People insisting that Evil-aligned characters are Neutral aligned [Archive]

Burner28

2010-12-09, 08:22 AM

Okay I am not trying to complain though I do want to know something.

Although I haven't currently as of comic 763 Discussion page read anyone claiming that Tarquin is Lawful Neutral( they may have even changed their view:smallsmile:) I wonder: Why do people insists that characters that are canonically an Evil alignment by DnD terms are in fact Neutral?

Now I am not trying to convince anyone that anyone that does anything evil is completely and utterly unjustified by real world standard regardless of their reasons( as that is not what I am trying to get at). But for those that actually believes that using evil means to achieve a good end makes you by DnD term Neutral, that is not the case.

The important thing to note is that I am not trying to argue whether or not Tarquin's actions are morally unjustified or not, but as I said regardless of whether or not what your opinion of Tarquin is, he is still evil by DnD rules.

It would be like insisting that Thog and Belkar are Chaotic Neutral or Tsukiko True Neutral or Recloak as Lawful Neutral despite their actions being by DnD standards Evil. Again, why?

tcrudisi

2010-12-09, 08:27 AM

I think it's because the 3.x alignment system is far too broad and open to interpretation. I know that when I played 3.x, my group and I would get into alignment debates all the time.

Burner28

2010-12-09, 08:44 AM

Well the Law-Chaos thing does mean different things to different people. But still, my point is that by DnD terms, Tarquin is clearly and unambiguously an evil alignment, though that doesn't mean that he is pure evil, just that his alignment on the Good-evil axis is undebatable, and so is the other Evil aligned characters(Tsukiko, Redcloak,Belkar,Nale,Sabine,Thog and especially Xykon who as the MitD stated doesn't have any love to give)

hamishspence

2010-12-09, 08:58 AM

snikrept

2010-12-09, 09:51 AM

Prowl

2010-12-09, 11:05 AM

hamishspence

2010-12-09, 11:11 AM

I think the fundamental point of difference is whether to consider evil acts as a means towards neutral ends is more evil or neutral.

The way I understand neutral alignment, someone of that alignment can do evil acts (to a point) without being evil if those acts are balanced with good acts.

This is consistant with Heroes of Horror- though Good ends rather than Neutral ends are expected for mild Evil acts to not make the character Evil aligned.

In fact, in a place dominated by Good, the neutral character would have to pursue evil acts to bring balance - whereas that same character would do good acts in an evil environment for the same reason.

Only a "balancing neutral" character might do this. And even then, they might be aware that the presence of Evil places means that they don't have to do Evil in a Good place, to "balance things out"- on a world scale, it may already be balanced.

Mordenkainen is this kind of "balancing neutral" but most Neutral characters aren't.

HalfTangible

2010-12-09, 11:18 AM

In short, :thog: Thog too funny stupid to be evil!

Fixed that for you :smallsmile:

The Pilgrim

2010-12-09, 12:29 PM

In short, :thog: Thog too funny stupid affectionate to be evil!Fixed that for you :smallsmile:

Further fixin'

If Rich Burlew ever releases a line of Thog Stuffed Puppets, he'll become (even more) rich in no time. We all want our children to have a cushy bloodthristy half-orc barbarian to give a hug to.

Darakonis

2010-12-09, 12:38 PM

Why do people insists that characters that are canonically an Evil alignment by DnD terms are in fact Neutral?

Denial.

People conflating likability with goodness.

Peace,
-Darakonis

Grendus

2010-12-09, 12:39 PM

I dunno. Thog was ready to use Celine Dion as a torture device. Even Nale isn't that evil.

Querzis

2010-12-09, 02:50 PM

Jarlaxle springs to mind. Neutral Evil in 3rd ed FRCS. Neutral Evil in 3.5 ed Underdark. Evil in 4E FR Campaign Guide.

Yet many people insist that "the way he behaves in the novels is more consistant with Chaotic Neutral than Neutral Evil."

People tend to interpret character behaviour their own way.

