does anybody else think this guy will come back?

[denthor]

A Cleric that can cast high level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0612.html) after all he killed his best friend "brainy" Pete.

[Bulldog Psion]

It seems unlikely, though not impossible.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

He's a paranoid, vaguely evil cleric who has long since skipped town. He is proof that there are other high-level clerics around, contrary to whatever Roy says, but he's still not going to be their first choice, if they could even find him in the first place.

If a cleric of Loki is going to show up at random, it's more likely to be someone whose name we know, and my guess is that the name in that scenario is most likely to start with an H.

...then again, his name could still be Herbert.

[Mastikator]

OotPCs spoiler
Or maybe, when Durkon posthumorously returns to his place of birth he brings great destruction.
I think he's gone forever, the OotS will have to go on without him, and soon without Belkar. In fact, Elan is the only one we know will have a happy ending, that probably includes Haley, V is going to a bad place and Roy has a habit of putting himself in mortal danger and getting killed, with both Team Dark One and the FCC going for the gate the Oots is hopelessly outgunned.

My prediction: Durkon is gone forever. Vampire Durkon isn't Durkon even after he's been released from Malacks thrall.

[Ir0npanda]

He's a paranoid, vaguely evil cleric



The Cleric of Loki is 100% Chaotic Neutral. Which is a permitted alignment for a CE god.

He proved himself chaotic by his history of violating rules imposed on him by outside hierarchies such as his church and the local government, and by his longstanding habit of removing Marks of Justice from anybody willing to pay him.

He proved himself NOT evil by his compassion in healing Blind Pete's (his best friend) eyes the first time AT GREAT PERSONAL RISK -- he knew that the Thieves Guild, the strongest local power structure, would have murdered or sold him out immediately had they found out.

Furthermore, he was inclined to let Pete go even when confronted with the fact that his erstwhile friend had betrayed him after he risked his life to heal him. These two acts prove that he is NOT EVIL. The fact that he was able to be talked into killing him by Belkar proves that he is NOT GOOD.

This leaves CHAOTIC NEUTRAL

[Ir0npanda]

Note that he is also on the Protagonist side in the giant OOTS double-poster

[factotum]

He proved himself NOT evil by his compassion in healing Blind Pete's (his best friend) eyes the first time AT GREAT PERSONAL RISK

The critical part of that sentence is "his best friend". Evil does not mean you can't be friends with people, and it especially doesn't mean you have to throw your friends to the winds as soon as they ask you to take a risk on their behalf. There's absolutely nothing in what you've said about the cleric of Loki's friendship with Blind Pete that precludes him being Evil.

As for the OP's question: the highest level spells we know the cleric of Loki can cast are fourth level (Sending, Restoration) which is not particularly high level, and in addition, he's on another continent. If we do ever see him again it probably won't be until after we've returned to the Eastern Continent.

[Ir0npanda]

An evil person would never risk his life merely for friendship.

For love, maybe. For an ideal? Certainly. To spite his enemies? Sure.

Not for friendship.

Furthermore, an evil person would NOT hesitate to end a HELPLESS enemy's life, especially when that same enemy has JUST sold you out to people who will murder you and you KNOW that. Hell, an evil person would RELISH killing his enemy under such circumstances.


The Cleric of Loki is not evil. Seriously. Get over it

[Mastikator]

An evil person would never risk his life merely for friendship.

For love, maybe. For an ideal? Certainly. To spite his enemies? Sure.

Not for friendship.

Furthermore, an evil person would NOT hesitate to end a HELPLESS enemy's life, especially when that same enemy has JUST sold you out to people who will murder you and you KNOW that. Hell, an evil person would RELISH killing his enemy under such circumstances.


The Cleric of Loki is not evil. Seriously. Get over it

He didn't hesitate, he was shocked by the betrayal. He then splattered his own friends brain all over the floor with metal stick.
Try imagining that a close friend of yours sold you out to get his eyes back and then you take a mace and bash his head open while making jokes about "brainy pete".
Just because it's stick figures doesn't make it any less of a dark moment. To say that he's absolutely not evil when he's clearly in the grey area is a bit presumptuous.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

*Ir0npanda responds to the phrase, "vaguely evil," with bold and underlined protests in the character's defense.*

EDIT: *Now other people are arguing with him.*

There's no need to get worked up. I didn't mean to pass judgement or anything. The point is that he probably wouldn't have any interest in helping the Order out, nor would the Order have much interest in hunting him down now that he's made himself scarce.

[Ir0npanda]

He is not in any grey area, judging by his actions in the strip. He is not evil. The Cleric of Loki is Chaotic Neutral

The Cleric let Pete off easy compared to what a chaotic evil person would do if he was betrayed by a best friend for whom he risked his life, and found said traitor friend helpless in front of him begging for his life.

Belkar is Chaotic Evil. He's done unspeakable things to random mooks. He has tortured countless goblins to death, gleefully murdered helpless and/or surrendered foes, laughed at the suffering of innocent victims at every opportunity, killed people because they annoyed him or because he wanted their candy bar, and desecrated dozens of corpses of his foes. And in almost none of these cases has he even actually had a grudge against his victims.

Thog is Chaotic Evil. Thog murdered hundreds of innocent civilians just to render an arrow on the stick-pin diagram map of the kills. He murdered an innocent and FRIENDLY sylph while ignoring her cries and thinking about puppies. He killed police just for the fun of it. He tore apart hundreds of victims in the Colosseum, many of whom were likely in there for nothing worse than lacking papers or public urination. Not only that but he heedlessly destroyed half the Colosseum itself and likely caused the deaths of dozens of spectators at least. And in none of these cases did he have any grudge at all (perhaps Roy counts as a grudge, but he claimed to LOVE the spectators at his fights and still killed them).

Xykon is Chaotic Evil. He blasted people to bits for laughs and giggles. He murdered hundreds of his own troops just so that he could turn them into Undead and save himself money on food, or healing magic. He let his chief lieutenant endure humiliation and suffering at the hands of a capital-"P" PALADIN of all things, just so that he could bet on the outcome of the fight. He killed a guy just because he liked his mundane, non-magical crown and was too lazy to get one of his own. Note that in 90% of cases he can't even recall or recognise his own enemies when they face him, let alone hold a grudge against anybody.

And how does he treat a prisoner who he actually HAS a grudge against (O-Chul)? He holds him for weeks while dreaming up endless depraved and excruciating tortures for him. And when the prisoner actually poses a MINISCULE threat to Xykon himself, Xykon immediately snaps into cold-blooded murder mode and squashes him like an ant (foiled only by the magic of the MITD)

In short, get some damn perspective. The Cleric of Loki is 100% clearly CHAOTIC NEUTRAL, not evil, by the standards of OOTS-world. Let alone by DnD standards.

[Finagle]

Whoa, take a chill pill, fellow.

The Cleric of Loki can't even cast resurrection, it's above his caster level. It's a moot point anyway as Durkon ain't coming back. He's going to his dwarven homeland at the head of an undead army or something.

[hamishspence]

An evil person would never risk his life merely for friendship.

For love, maybe. For an ideal? Certainly. To spite his enemies? Sure.

Not for friendship.

Savage Species makes it pretty clear that this is not true.

And this article by The Giant:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html


Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.

So, how does one create realistic emotional responses? First, remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket. Not even for NPCs. Evil characters can love, good characters can hate.

takes a similar approach.

While the Cleric of Loki doesn't have to be Evil- it is still quite possible.

[Ir0npanda]

Lol I was raging

:thog: *huff huff*

:thog: Why I mad again?

:elan: Uh... No reason

:thog: Oh, OK!

[hamishspence]

Way I see it- there's no such thing as an act that proves a character "Not Evil". Evil characters have some of the widest character ranges- what makes them Evil is what they do, rather than "what they don't do".

[Cavenskull]

Way I see it- there's no such thing as an act that proves a character "Not Evil". Evil characters have some of the widest character ranges- what makes them Evil is what they do, rather than "what they don't do".
Not even a cleric actively worshipping a god of Good alignment?

[rodneyAnonymous]

"Vaguely evil".

[hamishspence]

Not even a cleric actively worshipping a god of Good alignment?

Certainly possible in the Eberron campaign setting, at least.

[Souju]

Way I see it- there's no such thing as an act that proves a character "Not Evil". Evil characters have some of the widest character ranges- what makes them Evil is what they do, rather than "what they don't do".

Don't forget "Why they do it." You can do good things and still be considered unilaterally evil if your reasons are twisted.
Like Belkar willfully subjecting himself to a court of law...so he can get the chance to cause a paladin to fall.

[Ir0npanda]

I don't mean to blow this out of proportion, but Im just saying:

When compared to literally every single chaotic evil character in OOTS so far, the Cleric of Loki comes off as positively saintly. We know he's chaotic, and hes probably not good, so he is CN. I don't see how any other alignment can be seriously argued for.

[hamishspence]

When compared to literally every single chaotic evil character in OOTS so far, the Cleric of Loki comes off as positively saintly.

Selection bias. We only see him for a short time- most of the other characters known to be Chaotic Evil, we see for much longer.

One way of looking at it might be that he's CN- but Belkar's encouragement to do more CE things, may end up changing his alignment.

[Ir0npanda]

Selection bias. We only see him for a short time- most of the other characters known to be Chaotic Evil, we see for much longer.



What we DO know of him is very telling of his character


One way of looking at it might be that he's CN- but Belkar's encouragement to do more CE things, may end up changing his alignment.

This may prove very true

[factotum]

Certainly possible in the Eberron campaign setting, at least.

And in the OotS setting, considering the Azure City paladins worship the "Twelve Gods" as a collective, despite the fact some of those gods are unquestionably evil.

[Mastikator]

Way I see it- there's no such thing as an act that proves a character "Not Evil". Evil characters have some of the widest character ranges- what makes them Evil is what they do, rather than "what they don't do".

:miko: Detect Evil!

That would prove "not evil".
Otherwise agreed.

[hamishspence]

There's a few spells that evil characters can't use (rather than "won't use") - true.

[Stabbey]

Whoa, take a chill pill, fellow.

The Cleric of Loki can't even cast resurrection, it's above his caster level. It's a moot point anyway as Durkon ain't coming back. He's going to his dwarven homeland at the head of an undead army or something.

The Cleric of Loki said that he could use a scroll to cast Resurrection, though.

[KillianHawkeye]

:miko: Detect Evil!

That would prove "not evil".
Otherwise agreed.

There are plenty of ways of getting around that, though. Most of which are far more subtle than carrying a lead sheet wherever you go.

[pearl jam]

There are plenty of ways of getting around that, though. Most of which are far more subtle than carrying a lead sheet wherever you go.

Though possibly less humorous. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

While I concur that the cleric of Loki was most likely Chaotic Neutral, or True Neutral (Rich doesn't seem to much care about the one-step rule)...

...I do not expect him to be coming back. He would need a scroll to cast Resurrection. Any cleric in the world could cast Resurrection using a scroll (even those twelve clerics with Wisdom of 16, the five with Wisdom of 15, and that one whose party looks at him funny who actually has a Wisdom of 14 could do so after Vaarsuvius cast Owl's Wisdom, a spell we know Vaarsuvius has and has been known to prepare). He would not likely welcome finding the spotlight on him again, considering how he reacted to it before, and the narrow escape he had then. He is unlikely to be the Order's best source for a Resurrection scroll.

[lio45]

:miko: Detect Evil!

That would prove "not evil".
Otherwise agreed.

I think the events in the comic have already proven you wrong there. (i.e. merely having Xykon's crown on you is enough to totally mess up the reading.)

Detect Evil doesn't prove anything "without a doubt" in the OotSverse.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Some spells (not that one) have restrictions on who can cast it, though, or specific effects depending on target alignment.

[Kish]

But how hard is it to use an illusion to fake that you're actually casting a spell you aren't casting?

I bet that Girard, when he was alive, could do a pretty "convincing" Holy Smite. (If he was ever motivated to do so.)

[MReav]

An evil person would never risk his life merely for friendship.

What about money? Pete paid a lot for that Regeneration spell.

I'm not declaring his alignment in either case. Merely that he's still ambiguous.