Roy's Brother in Celestia?

[Lord_Gareth]

Yes, yes, this arc happened ages ago. But I've been pondering about this, and while I do not advocate that Rich was wrong to A. Do whatever the hell he wants with his story and B. Justify whatever he likes in his setting, I cannot help but think that in your standard D&D universe, children would not end up in Lawful afterlives. After all, for most children - even good ones - rules are obeyed either out of fear or to please others, not because they advocate rules or law - for that matter, they can only really oppose rules in the generalized, sulky sense of "rules suck, I wanna do something else".

As such, I'm actually of the opinion that Roy's little brother would have ended up either in Arborea (NG heaven) or the Outlands (TN heaven), depending on which side of the "can children make moral choices?" debate you fall under. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm certain that if Celestia requested the presence (temporary or permanent) of a single soul from Arborea in order to properly reward another (Roy's mother, Roy himself), Arborea wouldn't have too many qualms, and as far as the Outlands goes, they can either "liberate" him or simply purchase him outright, so I'm going to go ahead and assume one of those two happened, leading to the whole 'kid brother in Celestia' thing.

Thoughts on this reasoning?

[Knaight]

Lawful isn't just external rules however. It is also the idea of a fairly disciplined personal code, and a child who is all around a nice guy, who has some degree of morality that they stick to, along with possibly a routine, the LG afterlife makes sense.

[mucat]

When that strip first appeared, the consensus among the fans was that no plane that calls itself "Good" would separate a child from his mother in the afterlife. Sara is Lawful Good, so she vouches for Eric.

[Lord_Gareth]

When that strip first appeared, the consensus among the fans was that no plane that calls itself "Good" would separate a child from his mother in the afterlife. Sara is Lawful Good, so she vouches for Eric.

See, I figured that would be covered under the whole, "Shows up in Arborea, gets sent to Celestia on request" scenario.

[Lord Bingo]

Well, in D&D terms "lawful" indicates respect for legitimate authority and general trustworthyness (more or less).

If Roy's brother (I forget his name) has generally been "a good little boy", which I think there is every indication of, he would per the rules qualify as Lawful Good and hence get tons of gifts from Santa, etc.

[Kareasint]

Panel four - Eric has been in Celestia for 18 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)

Panel two - Sara has only been in Celestia for 3 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0494.html)

Eric likely earned passage to Celestia on his own and was waiting for the rest of his family to arrive.

[Lord_Gareth]

Panel four - Eric has been in Celestia for 18 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)

Panel two - Sara has only been in Celestia for 3 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0494.html)

Eric likely earned passage to Celestia on his own and was waiting for the rest of his family to arrive.

...This is an intriguing point. Theory withdrawn.

[King of Nowhere]

When that strip first appeared, the consensus among the fans was that no plane that calls itself "Good" would separate a child from his mother in the afterlife. Sara is Lawful Good, so she vouches for Eric.

This is what I believe.
But aside from that, regarding your comment

After all, for most children - even good ones - rules are obeyed either out of fear or to please others, not because they advocate rules or law - for that matter, they can only really oppose rules in the generalized, sulky sense of "rules suck, I wanna do something else".
I think "lawful" means different things for a mature adult and for a little child, because a child is limited in his understanding.
Saying a children can't be lawful because no children show much respect for rules is like saying that no children can be good at mathematics because no children will ever understand differential calculus before growing up. That's the best example I can think of.
In the same way, lawful will mean something else for a being far more intelligent than a human.

[Querzis]

Well firstly, I really doubt any baby will ever be sent to anything else then a good afterlife. Then again, the gods in the OOTS world are jerks so who knows? Anyway, it doesnt matter if Roy mother wasnt dead at this point, most of Eric family is Lawful Good and his grandfather was in the Lawful Good afterlife so of course he went to the Lawful Good afterlife. I actually agree that Eric probably cant be said to be Lawful when hes so young but I just really dont think it matter.

[boomwolf]

Well, there is the aligenment theory that everyone are LG unless proven otherwise when in comes to the treatment of the world and the devine powers.

So the lack of eric doing anything evil or chaotic in his life leads him to the LG afterlife.

also, see panel three (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)

It appears that in rich's world you get into celestia unless the devas judge you unworthy, and childhood misshapes generally does not count against you (theory: unless its really bad?), so by nature every child (or most at least) are sent into celestia.

[Leecros]

and childhood misshapes generally does not count against you (theory: unless its really bad?)

Belkar- The younger years



Stabby! Stabby! :belkar:

[JonestheSpy]

Actually, children - especially small children - really like habit and routine, and will often freak out if their routine is disturbed. And they will generally follow the lead of someone they trust unless in a particularly bad mood.

