No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that there is a lack of main characters with strong neutral alignments in OOTS, excepting V.

Where are the neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral evil and chaotic neutral recurrent characters?

I like how Rich develops the alignment system and that's why I always wanted to know what a neutral good character would look like in OOTS, as I think it's one of the most interesting alignments to develop in a character, specially if he/she is intelligent.

For the record, I like the extra fluff for alignments from this web http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

[TRH]

Lots of people argue that Miko was LN by the end, but that's not much of a role model, I'll grant. Tsukiko seemed NE, and from Start of Darkness we had Lirian, who was NG. Admittedly, if she had been even a little less of a bleeding heart then Redcloak's crusade would have been over early, but what are you gonna do.

Oh, and some argue that Haley was more CN than CG near the beginning. Belkar nearly talked her into slave trading, you'll recall, and that was the point in the comic where character development was really starting to matter, so it's of some relevance.

Oh, I almost forgot, but Leeky Windstaff was NE, as well. All of the Neutral alignments have been done at some point, albeit possibly not to the degree you might like.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Lots of people argue that Miko was LN by the end, but that's not much of a role model, I'll grant. Tsukiko seemed NE, and from Start of Darkness we had Lirian, who was NG. Admittedly, if she had been even a little less of a bleeding heart then Redcloak's crusade would have been over early, but what are you gonna do.

Oh, and some argue that Haley was more CN than CG near the beginning. Belkar nearly talked her into slave trading, you'll recall, and that was the point in the comic where character development was really starting to matter, so it's of some relevance.

Oh, I almost forgot, but Leeky Windstaff was NE, as well. All of the Neutral alignments have been done at some point, albeit possibly not to the degree you might like.

Yeah, but they are not mostly recurring characters anyway...

[137beth]

I think that the MitD is true neutral...

[Gift Jeraff]

Nale tends to come across as textbook Neutral Evil, despite his claim of being Lawful early in the comic. My personal guess is that he started as just barely Lawful like Roy, but that was mostly as a result of training under his father most of his life, and as he spent more time away from home (plus Sabine's influence) he became more dedicated to pure Evil, without regards to Law or Chaos.

Note that I would personally peg Roy as Neutral Good (with Lawful tendencies), so maybe Nale is Lawful enough for Rich to consider him LE.

[Thokk_Smash]

What about Therkla? She was pretty strongly Lawful Neutral; I don't have Don't Split the Party, but I think the Giant even mentioned as much in a commentary.

[Gift Jeraff]

What about Therkla? She was pretty strongly Lawful Neutral; I don't have Don't Split the Party, but I think the Giant even mentioned as much in a commentary.

Yeah, he refers to her as a spokesperson for Neutral, with regards to the Good-Evil axis.

[Rakoa]

Note that I would personally peg Roy as Neutral Good (with Lawful tendencies), so maybe Nale is Lawful enough for Rich to consider him LE.

I think the Giant hinted playfully in a forum post that Nale is not, in fact, Lawful Evil.

[Goosefarble]

Enor and Gannji are both True Neutral, too, and while hardly "main" characters, they had quite a large stint in the comic and were both pretty good characters (in my opinion).

[MrBanana]

Well for starters, most of the characters are heroes or villians, whcih means a lot of good and evil alignments, V being the exception.

Belkar and Thog (if Thog is not-dead) both have the potential to be come neutral characters. The Thieves Guild is most likely filled with chaotic neutral characters.

I think neutral (in case of good vs. evil) are rare because that's the alignment most normal people have, and this comic isn't about the normal people, it's about the adventurers and villains. And the only major NPC faction they meet are all paladins, so that's not balancing it out either.

[F.Harr]

V's true nutral and I suspect that, in the balance, Eugene is neutral good and Haley is something-neutral, too.

[Kish]

One post which asserts both that Eugene Greenhilt is good and that Haley is not. Poor Haley.

[bguy]

What about Therkla? She was pretty strongly Lawful Neutral; I don't have Don't Split the Party, but I think the Giant even mentioned as much in a commentary.

Didn't Therkla murder someone just, so she could be her class valedictorian. That screams evil alignment. (To say nothing of her then happily serving as the personal assassin for a lawful evil aristocrat who was in league with fiends.) Maybe at the very end she switched over to a neutral alignment but for most of her life she seemed very Lawful Evil.

[sengmeng]

Neutrality = no drama. No complex motivations, no exploration of what it means, and neutrality is hardly something that people have a strong dedication to. It would be a one-off joke, most likely, like when one of the guys I played D&D with would use "For neutral!" as his battle-cry. Look at Julia Greenhilt: "I'm True Neutral. I swing both ways." Funny, yes, but the underlying message is: I'm just a pragmatist and kind of self-centered.

[ORione]

V's true neutral and I suspect that, in the balance, Eugene is neutral good and Haley is something-neutral, too.

He's waiting to get in the Lawful Good afterlife, so I doubt it.

[snikrept]

Well, Belkar is Chaotic Neutral, and he's a major character!

*ducks*

[Sir_Leorik]

Neutrality = no drama. No complex motivations, no exploration of what it means, and neutrality is hardly something that people have a strong dedication to. It would be a one-off joke, most likely, like when one of the guys I played D&D with would use "For neutral!" as his battle-cry. Look at Julia Greenhilt: "I'm True Neutral. I swing both ways." Funny, yes, but the underlying message is: I'm just a pragmatist and kind of self-centered.

That is not what True Neutral means at all. It means that

a) a creature is incapable of making ethical and moral judgments (Animals, many Magical Beasts, some Aberrations)

b) a character chooses not to get involved in the affairs of others, focusing on herself, her family, her neighbors; she says "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours, don't bother me or ask me for help and I won't bother you or ask you for help

c) a character, such as Mordenkainen, is actively seeking to maintain a balance of power between Law and Chaos and between Good and Evil to prevent any one side from becoming too dominant. When Iuz the Old or Vecna threaten to conquer the Flanaess or destroy millions of lives, Mordenkainen rallies the Circle of Eight to the aid of the forces of Good. Once Vecna or Iuz are on the ropes, Mordenkainen will allow the forces of Evil to escape, because he fears that an attempt to destroy them will either undermine the fabric of reality or will lead Good to become complacent and unable to meet the next threat from Chaos or Evil. Despite his best efforts to explain this philosophy, Mordenkainen has lost the friendship of Tenser and Bigby as a result of following this philosophy dogmatically. Mordenkainen is not interested in riches, not anymore; he earned more in a single dungeon crawl into Castle Greyhawk decades ago than most adventurers earn in a lifetime nowadays. (Stupid wealth by level guidelines for 3.X!) He is willing to sacrifice his friendships with Bigby and Tenser, to pursue an agenda promoting Neutrality, in the hopes that all of Oerth will be better in the long run.

[Morty]

Or it might just mean that the character's good and evil traits and actions balance out.

[LadyEowyn]

Main heroes are typically likely to be Good-aligned, otherwise they wouldn't be going through so much to save the world; having the team have a Neutral member like V (and grappling with the issues of an Evil member like Belkar) is an interesting addition in itself. Likewise, villains are generally going to be Evil, otherwise why would the heroes oppose them? (It's different in a story where you just have protagonists and antagonists, not 'heroes' or 'villains', but OotS isn't that kind of story.)

V is (or was) True Neutral, Girard was probably Chaotic Neutral (his family did a lot of bad stuff in the course of protecting the gate, but the fact that they were protecting it and thus giving up normal lives to safeguard reality makes them at least Neutral), Enor and Gannji were True Neutral, I'd expect the bandits from Book 2 were some flavour of Neutral; so I'd saw we've had a decent number of neutral-aligned characters on the good-evil axis.

The observation that most Good and Evil characters are either Lawful or Chaotic is a good one; I suppose it's easier and more interesting to write characters that lean to one side or the other to provide more contrast between members of the same team (e.g., Elan and Roy; Redcloak and Xykon).

EDIT: Also, regarding the post two posts above this discussing Neutrality: the second type doesn't really provide much for a character to do in a comic, since they just want to be left alone and stay out of things, but we do have examples in Enor and Gannji. The balance-preserving kind always seems weird to me - Good and Evil are two arbitrary extremes. Good is, well, good, and Evil is evil. Why should their be a balance between people who want to save, preserve, and improve life, and people who want to kill everyone they dislike, or just everyone it amuses them to kill? The Good afterlives are idyllic, the Evil ones are horrific. I can understand the idea of wanting a reasonable "balance" between Law and Chaos, but why would someone who wasn't evil deliberately want more Evil (ie: more people being murdered and tortured) in the world?

[Sir_Leorik]

V's true nutral and I suspect that, in the balance, Eugene is neutral good and Haley is something-neutral, too.

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. I keep repeating over and over, but no one listens to me: a Character's personality and a Character's Alignment are two different things. That's how Miko could be arrogant, condescending and rude, and still be a Paladin, while Elan can be cheerful, friendly and honest, and still be Chaotic Good. Tarquin can love Elan dearly, and still be a Lawful Evil tyrant, and Belkar can love Mr. Scruffy and still be a Chaotic Evil psychopath when it comes to Humans and Kobolds.

[Bird]

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. I keep repeating over and over, but no one listens to me: a Character's personality and a Character's Alignment are two different things. That's how Miko could be arrogant, condescending and rude, and still be a Paladin, while Elan can be cheerful, friendly and honest, and still be Chaotic Good. Tarquin can love Elan dearly, and still be a Lawful Evil tyrant, and Belkar can love Mr. Scruffy and still be a Chaotic Evil psychopath when it comes to Humans and Kobolds.
This is very well put. The contrast between Eugene's being a jerk and his LG-ness is one of my favorite things about the character. (I do think that the "absentee parenting" which you mention would push him a bit away from LG -- leaving your wife with all the child-rearing duties is the sort of non-malevolent selfishness that strikes me as very neutral. Though I agree that he's probably LG overall.)

My favorite kind of TN has always been a simple one -- not principled and self-sacrificing enough to be good, not malevolent or unprincipled enough to be evil. Similar deal with respect to law/chaos. That's it. Such a character can still have tons of motivations that lead to great drama -- they can fall in love, they can protect their families, they can try to get rich, they can try to save the world, whatever. They just aren't as likely to be as principled or as unprincipled about it as the white or black hats.

[F.Harr]

He's waiting to get in the Lawful Good afterlife, so I doubt it.


Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. I keep repeating over and over, but no one listens to me: a Character's personality and a Character's Alignment are two different things. That's how Miko could be arrogant, condescending and rude, and still be a Paladin, while Elan can be cheerful, friendly and honest, and still be Chaotic Good. Tarquin can love Elan dearly, and still be a Lawful Evil tyrant, and Belkar can love Mr. Scruffy and still be a Chaotic Evil psychopath when it comes to Humans and Kobolds.

Well, he's waiting for AN afterlife. And I think it's a great point Sir Leorik makes. But if Roy keeps trying, Eugene quit trying a long time ago. Even when the world is at stake, he cares more about his and his issues than the mission. I accept that he's good in that he decided that his family should come before the oath and that he has some passing regret for not being an attentive father to Roy. But although his inability to deal with his family reasonably can't really be layed at the feet of his alignment, the fact that when he started something, he lost focus on it tends to not-very-lawfulness.

But that's just me.


This is very well put. The contrast between Eugene's being a jerk and his LG-ness is one of my favorite things about the character. (I do think that the "absentee parenting" which you mention would push him a bit away from LG -- leaving your wife with all the child-rearing duties is the sort of non-malevolent selfishness that strikes me as very neutral. Though I agree that he's probably LG overall.)

My favorite kind of TN has always been a simple one -- not principled and self-sacrificing enough to be good, not malevolent or unprincipled enough to be evil. Similar deal with respect to law/chaos. That's it. Such a character can still have tons of motivations that lead to great drama -- they can fall in love, they can protect their families, they can try to get rich, they can try to save the world, whatever. They just aren't as likely to be as principled or as unprincipled about it as the white or black hats.

Yeah, that's valid.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Neutrality = no drama. No complex motivations, no exploration of what it means, and neutrality is hardly something that people have a strong dedication to. It would be a one-off joke, most likely, like when one of the guys I played D&D with would use "For neutral!" as his battle-cry. Look at Julia Greenhilt: "I'm True Neutral. I swing both ways." Funny, yes, but the underlying message is: I'm just a pragmatist and kind of self-centered.

True neutrality maybe, but neutral good, neutral evil and chaotic neutral can be very dramatic.

For example, a neutral good character is the champion of good (and not lawful good), because he's not attached to traditions, rules but neither to individuality and undiscipline. That makes a NG a very complex character, if he/she is smart, because he will struggle to follow the best path to do the right thing, and that implies using intelligence and analysis. That's a problem that LG or CG chacters don't even consider.


probably[/I] Chaotic Neutral

Please...
Girard is THE archetype for Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral characters are incaple of sacrifices for the common good, even less comitting their entire lifes to guard an "absurd" Gate...

Chaotic Neutral characters are, on their best, independent, pragmatical and individualists. But as true individualists, they would never involve in lifetime activities for the promotion of good causes. If they could give their life to a project, being CN as they are, they would be philosophical followers of Chaos. One example of this could be the Joker ("I'm an agent of Chaos") in the Dark Knight Batman.

EDIT: What the boards seem to forget here is that the "true hero" is the Neutral Good alignment, (one that it's entirely committed to the cause of Good, without restrictions) and not the Lawful Good...:smallsigh: Take a look at this wheel http://easydamus.com/Composite2.png

[Morty]

Girard is THE archetype for Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral characters are incaple of sacrifices for the common good, even less comitting their entire lifes to guard an "absurd" Gate...

For someone who wants more Neutral characters in the story, you seem to misunderstand the Neutral alignments quite badly.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

For someone who wants more Neutral characters in the story, you seem to misunderstand the Neutral alignments quite badly.

Very good reason, yeah... :smalltongue:

[Gift Jeraff]

Protecting the world != automatically Good

It could be done for selfish reasons. Or it could be done for Good reasons, but with Evil means. Or it could be for Good reasons with Good means, but you also happen to murder orphans for fun.

[Kish]

And Blas's description of Chaotic Neutral bears a very close resemblance to the Player's Handbook description of one alignment.

Unfortunately, that alignment is Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Neutral. Any time you find yourself saying, "That character can't be X Alignment, he has a good quality"...even if X Alignment is Something Evil, you're wrong. You're much more wrong if X Alignment is Chaotic Neutral--as for Girard*.

Liking extra "fluff" some random Internet person writes is one thing. Losing sight of the clear descriptions in the Player's Handbook is quite another. People on the board correctly "forget" that "Neutral Good is the 'true hero' alignment" because it's absolutely wrong to say that Neutral Good is officially better or more good than either other good alignment.

*Girard's behavior appears to have been quite Chaotic Evil. The only obstacle to classifying him that way, is that he traveled with Soon for as long as he did without Soon appearing to either Fall or kill him. Good has been quite thoroughly off the table ever since the comic revealed the Draketooths' horrific "recruitment" methods.

[AgentofHellfire]

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. I keep repeating over and over, but no one listens to me: a Character's personality and a Character's Alignment are two different things. That's how Miko could be arrogant, condescending and rude, and still be a Paladin, while Elan can be cheerful, friendly and honest, and still be Chaotic Good. Tarquin can love Elan dearly, and still be a Lawful Evil tyrant, and Belkar can love Mr. Scruffy and still be a Chaotic Evil psychopath when it comes to Humans and Kobolds.

While I agree that Eugene being rude=/=Eugene not being LG, there are other events that make it more likely that Eugene has fallen from grace. Namely, the fact that his reactions to Vaarsuvius' actions while soul-spliced was one of approval. He didn't even think of them as morally appalling, just...totally fine. That definitely puts him lower on the Good end of things than, well, most of the other comics' good guys.

Not to mention the fact that he interfered with the Summoning in the Trial arc (at least a Chaotic act), and collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy.

So Eugene is, by this point, at best True Neutral.

[snoopy13a]

Belkar is neutral good :smalltongue:

[Flame of Anor]

Thog ... [has] the potential to become neutral

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png "It's weird, no matter how many people he kills, the audience still thinks he's lovable."
.

[King of Nowhere]

While I agree that Eugene being rude=/=Eugene not being LG, there are other events that make it more likely that Eugene has fallen from grace. Namely, the fact that his reactions to Vaarsuvius' actions while soul-spliced was one of approval. He didn't even think of them as morally appalling, just...totally fine. That definitely puts him lower on the Good end of things than, well, most of the other comics' good guys.

Not to mention the fact that he interfered with the Summoning in the Trial arc (at least a Chaotic act), and collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy.

So Eugene is, by this point, at best True Neutral.

Not sure, I should definitely be good-aligned and yet I approve of the soul splice, as it could have solved so many problems. Basically because I have a strong pragmatic streak, and while I believe that ends generally do not justify the means, I also believe that for every rule there is an exception, and with the world at stake, well, it's a good time to make exceptions. I hope I'm not contributing into turning this into a "morally justified" thread that will get subsequently locked, but I rather want to point out that intentions are important, as a person who does evil while trying to do good will generally be considered good (extreme cases notwithstanding).
About Eugene, I agree that everything else he did in those last years after he died would peg him as true neutral, but probably he will not be judged for that. When alive, he was good, even if his horrible social skills made it quite hard to recognize. Again, it's a matter of intent. He was a bad father, but he was actually trying his best for roy. And he gave a fair shot at Xykon, after that putting vengeance aside for the family was the lawful and good thing to do... too bad for the oath.

About the lack of neutral caracters, well, they appear, but being neutral, they generally go on with their lives afterwards. they do not stay in the story.
Also, the main cast (the oots and team evil) were crafted to have conflict in them. So oots is split between lawful good and chaotic good, to get humor out of the coonflict between the straight guys roy and durkon, and the crazyness of elan and haley. So that's the reason there aren't many neutrals among the main teams.
Sabine may be neutral evil, I don't think we know her alignment on law-chaos axis.

[Belkar<3]

True neutrality maybe, but neutral good, neutral evil and chaotic neutral can be very dramatic.

For example, a neutral good character is the champion of good (and not lawful good), because he's not attached to traditions, rules but neither to individuality and undiscipline. That makes a NG a very complex character, if he/she is smart, because he will struggle to follow the best path to do the right thing, and that implies using intelligence and analysis. That's a problem that LG or CG chacters don't even consider.



Please...
Girard is THE archetype for Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral characters are incaple of sacrifices for the common good, even less comitting their entire lifes to guard an "absurd" Gate...

Chaotic Neutral characters are, on their best, independent, pragmatical and individualists. But as true individualists, they would never involve in lifetime activities for the promotion of good causes. If they could give their life to a project, being CN as they are, they would be philosophical followers of Chaos. One example of this could be the Joker ("I'm an agent of Chaos") in the Dark Knight Batman.

EDIT: What the boards seem to forget here is that the "true hero" is the Neutral Good alignment, (one that it's entirely committed to the cause of Good, without restrictions) and not the Lawful Good...:smallsigh: Take a look at this wheel http://easydamus.com/Composite2.png

Nice wheel you have there.

[Sir_Leorik]

This is very well put. The contrast between Eugene's being a jerk and his LG-ness is one of my favorite things about the character. (I do think that the "absentee parenting" which you mention would push him a bit away from LG -- leaving your wife with all the child-rearing duties is the sort of non-malevolent selfishness that strikes me as very neutral. Though I agree that he's probably LG overall.)

My favorite kind of TN has always been a simple one -- not principled and self-sacrificing enough to be good, not malevolent or unprincipled enough to be evil. Similar deal with respect to law/chaos. That's it. Such a character can still have tons of motivations that lead to great drama -- they can fall in love, they can protect their families, they can try to get rich, they can try to save the world, whatever. They just aren't as likely to be as principled or as unprincipled about it as the white or black hats.