Well thats because they really screwed up on that one. Not about the evil part mind you, I would say hes chaotic evil (though mind you hes still definitly a lesser evil compared to all the other villains, Jarlaxle does have a conscience) but about the Neutral part. Jarlaxle was freaking chaos incarnate! Everything he did just screamed «chaos» and he was actually the favorite of the freaking goddess of chaos! So of course, when they said his alignement was neutral evil, everyone said they screwed up big time because, well, they did. I really doubt much people would be complaining about it if they had said he was Chaotic Evil.

But otherwise, to get back to the OP, nobody said that Tarquin might be Lawful Neutral seriously since the first few strip with him (where he indeed had not done anything especially evil yet except for raising Nale). You really have to be able to detect trolling if you wanna survive on the internet.

mucat

2010-12-09, 02:55 PM

Why do people insists that characters that are canonically an Evil alignment by DnD terms are in fact Neutral?

They don't.

If you were to poll the forumites on Tarquin's alignment, there would be almost unanimous agreement that Tarquin and Redcloak are Lawful Evil, and Belkar and Thog are Chaotic Evil.

Of course, since it's "almost unanimous" you'll still see posts claiming that one or another of those people are Neutral. But it's not a widely held view...and if you want perfect consensus, the Internet is a bad place to look for it.

I think there are more people posting "why does everyone deny Tarquin is evil?" then there are people who actually deny it. :smallwink:

Mastikator

2010-12-09, 03:30 PM

littlekKID

2010-12-09, 03:34 PM

Drow are described as chaotic and evil,.

Just a nitpick, Drow are Neutral Evil

EvilJames

2010-12-09, 03:36 PM

I never thought Belkar was anything but evil. However I sit firmly on the fence for Thog. He certainly can be CE. Heck, it's even likely, based solely on his association with Nale, but in things we've actually seen him do him do, have been particularly evil. The most we have is his expression when he hits Haley with a door. I guess you could also add his participation in the slaughter that led to Elan's framing, but that was instigated by Nale. All of his evil acts seem to involve him being led by Nale. When led by Elan he doesn't do any of that and happily goes along with what ever "not Nale" says. He always seemed like a slightly aggressive animal only vaguely aware that his actions affect anyone else.

But that's part of the problem with Neutral, you can never be sure if they really are neutral or if their evil and just having a bit of a dry spell.

of course Elan pretty much calls him evil when they escape from jail, so assuming that Elan is a reliable source, it's cannon.

Porthos

2010-12-09, 03:37 PM

One common mistake people make is project their own values on D&D values. Which is wrong, wrong, and utterly wrong.
Moving beyond that. Many sources that describe D&D morality are contradictory. Drow are described as chaotic and evil, yet functionally they are the same as dwarves on the lawful/chaotic scale. And dwarves are described as lawful and good. Also, angels are described as functionally more similar to devils than to paladins, angels who are the very embodyment of good, and paladins who are the very mortal pinnacle of good ought to be similar. But no. Demons are closer to devils (functionally) than they are to a typical chaotic and neutral mortal, yet they are alignmentwise further apart.

So yeah, D&D morality is inconsistent, and people don't even adhere to it.

(and by functionally, I mean, how they actually behave)

I know you're just describing the situation, but it's probably a VERY good idea that we don't examine the idea of D&D and Morality too closely. :smalltongue:

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'. :smallwink:

=======

I never thought Belkar was anything but evil. However I sit firmly on the fence for Thog. He certainly can be CE. Heck, it's even likely, based solely on his association with Nale, but in things we've actually seen him do him do, have been particularly evil. The most we have is his expression when he hits Haley with a door. I guess you could also add his participation in the slaughter that led to Elan's framing, but that was instigated by Nale. All of his evil acts seem to involve him being led by Nale. When led by Elan he doesn't do any of that and happily goes along with what ever "not Nale" says. He always seemed like a slightly aggressive animal only vaguely aware that his actions affect anyone else.

But that's part of the problem with Neutral, you can never be sure if they really are neutral or if their evil and just having a bit of a dry spell.

of course Elan pretty much calls him evil when they escape from jail, so assuming that Elan is a reliable source, it's cannon.

