. One can argue philosophically if the insane are actually innocent, and therefore can't be evil (and also whether Tsukiki is actually insane or just bitter and evil for that matter)... but she is a fully evil by deed and even intent.

That she is mentally disturbed has one game mechanics/roleplay effect, and that is whether or not she can be redeemed. BoED supplies ways for a character to be redeemed, at which point she would have to perform acts to atone for her previous naughtiness and swing her alignment over to the good side.

What she really needs is to spend a couple of days with Durkon. If he can't straighten her out, then she's lost :)

Dr.Epic

2010-03-12, 04:02 PM

... she would take the children of Azurites and turn them into wights. Imagine - you either have to kill a child you may know or face a horrible death...

Any other ideas?

I don't follow your logic. If she doesn't kill a child she may be horribly killed? Is that about right? Also, there are different levels and elements to being evil. Believe it or not you don't have to slaughter children to be evil (if there are any children even left in Azure City).

Erts

2010-03-12, 04:07 PM

Agreeing with Restlessfable.

She is plenty evil, killing people and raising their corpses, and mind control.

She doesn't need to kill children to prove her evilness, in fact, why would she raise children?
That would just be a waste of her power, and depriving her of a perfectly usable future full-grown wight.

Asta Kask

2010-03-13, 03:21 AM

I don't follow your logic. If she doesn't kill a child she may be horribly killed? Is that about right? Also, there are different levels and elements to being evil. Believe it or not you don't have to slaughter children to be evil (if there are any children even left in Azure City).

No, if Team Peregrine doesn't kill a child they might get killed by it.