Neutral Good???

[Gamgee]

One thing I seem to notice, or perhaps have not noticed reading the comics are some strong neutral good characters. Not literally strong, but a strong presence in the story. Hell even a minor one would do. Can we find some examples here? Yes I am fully prepared to say duh why didn't I think of x when it is brought up. So can we list some examples here? I see a lot of Lawful Good, Chatoic Good ect.

[Dr.Epic]

One thing I seem to notice, or perhaps have not noticed reading the comics are some strong neutral good characters. Not literally strong, but a strong presence in the story. Hell even a minor one would do. Can we find some examples here? Yes I am fully prepared to say duh why didn't I think of x when it is brought up. So can we list some examples here? I see a lot of Lawful Good, Chatoic Good ect.

Lirian. She's a druid and seems pretty good.

[DaveMcW]

Thor
Kazumi Kato and Daigo

[Welknair]

How is Thor NOT Chaotic?

[Zerg Cookie]

The Katos are lawful...

[Grendus]

How is Thor NOT Chaotic?

Thor tends to bounce between lawful and chaotic, near as I can tell. He leans towards chaotic when drunk (such as hurling lightning bolts randomly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0201.html)) or rules get in his way ("Sir, I'm not sure it can actually DO that" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html)). On the flipside, particularly when Odin is around, he shows much more lawful characteristics ("Gees, bend the rules for one follower one time" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)).

I'd still say he leans more towards chaotic than neutral, but it's a close enough contest that you could argue he's neutral good with chaotic tendencies. After all, Rich takes a fairly loose view of alignment anyways, Roy performs chaotic acts all the time and is still lawful good, Haley performs lawful acts from time to time and is still chaotic good... Belkar even occasionally does a good act for the right reasons(ish) and is still chaotic evil.




Varsuvius post Darth-V is kind of Neutral Good. We have no word of god on her alignment (she was true neutral, I think), but after her foray into evil she's shown a lot more interest in others (making up with her familiar, not contesting the divorce so she can focus on saving the world, helping run off the slavers and freeing the slaves). It hasn't been long enough to say for sure, but at least when she's around Haley she acts Neutral Good.

[Dr.Epic]

On the flipside, particularly when Odin is around, he shows much more lawful characteristics ("Gees, bend the rules for one follower one time" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)).

But that seems like support for chaotic since he broke the rules.

[zyborg]

I've never read any of the books, but... how is Roy NOT Neutral Good? I mean, he is heroic, but he almost let the bandits take Elan, and went along with the 'King of Nowhere' misunderstanding.

[Dr.Epic]

I've never read any of the books, but... how is Roy NOT Neutral Good? I mean, he is heroic, but he almost let the bandits take Elan, and went along with the 'King of Nowhere' misunderstanding.

Because Rich says he's lawful (don't question it).

Also, he devoted himself to killing Xykon (even after he decided it was pointless to try to impress his dad).

[Gandariel]

I've never read any of the books, but... how is Roy NOT Neutral Good? I mean, he is heroic, but he almost let the bandits take Elan, and went along with the 'King of Nowhere' misunderstanding.

apparently you've not read part of the online strip too... the same questions are asked and answered in strip 488

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

^^

[Welknair]

Also, he devoted himself to killing Xykon (even after he decided it was pointless to try to impress his dad).

I think that shows more of his good than his lawful. He made it clear that he wasn't doing it for his father, but for the world.

[suszterpatt]

Roy was let into the Lawful Good afterlife, what more do you want?

[DaveMcW]

The Katos are lawful...

They weren't recruited for the LG Sapphire Guard.

They rebelled against being nameless soldiers.

They disqualified themselves from being married by a LG authority.

[Dr.Epic]

They weren't recruited for the LG Sapphire Guard.

They aren't paladins.


They rebelled against being nameless soldiers.

Anyone who has a name can fit that.


They disqualified themselves from being married by a LG authority.

They said they didn't want to be married by a paladin because they might be angry one of them was already pregnant.

[zyborg]

I know that Roy is Lawful Good. I meant, how? He did some unlawful things... but not enough to be chaotic.

[Grendus]

But that seems like support for chaotic since he broke the rules.

But he still tried to work with the rules. A neutral character would break the rules if they felt it was necessary, but would work within them if they could accomplish the same thing. Chaotic would be surprised they even had rules, and probably just skimmed them if he read them at all.


I know that Roy is Lawful Good. I meant, how? He did some unlawful things... but not enough to be chaotic.

As the Deva explained, she almost decided to send Roy to the neutral good afterlife instead of Lawful Good. However, Roy accepts responsibility for his actions and learns from them, as opposed to a neutral good character who would argue that the ends justify the means. Roy doesn't follow alignment like a yellow brick road, it's more of a squiggly line on a map - it's more of a general direction thing.

[Welknair]

I know that Roy is Lawful Good. I meant, how? He did some unlawful things... but not enough to be chaotic.

Have you read the strip where he faced trial in the afterlife? :smallconfused:

The deva says that he tries to be lawful good. He really tries, and that counts for a lot.

[zyborg]

Have you read the strip where he faced trial in the afterlife? :smallconfused:

The deva says that he tries to be lawful good. He really tries, and that counts for a lot.

Yeah, I've read that. sorry about all of this nonexistent controversy I'm creating...

[Zedlin]

Alignment isn't a straight "have to do this, have to do that". It's a tool to used to predict how a player will react to certain situations. Just because a character does things that doesn't agree with thier alignment doesn't mean its gonna change instantly. The characters are mortal therefore subject to messing up.

[Thanatosia]

Yeah, I'm suprised at the absolutism some people show on this subject. Character X didn't obey the rules one time so they can't be lawful!! OH - look, he didn't break that rule, there goes any potential for him being chaotic right out the window!

The person saying Thor 'flipflops' between alignments because he behaves differently in the presence of his Dad in particularly misses the point of alignments IMO.... Thor is chaotic because chaotic is how he behaves when he's free to act according to his nature.

Roy is lawful because it's his overwhelming nature to observe the rules, and is unlikely to break them unless there is a very good reason. Commiting a chaotic act or two does not forbid you from having a lawful alignment, only Paladins have anything close to that kind of absolutist requirement, and that's a class feature, not an alignment one.

[Kish]

They weren't recruited for the LG Sapphire Guard.

You mean, the paladin order known as the Sapphire Guard?


They rebelled against being nameless soldiers.

...Wow, that's a stretch. Saying, "I have a name!" is a Chaotic act now?


They disqualified themselves from being married by a LG authority.
They were married by...Durkon. Who is Lawful Good.

[Gift Jeraff]

Lirian. She's a druid and seems pretty good.

And by extension, we can guess that Dorukan is probably Neutral Good.


Varsuvius post Darth-V is kind of Neutral Good. We have no word of god on her alignment (she was true neutral, I think), but after her foray into evil she's shown a lot more interest in others (making up with her familiar, not contesting the divorce so she can focus on saving the world, helping run off the slavers and freeing the slaves). It hasn't been long enough to say for sure, but at least when she's around Haley she acts Neutral Good.
S/he was Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html) (True Neutral seems like the most likely) before the splice. From what I've seen, a lot of people that aren't dracophiles swear that s/he still is, but I take Cedrik's 50/50 comment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) to mean that V is currently Neutral Evil, but has a decent chance of turning non-Evil.

[rewinn]

And by extension, we can guess that Dorukan is probably Neutral Good.


S/he was Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0633.html) (True Neutral seems like the most likely) before the splice. From what I've seen, a lot of people that aren't dracophiles swear that s/he still is, but I take Cedrik's 50/50 comment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html) to mean that V is currently Neutral Evil, but has a decent chance of turning non-Evil.

V started out caring about nothing more than Ultimate Arcane Power, so most likely Neutral. V gave into temptation under extremely trying circumstances, allied with Evil briefly, performed one arguably evil act, and thereby flirted with going evil. Since then, V has completely repented of the error, having gone so far as to argue with Durkon on the point and giving up the kids without a fight.

The logical thing for an Evil V to do, now that Ultimate Arcane Power is not the goal, would be to ally with Xykon. Instead, V has done a *lot* to help a hugely dangerous quest, having personally sacrificed home and family to continue the quest - more than anyone else in the Order.

Surely V is capable of being tempted again, and therefore may be most vulnerable to turning evil (Belkar doesn't count), but V is *trying* to be Good, and as the Deva said to Roy, that's what counts.

[Zevox]

apparently you've not read part of the online strip too... the same questions are asked and answered in strip 488

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

^^
I think you mean 490 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), the one where the Deva explains why she could send him to the Neutral Good afterlife, and why she won't.


as opposed to a neutral good character who would argue that the ends justify the means.
Say what? "The ends justify the means" is by no stretch of the imagination a Neutral Good argument. If anything it's one that is most likely to be made by characters lawful or evil alignment, and especially LE - evil characters as an excuse for their actions to others (or as a rationalization to themselves), lawful characters because they genuinely think that the ultimate end is important enough to justify whatever means they use (or as a rationalization to themselves).


And by extension, we can guess that Dorukan is probably Neutral Good.
Why?

Zevox

[factotum]

They said they didn't want to be married by a paladin because they might be angry one of them was already pregnant.

And the original comment is incorrect anyway, because they WERE married by a LG authority--Durkon!

[AxeD]

How is Thor NOT Chaotic?

Look, Thor is NG because he can't be CG (since he wouldn't be able to be Durkon's diety) and he's too chaotic to be LG (getting drunk and throwing lightning bolts/ignoring the rules on the control weather spell doesn't seem lawful).

It's been determined that Durkon is LG and a cleric can't be more than 1 step away from his diety's alignment. Therefore, Thor can't be CG and must be either LN or NG. Seeing as he's evidently not lawful, he must be NG.

QED.

[Porthos]

Look, Thor is NG because he can't be CG (since he wouldn't be able to be Durkon's diety) and he's too chaotic to be LG (getting drunk and throwing lightning bolts/ignoring the rules on the control weather spell doesn't seem lawful).

It's been determined that Durkon is LG and a cleric can't be more than 1 step away from his diety's alignment. Therefore, Thor can't be CG and must be either LN or NG. Seeing as he's evidently not lawful, he must be NG.

QED.

<Said for what seems like the One Bajillionth Time>
Except there is no proof that the One Step Rule applies in OotSLand.
</Said for what seems like the One Bajillionth Time>

To expand. There is very little evidence for Thor acting in any manner other than classic CG. Well, I suppose some people would debate that Thor acts in a non-Chaotic manner. But then again, you have people who try to claim that Redcloak is LG. :smalltongue:

So if Thor acts in a Chaotic Manner normally, and Dwarves (specifically Durkon) can get spells from him, we are forced to conclude one of two things:

A) Durkon can gets spells from Thor for some reason (Dwarves get to worship any Norse God they want [or they have less stringent restrictions], the One Step Rule doesn't apply in any OotSLand panthenon, Rich thought it would be funny to have a stodgy Durkon worship a free spirited drunken god, etc) or another.

B) Thor really isn't Chaotic Good.

Now I ask you. Look at Thor's actions throughtout the comic. He doesn't act in a NG manner or in a LG manner. If we didn't know the whole Durkon thing and we only had the strips with Thor in them, do you think anyone would seriously doubt Thor's alignment? Well, I suppose that some people will argue anything when it comes to alignment, but I think most people would click the CG box, myself. :smallwink:

So going by Thor's actions and going by the fact that Durkon can get spells, it becomes obvious to me that there is some sort of bypass of the One Step Rule.

QED (as you said :smallwink:)

[derfenrirwolv]

Or Thor is simply so chaotic that he doesn't care about the rule.

[suszterpatt]

Or Thor is simply so chaotic that he doesn't care about the rule.
I like this.

[Kobold-Bard]

Or Thor is simply so chaotic that he doesn't care about the rule.

I approve of this logic :smallbiggrin:

[turkishvan2]

I've never read any of the books, but... how is Roy NOT Neutral Good? I mean, he is heroic, but he almost let the bandits take Elan, and went along with the 'King of Nowhere' misunderstanding.
Lawful doesn't technically mean you won't do bad things or claim to be someone you're not, it just means you follow your word. Roy never made a vow to save Elan from bandits or to never claim to be a king, so he's of the hook.

[Gift Jeraff]

The logical thing for an Evil V to do, now that Ultimate Arcane Power is not the goal, would be to ally with Xykon.
Er, I think allying with a completely Evil, unpredictable psychopath you just humiliated and tried to destroy would be the least logical thing for anyone to do. >_>


Surely V is capable of being tempted again, and therefore may be most vulnerable to turning evil (Belkar doesn't count), but V is *trying* to be Good, and as the Deva said to Roy, that's what counts.
V is certainly trying to be Good, but you still have to take into account that it takes effort on Blackwing and Haley's parts to guide him/her, s/he (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0674.html) is still (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) struggling (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html) (minor struggles, but struggles nonetheless), and the few acts do not really make up for everything between blasting Kubota for Evil reasons and attacking Xykon out of pride.

V's certainly on the right* path and has the [mostly] right* mindset, and I do not think that s/he dipped that far into the Evil side of the pool, but I still maintain that they're Evil. I'm sure something totally dramatic will shift 'em back to Neutral or possibly even to Good.

*"Right" as in Good-aligned. I know you can't really say Good=right/Evil=wrong in D&D, but it just sounds better.


Why?
Because he doesn't strike me as Lawful or Chaotic and it only makes sense that two lovers share similar values and would want to spend eternity together. Plus the two main relationships (Haley/Elan and Roy/Celia) are also of the same alignment.

Yes, Eugene and Sara show that the same alignment != perfect couple (though I'd argue that you can pin their weaker relationship to Eugene becoming less Lawful and Good throughout the years). Yes, Tarquin and Elan's mother show that the complete opposite alignments can somehow fall in love (though note that their relationship fell completely apart and spawned a dependent idiot and a complete monster). Yes, Nale and Sabine seem to be genuinely in love (at least, Nale seems to genuinely love Sabine) and Sabine is probably not Lawful. And yes, I know we really have no way of knowing and it is merely a guess. Do not bother informing me that this is just an assumption on my behalf. I know how these things go. :smalltongue:

[derfenrirwolv]

Lawful doesn't technically mean you won't do bad things or claim to be someone you're not, it just means you follow your word. Roy never made a vow to save Elan from bandits or to never claim to be a king, so he's of the hook.

Sure, if he was lawful EVIL. He's (trying to be) lawful good though. He knew full well what an idiot elan was, and agreed to adventure with him anyway. Written contract or not, the unwritten contract with adventurers is that you're relying on each other to stay alive so you watch each others' backs no. matter. What. Even VARSUVIUS of all people understands this, as he demonstrated by scorching raying miko in the throne room.

[mucat]

Plus the two main relationships (Haley/Elan and Roy/Celia) are also of the same alignment.

Have we got confirmation that Celia is Lawful? She's an attorney, but that doesn't necessarily imply Lawful alignment. Fey are traditionally Chaotic, though Celia doesn't seem as capricious as most.

I would peg her more as Neutral Good; she's got a fairly organized mind, and parts of her code of conduct are immutable, but she tends to make up a lot of rules as she goes along

[Zevox]

Because he doesn't strike me as Lawful or Chaotic and it only makes sense that two lovers share similar values and would want to spend eternity together. Plus the two main relationships (Haley/Elan and Roy/Celia) are also of the same alignment.
We have hardly any scenes with Dorukon to go on for whether he was lawful or chaotic (heck, in theory he might even be neutral instead of good). And it strikes me as ridiculous to assume that being a couple is any indication of exactly matching alignments. Plus where do you get that Celia's alignment is Lawful Good? That she's good is a given after what we've seen of her, sure, but the lawful part not so much. And no, her learning to be a lawyer does not mean she is necessarily lawful.


Yes, Nale and Sabine seem to be genuinely in love (at least, Nale seems to genuinely love Sabine) and Sabine is probably not Lawful.
I think you mean the reverse - Sabine seems to genuinely love Nale, given her little talk with V. Nale for Sabine we're less sure of. And Sabine is almost certainly chaotic, being a Succubus. Creatures with "always" alignments only have exceptions in the rarest of occasions.


Sure, if he was lawful EVIL. He's (trying to be) lawful good though. He knew full well what an idiot elan was, and agreed to adventure with him anyway. Written contract or not, the unwritten contract with adventurers is that you're relying on each other to stay alive so you watch each others' backs no. matter. What. Even VARSUVIUS of all people understands this, as he demonstrated by scorching raying miko in the throne room.
In case you've forgotten, Roy went back for Elan and learned his lesson from that incident - hence why it was waived in his afterlife exam.

Zevox

[Lvl45DM!]

Celia's strict adherence to her principle of not killing folk seems pretty dang lawful to me

[Bongos]

Roy's sister Julia is True Neutral. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html)

[Zevox]

Celia's strict adherence to her principle of not killing folk seems pretty dang lawful to me
Are you honestly trying to suggest that only lawful characters would stick to a principle like pacifism :smallconfused: ? That's ridiculous.

Zevox

[Souhiro]

But that seems like support for chaotic since he broke the rules.

Well, borrowing the terms from World of Darkness, his nature is Chaotic Good, and his demeantor is Lawful Good.

[Ancalagon]

Well, borrowing the terms from World of Darkness, his nature is Chaotic Good, and his demeantor is Lawful Good.

That's not what Nature and Demeanor in the WoD are and those concepts surely don't translate to D&D's Alignment in any way.

[derfenrirwolv]

In case you've forgotten, Roy went back for Elan and learned his lesson from that incident - hence why it was waived in his afterlife exam.

Zevox

No, I didn't forget. My statements work perfectly fine without me being an ignoramus. The acts WERE a clear example of violating his alignment, that's WHY he got called out on it. It wasn't waived, it was considered in light of the fact that he had learned his lesson while alive.

[Azuyomi244]

And the original comment is incorrect anyway, because they WERE married by a LG authority--Durkon!

Durkon is LG, but he's not a follower of the southern gods. But I guess that doesn't really effect the whole Lawful thing....

[Gamgee]

Huh sorry for chucking the grenade into the forums (alignment debate), but so far only two people have been suggested that might fit. Lirian and Celia, and I personally think she is LG.

*cough* I know Rich doesn't read these forums *cough* However in the off chance an elephant decides to turn pink and he sees this he might want to introduce a NG character. Actually I'm sure some other alignments are missing representation too so I guess its pretty damn presumptuous of me to suggest this. So I'll suggest introducing some characters for them to just to broaden some of the aspects. Just in case that pink elephant exists I will also say an advance thank you even though its so totally unlikely.

[mucat]

Huh sorry for chucking the grenade into the forums (alignment debate), but so far only two people have been suggested that might fit. Lirian and Celia, and I personally think she is LG.
Don't forget Durokan. From what little we know of him, he seems pretty clearly Good, and shows no particular tendency toward Law or Chaos.

[Lvl45DM!]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that only lawful characters would stick to a principle like pacifism :smallconfused: ? That's ridiculous.

Zevox

No but I;m suggesting a more chaotic person, who is by definition less likely to stick to principles, would be willing to kill or at least blast a little to save someone from death. I specifically said it was her 'strict adherence' to said values not the values themselves

[KillItWithFire]

Don't forget Durokan. From what little we know of him, he seems pretty clearly Good, and shows no particular tendency toward Law or Chaos.

That's because we haven't exactly seen much of him but I'm willing to be optomistic. :smallsmile:

[Zevox]

No but I;m suggesting a more chaotic person, who is by definition less likely to stick to principles, would be willing to kill or at least blast a little to save someone from death. I specifically said it was her 'strict adherence' to said values not the values themselves
No. Chaotic characters are no less likely to stick to principles than lawful ones. What is likely that their principles will differ from those a lawful character would have. A relevant quote from the description of the chaotic good alignment in the SRD for you: "He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

But in any event I see no difference between law and chaos here, since it seems to me that pacifism is a principle connected to the good-evil alignment axis (most likely to be found among the good, least likely to be found among the evil) and not to the law-chaos axis.

In addition, if I may quote a certain faux-news comedian:

If you don't stick to your principles when they're tested, they're not principles. They're hobbies.
And more anecdotally, I'll also point out that in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, the Goddess of Peace (who is of course a pacifist and expects near-pacifism of her followers [they are only allowed to fight "in direst need"]), Eldath, is Neutral Good, and her clergy can be of any good alignment or True Neutral.

Zevox

[Lvl45DM!]

d20 SRD says ""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." Celia doesn't adapt, she just waited till she could use her negotiating skills. Its like all she has is a hammer and screwdriver but has a moral objection to hammers, (hammers being her spell and lightning ability in this case.)

While Celia could be Neutral or Lawful she certainly isn't Chaotic as evidenced by her inflexibility. Her ability to double deal and work with the evil thieves against the good Haley's interests based solely on her belief that killing is wrong sounds like Neutral Good with a side helping of Stupid Good. But then you look at her justification of why she could trade away Haley's earnings and its not "its better this way" she defends herself saying that it was "the money [Haley] stole" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html) could just be a bit of lawyer rhetoric, could be signs of Lawful Good

[Roupe]

in OoTS the Gods are active. in gameworld wise Its likely the Gods that enforces the alignments, sort of like a system of "Geneva conventions" to determine who is whose followers.

If Thor is a Lawful good God, his followers can follow his behaviour and be regarded (by the other Gods) as Thor followers and in range of the Lawful good alignment the way Thor see it. Also if Thor thinks the behaviour of a individual is one of his tenants, Thor may claim dibs on the individual. More importantly other Gods & their active followers would also consider that individual as one of Thors (despite the unfortunate individuals ignorance of its own alignment and supposed faith.)

[Souhiro]

I keep thinking that Thor IS of demeantor Legal Good, and Nature Chaotic Good.

Thor TRIES to be a "Good boy" that keeps his father's laws and serve as a model to their followers. (It sounds Lawful to me) BUT cannot help to indulge in beer and girls (Sounds kinda Chaotic to me) Since he isn't defined by one or another... a Neutral Good is a being able to follow laws most of time, but that won't mind into breaking a little havoc now and then. An that is for me the very definition of a Neutral Good.

But any NG can pose as a LG, after all. Most if daddy is looking at you!

[Sholos]

That scene where Thor is backing down from Tiger? It's pretty obvious that Thor was getting ready to "bend the rules" for Durkon again, and the only reason he doesn't is because the rules are being enforced on him, not because he's suddenly found respect for said rules. Seems pretty chaotic to me.

[Zevox]

in OoTS the Gods are active.
Er, not really, no. Aside from Thor's one response to Durkon's Control Weather spell which broke the rules they are bound by, we haven't really seen them do anything since creating the second world. The Dark One is the only exception there, and even he only created the Crimson Mantle so his mortal followers could carry out his Plan.


in gameworld wise Its likely the Gods that enforces the alignments, sort of like a system of "Geneva conventions" to determine who is whose followers.
Except we know they don't, since the gods had nothing to do with Roy's judgment when he died - indeed, he was flat-out told that his lack of religious piety was irrelevant, and only his alignment mattered. Plus since a god's followers do not have to be of the same alignment as him it makes no sense for alignment to be used to determine who is whose followers.

Zevox

[PopcornMage]

Except who you worship does matter, since Roy was alone on one side of the mountain, while hundreds of followers of the Southern Gods were on the other side.

I doubt it was a literal side either.

As the Deva said, it's a big book. 100 feet high! Room for all sorts of options. They even have Frequent Dying Miles.

So for Roy, his lack of piety didn't matter to him. For others it may be another story.

[Zevox]

Except who you worship does matter, since Roy was alone on one side of the mountain, while hundreds of followers of the Southern Gods were on the other side.
Which just means that people are sorted by their region of birth/worship by the planar forces. Not that the gods are involved in enforcing alignments in any way.

Indeed, that would be completely contrary to all D&D in general. Alignments have nothing to do with the gods - the gods themselves have alignments in the same way mortals do.


I doubt it was a literal side either.
Why? They were clearly on the same plane of existence.


So for Roy, his lack of piety didn't matter to him. For others it may be another story.
Sure - for people who actively worship one or more gods their piety may determine whether they go to that god or gods' domain or whether they simply go their alignment's plane. But it wouldn't have any affect on their alignment and how that is judged.

Zevox

[PopcornMage]

Because the mountain is an infinite plane. Or is it simple a metaphor? Only the revolving door is not a metaphor...or is it?

Also, don't forget Durkon's grey areas (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html). Alignment may or may not be an issue, but they are involved in some disputes about the disposition of souls.

And I really don't play alignments in D&D like you do, but then again, my gods may not be either. Then again, I've found most people don't do things the same, we're each all different and more in disagreement than concord, so it's not even worth worrying about.

[Zevox]

Because the mountain is an infinite plane. Or is it simple a metaphor? Only the revolving door is not a metaphor...or is it?
None of that is at all relevant to anything I said.


Also, don't forget Durkon's grey areas (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html). Alignment may or may not be an issue, but they are involved in some disputes about the disposition of souls.
Those have nothing to do with what I said or what I was responding to. I was debunking the ridiculous notion that the gods "enforce the alignments" or that the alignments are supposed to be a system for identifying the followers of each god. Those are both patently untrue both by what we've seen in the comic and by everything said about the matter in D&D.

Zevox

[PopcornMage]

I believe I'm the one who said "I doubt it was a literal side either."

I thought it'd be silly if an infinite mountain was surrounded by a demi-plane that had a literal other side. That's why I mentioned it. You replied, asking why, and I explained it. Nothing more than an offhand comment on the subject. Does my explanation make sense to you now?


And you are the one who said Roy's judgment had nothing to do with the Gods. Fair enough. But I'm saying that we can't extend it further, because we just don't know how the overall experience is. Or IOW, we don't have a copy of The Book. Or IOW, I'm avoiding arguing from the one to the many.

Now I would say Alignment is more a question between gods of a single pantheon, as the division seems to be geographical or cultural/racial, rather than universal. What do you think?

ETA: Also, I really disagree with what you represent is said in D&D, but as I said, it's just a case where it seems almost everybody disagrees.

[rewinn]

Er, I think allying with a completely Evil, unpredictable psychopath you just humiliated and tried to destroy would be the least logical thing for anyone to do.

V were in fact Evil, X's being Evil would not be a problem.

Xykon's not at all unpredictable, if you keep in mind what X wants. X is untrustworthy and prefers improvisation to planning, but that's different from unpredictable.

Team Evil plays rough, as Tsukiko found out on her first day. X's completely defeated V even with the soul splints, and would feel not at all threatened by a humiliated V.

V is certainly trying to be Good, but you still have to take into account that it takes effort on Blackwing and Haley's parts to guide him/her, s/he (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0674.html) is still (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) struggling (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html) (minor struggles, but struggles nonetheless), and the few acts do not really make up for everything between blasting Kubota for Evil reasons and attacking Xykon out of pride.

Neither attacking Kubota nor Xykon were evil acts. They may have been unwise but that's not evil.

V's voluntarily participation in a completely reward-free fleeing of slaves goes a long way to showing V's true alignment.

[Smiling Knight]

Xykon would not ally with Darth V. There are two things that grate his cheese: arrogant wizards, and people who try and kill him. And, Xykon being quite evil and impulsive, and the position of arcane minion already filled by Tsuikiko, he would be dead before he could roll for diplomacy.

[Zevox]

I believe I'm the one who said "I doubt it was a literal side either."

I thought it'd be silly if an infinite mountain was surrounded by a demi-plane that had a literal other side. That's why I mentioned it. You replied, asking why, and I explained it. Nothing more than an offhand comment on the subject. Does my explanation make sense to you now?
Sort of. I do not see why you think that, though. All of the planes are infinite, yet each is arranged in a pattern known as the Great Wheel (by default in D&D), with planes of similar alignment on either side of them. It has always been the case that a plane being infinite in size on the inside does not mean that it is infinite in the overall cosmology's arrangement.


And you are the one who said Roy's judgment had nothing to do with the Gods. Fair enough. But I'm saying that we can't extend it further, because we just don't know how the overall experience is. Or IOW, we don't have a copy of The Book. Or IOW, I'm avoiding arguing from the one to the many.

Now I would say Alignment is more a question between gods of a single pantheon, as the division seems to be geographical or cultural/racial, rather than universal. What do you think?
I don't know what "IOW" means, but I don't think you understand how the afterlife works in D&D. By default, everyone is sorted by alignment, going to the plane that best matches their alignment. The gods have absolutely nothing to do with that. We see via Roy that this is the case in the Order of the Stick as well.

The gods come in only when it comes to their worshipers. Which, again, fits with what we see in the comic - the gods have nothing to do with Roy's judgment and destination because he didn't particularly care about them, yet Durkon talks about how Thor and Hel determine who gets the souls of Dwarves who follow Thor, and we see that Jirix was sent to the Dark One's domain after his death.

Variants exist in specific campaign settings, and of course any given DM can always alter theirs, but that is how it works in D&D by default, and as I mention above, it matches what we see in the comic.

Zevox

[PopcornMage]

I explained why:


Because the mountain is an infinite plane. Or is it simple a metaphor? Only the revolving door is not a metaphor...or is it?

And yes, I agree you have to worship a god for them to come into the picture directly. For anything about D&D, let's just leave that to the gaming forum.

ETA: But do ask yourself, who wrote The Book?

[Zevox]

I explained why:
Because the mountain is an infinite plane. Or is it simple a metaphor? Only the revolving door is not a metaphor...or is it?
But that's not an explanation, because it explains nothing. It asks a pair of completely pointless questions which have no basis in any logic I can see.


ETA: But do ask yourself, who wrote The Book?
First, what does "ETA" stand for? I have no clue.

Second, if it wasn't simply a joke (which would be my top inclination, by far), most likely high-rank Celestials (the upper-planes equivalent of Archdevils and Demon Lords, whatever they're called). Unlike the gods, natives of the planes are literally physical incarnations of their alignments - that's why they so rarely shift to any other alignment, and still have their original alignment's subtype even when they do. It would only make sense for them to define how mortals would be judged as meeting their alignment's standards for afterlife entry.

Zevox

[PopcornMage]

I ask those questions to show my thinking.

And I don't recall seeing that credit on the author line for The Book. Besides, we still don't know the content. So the idea that Gods may get exceptions is hardly outside the realm of possibility.

[Zevox]

I ask those questions to show my thinking.
Then your thinking makes no sense.


And I don't recall seeing that credit on the author line for The Book.
That's because there was no author line. We saw only a label reading "The Book." I never asserted there was an author line, I only answered your question with the most logical answer I could think of - and the second most logical answer I could think of, since I figured that the most logical one, "it was just a joke," may not satisfy you.


Besides, we still don't know the content. So the idea that Gods may get exceptions is hardly outside the realm of possibility.
Exceptions of what? What are you talking about? Is this at all related to my argument against the absurd notion that the gods "enforce the alignments" or that the alignments exist to categorize followers of each god anymore?

Zevox

[Kish]

First, what does "ETA" stand for? I have no clue.
Edited to add, when it's not estimated time of arrival.

[Zevox]

Edited to add, when it's not estimated time of arrival.
Huh. Never seen it used as the former before. Every time someone notes an edit that I've seen they simply label it with the word "Edit."

Zevox

[Souhiro]

Yah... now that Afterlife is about the way you live, and not the gods you worship, we must ask... why does someone, besides the clerics, worship a god in OotS-verse?

It's usually assumed that gods protect their worshippers and gives them the ultimate price in the afterlife. But now, it sounds like gods make it harder: An atheistic (Or at least, a Faithless one) like Roy could go to "Heaven" just being Lawful and Good. But someone who worships a god AND dies "In Sin" (I.E. not practicing the rites) surely would have a harder time with the Deva Tests: You need Lawful Good AND a good "Tiger-ian" or "Rat-Ian" or whatever.


So... what benefict would gain the average follower of a god in the OotS-verse, if he isn't a cleric? Sure that clerics had a harder time finding followers!

[PopcornMage]

Well, good thing we have an indication of Thor standing up for his followers. We don't know that the dwarf in question wasn't a cleric or paladin, but like I said, it's a big Book. There's room for all sorts of things that just weren't relevant to Roy's case since he wasn't a devoted follower of any given God.

Perhaps Dwarves who follow Thor and die in bar fights get a free pass for the property damage.

And it's better for the Faithless too.

[Souhiro]

xDDDDD

"Worship a god, You'll get a lawyer in your trial"
"Piss a god, You'll get a pissed lawyer in your trial"

And that brings us the final one.
"They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!"

[Bogardan_Mage]

V were in fact Evil, X's being Evil would not be a problem.
And that makes them all one big happy family? Screw that. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html)


Team Evil plays rough, as Tsukiko found out on her first day. X's completely defeated V even with the soul splints, and would feel not at all threatened by a humiliated V.
But by the same token, would not feel any great need to offer him/her a job. What does Xykon want with a loser?

[rewinn]

Xykon would not ally with Darth V. There are two things that grate his cheese: arrogant wizards, and people who try and kill him. And, Xykon being quite evil and impulsive, and the position of arcane minion already filled by Tsuikiko, he would be dead before he could roll for diplomacy.
Well, yeah, plus there's also:

:vaarsuvius: "It has come to my newly-awakened sense of the inevitable triumph of evil and the desirability (both implicit and explicit) thereof, that of the masters of vile despicableness with whom I might to mutual advantage ally myself ..."

:xykon: "Too many words." BOOM!

[alaalba_123]

Well, yeah, plus there's also:

:vaarsuvius: "It has come to my newly-awakened sense of the inevitable triumph of evil and the desirability (both implicit and explicit) thereof, that of the masters of vile despicableness which whom I might to mutual advantage ally myself ..."

:xykon: "Too many words." BOOM!

I can so see that happening

[PopcornMage]

:redcloak: Opened your copy of Star of Darkness did you?

[Faramir]

well, I'll play, though I'll also take the opportunity to observe that the whole discussion pinpoints the absurdity of a system that describes people rather than actions as good/evil/lawful/chaotic. After all this time (and I started playing D&D when there were only 3 alignments) I have a hard time getting my head around that :).

I'll agree with the person who said that V is now doing his best to behave in a Neutral Good fashion. She's having difficulty as the habits of his long lifetime are hard to break, but it is demonstrated that he is now willing to sacrifice not only personal goals but personal happiness for the wellbeing of others. Whereas before he saw no reason to help the dirt farmers, she didn't even hesitate in helping free the slaves (and from all appearances went out of his way to use spells that didn't kill the guards when doing so - I saw illusions and maybe sleep? instead of fireballs and lightning bolts). Whereas before she was interested in arcane power and knowledge for its own sake now he is interested in how it can be used to help not only her friends but people he's never even met. And she certainly doesn't care about laws one way or the other in delivering his help.

[PopcornMage]

Not killing is prudence in this case, not necessarily morality.

[rewinn]

:redcloak: Opened your copy of Star of Darkness did you?
:haley: Always steal your jokes from the best Tee-hee!

[Nimrod's Son]

:haley: Always steal your jokes from the best Tee-hee!
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:WkZoObUzh2sBJM:http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7645/teeheemey.jpg&t=1
......./
"So, uh, my dog's got no nose..."

[hamishspence]

well, I'll play, though I'll also take the opportunity to observe that the whole discussion pinpoints the absurdity of a system that describes people rather than actions as good/evil/lawful/chaotic. After all this time (and I started playing D&D when there were only 3 alignments) I have a hard time getting my head around that :).

I've seen it argued the other way round (usually by Oracle-Hunter)- that alignment is only about people, and not about actions, citing the PHB's

"Alignment is a character's general personal and moral attitudes" as evidence.

By contrast the DMG, and many of the splatbooks, do describe actions as lawful/evil/good/chaotic.

So it may be a bit of both.

[Porthos]

So it may be a bit of both.

I think that's the only sane way to look at it, tbh. I suppose one could try to square the circle by saying, "Someone who is Neutral Good will almost always preform Neutral Good actions". But then we run into the "doing good deeds to further an evil goal" problem.

Likewise, if it's only intent, then we run into "doing something unquestionably evil, even though one thinks it is the right thing to do" problem.

I think, philisophically speaking, someone who is of a given alignment will generally preform actions that are in accordance of said alignment. It's the special cases where one needs to look at the intent/action dichotomy and see if it makes a difference or not.

[Burner28]

One thing I seem to notice, or perhaps have not noticed reading the comics are some strong neutral good characters. Not literally strong, but a strong presence in the story. Hell even a minor one would do. Can we find some examples here? Yes I am fully prepared to say duh why didn't I think of x when it is brought up. So can we list some examples here? I see a lot of Lawful Good, Chatoic Good ect.

Why?:smallconfused: Why do you care? Not trying to be rude here though, but still...

[octagon]

Why?:smallconfused: Why do you care? Not trying to be rude here though, but still...

Because... the absence of such an aforementioned Neutral Good presence is generally staggering!?

At least, I think so.

[Kish]

Alignments that aren't the four polar ones seem to be generally lacking, actually.

The Order has two Lawful Goods, two Chaotic Goods, one...debatable...and one Chaotic Evil. Xykon's group is defined by one very very Chaotic Evil and one very very Lawful Evil.

[hamishspence]

Isn't Tsusiko more Neutral Evil?

[Kish]

I could see a case that she's any of the three evil alignments. What she primarily is, is expendable. Xykon and Redcloak are central characters; either of them dying would massively change the comic. Tsukiko is not.

[hamishspence]

True. Haerta was an exceptionally powerful NE soul- but she wasn't really a character. Nero, the NE archfiend, doesn't really play a big part on his own- the IFCC are more like one single minor character taken together.

The case for her being NE is that she was presented by the purple fiend, who is Nero, a daemon (according to Don't Split The Party).

[Sholos]

Because... the absence of such an aforementioned Neutral Good presence is generally staggering!?

At least, I think so.

But why is it staggering? Is there any valid reason to be inclusive about alignments? It's not like it's discriminatory to not have characters that match certain alignments.

[Hydro]

Isn't Tsusiko more Neutral Evil?

I would definitely peg her at NE, yes. No recognizable lawful or chaotic tendencies so far; the most you can say is that she whines and tries to appeal to authority when Redcloak doesn't play nice, but that's a very neutral/pragmatic attitude towards the whole "authority" thing.

I think our friendly neighborhood leprichan might be CN.

[hamishspence]

I think our friendly neighborhood leprichan might be CN.

If that's Thog- I haven't seen anything to suggest he "has qualms about harming the innocent".

[Hydro]

Actually, you're right; I was overlooking all the 'boredom-fueled rampage' bits. He's also very obedient when well fed.

He's portrayed as too stupid to really understand the consequences of his actions, but that doesn't actually hold up (for human-like races) in terms of alignment.

[octagon]

But why is it staggering? Is there any valid reason to be inclusive about alignments? It's not like it's discriminatory to not have characters that match certain alignments.
Well, of course not, but... it's just striking that mostly polar alignments are present if you think about the extreme diversity and variety of OotS characters. Most of the important characters, as it already has been mentioned, lean towards a certain side of either axis... which arouses the question why it's that way.

[Sholos]

Well, of course not, but... it's just striking that mostly polar alignments are present if you think about the extreme diversity and variety of OotS characters. Most of the important characters, as it already has been mentioned, lean towards a certain side of either axis... which arouses the question why it's that way.

I'm not sure that is surprising, actually. As protagonists and antagonists, these characters are more likely to have strong views on both axes, meaning that the "extremes" are more likely to pop up. Regardless, there's certainly no reason to introduce another character purely for the sake of having a character of a certain alignment. I'd actually argue that that would be a bad move.