I knewknewknewknew this was going to happen. :smalltongue:

Speaking strictly on alignment acts, and not the M-Word, here is a partial list of Thog's Greatest Hits:

Thog is a person who has committed mass murder.
Thog is a person who is a violent psychopath.
Thog is a person who thinks it is "A-OK" to chain people up and treat them like animals.
Thog is a person whose remedy to boredom is to go on a mass spree of violence.
Thog is a person who will slaughter innocent people who are not only of any threat to him whatsoever, but are actively trying to help him.

Et. etc. Et etc. Et. etc.

As always, I will stipulate that Thog is more Chaotic than Evil. But that just means he has a one way ticket to Pandemonium when he dies.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that with the right guidance Thog might be rehabilitated. Maybe. But Thog hasn't actually done that yet. And until he does, he's sitting on the Evil side of the street.

Will it be a shame that someone who is potentially redeemable isn't? Yes, I suppose so. But potential is all it is at the moment.

====

That's the short (non Morality themed) version of the argument. Don't make me hunt down all of my posts I've made on this subject and force me to copypasta them into this thread. :smalltongue:

Querzis

2010-12-09, 03:52 PM

I guess you could also add his participation in the slaughter that led to Elan's framing, but that was instigated by Nale. All of his evil acts seem to involve him being led by Nale.

No it doesnt. Nale is scared of Thog and seems to assume that Thog would have no problem murdering him if he gets bored enough:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html

Thog as also no problem making Nale do something he wanna do just by giving him aa angered look:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0256.html

Nale kinda control Thog but hes still quite obviously scared of the big guy. You never know when he might decide he wanna keep you as a puppy after all (poor blacksmith).

hamishspence

2010-12-09, 04:33 PM

Well thats because they really screwed up on that one. Not about the evil part mind you, I would say hes chaotic evil (though mind you hes still definitly a lesser evil compared to all the other villains, Jarlaxle does have a conscience) but about the Neutral part. Jarlaxle was freaking chaos incarnate! Everything he did just screamed «chaos» and he was actually the favorite of the freaking goddess of chaos!

He has a chaotic streak- but "chaos incarnate" may be an exaggeration.
Since 4E Chaotic Evil is closer "destruction incarnate" that means he fits Evil better than CE in 4E.

Applying the same reasoning to 3E, some of the NE traits do fit better:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil

"For mine own good, all causes shall give way."
—MacBeth

Sometimes known as the "A-hole Alignment" or "True Evil". Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, and will follow or disregard laws only as much as doing so advances their own interests. And it is ALL about their own interests. While they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the Magnificent Bastards they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team because it's better for them at the moment. True Magnificent Bastards of the Neutral Evil persuasion can sometimes (with a little luck) lure other villains into an Enemy Civil War, usually along the lines of Order Versus Chaos - playing Lawful Evil against Chaotic Evil - and cleaning up at both sides' expense.

In Dungeons And Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Note that unlike the other two evil alignments, it is rare if not unheard of to find any Well Intentioned Extremists of this alignment who think they're Neutral Good, because unlike Order Vs Chaos, Good Vs Evil is much less open to interpretation.

Many Corrupt Corporate Executives are Neutral Evil Jerkasses in charge of Lawful Evil MegaCorps - it's easier to get ahead in business when you cheat. Unlike a Lawful Evil CCE who'd fly into a rage over somebody else's infractions, Neutral Evil sorts rarely care (as long as they themselves stay ahead) - a suitably Affably Neutral Evil businessperson might even applaud a fellow cheater's "initiative."

WowWeird

2010-12-09, 05:13 PM

No it doesnt. Nale is scared of Thog and seems to assume that Thog would have no problem murdering him if he gets bored enough:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html

Or, you know, Nale's plan to remain uncaught will be ruined when a half-orc starts massacring dozens of people.
While Thog is NOT good, he was NOT threatening to kill Nale, nor did Nale think so IMHO.

Water-Smurf

2010-12-09, 05:48 PM

My theory is that, when someone likes a character, they're less eager to see them as an evil monster. If you personally dislike Redcloak, you're more likely to see him as a selfish bastard who's murdered everyone he has and destroyed the Azurites because he's vindictive and doesn't want to admit he's wrong. If you personally like him, you're more likely to see him as a tragic character (even hero) who really needs a hug. If you dislike Belkar, you're going to see him as a ruthless killer with no redeeming features, and if you like him (especially since he's funny), he's just awesome and all those people he kills have it coming or are inconsequential. Stuff like that.