So a case could be made for small kids=lawful, if such a thing was necessary. Really, it doesn't seem worth worrying about to me.

[NerfTW]

depending on which side of the "can children make moral choices?" debate you fall under.

That's not really a debate. That's an entire field of psychology you'd have to argue is completely wrong to even begin to claim that a toddler can make a moral choice on the level of an adult, or even a ten year old. A child of his age barely understands that other people are seperate entities, let alone that they might have different opinions than him. (The classical example being a small child nodding to answer a question over the phone. They don't understand that you can't see them.)


As for why he's in the Lawful Good afterlife, it's because his family is there. He's too young to have a moral code, so why throw him to the Neutral afterlife when his family is mostly in the LG one?

[golentan]

That's not really a debate. That's an entire field of psychology you'd have to argue is completely wrong to even begin to claim that a toddler can make a moral choice on the level of an adult, or even a ten year old. A child of his age barely understands that other people are seperate entities, let alone that they might have different opinions than him. (The classical example being a small child nodding to answer a question over the phone. They don't understand that you can't see them.)


As for why he's in the Lawful Good afterlife, it's because his family is there. He's too young to have a moral code, so why throw him to the Neutral afterlife when his family is mostly in the LG one?

But saying the kids aren't capable of making decisions on the level of an adult or an older kid isn't the same as saying they aren't capable of making the decisions. I've read papers suggesting, for example, that your personality and moral compass don't really change after you hit about 5: the inability to bring superior reasoning to "hurting people is bad" doesn't keep you from deciding "hurting people is bad," even if you do it purely by imitation or because you were told it. And there are some just fundamentally good and bad kids as well. I've met some tykes with 0 good role models who still worry about hurting feelings even if they lack understanding of how other people's feelings work.

As for the question about why Celestia evidently handles all the paperwork: Could you make the chaotic groups fill out the forms, and would you trust the evils to do so? That's what I thought.

[Conuly]

After all, for most children - even good ones - rules are obeyed either out of fear or to please others, not because they advocate rules or law - for that matter, they can only really oppose rules in the generalized, sulky sense of "rules suck, I wanna do something else".

I disagree.

Consider my day today - every time ONE niece broke a rule, or appeared to not follow through on something the other one thought she'd promised, or put something on the wrong side of the table, the OTHER niece ran to tell me.

Children are big on routines and predictability, and when they understand the rules they're intent on making sure EVERYBODY follows them. They want everything to be fair.

This is something from within. Their idea of what the rules are may not be yours - for example, their own personal rule may be that they have to sleep with a certain blanket and with their shoes tucked under the bed, and you might want them to follow the rule "GO TO SLEEP ALREADY" - but they need their rules to function.

Going to Wikipedia, this is what they say:


Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Honor? Debatable.

Trustworthiness? Irrelevant - most kids are bad liars anyway.

Obedience to authority? Often, not always... but then, neither does Roy fit that category, right?

Reliability? Definitely. Your two year old is going to take a nap at the same time daily, and he's going to want the same snack beforehand.

Closedmindedness, judgmentalness, reactionary adherence to tradition, lack of adaptability? THIS IS A PRESCHOOLER. Once they have an idea of how things are, they stick with it. Once they've decided you're a bad person, they stick with that. Once you've established that you always walk THIS way to school or that they always have applesauce in their lunch (my niece, who doesn't like it, objected when I stopped sending it!), they stick with it. Lack of adaptability? You try changing plans at the last minute with a three-year old, tell them you're going to to the store FIRST and then the playground, see how they react.

Just because children don't want to follow your rules doesn't mean that rules aren't important to them.

[maxon]

I agree with Querzis - I can't see a system sending children anywhere except a good afterlife. It's a debatable point, I guess, but I would have thought that for judgement purposes children were born neither good nor evil and, therefore, represent an exception in this world to how their deaths and their post-death destinations are handled? I'm not sure about the notion that a child goes where it's parents are - would you really want to send a child to an evil afterlife?

Conuly - voice of experience, eh?

[malloyd]

I'm not sure about the notion that a child goes where it's parents are - would you really want to send a child to an evil afterlife?

I don't see why not. At least in principle in D&D evil afterlives aren't punishments for the people sent to them, they are just as much rewards for proper behavior (by the standards of their governing powers) as the good ones are. Logically if you've earned an evil afterlife, you should be rewarded with opportunities to continue to practice your evil ways, and perhaps grow in evil as people in Celestra are supposed to grow in understanding in climbing to higher levels, not suffer horrible torments as punishment for them.

[Yuki Akuma]

According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, children tend to end up with Celestia with the leader of the Celestial Host.

