Could some of the OOTS be....

[Morithias]

....looking at damnation?

Ok ignoring V who made that pact with the infernals and Belkar who has been everything short of blatantly being said evil by god himself. Does anyone besides me think that if the chart in Fiend Codex 2 was used Roy would've went to Baator when he died? Or maybe that some of the other order members are on their way when they die.

The key ones I am looking at on this chart are "Humiliating an Underling" (1), "Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain" (2) (I know the Elan betrayal was hand waved but seriously, if I kill you even if I then raise you from the dead I still killed you), and "Perverting Justice for personal gain." (3)

The chart is on page 30 for anyone who wishes to see it.

Remember a person with a corruption score more that 4 needs an atonement spell to reset themselves, and a lawful person with a score of 9 or more, "goes to Baator, no matter how many orphans he rescued or minions of evil he vanquished in life."

[Ancalagon]

I think you are a bit late. Roy going to Hell for his snarky comments is totally not going to happen.

In case you forgot: The literal forces of Lawful Good have reviewed him and let him into their afterflife.

Why you ignore V is beyond me. If we could speculate if any character is subconsciously LOOKING for damnation, it's Vaarsuvius. Belkar is looking clearly for it (and does not care anyway).

[Asta Kask]

Why you ignore V is beyond me. If we could speculate if any character is subconsciously LOOKING for damnation, it's Vaarsuvius. Belkar is looking clearly for it (and does not care anyway).

I think they're ignored on a "so obvious we're not even going to argue about it"-basis. Which is kind of weird, considering what people are willing to argue about around here.

[Morithias]

I think you are a bit late. Roy going to Hell for his snarky comments is totally not going to happen.

In case you forgot: The literal forces of Lawful Good have reviewed him and let him into their afterflife.

Why you ignore V is beyond me. If we could speculate if any character is subconsciously LOOKING for damnation, it's Vaarsuvius. Belkar is looking clearly for it (and does not care anyway).

Look in the FC2 it's flat out stated that making a contract with an infernal basically guarantees you're on your way to hell. You know that contract they made with V? Yeah there's a term for that "Faustian Pact".

Note that what I said about Roy was "Does anyone besides me think that if the chart in Fiend Codex 2 was used Roy would've went to Baator when he died?".

It is brutally clear that said chart and book is not being used. Hell I'm probably about the only DM that I've ever known that has used it.

My question is....If the chart was hypothetically being used as part of the OOTS writing engine, would Roy have gone to Baator?

[Ancalagon]

Look in the FC2 it's flat out stated that making a contract with an infernal basically guarantees you're on your way to hell. You know that contract they made with V? Yeah there's a term for that "Faustian Pact".

Gosh, you are really educated. Thanks for clearifying that for me. You talk about something else than this was about: No one (at least not me) doubts Vaarsuvius has a bought himself ticket to hell with that pact (and his following deeds).

But this is not what this thread is about, at least how I interpreted it: The question was if someone was looking for damnation. And I said THAT is something that would be worth discussing about in the case of Vaarsuvius.


My question is....If the chart was hypothetically being used as part of the OOTS writing engine, would Roy have gone to Baator?

No.

As Roy is clearly good and the application of those charts in his case would be the word of the rule but surely not the spirit of the rule.

"Hell" is a hellish serious fate and you surely don't get it for "stretching the rules" a bit (or "hell" would lose it's punch, which would be a very bad thing).

The only case of "personal gain" for Roy could be when he tricks "justice" to get to Cliffport to rescue his sister. It's really not such a terrible act of "personal gain".

Don't only follow the "word" of the rule. Also try to find out what it's "spirit" is.
And the spirit of those books you mentioned are clearly not meant to condem definitily good (maybe not clearly lawful!) people like Roy to hell (a fate that is meant to punish those who are really evil).

[hamishspence]

They aren't all devils though- they include 1 demon and 1 daemon (yugoloth)

Not just that, but they explicitly state to V they aren't contracting for his soul permanently, but only temporarily.

However, they also say "After that stunt with the dragons, I figure we have a 50-50 chance of getting the elf's soul anyway"

As to the chart- Since Roy fell well short of the 9 minimum, and, he was good enough overall to qualify as Good (it was his lawfulness that was in question) - he wouldn't be in danger even in a world that used the chart.

His second rescue of Elan- being willing to sacrifice the Trouser Titan, possibly permanently, indicates that he learned his lesson- it might be deemed "Atonement without the actual spell" the way Champions of Valor suggests- you don't need the spell to atone, if your acts show you are repentant.