Since Tarquin is likable as a person, people are more willing to make excuses for him so they don't have to look at the terrible things he has done.

(Personally, he lost any affection from me when he talked about having that poor woman's husband murdered and he lost any chance of gaining it back when it was implied he's a serial rapist.)

NegativeFifteen

2010-12-09, 06:19 PM

On the topic of Redcloak, I've been wondering if his cause would be considered evil. (The whole trying for goblin rights thing.)

Kish

2010-12-09, 06:30 PM

Whether the cause is evil is largely immaterial now. He has too much innocent blood on his hands, much of it goblin blood, to be anything but thoroughly evil.

Heksefatter

2010-12-09, 06:31 PM

On the topic of Redcloak, I've been wondering if his cause would be considered evil. (The whole trying for goblin rights thing.)

Equal rights for goblins, combined with a redistribution of land in their favour? That is not at all evil.

Serving the Dark One, who may once have been someone of worth to a greater or lesser degree, but now was adequately described as a petty and spiteful god. That is, at the very best deluded, but Redcloak cannot claim to be ignorant. That is evil.

His stunt with the Snarl, potentially destroying the world? That is extremely evil, even if one accepted that it was for a good cause.

Bulzeeb

2010-12-09, 06:35 PM

Regarding Thog, he may or may not be evil depending on how he was raised. I consider an evil act to be one where the person consciously believes that the act would cause harm to another, yet chooses to do so for unimportant reasons(which would exclude situations like stealing food to feed your child, a sufficiently important reason).

So since Thog apparently has the mind of a child, he may not be aware that his actions cause harm. People tend to not consider conventionally evil acts done by children to be a mark against the morality of the child so long as they don't understand right and wrong. Children after all need the guidance of their parents to act as society expects them to, and not just be incredibly selfish.

The question is whether Thog understand that he's hurting people and that hurting people is bad. At least one strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html) implies he does, whereas his child-like exuberance when hurting others (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html) implies he doesn't. In fact, his torture of the weaponsmith even supports that he doesn't know right from wrong - even an evil person does not deliberately hurt people they cherish, as Thog seems to cherish his "puppy".

Edit/PS: I should mention that at least as far as in-universe alignments go, Thog is undoubtedly evil. My point is that his evil is less deep than most other evil characters.

Felixc-91

2010-12-09, 06:41 PM

Thog is legally evil. if someone cast detect evil at him he would come up positive. the fact that he hurts people for fun clinches that. beyond that, trying to convince others of your own morality is in most cases like bashing you head against a 3 foot thick concrete wall. your not going to get any where and its going to hurt.

SniperJolly

2010-12-09, 07:47 PM

Equal rights for goblins, combined with a redistribution of land in their favour? That is not at all evil.

Serving the Dark One, who may once have been someone of worth to a greater or lesser degree, but now was adequately described as a petty and spiteful god. That is, at the very best deluded, but Redcloak cannot claim to be ignorant. That is evil.

His stunt with the Snarl, potentially destroying the world? That is extremely evil, even if one accepted that it was for a good cause.
By your description, theoretically the OotS themselves are evil, as apparently "destroying a gate and threatining the fabric of space-time" is legaly evil.

No, wait... we had a whole sub-plot on putting this theory on trial. (and please dont say that the trial was rigged, that is a whole 'nother can of worms)

Oh boy, I get to defend the villan.

It is agreed that destroying/manipulating the gates is not evil in and of itself, and you don't feel that "redistributing land" is either, then how is destroying/manipulating the gates in order to "redistribute land" for "equal rights" evil, in your mind?

The only stain on Redcloak (pun, hehe) is his association with Xykon and his (attoned for, agonized over) callous disregard for his own troops (who he didn't consider goblins at all, at the time) Other than that, he was simply born into an Evil race, and in giving Gobbos more power and freedom, he gives them more power and freedom to, you know, be evil. Worshipping the Gods he was raised with, and taught by worshippers of, and working for equal Gobbo rights on a devine level is not evil either.