Maybe "absentee father" is the wrong term to use. A better term might be "a father who is not particularly nurturing because of his personality". We have no evidence that Eugene did anything worse than miss a few soccer games, try to convince Roy to become a Wizard rather than a Fighter, and conspire with Shojo to get the OotS to Azure City. Eugene paid Roy's tuition (and probably left a trust fund for Julia as well), and he decided not to pursue Xykon, despite having intelligence on where to find the Lich, when Roy was eight, because he feared he'd leave Roy an orphan.

Basically Eugene was a Lawful Good man with a lot of character flaws. And as Sara Greenhilt explained to Roy, one of Eugene's flaws was a tendency to not finish projects he started. I can easily see him growing bored of domestic life and divorcing his wife, but he remained faithful to Sara until he died (afterwards was another story) and he loved Roy, Eric and Julia. But his love was a superficial one, and he would find new projects to interest him and then leave them unfinished too. That doesn't make him True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Good, because a Character's Alignment does not govern his personality and vice versa!


Well, he's waiting for AN afterlife. And I think it's a great point Sir Leorik makes. But if Roy keeps trying, Eugene quit trying a long time ago. Even when the world is at stake, he cares more about his and his issues than the mission. I accept that he's good in that he decided that his family should come before the oath and that he has some passing regret for not being an attentive father to Roy. But although his inability to deal with his family reasonably can't really be layed at the feet of his alignment, the fact that when he started something, he lost focus on it tends to not-very-lawfulness.


Spoilers for SoD:

In SoD, Eugene tells Roy that he never had good intelligence on where to find Xykon after his initial attempt ended up with his group disturbing Xyklon the Consequential. Eugene tells Roy that had he learned where Xykon was hiding, he would have run out on Sara, Roy and Julia in a heartbeat to try and fulfill his Oath.

Several scenes later we see Eugene meeting Right-Eye in a seedy bar on a rainy night. Right-Eye gives Eugene Xykon's home address and "suggests" the Illusionist rustle up a few adventurers and destroy the Lich. Eugene refuses, because he does not want to die and leave Roy an orphan. Having a family has made a big difference in Eugene's life, even if he doesn't always show it properly, and he convinces Right-Eye to ditch Xykon and make a new life for himself.

Eugene's decision not to fulfill his Blood Oath of Vengeance can be seen as a Chaotic act, but that alone is not enough to change his Alignment to Neutral Good, True Neutral, etc. The magic of the Blood Oath prevents him from entering any afterlife; should Roy or Julia destroy Xykon, Eugene will be cleared to enter Celestia.


True neutrality maybe, but neutral good, neutral evil and chaotic neutral can be very dramatic.

For example, a neutral good character is the champion of good (and not lawful good), because he's not attached to traditions, rules but neither to individuality and undiscipline. That makes a NG a very complex character, if he/she is smart, because he will struggle to follow the best path to do the right thing, and that implies using intelligence and analysis. That's a problem that LG or CG chacters don't even consider.

I think that a True Neutral character can be very heroic. Mordenkainen performs great deeds, battles great Evils, and is willing to stand up to old friends like Tenser and Bigby in order to fulfill his philosophy of Balance between the extreme Alignments. As another example, an anti-hero or anti-villain could be True Neutral; a good case can be made that Mal Reynolds, from Firefly was True Neutral, at least following the Alliance's victory in the war.


Girard is THE archetype for Chaotic Good.

No, you're thinking of Robin Hood. :smallbiggrin:


Chaotic Neutral characters are incaple of sacrifices for the common good, even less comitting their entire lifes to guard an "absurd" Gate...

Chaotic Neutral characters are, on their best, independent, pragmatical and individualists. But as true individualists, they would never involve in lifetime activities for the promotion of good causes. If they could give their life to a project, being CN as they are, they would be philosophical followers of Chaos. One example of this could be the Joker ("I'm an agent of Chaos") in the Dark Knight Batman.


And Blas's description of Chaotic Neutral bears a very close resemblance to the Player's Handbook description of one alignment.

Unfortunately, that alignment is Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Neutral.

Like Kish said, you're not describing a Chaotic Neutral character, you're describing a Chaotic Evil one. The fact that you mentioned the Joker, the DCU's poster child for Chaotic Evil behavior, should tell you that you don't understand the distinction between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil.

Captain Jack Sparrow is Chaotic Neutral, as are Deadpool, Sandor Clegane, aka "The Hound" from "A Song of Ice and Fire, and Kender. The Joker, Lobo and Doctor Light (from the DCU), Sabretooth, Apocalypse, the Green Goblin (in his less sane persona) and Carnage (from the Marvel Universe), The Hound's brother Gregor Clegane, aka "The Mountain That Rides", the bounty hunter Jubal Early (from Firefly) and Bad Horse (if you have to ask where he's from, turn in your nerd badge pronto!) are all Chaotic Evil.

Being Chaotic Evil doesn't keep someone from making plans, despite the Joker's magnificent speech in The Dark Knight. Apocalypse has been planning the extinction of mankind (and their replacement by his family of mutants, Clan Akkaba) through a brutal system that mimics Social Darwinism for over four thousand years, but he is not Lawful Evil. He has no interest in ruling the world, unlike Doctor Doom or Lex Luthor, because that would mean taking responsibility for what happens to his subjects. Lobo planned and carried out the genocide of his own species, the famously hardy Czarnians, when he was a child. He can track anyone across vast stellar reaches, and once he gives his word he will not break it. But he is a violent, psychotic brute, who views any lifeform, except himself and his space dolphin friends, as a potential target.

On the same note, Jack Sparrow, when he wasn't drunk, high, trying to have sex, or in custody for crimes against various governments, was an accomplished captain of a pirate ship, who could command his crew's loyalty some of the time. Unlike Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow steals from everybody, he betrays those closest to him, but he never crosses the line that would make him a monster. The Hound lives in a world of Grey and Black morality, where the worst thing he ever actually did was murder a boy because he was ordered to by the Chaotic Evil Prince Joffrey. Everything else Sandor did was Neutral or even Good, especially regarding Sansa and Arya. In his case, the old Yiddish joke, "His brother was worse!" was never more apropos.

So yeah, Girard and the Draketooths could have been Chaotic Neutral, despite their daily schedules, their complicated traps and illusions, their standing vigil over a Gate for decades and their keeping the oath Girard swore not to interfere with the other Gates. They can't be Chaotic Good, not if what Orrin did to Penelope was standard practice for their clan.


While I agree that Eugene being rude=/=Eugene not being LG, there are other events that make it more likely that Eugene has fallen from grace. Namely, the fact that his reactions to Vaarsuvius' actions while soul-spliced was one of approval. He didn't even think of them as morally appalling, just...totally fine. That definitely puts him lower on the Good end of things than, well, most of the other comics' good guys.

Not to mention the fact that he interfered with the Summoning in the Trial arc (at least a Chaotic act), and collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy.

So Eugene is, by this point, at best True Neutral.

Eugene has done exactly two things that are Chaotic since he's died, and he's done quite a number of Lawful and Good things as well. His Alignment's not in danger of changing.

[Amphiox]

*Girard's behavior appears to have been quite Chaotic Evil. The only obstacle to classifying him that way, is that he traveled with Soon for as long as he did without Soon appearing to either Fall or kill him. Good has been quite thoroughly off the table ever since the comic revealed the Draketooths' horrific "recruitment" methods.

That would only be true if we confirmation that Girard was alive and approved/instigated those methods when they were initiated.

And there is absolutely nothing in the narrative to suggest that. Indeed, since recruitment only becomes an issue after the first generation, and Girard was of that generation, it is just as likely that the practice only began after Girard died, or was something cooked up by an old, dying, and senile Girard, who by then had become something far different from what he was when he was younger.

I do not think it likely that Serini would have been drawing hearts around a picture of a Chaotic Evil Girard in her diary. Even less likely that she would continue to associate with a CE Girard for so many years afterwards. *Possible* for a Chaotic Neutral Girard, but even that is a stretch, and makes the most likely alignment for Girard to be Chaotic Good.

It is also possible that Girard started the adventure with the Scribblers as Chaotic Good, but slowly changed alignment as he grew more and more paranoid. (Few pathologically paranoid people start out that way, they become that way over time.)

[Amphiox]

Also, was not Kraagor canonically Chaotic Neutral?

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, was not Kraagor canonically Chaotic Neutral?

We don't know what Kraagor's Alignment was. Barbarians can't be Lawful; assuming he wasn't Evil, that leaves four possible Alignments for Kraagor.

[jidasfire]

Yeah, I have a hard time thinking that Girard is Chaotic Evil. Granted, the bar for CE in the strip is set pretty high by Xykon and Belkar (and probably Thog), but his actions are not close to on par with theirs for badness. In truth, his goals are still good ones, that is, the protection of his gate from the predations of the outside world. His methods are unpleasant, i.e. theft and kidnapping, but there's no evidence of murder or other forms of outright cruelty. Chaotic Neutral seems like it can range from loveable nut to selfish jerk, and Girard's crew seem to be on the latter end of the spectrum. I can see him having drifted from being CG in his youth through bitterness and anger at the dissolution of the Scribblers.

As to the actual topic, it is true that most of the major characters in the strip tend toward extreme alignments, and perhaps that's because the Giant feels he has more insights to offer into those, or perhaps they just ended up fitting most closely with the characters he created. Either way, there's always V, who is very N, and is appropriately complex in that department.

[martianmister]

The magic of the Blood Oath prevents him from entering any afterlife

It is not confirmed.

[Giggling Ghast]

Roy's sister is True Neutral.

[Bird]

Maybe "absentee father" is the wrong term to use. A better term might be "a father who is not particularly nurturing because of his personality". We have no evidence that Eugene did anything worse than miss a few soccer games, try to convince Roy to become a Wizard rather than a Fighter, and conspire with Shojo to get the OotS to Azure City. Eugene paid Roy's tuition (and probably left a trust fund for Julia as well), and he decided not to pursue Xykon, despite having intelligence on where to find the Lich, when Roy was eight, because he feared he'd leave Roy an orphan.

Basically Eugene was a Lawful Good man with a lot of character flaws. And as Sara Greenhilt explained to Roy, one of Eugene's flaws was a tendency to not finish projects he started. I can easily see him growing bored of domestic life and divorcing his wife, but he remained faithful to Sara until he died (afterwards was another story) and he loved Roy, Eric and Julia. But his love was a superficial one, and he would find new projects to interest him and then leave them unfinished too. That doesn't make him True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Good, because a Character's Alignment does not govern his personality and vice versa!

I agree that personality and alignment are not the same -- of course, a LG person can be jerky, a CE person can act sweetly.

Also, now that you've laid out what we actually know about him, I think that Eugene isn't quite as bad as I remembered him from the comic and SoD.

If your personality causes you to treat people poorly, though -- I think that's a strike against if you want to be considered good. Imagine things from the perspective of the deva who decides whether to allow you into the LG afterlife. Surely, being a bad parent would be a strike against, yeah? And being a good parent would be a mark in your favor? Note, I'm only saying a "strike" -- it is still be possible for a bad parent to be LG, and of course a good parent can be CE, but treating your family poorly is likely a sign of selfishness -- and selfishness is not a hallmark of good.

A tendency to abandon projects also doesn't strike me as very lawful. Again, not saying that makes you unlawful, just a strike against.

[zimmerwald1915]

Eugene was also involved in the accident that got Eric killed. Without knowing more it'd be stretching things to say he killed Eric, or that his negligence contributed to his death more than any other factor, but he was involved, and Roy does blame him.

[Sir_Leorik]

It is not confirmed.

The oath he swears in SoD specifically says so, and this is confirmed by the Deva reviewing Eugene's case file in the book's coda.

[Sir_Leorik]

Eugene was also involved in the accident that got Eric killed. Without knowing more it'd be stretching things to say he killed Eric, or that his negligence contributed to his death more than any other factor, but he was involved, and Roy does blame him.

Roy was pretty young when the accident happened, so his memories may not 100% accurate about what happened. The Deva reviewing Eugene's case file doesn't bring it up, and Roy's Archon was surprised to see Eric in Sara's house. I think that Roy blames himself as much as he blames his father. We haven't seen Eugene's side of the story, so until we get more details (in the comic or from the Giant) we're in the dark about what happened.

[Bird]

Roy was pretty young when the accident happened, so his memories may not 100% accurate about what happened. The Deva reviewing Eugene's case file doesn't bring it up, and Roy's Archon was surprised to see Eric in Sara's house. I think that Roy blames himself as much as he blames his father. We haven't seen Eugene's side of the story, so until we get more details (in the comic or from the Giant) we're in the dark about what happened.
You know, I completely forgot about that page at the end of SoD. That certainly supports your case!

[Sir_Leorik]

You know, I completely forgot about that page at the end of SoD. That certainly supports your case!

On the other hand, some people consider editing your own Wikipedia page the most vile crime imaginable, so YMMV. :smallbiggrin:

[Warren Dew]

Not sure, I should definitely be good-aligned and yet I approve of the soul splice, as it could have solved so many problems. Basically because I have a strong pragmatic streak, and while I believe that ends generally do not justify the means, I also believe that for every rule there is an exception, and with the world at stake, well, it's a good time to make exceptions.

I kind of thought it was the "selling your soul to the devil" thing that was evil, not the soul splice itself - though, of course, Vaarsuvius only sold an infinitesimal fraction of the soul's immortal future.

[Tock Zipporah]

Sabine may be neutral evil, I don't think we know her alignment on law-chaos axis.

She's a succubus. As a Demon, she's automatically Chaotic Evil. It's in her blood.

[Emanick]

I kind of thought it was the "selling your soul to the devil" thing that was evil, not the soul splice itself - though, of course, Vaarsuvius only sold an infinitesimal fraction of the soul's immortal future.

Aren't they sort of the same thing, though? I mean, the selling-hir-soul was the "payment" for the soul splice, the "product." I'm not sure anyone thinks that it would have been evil for V to splice the evil spellcasters with hir soul in order to defeat the ABD, reunite the party and attempt to kill Xykon if (s)he could do so without selling hir soul at all. Somebody probably does think this, and I'm open to the idea, but to me the product and the payment come as a package deal.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, it's pretty late over here.

[hamishspence]

Fiends & other outsiders with a subtype, can change alignment away from that subtype- though it's very rare.

And Sabine is supervised by Director Lee- a devil.

Still, the IFCC seemed to be more about "different alignments working together" than "fiends with a changed alignment"

So it's highly likely that, despite her supervisor, Sabine is CE rather than LE.

[zimmerwald1915]

We haven't seen Eugene's side of the story, so until we get more details (in the comic or from the Giant) we're in the dark about what happened.
I don't think we ever will. The Giant writes in the Don't Split the Party commentary that "the details of the accident aren't important". The full quote runs as follows:


His [Roy's] feelings about Eric's death (and perhaps what he sees as Eugene's part in it) particularly influence his position on responsibility. The details of the accident aren't important; what matters is the impact they had on the family. It turned normal estrangement between a father and a son into the outright acrimony we see now, and led to Eugene spoiling his third child, Julia.

[WoLong]

As I view it, Eugene is TN, or less likely NG, Haley is likely CN, and Girard CN. Varsuuvius may be Good now, but I see no reason to believe he is lawful. Nale is perhaps Neutral Evil, and Miko strikes me as LG only in theory. Roy sometimes behaves in a NG manner.

[WoLong]

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good.

You seem to assume that one is Good (or LG) until proven otherwise. Surely, someone is Neutral by default, unless their behavior indicates that they are of a different alignment.

[FujinAkari]

You seem to assume that one is Good (or LG) until proven otherwise. Surely, someone is Neutral by default, unless their behavior indicates that they are of a different alignment.

Not when the person in question has been allowed into the LG afterlife just as soon as the Blood Oath is fulfilled :)


I don't think we ever will. The Giant writes in the Don't Split the Party commentary that "the details of the accident aren't important". The full quote runs as follows:

Uh... I don't think we are supposed to cite entire passages of published material like that, are we?

[Talvereaux]

I can think of a couple reasons neutrality never figured big.

For one thing, neutrality on the law-chaos axis never made much sense? You follow the lawful mindset or you don't, and the latter makes you chaotic. It's not like chaotic characters go out of the way to break the law or oppose order just to ensure they're staying in character, they do it primarily when it conveniences them or they believe it's the right thing to do. In that respect, neutral-good/evil is kind of redundant with chaotic-good/evil, unless we're claiming the second group is actually chaotic stupid. By the same token, it's not like lawful characters would continue following the law if it overrides their good/evil alignment unless they're lawful stupid, which doesn't leave neutral-good/evil much of a niche on that side of things either.

In a similar vein, good and evil are not equal. Even if you do a lot of good things, it only takes one truly heinous act to become evil, while the reverse certainly isn't true. For that reason, it's difficult to make a character who naturally balances good and evil enough to really count as "neutral" rather than a lighter shade of evil, or a darker shade of good. Which brings me back to my first point, only where the neutral alignment becomes redundant unless you assume the other alignments are stupid-good and stupid-evil.

The other issue is that it's kind of hard to say neutral is the default on the good/evil spectrum, unless it's through inaction. Despite how much controversy the fandom has created over alignments, Good and Evil are clear cut, existing concepts in most D&D universes, OOTS' included. A character can only do so much before they either prove altruistic enough to count for good, or damaging enough to gravitate towards evil. Vaarsuvius is generally described as the Order of the Stick's "neutral" operative, but she's also the most controversially labeled for that reason. She fits the neutral archetype to a T, but as it turns out, a character can only be heroic for the wrong reasons so many times before they start looking like a would-be villain that just happens to be fighting for the better team.

[Kish]

Also, was not Kraagor canonically Chaotic Neutral?
I don't know where people get this.

Looking at the way Kraagor's sacrifice tore the Order of the Scribble apart, and Kraagor's extremely mild line when the other members of the Order were poking at each other, I'd say all existing evidence--what tiny bit of it there is--points to Neutral Good, as good as Elan; "He was the heart and soul of his team."

[shadowpriest]

I suspect that, in the balance, Eugene is neutral good [...]
I tend to agree. Too bad that this didn't make him any less of an asshat :smallannoyed:

[The Giant]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

[Kish]

Interesting.

Some of those puzzle me. (Crystal most of all; her blind, absolute dedication and obedience to the Thieves' Guild as personified by Bozzok made me peg her as as Lawful as Durkon.) And there are, of course, some I still wonder what their official alignment is (Girard...).

Next stop, the Index of the Giant's Comments.

[The Giant]

Interesting.

Some of those puzzle me. (Crystal most of all; her blind, absolute dedication and obedience to the Thieves' Guild as personified by Bozzok made me peg her as as Lawful as Durkon.)

That's personal loyalty to one person, not to the idea of the Thieves' Guild or the Guildmaster. A single personal relationship does not an alignment make. For example: She's also totally willing to kill Haley and make it look like an accident even after the contract is signed reinstating Haley to the Guild. There's no legalese or loophole there—it's straight-up, "Kill her and then we'll sort it out."

Put another way: If Haley was voted Guildmaster tomorrow, do you think Crystal would still be absolutely dedicated and obedient to the Thieves' Guild?

[Kish]

Considering the question is being asked as a leading question by the person who controls Crystal's every thought and action, I'm going to guess the answer is "no." :smalltongue: But if someone else had posed that question, I would probably have bet on what struck me as Crystal's extreme Lawfulness overriding her personal distaste for Haley in that situation.

[Bird]

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.
Ohhhh, a guessing game it is. :smallwink:

I'm guessing MitD is in the deliberate omission category, and Blackwing & the Greysky Priest in the inadvertent.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

So yeah, Girard and the Draketooths could have been Chaotic Neutral, despite their daily schedules, their complicated traps and illusions, their standing vigil over a Gate for decades and their keeping the oath Girard swore not to interfere with the other Gates. They can't be Chaotic Good, not if what Orrin did to Penelope was standard practice for their clan.