And no, Evil afterlives are not rewards - petitioners tend to get ripped apart and have their souls used as currency. Or worse.

[Kobold-Bard]

Well, there is the aligenment theory that everyone are LG unless proven otherwise when in comes to the treatment of the world and the devine powers.

So the lack of eric doing anything evil or chaotic in his life leads him to the LG afterlife.

also, see panel three (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)

It appears that in rich's world you get into celestia unless the devas judge you unworthy, and childhood misshapes generally does not count against you (theory: unless its really bad?), so by nature every child (or most at least) are sent into celestia.

L/G until proven otherwise. I like this theory, just in general rather than just this specific instance.

[Bad Situation]

I thought he was sent there because his closest deceased relative was in Celestia?

[PacifistOgre]

And no, Evil afterlives are not rewards - petitioners tend to get ripped apart and have their souls used as currency. Or worse.

This. The evil afterlives are only a "reward" in the sense that, if you're powerful and/or smart enough or simply very lucky, you MIGHT be able to lie, cheat, and claw your way up the ladder after a few thousand years to spent more of your time getting your evil kicks torturing and abusing power rather than being one of the billions just getting abused. (But unless you're at the absolute top you're still going to have someone treating you like garbage.)

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of your soul just being used as currency or some cosmic horror's plaything, then eaten or destroyed. I mean lemures are all mindless, perfectly identical, and basically selected for promotion because some upper-level bureaucrat had a quota to meet. That's the tradeoff for not joining the Good system: you can abuse as much power as you can gain, but when you're at the bottom you're nothing but some other, more powerful person's Evil afterlife reward of a thing to torment.

[Cerlis]

Roy's bro probably got what he deserved. He seems well mannered. I think a CG child would be more along the lines of Dennis the Menace. Who is usually trying to be a good boy but is often confused as why something is good , why it isnt.

But i dont know. I like the theory about how many kids get uppity when things get out of order and the whole "play by the rules" thing. In many stories where you have a small group led by children they usually always have rules, they only get crazy, neutral, or even evil when having either a selfish or manipulative leader, or problems do to their inexperience. I remember when one of the Lost Boys was ready to give his life as payment to Peter Pan because he (thought he ) killed Wendy.

[SoC175]

And no, Evil afterlives are not rewards - petitioners tend to get ripped apart and have their souls used as currency. Or worse. Yet they're no punishments either, just like the good afterlives are neither reward nor punishment. They simply are. That the evil afterlives happen to turn out more unpleasant and the good one for pleasant is just a side-effect.

In D&D there is no higher authority saying that good is right and evil is wrong. Good and Evil (and Chaos and Law) are simply equal forces vying for supremacy.

Going to an evil afterlife isn't punishment for not being good, but simply the force you were useful to in life making use of you in death.

In the end even the good petitioners are not eternal but are dissolved into their respective planes or consumed by their respective deities to fuel the machines of their philosophy one last time.

[Ender Wigin]

Hmmmm...Interesting theorys. And heres my opinion: Let it drop. babys are too young to make real decisions and unless they have done evil knowingly before they have an early death, they're probibly gonna get into hevan. The comic in panel three (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) states this, and everyone is thinking about it waaaaayyy too much. Roys brother gets into the celestreal realm. So do a million other children who unfortunetly die at an early age in this crazy comic world.

So go on and live your lives on more interesting threads, like that Belkars death thread. (Miko will come back from the dead and end him, I just know it!!!!:miko::belkar:)

[Grendus]

Panel four - Eric has been in Celestia for 18 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)

Panel two - Sara has only been in Celestia for 3 years. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0494.html)

Eric likely earned passage to Celestia on his own and was waiting for the rest of his family to arrive.

((Late to respond to this, I know, but still...))

His closest deceased relative would be Horace Greenhilt, who was deceased before Roy was born (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html).

So to recap:
If deceased children are sent to the plane of their nearest deceased relative, he would go to the Lawful Good afterlife to stay with his grandfather.

If children are considered lawful good until they're old enough to decide on an alignment for themselves, he would go to the lawful good afterlife.

If his actions were judged, he would have ended up in one of the three good afterlives. Since, as Conuly pointed out, young children almost always show lawful tendencies, he would almost certainly have ended up in the lawful good afterlife based on his behavior.


Yet they're no punishments either, just like the good afterlives are neither reward nor punishment. They simply are. That the evil afterlives happen to turn out more unpleasant and the good one for pleasant is just a side-effect.

In D&D there is no higher authority saying that good is right and evil is wrong. Good and Evil (and Chaos and Law) are simply equal forces vying for supremacy.