The only question from this prespective is, is associating with Xykon as a nessisary evil(er) and killing the people that murdered his own evil enough to count as LE? LN?

The problem arises when you consider that DnD alignment is occasionally not just how much of a dirty bastard you are, but who will attack the heros on sight. Goblins will invariably attack 90% of adventurers if they wander into their village, but then again so would Nice, Good, Lawfull Azurites if a random Goblin trader walked up to the gates plying his wares. Redcloak is evil by DnD standards because of Fantastic Jingoisim, and not because he commits atrocitys like slaughtering entire villages.

Miko was Evil by most standards, but LG by DnD standards because Gobbos would instanly either flee in terror or form an angry mob, while the pepole of Cliffport would tolerate her. When she (spoiler alert)killed shinjo, then she crossed the line between life in prison reading linear guild recruting posters and reciving orders and beating up villans in a particular cavaliar attitude towards collateral damage. She was no longer tolerated by society, and yet was suddenly accepted by the bad guys.

In DnD, Evil means "Bad Guys" not that they are a bad guy.

tomandtish

2010-12-09, 08:38 PM

Another point to consider is that while good, evil, law, and chaos are objective forces in D&D, the supreme universal being behind those forces (referred to in hushed whispers as The DM) is the person making the determination of what actually fits each of those categories for his/her campaign. They may be objective, but only within the confines of that particular DM's world view, and not anyone else's. I've played in games where Paladins like Miko were the norm and her behaviors firmly within LG, and games where she would have fallen about 30 strips after we met her (LN at best).

Zevox

2010-12-09, 09:56 PM

By your description, theoretically the OotS themselves are evil, as apparently "destroying a gate and threatining the fabric of space-time" is legaly evil.

No, wait... we had a whole sub-plot on putting this theory on trial. (and please dont say that the trial was rigged, that is a whole 'nother can of worms)
You've conflated completely different actions. What the OotS actually did was accidentally destroy a gate. Pretty hard to argue that an accidental action is evil, no matter what it is.

What was argued at the trial to defend the Order was that this accident was actually a good thing because it kept the gate out of the hands of Xykon and his lackeys, individuals who would abuse it. Because a destroyed gate can be rebuilt, but one that is abused is a serious threat.

Neither of which really has anything to do with those actions being "legally evil," incidentally. The Order was charged with weakening the fabric of the universe by destroying the gate, not with being evil, nor was there a contention that their action was evil. Those are different things completely.

And what Redcloak is doing is yet another thing entirely. He intends to *SoD spoilers*
gain control of a gate, granting that control to The Dark One, so that he can use it as leverage to blackmail the other gods into giving Goblins a fair shake. He is doing this knowing full well that any accident in his attempt to gain control of a gate could lead to unleashing the Snarl, thereby destroying the world yet again, and even considers that an acceptable scenario because it means The Dark One will make sure Goblins get a fair shake when the third world is made. Good luck arguing that, by any D&D definition, that is not evil.
Another matter marking Redcloak as evil is his brutal occupation of Azure City - his treatment of O-Chul, enslaving the human survivors of the conquest that didn't escape, that sort of thing. It's pretty impossible to make excuses for those.

Zevox

mastermind

2010-12-09, 10:00 PM

Another thing to point out is that there are varying degrees of each alignment, as decreed by my nifty modified chart of the original alignment system:
The Complete Alignment Chart (http://i51.tinypic.com/2qnmebk.png)
(Please don't criticize it, I spent a good 10 minutes on this)

SniperJolly

2010-12-09, 10:49 PM

Right then, thanks for clearing that up, looks like Start of Darkness is required reading now...

Geno9999

2010-12-09, 10:57 PM

People conflating likability with goodness.

Same in the real world. "I like him / find him funny / got a favor from him, so he can't be a bad person despite what he did to others" - you find this all the time. Of course in the real world there's no big cosmic absolute scale of goodness, but our preconceptions carry over to a fantasy world where such a thing exists.

In short, :thog: Thog too funny to be evil!

This, people think funny=good. Not so. In fact, if you want proof, I got a this guy in Gotham who likes to wear purple suits, really funny man...

And people feel less guilty for liking a "Neutral" character than an "Evil" one.

Iranon

2010-12-09, 11:25 PM

The alignment system is missing a measurement for intensity, or how much people will let their alignment get in the way of practicality.

Either there is no formal distinction between an honest everyman and a paladin or between a cut-throat businessman who takes professional pleasure from driving competition out of buiness and a literal cut-throat... or a distinctly Evil mindset will still be flagged as Neutral because it's not cartoonish enough.

I'd go with he former, but that means Evil != Antagonist which some people prefer as a broad-strokes storytelling tool.

wizuriel

2010-12-10, 12:30 AM

Another matter marking Redcloak as evil is his brutal occupation of Azure City - his treatment of O-Chul, enslaving the human survivors of the conquest that didn't escape, that sort of thing. It's pretty impossible to make excuses for those.

In the goblins defense, they at least took prisoners and didn't just execute the enemy/innocents on sight.

Zevox

2010-12-10, 12:32 AM

In the goblins defense, they at least took prisoners and didn't just execute the enemy/innocents on sight.
You do realize that's not really a defense, right? "They could have done something (arguably) worse" doesn't have anything to do with how horrible what they actually did is.

Zevox

Querzis

2010-12-10, 03:13 AM

You do realize that's not really a defense, right? "They could have done something (arguably) worse" doesn't have anything to do with how horrible what they actually did is.

Zevox

Hes referring to the fact that the elves and the Saphire Guards actually did execute enemy/innocents on sight, even childrens. The Goblins might be evil, but they are perfectly justified in claiming that they are the lesser evil (Redcloak not so much though but the goblins race as a whole? Probably. Right-eye? Definitly.)

Zevox

2010-12-10, 03:29 AM

Hes referring to the fact that the elves and the Saphire Guards actually did execute enemy/innocents on sight, even childrens. The Goblins might be evil, but they are perfectly justified in claiming that they are the lesser evil (Redcloak not so much though but the goblins race as a whole? Probably. Right-eye? Definitly.)
I'm not so sure he was, but in any event, like I said, that's still not a defense. The Elves' actions in those few strips were quite horrendous, yes, but that doesn't make Redcloak's actions any less horrendous. Which is the "lesser evil" is debatable, but kind of beside the point.

Zevox

Felixc-91

2010-12-10, 03:29 AM

since when was Right Eye any thing other than true neutral? when did he ever do evil acts?

hamishspence

2010-12-10, 05:14 AM

Mostly, participating in the attack on the first gate. Aside from that though- very little, at least on screen, that wasn't self-defence from adventurers.

Burner28

2010-12-10, 05:35 AM

Wait, Redcloak's evil plan is... to get equality for goblins?!?

NegativeFifteen

2010-12-10, 06:35 AM

Wait, Redcloak's evil plan is... to get equality for goblins?!?

Yep. Which is why in the back of my head I thought he was neutral. (Using evil acts for a good cause). But then again, I'm not entirely sure what the Dark One is using him for, so go figure.

hamishspence

2010-12-10, 07:35 AM

"Using evil acts for a good cause" can only go so far for a Neutral alignment.
If the acts are evil enough and common enough, an Evil alignment becomes more justifiable- even if the character never loses sight of their goal.

And arguably, Redcloak has at points lost sight of his goal-

being willing to stay on the plan as is, because leaving it would imply he'd made a mistake, rather than modify the plan- which might be better for the goblins.

Swordpriest

2010-12-10, 09:54 AM

It would be like insisting that Thog and Belkar are Chaotic Neutral or Tsukiko True Neutral or Recloak as Lawful Neutral despite their actions being by DnD standards Evil. Again, why?

I figure they're so deeply ingrained with relativism that they can't accept the existence of evil even in a world where it can actually be detected with a spell, like a Geiger counter detecting radiation.

wumpus

2010-12-10, 11:16 AM

I'm not so sure he was, but in any event, like I said, that's still not a defense. The Elves' actions in those few strips were quite horrendous, yes, but that doesn't make Redcloak's actions any less horrendous. Which is the "lesser evil" is debatable, but kind of beside the point.

Zevox

I haven't read Start of Darkness so I might be missing something...

Redcloak blames Paladin's for the slaughter, and Paladins were definitely there and not stopping the crusade. Therefore it is silly to talk about "lesser evil" when such actions were sanctioned by the gods themselves as "good".

"Like flies to wanton boys are we to the Paladins. They kill us for their sport".
- unknown goblin

hamishspence

2010-12-10, 01:01 PM

They were the ones killing small goblin children- after the goblin priest they'd come to kill was dead.

However, The Giant posted in an earlier thread, pointing out that just because we don't see a dramatic Fall like with Miko, doesn't mean that none of the paladins Fell during the attack:

Here, post 21:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145182&highlight=Redcloak

Zevox

2010-12-10, 01:29 PM

Therefore it is silly to talk about "lesser evil" when such actions were sanctioned by the gods themselves as "good".
It would only be such if what the gods sanctioned had anything to do with good and evil. But that is not the case.

See also hamispence's response, which is relevant.

Zevox

EvilJames

2010-12-10, 03:18 PM

=======
I knewknewknewknew this was going to happen. :smalltongue:

Speaking strictly on alignment acts, and not the M-Word, here is a partial list of Thog's Greatest Hits:

Thog is a person who has committed mass murder.
Thog is a person who is a violent psychopath.
Thog is a person who thinks it is "A-OK" to chain people up and treat them like animals.
Thog is a person whose remedy to boredom is to go on a mass spree of violence.
Thog is a person who will slaughter innocent people who are not only of any threat to him whatsoever, but are actively trying to help him.

Et. etc. Et etc. Et. etc.

As always, I will stipulate that Thog is more Chaotic than Evil. But that just means he has a one way ticket to Pandemonium when he dies.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that with the right guidance Thog might be rehabilitated. Maybe. But Thog hasn't actually done that yet. And until he does, he's sitting on the Evil side of the street.

Will it be a shame that someone who is potentially redeemable isn't? Yes, I suppose so. But potential is all it is at the moment.

====

That's the short (non Morality themed) version of the argument. Don't make me hunt down all of my posts I've made on this subject and force me to copypasta them into this thread. :smalltongue:

He certainly is a violent psychopath (congratulations on using the word correctly and using the correct word, certainly a rarity in the internet wastelands :smalltongue:) But that's most of my point he's never been a malicious psychopath. Not like Nale or Belkar, (and Belkar is most definitely a malicious violent psychopath, devoid of anything even resembling empathy). He seems to have less a lack of empathy and more a lack of ability to understand consequences. He thinks these things are ok because he is told they are and doesn't see a reason not to trust the person who told him. To me at least he seems no different than the Slaad.

No it doesnt. Nale is scared of Thog and seems to assume that Thog would have no problem murdering him if he gets bored enough:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html

Thog as also no problem making Nale do something he wanna do just by giving him aa angered look:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0256.html

Nale kinda control Thog but hes still quite obviously scared of the big guy. You never know when he might decide he wanna keep you as a puppy after all (poor blacksmith).

As was mentioned before. Nale isn't scared of him.A rampages would not have been helpful to Nale at that time, and Thog is just to useful to not keep happy/distracted. Fortunately for Nale keeping Thog happy/distracted is relatively easy.

Porthos

2010-12-10, 04:01 PM

First off, thanks for the compliment. :smallsmile:

Now on to debating...

He seems to have less a lack of empathy and more a lack of ability to understand consequences.

Thing is, in DnD stupidity is no excuse. Otherwise we have to peg Elan as Neutral as well. I mean, are people going to say he is too stupid to be good? I don't think so. And that smacks somewhat of a Double Standard to me (that is, one standard for Elan like characters and a separate standard for Thog like characters).

I am a big big believer in intent when it comes to alignment. As even a casual reading of any of my alignment posts will show. But I am also a believer in action as well. I think that actions and intent have their role to play. And one doesn't have to be malicious to be evil. It can certainly help. But it's not a prerequisite.

In the case of Thog, he clearly recognizes guilt from innocence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html). This implies that he recognizes right from wrong, even if only in a rudimentary sense. Yes, he's been shown to be "childlike". But fiction is rife of examples of people with a childlike demeanor that nonetheless were as evil as evil can be. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychopathicManchild)

You also mention the Slaad. I would mention that the Slaad, more or less, are Chaos incarnate. They'll (at least the stupider ones) do what ever enters into their head at any one time. The difference with Thog is, the thing he wants to do most is go on violent rampages.

If someone keeps doing whatever enters their head, and it keeps being Wanton Violence over and over and over again, then sooner or later that geiger counter is going to start pinging.

If one wants to get all motivational, then one could say that Thog's outbursts are part of a deep seeded psychological need and craving for violence that only other passions (like fudge ripple :smalltongue:) can slake. The thing is, he could try to control these passions. Or even redirect them into more "noble" goals. But he doesn't. He wallows in them.

Now he does have his good (as in positive, not alignment) points. And it is theoretically possible that with the right guidance, he might reform. But he's much like a wild animal in the sense that even if one think he's been "trained" properly, he could still revert to the same old destructive tendencies if your back is turned for a moment.

I guess I will wrap up by saying, yes, Thog is clearly different in outlook and motivation than both Belkar and Xykon. But, then again, Roy is clearly different in outlook and motivation from both Miko and Durkon. The phrase "alignments aren't straightjackets" is a famous one for a reason.

===============

However, The Giant posted in an earlier thread, pointing out that just because we don't see a dramatic Fall like with Miko, doesn't mean that none of the paladins Fell during the attack:

I would also point out, and I am still somewhat surprised that it hasn't attracted much comment, that in the commentary for DStP, Rich claims that for all of the stains on the collective souls of Azure City, the Azurites are still the "Good Guys" in this story.

Not perfect. Not without sin. And people who were collectively capable of doing things that they absolutely shouldn't have done. But, in the end, still the "Good Guys" of this story.

Whether one agrees with Rich or not is, of course, entierly up to the reader. :smalltongue:

SniperJolly

2010-12-10, 05:35 PM

I don't think that Paladins falling and being Good Guys are mutually exclusive, in fact, massacreing an entire village, returning to (presumably) Shinjo and getting a pat on the back would undermine that high ground a bit. Falling is the healthy and natural way for moraly impaired Sapphire Guardspepole to be weeded out of the closest councils. Attonement I suppose would be possible, or else their ranks would be pretty thin by now, and a whole mess of bitter, but still good ex-pallies would be wandering the streets of Azure City by now.

So Azurites getting punished for commiting atrocities=Lawful and Good.

Callista

2010-12-10, 07:56 PM

Thog is CE, but he's just too stupid to really express any alignment strongly. His INT is at most 4, probably a 3. (For comparison, Elan's has been estimated at something like 7-9.) Thog also probably has a low Wisdom score.

The thing about intelligence and alignment is that the smarter and more perceptive you are, the more you have the capacity to think ahead and plan, think about the consequences of your actions, and think about what other people might be feeling (Sense Motive). Thog is as evil as someone with his INT and WIS can get; but that's not extreme Evil. At the point where sentience stops--which is INT 2 by D&D rules--no alignment other than True Neutral is possible. The closer you are to that boundary, the more you tend toward True Neutral. But make no mistake about it: Thog knows (to some extent) that he's hurting people, and doesn't care (to the extent that he can think ahead about it). That makes him evil. If you're sentient, you're capable of making moral choices.

Drolyt

2010-12-10, 11:32 PM

Thog might be Evil. I would argue that if his apparent lack of mental faculties are sufficient to count as mental illness he would be True Neutral in the same way man-eating tigers are. Belkar is definitely Evil. The main problem many people have with this is that he is an Evil Hero. His actions are contributing to the salvation of the world. This might even earn him brownie points in the OotS afterlife, but he is still Evil with a capital E. The people who can't accept an evil protagonist are the same people who argue Light from Death Note is justified. Redcloak was Neutral or (this is stretching it, though I would argue it of Righteye) Good at one point and later turned to evil. I would argue that he is in fact the star of Start of Darkness; after all, Xykon was always Evil. Redcloak just wanted equal treatment for goblinoids. Finally, Tarquin. He's affably evil and a well-intentioned extremist. He is pleasant enough and seems to honestly believe his conquest will result in less needless war. Yet he is definitely evil.