Roy is the beneficiary of someone else perverting justice for him- not with his consent, but when he finds out, he doesn't try to turn Shojo in.

I don't think this counts though.

[Ancalagon]

I also want to point out he abandoned Elan (for a short time). But he did not do it for "personal gain" at all.

"Humiliating an underling" also means something that is beyond anything Roy would do to an "underling". What this here means is more like what Xykon does to Redcloak (the Eye-Issue, maybe?).

[hamishspence]

Not being bothered by Elan anymore might be deemed "personal gain"- still, it's borderline.

On humiliating: V's behaviour to Elan at the start of Paladin Blues might be closer- humiliating Elan enough to make Elan cry.

[Kareasint]

Consider the FC2 to be optional rules. They do not have to be used in a campaign. They are merely guides for DMs that want to use them.

The Deva did tell Roy to cut back on "verbally lambasting" his co-workers and enemies though. Still, he has already been judged on his previous actions before the resurrection brought him back.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much, yes. The story uses concepts similar to those of Fiendish Codex 2 (like the notion that one single act could determine your afterlife destination, or V's Deal with the IFCC)- but doesn't work precisely the same way.

Roy being ticked off for "lambasting" seems like "humiliating underlings"- only in this case, its "mildly humiliating non-underlings"

And it seems milder- like they added all the cases together, and it wasn't even enough to rate a 1 on the Malev-O-Meter.

[Ancalagon]

Not being bothered by Elan anymore might be deemed "personal gain"- still, it's borderline.

It's not.

"Personal gain" means riches, power, and stuff like that. Or fun, big enjoyment. The lack of "something annoying" is not really personal gain. And note: Roy did not go through with it!


On humiliating: V's behaviour to Elan at the start of Paladin Blues might be closer- humiliating Elan enough to make Elan cry.

Yes, that more. But it's borderline. Elan cries early and is not really an underling of Vaarsuvius.

[TriForce]

perhaps you could consider being......












wrong? since the rules in you book are suppose to be...












guidelines, and if you take them as hard rules they can easely be twisted so ANY character fails them. thats not how they are supposed to work.
also id advise you not to.....











do this too much in your topic titles, some people here find it a bit annoying

[Belkster11]

And V made up for it. Again, that's important.

I doubt when V dies, the Deva are gonna go, "Now let's discuss that time long ago when you made a poor little bard boy cry when all he wanted to do was be just like you."

The Roy abandoning Elan thing was important enough for the Deva because Elan could've been killed. Of course, Roy redeemed himself when he donned the Belt of Gender Changing. He's cool in my book, btw. :smallwink:

Also, I think the OP is forgetting what the Deva said about "Keep trying even though you screw up here and there."

[hamishspence]

The V example was more for a level of scale- as in

"how serious should "humiliating" be before it qualifies as a 1 point corrupt act"

I see Roy's act as having been committed, being a corrupt act, but at the same time, Roy reversed it (by going back to rescue Elan) and atoned for it (by going above and beyond the call of duty to rescue Elan at a later time)

Hence, the "corrupt act" has been stricken from his record, and the Deva only brings it up, to explain what would have happened if Roy hadn't reversed it, and atoned for it, himself.

"Abandoning a comrade for personal gratification" might be ranked slightly lower than "abandoning a comrade for personal gain"

Or even "abandoning a comrade out of fear of the consequences of trying to rescue them"- Roy says walking into the bandit camp is suicide.

[spectralphoenix]

Besides which, the system in FC2 is built on the assumption of a certain setting (specifically, one where the Pact Primieval is in effect.) Arguing that the table should be used in OotS is a bit like claiming Roy should have been stuck in the Wall of the Faithless for not worshipping a deity.

[derfenrirwolv]

The key ones I am looking at on this chart are "Humiliating an Underling" (1)

Snark doesn't live up to the level of humiliation. Humiliation is putting a girdle of gender swapping on them, or sleeping with their wife and bragging about it just to see the look on their face, or doing a nude illusion show with them as the main character etc.




"Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain" (2) (I know the Elan betrayal was hand waved but seriously, if I kill you even if I then raise you from the dead I still killed you)

Failure to help is not betrayal, its abandonment (its not exactly good either, and the deva called him on that) Roy didn't plan on selling elan when he took him into the forest, THAT would be betrayal.





and "Perverting Justice for personal gain." (3)

What act do you think is supposed to fit in this catagory?

[hamishspence]

The setting assumption for FC2 seems to be the core, Great Wheel one.

OoTS has planes which appear to match the Great Wheel ones- under slightly different names.

The Wall of the Faithless, by contrast, is Faerun-only.

Still- its probable the OoTS system works slightly differently from FC2.

For example- certain acts can be enough to drop a Lawful Good character, in a True Neutral afterlife, if not atoned for.

And the killing of goblinoid children does not appear to count as murder in OotS- whereas it does, in BoED.


Failure to help is not betrayal, its abandonment (its not exactly good either, and the deva called him on that) Roy didn't plan on selling elan when he took him into the forest, THAT would be betrayal.

As Elan's comrade, Roy has taken on an implicit duty to help him if he is in danger, if at all reasonably possible.

Failure to follow through on that duty, is a betrayal.

There are many ways to betray- not all of them involve simply selling someone to their enemies. Not helping them, when it is your duty, can be enough.

Though by this, the paladin in Origin of PCs, who along with his companions tries to get Durkon killed by sending him into trouble and not helping him when help would be expected, should have fallen long ago.

So maybe OotS has a stricter definition.


What act do you think is supposed to fit in this catagory?

Possibly going along with Shojo's rigging of the trial, instead of denouncing Shojo when he found out. Seems a bit harsh to me though.

[Kish]

I have trouble with the concept of perverting justice. If it ceases to be just, then "justice," in that case, is destroyed, not perverted.

[hamishspence]

If the system is fine, but evidence has been faked, rigged, etc, then justice is perverted, rather than destroyed.

This would apply to cases where the law is not unjust, and the judge, jury, etc are not corrupted, but the criminals are very good at faking things up.

[Ancalagon]

Though by this, the paladin in Origin of PCs, who along with his companions tries to get Durkon killed by sending him into trouble and not helping him when help would be expected, should have fallen long ago.

Yes. That is exactly what Rich showed with that section. That Paladin is an example how a paladin is played in the wrong way. That the reader takes a look at it and says "Look, that is simply... wrong and he should fall."

Most of us did that I think and the point was served perfectly. I'd be a bit relucatant to include this scene in an estimation how OOTS works. We know that paladin was wrong and that's all we know.

We also know the Paladins from SoD were wrong. They just did not fall due to some arbitrary and obviously broken rules of the world. Telling us this was the entire point of them doing what they did in the way they did it (laughing and stuff).
Also note that the individual paladins did not fall but that Karma really came back and smashed them to goo (just a few decades later). That's not as good as falling but it does make a point (from the authors perspective which imo is more important than the one of the rules of the game the story is based on).

Also, and this is very important, note that many people DO play Paladins exactly in these wrong ways. Just check some discussions in the forum here about those topics...

[hamishspence]

You'll find a few people saying "its not wrong- its just the way D&D is supposed to be played, back from 1st edition" and that its the present day: "even evil humanoids have rights" theme that is the wrong one.

It seemed like nearly half the forum agreed completely with V's actions at the time, for example. Though after a while, it shrunk a lot, so only a few (fairly vocal) people claim that V did nothing wrong in killing dragons, whatever V's reasons.

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, tricky questions. But I'm glad our hobby evolved beyond pure character grinding and killing for xp. At least if you want it to be.
It's perfectly fine to play a game where "goblins are evil and moral shades, at least in these aspects, don't exist".
But OotS made pretty clear it is not one of those campaigns if you start to add moral grey areas and go away from the "usually evil" - you have to deal with everything that spills from that box.

So the argument about "1st ed" is not true for OotS. One recurring theme of this entire story (from SoD to the latest strip) is that "morals and alignment are not that simple".

[licoot]

The only other member of OOTS who could possibly be evil is Haley, she used to be a thief, but her being evil is unlikely.
Elan couldn't possibly be evil, if only because of his sheer ignorance.
Roy, although using the rest of OOTS at some points, has been doing the whole thing for a good cause.

[Morithias]

Hmm I suppose you're probably right, but just looking at this chart it's just surprising looking back at my and my friend's campaigns and such how many "Chaotic Good" characters would be going to the Abyss.

Oh well, chalk it up to an interesting brainstorming experiment. I just thought it would be interesting to see if anyone could come up with enough circumstances to possibly argue Roy being damned. (Ok I like the guy and all, but it would've been a funny discovery).

Personally I'm surprised Miko got into the heavens. I mean murder is a 5 on the scale, just by killing Shojo she was halfway there, and I'm one of Miko's biggest fans.

Oh well, I'll keep digging around in my books and see what other crazy theories and RAW debates I can come up with for the fun of it.

You stay classy forum of the stick :smallcool:

[veti]

Ok ignoring V who made that pact with the infernals and Belkar who has been everything short of blatantly being said evil by god himself. Does anyone besides me think that if the chart in Fiend Codex 2 was used Roy would've went to Baator when he died? Or maybe that some of the other order members are on their way when they die.

In the first place, one of the few things we know for certain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) about V's pact is that it hasn't definitely and irrevocably damned her.

In the second place, Belkar has been "blatantly said to be evil by god himself". Whether that translates to "damned", however, has yet to be seen.

In the third place, the Stickverse, thankfully, clearly doesn't use that chart. (Personally I think it's a silly idea, and a big step in the path that leads steadily away from roleplaying and towards character optimisation based on pure numbers. I wouldn't play a campaign that used it. But that's just me.)

[Morithias]

In the first place, one of the few things we know for certain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) about V's pact is that it hasn't definitely and irrevocably damned her.

In the second place, Belkar has been "blatantly said to be evil by god himself". Whether that translates to "damned", however, has yet to be seen.

In the third place, the Stickverse, thankfully, clearly doesn't use that chart. (Personally I think it's a silly idea, and a big step in the path that leads steadily away from roleplaying and towards character optimisation based on pure numbers. I wouldn't play a campaign that used it. But that's just me.)

How would that lead AWAY from roleplaying? About the only thing getting your soul damned to the underworld does it make it so you can't be brought back from the dead with the weaker life restoring spells. All the chart really says "Ok you've crossed the line, you're not playing Chaotic Neutral, you're playing chaotic evil and all of a sudden that team of paladins down the street has something to say to you about your sins."

Personally I like it, cause it stops players from using CN as an excuse for playing evil characters without actually being evil.

[slayerx]

Does anyone besides me think that if the chart in Fiend Codex 2 was used Roy would've went to Baator when he died? Or maybe that some of the other order members are on their way when they die.

The key ones I am looking at on this chart are "Humiliating an Underling" (1), "Betraying a friend or ally for personal gain" (2) (I know the Elan betrayal was hand waved but seriously, if I kill you even if I then raise you from the dead I still killed you), and "Perverting Justice for personal gain." (3)


No... no i don't...

Humiliating an underling - i HIGHLY DOUBT that this means making snarky comments or jokes as Roy does... this more than likely refers to much more extreme humiliation such as forcing an underling to wear a frilly pink dress while they lick the dirt off your boot

Betraying a friend for personal gain - There is a huge difference between abandoning a friend and Betraying them... Abandoning them just means you did not go after them and try to save them; considering that this involves putting your own life at risk, this can be very natural for people (though it's not at all a good act either and such selfishness may loose you a place in heaven)... not to mentio their is the fact that roy CORRECTED this action... Actual betrayal for personal gain actual involves outright intent behind the action and selling out or stabbing you're friend in the back in the back

Furtharmore, you did not at all consider all of the good that Roy has done


Really you seem to be taking the terms in the book for damnation and applying the weakest and loosest definitions to them... these are the kind of arguments a devil might make in order to twist the rules to get you're soul, as they are "technically" accurate... but no, these are meant to be acts of ACTUAL evil, and thus its probably much more accurate to apply the harshest definitions to that which is listed

[veti]

How would that lead AWAY from roleplaying? About the only thing getting your soul damned to the underworld does it make it so you can't be brought back from the dead with the weaker life restoring spells. All the chart really says "Ok you've crossed the line, you're not playing Chaotic Neutral, you're playing chaotic evil and all of a sudden that team of paladins down the street has something to say to you about your sins."

Personally I like it, cause it stops players from using CN as an excuse for playing evil characters without actually being evil.

If a CN character consistently acts evil, there's nothing to stop the DM from saying "Okay, you're CE". That's what DMs are for. Every chart that mechanises part of their job, takes away another part of the human/creative/interactive/interpretive dimension that is precisely where the real fun of D&D lies.

(Yes I liked AD&D, where you had to interpret everything on the fly. Sue me.)

"Roleplaying", to me at least, implies putting oneself in the position of a character, trying to see the world through their eyes, making decisions as they would make them.

The more numbers you have to look at, the harder that gets. Stats and levels are bad enough ("Let me get that last goblin, I only need 20 XP more to level!"), but numbers to quantify what consequences you'll have to face for bad behaviour? - that's like an invitation to see how close you can get to the line. Worse, it's an even bigger invitation to try to nudge your rivals over it.