.

And since when the alignment of your son makes your own alignment? Even conceding that Orrin wasn't CG doesn't mean that his father Girard is CN retroactively...

"They" (I suppose you mean the Draketooths) don't need to have all the same alignment, it's not even suggested in the strips.

So let's not mix everything together. We only know about Orrin and Girard. Girard was clearly chaotic, but going against a paladin doesn't mean that you are not in the side of good (remember Miko and Roy relation?), specially in a world where paladins tend to have a little pouch of fascism inside, like...

SOD spoiler:

committing genocide. No matter the people exterminated are "almost always evil", as the Sapphire Guard killed also children and grandfathers

Girard Draketooth is just a Chaotic Good characters who, in character development has come to hate a paladin guy.

[The Giant]

Considering the question is being asked as a leading question by the person who controls Crystal's every thought and action, I'm going to guess the answer is "no." :smalltongue: But if someone else had posed that question, I would probably have bet on what struck me as Crystal's extreme Lawfulness overriding her personal distaste for Haley in that situation.

Well, I don't know what to say except that I have no idea where you're getting that from. I literally have never written Crystal do anything Lawful, ever, other than take orders from a guy who only gives her orders she wants to do anyway (i.e. kill people). The closest there has ever been to an order Crystal didn't already want to do was, "Don't kill this person yet." And even then, I see her following it more because she knows Bozzok is smarter than her and probably has an awesome scheme, even though she reeeeeally wants to do it now. Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be. Heck, if Bozzok died, Crystal would probably drift to full-bore Chaotic Evil in about a week, tops.

Elan took orders from Sir Francois and Roy, Haley took orders from her father, Right-Eye took orders from Xykon, but that doesn't make any of them blindly obedient or Lawful. Crystal just happens to have a job where she likes her boss and gets to do what she wants 99% of the time.

[137beth]

Hmm, so you specifically mentioned Mr. Jones' alignment, but not Mr. Rodriguez's....:smalleek:

[The Giant]

Hmm, so you specifically mentioned Mr. Jones' alignment, but not Mr. Rodriguez's....:smalleek:

I couldn't decide. It so doesn't matter that I saw no reason to nail it down.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.



I knew Right Eye was neutral and Julio CN! cookie!:smallamused:

[hamishspence]

Miko's alignment (post-Fall) hasn't been mentioned either- there was a lot of speculation that she was LN, NG, or even TN.

[Morty]

Interesting. Looks like I pegged Right-Eye's and Tsukiko's alignments right when I was thinking about them, although I was never sure which shade of Neutral Right-Eye was.

As for MitD's alignment, my guess is that he used to be True Neutral of the apathetic variety until V's battle with Xykon. After that, O-Chul's influence started to finally take root and he's moving towards a Good alignment of some sort. Future strips will tell how right or wrong I am.

[WoLong]

Interesting. I haven't played D&D in quite some time, but isn't what constitutes a certain alignment subjective?

[hamishspence]

In 2nd ed there were mentions of some degree of subjectivity, but since 3rd ed, alignments have been pretty objective-

in the sense that, it doesn't matter what the moral code of the caster of Detect Evil (or other alignment) says- an Evil person will detect as Evil when anybody casts that spell on them (in the absence of other factors like protective spells).

[The Giant]

Interesting. I haven't played D&D in quite some time, but isn't what constitutes a certain alignment subjective?

Not really. There are objective definitions printed in the rule books. It's just that no one can agree on how to interpret or extrapolate from those (very short) descriptions.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Not really. There are objective definitions printed in the rule books. It's just that no one can agree on how to interpret or extrapolate from those (very short) descriptions.

I concur. This is the reason I find this alignment explanation useful, although it's not any official material, it's rather philosophical: one of the keys is how the alignment-related see themselves: http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

[Mike Havran]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

Thanks a lot for this. But one character I don't understand is Therkla. How could she be a right hand to a guy like Kubota for all those years, kill a colleague on ninja university just to get ahead, plan an assasination of a paladin and a legitimate leader and genuinely liking it, and yet keep a True Neutral alignment? Or did she become TN during her last evening?

[The Giant]

Thanks a lot for this. But one character I don't understand is Therkla. How could she be a right hand to a guy like Kubota for all those years, kill a colleague on ninja university just to get ahead, plan an assasination of a paladin and a legitimate leader and genuinely liking it, and yet keep a True Neutral alignment? Or did she become TN during her last evening?

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

And third, being a paid ninja for hire is not as Evil as killing for the joy of killing (i.e. Crystal again). Therkla had a job, she did it. She didn't ask questions about who Kubota marked.

Maybe it's a borderline case, but it's how I wrote her reactions.

[Sunken Valley]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

Where's Draketooth and Family? They're as Chaotic Neutral as ever. Remember Girard could not be evil as Soon would fall.

I highly doubt Lirain is NG given her greatest defence of her Gate was an evil spell (all disease spells are evil).

Shouldn't Fallen Miko also be LN

Edit: Nale could be seen as NE.

[Gift Jeraff]

Cool, I pegged a lot of those right.

I always saw Bozzok and especially Hank as somewhat Lawful, though. I guess the Chaotic nature of what their business is all about evens things out.

[SaintRidley]

Where's Draketooth and Family? They're as Chaotic Neutral as ever. Remember Girard could not be evil as Soon would fall.

Shouldn't Fallen Miko also be LN

Edit: Nale could be seen as NE.

You really have issues with the idea that rich might not want to just tell you everything you want to know rather than have to figure it out on your own, don't you?

Also, Girard could easily have become evil after the Scribble broke up. We don't know, though.



I highly doubt Lirain is NG given her greatest defence of her Gate was an evil spell (all disease spells are evil).]

All the ones you know about. An Epic level, customized disease that does no actual harm to a living being? Why would that be evil? It screams respect for life.

[Rusty]

Hmm, so you specifically mentioned Mr. Jones' alignment, but not Mr. Rodriguez's....:smalleek:
Clearly, Mr. Rodriguez's alignment is Goofy.

[Reddish Mage]

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

And third, being a paid ninja for hire is not as Evil as killing for the joy of killing (i.e. Crystal again). Therkla had a job, she did it. She didn't ask questions about who Kubota marked.

Maybe it's a borderline case, but it's how I wrote her reactions.

Interesting you all but explicitly said that Therkla is neutral and has always been neutral!

This along with Enor and Gannji makes me think you have a conception of there being a sort of neutral personalty along the lines of "Mercenary." Someone who acts as either good or evil, depending on whose providing them with the incentives. For Therkla that included a sense of family, while for Enor and Gannji its pure money.


EDIT: Oh I just saw this motherload of alignment identification! So you ACTUALLY revealed Therkla's alignment as well as the rest.



Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

[Tragak]

Where's Draketooth and Family? I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/TheOrderOfTheStick). I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment :smallwink:

[The Giant]

Interesting you all but explicitly said that Therkla is neutral and has always been neutral.

This along with Enor and Gannji makes me think you have a conception of there being a sort of neutral personalty along the lines of "Mercenary." Someone who acts as either good or evil, depending on whose providing them with the incentives. For Therkla that included a sense of family, while for Enor and Gannji its pure money.

I don't think it is the only conception of Neutral, but it certainly is a valid conception of Neutral. And one that is easy to fit into a story like this, since the Neutral people who just want to be left alone are off being left alone, away from the action. And the "balance" types would represent a whole other angle that would clutter up the narrative and muddy the issue of whether the Good team was in the right or not.

[bguy]

Therkla had a job, she did it. She didn't ask questions about who Kubota marked.

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

[Kish]

Well, I don't know what to say except that I have no idea where you're getting that from. I literally have never written Crystal do anything Lawful, ever, other than take orders from a guy who only gives her orders she wants to do anyway (i.e. kill people). The closest there has ever been to an order Crystal didn't already want to do was, "Don't kill this person yet." And even then, I see her following it more because she knows Bozzok is smarter than her and probably has an awesome scheme, even though she reeeeeally wants to do it now. Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be. Heck, if Bozzok died, Crystal would probably drift to full-bore Chaotic Evil in about a week, tops.

Elan took orders from Sir Francois and Roy, Haley took orders from her father, Right-Eye took orders from Xykon, but that doesn't make any of them blindly obedient or Lawful. Crystal just happens to have a job where she likes her boss and gets to do what she wants 99% of the time.
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong about your character's alignment, of course, but bear in mind, I don't (didn't) have the inside information you do about what Crystal would do in other situations or why she does what she does. Onstage, unless I'm forgetting something (which I well might be), she never disobeys an order. Never acts as if disobeying an order is an option she has any more than she has the option of flapping her arms and flying to the moon. Never does anything she isn't ordered to do, unless jumping in when she wasn't specifically addressed to say things like, "There is no 'I' in Thieves Guild!" or "Our thieves are only allowed to steal from the people our thieves are allowed to steal from!" counts. By contrast, Elan's, ah, "initiative" nearly got Sir Francois killed multiple times, Haley is conspicuously going against her father right now, and Redcloak's brother only obeyed Xykon in the presence of immediate threats to his life and the lives of his loved ones.

Again, I'm not contesting that Crystal is Neutral Evil. I'm just surprised to learn it.

[Reddish Mage]

I don't think it is the only conception of Neutral, but it certainly is a valid conception of Neutral. And one that is easy to fit into a story like this, since the Neutral people who just want to be left alone are off being left alone, away from the action. And the "balance" types would represent a whole other angle that would clutter up the narrative and muddy the issue of whether the Good team was in the right or not.

I thought as much, in fact I was writing up an argument to this effect. As I see it there are four types of Neutral alignment:

1. Lack of Moral Capacity
This refers to animals and other creatures that totally lack the capacity for moral behavior. The example from the SRD is vipers and tigers.


2. Philosophical Neutrality "Balance" Types
Someone who really believes in a balance of good and evil.

3. Lack of Sacrifice "Indifferent" Types
This is the plain vanilla neutral the SRD seems to be shooting for as the common sort of neutral. In terms of good vs. evil this sort of Neutral person has "compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." The SRD claims that most neutral people prefer good to evil and law to chaos.


4. Mercenary Type

This is the type who would join with either good or evil depending on who is providing them with the incentives.


I see the 4th type as basically a selfish, look out for #1, type who otherwise have very little opinion about morality but is not a malicious being. Enor and Gannji exemplify this sort of notion, appearing on the Ookoodook T-shrit with "Neutral, you are not being paid enough."

The interesting part of this notion is that it is nowhere described in the SRD but is notably in Palladium's RPGs which has "Selfish" occupying the "neutral" within their alignment system. The plain description of neutral evil marks selfish people as Neutral evil.

I would imagine, that in this conception of alignment, a real Neutral-Evil type character would join with the good guys to advance himself but would be on the look out to betray them at first opportunity possibly at the his own accord. The mercenary types will remain reasonably loyal.

Edit: That "plain description of Neutral evil" requires explanation

From SRD:
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. The only element in the text, aside from the word "villain" popping out, that go against a plain mercenary type being Neutral include the "Sheds no tears," which requires an extreme degree of indifference towards suffering.

There's nothing that actually says that EVIL or "villain" types have a certain internal drive towards evil, but it can be read as implied in the tone of the SRD. In OOTS, a certain enthusiasm for evil seems to be required, because we see quite a few neutral types (Right-eye, Therkla, the Oracle) that join with evil beings but simply have no great love for actually committing these actions. The trio I mentioned are all alike in craving a certain normalcy and a sense of belonging.

[Tragak]

I see the 4th type as basically a selfish, look out for #1, type who otherwise have very little opinion about morality but is not a malicious being. Enor and Gannji exemplify this sort of notion, appearing on the Ookoodook T-shrit with "Neutral, you are not being paid enough."

The interesting part of this notion is that it is nowhere described in the SRD but is notably in Palladium's RPGs which has "Selfish" occupying the "neutral" within their alignment system. The plain description of neutral evil marks selfish people as Neutral evil.

I would imagine, that in this conception of alignment, a real Neutral-Evil type character would join with the good guys to advance himself but would be on the look out to betray them at first opportunity possibly at the his own accord. The mercenary types will remain reasonably loyal. Bingo. Who's signature says "Neutrals look out for number 1. Evils look out for number 1 by crushing number 2?"

Personally, I like the 5x5 "tendencies" alignment chart more than the 3x3, and I would personally peg "More selfish than average/normal" as being evil-tendencies, but that it's not truly Evil unless somebody is as spiteful and destructive about what they can't have as they are miserly about what they can.

However, since The Giant uses the 3x3 chart instead of the 5x5, Enor and Ganji would be on the Neutral side of selfish rather than the Evil side. Also, keep in mind that they didn't successfully capture half of the Order of the Stick so much as they unsuccessfully tried to capture half of the Linear Guild.

[wumpus]

You really have issues with the idea that rich might not want to just tell you everything you want to know rather than have to figure it out on your own, don't you?

Also, Girard could easily have become evil after the Scribble broke up. We don't know, though.

]

All the ones you know about. An Epic level, customized disease that does no actual harm to a living being? Why would that be evil? It screams respect for life.

Rich has implied that paladins fell while commiting the goblin massacres, and that it wasn't obvious to observers. He directly stated that Miko's fall was deliberatly made blindinly obvious to show the supreme disfavor of the gods. Now while Miko could fall from a single evil act (and did), so she could easily still be LG (and I assume that most [NPC] paladins fall this way. I'd even like to assume that the best paladins have a tendancy to "fall up" to neutral good).

Between her on screen actions, which looked like stereotypical LN play, and the visible wrath of the gods, I would tenatively mark her at LN. There really is no way to be certain, and her last scene said that a LG archon (her paladin's warhorse) could travel to meet her, so she isn't that far away. In the standard D&D multiverse* she's certainly in Arcadia (which she probably would be regardless of which side of the G/N line she wound up on).

*I've had the impression that they added a lot more planes and shades of alignments since AD&D. The wiki claims that there are still only 16 (didn't see concordinant opposition on the list), so I'm assuming that the various levels of planes are for different grades of alignment.

[sengmeng]

True neutrality maybe, but neutral good, neutral evil and chaotic neutral can be very dramatic.

For example, a neutral good character is the champion of good (and not lawful good), because he's not attached to traditions, rules but neither to individuality and undiscipline. That makes a NG a very complex character, if he/she is smart, because he will struggle to follow the best path to do the right thing, and that implies using intelligence and analysis. That's a problem that LG or CG chacters don't even consider.

I was referring to true neutral, because to me the other forms of neutral seem to be more focused on the other component of their alignment. Neutral Good is called the most good, because it does not favor law or chaos, only good. Likewise, Neutral Evil doesn't unproductively pursue chaos nor needlessly cling to honor or order, freeing it to pursue evil in the most damaging and efficient manner.

Thus, neutrality isn't what makes those alignments interesting. It is the other component, unbiased in regards to one axis. Dedication to neutrality or balance always rings false; what rational being would care about it? Maybe lawful neutral characters would, but it still seems like "balance" could be replaced with "good" in that sense. "I favor neither law, nor chaos, nor evil, nor good, because balance is the overriding principle of the universe." Sure, sounds interesting, but that itself is a strict adherence to certain principles. Sounds lawful. "I believe that neither the forces of good nor the forces of evil can be allowed to fully prevail over each other." That's not neutrality, it's just a belief in Good needing a little Evil to exist; it still favors good, because its trying to preserve the universe (and if preserving the universe isn't good, then it's lawful). True neutral should mean complete apathy or completely selfish but not malicious.

TL;DR version: Neutrality is boring. Neutral characters in the story probably exist, they just don't stand out or bring up their alignments often. The most interesting neutral characters will have non-alignment facets of their personalities to motivate them, which brings me to Girard.

Girard is probably true neutral, but HIS ALIGNMENT IS NOT WHAT MADE HIM INTERESTING. His paranoia, not evil or love of sowing chaos inspired his most heinous actions, and ego and self-preservation inspired his best. Those are not part of his alignment.

[Throknor]

Miko's alignment (post-Fall) hasn't been mentioned either- there was a lot of speculation that she was LN, NG, or even TN.

She was still probably Lawful Good enough to be evaluated by a Deva. She thought she was both being lawful and doing good when she cut down Shojo, and when she destroyed the gate. She was horribly, horribly wrong, but intent does matter for something. As Roy's Deva said, "You're trying." Whatever being a paladin would have gotten her will probably be forever out of her reach, but she should still get in to climb the mountain and work things out for herself.

Roy was going to be pushed to True Neutral because abandoning Elan was a willful selfish act. Miko's acts were mistakes, but they weren't willfully selfish.

[Reddish Mage]

Bingo. Who's signature says "Neutrals look out for number 1. Evils look out for number 1 by crushing number 2?"

Personally, I like the 5x5 "tendencies" alignment chart more than the 3x3, and I would personally peg "More selfish than average/normal" as being evil-tendencies, but that it's not truly Evil unless somebody is as spiteful and destructive about what they can't have as they are miserly about what they can.

However, since The Giant uses the 3x3 chart instead of the 5x5, Enor and Ganji would be on the Neutral side of selfish rather than the Evil side. Also, keep in mind that they didn't successfully capture half of the Order of the Stick so much as they unsuccessfully tried to capture half of the Linear Guild.

Hmmm, I'm thinking from what Rich just said is he doesn't have more than just the one conception [which he is using for OOTS characters] and he equated being mercenary to being indifferent. Within OOTS perhaps the Neutral people of OOTS are just indifferent enough that many don't prefer Good over Evil, or for every neutral person that likes good people (Vaarsuvius), there is one that prefers hanging around evil people (the Oracle, Right-eye).

That frees up selfishness for all sorts of characters: Eugene, Haley, Enor, Nale...

[bguy]

4. Mercenary Type

This is the type who would join with either good or evil depending on who is providing them with the incentives.

The problem with that is it is hard to see how anyone who is willing to do whatever is asked of them by an evil person/entity can be anything other than evil themselves. If Tarquin hires a mercenary company to help him sack some city-state and tells the mercenaries to slaughter every man, woman, and child within the city once it is captured, the mercenaries are evil if they obey that order. That they are getting paid to obey Tarquin or that they might not enjoy carrying out the order or that next week they might take a job working for a good person/entity doesn't give them a pass on obeying this order. If you are willing to murder innocents for profit you are Evil.


I see the 4th type as basically a selfish, look out for #1, type who otherwise have very little opinion about morality but is not a malicious being. Enor and Gannji exemplify this sort of notion, appearing on the Ookoodook T-shrit with "Neutral, you are not being paid enough."

The thing about Enor and Gannji is that they used non-lethal force and they were going after what they thought were dangerous criminals who they had good cause to believe were evilly aligned. (Remember Nale's bounty specifically listed one of his allies as a demon.) As such their actions were entirely consistent with what you might expect from Neutral characters. (Willing to work for an evil nation, but doing work for it that was not intrinsically immoral.)

[Mike Havran]

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

And third, being a paid ninja for hire is not as Evil as killing for the joy of killing (i.e. Crystal again). Therkla had a job, she did it. She didn't ask questions about who Kubota marked.

Maybe it's a borderline case, but it's how I wrote her reactions.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

[sam79]

First, Ninja School is kill-or-be-killed. That guy knew the score when he enrolled and probably did it to the guy ahead of him.

Second, I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.


"And besides, these are themes I will explore in the forthcoming Therkla Kickstarter story."

[ETA: When the knives are out for you in Ninja School, it isn't just a metaphor!]

Possibly?

As for Neutral. Yeah. That word is going helluva heavy duty in D+D to try an encompass a whole range of Not Good But Not Evil behaviours and morals.

[SaintRidley]

Rich has implied that paladins fell while commiting the goblin massacres, and that it wasn't obvious to observers. He directly stated that Miko's fall was deliberatly made blindinly obvious to show the supreme disfavor of the gods. Now while Miko could fall from a single evil act (and did), so she could easily still be LG (and I assume that most [NPC] paladins fall this way. I'd even like to assume that the best paladins have a tendancy to "fall up" to neutral good).

Between her on screen actions, which looked like stereotypical LN play, and the visible wrath of the gods, I would tenatively mark her at LN. There really is no way to be certain, and her last scene said that a LG archon (her paladin's warhorse) could travel to meet her, so she isn't that far away. In the standard D&D multiverse* she's certainly in Arcadia (which she probably would be regardless of which side of the G/N line she wound up on).

*I've had the impression that they added a lot more planes and shades of alignments since AD&D. The wiki claims that there are still only 16 (didn't see concordinant opposition on the list), so I'm assuming that the various levels of planes are for different grades of alignment.

I'm really unsure why this was a response to me, when my post had nothing to do with anything you said.

[Burner28]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.

Interesting and glad to see several alignments of different characters confirmed. Bit surprised to see Kilkil listed under Neutral, though.

[Reddish Mage]

Interesting and glad to see several alignments of different characters confirmed. Bit surprised to see Kilkil listed under Neutral, though.

Kilkil, Therkla, Jenny, Hank and the Oracle and all are examples of neutral characters that hang around Evil people. Some work to further evil goals but do not appear to carry any malice themselves. Its highly significant in OOTS that alignment works this way.

[hamishspence]

Who are the evil people that you're thinking of, whom the Oracle hangs around? Fellow Kobolds, or Tiamat herself?

[sam79]

Kilkil, Therkla, Jenny, Hank and the Oracle and all are examples of neutral characters that hang around Evil people. Some work to further evil goals but do not appear to carry any malice themselves. Its highly significant in OOTS that alignment works this way.

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

Mostly we've seen the Oracle interact with Good characters; his neutrality appears to be that he uses his powers to "help" any customers who can pay. Apart from Xykon, who's frickin' scary.

ETA:
Ninja'd for my second paragraph. Curse my verbosity!

[Reddish Mage]

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

Mostly we've seen the Oracle interact with Good characters; his neutrality appears to be that he uses his powers to "help" any customers who can pay. Apart from Xykon, who's frickin' scary.

ETA:
Ninja'd for my second paragraph. Curse my verbosity!

As far as V is concerned. Yes. Until recently, Vaarsuvius was not terribly invested or concerned about morality.

As far as the Oracle is concerned. I was thinking about Mama Black Dragon and Tiamat herself, both of whom the Oracle gives a great deal of respect. Contrast this to the OOTS, whom the Oracle obviously dislikes (albeit with good reasons having nothing to do with alignment).

[Evazan]

Thus, neutrality isn't what makes those alignments interesting. It is the other component, unbiased in regards to one axis. Dedication to neutrality or balance always rings false; what rational being would care about it? Maybe lawful neutral characters would, but it still seems like "balance" could be replaced with "good" in that sense. "I favor neither law, nor chaos, nor evil, nor good, because balance is the overriding principle of the universe." Sure, sounds interesting, but that itself is a strict adherence to certain principles. Sounds lawful. "I believe that neither the forces of good nor the forces of evil can be allowed to fully prevail over each other." That's not neutrality, it's just a belief in Good needing a little Evil to exist; it still favors good, because its trying to preserve the universe (and if preserving the universe isn't good, then it's lawful). True neutral should mean complete apathy or completely selfish but not malicious.

I don't know if you've heard of this fellow named Xykon, but he's perfectly happy preserving the universe, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) so I guess that means he's good. Heck, he's even following a plan that will unite the world under him--he must be lawful! Therefore, Xykon is lawful good. QED.

Or not, and that's proof by contradiction that "trying to preserve the universe" implies neither goodness or lawfulness.

[Draz74]

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

This? This argument here?

This is an example of how people see alignment as a straightjacket system, without realizing they're doing it.

It's pretty shaky ground to say almost any behavior, and conclude that a character who does it must be X Alignment. Personalities are complex, and nearly any behavior can fit under a number of alignments, depending on the other characteristics, demeanors, deeds, quirks, and behaviors of the character involved.

In fact, I'm not even sure the qualifying phrase "pretty much" is needed in the above statement. Even the most horrific, objectively-depraved crimes can probably be part of any evil alignment.

[F.Harr]

While I agree that Eugene being rude=/=Eugene not being LG, there are other events that make it more likely that Eugene has fallen from grace. Namely, the fact that his reactions to Vaarsuvius' actions while soul-spliced was one of approval. He didn't even think of them as morally appalling, just...totally fine. That definitely puts him lower on the Good end of things than, well, most of the other comics' good guys.

Not to mention the fact that he interfered with the Summoning in the Trial arc (at least a Chaotic act), and collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy.

So Eugene is, by this point, at best True Neutral.

So, neutral and chaotic good are considered "lower" than lawful good?

[hamishspence]

So, neutral and chaotic good are considered "lower" than lawful good?

I think the first paragraph was an argument that he's not Good, and the second an argument that he's not Lawful.

The deva points out that he's prevented from getting into Celestia until the Blood Oath is fulfilled - which may imply that, at least at the time of his first evaluation, he was LG, though he might possibly have changed since then.

We may have to wait and see. It's possible that Eugene is one of those The Giant chose not to give an alignment for- but it's also possible that he's still LG.

[F.Harr]

It may become a plot point. I do think Eugene is good, but we don't know what the neutral and chaotic good people get.

[hamishspence]

It may become a plot point. I do think Eugene is good, but we don't know what the neutral and chaotic good people get.

They're probably among the "dozen in-between" planes Roy mentions here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

Valhalla was a name for Ysgard I think in 2nd ed (CG/CN), and Nirvana is part of the name of Mechanus (LN) in 3rd ed: "Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus".

[Sir_Leorik]

You seem to assume that one is Good (or LG) until proven otherwise. Surely, someone is Neutral by default, unless their behavior indicates that they are of a different alignment.

There are spells in 3.X that allow a Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, etc., to detect Good (as well as Evil, Chaos and Law). Eugene was being interviewed by a Deva, beings who are always Good (Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, depending on their function) in order to determine if he merited entering into Mt. Celestia, the Lawful Good afterlife. The only black marks on Eugene's record (other than not fulfilling his Blood Oath of Vengeance against Xykon) was foul language and editing his own Wikipedia article. All of this is found on the last page of Start of Darkness, one of the two prequel books. If you feel that Eugene wasn't Lawful Good, then maybe you misunderstand how the D&D Alignment system works. Eugene was a distant father to Roy, and he spoiled Julia rotten, but he was a Lawful Good person.

Spoilers for SoD:
Go read the advice Eugene Greenhilt gave to Right-Eye in the tavern scene; please tell me that Eugene wasn't genuinely trying to give Right-Eye, a Goblin working for Eugene's hated enemy, good advice? Advice, I might add, that led to the best years of Right-Eye's life, before Xykon came calling. While True Neutral characters can definitely give good advice, I got the impression Eugene was acting more like a mentor or father figure to Right-Eye. While he was a bit oblivious and rude at first, Eugene did not cast a single spell until Right-Eye threatened him with his ax. And even so Eugene felt bad enough for Right-Eye to try and convince him to break away from Xykon and start a family.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well, I don't know what to say except that I have no idea where you're getting that from. I literally have never written Crystal do anything Lawful, ever, other than take orders from a guy who only gives her orders she wants to do anyway (i.e. kill people). The closest there has ever been to an order Crystal didn't already want to do was, "Don't kill this person yet." And even then, I see her following it more because she knows Bozzok is smarter than her and probably has an awesome scheme, even though she reeeeeally wants to do it now. Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be. Heck, if Bozzok died, Crystal would probably drift to full-bore Chaotic Evil in about a week, tops.

I find that interesting, because I assumed Crystal was already Chaotic Evil, with Bozzok holding her leash and keeping her from slaughtering anyone she wanted to. It makes sense to me that Bozzok is Neutral Evil rather than Lawful Evil; he's organized and demands loyalty, but unlike Redcloak or Tarquin he never actually rewards loyalty or looks after the welfare of his followers. When Haley skipped town in OtOoPCs the Thieves' Guild was full of thieves like Hank, embezzling from the Guild because Bozzok took far more than his fair share of the loot.

It's possible that I misread Crystal's stupidity as a sign of her also being Chaotic, but she was so gleeful when Bozzok gave her the orders to kill Haley that she was skipping through town and singing! That's something the Joker or Deadpool would do! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

[Flame of Anor]

And Vaarsuivius a counter example who helps toward Good goals without being invested in them?

I think V does care about the goals to an extent, but is--or at least was, until recently--mostly interested in V's own power and, secondarily, V's personal attachments (like Inkyrius, Haley, etc.). But it's been a while now since V hit V's nadir and realized it was V's selfishness that caused it. I'm pretty sure V is on the way back up toward Good, though it may be a while.

[Sir_Leorik]

If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

Who says Therkla was willing to kill innocent people? Who says she was even willing to kill any of Daimyo Kubota's enemies other than Lord Hinjo? I seem to remember her trying desperately to convince Daimyo Kubota not to order the murder of the Katos, as well as her assisting Elan, Durkon, Daigo and Lien to escape from Chief Grukgruk's angry tribe of Orcs (twice!).

[Tock Zipporah]

Thanks a lot for this. But one character I don't understand is Therkla. How could she be a right hand to a guy like Kubota for all those years, kill a colleague on ninja university just to get ahead, plan an assasination of a paladin and a legitimate leader and genuinely liking it, and yet keep a True Neutral alignment? Or did she become TN during her last evening?

You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.


If she was willing to kill innocent people just because she was ordered to do so or was being paid to do so, isn't that pretty much textbook Lawful Evil?

And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).


This? This argument here?

This is an example of how people see alignment as a straightjacket system, without realizing they're doing it.

It's pretty shaky ground to say almost any behavior, and conclude that a character who does it must be X Alignment. Personalities are complex, and nearly any behavior can fit under a number of alignments, depending on the other characteristics, demeanors, deeds, quirks, and behaviors of the character involved.

In fact, I'm not even sure the qualifying phrase "pretty much" is needed in the above statement. Even the most horrific, objectively-depraved crimes can probably be part of any evil alignment.

Draz makes a very good point here. There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.

Here's an example: the Ogres (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html). They were raiding, robbing, and kidnapping... but as far as Miko and the Order knew, the Ogres hadn't actually killed anyone. Yet instead of arresting them and bringing them in for trial, Miko proceeded to blatantly murder the entire tribe "just because they're evil." Is this really that different from what Therkla does?

[Sir_Leorik]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

O-chul and the Mitd? Elan bringing out the best in Haley? Sir Francois and Lord Hinjo keeping Elan's more Chaotic impulses in check? The problem is that other than the MitD, Haley and Elan's Alignment's didn't actually change, they simply expressed them in other ways. They were both already Chaotic Good, and never stopped being Chaotic Good, but Haley veered a bit closer to Neutrality due to her greed. Elan (and to a lesser extent Roy and Durkon) had a positive effect on Haley; she's still greedy, but she's not robbing banks and jewel vaults anymore.

[Gift Jeraff]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

I'm guessing Nale's natural inclination is to NE, but was LE in the past due to Tarquin's influence.

[Psyren]

Onstage, unless I'm forgetting something (which I well might be), she never disobeys an order. Never acts as if disobeying an order is an option she has any more than she has the option of flapping her arms and flying to the moon. Never does anything she isn't ordered to do, unless jumping in when she wasn't specifically addressed to say things like, "There is no 'I' in Thieves Guild!" or "Our thieves are only allowed to steal from the people our thieves are allowed to steal from!" counts. By contrast, Elan's, ah, "initiative" nearly got Sir Francois killed multiple times, Haley is conspicuously going against her father right now, and Redcloak's brother only obeyed Xykon in the presence of immediate threats to his life and the lives of his loved ones.

The Giant explained this pretty clearly though from what I read. She never disobeys an order simply because all the orders we've seen her get are exactly what she wants to do. The one time she hesitates at following one is CdGing Haley and, again, that fits the Giant's overarching philosophy of hers that "Bozzok knows best." Following his orders doesn't make her lawful any more than following Roy's orders does for Belkar or Elan.

And the counterpoint to your position - using the Giant's example of "if Haley became head of the GCTG, would Crystal follow her leadership?" I would be even more surprised than you are now if she were to do so. So I definitely agree that Crystal is NE, if not outright CE.

[Emanick]

You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.



And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).



Draz makes a very good point here. There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.

Here's an example: the Ogres (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html). They were raiding, robbing, and kidnapping... but as far as Miko and the Order knew, the Ogres hadn't actually killed anyone. Yet instead of arresting them and bringing them in for trial, Miko proceeded to blatantly murder the entire tribe "just because they're evil." Is this really that different from what Therkla does?

I think the argument is that there are few things more evil than killing innocent people. In general, unless there are significant extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any), if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil under an alignment system, then that alignment system is broken. If that's not Evil, what is?

Kidnapping, robbing and raiding takes away that "innocence" status. Think of a hostage situation. There's a pretty solid argument for not calling a police officer who uses lethal force to subdue gangster kidnappers Evil. Miko even gave the kidnappers a chance to surrender.

You could say that this is a grey area, and I could accept that. But kidnappers and raiders are not on the same moral level as people who have done nothing to significantly harm anyone. I think that can be stated pretty fairly.

Paladin or not, killing someone on orders without evidence that they are far from innocent is generally Evil, IMO. If your superiors are trustworthy and have done their homework, that can be considered compelling evidence. If not, you're probably risking a Good, or even a Neutral (depending on circumstances) alignment.

[hamishspence]

Kidnapping, robbing and raiding takes away that "innocence" status. Think of a hostage situation. There's a pretty solid argument for not calling a police officer who uses lethal force to subdue gangster kidnappers Evil. Miko even gave the kidnappers a chance to surrender.

You could say that this is a grey area, and I could accept that. But kidnappers and raiders are not on the same moral level as people who have done nothing to significantly harm anyone. I think that can be stated pretty fairly.

Paladin or not, killing someone on orders without evidence that they are far from innocent is generally Evil, IMO. If your superiors are trustworthy and have done their homework, that can be considered compelling evidence. If not, you're probably risking a Good, or even a Neutral (depending on circumstances) alignment.

Sounds about right. One of the things I liked about BoED, is that it went out of its way to state, at least once, that an Evil alignment is not, on its own, good enough reason for waging war on, for example, orcs- they have to be doing something to justify it on top of their alignment itself.

[bguy]

Who says Therkla was willing to kill innocent people? Who says she was even willing to kill any of Daimyo Kubota's enemies other than Lord Hinjo? I seem to remember her trying desperately to convince Daimyo Kubota not to order the murder of the Katos, as well as her assisting Elan, Durkon, Daigo and Lien to escape from Chief Grukgruk's angry tribe of Orcs (twice!).

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.


You can commit evil acts and still be Neutral. Some people might argue that the difference between True Neutral and Neutral Evil is that a TN assassin works for the money, it's just a job, and they don't really consider the "right or wrong" aspect of it, just as long as they get paid; whereas a NE might enjoy killing, go out of their way to make a victim suffer, and prefer killing innocents.

I think too many people are conflating evil with psycopathy here. Yes, some evil people do enjoy killing and making others suffer, but you can be just as evil killing only for profit or convenience or for what you believe is "the greater good." What matters is that you are willing to kill innocent people not whether you enjoy it or not.


And if you counter by saying "But killing is wrong!" keep in mind that just about every Good-aligned character we've ever seen has killed people. Paladins kill sentient goblins because their boss tells them to. Miko tried to kill Roy and the rest of the OotS just because Shojo sent her after them. Hinjo tried to kill Redcloak at the docks, even though some people might argue that as an enforcer of law he should be trying to capture the enemy leader to put on trial for war crimes. It's all subjective.

I would agree that there are instances where killing can be justified. That is why I've specified the killing of innocents as being what makes Therkla evil. She's not killing in justified self-defense or while defending her country from an invasion. She's killing solely for profit.


And to further the points I made above, what's the difference between an assassin killing innocent people just because she was being paid, and a paladin killing innocent orcs just because he was being paid (a case brought up in On the Origin of PCs, where a paladin wanted to murder orcs who weren't hurting anyone and said explicitly he didn't even need to worry about alignment penalties for it).

There isn't any difference. In both cases killing innocents is an incredibly evil action.


There is no way to say "anyone who does X must be alignment Y." People of ANY alignment kill other sentient creatures when it suits their purposes. There are, of course, some EXTREME cases where it's blatantly wrong to kill (i.e. striking down your defenseless liege). Barring such extreme cases, however, there is a TON of grey area in between, grey area where paladins and other good-aligned people murder sentient creatures all the time.


And again I don't think Therkla was evil simply because she was willing to kill. Rather I think she was evil because she was willing to kill innocents. (Even without knowing who she murdered in the previous 7 years where she worked for Kubota, we know she was willing to kill Hinjo, Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, none of whom had done anything to Therkla that would justify her using lethal force on them.) Being willing to kill innocent people for profit is just not something that a Good or even a Neutral person would do. It's an incredibly evil action. Which is not to say that Therkla could never redeem herself or change her alignment. I am perfectly willing to consider that by the end she might have shifted to a Neutral alignment. But that shift was marked by her being no longer willing to kill innocents.

[Sir_Leorik]

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

We don't know who she assassinated prior to the sacking of Azure City by the Hobgoblin army. The Giant hasn't even bothered to flesh out that story, so there's no evidence one way or the other.


As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.

No moral objections, but willing to be persuaded? Sounds pretty Neutral to me. :smallwink:

[The Pilgrim]

Characters acting as a control on the alignment of others, is interesting.

If Bozzok's holding Crystal to NE (with her natural inclination being to CE) - who else might be influencing another in similar ways?

I suppose you imply Mr Scuffry and Belkar.

However the first case that came to my mind was Shojo and Miko. The very moment Miko lost his respect for Shojo, it went all south for her.

[Tock Zipporah]

Well in strip 509 Kubota says that she has been his most trusted assassin for seven years. That strongly suggests that she was willing to kill whoever he told her to kill and in fact has done so in the past. (Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

As for Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, Therkla was perfectly fine in strip 557 with letting them all be killed. She had to be talked out of it by Elan and only spared their lives to make Elan happy not because she had any moral objections to letting them be murdered on her command.



I think too many people are conflating evil with psycopathy here. Yes, some evil people do enjoy killing and making others suffer, but you can be just as evil killing only for profit or convenience or for what you believe is "the greater good." What matters is that you are willing to kill innocent people not whether you enjoy it or not.



I would agree that there are instances where killing can be justified. That is why I've specified the killing of innocents as being what makes Therkla evil. She's not killing in justified self-defense or while defending her country from an invasion. She's killing solely for profit.



There isn't any difference. In both cases killing innocents is an incredibly evil action.



And again I don't think Therkla was evil simply because she was willing to kill. Rather I think she was evil because she was willing to kill innocents. (Even without knowing who she murdered in the previous 7 years where she worked for Kubota, we know she was willing to kill Hinjo, Durkon, Daigo, and Lien, none of whom had done anything to Therkla that would justify her using lethal force on them.) Being willing to kill innocent people for profit is just not something that a Good or even a Neutral person would do. It's an incredibly evil action. Which is not to say that Therkla could never redeem herself or change her alignment. I am perfectly willing to consider that by the end she might have shifted to a Neutral alignment. But that shift was marked by her being no longer willing to kill innocents.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think killing innocents makes you automatically an evil alignment. Killing innocents is an evil ACT, yes, but Neutral characters can commit some evil acts and still be Neutral. They can also commit Good acts without being Good. Therkla committed evil acts (killing innocents, working for an evil corrupt politician) and good acts (saving lives, protecting those she cared about, stopping the assassins that attacked Kazumi and Daigo). Some good and some evil = Neutral.

[hamishspence]

I suppose you imply Mr Scuffry and Belkar.

However the first case that came to my mind was Shojo and Miko. The very moment Miko lost his respect for Shojo, it went all south for her.

No implication- just leaving it completely up to people what they answer.

Hadn't thought at all about those two.

[sengmeng]

I don't know if you've heard of this fellow named Xykon, but he's perfectly happy preserving the universe, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) so I guess that means he's good. Heck, he's even following a plan that will unite the world under him--he must be lawful! Therefore, Xykon is lawful good. QED.

Or not, and that's proof by contradiction that "trying to preserve the universe" implies neither goodness or lawfulness.

Yep.

:xykon: "I LIKE the universe. Some of my best evil took place here. I'm not going to destroy it unless I get REALLY bored."

He's talking about preserving the universe or not preserving based on his own enjoyment, and majorly upsetting the status quo in his favor.

Girard was working tirelessly and obligating his family to do the same, ultimately lowering their quality of life to preserve the universe at all costs, although I can see how that's exactly the same as "wouldn't necessarily destroy the universe if given the opportunity." I see your point.

[Kish]

I have to shake my head at the idea that only...maybe three alignments out of nine, based on your claim that "preserving the universe" is either Good or Lawful?...would see any value in there being anything for them to stand on.

I'm not going to join the match of sarcasm volleys--fond as I normally am of sarcasm. I think the argument that "preserving the universe" proves someone anything other than not-completely-nihilistic (And, though I do not believe I should have to spell this out, not-completely-nihilistic describes the majority of people of all alignments) is silly to the point of being self-refuting, and so I have no counter-argument to it, beyond that "You don't think it falls apart when glanced at? Huh."

I will, however, note that any claims about how much (or how little) Girard or his family gave up are based on assumptions. Perhaps he cried himself to sleep every night, wailing about how much it hurt him to have to sponsor the kidnappings of innocent people's children (and the incidental cleaning out of their savings). Perhaps sitting in the middle of his web of deceptions, surrounded by people who had been raised and brainwashed to revere him, was all he ever wanted from his life. The former is no more easily supported by the evidence in the comic than the latter. (In fact, if you pay close attention to the wording you might get the idea that I think the former is kind of a silly claim itself.)

[sengmeng]

I have to shake my head at the idea that only...maybe three alignments out of nine, based on your claim that "preserving the universe" is either Good or Lawful?...would see any value in there being anything for them to stand on.

I'm not going to join the match of sarcasm volleys--fond as I normally am of sarcasm. I think the argument that "preserving the universe" proves someone anything other than not-completely-nihilistic (And, though I do not believe I should have to spell this out, not-completely-nihilistic describes the majority of people of all alignments) is silly to the point of being self-refuting, and so I have no counter-argument to it, beyond that "You don't think it falls apart when glanced at? Huh."

I will, however, note that any claims about how much (or how little) Girard or his family gave up are based on assumptions. Perhaps he cried himself to sleep every night, wailing about how much it hurt him to have to sponsor the kidnappings of innocent people's children (and the incidental cleaning out of their savings). Perhaps sitting in the middle of his web of deceptions, surrounded by people who had been raised and brainwashed to revere him, was all he ever wanted from his life. The former is no more easily supported by the evidence in the comic than the latter. (In fact, if you pay close attention to the wording you might get the idea that I think the former is kind of a silly claim itself.)

I said Girard was probably True Neutral, despite the great service he was doing for everyone (without asking for much, even considering the thefts).

And people we'd normally call "good" often ARE doing what they're doing on the assumption that it is saving the world, not simply improving it.

Destroying creation will always be evil. Preserving it may be only self-interest, but dang if I wouldn't appreciate whoever did it.

Besides, everyone who could alter the fate of Ootsworld could probably escape instead.

So Xykon=bad because he's risking destroying the world to ensure his own benefit.

Girard=good(ish) because he's risking his family for the world's benefit.

In both cases, alignment is secondary to other qualities: Girard's paranoia, Xykon's hedonism.

[Kish]

Besides, everyone who could alter the fate of Ootsworld could probably escape instead.

Quite a claim.


So Xykon=bad because he's risking destroying the world to ensure his own benefit.
Also quite a claim. I am afraid I think Xykon would be just as bad--would be, even, fully as evil as he is now--if he learned the truth of the Dark One's ritual and gave up the Plan for an equally brutal plan for world domination that happened to have no chance of global annihilation.

And then there's Nale. Rich described him as no less evil than Xykon. Yet, there is no indication that his plans feature the possible or definite destruction of the world anywhere. I guess that's not Rich's definition either then.


I said Girard was probably True Neutral, despite the great service he was doing for everyone (without asking for much, even considering the thefts).
...Wow. I wonder how many people would agree that "your child will disappear shortly after being born, you will never see her again, and incidentally all your money will go as well, and I'm not actually offering you a choice or a warning here, this is all going to come as a horrible surprise to you after you get fooled into thinking one of my homegrown sociopaths is in love with you" is not asking much. Very few, I hope.

And your claim that Girard was doing everyone, or anyone other than himself, a service is as completely unsupported as it ever was. Your claim that he was "risking his family for the world's benefit" is even worse; I understand the chain that leads to the first (it goes, "Wanting to have something to stand on is a selfless motivation,"); I don't get what you're talking about with the latter at all. If his family (if he would even have a family without kidnapping, which is another extremely questionable claim) simply left the gate to its own devices they would be destroyed with the world or ground under Xykon's heel with everyone else in the world.

[sengmeng]

I am afraid I think Xykon would be just as bad--would be, even, fully as evil as he is now--if he learned the truth of the Dark One's ritual and gave up the Plan for an equally brutal plan for world domination that happened to have no chance of global annihilation.

No, just saner.


And then there's Nale. Rich described him as no less evil than Xykon. Yet, there is no indication that his plans feature the possible or definite destruction of the world anywhere. I guess that's not Rich's definition either then.

If tampering with the gates doesn't sound like risking killing the whole Ootsworld, then I don't know if we read the same comic.


...Wow. I wonder how many people would agree that "your child will disappear shortly after being born, you will never see her again, and incidentally all your money will go as well, and I'm not actually offering you a choice or a warning here, this is all going to come as a horrible surprise to you after you get fooled into thinking one of my homegrown sociopaths is in love with you" is not asking much. Very few, I hope.

And your claim that Girard was doing everyone, or anyone other than himself, a service is as completely unsupported as it ever was. Your claim that he was "risking his family for the world's benefit" is even worse; I understand the chain that leads to the first (it goes, "Wanting to have something to stand on is a selfless motivation,"); I don't get what you're talking about with the latter at all. If his family (if he would even have a family without kidnapping, which is another extremely questionable claim) simply left the gate to its own devices they would be destroyed with the world or ground under Xykon's heel with everyone else in the world.

I never said Girard was right; mostly just that his actions are not fully explained by his alignment, which I'm not even sure of. He's putting his family in danger by tasking them with guarding the gate, but it's paranoia, not good or evil, making him do these awful things for this wonderful reason.


Roy said he was doing everyone a favor, not me. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0846.html)

[Emanick]

And your claim that Girard was doing everyone, or anyone other than himself, a service is as completely unsupported as it ever was. Your claim that he was "risking his family for the world's benefit" is even worse; I understand the chain that leads to the first (it goes, "Wanting to have something to stand on is a selfless motivation,"); I don't get what you're talking about with the latter at all. If his family (if he would even have a family without kidnapping, which is another extremely questionable claim) simply left the gate to its own devices they would be destroyed with the world or ground under Xykon's heel with everyone else in the world.

To be fair, any spellcaster who can cast 9th level spells can take anyone he wants to the Outer Planes, whenever he wants. If Girard had decided to ditch his responsibilities as a Gatekeeper and take his family with them, they could undoubtedly have carved out pretty good lives for themselves in the Outer Planes of their choice.

Although overall, I agree with your take on Girard & co. I just expect that he was more interested in defending the Gate because he saw it as his purpose in life and found it fulfilling, rather than because he was a self-preservationist at heart.

[mhsmith]

Damn Neutrals! (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lptin8xHha1qg51mgo1_500.gif)

PS how was Girard neutral on the law/chaos scale? I could certainly see neutral on the good/evil scale (as well as some arguments in either direction), but when what suggests lawful for him? If anything, he seems like an "off the deep end" chaotic character (extreme paranoia, presumably instituting the child abduction gate protection program, etc.)

[sengmeng]

Damn Neutrals! (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lptin8xHha1qg51mgo1_500.gif)

PS how was Girard neutral on the law/chaos scale? I could certainly see neutral on the good/evil scale (as well as some arguments in either direction), but when what suggests lawful for him? If anything, he seems like an "off the deep end" chaotic character (extreme paranoia, presumably instituting the child abduction gate protection program, etc.)

I was wondering if the neutral planet would show up on this thread.

We've gone to beige alert.

As for how is Girard lawful... I'm not sure. His system was well-organized, his family well disciplined, and his plans intricate, but that's hardly definitive. I don't know.

[Amphiox]

I simply do not understand why people continue to automatically assume that the child theft practices of the Draketooth Clan should be laid at Girard's door, alignment wise.

We have zero evidence, zero, that Girard himself had anything at all to do with it.

What we do know about Girard himself, is that he went on an epic adventure to protect the universe with companions, four of which were good, a paladin associated with him for years without falling, he dedicated his entire life to the protection of a Gate, he was suspicious of authority to the point of setting lethal traps intended to be triggered by paladins, a chaotic good companion was at the least infatuated with him, and continued to associate with him for many years, he was deeply, deeply upset when it appeared that one of his companions abandoned another one to die, and a neutral good character willingly took his side in an dispute with a lawful good character up to the point of potential combat.

[mhsmith]

I simply do not understand why people continue to automatically assume that the child theft practices of the Draketooth Clan should be laid at Girard's door, alignment wise.

We have zero evidence, zero, that Girard himself had anything at all to do with it.

What we do know about Girard himself, is that he went on an epic adventure to protect the universe with companions, four of which were good, a paladin associated with him for years without falling, he dedicated his entire life to the protection of a Gate, he was suspicious of authority to the point of setting lethal traps intended to be triggered by paladins, a chaotic good companion was at the least infatuated with him, and continued to associate with him for many years, he was deeply, deeply upset when it appeared that one of his companions abandoned another one to die, and a neutral good character willingly took his side in an dispute with a lawful good character up to the point of potential combat.

Wait, we now know the alignment of Serini? And didn't the conflict strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html) suggest that Soon started to throw down with Dorukan first, and Girard piped in after because he hated Soon?

[Kish]

We do not know the alignment of Serini. Or Kraagor.

[Tragak]

As for how is Girard lawful... I'm not sure. His system was well-organized, his family well disciplined, and his plans intricate, but that's hardly definitive. I don't know. In my book, Law and Chaos aren't about complexity, they're about formality.

A Chaotic could invent absolutely brilliant plans as long as they revolve around what actually works, rather than simply about who's making them, and would always be willing to consider new information at any time from the people he trusts to know what they're talking about. On the other hand, a Lawful could be completely unwilling to come up with his own plan because he feels that it's his boss's job to make the plans for him.

842 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html): You'll notice that the schedule of who does what spells on what day only covers one week, so I imagine that there were frequent evaluations about whether anybody had come up with new ideas instead of just blindly repeating last month's schedules.

[Grey Watcher]

I thought as much, in fact I was writing up an argument to this effect. As I see it there are four types of Neutral alignment:

1. Lack of Moral Capacity
This refers to animals and other creatures that totally lack the capacity for moral behavior. The example from the SRD is vipers and tigers.


2. Philosophical Neutrality "Balance" Types
Someone who really believes in a balance of good and evil.

3. Lack of Sacrifice "Indifferent" Types
This is the plain vanilla neutral the SRD seems to be shooting for as the common sort of neutral. In terms of good vs. evil this sort of Neutral person has "compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." The SRD claims that most neutral people prefer good to evil and law to chaos.


4. Mercenary Type

This is the type who would join with either good or evil depending on who is providing them with the incentives.


I see the 4th type as basically a selfish, look out for #1, type who otherwise have very little opinion about morality but is not a malicious being. Enor and Gannji exemplify this sort of notion, appearing on the Ookoodook T-shrit with "Neutral, you are not being paid enough."

The interesting part of this notion is that it is nowhere described in the SRD but is notably in Palladium's RPGs which has "Selfish" occupying the "neutral" within their alignment system. The plain description of neutral evil marks selfish people as Neutral evil.

I would imagine, that in this conception of alignment, a real Neutral-Evil type character would join with the good guys to advance himself but would be on the look out to betray them at first opportunity possibly at the his own accord. The mercenary types will remain reasonably loyal.

Edit: That "plain description of Neutral evil" requires explanation

From SRD: The only element in the text, aside from the word "villain" popping out, that go against a plain mercenary type being Neutral include the "Sheds no tears," which requires an extreme degree of indifference towards suffering.

There's nothing that actually says that EVIL or "villain" types have a certain internal drive towards evil, but it can be read as implied in the tone of the SRD. In OOTS, a certain enthusiasm for evil seems to be required, because we see quite a few neutral types (Right-eye, Therkla, the Oracle) that join with evil beings but simply have no great love for actually committing these actions. The trio I mentioned are all alike in craving a certain normalcy and a sense of belonging.

Minor quibble, I'm not seeing much of a difference between your Indifferent and Mercenary types. Or, more specifically, Mercenary just seems to be a specific kind of Indifferent, as in "I'm indifferent your morals and your ideology. How much are you paying me to do this on your behalf?"

[Tragak]

It sounds like a matter of passively doing not much of anything vs. actively doing a lot of everything

[Draz74]

I think the argument is that there are few things more evil than killing innocent people. In general, unless there are significant extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any), if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil under an alignment system, then that alignment system is broken. If that's not Evil, what is?
True enough, although from a storyteller's point of view, the caveats "innocent" and "coerced" in your statement leave a lot of room to play around. If Therkla was non-evil throughout her seven years of working under Kubota, then it was doubtless because of the interpretation of one of these two words.

(To explain the "coerced" one more carefully: this could apply if she was brainwashed into being obedient to Kubota, or if she was brainwashed into believing in an honor system that made her uphold an oath of loyalty to Kubota. These are hypothetical examples -- I don't think either of them was actually the case. But it explains why I think, for example, that Szeth in The Way of Kings should be considered Neutral.)

Mind you, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Therkla was Evil throughout most of the seven years -- although not a particularly malevolent Evil -- and that she only shifted to Neutral near the end, once she started letting Elan's example influence her behavior. In fact, I think this is quite likely -- but her being Neutral all along isn't impossible. And the reason why is based on the other caveat word, "innocent":


(Now maybe Kubota only had her targetting rival evil aristocrats and crime bosses and the like and never had her target any innocent people, though given what we know of the man that seems unlikely.)

... I don't have a hard time believing that at all. Shojo paints the Azure nobility as a hive of reprehensible, slimy, backstabbing (literally) politicians. And the people in that community that Kubota was most likely to want killed off are the ones who were at the top of the power structure, or those who were most ruthless (and therefore likely to get him killed off). And Shojo's senility act shut down the first category. So I imagine most of the targets Therkla killed over the years weren't "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I simply do not understand why people continue to automatically assume that the child theft practices of the Draketooth Clan should be laid at Girard's door, alignment wise.

We have zero evidence, zero, that Girard himself had anything at all to do with it.

What we do know about Girard himself, is that he went on an epic adventure to protect the universe with companions, four of which were good, a paladin associated with him for years without falling, he dedicated his entire life to the protection of a Gate, he was suspicious of authority to the point of setting lethal traps intended to be triggered by paladins, a chaotic good companion was at the least infatuated with him, and continued to associate with him for many years, he was deeply, deeply upset when it appeared that one of his companions abandoned another one to die, and a neutral good character willingly took his side in an dispute with a lawful good character up to the point of potential combat.

This. We can take out the part of Girard's allies alignments and it's still a very good point for Girard to be CG.

The problem here is that the dogmatic paladin fan-boys think that going against paladins is being not-good. Just as Miko thought: "with me, or against me". Very paladin-ish.
Rich has put some effort on narrating how you can be good and still fight against the fundamentalist paladins... ¿remember Roy beating Miko BEFORE she fell?

[sengmeng]

This. We can take out the part of Girard's allies alignments and it's still a very good point for Girard to be CG.

The problem here is that the dogmatic paladin fan-boys think that going against paladins is being not-good. Just as Miko thought: "with me, or against me". Very paladin-ish.
Rich has put some effort on narrating how you can be good and still fight against the fundamentalist paladins... ¿remember Roy beating Miko BEFORE she fell?

I think it's a little less "dogmatic paladin fan-boys" and more "paladins can detect evil at will, so Girard couldn't have been out and out evil without Soon pulling out his Ginsu Katanamatic 2000 and turning him into Draketooth puree."

[Math_Mage]

Therkla's past actions and initial appearance are definitely Evil. Even she knows it, dodging the Detect Evil Lien used. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) Her rather strong crush on Elan has a good influence on her. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html) She shows compunction against killing innocents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0586.html), acts to rescue Kazumi and Daigo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0586.html), and articulates a definite Neutral moral position (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0592.html) in the final confrontation with Kubota. Love story of the century it ain't, but it is a classic redemptive arc.

[Reddish Mage]

Minor quibble, I'm not seeing much of a difference between your Indifferent and Mercenary types. Or, more specifically, Mercenary just seems to be a specific kind of Indifferent, as in "I'm indifferent your morals and your ideology. How much are you paying me to do this on your behalf?"

Mercenary differs in that it is fundamentally selfish, where as my indifferent types could better be called "Good-lite." I don't believe this "selfish" works for OOTS in light of having sometime to think about it.

I'm pretty sure that we can class Rich's use of the Neutral alignment in OOTS as "Indifferent" and that the word "selfish" doesn't need to come up.

Its a stronger form of indifferent then I had. The neutral aligned in OOTS do not show a preference for associating with Good over Evil, or if they do, it is a mild preference, one that is easily overcome by circumstance.

This is my current attempt at fleshing out Neutrality from our discussion:

Neutral aligned respond to incentives and form relationships that are more important to them than morality. They lack the drive to commit evil and will do so only when given a strong enough incentive, whether in the form of a good job (Kilkil), or a looser organizational arrangement (Hank, Jenny), money (Enor and Gannji), a sense of belonging (Therkla), or family (Right-eye, and perhaps Therkla). Similarly, Neutral people are unlikely to go out of their way to commit good acts, if such acts require a great deal of sacrifice for strangers.

[Sir_Leorik]

This. We can take out the part of Girard's allies alignments and it's still a very good point for Girard to be CG.

The problem here is that the dogmatic paladin fan-boys think that going against paladins is being not-good. Just as Miko thought: "with me, or against me". Very paladin-ish.
Rich has put some effort on narrating how you can be good and still fight against the fundamentalist paladins... ¿remember Roy beating Miko BEFORE she fell?

Roy never actually defeated Miko before she fell. The first fight ended in a stalemate, which evolved into a truce. The second fight ended with Miko and Windstriker soundly kicking the Order of the Stick to the curb and hauling five/sixths of them in chains to Azure City. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html)

[Sir_Leorik]

I think it's a little less "dogmatic paladin fan-boys" and more "paladins can detect evil at will, so Girard couldn't have been out and out evil without Soon pulling out his Ginsu Katanamatic 2000 and turning him into Draketooth puree."

Plus Paladins are not allowed to associate themselves (i.e. be in the same adventuring party) with anyone of Evil Alignment without violating the Paladin code. Soon might not have attacked Girard on sight, but Soon would have refused to accompany Girard on adventures, possibly leaving the Order of the Scribble before the day was out.

[Reddish Mage]

Therkla's past actions and initial appearance are definitely Evil. Even she knows it, dodging the Detect Evil Lien used. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) Her rather strong crush on Elan has a good influence on her. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html) She shows compunction against killing innocents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0586.html), acts to rescue Kazumi and Daigo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0586.html), and articulates a definite Neutral moral position (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0592.html) in the final confrontation with Kubota. Love story of the century it ain't, but it is a classic redemptive arc.

ITs a great narrative, except for the part but the point is weakened in that you just say "her past actions" and "initial appearance" is definitely evil (without the in-comic support). She does dodge the detect evil, which suggests maybe Therkla doesn't know what her own alignment is.

The insistence that Therkla is evil or that Girard is neutral or evil is based on taking certain acts very gravely. This is against the grain of everything the Giant said about how he interprets alignment.

There is no evidence that the Giant ever viewed Evil alignment as that clear-cut (you do X, therefore, YOU ARE NOW EVIL!). I it is possible Rich sees an Evil alignment (for the OOTS story) as more about having an internal disposition towards evil, something that can develop as a character commits evil acts, but doesn't necessarily develop even if the character commits some evil actions.

[sam79]

As far as the Oracle is concerned. I was thinking about Mama Black Dragon and Tiamat herself, both of whom the Oracle gives a great deal of respect. Contrast this to the OOTS, whom the Oracle obviously dislikes (albeit with good reasons having nothing to do with alignment).

Ok fair enough, but I think it is equally valid to interpret the respect shown to the two characters you mention as appropriate deference to the source of one's power, and appropriate deference to a very powerful creature, who is also a fellow 'reptillian'. It need not have anything to do with alignment. With the OotS, he is most antagonistic towards their one Evil member, so again I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about the Oracle's alignment from who he respects/is snarky to.

The rest of the discussion on neutrality and Evil and the Draketooths is pretty interesting, but veering to close to morally justified for my tastes.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I don't think it is the only conception of Neutral, but it certainly is a valid conception of Neutral. And one that is easy to fit into a story like this, since the Neutral people who just want to be left alone are off being left alone, away from the action. And the "balance" types would represent a whole other angle that would clutter up the narrative and muddy the issue of whether the Good team was in the right or not.
Might The Holey Brotherhood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) be "balance" type True Neutral? :smallbiggrin:

[The Giant]

I wrote a very long post defending Therkla's Neutrality, but I decided to delete it. It doesn't matter if anyone else agrees, and I doubt anyone will ever be convinced anyway. The characters in the comic are not meant to be examples or guides on what is or is not such-and-such alignment. As I've said before:


In the end, alignment is a murky cocktail of temperament, goals, actions, and results. There is no clearly defined formula for which of those counts the most. But self-image certainly matters

So when I say, "This character has this alignment," just read it as, "This character was written with this point of view in mind, and if you could see their entire life rather than this small sliver, that would be more obvious."

Also, let's keep the Moral Justification blades sheathed, and for that matter, make sure we don't insult groups of people with opposing viewpoints.

[Heksefatter]

One character with a neutral outlook that I haven't noticed being mentioned: Nero.

Though you could argue that Nero narratively is not a character, but that the character in question is more or less the IFCC, just as Donald Duck's nephews aren't really separate characters...But that's just me quibbling.

[thereaper]

I like how people dispute the author's views on a character's alignment, despite the fact that we only ever saw a small sliver of her life.

For all we know Therkla might have spent her off days rescuing orphans and puppies from burning buildings.

What we do know is that Therkla chose Neutrality in the end (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0592.html).

And really, that's all we need to know.

[Sylian]

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.That's very interesting, thanks for posting that! I had suspected many of those, but some surprised me quite a bit. Mostly Ian Starshine, he struck me as he might be Chaotic Good. Perhaps he's trying to be Chaotic Good but his methods makes him slide into Chaotic Neutral?

[Sylian]

I wrote a very long post defending Therkla's Neutrality, but I decided to delete it. It doesn't matter if anyone else agrees, and I doubt anyone will ever be convinced anyway.While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it. :smallsmile:

[Kish]

I simply do not understand why people continue to automatically assume that the child theft practices of the Draketooth Clan should be laid at Girard's door, alignment wise.

We have zero evidence, zero, that Girard himself had anything at all to do with it.
The "Girard's family went rogue after he died" theory is certainly a better argument for it being possible for Girard to be nonevil than any of the "all the victims of the Draketooths' kidnapping scheme just had to suffer for the Greater Good" arguments.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

The "Girard's family went rogue after he died" theory is certainly a better argument for it being possible for Girard to be nonevil than any of the "all the victims of the Draketooths' kidnapping scheme just had to suffer for the Greater Good" arguments.

Why do you make up things?

We only know about ONE kidnapper: Odrin Draketooth. That doesn't change the alignment of Girard. We don't know about the rest, it could have different ways you may think of. For example: what if the majority of the Draketooths were only girls that looked for get pregnant in a night and then dissappear? Their one-night-stand wouldn't even know anything... (and be happy about it).

[Cronos988]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it. :smallsmile:

I think the problem with such an argument is that the discussion here offers no standard to judge any arguments for or against a given alignment, because, IMHO, we aren't properly taking the structure of the D&D, and by extension OOTS-World and the role of alignment in it into account.

Alignment is obviously a simplification of complex character traits into a simple 2-word system. At that, it is a pretty signicant simplification. Such simplifications cannot be debated on their own points, as that just leads to arguments without substance that eventually devolve into a morality discussion.

Instead, simplifications can only be debated if their purpose is taken into account. By itself, simplifications, like alignment, are completely meaningless. The only acquire meaning when they are used to group the objects being simpified, in this case characters, into a system. And in D&D, that system is the "teams" of the various gods and afterlifes. See, since D&D has actual objective beings of good, evil, lawful etc., the use of alignment is to determine who, all things considered, belongs into which "team". For any other purposes, e.g. actually describing a person or predicting the actions of said person, the system is utterly useless or at least very ill-fitted.

If we, therefore, want to know wether a certain alignment is "accurate" we need to know the overall goals of the "team" associated with that alignment to decide if the character would be considered to be a member of that team. It's no use to say "X is selfish, and selfishness is evil, so X is evil". There could be any number of additional character traits that caused X not to advance the cause of the evil forces in the world, and would therefore make X not evil.

In the case of Therkla, the question would be whether Therkla has done the right actions, with the right motives and under the right circumstances to have either evil or good treat her as a "member". Hatefull killing would be an evil act within D&D, but what if hate was mixed with some kind of pre-emptive self-dedence motive (the ninja school)? If it takes too much to push Therkla to do an evil act (even though it is possible and even happens), she just isn't a member of the evil side of the universe, and that makes her neutral.

[Kish]

The problem here is that the dogmatic paladin fan-boys think that going against paladins is being not-good.
Why do you make up things?
Good thing every claim you ever make is well and logically supported. I especially like the quotes you posted from all Girard's detractors declaring that there's never a good reason to go against paladins--and the way the rest of your post is all about something we've seen, not anything you're making up at all.

[Coat]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it. :smallsmile:

I'll heartily second this. The Giant's posts are always interesting.
But then maybe that's because he deletes the dull ones before he posts them...

For the record, I absolutely read Crystal the way the Giant describes her - just about smart enough to know that she has no chance to survive without Buzzock thinking for her, and no real attachment to any philosophy otherwise.


... I don't have a hard time believing that at all. Shojo paints the Azure nobility as a hive of reprehensible, slimy, backstabbing (literally) politicians. And the people in that community that Kubota was most likely to want killed off are the ones who were at the top of the power structure, or those who were most ruthless (and therefore likely to get him killed off). And Shojo's senility act shut down the first category. So I imagine most of the targets Therkla killed over the years weren't "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'll second this. A ninja working in a corrupt aristocracy might have very little to do with the innocent.

In fact, it's entirely possible that prior to missions against Hinjo (and possibly Shoba) Therkla may actually have not seen any action at all. Sending an assassin against a rival or their family is inviting one in return. Either the assassins are generally incompetent, or you very quickly have little aristocracy left. You've got to have the assassins, or you're immediately a target. But actually using them is a very risky proposition.

It's quite possible that prior to the events in the book, Therkla had little to do other than train, relax, and potentially rescue puppies.

Also, she's a half-orc trained from infancy in a school for killing. Her definition of evil could be quite different to your average human commoner - and surely whether the actor considers their acts to be evil is a fairly significant factor. If you've been brought up in an environment where death is always close, and life is cheap, your perspective on how evil it is to end someone else's may be rather skewed.

Finally, not all mercenaries are the same. A mercenary might accept a contract to kill a (probably somewhat corrupt) aristocrat, but not his wife or children. A mercenary might swag golden candlesticks and slit the throats of guardsmen on the way through the house, or make an effort to avoid any collateral damage. A mercenary might always work for the highest bidder, or stick loyally to a contract even if better paid options arise.

I think there's a lot of options there from Chaotic Almost-good to Lawful Definitely-evil. Doubtless, Kubota was trying to shift Therkla into Evil, and probably LE, but she reads as TN to me.

[Grey Watcher]

While it is certainly true that it doesn't really matter that much if people agree about her alignment, I think that it's also true that many people would have enjoyed reading such a post. I can easily buy Therkla being Neutral, at least at the end, but it would have been interesting to see what you were to say about it. :smallsmile:

True, but I think that it'll be even more awesome to wait for the Kickstarter reward story about Therkla and see what new light that sheds on her motives, personality, and alignment.

I guess I've always understood that mere selfishness doesn't qualify a person for D&D Evil. If displayed regularly enough, it might be enough to knock a person out of Goodness, but Evil, to me, has always seemed to require a willingness (in extreme cases, an eagerness) to harm others. Yes, Therkla does kill as part of her work, but it's clearly not her first instinct (note that she waited until just before the graduation ceremony to assassinate the valedictorian, rather than doing so the minute he got ahead of her in the class rankings). If she'd met Elan a decade later, maybe Kubota's influence would have made her outright Evil, but she wasn't there yet.

I guess, I think of the difference between Neutral and Evil like this: if two people are up for a promotion at their job, the Neutral one will work hard to outperform the other, whether at the job or just at sucking up to superiors. The Evil one will work hard to spread rumors that the other is a drug addict who beats their kids. The Evil one is perfectly fine with ruining his co-worker's life just to get that promotion.

(Disclaimer: the above speaks specifically to D&D notions of Good and Evil.)

[Sylian]

One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh. :smallwink:

[Sir_Leorik]

I think the problem with such an argument is that the discussion here offers no standard to judge any arguments for or against a given alignment, because, IMHO, we aren't properly taking the structure of the D&D, and by extension OOTS-World and the role of alignment in it into account.

Alignment is obviously a simplification of complex character traits into a simple 2-word system. At that, it is a pretty signicant simplification. Such simplifications cannot be debated on their own points, as that just leads to arguments without substance that eventually devolve into a morality discussion.

Yes, and a lot of people find it hard to distinguish been a Character's personality traits and that Character's Alignment. You can have a selfish or greedy Lawful Good Dwarf, who covets gold, but would never stoop to stealing, lying or cheating. Instead he works long hours at his forge or mine, not really spending much time with his wife and child. Tarquin is proof that a Lawful Evil tyrant can love his sons, even if he is disappointed in one and has the opposite Alignment of the other.

Julio Scroundel is a larger-than-life sky pirate, who loots ancient treasures, seduces debutantes (and robs their father's after giving the young women a night to remember) and of course always gets away from the cops. (Any rumors to the contrary about that stint he did in Nowhere is a lie!) Ian Starshine is a paranoid thief, who saw Greysky City grind many Good people down to nothing, including his wife. All evidence points to Ian having a loving relationship with his wife and Haley, before Haley's mom was murdered. Unlike Julio, who could never settle down in one place, with a single woman, Ian was happily married, before the tragic loss of his wife.

Xykon and Cedric are both Chaotic Evil master villains, but while Xykon doesn't care about strategy or tactics, unliving each day only for his own wretched enjoyment, Cedrik has long term goals. Cedrik may rely on his inherently Chaotic nature to guide him on when to implement parts of the IFCC's plans, but he is involved making those plans with Lee and Nero as a team. How much of this is a result of going to school with Devils, how much is a result of Nero's influence and how much is a result of Cedrik possibly being different from other Demons, is unrevealed, but the point is that he's very different from Xykon, while still acting in a Chaotic fashion.


Instead, simplifications can only be debated if their purpose is taken into account. By itself, simplifications, like alignment, are completely meaningless. The only acquire meaning when they are used to group the objects being simpified, in this case characters, into a system. And in D&D, that system is the "teams" of the various gods and afterlifes. See, since D&D has actual objective beings of good, evil, lawful etc., the use of alignment is to determine who, all things considered, belongs into which "team". For any other purposes, e.g. actually describing a person or predicting the actions of said person, the system is utterly useless or at least very ill-fitted.

Originally, in (O)D&D, AD&D and the Basic set and it's iterations, Alignment was actually closer to the way Michael Moorcock treated it in the "Elric" stories. (O)D&D and Basic had three Alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, cribbed off of Moorcock's conflict between Law and Chaos. That framework was expanded in AD&D to include Good v. Evil, resulting in the famous Nine Alignments used in every subsequent edition of D&D except 4th. (D&D Next is slated to restore the Nine Alignments.) In AD&D every Character knew a special Alignment Language, a code or cant that could be used to let others know that he was Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral, and that was forbidden to be taught to those of other Alignments.

Paladins were intended to be special exemplars of Lawful Good, based in part on tales of Charlemagne's Paladins (especially Roland). Paladins had very difficult Ability Score qualifications (especially a requirement of a 17 Charisma) because they were intended to be rare and special. A Paladin wasn't just a holy knight (that's what AD&D Clerics were), he was supposed to be a role model for others about how to live a Lawful Good life. They were under strict restrictions regarding wealth, had to tithe from their income (including treasure found) and had to be very careful about their words and deeds. (Then Unearthed Arcana came out and they got tossed under a bus in favor of Cavaliers. :smallannoyed:)


If we, therefore, want to know wether a certain alignment is "accurate" we need to know the overall goals of the "team" associated with that alignment to decide if the character would be considered to be a member of that team. It's no use to say "X is selfish, and selfishness is evil, so X is evil". There could be any number of additional character traits that caused X not to advance the cause of the evil forces in the world, and would therefore make X not evil.

In AD&D that would be the right question to ask: what is the goal of my Alignment? What cause does it advance? That hasn't been a relevant question in subsequent editions of the game. In 2E and 3.X, Alignment is not necessarily a team sport. (Even in AD&D there were indications this wasn't true, especially in the "Dragonlance" campaign, where one of the axioms of the campaign was "Evil always turns on itself".)

A better question would be: how does my character's Alignment guide, interact or conflict with my Character's Personality traits and my Character's goals? There are no easy answers to that question, though if all of your Character's personality or goals are completely in conflict with his Alignment you might be better off choosing a different Alignment for your Character.


In the case of Therkla, the question would be whether Therkla has done the right actions, with the right motives and under the right circumstances to have either evil or good treat her as a "member". Hatefull killing would be an evil act within D&D, but what if hate was mixed with some kind of pre-emptive self-dedence motive (the ninja school)? If it takes too much to push Therkla to do an evil act (even though it is possible and even happens), she just isn't a member of the evil side of the universe, and that makes her neutral.

Therkla had two conflicting goals: loyally serving Daimyo Kubota's interests, and realizing her school girl crush on Elan. The former entailed assassinating Lord Hinjo (which Elan was trying to prevent), having monsters charmed by Qarr attack the fleet (which Elan was defending), murdering Elan's teammates and friends (which would bum Elan out) and murdering Elan (ditto). So long as he held out hope Haley was alive, Elan was never going to ever become Therkla's boyfriend (not ever, ever!), but he was definitely willing to be her friend and ally. But that would involve her betraying the trust of her mentor and father-figure, who showed no prejudice to her for her Orcish heritage (unlike other Azurites) and saw her as the daughter he never had. As she said, she wanted to have it both ways, but neither Kubota nor Elan would compromise. And since Kubota was a ruthless nobleman who killed those in his way, while Elan is one of the noblest souls in this comic, Kubota tried to kill Therkla, and Elan tried and failed to save her. She didn't want to have to choose sides in a situation where that wasn't really an option, but that doesn't make her desire for Balance any less important than Elan's quest to bring Kubota to justice or Kubota's lust for power.

By contrast, the Oracle, Enor and Gannji are all mercenaries. The Oracle has the best set-up of the three, able to maintain a measure of anonymity thanks to the memory charm, and living in an out-of-the-way tower guarded by monsters, plus a Knight and a Knave. Enor and Gannji need to put their lives at risk to make a living, which is why they will not stick their necks out unless there is a profit to be made.


For the record, I absolutely read Crystal the way the Giant describes her - just about smart enough to know that she has no chance to survive without Buzzock thinking for her, and no real attachment to any philosophy otherwise.

I always saw Crystal as a Chaotic Evil loose cannon held in check by the calculating Bozzok. The scene where she lops off Haley's hair, or the bonus scenes in DStP where she murders Grubwriggler, seem to indicate a Chaotic Evil nature. On the other hand, she didn't kill people she wasn't authorized to kill, and both Haley and Grubwriggler were on that list. She didn't kill people for fun the way Xykon or Belkar have, but she really enjoyed doing her job a little too much. :smalleek:


I guess I've always understood that mere selfishness doesn't qualify a person for D&D Evil. If displayed regularly enough, it might be enough to knock a person out of Goodness, but Evil, to me, has always seemed to require a willingness (in extreme cases, an eagerness) to harm others.

Selfishness by itself is not enough to make someone Neutral or Evil in D&D. If a person gives a pittance to the occasional beggar, but spends lots of money on luxury goods, that doesn't mean that they can't be Lawful Good, at least not in 3.X. (In earlier editions that wouldn't be allowed, certainly not for a Paladin.) Prior to 3.X, the Thief class could not be Lawful Good (though there were exceptions like Dr. Rudolph van Richten, who used the Read Languages, Climb Walls, Find/Remove Traps, Detect Noise, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows abilities of a Thief to hunt and slay Vampires). The ostensible reason was that Thieves felt "the world and everything in it" owed them a living. In 3.X and 4E Rogues can be Lawful Good, and Complete Scoundrel even gives suggestions for how to play a Lawful Good Rogue PC who catches thieves or works as a spy for a Lawful Good monarch.


I guess, I think of the difference between Neutral and Evil like this: if two people are up for a promotion at their job, the Neutral one will work hard to outperform the other, whether at the job or just at sucking up to superiors. The Evil one will work hard to spread rumors that the other is a drug addict who beats their kids. The Evil one is perfectly fine with ruining his co-worker's life just to get that promotion.

(Disclaimer: the above speaks specifically to D&D notions of Good and Evil.)

That's really the difference between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil Characters. A Lawful Neutral Character might desire the promotion not only for an increase in pay and status in the company, but out of loyalty to the employer. If she's put in five years at the job, she might feel entitled to the promotion, but she might feel an equal pride in the company and a desire to work harder to prove her worth. A True Neutral Character passed over for promotion might realize she has no loyalty to her employer, and might slack off at work or look for a new job. A Neutral Evil Character might look for a good opportunity to murder the rival, especially if she works at a company that employs people who commit murder for hire. (However she's not likely to do so in plain sight of a crowd of people, like at a graduation. :smalltongue:)


One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh. :smallwink:

That is a big question, which contradicts the Giant's assertion that Therkla was always True Neutral. I'm not saying she wasn't True Neutal at the time, but her actions in that tunnel don't make sense if she knew her own Alignment wasn't Evil. Maybe she thought being around Qarr had tainted her aura? The same way Roy wearing Xykon's crown temporarily tainted his?

[denthor]

The Giant
Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

I'm sure there are others, and some I'm specifically not mentioning.

People with Neutral alignments tend to not go on about it all the time. Lack of talking about it does not equal lack of presence in the comic, but since there's very little to say story-wise that can't ALSO be said with at least one corner alignment, there's not much reason to bring it up.


After reading this post I only have one question


Who and which comic(s) does Jenny appear?

[Sir_Leorik]

After reading this post I only have one question


Who and which comic(s) does Jenny appear?

Jenny is the Rogue/Bard/Sorcerer in the Greysky City Thieves' Guild. She first appeared in a cameo in On the Origin of PCs, one of the prequel books, and she makes her first appearance in the comic when the Thieves' Guild invades Ol' Blind Pete's home to kill Haley, Celia, Belkar and the Cleric of Loki. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html) She survives the fight and has an "encounter" with Belkar later on.

[bguy]

In fact, it's entirely possible that prior to missions against Hinjo (and possibly Shoba) Therkla may actually have not seen any action at all. Sending an assassin against a rival or their family is inviting one in return. Either the assassins are generally incompetent, or you very quickly have little aristocracy left. You've got to have the assassins, or you're immediately a target. But actually using them is a very risky proposition.

Kubota didn't seem particularily risk adverse though seeing as how he was willing to try and assassinate his liege in the middle of a war. (To say nothing of him continuing to try and assassinate Hinjo afterwards and going in person to the attack on House Kato.) He also seemed pretty tolerant of her repeated failures against Hinjo which implies that she had served him ably in the past. (If she didn't have a history of good service, he probably would have dismissed her as hopelessly incompetent for repeatedly failing against Hinjo.) As such it is pretty hard for me to believe that she hadn't already killed people for Kubota.


Also, she's a half-orc trained from infancy in a school for killing. Her definition of evil could be quite different to your average human commoner - and surely whether the actor considers their acts to be evil is a fairly significant factor. If you've been brought up in an environment where death is always close, and life is cheap, your perspective on how evil it is to end someone else's may be rather skewed.

That would explain why she is evil, but it wouldn't make her actions any less evil. Remember in OoTS Good and Evil are objective universal forces, so it doesn't matter whether you realize what you are doing is evil or not. (Otherwise Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Shojo. She thought she was doing a good thing, but was still punished because her action was objectively evil in the Stickverse regardless of her personal belief.)


Finally, not all mercenaries are the same. A mercenary might accept a contract to kill a (probably somewhat corrupt) aristocrat, but not his wife or children. A mercenary might swag golden candlesticks and slit the throats of guardsmen on the way through the house, or make an effort to avoid any collateral damage. A mercenary might always work for the highest bidder, or stick loyally to a contract even if better paid options arise.

I agree with this. I have no problem with the idea of a mercenary having scruples or even being good aligned. (Think Rick Blaine in Casablanca. He served as a mercenary in Ethiopia and Spain, but was only willing to work for the anti-fascist forces.) I just don't see any evidence in the comic that Therkla had such scruples. She was perfectly fine with trying to assassinate her king who she knew was a Lawful Good paladin. She was also fine with allowing Lien (another paladin), Durkon (a good aligned cleric), and Daigo (a war hero) to all be murdered. Whether or not she ever actually personally killed an innocent person, she was willing to do so, and that seems inconsistent with a Neutral alignment.

To steer clear of "morally justified" territory lets just look at the SRD's definition of moral neutrality. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." From what we saw in the comic Therkla didn't have compunctions against killing the innocent (until the very last hour of her life when she finally developed such compunctions.) So again for the vast majority of her appearances in the comic her actions and attitudes were inconsistent with her having a Neutral moral alignment.

[Throknor]

With the OotS, he [The Oracle] is most antagonistic towards their one Evil member, so again I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about the Oracle's alignment from who he respects/is snarky to.

He was snarky towards someone who was destined to kill him painfully, and the group around a guy who dangled him from a window. Even someone as Good as Elan gets mad at those who threaten him, so T.O.'s snark has nothing to do with alignment.


What if the majority of the Draketooths were only girls that looked for get pregnant in a night and then dissappear? Their one-night-stand wouldn't even know anything... (and be happy about it).
Well, Familicide would still have killed them, so I doubt they'd still be happy about it.

But unless they were resorting to in-breeding, mating outside the clan had to be done. The only way to preserve their secret was to lie and kidnap. Anyone who disagreed might not have been allowed to leave - at least not with his/her memories intact. After all, what's the point of having a secret clan if there's a link wandering around the world that can reveal all of your secrets.


One thing that I find slightly strange about Therkla is that she avoided the Detect Evil in this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html) strip. Now, why would she do that? Well, I see one reasonable option: She believed that she might detect as Evil, either because she thought she might be Evil, or because she thought she might carry some item that would make her detect as Evil.

That is quite interesting. Perhaps the Giant had pegged her as Evil at that point in time, or perhaps he had pegged her as Neutral but unsure of her own alignment. Perhaps she was Evil at that time, and later changed to Neutral. I suspect that the PDF will provide some insight, though it might muddle the issue even more, heh. :smallwink:

Or she didn't know how Detect Evil works, or thought it sensed more than it can. She'd probably been warned either in assassin school or by Kubato himself that someone might do that and she should avoid it, with whomever telling her assuming she was in fact evil.

[Amphiox]

We do not know the alignment of Serini. Or Kraagor.

Serini talked about multi-classing to Paladin.

If she was serious, that means she has to be Lawful Good.

Even if it was a joke, the joke works better if her alignment was at least partly overlapping with Lawful Good, ie Lawful X or X Good. And if it was a joke, then such a joke is more a Chaotic-type behavior than a Lawful one. Hence, Chaotic Good.

And keep in mind that there is NO indication one way or another, in the text, that it was even a joke at all.

[Amphiox]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.

[Kish]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.
Ugh.

I think what hugely cheapens the vileness of the Familicide, is to suggest it would have been legitimate had it only been targeted on members of an "evil race." And frankly--even if I didn't believe that it would be unambiguously an atrocity had no black dragon ever reproduced with a human in the OotS universe, I wouldn't consider this argument to be valid. "This group which is clearly evil from their actions should be regarded as nonevil because of a meta-consideration"=no. Mass kidnapping=evil. Genocide=evil. The D&D books' position on such actions is really not nearly as ambiguous as some people claim it is.

[Sir_Leorik]

Making blanket judgments about the Draketooth's all being evil because of the kidnapping scheme also cheapens the impact of V's use of Familicide. All of a sudden the majority of his victims become Chaotic Evil Black Dragons and Chaotic Evil Draketooths.

We need to steer clear of making arguments about whether a character's actions were or were not morally justified, or this thread will get locked. Let's just say that several posters have expressed very strong opinions about Orrin Draketooth's actions in the past (not to mention familicide) and get back to discussing how the Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral Alignments are represented in the strip, okay?

[LadyEowyn]

Serini talked about multi-classing to Paladin.

If she was serious, that means she has to be Lawful Good.

Even if it was a joke, the joke works better if her alignment was at least partly overlapping with Lawful Good, ie Lawful X or X Good. And if it was a joke, then such a joke is more a Chaotic-type behavior than a Lawful one. Hence, Chaotic Good.

And keep in mind that there is NO indication one way or another, in the text, that it was even a joke at all.

Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.

[Cifer]

Regarding Girard, I don't see much support for him being [whatever]-Good. We know he saved the world. Well... anyone who's not off their rocker would presumably like to continue existing. We also know he continued to watch over the gate, but that's not because he wanted to make a sacrifice, but because he needed to do so - otherwise, the fascist paladin would have screwed everything up for sure!
The only thing we know about him is that he doesn't think highly of moral codes and honour, which pegs him as non-lawful. He may have been good, may have been neutral. Excepting that Soon wouldn't have been allowed to associate with him (something that the Twelve Gods may have made an exception to considering the world was hanging in the balance), he may have been evil too. I don't know and I don't think his actions on page have given enough indication for anyone to.


----


As for Therkla, I saw her as a very sympathetic character - right up until I stopped to think about her actual actions (which shows the Giant knows his storytelling, btw).
She's Kubota's assassin and protege. Presumably her last seven years have been spent assassinating various folks from different ends of the alignment spectrum, including some whose murder was not justified, merely expedient. Strike one for evil.
She tried to murder Hinjo, whom we know to be a just ruler who Kubota wanted out of the way solely because he likes to be in charge himself, with Therkla being pretty much fine with that reasoning. Strike two for evil.
She's got nothing against Lien and friends being sacrificed. In fact, she instigated the whole thing. Strike three for evil.

On the good side, she tried to save Elan. But is that actually on the good side? Is it still altruistic (which I find to be a much more concise word than "good") when you save someone not because, well, they're people and people are worth saving, but because you have a very personal interest in them? I'd say that action was mainly motivated by self-interest - and for obvious reasons, people from all parts of the alignment range can act on that motivation.
That leaves her trying to save the Katos. This is her one truly good act, for she could simply have escaped, returned to Kubota and be done with it, without Elan knowing she had anything to do with (or even knew about) the Katos' deaths. At this point she was at a crossroads where she chose the right path while knowing that the other one would be a lot easier on her.

So... is one good action enough to qualify for neutral alignment after a life of "I was just following orders"-evil? Perhaps she was a pretty cool girl off-page, but from what was written about her, she had at best started her journey from the deep end of the alignment pool when said journey was cut short.



Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.
That's actually not the case - rogues can be Lawful, though those tend to go towards a "For Queen and Fatherland" agent direction. However, a paladn's Code of Conduct class feature specifies that they have to "act with honour", with lying and cheating being mentioned as no-gos. So... it would be a rather unique combination, but it would technically be allowed.

[konradknox]

What's Haley's alignment?

[Math_Mage]

ITs a great narrative, except for the part but the point is weakened in that you just say "her past actions" and "initial appearance" is definitely evil (without the in-comic support). She does dodge the detect evil, which suggests maybe Therkla doesn't know what her own alignment is.
I don't particularly want to rehash the evidence of Therkla's murky past and early actions--that's been done to death. I only cited the avoidance of Detect Evil because that's the only unique contribution I have to that discussion. It's pretty clear that Therkla had a Neutral+ initial nature, and it's been poisoned by her environment and particularly by Kubota's explicit villain training. Whether you identify that as a very, very morally dubious Neutral or Evil Lite is up to you. We agree on everything else, far as I can tell--Therkla was on the path to outright villainhood until Elan brought out the good in her, reaching a Neutral+ moral position by the end of her arc.


The insistence that Therkla is evil or that Girard is neutral or evil is based on taking certain acts very gravely. This is against the grain of everything the Giant said about how he interprets alignment.

There is no evidence that the Giant ever viewed Evil alignment as that clear-cut (you do X, therefore, YOU ARE NOW EVIL!). I it is possible Rich sees an Evil alignment (for the OOTS story) as more about having an internal disposition towards evil, something that can develop as a character commits evil acts, but doesn't necessarily develop even if the character commits some evil actions.
You should probably avoid attributing simpleminded analysis to people who disagree with you. It is not the case that they would definitely agree with you if only they saw the bigger picture on alignment.

[Sir_Leorik]

What's Haley's alignment?

Chaotic Good.

[Kish]

We need to steer clear of making arguments about whether a character's actions were or were not morally justified, or this thread will get locked. Let's just say that several posters have expressed very strong opinions about Orrin Draketooth's actions in the past (not to mention familicide) and get back to discussing how the Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral Alignments are represented in the strip, okay?
To my quite-possibly-flawed understanding of the "no Morally Justified arguments" rule, it isn't meant to in any way discourage us from making arguments along the lines of, "What Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly evil, as per Paragraph X from the Player's Handbook, Paragraph Y from the Book of Exalted Deeds, and Paragraph Z from the Book of Vile Darkness," but rather arguments like, "I don't care about D&D rules, what Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly WRONG and he should be punted through the fourth wall and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in Alcatraz."

Rogues have no alignment restrictions. It is entirely possible for there to be a rogue/paladin multiclass--although a paladin who takes levels of any other class after being a paladin is unable to add paladin levels thereafter. (Similarly, once Miko took her first paladin level she could never have taken another monk level.)

[Sir_Leorik]

To my quite-possibly-flawed understanding of the "no Morally Justified arguments" rule, it isn't meant to in any way discourage us from making arguments along the lines of, "What Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly evil, as per Paragraph X from the Player's Handbook, Paragraph Y from the Book of Exalted Deeds, and Paragraph Z from the Book of Vile Darkness," but rather arguments like, "I don't care about D&D rules, what Vaarsuvius/Girard/Roy/Xykon did was clearly WRONG and he should be punted through the fourth wall and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in Alcatraz.

Fair enough. The question about why Therkla hid from Lien's detect evil ability is fair game for sure.


Rogues have no alignment restrictions. It is entirely possible for there to be a rogue/paladin multiclass--although a paladin who takes levels of any other class after being a paladin is unable to add paladin levels thereafter. (Similarly, once Miko took her first paladin level she could never have taken another monk level.)

Complete Scoundrel had some feats allowing Paladins or Monks (and Monk/Paladins) to freely multiclass with another class. One of those feats was kinda bizarre, since it allowed Paladins (who must be Lawful Good) to freely multiclass as Bards (who can't be Lawful), and the prerequisites required the Character to have both Bardic Music and Smite Evil. Really weird feat; I think someone at WotC was too busy developing 4E to properly edit Complete Scoundrel. :smallbiggrin:

[Tom Lehmann]

I think the argument is that there are few things more evil than killing innocent people. In general, unless there are significant extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any)
In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.


if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil [...] If that's not Evil, what is?
Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.

[denthor]

Serini was a rogue (which I think is a class that can't be Lawful). That's why the "multiclassing to paladin" thing was a joke, because it's impossible to be a Paladin Rogue.

Or rather, it wasn't a deliberate joke on Serini's part, it was an indication of her being a little Elan-ish.

There is a prestigue group in 3.5 edition of D&D that you must be a Paladin to join but they can start as anything.

You can start as any class and switch to Paladin you must just be of Lawful Good alignment and have the training.

But in general you are correct starting as rogue you do not nomally qualify.

[Emanick]

In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.


Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.

I knew I'd be glad that I put that "unless there are significant extenuating circumstances" clause in there. :smalltongue: I tend to agree that yes, war is just such an extenuating circumstance.

In a sense, war is akin to self-defense or the defense of another person against non-innocents. You're presumably fighting in battles because you believe that you're serving a righteous cause, or because you're afraid of the consequences of not serving in the military. If you're consciously fighting for what you believe to be an unrighteous cause, and you're not being coerced into doing what you're doing, then I would actually consider your actions Evil, because you're committing justice that can't be morally justified.

So yeah, IMO fighting in a war is not automatically evil, but it can be under certain circumstances. It sounds like we probably agree on that.

[Edhelras]

Compared to how I myself view the alignments in DnD, it seems to me that many people often underestimate how "evil" - or rather "non-good" - a Neutral (on the Good-Evil) axis) can be.

According to how I myself see it, and read the instructions in the PHB, there really good alignments are just that - they're really good. I mean, they involve for instance a willingness to self-sacrifice that I think many of us would be really reluctant to provide. The Good heroes are really that - theyr're Good and Heroes.

The Neutral alignment, I think, is really Neutral in that it either displays a quite narrow, but neutral, array of actions on the Good-Evil axis, or alternatively that it allows quite a wide spectrum, only that the Good acts aren't performed for the sake of goodness, and the Evil acts aren't purely for the sake of evil, and the Good and the Evil tends to balance and neutralize each other in the long run. But the basic thing is that Neutral allows you to sink quite deep into performing not only non-good, but even Evil, acts.

Then again, I'm one of those adhering to the advice from the PHB, that the Evil alignments usually are meant for the monsters and the adversaries of the PCs. Gamewise, that allows for easy administration of battles and plotlines; most of the time, you're able as a player to assume that you are actually the good guy (so noone is really served by your character commiting suicide, and you yourself as a player going off to play video games or whatever), and your enemies are generally really bad guys who "deserve" to be killed. Sure, interesting role-play ensues when even the Bad Guys have a personality and personal motives, and encounters can be solved in other ways than combat. But much of the time in DnD, the game is really about setups for combat encounters, and in such situations it serves us well to have the fronts clearly delineated. After all, what adventurers DO (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html) is most of the time killing other creatures.

So, in my personal view (and I think the PHB and the game mechanics support this), the Evil alignments are really, really Evil (although they don't need to be Stupid Evil or Cliched Evil), mostly illustrated by how far they're willing to go, and how often they go there, for what scanty reasons.
And the Neutral alignments are really not Evil, like Evil is, just as they're really, really not Good (only except that they often tend to be part of the Heroes' party, and thus be advancing the cause of Goodness, albeit often for their own reasons or simply because intellect dictates it to be their best chance of selv-preservation).
But the scope of the Neutral alignemnt can be very great indeed, including performing acts that you correctly would say that makes them definitely non-Good. Because, they aren't - they're Neutral.

This was all the Good-Evil axis. As for Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, I think it's more open to interpretation. However, sometimes it comes down to someone thinking that "I'm Lawful because I'm constantly and unchangingly abiding by the One Law: That there is no Law other than what I, at any given moment, think is the right thing to do". Otherwise called the Chaotic alignment, of course.
What is more disputable, I think, is to weigh the different levels of authority a Lawful person might subject himself to. I think a Lawful person won't always need to bow to the "King of the Land", but - as actually Rich mentioned regarding Crystal's loyalty to Bozzok: Being the loyal and unquestioning servant of just about any authority figure posited above you doesn't make you Lawful. The "authority" and "law" that you follow should have some greater expanse than that in the society that you live, or else it looses its meaning as an opposite of "Chaos" .
Furthermore, I do think that a Lawful creature should have some measure of predictability and consequent behaviour. If a Lawfful character behaved "this way" in a previous situation, you should generally expect to see much of the same in a similar situation later on. Not always, but in the long run. And again, it seems of little meaning to me to say that "I'm Lawful - because you know that you NEVER can predict how I will act".
As for Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis, I think this really gives the player a lot of opportunity to pick his actions according to what he seems is best at the time. Much of the time, that would be adhering to the lawful authorities, and from a character-building perspective: Try to develop a set of choices/acts that "are" your character, without being cliched or stereotyped.

I must admit I WAS kinda surprised that Therkla was depicted as True Neutral, but on the other hand - what alignment would suit her better? She's quite a multi-faceted and interesting person, perhaps more suited to books of "real" literature (like, the classical Russian novels) than to the world we associate with DnD. I don't think an Evil person would have such qualms about doing Evil acts as Therkla has. And her mix of loyalty and resistance towards Kubota is exactly what one might see in a Neutral character - who can't simply rely on "he's my master - I must obey", but feels that she has to do some thinking for herself as well.
I agree that more info on Therkla's backstory would be interesting - for instance: How did she handle assassinations on Kubota's orders, previously? Did she allow them a chance to escape, in some instances? Did she evaluate for herself whether the target was really worthy of assassination? Did she cherish the act (or was she just proud to be proficient at what she did for a living?)?

[Reddish Mage]

I don't particularly want to rehash the evidence of Therkla's murky past and early actions--that's been done to death. I only cited the avoidance of Detect Evil because that's the only unique contribution I have to that discussion. It's pretty clear that Therkla had a Neutral+ initial nature, and it's been poisoned by her environment and particularly by Kubota's explicit villain training. Whether you identify that as a very, very morally dubious Neutral or Evil Lite is up to you. We agree on everything else, far as I can tell--Therkla was on the path to outright villainhood until Elan brought out the good in her, reaching a Neutral+ moral position by the end of her arc.