Going to an evil afterlife isn't punishment for not being good, but simply the force you were useful to in life making use of you in death.

In the end even the good petitioners are not eternal but are dissolved into their respective planes or consumed by their respective deities to fuel the machines of their philosophy one last time.

Bunkus! Nonsuch! Gibberos! Gobbleygoos! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html)

Not that I don't approve of castrating pedophiles, but it's fairly clear that Rich views the evil afterlives as being punishment.

[Orzel]

Isn't it obvious.

They casted a spell to find out which plane his mother (closest loving relative) would end up in.

So if Belkar has some unknown kids out there, if they die young and Belkar actually wants them... there's a demon warming it's bottle in hellfire.

[PopcornMage]

Well, this thread inspired me to register and post for the first time, so I'll go ahead and say my thoughts.

First off, note how Eric remains a child in the afterlife. Assuming this is the case for other children who die, well that means there's an eternity of babysitting in store for whoever is responsible for them. Who else but good, and generally lawful types is going to want that? (Unless there's some resurrection/reincarnation that's applicable to all souls.)

I suppose some races may have pre-selected preferences otherwise, and there will be the the occasional exception, but for that, may I note this particular case:


On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered 'round
And they gazed in wide wonder, at the joy they had found.
The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone
She could tell right away, that I was bad to the bone.

[Lord_Gareth]

I find it interesting to note that folks seem to think that Celestia would be a more pleasant afterlife than Arborea. They're both good-aligned planes, folks.

[Joerg]

His closest deceased relative would be Horace Greenhilt, who was deceased before Roy was born (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html).


We don't know that. He's got three other grandparents, after all.

[Yuki Akuma]

I find it interesting to note that folks seem to think that Celestia would be a more pleasant afterlife than Arborea. They're both good-aligned planes, folks.

I don't - it's just that the guardian of dead children happens to be Lawful Good and live on the peak of Celestia.

This is canon, folks.

[derfenrirwolv]

Its where his mother was going, so thats where he went. It wouldn't be heaven for either of them if the other weren't there.

[Callista]

Well, this thread inspired me to register and post for the first time, so I'll go ahead and say my thoughts.

First off, note how Eric remains a child in the afterlife. Assuming this is the case for other children who die, well that means there's an eternity of babysitting in store for whoever is responsible for them. Who else but good, and generally lawful types is going to want that? (Unless there's some resurrection/reincarnation that's applicable to all souls.)That'll be the time thing again. For Eric, it probably feels like only a few months have passed since he died. He's not ready to grow up yet; he's still enjoying childhood. Maybe in a few centuries, he'll be an adult; but things like that happen more slowly when you're dead.

[Warren Dew]

That's not really a debate. That's an entire field of psychology you'd have to argue is completely wrong to even begin to claim that a toddler can make a moral choice on the level of an adult, or even a ten year old. A child of his age barely understands that other people are seperate entities, let alone that they might have different opinions than him.

Indeed - and it's the same field of psychology that says you can tell children don't have a sense of self until they recognize themselves in the mirror. Only problem is, adults from primitive societies that don't have mirrors also don't recognize themselves in the mirror. So, do people in primitive societies never have a sense of self, or are those psychologists mistaken, with the mirror test actually testing for knowledge of how mirrors work rather than knowledge of self identity?

I do agree with those who argue that many children prefer routine to an extent that would make them "lawful" in D&D terms. I do think there's some variation, though. Some children do behave more chaotically than others.

[Mysterious_A]

On the mirror thing primitive societies might not have had mirrors, but I'm pretty sure most of them still had water...(as in bodies of water, where they could see their reflection).

I am of the opinion that while an adult's alignment and afterlife are determined by a pattern in their most significant actions, the same logic would be applied to a child's afterlife, only the scale of significance for said actions would be reduced to the level of the things the child has done.

On a practical level, however, a child that is still emotionally dependent on their parents would not take a separation very well, and depending on the age would not be able to understand it. This brings me to believe that inside each plane there could be a system to take care of these children, or perhaps a separate place altogether located in any of the Planes, where the transition would be eased.

[Nimrod's Son]

Only problem is, adults from primitive societies that don't have mirrors also don't recognize themselves in the mirror.
Not at first, perhaps (though I'm suspicious because of the aforementioned water thing). It's certainly true for people who were blind from birth but had their sight restored; even so, it won't take them long to get used to it.

Either way, obviously those people already have a sense of self. It just might take a way for them to incorporate the idea of their reflection into that, whereas newborn children usually develop their sense of self alongside discovering themselves in the mirror. I don't see that the two necessarily have to be that closely connected.

Magpies can recognise themselves in a mirror, but they're rarely noted for their emo poetry. :smallwink: