How is Eugene Greenhilt Lawful Good?

[RMcMurtry]

This may have been answered somewhere else, and if so, I apologize, but it's been driving me nuts. Eugene lacks the discipline to stick with a project. He's primarily concerned about himself. He hijacks LG divine messengers and messages. He lies without a second thought. The only vow he made that seems to mean anything to him is the one someone's enforcing. He thinks nothing of plopping the whole problem of Xykon on his teenage (or younger!) daughter. How does he qualify as LG?

[Ancalagon]

That is an interesting question and the answer I give myself to that is: He is not. To me, he is not Lawful and surely not Good. We *could* argue about Lawful but not about Good, he's just a self-centered jerk who cares about nothing but himself and his work. To me, that seems fairly Neutral.

So, what does he do in the cloud up there and why does everyone say he's LG?
I think he, as mortal, might have been Lawful Good.

We cannot know but we must assume he was. He did his fair share of adventuring so he might have done a lot of good deeds for the right reasons. But apart from that, we simply cannot know but we must assume that he, as mortal, has been much more lawful and much more good than he is now.

From all we did see so far we simply cannot put him in that folder anymore. I'd rather stick him in the true neutral bin (as he's also close to chaos in some regards).

[Starscream]

I just assumed that years of sitting in heaven's waiting room is what made him such a grouch. We do know that he was a bit of a workaholic when he was alive, didn't spend enough time with his kids, and disapproved of his son's choice to be a fighter, but pretty all the bitterness and manipulativeness we've seen happened after he died.

In SoD we even see him tell Right-Eye that he doesn't want revenge on Xykon anymore because he has a family now, and that's more important to him. And even his wife defends him when Roy badmouths him too much. Seems like he wasn't always the self-centered jerk he is today.

[Zxo]

He might be Good. Good =/= nice. Miko was totally unpleasant, but still (before falling) Good. I didn't see Eugene doing anything Evil (including in the two prequels) and if he's in the waiting room of a Good afterlife, I can accept that he's Good and did a lot of good things off screen.

But Lawful... no way. I mean, even the way he took the oath:

He got drunk and went to an oath shop to get the oath (the same way you get a silly tatoo on impulse) and had even problems remembering in the morning what happened.

If that's not Chaotic, I don't know what is.

It is possible that he's in the waiting room of the LG afterlife because he hasn't been judged by a deva yet - the deva who judges Roy said that she had the power to "throw him in the True Neutral bin", if his record shows that this is his true alignment. Maybe people go to an afterlife according to what they think their alignment is, and the devas verify it and send them elsewhere if they've been deluded.

[Ancalagon]

but pretty all the bitterness and manipulativeness we've seen happened after he died.

No, SoD has a few scenes of him being bitter, grumpy, and alive. Remember lieing about the football game of his son? Does not really scream "lawful". And lieing to your kids because you were hanging out in a tavern is ALSO not good!


In SoD we even see him tell Right-Eye that he doesn't want revenge on Xykon anymore because he has a family now, and that's more important to him.

That would be lawful if it was meant that way. But I always found it to be a "lame excuse". I always thought that was on the same level as "I could not watch your football game because, hum, I... had work on the elemental plane of water".


And even his wife defends him when Roy badmouths him too much. Seems like he wasn't always the self-centered jerk he is today.

Well, his wife a) was once in love with him and b) said she had a good time in the time Eugene wanted to make her happy. He was the same self-centered jerk back then but he wanted to get that woman and wanted to spend time with her - of course SHE has good memories about that.
It's not changing the fact Eugene was jerk back then as well (and maybe his wife had fond memories of a time with him - but that does not mean that the very same time also created fond memories in his kids!)

I'm not convinced.

[JoseB]

I think that Zxo has a point, though: It seems plausible that you first show up at the "antechamber" of the afterlife you *yourself* think you're due for, and only after the full review you get assigned to wherever it is that you should go.

It may well be that Eugene's review was halted as soon as the subject of the Oath came up: No sense in doing Eugene's full review if he was not going to be able to move on, after all. It may well be that, had Eugene's review gone on completely, he might have ended up tossed somewhere else (I don't have the relevant book at hand; I know that this review takes place in -I think- SoD, but I don't remember exactly how it went).

Or it may be that Eugene's review was just some kind of rough initial screening, which would be deepened later on, and that got stopped because of the unfulfilled oath.

And it may be that his jerkass actions while alive, jerkassical as they were, did not affect the "core" of LG-ness he might have had. And that sitting on the cloud for so long has made him (even more) bitter and upset, thus moving him away from that LG "core" he might have kept.

I guess that what I want to say is that I don't really know :smalltongue:

[factotum]

Roy himself said in On the Origin of PCs that Eugene is "nothing if not Lawful". In addition, it's not like Eugene flips from one project to another every few days--he spends YEARS following up on each of his projects; the fact he gets bored before he reaches the end isn't a particularly Chaotic point, IMHO. (I have the same problem myself, yet I much prefer a nice, ordered life to one of chaos and flipping from one thing to the next).

[hamishspence]

Roy himself said in On the Origin of PCs that Eugene is "nothing if not Lawful".

Roy's understanding of his Dad may be a bit limited. His next comment was "and would never lie".

Which is an error on Roy's part.

[Saph]

I'm fairly sure that the Giant specifically said in a post on these forums that Eugene Greenhilt was Lawful Neutral.

[Optimystik]

He may have been LG in life. But his alignment has surely changed on that cloud.

The question is, can your alignment change after death, and still impact your afterlife? Time will tell. One thing I can be sure of - being sent to another afterlife will allow him to finally keep a promise to Roy.

[Snake-Aes]

Roy himself said in On the Origin of PCs that Eugene is "nothing if not Lawful". In addition, it's not like Eugene flips from one project to another every few days--he spends YEARS following up on each of his projects; the fact he gets bored before he reaches the end isn't a particularly Chaotic point, IMHO. (I have the same problem myself, yet I much prefer a nice, ordered life to one of chaos and flipping from one thing to the next).

Yeah, people are not noticing that he does stick with a project and is fully centered on it for a long while before even giving up. Lawful doesn't mean "say something and do something till the world stops being", for Lamashtu's sake!

[megabyter5]

I just thought of some fridge logic. IIRC, OoPCs did show the game Roy was playing, making it obvious which one it was, but did not give it a name. Considering that the game in question has a different name depending on where you are in the world, that seems like a clever trick by the Giant. Speaking of games, make a will save.

[Kish]

I'm fairly sure that the Giant specifically said in a post on these forums that Eugene Greenhilt was Lawful Neutral.
Pretty sure that's Telephone Game.

[Optimystik]

Yeah, people are not noticing that he does stick with a project and is fully centered on it for a long while before even giving up. Lawful doesn't mean "say something and do something till the world stops being", for Lamashtu's sake!

No, but it does mean "keep your oaths." It's right there in the PHB.

Lawful characters don't (or shouldn't) make oaths rashly, because they then feel obligated to uphold them, even to personal detriment. As the deva rightly pointed out, however, Eugene just... stopped.

[Ancalagon]

Until further explanation (in the comic or by Word of God) I will consider that Eugene's assumed alignment is either (in comic) wrong or a flaw in the story.

I think that Eugene was borderline LG when he was alive (it might be there are many, many things we simply do not know but given what we DO know he was not very lawful) and clearly not LG based on what we saw of him in the comic.

Destroying evidence about evil that was given to you by the literal forces of good because passing it on would hinder your personal goal is also not neutral anymore! I'm not saying he's evil due to that (far from it!) but the act itself is so far towards evil on the scale that we surely can argue if it still was neutral!
And there are other cases of "borderline neutral" he did during he got introduced.

After all those "debatable" things... If I can state one thing for sure, then I say that he did not behaved lawful at all in the afterlife. He does not accept what is his "fair" consequence with the oath, he does not see his abandoning the oath has led him where he is, he ties celestials to take their place in a trial, he cheats, lies, tricks, works behind paladins, still disregards his son...

[derfenrirwolv]

I think he's going to be in for some post mortem judgement for a few of his actions when Roy finally offs Xykon.

[Querzis]

I dont get how hes supposed to be anything else then Lawful. Sure he stopped trying to do the oath...after years of trying to fullfill this damn oath and after having a family. And I really dont see how being a manipulative bastard make him less lawful. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned he was good when he was alive but, you know, years of being stranded on a damn cloud without being able to enter paradise tend to really anger people.

[Shale]

Yeah, do we have any evidence that he was ever actually judged? The OotS afterlife is where you're told whether or not you lived up to your stated alignment, so if he hasn't had his turn in the chair yet, he could be CE but still get to hang around on that cloud.

[Ancalagon]

as far as I'm concerned he was good when he was alive but, you know, years of being stranded on a damn cloud without being able to enter paradise tend to really anger people.

The reasons he might have for not being lawful (anymore?) are not important here. It is all about the question if he IS or if he IS NOT. And I think that people who say he does not really seem lawful (or even good) domake a valid argument.

@Shale
We have not. All we know is that he got told he is not let in and can call his oldest child now. If that was before or after the judgement process is unclear (yet it's likely it was after as it was the same process Roy had to go through).

[Premier]

I think it's quite obvious: OOTS is a comic strip which regularly makes fun the game and how people are playing it. One such jab - showcased with Greenhilt sr. - is about how people just pick an alignment at character creation then never ever think about it.

Another regular theme is players / PCs exploiting and misusing various spells (V.'s two uses of Suggestion, Durkon damaging treants with a thunderclap, etc.) There are plenty others.

[Teddy]

@Shale
We have not. All we know is that he got told he is not let in and can call his oldest child now. If that was before or after the judgement process is unclear (yet it's likely it was after as it was the same process Roy had to go through).

Well, he asked if he was "good here", probably refering to the Celestial Realm, and the deva answers him that he's got a few black spots, but nothing serious.

[Shale]

(yet it's likely it was after as it was the same process Roy had to go through).

The thing is, Roy isn't being held back by the oath. As long as you try to fulfill it, you're cleared for your final reward - whatever that is. Eugene has to wait until Xykon is destroyed, and we don't know if he was actually pre-judged or just told to cool his heels. I'm probably reading waaaaaaaaay too much into this, but the deva never told him that he was getting into Celestia, just that he would be able to leave the cloud.

[Ancalagon]

The thing is, Roy isn't being held back by the oath. As long as you try to fulfill it, you're cleared for your final reward - whatever that is. Eugene has to wait until Xykon is destroyed, and we don't know if he was actually pre-judged or just told to cool his heels. I'm probably reading waaaaaaaaay too much into this, but the deva never told him that he was getting into Celestia, just that he would be able to leave the cloud.

No need to explain me that. You asked if we knew if he was already judged. I answered we cannot know, but that it is likely his phone call was at the end of the judging process.

[Shale]

Where's that phone call? I don't remember it.

[Teddy]

Where's that phone call? I don't remember it.

At the end of SoD (although we don't get to see the phone call, just see him trying to call Julia and fail).

[Shale]

*Checks* Ooooh, there it is. Yeah, he was judged. But the deva also didn't even notice the Blood Oath until that moment, one way or the other, soooooo...hm.

[Ancalagon]

Where's that phone call? I don't remember it.

It's right here:


Yeah, do we have any evidence that he was ever actually judged?

Ah, edit, sorry. Misunderstood. At the end of SoD, I think.

[lord_khaine]

The reasons he might have for not being lawful (anymore?) are not important here. It is all about the question if he IS or if he IS NOT. And I think that people who say he does not really seem lawful (or even good) domake a valid argument.

I on the other hand seriously disagree on that analysis, Eugene might be a bitter old man, but that has nothing to do with his aligment, Good doesnt nececarely = nice.



Quote:
In SoD we even see him tell Right-Eye that he doesn't want revenge on Xykon anymore because he has a family now, and that's more important to him.
That would be lawful if it was meant that way. But I always found it to be a "lame excuse". I always thought that was on the same level as "I could not watch your football game because, hum, I... had work on the elemental plane of water".


This really looks a lot like personal dislike clouding observations, its proberly the most good act we see Eugene do, abandoning past thoughts of revence for the sake of his family, and at the same time giving Right-eye a very good piece of advice, and so it does annoy me a bit when people just brush it off because it doesnt support their theori regarding Eugene's aligment.

[Jagos]

I believe in Eugene's sake, that little bit of good is far outweighed by his negative traits. His selfishness, his egotism towards Roy in particular, and the accident that killed his second born are just a few of the things that don't make him as nice as he could have been for the grand jury in the heavens.

[Ancalagon]

I on the other hand seriously disagree on that analysis, Eugene might be a bitter old man, but that has nothing to do with his aligment, Good doesnt nececarely = nice.

Then address the other issues mentioned. And as I said, him not being good can be argued, him not being lawful... is a much stronger case.

[Querzis]

To me, he is not Lawful and surely not Good. We *could* argue about Lawful but not about Good, he's just a self-centered jerk who cares about nothing but himself and his work. To me, that seems fairly Neutral.


Then address the other issues mentioned. And as I said, him not being good can be argued, him not being lawful... is a much stronger case.

:smallconfused:

[Optimystik]

I definitely think he was LG (if barely) when he died. But his time on the cloud has almost certainly changed his outlook.

[factotum]

No need to explain me that. You asked if we knew if he was already judged. I answered we cannot know, but that it is likely his phone call was at the end of the judging process.

Other evidence that points to that: Eugene told the Deva that there wasn't any point judging Roy because he's an oathspirit and would just end up on the cloud. That implies they have to fully judge the case before deciding where the soul ends up. It's also made fairly clear that the cloud Eugene is on is the Lawful Good "waiting room"--we never see anyone there who appears to be anything but LG; if it was some sort of general waiting area for ALL alignments you'd expect to see an occasional devil or demon wandering around.

[Mastikator]

Maybe the sheer amount of good deeds he did while adventuring outweigh his abrasive personality and few instances of selfish acts?

[The Extinguisher]

I don't get how people think he's not good just because he's bitter and angry at the cards (after)life gave him. Roy's pretty snarky and Eugene-like for the most part, and the Deva really only wanted him to tone it down, but it didn't seem like a deal breaker.

As for lawful, I can see where the disagreement is, but I still think he's lawful. Sure, he doesn't ever finish anything, but that's usually because something else comes up. And when he's doing something, he focuses on that and nothing else. That's pretty much the definition of lawful. So he got drunk and got an oath. Are lawful people not allowed to have fun? At least he actually tried to do the oath for a while, instead of just giving up right away.

[Thrawn183]

Well as far as tearing up the message goes: Eugene has always believed in the superiority of wizards. As far as he is concerned keeping V in the party is the best way to insure Xykon's destruction. In a sense, this is both a selfish act and a good one, as saying you'll do one thing and doing another to save the world doesn't seem like all that big a deal to me.

We really don't know much about Eugene. How hard he tried to help others on a daily basis for the entirety of his life. I haven't read SoD, but from what I've seen from OotS, he appears fixated on stopping probably the greatest threat to the world there is. Sound pretty LG to me, even if he is a jerk.

[RMcMurtry]

He's not fixated on stopping the greatest threat there is. He's fixated on getting past the waiting room cloud. He tried to get around the oath. He knew it would follow him after death, and didn't try to fulfill it. If Xykon were destroyed, but Redcloak and/or Tsukiko kept pursuing the gates, that, it seems to me, would be fine by Eugene.

I see LG as wanting to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons.

[factotum]

I see LG as wanting to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons.

LG isn't that narrow. Miko was LG, and she interpreted that as being carte blanche to kill anything that detected as Evil no matter what; the reason being that she was Miko and was therefore right about everything! And as the Deva pointed out during Roy's interview, humans are not perfect creatures and cannot be expected to be pure bastions of Law and Good all the time anyway.

[hamishspence]

I recall some of Miko's defenders defending her "They were evil, so I killed them" comment,

by suggesting that she only used Detect Evil on those that were already attacking others, or in general had already done something to justify killing them.

[Optimystik]

I see LG as wanting to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons.

The trouble with many LG characters is that they define what constitutes the "right way."

Another very important point with Eugene - not once did he even apologize for thrusting his children into the "Blood Oath" situation. The only thing he seems to regret, is not being allowed into Celestia... which is a very compelling indicator that he doesn't belong there.

In fact, he doesn't even want to get in so he can see his family, given his readiness to make that promise to Roy.

[Ancalagon]

Another very important point with Eugene - not once did he even apologize for thrusting his children into the "Blood Oath" situation. The only thing he seems to regret, is not being allowed into Celestia... which is a very compelling indicator that he doesn't belong there.

Even worse: after he threw it before the feet of his fighter-college-graduator son Roy of like age 20ish and got him killed (and did not apologize at all!) he was VERY ready to throw it at the feet of his 16 year old level 1 or 2 daughter as well without any second thought or concern while knowing that the foe is one of the most dangerous, cruel and powerful casters that ever have (un)lived.

These two acts, especially the latter, even seem outright evil to me!

[Kerrah]

I think it's quite obvious: OOTS is a comic strip which regularly makes fun the game and how people are playing it. One such jab - showcased with Greenhilt sr. - is about how people just pick an alignment at character creation then never ever think about it.

This, I think.

I mean, Miko wasn't any better than Eugene. She only got punished when she did something absolutely abhorrent. The Gods (a DM in any real D&D game) were willing to let her have her fun as LG until she crossed that line. May be the same thing with Eugene.

[Ancalagon]

This, I think.

I mean, Miko wasn't any better than Eugene. She only got punished when she did something absolutely abhorrent. The Gods (a DM in any real D&D game) were willing to let her have her fun as LG until she crossed that line. May be the same thing with Eugene.

Miko's fall wasn't about being Lawful Good or not. It was about her violating her Paladin's Code and commiting an evil act.

[Optimystik]

Miko's fall wasn't about being Lawful Good or not. It was about her violating her Paladin's Code and commiting an evil act.

Correct. By D&D standards, she hadn't been LG for a long time. It was violating a Prime Directive (kill your liege) that caused her dramatic Fall.

This is likely another fudge with the rules by Rich. Paladins who stop being LG do lose their powers, but it doesn't quite say how soon or sudden the transformation is. Considering Rich's post about Miko's fall being exceptional, I'd imagine that she was on notice at the very least.

This also fits with his line in War & XPs, about Miko pushing at the bounds of her alignment until she broke through.

[OITS]

I can really think of the final strip - the last riddles get solved (except V's), it is shown what everyone will do in future, showing Eugene, claiming his place for the Oath has finally been fulfilled with the Deva telling him that he may have been LG once but now...

[RMcMurtry]

LG isn't that narrow. Miko was LG, and she interpreted that as being carte blanche to kill anything that detected as Evil no matter what; the reason being that she was Miko and was therefore right about everything! And as the Deva pointed out during Roy's interview, humans are not perfect creatures and cannot be expected to be pure bastions of Law and Good all the time anyway.

My view of LG isn't that they can't deviate, just what they should be wanting and striving for. What, as the Deva told Roy, what he was trying to be. My problem with assigning Eugene as LG isn't that he manipulates, or even so much that he outright lies. Those would be problem spots on his record, but not fatal. It's that he's so self centered and so willing to sacrifice the good of others--even the universe-- for what he wants. I'd put his alignment behavior as fluctuating somewhere near neutral.

As for Miko...she'd have fallen long since in one of my games. First time she attacked someone just for setting off her Detect Evil sensor, actually. I view such an action as both evil and chaotic.

[veti]

Oh goody, an alignment thread...

All we see of Eugene is a few minutes out of his life and afterlife. I would be extremely hesitant to pass judgment on anyone on the grounds of his being a bit... prickly in that extremely limited time. For all we know, he routinely donated all his wealth to orphanages and spent four evenings a week reading to blind cancer patients.

Since he's been kicking his heels on the cloud, all we know is that he's been snarky with Roy - who is well able to stand up for himself - and he's, probably misguidedly, destroyed a report. That last might be a significant transgression, but it seems a bit harsh to let it override the record of a lifetime.

[DeltaEmil]

As for Miko...she'd have fallen long since in one of my games. First time she attacked someone just for setting off her Detect Evil sensor, actually. I view such an action as both evil and chaotic.No, she would not fall in your game, unless you were a jerk and had given her (or her player) faulty information about a group of evil and sadistic adventurers who coincidently matched the good adventurers, have weakened the fabrics of reality and their leader emanated a strong evil for whatever reason. For a webcomic, that's fine, because there is no GM, and she's an NPC-paladin anyway. But any GM who tries this at his gaming table against his players is just being rude and badwrongandnotfun.

[factotum]

It's that he's so self centered and so willing to sacrifice the good of others--even the universe-- for what he wants. I'd put his alignment behavior as fluctuating somewhere near neutral.


I don't see anything in the Lawful Good alignment description that says people of that alignment can't be selfish sometimes. For all we know Eugene was generous to a fault in life...as I've said before, pretty much every interaction we've ever seen him carry out, alive or dead, involves Roy, and he and Roy simply don't get on. (It's not like there's any love coming from the Roy side of that connection either!).

As for the burning of the note given him by the deva, we're talking someone who is utterly convinced of the superiority of arcane magic over all other powers. It would go against everything Eugene holds dear to rat on Vaarsuvius, LG or not.

[RMcMurtry]

No, she would not fall in your game, unless you were a jerk and had given her (or her player) faulty information about a group of evil and sadistic adventurers who coincidently matched the good adventurers, have weakened the fabrics of reality and their leader emanated a strong evil for whatever reason. For a webcomic, that's fine, because there is no GM, and she's an NPC-paladin anyway. But any GM who tries this at his gaming table against his players is just being rude and badwrongandnotfun.

Actually, yes, I can and would enforce a fall for randomly murdering someone who wasn't doing anything wrong. The detect evil ability is not a license to kill.

[SPoD]

It's also made fairly clear that the cloud Eugene is on is the Lawful Good "waiting room"--we never see anyone there who appears to be anything but LG; if it was some sort of general waiting area for ALL alignments you'd expect to see an occasional devil or demon wandering around.

Actually, the clouds are referred to as the waiting room for the Upper Planes, which includes all the Good-aligned planes. If a soul was looking to get into Chaotic Good heaven, they'd be in the same place.

Reference: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0486.html

So Eugene could be wildly off the Lawful track from Day One of his death and still be hanging around there. He was certainly borderline enough to be "some form of Good" in his initial review, it's only since his death that we've seen any truly evil acts (IMO).

For what it's worth, I agree that the Moral Of the Story for Eugene is going to be that the ends don't justify the means and you can't get into Heaven by doing evil. Xykon will get killed, Eugene will strut up to the gates, and then a deva will press a button and open a trap door that sends him to Hell/Abyss/whatever.

[Procyonpi]

Eugene greenhilt was "Lawful good only in the same way that
The paladin only concerned about "alignment penalties" in Origin of the PCs Was.

[RMcMurtry]

I don't see anything in the Lawful Good alignment description that says people of that alignment can't be selfish sometimes. For all we know Eugene was generous to a fault in life...as I've said before, pretty much every interaction we've ever seen him carry out, alive or dead, involves Roy, and he and Roy simply don't get on. (It's not like there's any love coming from the Roy side of that connection either!).

As for the burning of the note given him by the deva, we're talking someone who is utterly convinced of the superiority of arcane magic over all other powers. It would go against everything Eugene holds dear to rat on Vaarsuvius, LG or not.

But we never see him behaving, at all, in an LG manner. Not even the flashbacks to when he was younger. Not with his master, not with the adventuring party, not with his wife. Not with the devas. Granted, those scenes are pretty short. I can't deduce an alignment from them alone.

Yes, an LG can be selfish. They're mortal imperfect. But as I pointed out, that's how we are seeing him usually behave, and it's more of a neutral or chaotic trait.

[Moogleking]

Technically aren't you judged by your actions IN LIFE? He seemed LG for various, already mentioned in this very thread, during his life and I can see a Lawful deva being stuck by the rules here.

[Querzis]

Yes, an LG can be selfish. They're mortal imperfect. But as I pointed out, that's how we are seeing him usually behave, and it's more of a neutral or chaotic trait.

Nothing to do with being chaotic or lawful (I dunno why you would think so really), its definitly a neutral trait on the good/evil axis and the thing is: neutral things dont change your alignement. As long as he did enough good actions and no real evil action, then hes going to end up in a good afterlife. Most of the trait in any personnality, even the evil overlord or the saint, are neutral. Neutral trait of personnality and neutral actions dont really change anything. Otherwise everyone would be neutral since even Belkar spend more times doing neutral things then evil things.

Anyway, I could understand why you would think he became more Lawful neutral then Lawful Good after dying since he did no real good action and became a lot more bitter on that cloud but I'm not sure if actions after he died actually count. And, once again, I really dont see why you would argue he could be anything else then Lawful, Eugene might not be very Good but he always seemed very Lawful to me and not a single thing that you talked about in this thread sounds Chaotic to me.

[Dr.Epic]

Well, he's good so that's half his alignment. Also, as a wizard, he had to endure years of study and discipline to gain his power (lawful anyone?).

[RMcMurtry]

Well, he's good so that's half his alignment. Also, as a wizard, he had to endure years of study and discipline to gain his power (lawful anyone?).

By your definition, all wizards are lawful.

Eugene has not been acting in a manner that indicates concern for the well being of other people, which, to me, is the core of how a good person is behaving. He's not "making personal sacrifices to help others". So, no, I don't think he's good. Nor do we see honor, trustworthiness, respect for authority, respect for tradition or honesty, which are part of the game definition of lawful. So he doesn't seem to rate lawful, either. Yes, he's dead, and being judged on the basis of his life...but IMO if he were truly LG, he'd be displaying the same traits as before his death.

[Felecies]

I think we're missing a fine line. Deeds are different than feelings. If he goes on enough quests for LG reasons then he's definitely LG in my book, no matter how crazy,mean or foolish he acts in the tavern.

(that's how his player is acting, not him.)

[Dr.Epic]

By your definition, all wizards are lawful.

I'm not saying all wizards are lawful. I'm merely suggesting that a life of study and discipline would most likely cause on to be lawful.

[Kumo]

I see LG as wanting to do the right thing the traditional/lawful way for the right reasons.

That's my view.


I'm not saying all wizards are lawful. I'm merely suggesting that a life of study and discipline would most likely cause on to be lawful.

This is supported by descriptions of wizards in the PHB: Wizards tend to be lawful due to a vast amount of study and discipline (though it also stipulates this is not always the case)

[shadowkiller]

This is supported by descriptions of wizards in the PHB: Wizards tend to be lawful due to a vast amount of study and discipline (though it also stipulates this is not always the case)

In fact I think it says illusionists tend to be chaotic.

[Jagos]

Guys, one thing to keep as a fact. He focused for long times on things. He didn't change his mind on a whim, but it changed eventually. He's Lawful. He studies spells and has the focus to be a very powerful illusionist in his own right. In his own way, he has the workings of a great, if pompous wizard.

The "Good" part of the LG alignment is more in question. He treated anyone that wasn't a wizard like garbage. However he did care for his siblings, even if he couldn't show it. If anything the Blood Oath keeps him away from being in LG heaven. His actions other than not getting along with his family show that he was good at least some of the time. Just not any that we can see.

[Saph]

I'm curious as to where people are getting the "Good" thing from. The Lawful thing, yeah, we've got Roy's statement in Origin of PC's, and some other evidence. But Good?

[Ancalagon]

In fact I think it says illusionists tend to be chaotic.

Where does it say that?

"Illusionist" is just a subclass of "Wizard". All Illusionists are Wizards. Not all Wizards are Illusionists. It has nothing at all to do with alignment.

[Herald Alberich]

Where does it say that?

"Illusionist" is just a subclass of "Wizard". All Illusionists are Wizards. Not all Wizards are Illusionists. It has nothing at all to do with alignment.

It does in fact mention that Illusionists and Transmuters, being focused on deception and change respectively, favor Chaos while other wizards favor Law, but also that the tendencies are slight. This isn't in the SRD.

[Ancalagon]

It does in fact mention that Illusionists and Transmuters, being focused on deception and change respectively, favor Chaos while other wizards favor Law, but also that the tendencies are slight. This isn't in the SRD.

That's not making any sense at all*. As the tendencies are "slight" it seems pretty smart to ignore that entirely in this discussion. It's not helping making a point at all.

* I simply fail to see why someone who likes to craft a second reality should be any more or less lawful or chaotic than anyone else. There's reasons for and against that should cancel out at 0. It's a case of "just because it's written it does not mean it's actually a smart idea". ;)

[hamishspence]

It's in PHB, though Complete Arcane goes into more depth (and adds enchanters to the list of slightly chaotic specialists):

PHB:

Alignment: Overall, wizards show a slight tendency toward law over chaos because the study of magic rewards those who are disciplined. Illusionists and transmuters, however are masters of deception and change, respectively. They favor chaos over law.

Complete Arcane:

As a result of their focus on change and the forces that drive it, transmuters tend to see moral matters in terms of that change.
Neutral and evil transmuters believe that good and evil are relative concepts, dependant on existing conditions and seldom permanent, and so they make little distinction between them. Good transmuters look past the universal constant of change to its effects on life, aspiring to ensure that change happens for the better. Regardless of their moral standing, transmuters favor chaotic alignments, for chaos is the essence of change.


Enchanters have few predilections in alignment, though their belief that individual will is the strongest force in the multiverse, slants them slightly toward chaos over law.


Illusionists tend to be flamboyant, outgoing, and self-assured, many exhibiting a hedonistic streak that can lead to dark and cruel practices in the pursuit of rare and unusual perceptions. Remarkably creative, illusionists enjoy art, literature, poetry, and music, and many are accomplished artists in their own right

[Captain Six]

Eugene strikes me as the type of person whose bark is worse than their bite. A lot of evidence against his alignment being LG are things he has said, and lot of evidence for him being LG are things he has done. A good example is when Roy got Eugene to scry for him in the afterlife. Eugene was messing with his son until it really looked like Roy was going to go elsewhere and he agreed to scry, as long as it was done in a way to save face. Vocally he was an arrogant jerk rubbing his talents in his son's face, in action he cast a spell for his son so he could see the progress of his friends. Is being a jerk worthy of neutral? I don't really know, but in action he has mostly been good. Personally I agree with whoever said Lawful Neutral, if I was DM. He's done some chaotic stuff, but a chaotic person doesn't "fall" to neutral/lawful the moment they obey a local law, care for family, make a plan or uphold a promise so why should a lawful character fall to chaotic for white lies or unfinished personal projects? Even if he left his oath hanging, abandoning his family for it would be even worse. In the broadest strokes he's a cranky LN.

[Saph]

It's fairly obvious he's Neutral on the Good-Evil spectrum, I think. He's too self-centred and uncaring to be Good but not vicious or amoral enough to be Evil.

The Lawful/Chaotic thing is harder, but we've got Roy's word for it that he's Lawful, so I'm inclined to take it.

What I'm more curious about is why the OP says he's supposed to be Lawful Good in the first place. Can anyone point me to a strip anywhere in which it's stated that he's Good-aligned? Because I don't think there is one, and just the fact that he's getting judged by a LG deva doesn't mean he'll be put into the LG afterlife.

[The Extinguisher]

Okay the only non-good think we've seen him do was burn that report, but that wasn't even THAT evil. Can you point to any other event that would show him as anything but good?

Remember, Good does not necessarily = nice. Look at Roy! He's the snarkiest guy in the comic, and he's still good. Miko was good, and she was a bitch. Just because Eugene is a jerk does not mean he isn't good.

[Herald Alberich]

What I'm more curious about is why the OP says he's supposed to be Lawful Good in the first place. Can anyone point me to a strip anywhere in which it's stated that he's Good-aligned? Because I don't think there is one, and just the fact that he's getting judged by a LG deva doesn't mean he'll be put into the LG afterlife.

I think the assumption is that, since he's very cranky about the Blood Oath keeping him out of Celestia, he's sure he would be there otherwise. So, he must have been judged LG at some point. We see part of that judgment in SOD, where a deva finds minor black spots, then stops short when he gets to the Oath. Could be that the rest of the judgment happened offscreen, or perhaps it was never finished and Eugene is just assuming he'll be let in once Xykon is done with. That would be interesting if he turned out to be wrong.

[Kish]

Okay the only non-good think we've seen him do was burn that report, but that wasn't even THAT evil. Can you point to any other event that would show him as anything but good?
Dumping his Blood Oath of Vengeance on his college-age son, and trying (unsuccessfully to date) to dump it on his high school-aged daughter.

Participating in having said son dragged...you know what? I'm going to stop here. Pretty much by definition, anything and everything I came up with would be vulnerable to being dismissed as "not even that evil," like burning the report. The comic's right there, we can all reread it whenever we want to.

[RMcMurtry]

The Lawful/Chaotic thing is harder, but we've got Roy's word for it that he's Lawful, so I'm inclined to take it.



Do we? Roy is often sarcastic. I took it as more of the same.

[Kumo]

Dumping his Blood Oath of Vengeance on his college-age son, and trying (unsuccessfully to date) to dump it on his high school-aged daughter.

His other option was to leave it unfulfilled completely, damning them all to wander that cloud forever.

He didn't know that at the time, but he DID know the blood oath was required to be fulfilled or SOMETHING would happen. He probably thought he would be bothered about it constantly in heaven until somebody did it or something similar.

[Saph]

I think the assumption is that, since he's very cranky about the Blood Oath keeping him out of Celestia, he's sure he would be there otherwise. So, he must have been judged LG at some point. We see part of that judgment in SOD, where a deva finds minor black spots, then stops short when he gets to the Oath.

Ah, I get the idea.

The way I saw it, though, was that the deva's just in charge of afterlife sorting - after all, a LG creature's the kind of outsider you'd expect to be doing that sort of job. We already know she can refer people to other afterlives (see her comments about chucking Roy's file to the True Neutral bin).

A Neutral afterlife isn't a terrible place or anything, so she can give Eugene a not-so-bad judgement and still file him under LN.


Dumping his Blood Oath of Vengeance on his college-age son, and trying (unsuccessfully to date) to dump it on his high school-aged daughter.

The Deva spelled it out pretty clearly in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html):

"You, on the other hand, made a conscious decision to abandon your own oath years before your death. You stopped looking for Xykon more than 20 years ago, and even when your final death was approaching, you sought out your own son at college and burdened him with the Blood Oath rather than take even one last chance at fulfilling it. You broke your oath, while your son did everything he could to fulfill the vow you dumped at his feet. Therefore, he has earned his rest on this mountain, while you must wander this cloud until one of your heirs fulfills the quest. That is your punishment."


Do we? Roy is often sarcastic. I took it as more of the same.

It's possible. But the whole "focus on one thing at a time, devote life to it" fits pretty well with a Lawful alignment.

Plus Roy is LG and his sister is True Neutral. If Eugene is LN that means each kid is one alignment step away, but they both took different directions. Not compelling evidence or anything, but it seems quite neat - Roy took the responsible side of his father and improved on it, while Julia took the self-centred side and focused on that. :)

[factotum]

Eugene strikes me as the type of person whose bark is worse than their bite. A lot of evidence against his alignment being LG are things he has said, and lot of evidence for him being LG are things he has done. A good example is when Roy got Eugene to scry for him in the afterlife.

Perhaps a better example is that Eugene paid for Roy to go through Fighter College, despite completely disagreeing with him becoming one, and despite the bad blood that has existed between the two of them for a long, long time. You'd think Roy would be a bit more grateful about that, to be honest...

[Gitman00]

Perhaps a better example is that Eugene paid for Roy to go through Fighter College, despite completely disagreeing with him becoming one, and despite the bad blood that has existed between the two of them for a long, long time. You'd think Roy would be a bit more grateful about that, to be honest...

It is a bit perplexing... according to Roy, Eugene told him he'd never speak to him again when he left for fighter college. Yet Eugene claims he paid for Roy's college. Why would he do that if he was so dead-set against him going? I suspect it was with strong urging from his wife, and Eugene finally acquiesced with an attitude something like, "Okay, I'll shell out the cash for your college, but then I'm done with you."

Anyway, I think LN is a pretty safe bet for Eugene's alignment now. It's not just that he's been seen doing some morally questionable or unpleasant things; it's that we've hardly seen him doing anything but those things.

While not his most heinous act, what always sticks out in my head is his reaction to finding out Roy was allowed into Celestia. He was actually enraged that his son wasn't being punished for Eugene's mistakes. This bespeaks a self-centeredness so deep it's tragic. Not only does he have zero remorse for dumping his oath's consequences on his undeserving son; he counted on it, to such a degree that he's actually angry when Roy gets his well-deserved rest!

He doesn't give a damn about ending Xykon's threat or his son fulfilling his duty, except how it affects his own entry into the afterlife. Contrast Roy who, after already having earned heaven, comes down to find out why he hasn't been raised because he has such a strong sense of justice and duty that he is distraught at not being able to finish his quest! Eugene cannot even see far enough beyond himself to notice his son's extraordinary character, that Roy continues to see this mission through to the end, that he'll fulfill his father's oath even when he knows he no longer has to. Instead, he continues to throw petty barbs and snark at him for not being a wizard.

[BaronOfHell]

Good, evil, lawful, etc. are all matters of subjectivity unless some objective standard of measure have been defined.

Basicly, it means if your action is what to you define lawful and good, then you're LG in your own perspective. So it's all about conscience and perspective, because who gets to define these terms after all?

Usually, it's those who win the war who'll go down in history as the good guys, because they write history in the first place. In short, it's most often those in power over you, who you'd think of being good.

In the plane where oots happens, I've little doubt that people are raised much alike on the matter of what's good and what's evil. Basicly 'good' (their represents) have more power in this realm, so their actions defines what's right by most people conscience, since that's what these people have been conditioned into believing all way back from childhood.

It means the evil guys seems themselves as 'good' guys, but for them, the term 'evil' means 'good'.

Basicly this is an attempt to show that 'good' in principle means 'right' and 'right' is subjective, but also to be manipulated and it's the one in power over you who's most likely to manipulate you this way.

If you ask an evil guy, if what he's doing is in his opinion wrong, he'll of course either tell you no, if he controls the action, or yes if he does not control it and disagrees with it.

However, since I wrote the guy was evil, what he's doing, must define him as evil (actions defines person in the perspective of others) and thereby to you it's wrong.


So Eugene Greenhilt can easily see himself as lawful good. All it requires for him to see himself this way, is to see his own wants (don't confuse with lusts, it's the consciouss decision I'm refering to here) as both lawful and good.
I don't know who've told Eugene Greenhilt is lawful good, but I'd say that'd imply that that person have seen EG's actions, at least those this person knows about, as being such.



Also here's a riddle:
A person is defined as LG (not meaning LG as you'd usually think) if this person keeps at least one promise.
If the person is LG he goes to room A.
If the person is not LG he goes to room B.

The person, M tells the person N, that he'll meet N after being judged if he's LG or not.

N is not LG.

N is judged and put into room B.

Now M is to be judged. If they judge him not LG he will have kept at least one promise, making him LG. If they judge him LG, he will not have kept any promises making him not LG.

What should they logically judge?





Solution:
The problem is also known as russels paradox, and it's a problem of definition. You can't define something to have a given property, if the definition depends on itself. It means that the definition of LG is not sufficient to be used to place someone in a room based on it. The solution is to make further requirements in the definition. These can e.g. be time dependent, meaning you've to be LG before being judged, or they could be self dependent, i.e. only promises you decide yourself if you are going to keep are going to be considered LG worthy. This way, you can't create a situation where the judge change the properties of the set (M), as you make the judges independent of M

[Herald Alberich]

Good, evil, lawful, etc. are all matters of subjectivity unless some objective standard of measure have been defined.


There is an objective standard of measure. It's 100 feet tall and alight with holy fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

Basically, D&D does not work in the way you describe. You are not judged by what you think is right, but by what IS right - there are external and immutable forces that determine such.

Anticipating the response to this, I'd say that in OotS the gods don't get to decide this either. The less powerful outsiders do the judging, and while the gods have enough power to really do whatever they want, other outsiders do seem to be bound by the Concepts that define them.

[BaronOfHell]

You are not judged by what you think is right

I never meant to imply that. I think I have spotted what might have given rise to this confusion and have such edited my own text.

[Arillius]

I see a lot of things that suggests Eugene as being a neutral or chaotic neutral. The fact that he didn't do all he could to try and complete his oath, giving up on it in fact for something else, seems a bit frivolous. That he was angry his son got into heaven when he was still stuck in the waiting room seems selfish. I just can't see frivolous and selfish as lawful or good. Neutral is defined as willing to do things for yourself and maybe family members but no more. He's not even willing to do for family members. Lawful is a deep sense of honor, where your oath is your word. Just because he's not a paladin does not mean the lawful good is any less lawful or good, it just means that if he changed his alignment he doesn't lose any of his powers.

If all he had done had been for the greater good then I'd be willing to say NG for him. As it is, all the effort he has put into the problem at hand seems to have been for himself. And doing for ones self is the definition of neutral.

[Kumo]

I see a lot of things that suggests Eugene as being a neutral or chaotic neutral. The fact that he didn't do all he could to try and complete his oath, giving up on it in fact for something else, seems a bit frivolous. That he was angry his son got into heaven when he was still stuck in the waiting room seems selfish. I just can't see frivolous and selfish as lawful or good. Neutral is defined as willing to do things for yourself and maybe family members but no more. He's not even willing to do for family members. Lawful is a deep sense of honor, where your oath is your word. Just because he's not a paladin does not mean the lawful good is any less lawful or good, it just means that if he changed his alignment he doesn't lose any of his powers.

If all he had done had been for the greater good then I'd be willing to say NG for him. As it is, all the effort he has put into the problem at hand seems to have been for himself. And doing for ones self is the definition of neutral.
So why are there unlimited one night stands in heaven?

[Arillius]

Because its heaven?

[Captain Six]

There is an objective standard of measure. It's 100 feet tall and alight with holy fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html).

Basically, D&D does not work in the way you describe. You are not judged by what you think is right, but by what IS right - there are external and immutable forces that determine such.

Anticipating the response to this, I'd say that in OotS the gods don't get to decide this either. The less powerful outsiders do the judging, and while the gods have enough power to really do whatever they want, other outsiders do seem to be bound by the Concepts that define them.

Quoted for truth, and for this addition: In D&Dverse (which OotS is pretty consistent in following even if only to mock it) Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are more Elemental/Cosmic forces than representative of true morality. There is heavy correlation but they don't always go hand in hand. As characters like Celia, Miko, Redcloak and many, many other characters explore: "Good" is not always what's right for the situation and "Evil" is not always wrong. Heck, Belkar is undoubtedly evil but channeled to ends that will *eventually aid in saving the universe, but his actions are still "Evil" by cosmic definition.

*Assumes a happy ending

[Kumo]

Because its heaven?

Which is supposed to be lawful and good, right?

Sex with random strangers is not lawful.

Or good. (in a cosmic manner)

[Jagos]

Yes, but his actions are amoral. And he doesn't feel remorse for his actions.

[Morithias]

Which is supposed to be lawful and good, right?

Sex with random strangers is not lawful.

Or good. (in a cosmic manner)

Here is the thing though. Heaven is suppose to be endless rewards for the things you did in life. Say what you will, but there is a difference between one night standing and snapping a girl's heart in the real world (while she is real), and doing the same to a girl who is for all purpose may as well just be an epic-level illusion.

I reference the place 'of monsters that are of just the right CR for you', if you're a level 20+ adventurer who is on that mountain and goes there, are they seriously going to put a CR 20 monster like a Pit Fiend in there? If it escapes that could be REALLY bad. Most likely it's just a really good illusion.

I propose the girl he sleeps with is the same, and if he ends up falling for her? The gods use the 'alter reality' ability to make a 'true' version.

:)

[The Extinguisher]

Which is supposed to be lawful and good, right?

Sex with random strangers is not lawful.

Or good. (in a cosmic manner)

I disagree, but that's a completely different discussion.

[factotum]

I disagree, but that's a completely different discussion.

Roy's Archon pointed out that the Lawful patrons of Heaven kind of EXPECT to be made to feel guilty about having a one night stand, so that suggests it's seen as a non-Lawful act by the patrons even if it isn't by the "staff".

[Shale]

Law and chaos are about patterns of behavior, not particular acts. Holding to a vow of celibacy is lawful, true, but rampant promiscuity can also be lawful, if it's based on some kind of regimented behavior or code (say, a fertility cult). It can also be a neutral act, if a person's code of conduct - or lack thereof - doesn't touch on sex one way or the other.

[Morithias]

Law and chaos are about patterns of behavior, not particular acts. Holding to a vow of celibacy is lawful, true, but rampant promiscuity can also be lawful, if it's based on some kind of regimented behavior or code (say, a fertility cult). It can also be a neutral act, if a person's code of conduct - or lack thereof - doesn't touch on sex one way or the other.

Actually now that I think about it. Shale is right. At this point I'd usually whip out the Book of Erotic Fantasy and quote from it as a 3rd party source of how sex =/= chaotic or evil thing, but I think everyone here is at that the point they can either taking my word that it's in there, downloading to check it themselves, or just ignoring it in favor of it not being a referable source.

[spargel]

He's probably considered LG the same way Roy is somehow considered LG.

By the way, the Lawful/Chaotic sides of the alignment scale doesn't make sense, so don't think too hard about it.

[Coidzor]

Well, considering that people can't decide whether behavior is dictated by alignment or alignment is dictated by behavior, yes, it is best not to think too hard on the matter.

[hamishspence]

There is BoED's explanation for Vows- they are rooted in the belief that denying a "good and natural thing" can have spiritual benefits.

So (as long as it's not exploitative) it can be argued to be good, not evil.


As to alignment and behaviour which dictates which- both are factors.

A newborn chromatic dragon's behaviour is dictated by their alignment (they are Evil without having done anything, but because they are Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil, they will usually behave (in a general way) in the fashion described in the PHB for those alignments.

A paladin's alignment is dictated by their behaviour- if they start committing atrocities "for the greater good" their alignment will slip over time, from LG to some kind of Evil.

so, both

[Morithias]

Well, considering that people can't decide whether behavior is dictated by alignment or alignment is dictated by behavior, yes, it is best not to think too hard on the matter.

Actually if you follow the rules of the Fiendish Codex 2, which I have no clue if Rich is or not. Alignment is based on behavior. For example on the 'corruption' table, committing murder is a 5 out of 9 (if you're lawful and at 9 or above you go to Baator no matter how good you are in life).

However it's REALLY unclear where you draw the line, considering that the average PC murders more than 2 monsters by 3rd level.

[hamishspence]

The definition of murder is always tricky.

If the PC is always an "agent of the law"- only ever aggressively going after monsters when they've been raiding village and the villagers have asked for help and given them the authority to do this, then less risk of it fitting the usual modern definitions of murder.

There is also self-defence from monsters that attack the PC without provocation.

Just going after intelligent monsters which aren't doing this sort of thing, out of a desire to kill them for their stuff- is highly dubious.

Which was a common source of contention even early on "what have the monsters done to deserve being attacked?" so to speak.

To the extent that one summary of "adventurer" was "violent hobo who breaks into creatures' homes and murders them for their stuff"

BoED was one of the first books to say Good adventurers shouldn't behave this away- however it has a lot of less well thought out stuff, and so a lot of people dislike it.

As well as some people thinking that the core of D&D is that monsters only exist in the game to be killed for their stuff, regardless of whether the monster has done anything to deserve it.


Actually if you follow the rules of the Fiendish Codex 2, which I have no clue if Rich is or not. Alignment is based on behavior. For example on the 'corruption' table, committing murder is a 5 out of 9 (if you're lawful and at 9 or above you go to Baator no matter how good you are in life).

I wonder how you get Lawful Evil character souls in Acheron. My guess is that these are "callous evil" guys who don't usually commit evil acts but have horrible personalities, and refuse to help others in need.

FC2 might be taken as saying "Afterlife is based on behaviour" more than "Alignment is based on behaviour"

And, as I mentioned, it seems likely that both "Alignment is based on behaviour" and "Behaviour is based on alignment" are true.

[Morithias]

I wonder how you get Lawful Evil character souls in Acheron. My guess is that these are "callous evil" guys who don't usually commit evil acts but have horrible personalities, and refuse to help others in need.

FC2 might be taken as saying "Afterlife is based on behaviour" more than "Alignment is based on behaviour"

And, as I mentioned, it seems likely that both "Alignment is based on behaviour" and "Behaviour is based on alignment" are true.

First paragraph. It covers that. In the standard setting, a Lawful Evil person always goes to Baator. It pretty much flat out says that, the table is really only used when the person's alignment is in question. E.g if you murder 2 people in cold blood, but save 10,000 innocents in unrelated events without ever actually getting an atonement spell.

Second Paragraph: Agreed, but it is stated that if you ever make a contract with a devil your alignment automatically changes to LE assuming it's a standard soul contract (not the Batman Gambit the IFCC pulled). If Elan signed one of those to saved Haley's life willingly, and such, and it was a standard thing...yeah, that guy is going to Baator if he doesn't jump through some MAJOR karma hoops. Which means there ARE events evil enough to make you register as evil in the afterlife pretty much automatically. Logically a lot of minor ones could make up for a major one like that.

Third, it can't be true though, because it creates a chicken and egg scenario. Everything has to have a beginning somewhere, and we know for a fact that the gods created this world, so there isn't even the argument over creation vs evolution, to fall back on in the paradox.

[Kumo]

I disagree, but that's a completely different discussion.

'cosmic' means whether or not it's good isn't determined by whether or not you LIKE it.

I didn't say it was chaotic or evil, either. I think it's a neutral act: it doesn't harm anyone or break any laws but it's completely selfish.

[hamishspence]

First paragraph. It covers that. In the standard setting, a Lawful Evil person always goes to Baator. It pretty much flat out says that, the table is really only used when the person's alignment is in question. E.g if you murder 2 people in cold blood, but save 10,000 innocents in unrelated events without ever actually getting an atonement spell.

It said something like "regardless of your personality traits, evil acts are required to go to Baator- "thinking evil thoughts" is not enough.

Maybe some Lawful Evil characters qualify as this. Or a Chaotic Good person, hit by a Helm of Opposite Alignment, who is killed before he can do anything.

He's Lawful Evil- but has committed no evil acts (yet)- thus, he can't go to Baator.

I think devotees of a deity also ignore normal afterlife rules. Lawful Evil clerics of Wee Jas go to Acheron, not Baator. Chaotic Evil clerics of Gruumsh go to Acheron, not the Abyss. And so on. Maybe even normal non-cleric worshippers.

As to "chicken and egg" bit, I think of it as more two different rules, which the DM can apply when the question comes up.

Lawful Evil newborn dragon? Alignment was not caused by behaviour.
Chaotic Evil fallen paladin? Alignment was definitely caused by behaviour.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Roy's Archon pointed out that the Lawful patrons of Heaven kind of EXPECT to be made to feel guilty about having a one night stand, so that suggests it's seen as a non-Lawful act by the patrons even if it isn't by the "staff".

In fact he goes further than that - the first level is dedicated to satisfying temporal needs (mind and body). Over time the person will start to work towards more spititual things (and move up to higher layers of heaven) until reaching perfect enlightenment at the top. In other words, it's a journey, not a place.

[Kish]

I disagree, but that's a completely different discussion.
No, it's extremely relevant, especially the second half.

The Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands is completely Neutral, like the debate hall or the steak house or the dungeon. Their function is to be a reward. No one who gets there needs to be pushed toward Lawful Good; they're all there already (except presumably the small children, but judging by how little Eric seems to have aged physically or mentally in more time than Julia's been alive, I doubt they ever develop at all).

[Optimystik]

His other option was to leave it unfulfilled completely, damning them all to wander that cloud forever.

It is not the act of passing on the Oath itself that reflects his alignment, but his attitude upon doing so. There is no contrition, no apology, no concern for his son's welfare. He isn't even worried whether Roy will be doomed to wander the cloud - it's all about his own reward being delayed.

Now tell me, how exactly is that Good?


No, it's extremely relevant, especially the second half.

The Tavern of Infinite One-Night Stands is completely Neutral, like the debate hall or the steak house or the dungeon. Their function is to be a reward. No one who gets there needs to be pushed toward Lawful Good; they're all there already (except presumably the small children, but judging by how little Eric seems to have aged physically or mentally in more time than Julia's been alive, I doubt they ever develop at all).

Celestia is metaphysical - I think that if he wants to develop, then he will. The trouble is that, being a child, he might never want to.

[Calmar]

No, SoD has a few scenes of him being bitter, grumpy, and alive. Remember lieing about the football game of his son? Does not really scream "lawful". And lieing to your kids because you were hanging out in a tavern is ALSO not good!

One bad day does not make you an evil person, just as one act of kindness alone does not make you good...

[Kish]

One bad day does not make you an evil person, just as one act of kindness alone does not make you good...
Do you have any reason to believe that every time we see Eugene being bitter, grumpy, and alive, he's "having a bad day," rather than "behaving entirely typical for him"?

[Dark Matter]

Do you have any reason to believe that every time we see Eugene being bitter, grumpy, and alive, he's "having a bad day," rather than "behaving entirely typical for him"?Let's assume that what we see is what he is.

However, he was also an adventurer with a party of other adventurers. Presumably that means he ran around destroying evil monsters similar to how Roy does now. That's going to carve his alignment pretty deep, lots deeper than "grumpiness" is going to shift him.

His big beef with his son is on being a fighter, not on him being a LG adventurer.

[Optimystik]

Lying to the people who decide if you get into heaven probably isn't a good way to get into heaven.

I'm not saying he's a lost cause, but he should really come clean.

[Jagos]

Lying to the people who decide if you get into heaven probably isn't a good way to get into heaven.

I'm not saying he's a lost cause, but he should really come clean.

It's as Roy said

If the universe forcing you to admit your mistake hasn't made you a better person, then one small quip by me isn't going to help matters any

Asking him to come clean is more or less a lost cause. He's not going to change, merely be that same cantankerous man that focuses on his own goals at the subjection of others.

[SoC175]

Or good. (in a cosmic manner) The CG planes disagree with you :smallbiggrin:

First paragraph. It covers that. In the standard setting, a Lawful Evil person always goes to Baator. Which is why this book is disregarded by so many

[Optimystik]

You're right - I honestly don't think he will.

And given his oath to Roy (when will the man learn not to give his word so rashly? :smallsigh:) I can't honestly say he's not better off elsewhere.

[Kumo]

It is not the act of passing on the Oath itself that reflects his alignment, but his attitude upon doing so. There is no contrition, no apology, no concern for his son's welfare. He isn't even worried whether Roy will be doomed to wander the cloud - it's all about his own reward being delayed.

Now tell me, how exactly is that Good?

If they're willing to ignore that Roy stole a king's gifts and his excuse is that it doesn't matter because it "would have been destroyed in the explosion anyway" along with his constant desire to kill Elan AND that he spends half of his time verbally lamasting his friends and allies and all they do is MENTION it, i don't think attitude of the deed matters all that much compared to what results from it.

What has resulted?

Roy is off to kill one of the most evil liches on (insert name of world here) in the name of a blood oath. That's not evil.

And if it IS, one evil act does not affect alignment. Alignment is determined by your actions as a whole and what you attempt to do.

Did Eugene try to be lawful good in life? Probably.

Did he do a good job? Probably not.


The CG planes disagree with you :smallbiggrin:

I never said it was EVIL, just that it's definitely not GOOD.

[Kish]

Let's assume that what we see is what he is.

However, he was also an adventurer with a party of other adventurers. Presumably that means he ran around destroying evil monsters similar to how Roy does now. That's going to carve his alignment pretty deep, lots deeper than "grumpiness" is going to shift him..
As far as that goes, I see no real reason to think Eugene was a "genuinely good" adventurer like his son, rather than a "technically good" adventurer like the members of Roy's first party. Which, of course, leads to the question of whether the paladin in Roy's first party would go to Celestia or Baator upon death.

[Dark Matter]

As far as that goes, I see no real reason to think Eugene was a "genuinely good" adventurer like his son, rather than a "technically good" adventurer like the members of Roy's first party.True... although we might be seeing him at his worse (meaning he's been better or at least more good). In comparison, Roy's worst was leaving Elan to die.


Which, of course, leads to the question of whether the paladin in Roy's first party would go to Celestia or Baator upon death.An unfallen Paladin is LG.

That guy might be close to falling, but he hasn't, and as long as he doesn't actually step over the line, he won't. He might not be someone we want in the party, he might also be a total ass, but those are different issues.

[Solara]

I notice it hasn't been brought up yet how Eugene tied up a celestial and impersonated a Being of Pure Law and Good for entirely selfish reasons. (And before anyone tries to argue that he was doing it to get the OotS on track of the Snarl to help save the world...no, no he wasn't. Even if that turns out to be the result, it wasn't the reason he did it.)

[magic9mushroom]

Miko was totally unpleasant, but still (before falling) Good.

I believe Miko was Good after falling too; she fell because she blatantly violated her Paladin's oath, not because she had shifted to a non-Lawful Good alignment. If she did shift, it would be away from Lawful, not Good, as she shows quite clearly that she puts what she believes to be right in front of what honor and the law dictated.

[Zxo]

I believe Miko was Good after falling too; she fell because she blatantly violated her Paladin's oath, not because she had shifted to a non-Lawful Good alignment. If she did shift, it would be away from Lawful, not Good, as she shows quite clearly that she puts what she believes to be right in front of what honor and the law dictated.

I don't want to start a Miko discussion here, but killing a helpless old man who didn't threaten anyone's life at that time was Evil. It was murder. A LG way would be to arrest him and trial him and this could be easily done.

[Wulfang]

I believe Miko was Good after falling too; she fell because she blatantly violated her Paladin's oath, not because she had shifted to a non-Lawful Good alignment. If she did shift, it would be away from Lawful, not Good, as she shows quite clearly that she puts what she believes to be right in front of what honor and the law dictated.

Actually, no. She still showed a clear devotion to a set of rules - HER rules. She was still as Lawful as before, only now she found her own judgement and code of honor to be above that of her liege.

On the other hand, murdering your liege in cold blood without proof of any sort of crime is indeed an Evil act.

[Kaytara]

My two cents... apologies if it's been said before.

Good does not equal nice, and the way Eugene acts when communicating with Roy is not really indicative of the kind of more important decisions he would make. He's a nasty jerk, yes, but mostly we only ever see him in confrontation with Roy. Who here can say they don't have a relative or acquaintance that just rubs them the wrong way and who they can't stop bickering with despite possibly even loving them?

Roy has demonstrated similar levels of being self-absorbed - leaving Elan, complaining about Durkon & Co. having the audacity to get a B-list villain plotting their deaths while neglecting his precious main quest, not seeming to display much appreciation or interest for what his team has gone through in his absence... But we get to see him from different sides, as well, and the general impression is rather positive, Eugene doesn't have that advantage.

But on the whole, yes, the alignment thing is screwed up. The way I see it, alignment is just an external label roughly telling you how likely this person is to act in a certain way. Nothing more than a reading, so to say. At the core, it's the person's mindset and personality that dictates how they act, and their actions are usually indicative of that mindset. A paladin who shifts to Evil doesn't do so because they've been committing evil acts, that's completely backwards. They're shifting to Evil because their mindset or worldview has been gradually changing, which influences their actions accordingly - and the alignment reflects that change.

[factotum]

Part of the problem here is that alignment is a pretty blunt tool for determining someone's personality. There are only nine possible alignments, and I'm pretty sure I've met more than 9 different personalities of people! I think part of what Rich is doing here is showing that LG can be insanely rigid and structured (Miko), a normal human being who lost her virginity on her senior prom night (Lien) or a crabby old man who doesn't like it when things don't go his way (Eugene). (I'd say that's part of his Lawful side, thinking about it--he likes it when things go a certain way, and when things don't follow that path it annoys him intensely). In the same way, he's showing that two characters who are both Chaotic Evil (Xykon and Belkar) have completely different motivations and behaviour.

[magic9mushroom]

I don't want to start a Miko discussion here, but killing a helpless old man who didn't threaten anyone's life at that time was Evil. It was murder. A LG way would be to arrest him and trial him and this could be easily done.

No. From the knowledge Miko had, that would be an LN act. In Miko's (wrong, but her apparently atrocious Wisdom modifier isn't her fault) evaluation, Shojo was an evil despot who was conspiring with Xykon to destroy Azure City. Shojo had also demonstrated that he had brains, and he'd been on the throne for a while. If you look at things from her perspective, allowing Shojo to be tried would result in his acquittal - from her perspective, this is obviously bad. Hence she chose the non-Lawful but Good option, to execute the traitor who would otherwise get off scot-free.


Actually, no. She still showed a clear devotion to a set of rules - HER rules. She was still as Lawful as before, only now she found her own judgement and code of honor to be above that of her liege.

Trusting your own judgement is not Lawful (it's not necessarily Chaotic either, but it's certainly not inherently Lawful), and she outright states "The laws have no meaning!". Her act in killing Shojo was most definitely a Chaotic act, since it flagrantly ignored a) the laws of Azure City b) the code of the Sapphire Guard c) general societal propriety.

After doing so, she was still probably Lawful, though.


On the other hand, murdering your liege in cold blood without proof of any sort of crime is indeed an Evil act.

You're confusing Chaos and Evil. She was absolutely sure that Shojo was Evil and conspiring with Xykon to destroy everything she cared about. It's Lawful, not Good, to need iron-clad proof before acting on such a conviction.

Her act resulted in Evil, but she had no idea that that was the case. Her act in killing Shojo was definitely Chaotic, and also Stupid, but I dispute Evil.

And even if it was Evil, one Evil act does not an alignment change make.

[Kish]

I don't want to start a Miko discussion here,
Then I would venture that both your posts with Miko's name in them were mistakes. :smalltongue:

[Spiky]

Here is the thing though. Heaven is suppose to be endless rewards for the things you did in life.
{Scrubbed}

[magic9mushroom]

{Scrubbed}

Um, careful. None of us want this thread to be locked.


Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked. Please note that, as specifically stated below, these topics remain off-limits even where they intersect with gaming or other activities discussed on these forums, and that putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule.
•Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)

[Optimystik]

If they're willing to ignore that Roy stole a king's gifts and his excuse is that it doesn't matter because it "would have been destroyed in the explosion anyway" along with his constant desire to kill Elan AND that he spends half of his time verbally lamasting his friends and allies and all they do is MENTION it, i don't think attitude of the deed matters all that much compared to what results from it.

1) His record was "full of spots" - I would wager the king's gifts and the snarkiness were examples of those. In which case, they weren't ignored, they just didn't matter enough to impact his afterlife.
2) Roy wants to kill Elan? Where the hell did you get that from? The worst I can find is "beat the crap out of," when he was chasing Nale.


Roy is off to kill one of the most evil liches on (insert name of world here) in the name of a blood oath. That's not evil.

The ends justify the means, is that it?

[RMcMurtry]

If they're willing to ignore that Roy stole a king's gifts and his excuse is that it doesn't matter because it "would have been destroyed in the explosion anyway" along with his constant desire to kill Elan AND that he spends half of his time verbally lamasting his friends and allies and all they do is MENTION it, i don't think attitude of the deed matters all that much compared to what results from it.


Roy tried to tell them they were mistaken. He didn't try very hard, true, but he did try. And he kept saying, in the hearing of the staff, that he'd been mistaken for someone else. They kept ignoring his protestations and statements. He also had the idea to pay for it himself. I'd say that the staff's mistakes mitigate Roy's acceptance of what they gave him.

Constant desire to kill Elan? Um, huh? I don't think he ever particularly wanted Elan dead, at his hand or otherwise. Thrashing Nale did let him work out frustrations with Elan, but he had been suppressing the desire--and in any event, he's grown a lot since then. He recognized that leaving Elan was wrong, came back solo to rescue him. Later he donned the girdle of femininity to save Elan's life. He might be frustrated by Elan. He might be exasperated by Elan. He doesn't want Elan dead.

Sarcastic comments don't really make the grade, IMO. The Devas didn't think so in in Roy's case, or, for that matter, in Eugene's. As a number of people have argued, lawful good doesn't necessarily mean nice. It's Eugene's actions that I think demonstrate he doesn't come anywhere near LG, not his denigration of Roy's choices and abilities.

[Dark Matter]

It's Eugene's actions that I think demonstrate he doesn't come anywhere near LG, not his denigration of Roy's choices and abilities.The non-LG actions we've seen are...
1) Blowing off his oath (non-lawful, I'm not sure it counts as C or E)
2) Taking the place of the spirit judge... although I think he and the king had fixed the trial even before that. I'm not sure this counts against him either. Given that the whole trial was bogus before it started, it's a odd case.
3) Not relaying that message about V to Roy. Technically he hasn't done (or not done) this yet since he hasn't even spoken to Roy since then.

[The Pilgrim]

Well, one of the points Rich Burlew has really adressed a lot in his comic, is his opposition to understand alignment as "prisons" that must corset the characters. Some "deviation" from the norm is allowed.

Miko-O'Chul are the most clear examples. Being both LG doesn't stop them from being radically different characters. The first proves that being LG doesn't necessary stop you from being an issufrible jerk, the second is perhaps the true paragon of Lawful Goodness.

Also, it's debatable if a single action really involves a change of alignment, at least in the OOTS's universe. It's a class feature for Paladins, but not for everyone else. Of course you can arge that the Deva proved this point when she judged Roy. But consciously ditching a friend, a teammate, and a subordinate, to some lowlife thieves in a side-side quest, is a lot more alingment-defining than killing an octagenarian you totally belive to be consorting with the Evil Powers that are about to assault your City. Even then, Miko could have redeemed herself if she had aknowelded her fault and attemped to correct it, like Roy did.

So, Eugene? maybe his actions have barren him from getting into the LG afterlife. And he probably knows it, would explain why he agreed so easly to not contacting his wife and family if he ever makes it though The Gate - he knows he is not gonna be allowed in the LG Heaven anyway. But that doesn't mean that a LG character couldn't act the way he does.

[Dark Matter]

...But consciously ditching a friend, a teammate, and a subordinate, to some lowlife thieves in a side-side quest, is a lot more alignment-defining than killing an octogenarian you totally believe to be consorting with the Evil Powers that are about to assault your City.Maybe. Maybe not. We're used to the idea that what you "believe" matters a lot, but in OOTS-land, there's an objective reality that's objectively enforced.

In her eyes, Miko's actions weren't evil... in objective reality, they were big time evil (thus she not only fell, but the 12 showed up to make that point). It's true you're not punished for your limitations, but Miko's a Paladin whose Paladin senses told her the King wasn't evil. She should have known what she was doing was wrong. To quote Rich:

A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Murdering your own ruler right before an invasion (thus perhaps causing enough chaos so good loses to evil) hits the radar as alignment adjusting to a big degree, especially for someone who was close to the edge before that.

I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up in the LG-after life (especially since her horse can visit), but I also wouldn't be surprised if she ended up tending the gears over in LN land. Before she died she also committed another BIG act i.e. blowing up the gate and thus saving Xykon.

Yes, she technically fullfilled her oath, but she also screwed up (again) and (again) ended up serving evil rather than good in objective reality (one assumes that she didn't think Soon was in league with Xykon). A truly LG act would have been to let Soon kill Xykon+RC and then take Xykon's soul hidey thing down to the anti-magic prison cells and break it.

[Kumo]

A truly LG act would have been to let Soon kill Xykon+RC and then take Xykon's soul hidey thing down to the anti-magic prison cells and break it.

I think she stopped paying attention when she saw the battle was basically even. Remember, Soon and Xykon appeared close - and if you go by redcloak's actions, they were winning - when Miko showed up. She decided then and trhere the only way to win was to smash the gate - and in classic miko fashion, ignored Soon's subsequent victory.

[magic9mushroom]

Maybe. Maybe not. We're used to the idea that what you "believe" matters a lot, but in OOTS-land, there's an objective reality that's objectively enforced.

In her eyes, Miko's actions weren't evil... in objective reality, they were big time evil (thus she not only fell, but the 12 showed up to make that point). It's true you're not punished for your limitations, but Miko's a Paladin whose Paladin senses told her the King wasn't evil. She should have known what she was doing was wrong.

The consequences of actions matter only if you were aware of those consequences. Otherwise a Paladin rifling through a villain's stuff who accidentally knocks over a cosmic keystone and tips the Material Plane into the Far Realm would be Chaotic Evil, which makes no sense.

Miko was confused, but she did have a decent amount of circumstantial evidence against the Order and Shojo.

- Shojo had kept the true nature of her task when retrieving the Order from her.

- The OotS hadn't been particularly polite to her when she arrested them.

- Belkar is clearly Evil (despite the fact that she could never actually verify it, it's blatantly obvious from his actions), yet the OotS keeps him around and prevented her from killing the halfling whose evil rates up with a hypothetical offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron.

- The OotS's claim that they'd killed Xykon was shown to be false.

- Shojo had admitted to deceiving the Sapphire Guard.

- The OotS were obviously in league with Shojo.

It actually starts to look like a serious weight of evidence, doesn't it? Lots of PCs in D&D games would act on that.


To quote Rich:

A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

I'm not disputing that Miko screwed up big-time. She did. And her fall was also entirely legitimate, and a huge one, since she violated her Paladin's Code in just about the most flagrant way possible.

What I do dispute was that killing Shojo was Evil. Note that it's sometimes the right thing for a Paladin to break their oath in order to save the world (Book of Exalted Deeds).


Murdering your own ruler right before an invasion (thus perhaps causing enough chaos so good loses to evil) hits the radar as alignment adjusting to a big degree, especially for someone who was close to the edge before that.

It was a definitively Chaotic act (Screw the Rules, I'm doing what's Right! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleeym5vv2h)) but most definitely not an Evil one. Her alignment may have shifted to NG, but I wouldn't think so, given she's shown to still care about honor afterwards.


I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up in the LG-after life (especially since her horse can visit), but I also wouldn't be surprised if she ended up tending the gears over in LN land. Before she died she also committed another BIG act i.e. blowing up the gate and thus saving Xykon.

Which was similarly a mistake. And which may yet save the world, depending on how the clash between Team Evil and the IFCC works out.


Yes, she technically fullfilled her oath, but she also screwed up (again) and (again) ended up serving evil rather than good in objective reality (one assumes that she didn't think Soon was in league with Xykon). A truly LG act would have been to let Soon kill Xykon+RC and then take Xykon's soul hidey thing down to the anti-magic prison cells and break it.

She did what O-Chul was about to do before, you know. Her act was both Lawful and Good. What her act was not was Smart.

[Dark Matter]

The consequences of actions matter only if you were aware of those consequences. Otherwise a Paladin rifling through a villain's stuff who accidentally knocks over a cosmic keystone and tips the Material Plane into the Far Realm would be Chaotic Evil, which makes no sense.That Paladin wouldn't *be* CE, but his act could/should be judged CE and he most likely would fall. You can be LG and still fall from one act.


I'm not disputing that Miko screwed up big-time. She did. And her fall was also entirely legitimate, and a huge one, since she violated her Paladin's Code in just about the most flagrant way possible.

What I do dispute was that killing Shojo was Evil. Note that it's sometimes the right thing for a Paladin to break their oath in order to save the world (Book of Exalted Deeds).

It was a definitively Chaotic act...It was indeed a Chaotic act, but it was also an evil act. Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts (although they do if their alignment changes from LG). One "screw the rules" moment wouldn't make them fall... unless that act were also evil.

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm She willingly killed the king, this was an evil act, ergo she fell.

[jlvm4]

Yeah, do we have any evidence that he was ever actually judged? The OotS afterlife is where you're told whether or not you lived up to your stated alignment, so if he hasn't had his turn in the chair yet, he could be CE but still get to hang around on that cloud.

My thoughts are similar. If he believed he was lawful good (or whatever alignment), then maybe that's the 'heaven' he would go to in the afterlife. The reason he's still waiting around is that he needs to figure out on his own that he's not. He hasn't been to the chair visit yet, because he's not, but he can't leave because he thinks this is where he should be.

[magic9mushroom]

That Paladin wouldn't *be* CE, but his act could/should be judged CE and he most likely would fall. You can be LG and still fall from one act.

I am very sure there is a passage somewhere explicitly saying that that kind of reasoning is wrong...

Haha, found it. Emphasis mine.


INTENT AND CONTEXT
So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent
plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’t?
Only to a degree.
Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the top
of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he
triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues
down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas
an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good
alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and
responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent
wrong as best he can.
But what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up
there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the
hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas
was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so
overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of
hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he
should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives
an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.
If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but
climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the
owlbears, that’s clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white
distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to
save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the
good of others is a good act. It’s a high standard, but that’s
the way it is.
The foregoing text defines three levels of intent: accidental
acts, reckless or negligent acts, and intentionally evil
misdeeds. Sometimes, however, those categories are insufficient
to determine evil intent. You are free to judge an act in
the context of other actions.
A maniac puts poison in a town’s water supply, believing
(wrongly) that all of the people in the town are demons. Is
that evil? Yes. A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—at least, not in the context of the rest of the
character’s actions and the circumstances involved. Still,
good characters shouldn’t commit even remotely questionable
acts on a large scale unless they’re absolutely sure
there’s no other way to succeed. It’s rarely a good idea to
destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least
a few good people in the town as well.
But let’s make it even more complicated. Another character
witnesses the good character about to put poison in the
town’s drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning
character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent
isn’t evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the
alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs—the
other choice the witness has—is far more evil than preventing
the poisoning.

The passage shows that careless or reckless acts are "evil enough" to lose paladin powers, but accidental acts are not and judging an act strictly by the consequences is wrong. Where Miko falls is a little hazy - nobody actively tried to make her think what she did, but circumstances did conspire to make it look that way.


It was indeed a Chaotic act, but it was also an evil act. Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts (although they do if their alignment changes from LG). One "screw the rules" moment wouldn't make them fall... unless that act were also evil.

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

Read on a little, and you find the following...


Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority,

And a little later,


Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

A "screw the rules" moment that flies directly in the face of authority in such a flagrant way DOES cause a paladin to fall, even if it's not an Evil act. Hence, the fact that Miko fell does not immediately show the act to be Evil.

[Gitman00]

My thoughts are similar. If he believed he was lawful good (or whatever alignment), then maybe that's the 'heaven' he would go to in the afterlife. The reason he's still waiting around is that he needs to figure out on his own that he's not. He hasn't been to the chair visit yet, because he's not, but he can't leave because he thinks this is where he should be.

Actually... he had his interview already, in Start of Darkness. At the time, it looked like he would be allowed in if not for the Oath. The reason he's waiting around is that the Oath hasn't been fulfilled. We can debate what his alignment is now, but at his initial judgment he was found to be lawful good.

[The Pilgrim]

That Paladin wouldn't *be* CE, but his act could/should be judged CE and he most likely would fall. You can be LG and still fall from one act.

Exactly.

In fact, odds are good that Miko ended up in the LG afterlife, given that after her death, she was lifted by Soon and the Ghost Paladins - who were returning to the Celestial Ream - to her destination.

[RMcMurtry]

Was she? If she was, the Giant missed a lot of opportunities in not having Dead Roy encounter her.

[Kish]

1) I don't think Rich wants to establish where Miko went after dying.

2) I don't think Rich wants Miko to ever appear onstage again after her exit scene.

[Kumo]

Was she? If she was, the Giant missed a lot of opportunities in not having Dead Roy encounter her.

Assuming she went to the LG afterlife she would've been on the other side of the biggest friggen mountain in existence.

[LuisDantas]

He might be Good. Good =/= nice. Miko was totally unpleasant, but still (before falling) Good.

Self-image seems to weight considerably in these matters. Miko is the center of quite a few alignment controversies, anyway, and therefore probably not the best illustration.

Still, knowing how to captivate people and ensure their goodwill, i.e. "being nice", are qualities that one would expect to find in good-aligned people. Cooperation is a positive trait, divisiveness and conflit are negative ones.

Granted, Eugene may be good-aligned anyway, but from what we've seen of him his case is rather slim indeed. Maybe he was a champion of good causes or something off-screen. On-camera, his case for being True Neutral is far stronger than Vaarsuvius'.


I didn't see Eugene doing anything Evil (including in the two prequels)

All-out Evil he is not, of course. But he is one of the most callous people that we have met in OOtS. Had he lived long enough he would most likely become evil unless he had some sort of epiphany.


(...)

It is possible that he's in the waiting room of the LG afterlife because he hasn't been judged by a deva yet

That sounds about right, yes. Although one would expect him to have been told not to expect too much by this point. IIRC he got a heavy hint from Roy's admission.


the deva who judges Roy said that she had the power to "throw him in the True Neutral bin", if his record shows that this is his true alignment.

Not quite. #490, 2nd page, 4th Panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). The Deva claims to have the ability to judge Roy's alignment out of her own discernment; to have overseers that may or may not take issue with her evaluation; and that she is confident that they will not complain if she decides that Roy is Neutral Good, not True Neutral.


Maybe people go to an afterlife according to what they think their alignment is, and the devas verify it and send them elsewhere if they've been deluded.

That is a strong possibility. Although I feel that Redcloak has a point (in the OOtS-verse, that is) in treating alignments as policital issues as opposed to moral ones. Were alignment truly related to morals in that world, Belkar, Miko and Redcloak himself would have gone through quite different situations - particularly Miko, who went running away insane and deluded for too long a time.

[The Pilgrim]

Assuming she went to the LG afterlife she would've been on the other side of the biggest friggen mountain in existence.

And lining up in a huge queue, waiting for her judgment.

Anyway, I agree that Rich doesn't feel the need to play further with Miko. That character's narrative role is fully finished. The pun about Tsukiko going to turn her into a uber-powerfull undead, and ditching her body because it was cut in half, is a clear sign of that.

Going back to Eugene, the fact is that he could probably have settled in any of the neutral-chaotic afterlifes, where the authorities wouldn't probably care about the "Blood Oath". But he choose to stay marooned at the halls of the LG afterlife, and do what he could to have the Oath fulfilled. Strikes me as rather lawful.

Also, it has been made quite clear than much of Eugene's motivation to get Xykon slayed, is because he is a powerful Evil character who also is a threat to the existence of the Universe. And Eugene cares about it. Wich is a good point to weight him as a "Good" character.

[LuisDantas]

Was she? If she was, the Giant missed a lot of opportunities in not having Dead Roy encounter her.

The Giant has established the LG afterlife (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html) as a place that goes out of its way to avoid situations of painful learning and confrontations, so it would seem to me that Roy and Miko simply wouldn't be capable of perceiving each other while there.

Of course, I don't see how Miko could end up in anything better than a True Neutral afterlife anyway.

[LuisDantas]

Also, it has been made quite clear than much of Eugene's motivation to get Xykon slayed, is because he is a powerful Evil character who also is a threat to the existence of the Universe. And Eugene cares about it. Wich is a good point to weight him as a "Good" character.

Sorry, but.. caring about the Universe's existence is just about the flimsiest indication of "being good" that I can think about. At most it indicates that Eugene is not an all-and-out, full-blown psychopath (which indeed he isn't).

[The Pilgrim]

Sorry, but.. caring about the Universe's existence is just about the flimsiest indication of "being good" that I can think about. At most it indicates that Eugene is not an all-and-out, full-blown psychopath (which indeed he isn't).

Please note that all evil characters in the strip; Xykon, Redcloack, the IFFC, Nale... have in common that they don't give a damn about releasing the Snarl and endangering the fabric of the Universe in order to advance their respective agendas.

[Kumo]

And lining up in a huge queue, waiting for her judgment.

Anyway, I agree that Rich doesn't feel the need to play further with Miko. That character's narrative role is fully finished. The pun about Tsukiko going to turn her into a uber-powerfull undead, and ditching her body because it was cut in half, is a clear sign of that.

Going back to Eugene, the fact is that he could probably have settled in any of the neutral-chaotic afterlifes, where the authorities wouldn't probably care about the "Blood Oath". But he choose to stay marooned at the halls of the LG afterlife, and do what he could to have the Oath fulfilled. Strikes me as rather lawful.

Also, it has been made quite clear than much of Eugene's motivation to get Xykon slayed, is because he is a powerful Evil character who also is a threat to the existence of the Universe. And Eugene cares about it. Wich is a good point to weight him as a "Good" character.

That wasn't a pun. At all.

It's been made clear that most of Eugene's motivation is to get into the afterlife and finish that blood oath. Eugene couldn't care less about how good Xykon is - he could be selling girl scout cookies and giving all of his evil assets to charity and he'd STILL want the guy dead. ROY'S motivation is that Xykon is an evil jackweed.

[The Pilgrim]

Of course, I don't see how Miko could end up in anything better than a True Neutral afterlife anyway.

Mainly because one stupid act is not enough to trash it all.

The most henious act we have witnessed in this comic is probably V's Familicide Spell*. That was WAY more evil than the murdering of Lord Shojo.
And even then, the IFCC said they had *only* 50% chance of getting hir soul anyway, and that prediciton was probably related to V's further character developement, that as we have seen, has gone quite the opposite direction, acknowelding hir blunder and attemping to grow better.

*Not counting Xykon's "Reanimated Gladiators", of course.

[Wulfang]

Please note that all evil characters in the strip; Xykon, Redcloack, the IFFC, Nale... have in common that they don't give a damn about releasing the Snarl and endangering the fabric of the Universe in order to advance their respective agendas.

Uh, no. Xykon specifically states he likes the world and wouldn't mind ruling it and Redcloak clearly cares about the world and the people in it. He only views the possible destruction of the world as not a complete loss because then the other gods would be forced to let the Dark One in on creation right from the get-go.

For the IFCC and Nale you might have a case, though.

[The Pilgrim]

Uh, no. Xykon specifically states he likes the world and wouldn't mind ruling it and Redcloak clearly cares about the world and the people in it. He only views the possible destruction of the world as not a complete loss because then the other gods would be forced to let the Dark One in on creation right from the get-go.

For the IFCC and Nale you might have a case, though.

Uh, sorry, but how that contradicts my statement, actually? :smallconfused:

Please note that all evil characters in the strip; Xykon, Redcloack, the IFFC, Nale... have in common that they don't give a damn about releasing the Snarl and endangering the fabric of the Universe in order to advance their respective agendas-

Endangering being the key word. I didn't wrote that they have the plan to release the Snarl and destroy the Universe. I noted that they all -even Nale, who heard the story of the Snarl from Shojo- are aware that they are playing with something that can destroy the Universe.

[LuisDantas]

Mainly because one stupid act is not enough to trash it all.

True enough, but it hardly applies to Miko.



The most henious act we have witnessed in this comic is probably V's Familicide Spell*. That was WAY more evil than the murdering of Lord Shojo.

Again, true enough - and I fully expect it to come back to haunt Vaarsuvius in a major way. But it is somewhat counterbalanced by recent actions from him. And as the Deva noted, actually trying to become a better person counts for a lot. Miko, frankly, did not have that benefit.

[The Pilgrim]

True enough, but it hardly applies to Miko.

As far as the Comic has shown us, Miko has only commited one "evil" act, murdering Shojo. The destruction of the Gate was a (debatable) stupid act, not an evil one.


Again, true enough - and I fully expect it to come back to haunt Vaarsuvius in a major way. But it is somewhat counterbalanced by recent actions from him. And as the Deva noted, actually trying to become a better person counts for a lot. Miko, frankly, did not have that benefit.

Miko didn't live long enough to attone for it. She died the day after killing Shojo.

Still, had time to refuse to fall further, turning her back to Sabine's Blackguard offer.

And, still, Miko died while performing a supreme good act. Because she self-sacrified herself in order to destroy the Gate and prevent it from failing to Evil Powers.

Even if Soon had killed Xykon and Redcloack, the City and the Gate would still have fallen to the Hobbos. At this point, the death of Redcloack would have been pointless, as the Mantle would have passed into the hands of any of the many thousand hobbos wandering through the city, thus adquiring automatically the knowelde about the Gates and the Ritual. Would have to find a powerful arcane caster. Would have to defend the city with only one-hit-dice hobbos and low-level divine clerics (and a Monster in the Darkness). But still a highly risky scenario for the Good powers.

So, a life of serving the Good powers, stained by one misjudged action, but ended in a great self-sacrifice in service of the Gods. Her case is not that bad, she might have managed to pull it through the Judge.

[Dark Matter]

The passage shows that careless or reckless acts are "evil enough" to lose paladin powers, but accidental acts are not and judging an act strictly by the consequences is wrong.Fair enough, but the key word is "accidental". Miko deliberately killed Shojo. Her only shield against a pretty evil act is her beliefs, and her beliefs were "a hunch".


Where Miko falls is a little hazy - nobody actively tried to make her think what she did, but circumstances did conspire to make it look that way.Multiple people told her she was wrong including Shojo, Roy, Hinjo, and her own god-given senses. Hinjo even told her that even if she was right she still shouldn't be killing him.


A "screw the rules" moment that flies directly in the face of authority in such a flagrant way DOES cause a paladin to fall, even if it's not an Evil act. Hence, the fact that Miko fell does not immediately show the act to be Evil.I doubt the 12 gods show up for merely chaotic acts.

The problem I have with this line of logic as it regards to OOTS-land is we have Rich's comments on those SOD paladins. What it comes down to is Paladins who know (correctly) that they're carrying out the gods direct orders can still fall for killing innocent goblins. This happens even though presumably he thinks he's doing good and that the goblin is evil. Presumably killing a goblin isn't against the law, which means it must be an evil act. If that's an evil act, then "belief" matters far less than reality, and Miko's deranged and irrational beliefs don't shield her much.


Mainly because one stupid act is not enough to trash it all.Two stupid acts of world shaking significance done by someone who wasn't that good to start with.


The most henious act we have witnessed in this comic is probably V's Familicide Spell*. That was WAY more evil than the murdering of Lord Shojo.Way more evil? Miko had reason to think that Shojo wasn't evil (because her detect evil senses told her that along with Hinjo and even Roy). V might have thought (perhaps even correctly) that she was killing a bunch of evil dragons. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that no one V killed was good or even neutral. Granted, she's taking one heck of a risk with a weapon of mass destruction.

[Amarsir]

The consequences of actions matter only if you were aware of those consequences. Otherwise a Paladin rifling through a villain's stuff who accidentally knocks over a cosmic keystone and tips the Material Plane into the Far Realm would be Chaotic Evil, which makes no sense.
The reasoning that has evolved in the real world is called the "reasonable person" standard. It resolves the twin problems of deluded reasoning and accidental catastrophe, by judging people according to reasonable common sense. And it favors the accused in that "no clear answer" amounts to "it's fine."

Now the standard can and does change over time and location, as the "reasonable people" therein change. (For example consider would be "sexual harassment" in the US right now compared to 50 years ago or to Saudi Arabia.) But this provides a mechanism for judgment. I would say for disqualifying the alignment of a character our reasonable standard would be what most people of that alignment would reason.

Miko is a pretty straightforward case. Presented with the same circumstances, a reasonable LG person would not resort to regicide. And it's even more solid if we hold Paladins to a higher standard. (As we arguably should.)

So then apply that standard to Eugene. Would your average, reasonable Lawful Good person, if presented with the same circumstances, consider his actions to be reasonable choices?

[Drascin]

Way more evil? Miko had reason to think that Shojo wasn't evil (because her detect evil senses told her that along with Hinjo and even Roy). V might have thought (perhaps even correctly) that she was killing a bunch of evil dragons. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that no one V killed was good or even neutral. Granted, she's taking one heck of a risk with a weapon of mass destruction.

No, seriously, Familicide is really, really evil. The fact that unleashing a genocidal weapon is more evil than anything Miko did does not diminish the level of Miko's screwups, you know :smalltongue:.

But really, I feel it has more to do with attitude. Roy says "okay, I screwed up. I need to be more Lawful Good". Vaarsuivius has managed to shed most of hir pride, realizing she had been an idiot. Miko's problem isn't that she did one very evil act. It's the fact she refused, even after death, to recognize she did it wrong. Soon basically spelled it for us. A horrible, fall-worthy moment of hubris can be forgiven if the person in question admits to it and does her best to atone. But that always was Miko's failing, and why she probably spent a lot of her life skirting that line between LG and LN until the end.

[TheYoungKing]

She skirted the line between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil. Do not pass Neutral, do not collect $200.

[RMcMurtry]

Going back to Eugene, the fact is that he could probably have settled in any of the neutral-chaotic afterlifes, where the authorities wouldn't probably care about the "Blood Oath". But he choose to stay marooned at the halls of the LG afterlife, and do what he could to have the Oath fulfilled. Strikes me as rather lawful.

Also, it has been made quite clear than much of Eugene's motivation to get Xykon slayed, is because he is a powerful Evil character who also is a threat to the existence of the Universe. And Eugene cares about it. Wich is a good point to weight him as a "Good" character.

I don't think his fulfilling the Blood Oath at this point says anything about his law/chaos axis. I think the Blood Oath has power of its own, binding his soul regardless of his personal alignment, which is what the tattooist in SoD was trying to tell him. That he was willing to lie about it to the deva adjudicating his case does.

I have to disagree about his motivation regarding Xykon's destruction. Roy regards Xykon as a threat to all existance and is going after him for that reason. Eugene couldn't care less what Xykon is doing or whether Redcloak or Tsukiko keeps pursuing the gates and their control. His interest in destroying Xykon is that doing so fulfills the Blood Oath and lets him move on.

[Dark Matter]

No, seriously, Familicide is really, really evil.It is and it isn't. In real life, we have deliberately tried to exterminate species. Clearly dragons aren't like the screw fly or the Malaria Mosquito... but do the differences really make a difference?

Goblins are only "usually evil", so a randomly chosen goblin might be a farmer or whatever. Dragons are "always evil", that puts them up there with demons and the undead. If it's a "good" act for a random adventure party to kill a random black dragon, then Familicide might not be a big deal...

...Although where it gets funky is in AD&D Dragons can (and have) bred with humans, and many DMs don't view them as being as evil as demons or the undead. I'd say that whether or not Familicide (applied to Black Dragons) is evil would be something to work out with the DM.


The fact that unleashing a genocidal weapon is more evil than anything Miko did does not diminish the level of Miko's screwups, you know :smalltongue:. Miko's screwups include deliberately weakening the city's defenses before the goblin attack AND accidentally saving Xykon. She might be the nail in the horseshoe which results in the Dark One gaining control of the Snarl.

I'm not sure that's "less evil" than killing 63(?) presumably evil Dragons.

(Although granted, her acts are not lessened by other evil acts).

[Dark Matter]

I have to disagree about his motivation regarding Xykon's destruction. Roy regards Xykon as a threat to all existance and is going after him for that reason. Eugene couldn't care less what Xykon is doing or whether Redcloak or Tsukiko keeps pursuing the gates and their control. His interest in destroying Xykon is that doing so fulfills the Blood Oath and lets him move on.True... but the reason he originally took the Oath was because Xykon was a monster who'd murdered his friend & mentor in front of him.

The problem with saying Eugene isn't LG is we've seen very little of him other than him fighting with his family. But while he was alive...

1) If that scry spell he's throwing around is "Greater Scrying" then he's 13th level or more, which in turn means he's got a long history of deeds we simply know nothing about.
2) Trying to hunt down Xykon is presumably both good and lawful.
3) Making the cover of a mage's magazine hints at the same (i.e. society views you well).
4) Giving up your hunt for Xykon because of devotion towards your family doesn't strike me as being evil or chaotic.
5) Eugene's wife and at least two of his children were or are LG, implying that's how they were raised, and his father is also LG, implying the same about him.
6) Eugene's estranged wife (ex-wife?) apparently thinks he's LG.

And that's basically all the clues we have from his life.

[The Pilgrim]

It is and it isn't. In real life, we have deliberately tried to exterminate species. Clearly dragons aren't like the screw fly or the Malaria Mosquito... but do the differences really make a difference?

Uh, killing sentient beings?



Miko's screwups include deliberately weakening the city's defenses before the goblin attack AND accidentally saving Xykon. She might be the nail in the horseshoe which results in the Dark One gaining control of the Snarl.

I'm not sure that's "less evil" than killing 63(?) presumably evil Dragons.

(Although granted, her acts are not lessened by other evil acts).

Wow, looks like we are applying some "Miko Logic" to Miko's actions, aren't we?

Deliberately weakening the city's defenses? She might had weakened the city defenses by murdering Shojo, but that was far her intent. Her sin there was killing Shojo driven by too many mental problems to actually list here, but to charge her with deliberately conspiring against her City is going too far, and lowering yourself to Miko's "logic".

About the Gate issue... taking into account the information Miko had when she entered the Throne Room - City had fallen to hobgoblins, Castle was in Enemy hands, all the Shappire Guard lying dead in the Throne Room floor, O'Chul paralized while trying to destroy the Gate -, Miko's action was 100% the correct one. Sure, she didn't noticed Soon. Neither Soon noticed Miko, and that didn't prevented him from returning to the Celestial Realm.

Anyway, how was the destruction of the Gate an EVIL act? We can argue if it was stupid or not, but EVIL??? She actually self-sacrified herself in order to deny the enemy control of the Gate. Doesn't strike me as Evil, you know. Elan destroyed Dorukan's Gate out of pure dumbness and he still registered as "not evil" when Miko "scanned" him.

[The Pilgrim]

I have to disagree about his motivation regarding Xykon's destruction. Roy regards Xykon as a threat to all existance and is going after him for that reason. Eugene couldn't care less what Xykon is doing or whether Redcloak or Tsukiko keeps pursuing the gates and their control. His interest in destroying Xykon is that doing so fulfills the Blood Oath and lets him move on.

Do you have any evidence that Eugene doesn't care about what Xykon is doing? Check the very reason why he took the Oath. Check the dialogues when he discusses the matter with Roy.

Sure, getting his own ass trought the Golden Gate scores high in his scale of values. But that doesn't mean he doesn't care at all about Xykon being a threat to all living beings, and his dialogues with Roy clearly show it.

[Kish]

Do you have any evidence that Eugene doesn't care about what Xykon is doing? Check the very reason why he took the Oath. Check the dialogues when he discusses the matter with Roy.
You mean, like the dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0293.html) where he tells Roy that the "gate thing" is the perfect way to find Xykon and destroy him, and that's the extent of his interest in what Xykon is doing? And Roy yells at him for being horribly selfish?

[Dark Matter]

Uh, killing sentient beings?If we find out that the alien from "Aliens" is both sentient and on the Earth, I think we nuke whatever city it's in anyway. If we discover that malaria is somehow sentient I think we still try to exterminate it.

The intersection of "always evil", "always CR3+", and "views people as food" is seriously harsh. As long as my children are potentially on it's menu, then killing black dragons because they're black dragons sounds like a reasonable course of action.


Deliberately weakening the city's defenses? She might had weakened the city defenses by murdering Shojo, but that was far her intent...Her "intent" might have been "good" by her own (very) twisted logic, but the 12 gods showed up and said it was in fact an evil act anyway.

So...
...she knew of the approaching army of darkness.
...she knew Shojo was the head of the government and it's defenses.
...she knew taking him out would weaken the same (this is even one of the reasons why Hinjo argued against killing him).

So in other words she knew darn well killing Shojo would disrupt the city's defenses, she just thought the "good" of her act (which turned out to be nothing) would be worth the price.


About the Gate issue... taking into account the information Miko had when she entered the Throne Room - City had fallen to hobgoblins, Castle was in Enemy hands, all the Shappire Guard lying dead in the Throne Room floor, O'Chul paralized while trying to destroy the Gate -, Miko's action was 100% the correct one. Sure, she didn't noticed Soon. Neither Soon noticed Miko, and that didn't prevented him from returning to the Celestial Realm.Soon ordered her not to do it and she was facing towards him and RC+X when she did. Her logic in blowing up the gate parallels her logic in killing Shojo, i.e. despite what her superiors and common sense said, she did it anyway.


Anyway, how was the destruction of the Gate an EVIL act? We can argue if it was stupid or not, but EVIL??? She actually self-sacrified herself in order to deny the enemy control of the Gate. Doesn't strike me as Evil, you know. Elan destroyed Dorukan's Gate out of pure dumbness and he still registered as "not evil" when Miko "scanned" him.Elan didn't know blowing it up would weaken the universe, Miko did.

If we look outside of Miko's twisted reasoning we have her preventing Soon from killing Xykon, RC, and probably even destroying both the red cloak and Xykon's soul.

Did she know that this would result? Maybe not, but a "reasonable" person would have and we know that "twisted reasoning" doesn't fully shield her from the evil of her actions (that's part of evil being "objective" rather than just subjective in AD&D).

[Dark Matter]

You mean, like the dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0293.html) where he tells Roy that the "gate thing" is the perfect way to find Xykon and destroy him, and that's the extent of his interest in what Xykon is doing? And Roy yells at him for being horribly selfish?Some of his dialog sounds odd from the stand point of being "purely selfish" and sounds a lot like he puts a lot of value in responsibility, being "good", and specifically the duties of high level good PCs.

“...through your [Roy’s] ineffective leadership, Xykon overran one of the oldest bastions of the forces of Good on the mortal plane?”

“…You were the highest level Good character on the field, and a PC to boot. It was your fight to lose.” http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html

[The Pilgrim]

You mean, like the dialogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0293.html) where he tells Roy that the "gate thing" is the perfect way to find Xykon and destroy him, and that's the extent of his interest in what Xykon is doing? And Roy yells at him for being horribly selfish?

It should be noted that Eugene actually objected to Roy's rant. I mean, Roy's views on his father are not necessary the objective truth about him, and even his mother objected on Roy's badmouthing of his father, later in the afterlife.

In addition to the two quotes mentioned by Dark Matter above, I'd present a third one:

"... are you done watching this complete waste of time... she is just frittering away a perfect opportunity! Xykon is right there, she should be trying to kill him... it is [a waste of time] when she could help MORE innocent people by destroying one creature"
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0525.html

Sure, Eugene is very concerned by his own Oath thing. But that doesn't mean he doesn't understand the whole picture.

[RMcMurtry]

Do you have any evidence that Eugene doesn't care about what Xykon is doing? Check the very reason why he took the Oath. Check the dialogues when he discusses the matter with Roy.

Sure, getting his own ass trought the Golden Gate scores high in his scale of values. But that doesn't mean he doesn't care at all about Xykon being a threat to all living beings, and his dialogues with Roy clearly show it.

Right. He took the oath because Xykon killed his master. It's the sort of thing that someone of any alignment might do in the right circumstances Had nothing to do with the gates or stopping whatever Xykon's current nefarious activities were. He's trying motivate/annoy Roy, and grabs at whatever straws he can to do so--especially since Roy told him that without Xykon's threat to the gates, Roy would stop. Eugene even says that "this gate thing" is the perfect way to track down Xykon, since Xykon would keep coming for the gates. He's obviously unconcerned about the gates except as a way to locate Xykon.

[The Pilgrim]

If we find out that the alien from "Aliens" is both sentient and on the Earth, I think we nuke whatever city it's in anyway. If we discover that malaria is somehow sentient I think we still try to exterminate it.

The intersection of "always evil", "always CR3+", and "views people as food" is seriously harsh. As long as my children are potentially on it's menu, then killing black dragons because they're black dragons sounds like a reasonable course of action.

Yeah, just like selling your soul to devils looked like a reasonable course of action to save your children...


Her "intent" might have been "good" by her own (very) twisted logic, but the 12 gods showed up and said it was in fact an evil act anyway.

So...
...she knew of the approaching army of darkness.
...she knew Shojo was the head of the government and it's defenses.
...she knew taking him out would weaken the same (this is even one of the reasons why Hinjo argued against killing him).

So in other words she knew darn well killing Shojo would disrupt the city's defenses, she just thought the "good" of her act (which turned out to be nothing) would be worth the price..

I do not object that murdering Shojo was evil. But, Miko didn't thought that killing Shojo would weaken the defenses. Actually the opposite, since she belived he was in leage with Team Evil, killing him would strenghten the defensive capabilities of Azure City. Hinjo objected because, unlike Miko, he didn't belived his uncle to be in leage with the invaders.

Also, Hinjo was not Miko's superior. Miko outranked him. Or, at least, that is what Miko says, and thus belived.


Soon ordered her not to do it and she was facing towards him and RC+X when she did. Her logic in blowing up the gate parallels her logic in killing Shojo, i.e. despite what her superiors and common sense said, she did it anyway...

Soon was on the other side of the room, and doesn't look like being shouting. When he spotted Miko, it was too late to stop her. He even acknoweldes later that Miko did "adequately".

Also note that Miko didn't knew that Soon was to be on the room. She didn't knew about the Ghost Spirits.

O'Chul attemped to destroy the Gate when all the Paladins got killed, he didn't knew about the Ghost Spirits, neither. Only the members of the Ruling Family knew about the Ghost Spirit thing, as Hinjo told Durkon.


Elan didn't know blowing it up would weaken the universe, Miko did.

Miko knew also that destroying the Gate was better than letting it fall into enemy hands.

O'Chul also attemped to destroy the Gate. So, was O'Chul about to perform an Evil Act, and prevented from doing so only by Xykon's paralyzing touch? I don't think so.


If we look outside of Miko's twisted reasoning we have her preventing Soon from killing Xykon, RC, and probably even destroying both the red cloak and Xykon's soul.

Did she know that this would result? Maybe not, but a "reasonable" person would have and we know that "twisted reasoning" doesn't fully shield her from the evil of her actions (that's part of evil being "objective" rather than just subjective in AD&D).

A "reasonable" person would have ran to destroy the Gate as soon as he entered the Throne Room. And *might* have only stopped if he had spotted Soon about to kill Xykon and Redcloack. It all depended on a spot check.

Dumb, maybe. Evil, no way.

[LuisDantas]

As far as the Comic has shown us, Miko has only commited one "evil" act, murdering Shojo. The destruction of the Gate was a (debatable) stupid act, not an evil one.

That's one possible reading, but it is also IMO stretching things quite a bit. We were shown how much she was taken by wrath even before killing Shojo (in the strip where she warns Durkon that her attitude has changed), and we were also shown how far she was willing to go to find so-called justification for her delusions of grandeur when she was arrested.

That is not being "evil by lack of luck", but instead a true vocation for corruption. Her circunstances did not help much, for certain, but she was hardly true Paladin material.


Miko didn't live long enough to attone for it. She died the day after killing Shojo.

By that token, she did not live enough to further damn herself that much either. And she gave clear indication that damn herself she would.


Still, had time to refuse to fall further, turning her back to Sabine's Blackguard offer.

Miko is nothing if not inclined to think highly of herself. It is not her style to fall by that particular path. She "made up" for that aplenty by choosing to flee her cell and by choosing that particular rationale to justify her flight. To say nothing of her immediate reaction to her fall, of course.


And, still, Miko died while performing a supreme good act.

That is simply not true, sorry.

Even if she were right in her hurried evaluation of the throne room situation, it was still a mission of rescueing her ego, not of doing "supreme good".


Because she self-sacrified herself in order to destroy the Gate and prevent it from failing to Evil Powers.

True sacrifice for Miko would be staying in her cell and fully submiting to Azure City judgement, thereby recognizing her stature as regular citizen. All that she sacrificed in the Throne Room was her own pain at being cut to measure. Her speeches make that perfectly clear: her goal is to save her self-image, and her hopes of making a difference in the conflict are only the means to reach that (utterly selfish) end.



Even if Soon had killed Xykon and Redcloack, the City and the Gate would still have fallen to the Hobbos. At this point, the death of Redcloack would have been pointless, as the Mantle would have passed into the hands of any of the many thousand hobbos wandering through the city, thus adquiring automatically the knowelde about the Gates and the Ritual. Would have to find a powerful arcane caster. Would have to defend the city with only one-hit-dice hobbos and low-level divine clerics (and a Monster in the Darkness). But still a highly risky scenario for the Good powers.

That is highly speculative. For one thing, Soon would not be distracted were it not for Miko. For another, it was Shojo's death at Miko's hands that made the defense of Azure City so much weaker than it would otherwise be.


So, a life of serving the Good powers, stained by one misjudged action, but ended in a great self-sacrifice in service of the Gods. Her case is not that bad, she might have managed to pull it through the Judge.

That is not the Miko that we actually have in the canon strips, although it could make an interesting alternate continuity tale, for sure.

[The Pilgrim]

That is not the Miko that we actually have in the canon strips, although it could make an interesting alternate continuity tale, for sure.

Soon told Miko that Windstriker would visit her as much as it could. It's unlikely that her horse could do so unless she were bound for the LG afterlife. So I might be closer to the "canon strips" than you are with your veredict that she is bound to the True Neutral afterlife. :smallwink:

Your analysis on Miko's motivation during the Battle is on the same line than Girard's analysis on Soon's true nature. And yet, despite being judged as a facist leader by Girard, Soon is still in the Celestial Realm.

Miko was driven by her duty, a duty to serve the Greater Good. Sure, she grew more and more deluded and self-centered about it. But still, she choose to pursue it, despite having other options like fleeing the City like all the other criminals in the block did. And she choose the supreme sacrifice.Sure, she had quite an Ego fueling her, but who doesn't? She died while serving the Greater Good anyway.

So, Miko, not as good as Soon was, he failed as a Paladin after all. But, still, maybe good enough for the LG afterlife.

[magic9mushroom]

Exactly.

In fact, odds are good that Miko ended up in the LG afterlife, given that after her death, she was lifted by Soon and the Ghost Paladins - who were returning to the Celestial Ream - to her destination.

But as the quote I provided proves, an act that causes evil that you didn't know about is not an evil act.

From what Miko knew, Shojo was Evil (Undetectable Alignment or that "aristocrat-friendly prestige class" means she couldn't trust Detect Evil) and failing to kill him would hand Azure City to the hobgoblins and cause the slaughter or slavery of all its inhabitants. Given that the Azurites had a decent chance against the hobbos in that battle, some chance of avoiding defeat was better than none.


That is a strong possibility. Although I feel that Redcloak has a point (in the OOtS-verse, that is) in treating alignments as policital issues as opposed to moral ones. Were alignment truly related to morals in that world, Belkar, Miko and Redcloak himself would have gone through quite different situations - particularly Miko, who went running away insane and deluded for too long a time.

Miko wasn't really insane or deluded until the events of the strip itself, and I don't really see many morally questionable acts of hers ("They were Evil, so I killed them!" being the only one I can think of) prior to killing Shojo.


True enough, but it hardly applies to Miko.

How so? Miko wasn't nice in any way, shape or form, but she was wholly devoted to her city and the cause of good (dirt farmers, remember?). She screwed up majorly upon fluffing a judgement call, once, but that's really about it in the moral sense.


Fair enough, but the key word is "accidental". Miko deliberately killed Shojo. Her only shield against a pretty evil act is her beliefs, and her beliefs were "a hunch".

The evil from that act was accidental. Said "hunch" included a fairly large pile of circumstantial evidence which I've already provided, and there was clearly not enough time to gather much more information before the army arrived and Shojo (according to her appraisal of the situation) betrayed the city.


Multiple people told her she was wrong including Shojo,

"Yeah, like he's going to admit to being evil."


Roy,

"Who appeared to be a conspirator."


Hinjo,

"Good guy, but can't see the truth."


and her own god-given senses.

Which can be fooled, as her first encounter with the party, and the rules (Undetectable Alignment) show.


Hinjo even told her that even if she was right she still shouldn't be killing him.

Not... really. He didn't realise what she was going to do until seconds before she did it, and all he did was yell at her to stop.


I doubt the 12 gods show up for merely chaotic acts.

The 12 gods show up when someone fluffs it as badly as Miko did. I'm not disputing that killing Shojo was a massive failure of judgement and not something a paladin should have been doing anyway. I'm disputing its Evilness.


The problem I have with this line of logic as it regards to OOTS-land is we have Rich's comments on those SOD paladins. What it comes down to is Paladins who know (correctly) that they're carrying out the gods direct orders can still fall for killing innocent goblins. This happens even though presumably he thinks he's doing good and that the goblin is evil. Presumably killing a goblin isn't against the law, which means it must be an evil act. If that's an evil act, then "belief" matters far less than reality, and Miko's deranged and irrational beliefs don't shield her much.

Speciesism is an unfounded belief. Miko had not only a fair pile of evidence but also what appeared to be a sign from the gods.


Two stupid acts of world shaking significance done by someone who wasn't that good to start with.

World shaking significance but not world shaking evil or world shaking chaos. The latter I'd stick under Senseless Sacrifice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SenselessSacrifice) - one failed Spot check would have made it the right thing to do for sure, and it may have been anyway (because raising Redcloak or Xykon would hardly have been impossible, and Soon could not have held off the hobgoblin army indefinitely). Calling that evil would inescapably also make it evil when O-Chul tried to do it.


Way more evil? Miko had reason to think that Shojo wasn't evil (because her detect evil senses told her that along with Hinjo and even Roy).

Miko did it because she thought she was right, and she was saving the world.


V might have thought (perhaps even correctly) that she was killing a bunch of evil dragons. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that no one V killed was good or even neutral. Granted, she's taking one heck of a risk with a weapon of mass destruction.

Vaarsuvius did it because she wanted revenge.

Killing Evil beings because of Evil reasons isn't a good act, and neutral is questionable. You're not meant to kill Evil beings just for being Evil if they're not threatening anyone.

Shojo was (in Miko's eyes) threatening everyone in Azure City, and she did it for the good of others, not herself.


The reasoning that has evolved in the real world is called the "reasonable person" standard. It resolves the twin problems of deluded reasoning and accidental catastrophe, by judging people according to reasonable common sense. And it favors the accused in that "no clear answer" amounts to "it's fine."

Now the standard can and does change over time and location, as the "reasonable people" therein change. (For example consider would be "sexual harassment" in the US right now compared to 50 years ago or to Saudi Arabia.) But this provides a mechanism for judgment. I would say for disqualifying the alignment of a character our reasonable standard would be what most people of that alignment would reason.

Miko is a pretty straightforward case. Presented with the same circumstances, a reasonable LG person would not resort to regicide. And it's even more solid if we hold Paladins to a higher standard. (As we arguably should.)

I object, Your Honor! :smalltongue:

If you consider only the information she knew and not the information the readers knew, it was a reasonable conclusion and a reasonable act.


Miko's screwups include deliberately weakening the city's defenses before the goblin attack

Deliberately performing an act which resulted in the weakening of the defenses? Yes. Deliberately weakening the defenses? No. From her point of view, the strength of the defenses before she killed Shojo was 0, since he was in league with Xykon.


AND accidentally saving Xykon. She might be the nail in the horseshoe which results in the Dark One gaining control of the Snarl.

Key word accidental, and with the amount of abjurations on Xykon's phylactery, I'm not sure he would have been finished anyway.


I'm not sure that's "less evil" than killing 63(?) presumably evil Dragons.

We see 63 or so, but there are more. She killed about a quarter of Black Dragonkind.


Her "intent" might have been "good" by her own (very) twisted logic, but the 12 gods showed up and said it was in fact an evil act anyway.

Well, no, they showed up and said "You're a fricking idiot".

Rest of this post is stuff I've already responded to.

[RMcMurtry]

Miko murdered an unarmed old man, who had no abilities with magic or monk. One might be able to come up with a legal excuse or justification given that she had some reason to believe that he had betrayed the city. But IMO that's on the law/chaos axis, not good/evil. I don't see how killing a defenseless old man isn't an evil act.

[Dark Matter]

Yeah, just like selling your soul to devils looked like a reasonable course of action to save your children... Red Herring. We're talking about whether killing large numbers of dragons is evil, not about whether selling your soul is.

The problem with Familicide is it could easily end up killing creatures you don't want. But we don't see any non-Black Dragons die in the strip so that might not have occurred.

Whether or not Familicide (on Black Dragons) is evil depends on the DM, but by the default rules there's a very good chance that every one of them could have been individually slain by a Paladin without falling. I'm not sure how we jump for that to "it's evil".


I do not object that murdering Shojo was evil. But, Miko didn't thought that killing Shojo would weaken the defenses. Actually the opposite, since she belived he was in leage with Team Evil, killing him would strenghten the defensive capabilities of Azure City. Hinjo objected because, unlike Miko, he didn't belived his uncle to be in leage with the invaders.The question is whether her totally irrational and unreasonable beliefs are cover for her evil actions (which she was specifically warned about). The 12 gods say no.

There are all kinds of reasonable explanations which didn't involve killing the king, she just picked the explanation which let her do what she wanted and ignored all contrary evidence. She'd spent her entire life serving this guy and was less than happy to find out he was CG and not LG.

Yes, agreed, her act was a lot more evil than she wanted to believe. But that doesn't change that she did what she did and knew what she knew. Ignorance is a defense but willful selfish mis-belief is not. She's on the hook for weakening the city because she's on the hook for Shojo's murder.


Soon was on the other side of the room, and doesn't look like being shouting. When he spotted Miko, it was too late to stop her.It was too late to stop her the moment she decided to do it. This was a repeat of her earlier bit in the thrown room.


He even acknoweldes later that Miko did "adequately".While telling her flatly that she did NOT serve "the greater good".


Also note that Miko didn't knew that Soon was to be on the room. She didn't knew about the Ghost Spirits. So what? She saw Soon in the room fighting with Xykon. For that matter she also saw Xykon in peaces, and should have heard the massive Smite Evils he dropped on them.


Miko knew also that destroying the Gate was better than letting it fall into enemy hands. Her reasoning had very little to do with that and MUCH to do with "my special purpose as the chosen one of the 12 gods". Her sin was pride.


O'Chul also attemped to destroy the Gate. So, was O'Chul about to perform an Evil Act, and prevented from doing so only by Xykon's paralyzing touch? I don't think so.O'Chul wasn't trying to glorify himself and didn't rescue defeat from victory.


A "reasonable" person would have ran to destroy the Gate as soon as he entered the Throne Room. And *might* have only stopped if he had spotted Soon about to kill Xykon and Redcloack. It all depended on a spot check.Given that she had already seen Xykon, Redcloak, and Soon, a spot check wasn't needed. In one of the early panels we presumably see what she saw.

[Dark Matter]

From what Miko knew, Shojo was Evil (Undetectable Alignment or that "aristocrat-friendly prestige class" means she couldn't trust Detect Evil) and failing to kill him would hand Azure City to the hobgoblins and cause the slaughter or slavery of all its inhabitants. Given that the Azurites had a decent chance against the hobbos in that battle, some chance of avoiding defeat was better than none.This is amazingly generous and she doesn't seem at all cold blooded or making a rational choice. She's seriously outraged and pissed that she's been lied to.

Her act was fundamentally one of wrath and pride, not a rational calculation for the sake of the greater good. Let's quote Roy here: "Miko... ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that happens to support her existing emotional state." http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html


The evil from that act was accidental. Said "hunch" included a fairly large pile of circumstantial evidence which I've already provided, and there was clearly not enough time to gather much more information before the army arrived and Shojo (according to her appraisal of the situation) betrayed the city.Rich called it "a glorified hunch" http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21


The 12 gods show up when someone fluffs it as badly as Miko did. I'm not disputing that killing Shojo was a massive failure of judgement and not something a paladin should have been doing anyway. I'm disputing its Evilness.Take self-delusion off the table and it looks pretty evil.


Deliberately performing an act which resulted in the weakening of the defenses? Yes. Deliberately weakening the defenses? No. From her point of view, the strength of the defenses before she killed Shojo was 0, since he was in league with Xykon.Again, look at Roy's quote, then take willful self-delusion off the table and look at what she did in her rage.


Key word accidental, and with the amount of abjurations on Xykon's phylactery, I'm not sure he would have been finished anyway.If Miko hadn't screwed up? Soon gives the order: "Miko, take this to the prison cells with the AMF and break it."

Further she half killed RC earlier without Soon or the others. If she'd gone after RC the fight would have been pretty much over right there.


We see 63 or so, but there are more. She killed about a quarter of Black Dragonkind.Meaning that there were about 250 Black Dragons in total. This means that there are thousands of dragons (all 10 colors) in total.

Given that dragons are pretty solitary and don't play well with others, I don't see how the world has room for tens or hundreds of thousands of dragons.

[The Pilgrim]

Red Herring. We're talking about whether killing large numbers of dragons is evil, not about whether selling your soul is.

As some people has mentioned, killing evil beings just for being evil is an evil act. Bonus points if you are not even sure that the beigns are evil to begin with.


While telling her flatly that she did NOT serve "the greater good"..

Actually, no, he does not tell her that.

He tells her that she had done adequately, and that she had executed her duty. He tells her also that her actions were not enough to be redeemed as a Paladin. But he never tells her she had not served the greater good.


Her reasoning had very little to do with that and MUCH to do with "my special purpose as the chosen one of the 12 gods". Her sin was pride.

Actually, if you pay some attention to the relevant comic strips, you should notice that Miko's main selfish aim after murdering Shojo is to kill the OTTS. When she gets out of jail, her declared aim is to go after the OOTS in order to punish those she made responsible of her fall.

However, when she heards the Lich's voice in the Throne room, she discards going after the OOTS and goes to fulfill her duty.

Given the amount of hate she had towards the OOTS, the fact that she was willing to self-sacrifice on the throne room, thus preventing her from taking revenge of the Order, is quite a sign that she was not being all that selfish as you arge.

Still, Miko got a ticket to travel with the Paladin Spirits who were returning to the celestian realm. It's unlikely that the Paladins, and specially Soon, would lower themselves to travel alongside an evil spirit. And her celestial mount was going to be able to visit her. So chances are good that she made it to the LG afterlife.

[hamishspence]

The problem with Familicide is it could easily end up killing creatures you don't want. But we don't see any non-Black Dragons die in the strip so that might not have occurred.

We see three creatures that aren't Black Dragons- one in armour, one that looks part-centaur, and one smallish creature in robes.

Half-black dragons (going by the MM) are only Often Chaotic Evil, if they are human in other half. Creatures more Good than humans, might be even less likely to be chaotic evil if they are half-black dragon.

Not to mention the fact that the spell killed baby dragons, and dragons still in the egg- those ones would not have had time to do anything evil.

[magic9mushroom]

This is amazingly generous and she doesn't seem at all cold blooded or making a rational choice. She's seriously outraged and pissed that she's been lied to.

Yes, she is, but she shows the capacity for at least some reasoning, otherwise she wouldn't have brought up the possibility (and this actually isn't deluded) that Shojo and the OOTS would rig Shojo's trial.


Her act was fundamentally one of wrath and pride, not a rational calculation for the sake of the greater good. Let's quote Roy here: "Miko... ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that happens to support her existing emotional state." http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html

Roy is not omniscient, and neither is he an impartial judge.


Rich called it "a glorified hunch" http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

Well, I have no clue what Rich means by that. Additionally, I mostly subscribe to the "Death of the Author (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor)" school of thought - with the notable exception of "meta" concepts, such as the question in that post of whether SoD is "according to Redcloak" or "Omniscient View".

What I can see is a pile of stuff from Shojo, Roy and Xykon that made Miko's interpretation of the situation, if not her actions, entirely justified.

I mean, did we forget "I went through a lot of trouble to get you here to Azure City behind the collective backs of my loyal paladins... I'd hate to think all those perfectly good lies were for naught."?


Take Miko's lack of omniscience off the table and it looks pretty evil.

Fixed.


Again, look at Roy's quote, then take willful self-delusion off the table and look at what she did in her rage.

What did she do? She killed Shojo, fought Roy (who attacked her first), tried to kill Belkar (which I'd personally chuck in the "Good act" bin, or at worst Neutral), and then resisted arrest by Hinjo... this last is definitely Evil, actually. The Good thing to do would be to run from Hinjo, not attack him.


If Miko hadn't screwed up? Soon gives the order: "Miko, take this to the prison cells with the AMF and break it."

Entirely possible the phylactery had anti-AMF defenses, but you have a point. Also, I believe the prison was crawling with hobgoblins by this point.


Further she half killed RC earlier without Soon or the others. If she'd gone after RC the fight would have been pretty much over right there.

Well, yes. So? The Gate was still going to have to be destroyed in the end, given the huge hobgoblin army occupying the city. She was just a little hasty in doing it.


Meaning that there were about 250 Black Dragons in total. This means that there are thousands of dragons (all 10 colors) in total.

Given that dragons are pretty solitary and don't play well with others, I don't see how the world has room for tens or hundreds of thousands of dragons.

Eh, I'm not very sure about that. Planets are pretty big, you know. You really think they take up a million times the personal space of people?

[LuisDantas]

Soon told Miko that Windstriker would visit her as much as it could. It's unlikely that her horse could do so unless she were bound for the LG afterlife. So I might be closer to the "canon strips" than you are with your veredict that she is bound to the True Neutral afterlife. :smallwink:

Why do you think so? Soon's statement was quite vague. If anything, he implied that Windstriker (as LG an animal as they come) would have to travel from another afterlife to Miko's. Not even that, really, since there was no claim that Windstriker would be capable of visiting at all. "As much as he could" may well be not at all.


Your analysis on Miko's motivation during the Battle is on the same line than Girard's analysis on Soon's true nature. And yet, despite being judged as a facist leader by Girard, Soon is still in the Celestial Realm.

Again, I simply don't see where you come from.


Miko was driven by her duty, a duty to serve the Greater Good.

As long as that did not clash with her deep psychological need to feel self-important. She is a tragic figure, but not a good-aligned one. Or even a lawful-aligned, for that matter.


Sure, she grew more and more deluded and self-centered about it. But still, she choose to pursue it, despite having other options like fleeing the City like all the other criminals in the block did. And she choose the supreme sacrifice.

... of proudly claiming to be The Chosen One of the Twelve Gods. Sorry, does not compute.


Sure, she had quite an Ego fueling her, but who doesn't?

Durkon, Roy, Elan, Haley, Hinjo, O-Chul, for starters. Even Vaarsuvius could teach Miko humility (and did).


She died while serving the Greater Good anyway.

Except that she did not. Even Soon had to clarify that only on a technicality that could even be claimed - and come to think of it, Soon did not have the full story.


So, Miko, not as good as Soon was, he failed as a Paladin after all. But, still, maybe good enough for the LG afterlife.

Soon did not fail as a Paladin. In fact, he was a Paladin even in the afterlife.

[LuisDantas]

Miko wasn't really insane or deluded until the events of the strip itself, and I don't really see many morally questionable acts of hers ("They were Evil, so I killed them!" being the only one I can think of) prior to killing Shojo.

The personality that Miko shows make a very strong case for her being deluded all the while. She thinks of herself as LG material, which she isn't.

Her first questionable act (which Roy called her upon even) was misleading the Ogres that threatened the dirt farmers when she challenged them into combat. Then there is her general callousness, with only lip service to her supposedly high ideals. And finally, there is the way her behavior and morals nosedived after Vaarsuvius challenged her during her battle with Belkar in Azure City.

By the time she learned of Shojo's deception her talk was that of a common thug with delusions of grandeur. Just re-read her speech to Hinjo.


How so? Miko wasn't nice in any way, shape or form, but she was wholly devoted to her city and the cause of good (dirt farmers, remember?).

Yes, I do. That was when she began to show her true colors.


She screwed up majorly upon fluffing a judgement call, once, but that's really about it in the moral sense.

See above.


The evil from that act was accidental.

So you are claiming that the 12 Gods punished her because she accidentally screwed up? That sound incredibly callous from them. Or it would, had I not seen the strips.


Said "hunch" included a fairly large pile of circumstantial evidence which I've already provided, and there was clearly not enough time to gather much more information before the army arrived and Shojo (according to her appraisal of the situation) betrayed the city.

There was no reason to go all the way and kill Shojo on the spot, either. No reason, that is, except her pride-driven insanity.

[RMcMurtry]

Still, Miko got a ticket to travel with the Paladin Spirits who were returning to the celestian realm. It's unlikely that the Paladins, and specially Soon, would lower themselves to travel alongside an evil spirit. And her celestial mount was going to be able to visit her. So chances are good that she made it to the LG afterlife.

What Soon said was that the paladin spirits were returning to the celestial realm, and that they would, "Usher you to your destination as well", and that she would see her horse again, who would "visit as often as he is able". He never actually says she would be accompanying the paladins to the LG afterlife. His actual words, I think, suggest that they're simply going to make sure she gets where she's supposed to go...which isn't where they're going. An LG celestial mount might well be summoned to give evidence at the determination of her fate (so she'd see the horse), and might be able to visit the afterlife of another alignment occasionally. I don't think Miko's actions dropped her all the way to evil. I do think they probably dropped her into a Neutral alignment.

[The Pilgrim]

What Soon said was that the paladin spirits were returning to the celestial realm, and that they would, "Usher you to your destination as well", and that she would see her horse again, who would "visit as often as he is able". He never actually says she would be accompanying the paladins to the LG afterlife. His actual words, I think, suggest that they're simply going to make sure she gets where she's supposed to go...which isn't where they're going. An LG celestial mount might well be summoned to give evidence at the determination of her fate (so she'd see the horse), and might be able to visit the afterlife of another alignment occasionally. I don't think Miko's actions dropped her all the way to evil. I do think they probably dropped her into a Neutral alignment.

We know that in the OOTS universe you are not allowed to cross from one afterlife to another. When Roy died, Elan said they would not meet in the afterlife since they had not the same alignment.

So makes sense that if Windstriker is allowed to visit Miko "as much as he can" (wich reads as "many times, on his own will" in my dictionary), is because they'll be both in the LG plane.

About Soon, yep, what he said does imply that Miko is going somewhere else, since Soon is going straight to the Celestial Realm and Miko had, at a minimum, to stand trial first in the cloud plane. Of course, the place where they were "ushering" her is open to interpretation, but wouldn't make much sense that a legendary Paladin and his companions would escort the spirit of a fallen paladin, on a day were thousand azurites died in battle, if they were not going in the same, or similar, direction.

[hamishspence]

He never actually says she would be accompanying the paladins to the LG afterlife. His actual words, I think, suggest that they're simply going to make sure she gets where she's supposed to go...which isn't where they're going. An LG celestial mount might well be summoned to give evidence at the determination of her fate (so she'd see the horse), and might be able to visit the afterlife of another alignment occasionally. I don't think Miko's actions dropped her all the way to evil. I do think they probably dropped her into a Neutral alignment.

Seems possible.

Were her actions Chaotic enough to move her to the True Neutral afterlife, or even one of the three Chaotic Neutral afterlives?

Harder to say.

If not, there are three afterlives for the Lawful Neutral- Arcadia (LN leaning toward LG) Mechanus (LN) and Acheron (LN, leaning to LE)

Interestingly, from Jirix's description, The Dark One's home plane sounds like Acheron.

Acheron allows non-LN alignments in if they worship deities that reside there. For example, in core D&D, both the goblin and orc gods (NE to CE) reside in Acheron.

[The Pilgrim]

The personality that Miko shows make a very strong case for her being deluded all the while. She thinks of herself as LG material, which she isn't.

That's false. Miko was LG material for most of her life, because otherwise she would have won the Beige robes much sooner than the last 24h of her life.

However, being LG does not necessary mean you are a nice person. You can be unsimpathetic, self-centered, and so many more impairing personal traits, and still be LG.

You mistake LG with being a saint, wich it is not.


Why do you think so? Soon's statement was quite vague. If anything, he implied that Windstriker (as LG an animal as they come) would have to travel from another afterlife to Miko's. Not even that, really, since there was no claim that Windstriker would be capable of visiting at all. "As much as he could" may well be not at all.

Crossing afterlifes is barren in the OOTS universe, we know it as a fact. What it implied is that Windstriker, being a creature in service of the celestial Gods, would have other tasks and wouldn't be able to be 24/7 with Miko. But, still, the claim implies that Windstriker was going to be able to visit her, a lot.


Except that she did not. Even Soon had to clarify that only on a technicality that could even be claimed - and come to think of it, Soon did not have the full story.

Soon said:

"You have done... adequately. By destroying my Gate, you have ensured that it can no longer be used for Evil Purposes. You have fulfilled your oath to defend this one gate... technicaly. Had you been less hasty, however, I might have ended Xykon's threat permanently".

So, Soon tells Miko she has been... hasty. Not selfish, not deluded, not acting to feed her ego. Soon acknoweldes Miko had been doing her duty, and seems to understand that the Gate had to be destroyed anyway since the city fell into hobgoblin hands. He only laments that Miko was too hasty and he couldn't kill Xykon and Redcloack first.

It's also unlikely that Soon would have lost a minute giving relief words to Miko, if she had been as bad as a person as you claim.

[hamishspence]

Crossing afterlifes is barren in the OOTS universe, we know it as a fact.

We know that Elan thinks, that neither he nor Roy will be able to see each other.

This does not guarantee that servants of the deities cannot cross from one afterlife to another. Windstriker is a celestial steed, not a soul in the afterlife- he may not be bound by the same limitations.

That's if Elan's beliefs on the afterlife are correct.

Also- Word Of Giant in War & XPs is that Miko's fall wasn't just that event- it was the culmination of a long trend of not very LG behaviour. Being too quick on the draw- finding the technicalities in her alignment, rather than the spirit, etc.

[RMcMurtry]

We know that in the OOTS universe you are not allowed to cross from one afterlife to another. When Roy died, Elan said they would not meet in the afterlife since they had not the same alignment.

So makes sense that if Windstriker is allowed to visit Miko "as much as he can" (wich reads as "many times, on his own will" in my dictionary), is because they'll be both in the LG plane.

About Soon, yep, what he said does imply that Miko is going somewhere else, since Soon is going straight to the Celestial Realm and Miko had, at a minimum, to stand trial first in the cloud plane. Of course, the place where they were "ushering" her is open to interpretation, but wouldn't make much sense that a legendary Paladin and his companions would escort the spirit of a fallen paladin, on a day were thousand azurites died in battle, if they were not going in the same, or similar, direction.

A mortal soul might not be able to. (Then again, the source for this is Elan, who's concept of how things work isn't the most reliable.) Windstriker, though, is a celestial horse, who regularly travelled between the Prime and the heavens. He's a native of the upper planes, so he might very well be able to go to different ones.

I can easily see them ushering her someplace. This is Miko. If they don't get her where she's supposed to be, she might hang around as a ghost, angry that she didn't get into the celestial realm where she thought she belonged.

[Dark Matter]

I'm going to 2nd what LuisDantas said and just address some of the side issues.


As some people has mentioned, killing evil beings just for being evil is an evil act. Bonus points if you are not even sure that the beings are evil to begin with.Normally we only apply that concept to creatures that are NOT "always evil". Demons and intelligent undead are assumed to be a problem even before they start killing people. It's awkward but Dragons have the same rating.

We see three creatures that aren't Black Dragons- one in armour, one that looks part-centaur, and one smallish creature in robes. Half-black dragons (going by the MM) are only Often Chaotic Evil, if they are human in other half. The "smallish creature" might be a big dragon in big robes. But this is exactly why that spell is risky. I'll add to that list the issue that some/many Sorcerers trace their bloodline back to dragons.

Not to mention the fact that the spell killed baby dragons, and dragons still in the egg- those ones would not have had time to do anything evil.The moment they hatch they're CE, CR3, and can fly. Is it a "good" action to put a stake through the heart of a corpse before he has the chance to rise as a vampire?

Roy is not omniscient, and neither is he an impartial judge.It sounded to me like he was speaking for the author.

Well, yes. So? The Gate was still going to have to be destroyed in the end, given the huge hobgoblin army occupying the city. She was just a little hasty in doing it.Kill Xykon, RC, and make sure RC can't be raised and walk away with the red cloak and everything basically falls apart. There's no Cloister to hold back the elves (etc). Even if the goblins somehow deal with Soon (and why should they bother taking the thrown room without Xykon and RC around to order them to do so) the only bad thing they can actually do there is destroy the gem.

Eh, I'm not very sure about that. Planets are pretty big, you know. You really think [Dragons] take up a million times the personal space of people?I think we see *one* dragon (or dragon family) in an entire forest or set of moutains. That's probably more like 100,000 the personal space of people, but then we also have millions of humans, elves, and other races running around. Thousands of dragons is all ready a big number with those limitations.

[hamishspence]

Normally we only apply that concept to creatures that are NOT "always evil". Demons and intelligent undead are assumed to be a problem even before they start killing people. It's awkward but Dragons have the same rating.

In BoVD. In BoED, however, it qualifies them as a slightly lower rating. Whereas fiends are "best slain, or at least banished" chromatic dragons are "not entirely beyond salvation, but there is only the barest glimmer of hope".



The "smallish creature" might be a big dragon in big robes.

No visible wings, and it lacks the large white claws that the other dragons have, on its hands and feet.


I think we see *one* dragon (or dragon family) in an entire forest or set of moutains. That's probably more like 100,000 the personal space of people, but then we also have millions of humans, elves, and other races running around. Thousands of dragons is all ready a big number with those limitations.

Populations of less than a thousand creatures are ones in danger of extinction- too small a gene pool.

Though this may not apply in fantasy.


A mortal soul might not be able to. (Then again, the source for this is Elan, who's concept of how things work isn't the most reliable.) Windstriker, though, is a celestial horse, who regularly travelled between the Prime and the heavens. He's a native of the upper planes, so he might very well be able to go to different ones.

Plus, the Twelve Gods may not all reside on the same plane. Rat, for example, is described as one of The Dark One's few allies, in SoD.

Just as Moradin and Clangeddin, despite both being LG members of the dwarven pantheon, reside on different planes in Manual of the Planes (Arcadia for Clanggedin, Celestia for Moradin) so the Twelve Gods, despite being one pantheon, may reside on different planes.

And yet still, as a pantheon, have servants who serve the pantheon as a whole.

[The Pilgrim]

Even if the goblins somehow deal with Soon (and why should they bother taking the thrown room without Xykon and RC around to order them to do so) the only bad thing they can actually do there is destroy the gem.

They can actually do a lot more, since as soon as Redcloack dies, the Mantle, alongside ALL the necessary knowelde about The Plan and The Ritual, would pass on the hands of any of the many thousand hobbos present in the city.

Preferably Jyrix.

[Dark Matter]

In BoVD. In BoED, however, it qualifies them as a slightly lower rating. Whereas fiends are "best slain, or at least banished" chromatic dragons are "not entirely beyond salvation, but there is only the barest glimmer of hope". With conflicting source books (and thus disagreement among the developers), it comes down to DM's choice.


No visible wings, and it lacks the large white claws that the other dragons have, on its hands and feet.Ah, point. OK then, 3.


Populations of less than a thousand creatures are ones in danger of extinction- too small a gene pool. Though this may not apply in fantasy.Presumably if the rules allow for dragons breeding with humans, we're not following genetic laws very closely. :smallwink:

[Alysar]

It is possible that he's in the waiting room of the LG afterlife because he hasn't been judged by a deva yet - the deva who judges Roy said that she had the power to "throw him in the True Neutral bin", if his record shows that this is his true alignment. Maybe people go to an afterlife according to what they think their alignment is, and the devas verify it and send them elsewhere if they've been deluded.

That's what I would probably go with. When either Roy or Julia (which is a possibility) finally destroys Xykon, I think Eugene is in for a surprise.

[magic9mushroom]

The personality that Miko shows make a very strong case for her being deluded all the while. She thinks of herself as LG material, which she isn't.

What. Um, ok...


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Let's list all Miko's appearances and what she did up to her Fall.

Strip 120: She tells Shojo that "her blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible" for destroying the Redmountain Gate. This is a little on the harsh side, but destroying Gates is rather obviously not good for the world. This definitely shows her Lawful side, but is hazy on the Good side.

Strip 174: She gets told about the OotS blowing up the castle, gets a bad description from the blacksmith making it sound like Elan and Roy had kidnapped him, gets told about Belkar's bloodthirst, and comforts the (weasel?) with the knowledge that she's been sent to kill Roy on behalf of her master. Sounds pretty LG to me.

Strip 189: Gathers information about the OotS from Samantha and her father, refuses to play along with Samantha's delusions of grandeur, kills Samantha after Samantha attacks her, kills Samantha's father after he also attacks her, complains about it being a tragedy. Citing that she already has a master is quite Lawful, and being sad about the deaths of two strangers who tried to kill her is eminently Good.

Strip 200: Comes upon the Order of the Stick, lays out her purpose there, and asks them to surrender, albeit quite tersely. Upon Roy's angry refusal, attacks the party. Shows disdain for Sneak Attacks and other "dirty fighting". Calls Roy an "evildoer", and lays out why she's executing Roy before attempting it. Very obviously Lawful, and shows that she certainly believes she's doing right.

Strip 201: Backs off and listens to Durkon once she's not in danger anymore, allowing Durkon to heal Roy. Looks pretty Good to me.

Strip 202: Thanks Durkon for his aid, is frustrated at Belkar for blocking Detect Evil. No real alignment stuff here that I can see.

Strip 203: Having discovered that the OotS is not Evil, arrests them as she was originally ordered to do. Tells them the charges when asked. The former is obviously Lawful, the latter is Non-Evil - she chooses to.

Strip 204: Does nothing of note beyond revealing her name, in full. Looks pretty Lawful.

Strip 206: Admits she didn't expect compliance from the OotS. Nothing alignment-related.

Strip 207: Is shocked at the OotS's wealth, and is frightened they may have gotten it by slaying a metallic dragon. Looks Good to me.

Strip 208: Expresses suspicion of the halfling (geez, wonder why?), and demonstrates the kind of mentality that would point to LN or LG.

Strip 209: Is dismissive of Roy's flattery. Also gets a little cranky about the Order mistakenly assuming she's got levels in Samurai. Selflessness is generally considered Good. Crankiness shows she's not 100% perfect.

Strip 211: Shows her devotion to the cause of Good (this being both a Lawful act and a Good act) by immediately agreeing to help the woman in need.

Strip 212: Notes that it's "smite evil", not "bump uglies", showing that what she cares about is the character of those she kills, not whether they look pretty or not. Racism is Evil, and she doesn't fall into it.

Strip 213: Prefers to Track the ogres herself, but is willing to defer if there's a better tracker, and is willing to make absolutely sure she's better before starting. Vaguely Lawful.

Strip 214: The ogres. Yeah, um, her insistence on not being dishonorable is a huge pointer towards Lawful, and a bit towards Good.

Strip 215: She shows an awareness of tactics. Covered below, I don't really think this is Chaotic or Evil so much as smart. She made the speech because she meant it, the easy fight that resulted was just a plus. She then is a little annoyed at the OotS's stereotyping misconceptions, which is understandable.

Strip 219: Offers to heal Roy. Pretty simply Good.

Strip 220: Is upset at V's arrogance. Wonder why?

Strip 223: Expects others to behave as exemplarily as she does. Unrealistic, but certainly not Evil.

Strip 224: Gets preachy about not giving in to gluttony and corruption. Yeah, um, this is technically Good, as she's trying to encourage Good in others. Anal? Yes.

Strip 225: Gets screwed into paying for the OotS's luxury, and yet still won't pay for any luxuries for herself. Good to the hilt.

Strip 227: Gets upset about the removal of mattress tags. Lawful Stupid. Agreed.

Strip 228: Accepts the injunction against her, and annoyed by the frivolous lawsuit. Lawful and human, respectively.

Strip 238: Wants to get the patrons out. Looks Good to me.

Strip 243: Comes back into the burning building to rescue the helpless. Yeah, um, classic Superman Lawful Good.

Strip 246: Apparently forgives Vaarsuvius for her hateful comments. Good.

Strip 250: Gives the OotS a not-entirely-deserved-but-not-entirely-undeserved lecture about karma, shows forgiveness to Roy. The latter is certainly Good, the former has Good intentions. Her comment about having to keep an eye on them is Lawful.

Strip 251: Gets lambasted, attempts to pull rank by virtue of being a samurai, then takes Roy up on his offer to drag the OotS to Shojo in chains. Obviously Lawful, the pulling of rank is not particularly Good.

Strip 261: Orders Belkar to be put in solitary confinement, because he literally asks for it. Nothing wrong with that. It's actually Good, because it would have been more expedient not to have him by himself.

Strip 264: Is suspicious of the Order having apparently picked the locks, but is reassured by Durkon's word. Lawful.

Strip 265: Doesn't think Hinjo should be "fraternising" with the prisoners. Lawful, and not particularly Good.

Strip 270: Well, this is an odd one. She gives in to Belkar's baiting that she not be healed, because he questions her honor and asks to be shown it. It's definitely Lawful, that's obvious.

Strip 279: Fights Belkar.

Strip 281: Deliberately attempts to check Belkar's Evil before killing him. This is a Good act, obviously. She's making sure that she only kills Evil people.

Strip 284: Stabs Belkar, who she's been fighting.

Strip 285: Is disgusted at the OotS's defense of Belkar (as any decent person would be). And then stops fighting them upon Shojo's command. The latter is Lawful, obviously.

Strip 290: It's revealed why she was hostile to the Order of the Stick - Shojo lied to her.

Strip 298: Prays to her Gods to help her serve the Sapphire Guard better. Lawful Good.

Strip 368: Tries to help out the tower folk who are having ration trouble. Good act.

Strip 369: Attempts to kill Redcloak, a known Bad Guy. Notably is worried about the Gate. The latter is Good.

Strip 370: Attempts to kill the "foul priest of evil". Doubt anyone would disagree with that?

Strip 371: Oh dear. This is where things start to go off the rails. Let's see. Miko shows her ignorance of Redcloak's past... and then draws the wrong conclusion about the OotS (with a fair bit of reasoning). Neither of these really have much bearing on alignment, though.

Strip 372: Refuses to beg for mercy. Lawful.

Strip 373: Aforementioned reasoning. She then manhandles a demon roach, but only as much as necessary. The prayer is quite LG.

Strip 374: She attacks the MitD. Sure, the MitD is almost certainly non-Evil, but it was refusing to let her pass even after she'd listed why it should get out of the way, and appeared to be a minion of Xykon. I'll admit that this is when she starts to go off the rails. In the same strip though, she does express a desire to "hurry back and save Windstriker", which is Good.

Strip 375: Nothing of note.

Strip 405: Nothing of note.

Strip 406: Let's see. She waits out the first bit of the discussion, then jumps in once Hinjo mentions the courts. Then she puts two and three together and gets five. (Yes, I murdered that metaphor. But whatever.) She hears Shojo complaining about the paladins and generally acting like a stereotypical villain, sees a connection with the OotS (who didn't kill Xykon, leaving an open question as to why the Gate got blown up, and who also were suspicious due to their defense of Belkar) and Xykon, and acts on it. Her execution of Shojo is a Chaotic Good act, but is a gross violation of her Paladin's Code...

Strip 407: Causing her to Fall.

Phew...

Now, given that that's our reference pool to draw from, her actions seem to be overwhelmingly Lawful (with the exception of Shojo's execution) and overwhelmingly Good (with a couple of minor exceptions).

Miko Miyazaki certainly looks Lawful Good to me.


Her first questionable act (which Roy called her upon even) was misleading the Ogres that threatened the dirt farmers when she challenged them into combat.

She didn't mislead them. Her insistence that they be ready to fight was genuine, and allowing someone to commit tactical suicide is not Evil (unless you claim having a brain is Evil).


Then there is her general callousness, with only lip service to her supposedly high ideals.

I dispute this. I see one or two minor instances of the above in the 50+ strips she appears in. See above.


And finally, there is the way her behavior and morals nosedived after Vaarsuvius challenged her during her battle with Belkar in Azure City.

I'm really not seeing it. Sure, she's a lot more ready to consider the OotS Evil. Why wouldn't she be?


By the time she learned of Shojo's deception her talk was that of a common thug with delusions of grandeur. Just re-read her speech to Hinjo.

Oh, come on. Please provide quotes to illustrate this point, otherwise it's hardly worth a response.


Yes, I do. That was when she began to show her true colors.

To quote Lien: "Good, not Dumb."


See above.

See above. :smalltongue:


So you are claiming that the 12 Gods punished her because she accidentally screwed up?

Because she grossly violated her Paladin's Oath.


That sound incredibly callous from them. Or it would, had I not seen the strips.

Which I've so neatly summarised. :smallsmile:


There was no reason to go all the way and kill Shojo on the spot, either. No reason, that is, except her pride-driven insanity.

Miko's hardly prideful up to there, is she? I just went through all those strips again, and I saw maybe a couple of instances of being pleased with herself. Are there strips I missed or something where she acts like a fiend? :smalltongue:

She was wrong, we all know that, but from the knowledge she had killing him before he could betray them any more seemed like the best option.

@Dark Matter: I just spent about 3 hours rereading the comic for the above list, I'll get to you tomorrow.

[The Pilgrim]

Also- Word Of Giant in War & XPs is that Miko's fall wasn't just that event- it was the culmination of a long trend of not very LG behaviour. Being too quick on the draw- finding the technicalities in her alignment, rather than the spirit, etc.

Wich is why this comic strip is great. Rich puts some deep in his characters, who are not just one-dimensional lunatics doing things for the fun of it, he plays with causes and consecuences, etc... that's why Miko's fall, like V's later on, is Epic; because it has been carefully set up, with a logic linked to the character's past actions. Not everyone is an inept writer like George Lucas.

Still, characters are allowed to slip from their alignment. Only Paladins lose class features for it. Roy slips out of LG behaviour a lot of times - he even has associated himself with an Evil character! - but still makes it to the LG afterlife.

[hamishspence]

With conflicting source books (and thus disagreement among the developers), it comes down to DM's choice.

Newer sources override old ones, and 3.5 sources override 3.0.

Monte Cook's BoVD is a 3.0 book- and Monte Cook is a 3.0 developer that left the company when 3.5 came out.

James Wyatt's BoED is a 3.5 book.

So- when BoVD called chromatic dragons "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"- it was overridden.

4E continued the trend, emphasising that not all chromatic dragons were evil in the 4E Draconomicon.

[Dark Matter]

That is a very fine point to try to dance around when 3.5 still calls them "always evil" (although it was fixed in Pathfinder which is basically 3.75).

This is a basic rules conflict, and the problem is that of math. Assume 250 Black Dragons. At least 99% are CE. If 3 of them aren't CE, then the entire species isn't "always evil". And that's just CE; LE or NE count as part of the 1%

If a group of good adventurers finds three eggs, then the DM has a choice. Either black dragons right out of the egg aren't redeemable or the species isn't always evil.

[Dark Matter]

They can actually do a lot more, since as soon as Redcloack dies, the Mantle, alongside ALL the necessary knowelde about The Plan and The Ritual, would pass on the hands of any of the many thousand hobbos present in the city. Preferably Jyrix.I did mention the good guys walking off with the red cloak. AMF wouldn't effect it... although I suppose it could be thrown into the rift (which admittedly wouldn't exist in the scenario that Miko should have created).

In addition, with RC and X dead, team evil also loses T and perhaps even MitD. Thus no Black Squad, no "greater undead", and no high level backup for the goblins when the city attracts high level adventurers. They might not even have raise dead or any goblins above 3rd level. It's not even clear that RC has told his fellow goblins that if anything happens to him they should put on the red cloak, or more importantly why.

Scry and Die works so well because after the big bad is dead, you might as well put a fork in the minions.

[hamishspence]

This is a basic rules conflict, and the problem is that of math. Assume 250 Black Dragons. At least 99% are CE. If 3 of them aren't CE, then the entire species isn't "always evil". And that's just CE; LE or NE count as part of the 1%

Nope- the fact that they are born evil has no bearing on how many have been redeemed.

The description under Alignment in the MM, for "Always X alignment"- clarifies that the creature is born X alignment and exceptions to this are very rare.

However, this doesn't mean that they cannot be redeemed.

You could redeem most of the species, and the statement "Always Chaotic Evil"- would still be valid- because this only refers to the alignment they're born with, not their potential to change.

The "redemption via diplomacy" rules in BoED, work on Always X Evil creatures (but not creatures with the Evil subtype.)

As it happens, there are some of those with Usually Evil in their description (cambions from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits)- but, ruleswise, it's impossible for a PC to redeem them- so they basically have to redeem themselves.

So- Chromatic Dragons. Born evil? Yes. Irredeemable? No.

[Dark Matter]

Nope- the fact that they are born evil has no bearing on how many have been redeemed.

The description under Alignment in the MM, for "Always X alignment"- clarifies that the creature is born X alignment and exceptions to this are very rare.I don't have the MM for 3.5. You're saying that tries to overrule this...

Alignment

This line gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm

[hamishspence]

The SRD is stripped-down, it often misses out useful explanatory text.

The MM, immediately after that line, explains what "Always X" "Usually X" "Often X" actually mean:

Always X- the creature is born with that alignment- it is possible for individuals to change alignment.

Usually X- The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the listed alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creature's origin.

Often X- the creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have that alignment, but exceptions are common.

[Dark Matter]

Hmm.......

[Kish]

Tries to? The SRD for the Monster Manual is based on the Monster Manual, not the other way around.

[hamishspence]

It may be, that its 3.0/3.5, that is unusual among D&D editions in having all chromatic dragons be Always X evil.

In the Holmes Basic D&D set, 4 types of dragon were statted out- three of which having two alignments listed, not one.

White Dragon: Neutral/chaotic evil
Black Dragon: Chaotic evil/neutral
Red Dragon: Chaotic evil
Brass Dragon: Chaotic good/neutral

Hmm. Maybe 4E's change, isn't a retcon, but resurrecting an old idea of how dragon alignment worked?

[Gitman00]

On Familicide:

A major theme of the Darth Vaarsuvius arc is to deconstruct the attitude of the typical adventurer, i.e. "If it's a monster/evil, I can kill it with impunity."

Familicide was unquestionably evil, but the point is that if that spell is evil, then so is any random adventurer wandering into a dragon's cave to slay it for its treasure hoard. Familicide is the very same act, merely scaled up. The ancient dragon is given a believable motivation for hunting down V, and we're shown that monsters, even evil ones, can grieve over their loved ones.

Another theme is escalation. Vaarsuvius kills the young adult dragon, so the mother goes after V's family, so V wipes out every single dragon in her bloodline, which is bound to have dire consequences for V in the future.

...Wasn't this thread about Eugene? Yes, I'm aware of the irony that I'm perpetuating the topic drift.

[Dark Matter]

Tries to? The SRD for the Monster Manual is based on the Monster Manual, not the other way around. That's the odd part considering what the SRD says.

The ancient dragon is given a believable motivation for hunting down V, and we're shown that monsters, even evil ones, can grieve over their loved ones.This is both great writing by Rich and entirely believable.

On Familicide: A major theme of the Darth Vaarsuvius arc is to deconstruct the attitude of the typical adventurer, i.e. "If it's a monster/evil, I can kill it with impunity."I don't have a problem with saying that our typical adventurer is wrong. Mama dragon is bound to be pissed off, etc.

However, in real life we wouldn't say "it can be killed with impunity"; We'd say "it should be killed regardless of the consequences. Even if mama dragon comes after and kills me and my family, mankind as a whole is better off."

Familicide was unquestionably evil, but the point is that if that spell is evil, then so is any random adventurer wandering into a dragon's cave to slay it for its treasure hoard. Familicide is the very same act, merely scaled up.The reverse is also true. If Black Dragons are a species that we actively want dead, and that we'd be better off (i.e. safer) if they were dead, then Familicide isn't an evil spell (although it'd still be seriously risky).

If we found out that Tigers are sentient and have always been sentient, and have always known that we're sentient, then I don't see how anything changes as long as they're willing to eat us. I fail to see why putting my children in danger is a "good" thing or why preventing them from being in danger should be called "evil". If your species is willing to eat my children, and powerful enough to do so, then by definition killing you and yours is "good".

The counter point to that is the young Black Dragon's diet seemed to be mostly corn, so maybe mama dragon had trained him to stay away from people. But I doubt most DMs take this route.

[RMcMurtry]

On Familicide:

A major theme of the Darth Vaarsuvius arc is to deconstruct the attitude of the typical adventurer, i.e. "If it's a monster/evil, I can kill it with impunity."

Familicide was unquestionably evil, but the point is that if that spell is evil, then so is any random adventurer wandering into a dragon's cave to slay it for its treasure hoard. Familicide is the very same act, merely scaled up. The ancient dragon is given a believable motivation for hunting down V, and we're shown that monsters, even evil ones, can grieve over their loved ones.

Another theme is escalation. Vaarsuvius kills the young adult dragon, so the mother goes after V's family, so V wipes out every single dragon in her bloodline, which is bound to have dire consequences for V in the future.

...Wasn't this thread about Eugene? Yes, I'm aware of the irony that I'm perpetuating the topic drift.

Yes. I'm not at all surprised it wandered. Miko did evil. V did evil. I'm not so sure that most of Eugene's actions were evil as they don't qualify as lawful or good.

[hamishspence]

The reverse is also true. If Black Dragons are a species that we actively want dead, and that we'd be better off (i.e. safer) if they were dead, then Familicide isn't an evil spell (although it'd still be seriously risky).

If we found out that Tigers are sentient and have always been sentient, and have always known that we're sentient, then I don't see how anything changes as long as they're willing to eat us. I fail to see why putting my children in danger is a "good" thing or why preventing them from being in danger should be called "evil". If your species is willing to eat my children, and powerful enough to do so, then by definition killing you and yours is "good".

And that's the issue- should an entire species be exterminated, because some (not all) members of that species, have eaten people?

There are ways to reduce, danger, without resorting to wholesale extermination.

Not to mention the issue of V's motive almost certainly not being

"reduce the danger to the sentient beings of the world"

but instead

"inflict emotional pain on the soul of Mama Dragon"

[Dark Matter]

And that's the issue- should an entire species be exterminated, because some (not all) members of that species, have eaten people?

There are ways to reduce, danger, without resorting to wholesale extermination.1st, what does "some" mean and what do the other Dragons do in such a case? The obvious answers are "DMs choice" and "probably nothing". That later answer is somewhat obnoxious because it means we're responsible for policing them.

2nd, we can tell the difference between the Dragons which aren't doing anything and the ones that are?

3rd, what does "reduce" mean when applied to a species that can fly and perhaps teleport?

Yes, there are things we could do, and should do, short of extermination... but I'm not sure that's AD&D.


Not to mention the issue of V's motive almost certainly not being "reduce the danger to the sentient beings of the world" but instead "inflict emotional pain on the soul of Mama Dragon"V's stated reason (one of them anyway) was concern that her other relations would continue the fight.

[Gitman00]

If we found out that Tigers are sentient and have always been sentient, and have always known that we're sentient, then I don't see how anything changes as long as they're willing to eat us. I fail to see why putting my children in danger is a "good" thing or why preventing them from being in danger should be called "evil". If your species is willing to eat my children, and powerful enough to do so, then by definition killing you and yours is "good".

The counter point to that is the young Black Dragon's diet seemed to be mostly corn, so maybe mama dragon had trained him to stay away from people. But I doubt most DMs take this route.

I mostly agree with your arguments, but that's a side issue here, since that's not what happened. The Order didn't go hunt down the dragon because it's an evil, predatory creature that must be destroyed for the good of man/elf/dwarfkind. They went looking for treasure, and killed the dragon because it was in the way. They never had any second thoughts about the morality of it because, y'know, "Color Coded For Your Convenience". Likewise with Vaarsuvius and Familicide, s/he wasn't trying to rid the world of an evil menace; s/he was out for selfish vengeance and didn't see a problem with it because of the "Always Chaotic Evil" thing.

As a side note, most people would also frown on exterminating tigers. Hunting them is still illegal, except in the rare case of a man-eater. :smallwink:

[LuisDantas]

That's false. Miko was LG material for most of her life, because otherwise she would have won the Beige robes much sooner than the last 24h of her life.

How would we know that? Her Paladin status was at least in part a privilege granted by the 12 Gods. I don't think we have clear evidence that they immediately deny such status to anyone who is not LG. Nor is there any other evidence that Miko was ever LG.


However, being LG does not necessary mean you are a nice person. You can be unsimpathetic, self-centered, and so many more impairing personal traits, and still be LG.

You mistake LG with being a saint, wich it is not.

I'll concede that I'm not particularly generous in labelling people LG, but my point remains.


Crossing afterlifes is barren in the OOTS universe, we know it as a fact.

Do we? The closest we've seen is Elan's stated belief that he will not meet Roy in the afterlife. That is not necessarily correct, nor does it necessarily imply that Windstriker would not be capable of visiting various afterlifes.


What it implied is that Windstriker, being a creature in service of the celestial Gods, would have other tasks and wouldn't be able to be 24/7 with Miko.

That is a possible reading of Soon's statement, I guess. But hardly the most natural. At the very least, it is not clearly stated.


But, still, the claim implies that Windstriker was going to be able to visit her, a lot.

"As much as possible" is not at all the same as "a lot".



So, Soon tells Miko she has been... hasty. Not selfish, not deluded, not acting to feed her ego.

Not making the claim is not the same as denying it. Particularly at a juncture that allowed little good to come from telling it to Miko's face.


Soon acknoweldes Miko had been doing her duty,

And immediately qualifies that statement with "technically", so there you have it.


and seems to understand that the Gate had to be destroyed anyway since the city fell into hobgoblin hands.

I simply don't see it. Soon had a good chance of defeating Redcloak and Xykon before Miko entered the scene. That alone makes the need for the Gate's destruction less than clear.


He only laments that Miko was too hasty and he couldn't kill Xykon and Redcloack first.

Don't we all?


It's also unlikely that Soon would have lost a minute giving relief words to Miko, if she had been as bad as a person as you claim.

Why do you think so? Soon is a Paladin. He dislikes pointless suffering.

[Dark Matter]

I mostly agree with your arguments, but that's a side issue here, since that's not what happened. The Order didn't go hunt down the dragon because it's an evil, predatory creature that must be destroyed for the good of man/elf/dwarfkind. They went looking for treasure, and killed the dragon because it was in the way. They never had any second thoughts about the morality of it because, y'know, "Color Coded For Your Convenience".They also never had the opportunity for first thoughts since they didn't even know it existed until they were in combat. Roy didn't get called up to task for it in Heaven. If it showed up on his chart then it showed up as good... which isn't a shock considering he's a LG fighter and it was a CE monster.


Likewise with Vaarsuvius and Familicide, s/he wasn't trying to rid the world of an evil menace; s/he was out for selfish vengeance and didn't see a problem with it because of the "Always Chaotic Evil" thing.The closest thing we get to an in character explanation is: “Had you simply attacked me, I would have left you dead. But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict. This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today’s events will never rise again to threaten them.”

(Then after the spell) “…Now no one will come to avenge your defeat. No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife. This-and no less-is the price of threatening my family.” (This is 639 and 640).

If every dragon out there is a menace just because it's a dragon (which is probably not the case in OOTS where Dragons can/will eat corn), then that'd put a different light on her actions. As it is her actions were presumably evil, but a lot less so than if she'd used that spell on a tribe of humans/elves/goblins/orcs.


As a side note, most people would also frown on exterminating tigers. Hunting them is still illegal, except in the rare case of a man-eater. :smallwink:It's "rare" only because we've already hunted them almost to extinction where they can get to us. If they could fly long distances (much less teleport) we'd be taking them more seriously.

[The Pilgrim]

How would we know that? Her Paladin status was at least in part a privilege granted by the 12 Gods. I don't think we have clear evidence that they immediately deny such status to anyone who is not LG.

Yes, we have. It's a game mechanic.

And since all the paladins we have seen in this comic are LG, we have no reason to think Rich has changed that rule for the OOTS "game world".


Nor is there any other evidence that Miko was ever LG.

We have a lot of those evidences, in the Strip. The fact that she was a Paladin, for starters. The fact that she was member of an organization of LG Paladins. The fact that her mount was a Celestial...

magic9mushroom also made a list of Miko's actions in the comic (post 186 in this same page of this same thread). Most of them show a LG actitude.




I'll concede that I'm not particularly generous in labelling people LG, but my point remains.

So can we agree that we are debating about a highly subjective issue, wich depends a lot of our own views about morals, and our own preferences towards the characters?

So it's pointless to make a "black or white" debate about it. I'm not denying that Miko could very well have ended in an afterlife other than LG. I'm just defending that we should not rule out the possiblity that she made it to the LG afterlife.



And immediately qualifies that statement with "technically", so there you have it.

Wich still counts as having fulfilled her duty.


I simply don't see it. Soon had a good chance of defeating Redcloak and Xykon before Miko entered the scene. That alone makes the need for the Gate's destruction less than clear.

The Gate would have fallen anyway in the hands of a serveral-thousand-big army of followers of the Dark One, who has quite a plan involving the Gates.


Not making the claim is not the same as denying it. Particularly at a juncture that allowed little good to come from telling it to Miko's face.

Why do you think so? Soon is a Paladin. He dislikes pointless suffering.

We are talking about a man who based the defense of his Gate in the very concept of Honor. Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would lose time and non-deservered kind words with someone who had lost her honor.

[LuisDantas]

Pilgrim, you're using Miko's status as a Paladin as evidence that she was LG. I question that premise, based on her behavior and beliefs.

It all boils down on whether we agree to treat standard D&D rules as evidence of how things are in the OOtS world.

I feel that it is a dangerous thing to expect, because the strip often refuses to be limited by those rules. Particularly so, I would expect, where characterization is concerned.

[RMcMurtry]

Pilgrim, you're using Miko's status as a Paladin as evidence that she was LG. I question that premise, based on her behavior and beliefs.

It all boils down on whether we agree to treat standard D&D rules as evidence of how things are in the OOtS world.

I feel that it is a dangerous thing to expect, because the strip often refuses to be limited by those rules. Particularly so, I would expect, where characterization is concerned.

In the commentary to NCftPB and W&XP, the Giant is fairly clear that for most of her existence, Miko qualifies as LG and retains her paladin status, even though she's also his prime example of how not to play a paladin and is skating on the edge. As an abstract matter, I disagree; she seems to treat her detect evil ability as a license to kill, which I regard as both evil and chaotic. But he is the DM of Ootsverse, so if he says she was an LG paladin up until her murder of Shojo,OK.

[magic9mushroom]

On Familicide:

A major theme of the Darth Vaarsuvius arc is to deconstruct the attitude of the typical adventurer, i.e. "If it's a monster/evil, I can kill it with impunity."

Familicide was unquestionably evil, but the point is that if that spell is evil, then so is any random adventurer wandering into a dragon's cave to slay it for its treasure hoard.

Which is, in fact, evil according to either BoVD or BoED, I forget which. So, um, yeah.


How would we know that? Her Paladin status was at least in part a privilege granted by the 12 Gods. I don't think we have clear evidence that they immediately deny such status to anyone who is not LG. Nor is there any other evidence that Miko was ever LG.

*Points to above list of every action we see Miko take prior to Falling, and the fact that there is precisely one Chaotic act and far more Good acts than a Neutral character would show*

Miko is definitely LG before falling and appears to be LG after falling as well.

[Herald Alberich]

The closest thing we get to an in character explanation is: “Had you simply attacked me, I would have left you dead. But you made the mistake of involving my family in our conflict. This leaves me with the task of ensuring that today’s events will never rise again to threaten them.”

(Then after the spell) “…Now no one will come to avenge your defeat. No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife. This-and no less-is the price of threatening my family.” (This is 639 and 640).

I looked at all that dialogue again, and I think it implies revenge far more than it explicitly states protection. Also worth considering is the goading from the Splices before he reanimates the head:


The pain ended too soon.
We have only begun to bring misery.
...
"I concur."

And the way he tells her about what he's done, describing the effects in detail, just drips with "This is how I'm punishing you." Especially the lines "No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife." He's not saying he did that to protect his family, he did it because she attacked them and killing her wasn't good enough for him.

As for the protection reasons he did state, bull. He was either lying or ruinously short-sighted (likely, given the stress he was under). No one may be around to lament the Ancient Black Dragon, but as we all know, there are hundreds around to lament the rest of the black dragons he killed. And they may well go after his family in revenge themselves. The Familicide was neither Good nor good reasoning.

[magic9mushroom]

The moment they hatch they're CE, CR3, and can fly. Is it a "good" action to put a stake through the heart of a corpse before he has the chance to rise as a vampire?

Pre-emptive strikes are considered Evil in D&D.


It sounded to me like he was speaking for the author.

Xykon sounds like he's speaking for the author when he says 3.5 is balanced, too.

Please note that I have labeled Miko's attack on Hinjo as Evil. Also note that that is AFTER Miko's fallen, when Miko is confused.

[hamishspence]

Which is, in fact, evil according to either BoVD or BoED, I forget which. So, um, yeah.

BoVD states that killing a creature of "consummate, irredeemable evil" merely to get its loot, is not an evil act, but not a good act either.

BoED argues that killing even an evil creature, can be an evil act, if you don't have just cause to kill the creature. A village of evil orcs that never bothers its neighbours, for example, is something that it would be evil to attack, unless you have better reason than "they are evil"

It also clarifies that dragons, unlike demons, are not "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"- though there is "only the barest glimmer of hope" of redeeming one. The redemption through Diplomacy rules, do work on them.


Pre-emptive strikes are considered Evil in D&D.

Generally true, except for fiends. Even then, you might take the approach that BoED's "must have just cause" overrides BoVD's:

"killing a fiend is always a Good act. Allowing one to live is clearly evil"

Given that at least one fiend (the cambion) is Often Chaotic Evil, Usually Evil, rather than "Always X evil"- BoVD's statement may be out of date.

[lord_khaine]

*Points to above list of every action we see Miko take prior to Falling, and the fact that there is precisely one Chaotic act and far more Good acts than a Neutral character would show*

Miko is definitely LG before falling and appears to be LG after falling as well.

Thats a pretty long list, and i do agree on the general analysis that was made there.


Xykon sounds like he's speaking for the author when he says 3.5 is balanced, too.

But when have Xykon ever claimed 3.5 was balanced?

[hamishspence]

But when have Xykon ever claimed 3.5 was balanced?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html

"It turns out everything is oddly balanced. Weird, but true"

That said, he might not be speaking for the author.

[magic9mushroom]

BoVD states that killing a creature of "consummate, irredeemable evil" merely to get its loot, is not an evil act, but not a good act either.

BoED argues that killing even an evil creature, can be an evil act, if you don't have just cause to kill the creature. A village of evil orcs that never bothers its neighbours, for example, is something that it would be evil to attack, unless you have better reason than "they are evil"

It also clarifies that dragons, unlike demons, are not "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"- though there is "only the barest glimmer of hope" of redeeming one. The redemption through Diplomacy rules, do work on them.

Thanks for that.


Generally true, except for fiends. Even then, you might take the approach that BoED's "must have just cause" overrides BoVD's:

"killing a fiend is always a Good act. Allowing one to live is clearly evil"

Given that at least one fiend (the cambion) is Often Chaotic Evil, Usually Evil, rather than "Always X evil"- BoVD's statement may be out of date.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with the BoVD here. Fiends are literally made of Evil, after all. Their very existence is a constant stain on the universe and hence there is always just cause.


Thats a pretty long list, and i do agree on the general analysis that was made there.

It was indeed long. I'm now half-asleep because I stayed up typing it :smallfrown:


But when have Xykon ever claimed 3.5 was balanced?

As hamish said, when V was invisible in the tower. I don't think he was speaking for the author (given the whole "Fool! I am a druid!"), but it's got the same tone as that thing with Roy. I was just providing a counter-example.

[hamishspence]

The writers generally seem to disagree on the idea of fiends being irredeemable-

Planescape Torment had a redeemed succubus, the Demonomicon of Iggwilv articles in Dragon Magazine (written by WoTC staff members) make a reference to this, there was an online WOTC article with another redeemed demon, and the cambion (technically a fiend and a demon, but part-mortal) was written late in 3.5 (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits)

Just as celestials can fall and become villains, while still retaining their Good subtype, so fiends can rise and become heroes (while still retaining their Evil subtype).

In places like Sigil, both fiends and celestials are part of the populace- suggesting that they can "get along" with everybody else. Killing a fiend who is an accepted part of society, might draw the wrath of the local law enforcement.

Think of it this way- many fiends are not "made of evil"- but are evil mortal souls which have had the Evil subtype added to them. Tanar'ri in particular (Obyriths, the other major type of demon, were never mortal).

The MM mentions that it is possible for a creature with an alignment subtype (such as Evil) to not actually be that alignment, but it will function as that alignment for effects like Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and so on.

[LuisDantas]

*Points to above list of every action we see Miko take prior to Falling, and the fact that there is precisely one Chaotic act and far more Good acts than a Neutral character would show*

Miko is definitely LG before falling and appears to be LG after falling as well.

We will simply not agree on this. Your list is nearly completely composed of things that Miko appears to do more out of pride than anything else. Generally speaking, even when she does the right thing it is usually for the wrong motivation.

As for "definitely", sorry, that is simply not true.

I gather that Rich is more generous with Miko than I am, but that does not change anything. It simply is what it is.

[hamishspence]

Strip 406: Let's see. She waits out the first bit of the discussion, then jumps in once Hinjo mentions the courts. Then she puts two and three together and gets five. (Yes, I murdered that metaphor. But whatever.) She hears Shojo complaining about the paladins and generally acting like a stereotypical villain, sees a connection with the OotS (who didn't kill Xykon, leaving an open question as to why the Gate got blown up, and who also were suspicious due to their defense of Belkar) and Xykon, and acts on it. Her execution of Shojo is a Chaotic Good act, but is a gross violation of her Paladin's Code...

Strip 407: Causing her to Fall.



I notice trying to kill Hinjo isn't mentioned. Though that was immediately after the fall, it does suggest that the statement:

"she acted LG both before and after her fall"

can be questioned quite strongly.

Quite apart from the fact that the murder of Shojo (who was innocent of the crime (conspiring with Xykon) that she was "executing" him for) can be made out to be Evil rather than Chaotic Good.



I gather that Rich is more generous with Miko than I am, but that does not change anything. It simply is what it is.

The Giant's descriptions of Miko in Paladin Blues and War & XPs, seem to imply that even before her fall she was "pushing and pushing at the boundaries of her alignment". She sticks to her code "by a razor-thin margin" and so on.

The "execution" of Shojo is referred to as "on a glorified hunch" here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896

[Dark Matter]

I looked at all that dialogue again, and I think it implies revenge far more than it explicitly states protection. Also worth considering is the goading from the Splices before he reanimates the head:First, it's possible to do things for multiple reasons. Without the whole "family" thing V clearly wouldn't have gotten involved with those Devils, much less pulled out the WMDs. However she very clearly enjoyed herself. On the other hand there's the whole "ultimate power" thing too.

Second, your "quote" was dirty pool because it was selective. You only quoted the two of the three voices which supported your contention, the third (and closest to V) voice said "There is still so much we can do." It's deliberately left ambiguous which voice or voices she's agreeing with.


And the way he tells her about what he's done, describing the effects in detail, just drips with "This is how I'm punishing you." Especially the lines "No one will lament your passing. Think about the fate you have brought upon your family as you suffer in the afterlife." He's not saying he did that to protect his family, he did it because she attacked them and killing her wasn't good enough for him.And again you're selectively quoting and left out "No one will come to avenge your defeat" (which is exactly how V's family was pulled into this). Given it's V talking about a nasty epic spell, "matter of fact" is going to sound a lot like "This is how I'm punishing you".

That said, the only part of your reasoning I object to is the "only" part. I.e. that V did what she did "only" because of revenge. People can do things for multiple reasons, revenge presumably played a part.


The Familicide was neither Good nor good reasoning.True. However we saw her total lack of judgment/tactics shown again a bit later with her fight with X. One assumes she wanted to win that one so her judgment on this one can be assumed to be lacking.

[Jagos]

...

How did this turn into a "Miko/morally justifiable thread?"

*chuckles*

Even in death, Miko's presence is still felt.

[doodthedud]

...

How did this turn into a "Miko/morally justifiable thread?"

*chuckles*

Even in death, Miko's presence is still felt.

I think Miko is the definition of what a paladin should not be, as an antithesis to O-Chul, who is everything a paladin should be.

[LuisDantas]

Alignment controversies are certain to have Miko brought up as an example if they last long enough.

Unfortunately, Miko is nothing if not an example of a controversial character, as far as alignment is concerned. Bringing her up hardly ever stops any controversy.

I don't think that is so much a property of Miko as of the alignment system itself; were it not for Miko, we would be fighting over Vaarsuvius' alignment instead. Were it not for Vaarsuvius, we would probably be arguing whether the Giant's statement does indeed settle the matter on Belkar's alignment. Were it not for Belkar, then we would perhaps be arguing on Redcloak's alignment. Were it not for Redcloak, there would be the matter of how O-Chul, Hinjo and Lien stand in relation to each other in either the Law-Chaos or Good-Evil axis.

It is perhaps unavoidable. Although I will agree that is often quite frustrating as well.

[Gitman00]

Alignment controversies are certain to have Miko brought up as an example if they last long enough.

Miko is the new Hitler!

[The Pilgrim]

How did this turn into a "Miko/morally justifiable thread?"

Well, if we can argue that Miko was LG and might have stood as LG after her fall, the case of Eugene Greenhit looks not so hopeless. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

On Eugene- Roy's tendency to deceive (both paladins and his own party) is brought up as the sort of thing that means "My superiors wouldn't blink if I kicked you over to the NG afterlife, but...." (and she goes on to explain how "trying" matters, in this case)

In the strips we've seen, of his ghost, Eugene seems to deceive a lot. He masquerades as a celestial, he conceals the message meant for Roy, and so on.

(He wasn't that different in SoD.)

Given all this, does it seem that he might have slipped from LG as of end of SoD, to NG as of present period?

[The Pilgrim]

Problem with Eugene is that being a Ghost limits a lot what he can do into influence the Material plane. So he has to be deceitful in order to achieve anything decisive.

[RMcMurtry]

Even if the whole trial thing was Shojo's idea, I think Eugene went along far too readily, simply to enjoy the torment of Roy (and the others, but mostly Roy). I think an LG would have argued that Miko didn't need to know about the OoTS destroying the Red Mountain Gate, that she could have taken a simple message to Roy to get him down to Azure City ("Xykon escaped. Come to Azure City and we can tell you about it").

[Morithias]

Give me a minute, I'm going to go over to Tv Tropes and change the "Godwid's Law" page, to "Miko's Law" XD

I fail to see why he has to be sneaky and lying to Roy and such to get things done. I mean come on, it's clear he can cast his spells in the afterlife, "sending" only affects the same plane yes, but after he was summoned by Shojo he is on the material plane! A ghost that manifests is treated as being material AND erethal.

So my opinion on this largely rests on whether or not he has "sending" in his spellbook.

[Kish]

I gather that Rich is more generous with Miko than I am, but that does not change anything. It simply is what it is.
Just out of curiosity, between you and Rich, whom do you suppose would get to decide which afterlife Miko had gone to, if it was made explicit?

[warrl]

I don't think that is so much a property of Miko as of the alignment system itself

I disagree...


were it not for Miko, we would be fighting over Vaarsuvius' alignment instead. Were it not for Vaarsuvius, we would probably be arguing whether the Giant's statement does indeed settle the matter on Belkar's alignment. Were it not for Belkar, then we would perhaps be arguing on Redcloak's alignment. Were it not for Redcloak, there would be the matter of how O-Chul, Hinjo and Lien stand in relation to each other in either the Law-Chaos or Good-Evil axis.

And on some other forums I frequent, that have nothing to do with D&D or any other gaming system, people argue about whether Barack Obama is good or evil.

I don't think it's the alignment system, I think it's humans.

(Having a rather limited sample of other sentient species' posts to message boards, I can't generalize any further.)

[Herald Alberich]

Second, your "quote" was dirty pool because it was selective. You only quoted the two of the three voices which supported your contention, the third (and closest to V) voice said "There is still so much we can do." It's deliberately left ambiguous which voice or voices she's agreeing with.


And again you're selectively quoting and left out "No one will come to avenge your defeat" (which is exactly how V's family was pulled into this). Given it's V talking about a nasty epic spell, "matter of fact" is going to sound a lot like "This is how I'm punishing you".

Both true. My apologies.


That said, the only part of your reasoning I object to is the "only" part. I.e. that V did what she did "only" because of revenge. People can do things for multiple reasons, revenge presumably played a part.

Then I suppose we agree. I can see how protection for V's family perhaps also played a part. Thinking that V was lying about that when I knew his thought processes were messed up was a mistake on my part.

[LuisDantas]

Just out of curiosity, between you and Rich, whom do you suppose would get to decide which afterlife Miko had gone to, if it was made explicit?

The answer is obvious, but that is not the point.

[magic9mushroom]

We will simply not agree on this. Your list is nearly completely composed of things that Miko appears to do more out of pride than anything else.

The ones I can see that involve any amount of pride are 204, 209, 213, 215, 251, 270, 285 and 406. I listed 50 strips there. There are 8 that show her pride. There are a lot more than 8 that show her Goodness.


Generally speaking, even when she does the right thing it is usually for the wrong motivation.

You can't talk about "generally speaking" when the entire reference pool is sitting there passively disproving you.


As for "definitely", sorry, that is simply not true.

I see a large pile of Good acts and a few Neutral acts. This does not Neutral make.


I gather that Rich is more generous with Miko than I am, but that does not change anything. It simply is what it is.

Rich's viewpoint doesn't change anything. The facts do. :smallsmile:


I notice trying to kill Hinjo isn't mentioned. Though that was immediately after the fall, it does suggest that the statement:

"she acted LG both before and after her fall"

can be questioned quite strongly.

Well, I really couldn't be stuffed digging up all the ones after her fall as well (It was 1 AM and I was tired). Fine, I'll dig those up as well.

408: Miko is sitting there confused when Roy starts whacking her with his sword. She fights back. After a large amount of taunting from him, she stuns him and runs off. Nothing really alignment-related.

409: Miko attempts to execute Belkar. Hinjo stops her. After an argument, Miko attacks Hinjo and is close to killing him when Roy smacks her across the room and Miko falls unconscious. The former is Chaotic Good, the latter is Evil.

415: Nothing of note.

419: Miko wakes up in jail. Threatens to kill Belkar upon his taunting of her. Snaps Sabine's neck upon the latter offering Blackguardhood and making sexual passes. The former is not really alignment-related, the latter is Good.

460: Miko prays to the Twelve Gods. Her prayer shows her pride, but it also shows her subservience. She breaks out of the prison, intending to continue with her previous task - until she hears Xykon's voice, and goes to help defend the Gate. She mentions why she doesn't think much of Roy, too, and it's a fairly valid reason - even the celestial bureaucracy were angry at him about it on first glance. Yeah, um, pretty Lawful and a tad Good.

461: Miko kills the three hobgoblins guarding the throne room, and then, upon seeing Xykon and Redcloak apparently triumphant, decides to...

462: Claims that she is "fulfilling the divine destiny that the Twelve Gods have revealed to her" and smashes Soon's Gate. It's obviously Lawful, and Good too. Just a little too hasty. :smallfrown:

464: Talks to Soon and then dies.

Basically, a fair bit more pride than we saw previously, but not allowing it to interfere. Also, only one Evil act I can see.


Quite apart from the fact that the murder of Shojo (who was innocent of the crime (conspiring with Xykon) that she was "executing" him for) can be made out to be Evil rather than Chaotic Good.

Even if it is, one Evil act an alignment change does not make.


The Giant's descriptions of Miko in Paladin Blues and War & XPs, seem to imply that even before her fall she was "pushing and pushing at the boundaries of her alignment". She sticks to her code "by a razor-thin margin" and so on.

The "execution" of Shojo is referred to as "on a glorified hunch" here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896

Already read that, already replied with "Death of the Author".

[Kumo]

I notice trying to kill Hinjo isn't mentioned. Though that was immediately after the fall, it does suggest that the statement:

"she acted LG both before and after her fall"

can be questioned quite strongly.

At that point Miko was utterly convinced that everyone in that room was Chaotic or evil. Sure, she didn't act LG if you don't factor in that she was stupid, but she was.

[Kish]

The answer is obvious, but that is not the point.
I have no clue what, at this point, you consider the point is. Other than that you have a right to hate Miko; of course you do.

[RMcMurtry]

At that point Miko was utterly convinced that everyone in that room was Chaotic or evil. Sure, she didn't act LG if you don't factor in that she was stupid, but she was.

She knows Hinjo is LG, though. He's still a paladin--and the new Lord of Azure City.

[Kumo]

She knows Hinjo is LG, though. He's still a paladin--and the new Lord of Azure City.

She gave him a chance to surrender and he defended 'an evil murderer'. I doubt him becoming the new lord even crossed her mind.

[RMcMurtry]

She gave him a chance to surrender and he defended 'an evil murderer'. I doubt him becoming the new lord even crossed her mind.

I don't know why people are so willing to give Miko a pass on outright evil actions just because intelligence and wisdom were dump stats for her.

[Morithias]

I don't know why people are so willing to give Miko a pass on outright evil actions just because intelligence and wisdom were dump stats for her.

The same reason people give pass for Belkar. Lack of Mens Reas, under any true legal system one needs both the actions and state of mind to commit it. That is why things like the insanity defense, and why killing a person in the dnd world under say a dominate person spell are not considered crimes.

You need to do the crime of your own free will while being in a stable mind, and although Miko clearly has the former, the later is what the debate is all about. Was she truly unstable enough to warrant a pass on her actions? Did she belong in an asylum instead of a prison?

[Kumo]

I don't know why people are so willing to give Miko a pass on outright evil actions just because intelligence and wisdom were dump stats for her.I don't know why you insist on ignoring it.

Don't put words in my mouth!!. I NEVER said that her stupidity made her actions right - you wanted to know the motivation behind her attempt to kill Hinjo and i told you: she thought everybody in that room was evil because they associated with Belkar and that the authority she had served up until that point had become corrupt and illegitimate. Under THOSE assumptions, her actions were LG. They were still wrong, dead wrong, in so many ways, but LG is not always right.

[magic9mushroom]

She knows Hinjo is LG, though. He's still a paladin--and the new Lord of Azure City.

Which is why attacking him was Evil (or Chaotic Neutral, depending on whether you consider her to be of sound mind at that point). Everyone else in that room, however, was either legitimately Evil (Belkar) or had serious warning signs about them (Given that Xykon wasn't in fact killed, the OotS look like they blew up the gate deliberately, and they also defended Belkar; Shojo just admitted lying to the paladins). And attacking Roy was self-defense in any case.

[hamishspence]

The "insanity defense" has very strict rules, which Miko's state of mind may not meet. Basically, the person needs to be unaware of the difference between right and wrong at the time they committed the crime.

There are intermediate categories between "insane" and "sane" where the person will get a reduced sentence, but not found innocent- I think Miko is more likely to fall into this zone.

Miko's attempt to kill Belkar- Chaotic Good? Or Evil- because she'd already been told he was going to stand trial for his crimes- thus she was killing him for revenge, not out of a desire to protect others?

Killing Evil beings, when such killing is inappropriate (for revenge, for example) can be Evil.

Miko's killing of Shojo may also fall into this category. Shojo had rigged somebody else's trial, in his role as judge. It's less likely that he'd have been able to rig his own- and Miko should have known that. Possibly she did know, and was using "he could rig the trial" as an excuse to kill him.

Some of Miko's acts might fall into "unwitting evil acts" rather than "intentional evil acts"- because she is unaware of (or unwilling to admit) their evilness- but that doesn't give her a pass.

[lord_khaine]

Miko's attempt to kill Belkar- Chaotic Good? Or Evil- because she'd already been told he was going to stand trial for his crimes- thus she was killing him for revenge, not out of a desire to protect others?


Belkar had not just shown that he could break of of jail (and kill a guard on the way) once, but twice, at that point it should be pretty clear even for Miko that course of action wouldnt work.


Miko's killing of Shojo may also fall into this category. Shojo had rigged somebody else's trial, in his role as judge. It's less likely that he'd have been able to rig his own- and Miko should have known that. Possibly she did know, and was using "he could rig the trial" as an excuse to kill him.

Being the ruler of the city, and having shown he could rig one trial actualy makes it pretty certain that he could also rig his own trial.

[hamishspence]

Being the ruler of the city, and having shown he could rig one trial actualy makes it pretty certain that he could also rig his own trial.

Not really- the only reason he could rig the first trial, was that he had the powers of the ruler.

With those powers suspended (as one would expect, for a ruler on trial) rigging will be much more difficult.

Plus, the last time, the method of rigging, was replacing the celestial jury, with a ghost disguised as the jury- this option is no longer available.

However- discussions of Miko should maybe be placed elsewhere- maybe a new "When Miko killed Shojo, why did she fall?" thread.

[magic9mushroom]

The "insanity defense" has very strict rules, which Miko's state of mind may not meet. Basically, the person needs to be unaware of the difference between right and wrong at the time they committed the crime.

There are intermediate categories between "insane" and "sane" where the person will get a reduced sentence, but not found innocent- I think Miko is more likely to fall into this zone.

I don't think she qualifies either, I was just noting the possibility.


Miko's attempt to kill Belkar- Chaotic Good? Or Evil- because she'd already been told he was going to stand trial for his crimes- thus she was killing him for revenge, not out of a desire to protect others?

Miko couldn't have been sure what would happen after she left the room, Belkar had already escaped prison twice before his trial, and Roy could have rigged his trial. She says that she's executing him "for his crimes", supporting this.


Miko's killing of Shojo may also fall into this category. Shojo had rigged somebody else's trial, in his role as judge. It's less likely that he'd have been able to rig his own- and Miko should have known that. Possibly she did know, and was using "he could rig the trial" as an excuse to kill him.

But why would she want to kill him? Miko has no motive other than that. If that motive's fake, what's the real motive she was trying to hide?


Some of Miko's acts might fall into "unwitting evil acts" rather than "intentional evil acts"- because she is unaware of (or unwilling to admit) their evilness- but that doesn't give her a pass.

Well, there's only four acts which could conceivably be considered Evil to start with, those being Shojo's execution, her attempt to kill Belkar, her attempt to kill Hinjo, and her destruction of the Gate. The third I've noted as Evil, the last was called "adequate" by Soon himself, the second is vigilante justice that Belkar richly deserved, and the first is what we're mostly arguing about.

[Kumo]

Miko's attempt to kill Belkar- Chaotic Good? Or Evil- because she'd already been told he was going to stand trial for his crimes- thus she was killing him for revenge, not out of a desire to protect others?

She wasn't told that until AFTER Hinjo stopped her from killing him, actually. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

She was told that be Shojo right after trying to kill Belkar the first time (and being stopped by V).

[Kumo]

She was told that be Shojo right after trying to kill Belkar the first time (and being stopped by V).

And she stopped (albeit reluctantly) and afterward had seen Belkar had been released unlawfully.

[hamishspence]

We don't know that for sure. Apparently Shojo had been releasing prisoners, with Marks of Justice on, for years-

referred to when the Cleric of Loki explains this to Haley and Celia in Greysky City.

The fact that Shojo didn't tell the paladins, doesn't mean the "out on bail" procedure was unlawful.

[The Pink Ninja]

He could be Good. As far as I can tell he did spend his life fighting evil.

Good is not the same thing as nice. You can be a humungeous jerkass and still be Good.

Lawful... Not so much but his unlawful behaviour did occur after he died...

[magic9mushroom]

We don't know that for sure. Apparently Shojo had been releasing prisoners, with Marks of Justice on, for years-

referred to when the Cleric of Loki explains this to Haley and Celia in Greysky City.

The fact that Shojo didn't tell the paladins, doesn't mean the "out on bail" procedure was unlawful.

Not necessarily. Shojo had been making use of Marks of Justice, but it's unknown whether they'd been in circumstances similar to Belkar's, and I'd assume not, given it was a rather large favour.