You should probably avoid attributing simpleminded analysis to people who disagree with you. It is not the case that they would definitely agree with you if only they saw the bigger picture on alignment.

I don't think your analysis is simple minded, its just that I think that it is irrelevant to the concern I have, which is what Rich's intentions are and (if we ever get can agree with enough clarity on the former) the impact they make towards any ultimate purpose given to the narrative. I think you are on solid grounds for making the point that there seems to be a redemptive theme to the story arc involving Therkla.

I do think that if you are arguing for a "one true reading" of the text that is a fundamentally wrong assumption. Looking for textual narratives like the "redemptive arc" to impose on the text is all well and fine but insisting that is the valid way of reading the text is wrong. There are multiple ways to read a text, and both the author's point of view and the point of view of finding overarching narrative structure is interesting for different reasons.

[Sir_Leorik]

I think the argument is that there are few things more evil than killing innocent people. In general, unless there are significant extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any), if you're killing innocent people willfully, without being coerced to do so, on a regular basis, and are somehow not Evil under an alignment system, then that alignment system is broken. If that's not Evil, what is?

Kidnapping, robbing and raiding takes away that "innocence" status. Think of a hostage situation. There's a pretty solid argument for not calling a police officer who uses lethal force to subdue gangster kidnappers Evil. Miko even gave the kidnappers a chance to surrender.

You could say that this is a grey area, and I could accept that. But kidnappers and raiders are not on the same moral level as people who have done nothing to significantly harm anyone. I think that can be stated pretty fairly.

Paladin or not, killing someone on orders without evidence that they are far from innocent is generally Evil, IMO. If your superiors are trustworthy and have done their homework, that can be considered compelling evidence. If not, you're probably risking a Good, or even a Neutral (depending on circumstances) alignment.


In time of war is the traditional one in Western European Philosophy. In times of war, a General must -- to defeat an enemy or defend a homeland -- send innocent men to their deaths by ordering them into combat.

Do you believe all Generals are evil? Are all soldiers evil?

I agree that killing innocent people is evil. But, war makes a mockery of strict moral codes. If an alignment system can't handle war -- a constant of human existence -- then it ain't much of an alignment system, imo.


I knew I'd be glad that I put that "unless there are significant extenuating circumstances" clause in there. :smalltongue: I tend to agree that yes, war is just such an extenuating circumstance.

In a sense, war is akin to self-defense or the defense of another person against non-innocents. You're presumably fighting in battles because you believe that you're serving a righteous cause, or because you're afraid of the consequences of not serving in the military. If you're consciously fighting for what you believe to be an unrighteous cause, and you're not being coerced into doing what you're doing, then I would actually consider your actions Evil, because you're committing justice that can't be morally justified.

So yeah, IMO fighting in a war is not automatically evil, but it can be under certain circumstances. It sounds like we probably agree on that.

I would add a major caveat to this matter: this presumes that the war is a "just war" which is fought honorably. A "just war" is hard to define (and I don't know whether the Book of Exalted Deeds discusses the matter or not), but there are several examples of wars being fought in D&D campaigns. The War of the Lance is a "just war" from the POV of anyone opposing Takhisis and the Dragon Highlords; the Dragonarmies committed acts of unprovoked aggression, ethnic cleansing, targeted civilian populations with WMDs (aka Chromatic Dragons) and numerous other war crimes. Before the war even broke out, Dragon Highlord Ariakas masterminded the abduction of the Good Dragons' eggs and used them to create the Draconians; that alone could be considered a war crime. So I do not view any of the soldiers fighting the Dragonarmies as committing murder if they kill a Draconian, Goblin or Human soldier fighting under the banner of Takhisis, even if they were drafted into her service against their will. However that should only apply to soldiers; civilians and non-combat support personnel (such as the team of Draconian engineers with their own series of novels!) should not be considered targets. And once the Everman was killed and Takhisis banished, it should be considered an Evil act to attack a Draconian or Goblin on sight.

The same would hold true for the Greyhawk Wars, where the nations of the Flanaess rallied together to fight Iuz the Old, or the Second Unhuman War, where the Scro and their Goblin, Ogre and Orc allies attacked Human and Elven colonies throughout multiple Crystal Spheres in a coordinated invasion. But what about wars fought over border disputes or religious wars? What about the Dawn War, where neither the Gods nor the Primordials were really "just" in their motives. The Blood War can not be considered a just war by any stretch of the imagination, especially in 4E, where it was started when Asmodeus stole part of the shard of Evil that Tharizdun had tossed into the Elemental Chaos to create the Abyss, which he used to create his Ruby Rod. The Demon Princes have a compulsion to recover the shard and fulfill the Chaotic Evil destiny of the Abyss; Asmodeus wants to get the rest of the shard and become more powerful.

Finally, what about Rrakkma Bands, the Githzerai tradition of forming war parties to hunt down and kill Illithids? That's pretty gruesome, but considering how the Mind Flayers reproduce, what they did to the precursors of the Githyanki and Githzerai, and the threat the Mind Flayers pose to all of the surface races, maybe Rrakkma is a Neutral act, as per the D&D rules?

[Emanick]

I would add a major caveat to this matter: this presumes that the war is a "just war" which is fought honorably. A "just war" is hard to define (and I don't know whether the Book of Exalted Deeds discusses the matter or not), but there are several examples of wars being fought in D&D campaigns. The War of the Lance is a "just war" from the POV of anyone opposing Takhisis and the Dragon Highlords; the Dragonarmies committed acts of unprovoked aggression, ethnic cleansing, targeted civilian populations with WMDs (aka Chromatic Dragons) and numerous other war crimes. Before the war even broke out, Dragon Highlord Ariakas masterminded the abduction of the Good Dragons' eggs and used them to create the Draconians; that alone could be considered a war crime. So I do not view any of the soldiers fighting the Dragonarmies as committing murder if they kill a Draconian, Goblin or Human soldier fighting under the banner of Takhisis, even if they were drafted into her service against their will. However that should only apply to soldiers; civilians and non-combat support personnel (such as the team of Draconian engineers with their own series of novels!) should not be considered targets. And once the Everman was killed and Takhisis banished, it should be considered an Evil act to attack a Draconian or Goblin on sight.

The same would hold true for the Greyhawk Wars, where the nations of the Flanaess rallied together to fight Iuz the Old, or the Second Unhuman War, where the Scro and their Goblin, Ogre and Orc allies attacked Human and Elven colonies throughout multiple Crystal Spheres in a coordinated invasion. But what about wars fought over border disputes or religious wars? What about the Dawn War, where neither the Gods nor the Primordials were really "just" in their motives. The Blood War can not be considered a just war by any stretch of the imagination, especially in 4E, where it was started when Asmodeus stole part of the shard of Evil that Tharizdun had tossed into the Elemental Chaos to create the Abyss, which he used to create his Ruby Rod. The Demon Princes have a compulsion to recover the shard and fulfill the Chaotic Evil destiny of the Abyss; Asmodeus wants to get the rest of the shard and become more powerful.

Finally, what about Rrakkma Bands, the Githzerai tradition of forming war parties to hunt down and kill Illithids? That's pretty gruesome, but considering how the Mind Flayers reproduce, what they did to the precursors of the Githyanki and Githzerai, and the threat the Mind Flayers pose to all of the surface races, maybe Rrakkma is a Neutral act, as per the D&D rules?

Great take, and I definitely agree for the most part. I see the morality of choosing to fight in a war more on an individual level than on a mass level - what matters for individual alignment is that a character believes he/she is fighting for a genuinely righteous cause ("righteous" being defined as Good, I suppose, although I'm not sure that's is the best definition; I'm open to a better one), more than the overall morality of a war. On the ground, there can be a huge difference between the perceived intent of the war and the actual intent, so it's hard for me to say that the latter matters just as much as the former for alignment purposes. You can't be morally culpable for something you're unaware of.

tl;dr: I agree that there are just wars and unjust wars, and that it's Evil to willfully fight in the latter, but IMO what matters more for individual alignment is whether the wars are perceived as just by the combatants (by an objective moral standard, of course), not their actual justice. It's perfectly possible for a Good character to fight in an unjust conflict without changing alignment if s/he has no idea what's really going on.

[Sir_Leorik]

Great take, and I definitely agree for the most part. I see the morality of choosing to fight in a war more on an individual level than on a mass level - what matters for individual alignment is that a character believes he/she is fighting for a genuinely righteous cause ("righteous" being defined as Good, I suppose, although I'm not sure that's is the best definition; I'm open to a better one), more than the overall morality of a war. On the ground, there can be a huge difference between the perceived intent of the war and the actual intent, so it's hard for me to say that the latter matters just as much as the former for alignment purposes. You can't be morally culpable for something you're unaware of.

tl;dr: I agree that there are just wars and unjust wars, and that it's Evil to willfully fight in the latter, but IMO what matters more for individual alignment is whether the wars are perceived as just by the combatants (by an objective moral standard, of course), not their actual justice. It's perfectly possible for a Good character to fight in an unjust conflict without changing alignment if s/he has no idea what's really going on.

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil. Waging war over a disputed border isn't necessarily Evil, but it's probably not something a Paladin or Lawful Good king should view as a first resort. It also depends on what the orders a soldier is being asked to carry out. Some orders are Evil, others are not. The Dragon Highlord Verminaard ordered his soldiers to burn Solace to the ground because it was the hometown of the Companions of the Lance, and Iuz the Old and Ivid the Undying launched wars in order to sacrifice lives to fuel fiendish rituals. A soldier who is trying to kill an enemy soldier wielding a weapon on the battlefield is not committing an Evil act, but a soldier who obeys an order to torch an orphanage full of baby Kender, Gully Dwarves and pandas might need to revise his Alignment. :smallwink:

[jidasfire]

Hmm, funny. I would have pegged Julio Scoundrel and Ian Starshine as Chaotic Good characters, myself. I would still say they're both closer to good than evil, but perhaps Ian's chaoticness is just too strong, while Julio's love for money and women overrides his conscience.

[hamishspence]

Complete Scoundrel had some feats allowing Paladins or Monks (and Monk/Paladins) to freely multiclass with another class. One of those feats was kinda bizarre, since it allowed Paladins (who must be Lawful Good) to freely multiclass as Bards (who can't be Lawful), and the prerequisites required the Character to have both Bardic Music and Smite Evil. Really weird feat; I think someone at WotC was too busy developing 4E to properly edit Complete Scoundrel. :smallbiggrin:

Bards get no penalties for being Lawful beside being unable to advance.

The idea is, I think, that a NG Bard becomes LG, takes a level of Paladin, takes that feat, and regains the ability to keep taking Bard levels.

[Amphiox]

Hmm, funny. I would have pegged Julio Scoundrel and Ian Starshine as Chaotic Good characters, myself. I would still say they're both closer to good than evil, but perhaps Ian's chaoticness is just too strong, while Julio's love for money and women overrides his conscience.

We really only know two things directly about Julio.

One is that he helped Elan on a whim, without requiring anything in return, but also without first learning anything at all about Elan's person, character, or goals.

Second is that when confronted by the legal authority of Azure City (where apparently he was a wanted criminal), he fired on their ramparts without any care or concern for damage or casualties.

We could probably debate the relative goodness or evilness of either of these acts for as long as we wish, but taken together, they do seem to balance out into the neutral zone, more or less.

[hamishspence]

There's also his actions in his Snips, Snails & Dragon Tails comic.

[Tom Lehmann]

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil
I'm less interested talking about alignment in D&D in general, than in discussing alignment in D&D as reflected in OOTS.

One central theme in OOTS is a criticism by Rich of absolutism in D&D; of GMs and players who view and use the alignment system as a "straight-jacket" to prejudice entire races or to police other characters.

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression. Similarly, many Azurites were fighting out of a desire to defend their lands versus invasion. We were shown Azurite casualties going to their lawful good afterlife (or at least waiting in line to see if they would get in). So, clearly, killing in war does not automatically doom one from getting into a good afterlife.

Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

[Reddish Mage]

The problem with that view is that Alignment in D&D isn't relative. Certain actions are always considered Evil.

From what I recall, the actions that are "always evil" are highly scattered. Historically they included seemingly random things like poison use in 2nd edition but in 3.5 it seems limited to a very few scattered things like certain necromantic spells.

Of course, I was thinking of core. When you throw in BOVD and BOED you get full blown Kantian ethics (ethics based on universal rules that apply in all situations to all people). Also, ability score damage-dealing poison gets thrown in as evil again.



Since a Paladin joined the party in a 3.5 game I'm currently in, I've been worried about him falling. So to that end, I've been trying to compile a list of actions which the rules consider to be Evil. I know BoVD has a list near the front, but it seems vague and incomplete. Has anyone created a full list of actions which the rules, as written, consider to be Evil? Looks like no-one else has created such a list, so I might as well give a shot at it.

So far, I've got:

Book of Vile Darkness

Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it.

Cheating (pg 7)

Theft (pg 7)

Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional.

Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure.

Vengeance (pg 8)- not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts.

Worshipping Evil Gods and Demons (pg 8)

Animating or Creating Undead (pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because of negative energy.

Casting Evil Spells (pg 8)

Damning or Harming Souls (pg 8)

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:

Allowing Fiends to exist*
Selling one's soul to Fiends
Summoning a Fiend
Helping Fiends


Creating Evil Creatures (pg 9)

Allowing Evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image"


Using others for Personal Gain (pg 9)

Sacrificing another for a boon


Greed (pg 9)- Although not an Evil Act in and of itself (it's not an act at all, but a motivation), it can easily lead to Evil Acts.

Bullying or Cowing Innocents (pg 9)- Includes use of political and magical power in coercion, as well as physical power.

Bringing Despair (pg 9)

Tempting Others to do Wrong(pg 9)

Tapping into Evil Power (pg 77)- Regardless of effects or reason for it, it's Evil. Period. This one's really broad, covering any Evil (Ex)traordinary, natural (when there's no tag), (Su)pernatural, (Sp)ell-like, and so on.


Book of Exalted Deeds


Forcing Anyone to Commit an Evil Act (pg 10)



Using a Poison that Deals Ability Damage (pg 34) Using Drow knockout-poison is not evil.

Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37)

Committing Murder for Money (pg 73)

Notes:
"In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil.



EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

Haley couldn't be good for instance, and I would think this would make a lot of neutral characters evil, such as Hank and Jenny from Greysky (if any act of theft is an evil act). Also, the Oracle if anything he does counts as "worship" of Tiamat.

Interesting, Therkla's problem with this list is allowing Qarr to exist, as she doesn't have the necessary motivations for murder to be evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm less interested talking about alignment in D&D in general, than in discussing alignment in D&D as reflected in OOTS.

One central theme in OOTS is a criticism by Rich of absolutism in D&D; of GMs and players who view and use the alignment system as a "straight-jacket" to prejudice entire races or to police other characters.

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression.

The Hobgoblins lived hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from Azure City. While Redcloak wanted to end the Azurite attacks against Goblins, the only reason the Sapphire Guard attacked his village was because of "the Plan". The fact that several Paladins decided to commit war crimes (for which they lost their Paladin status) afterwards, doesn't change the fact that the Sapphire Guard felt they were justified in slaying Redcloak's master to protect the Gates.


Similarly, many Azurites were fighting out of a desire to defend their lands versus invasion.

Given that the choice the Azurites had was defending the city successfully, or fleeing to avoid slavery, they didn't have much choice.


We were shown Azurite casualties going to their lawful good afterlife (or at least waiting in line to see if they would get in). So, clearly, killing in war does not automatically doom one from getting into a good afterlife.

I never said it does. I said that in D&D (and in OotS) there are certain moral absolutes. Alignment isn't a straitjacket, but there are certain actions that are Good and certain actions that are Evil. There are also grey areas, which is what the comic is exploring (as should any D&D campaign run by a decent DM).


Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

Circumstance like fighting in a just war and not committing war crimes, vs. fighting in an unjust war and slaughtering civilians? The former is not Evil, the latter is. Yes, intent does matter, but there are limits to how far "good intentions" go. Committing Evil acts for Good reasons is at best Neutral.

[bguy]

Rich has also given us a war, in War and XPs. As portrayed, I believe some of the Goblins and Hobgoblins were fighting out of a desire to liberate their lands from future Azurite oppression.

That may be true for Redcloak, but based on what we saw in strip 422 the hobgoblin grunts seemed to be fighting mainly because they enjoy killing and oppressing. There isn't any indication in the comic that the troops think they are fighting in a noble cause or even to avenge past Azurite actions.


Intent and circumstances matter in OOTS. We've had a Deva say this explicitly. To state that certain acts are absolutely good or evil *in OOTS D&D* just strikes me as false.

Strip 635 shows a choir of damned pedophiles, so even in OOTS D&D it appears that there are certain acts that are absolutely evil.

[Kish]

Yeah, no. Way too many people conflate "OotS rejects the idea of evil races" with "OotS rejects the idea of objective evil." Objective evil exists in D&D and in OotS. Being born a black dragon isn't an objectively evil act. Race-based genocide is. If you think any two of the three preceding sentences contradict each other, you're inserting something that isn't actually there.

[Reddish Mage]

Yeah, no. Way too many people conflate "OotS rejects the idea of evil races" with "OotS rejects the idea of objective evil." Objective evil exists in D&D and in OotS. Being born a black dragon isn't an objectively evil act. Race-based genocide is. If you think any two of the three preceding sentences contradict each other, you're inserting something that isn't actually there.

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

[hamishspence]

EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

I compiled a more detailed list- with other sourcebooks- a while back:

Compilation of alignment-related statements. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241789)

[Sir_Leorik]

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

Except that isn't true. Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, Obyriths, Demodands, and other creatures with the Evil subtype are inherently Evil, yet they are capable (under almost unique circumstances) of becoming Neutral, or even Good. Vampires have their Alignments shift to Evil, yet that didn't stop Jander Sunstar, Dante Lysin and Erasmus van Richten from fighting to not become Evil.

Chromatic Dragons are not inherently Evil the way Fiends and Vampires are. They have a strong tendency to be Evil, either as a result of Tiamat's influence, or their upbringing, but they aren't born Evil. Aboleths, Beholders, and Neogi are all born with all or some of the memories of their parent(s), hence their Evil Alignment. Illithids, via ceremorphosis become Evil. But these creatures are Abberant beings, from the Far Realms, where morality is Blue and Orange, not Black and White. They view themselves as beyond Good and Evil, in a Lovecraftian sense, which lets them commit Evil acts without a care. But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)

[Gnoman]

EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?


No. Even if you take that list as a guideline, (which isn't exactly guaranteed even in the game, as both VD and ED are poorly written and often discarded), evil acts don't automatically make you Evil aligned. In the case of Haley (since we see her more than any of the other characters you mentioned), she's clearly in the Order for more than just pay and loot, even if she is willing to trick the other characters out of their share and outright steal it (note that this behavior is only seen very early on. Either the Giant's vision of her character has shifted slightly since those early strips, or this is a sign of major character development. Probably the latter.) Not only that, but she willingly, even eagerly, led a resistance group in the occupied Azure City, which carried NO potential for cash (and, in fact, cost her a lot of money) but posed great risk to her well-being. Note also that she's stated herself that she's "Good-ish", which suggests that she's possibly just barely over the line between Good and Neutral.

[hamishspence]

No. Even if you take that list as a guideline, (which isn't exactly guaranteed even in the game, as both VD and ED are poorly written and often discarded), evil acts don't automatically make you Evil aligned.

True- though I personally think that both provide a good starting point.

"Harming or destroying souls" is something BoVD at least portrays as a guarantee that a person is evil.

[F.Harr]

There are spells in 3.X that allow a Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, etc., to detect Good (as well as Evil, Chaos and Law). Eugene was being interviewed by a Deva, beings who are always Good (Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, depending on their function) in order to determine if he merited entering into Mt. Celestia, the Lawful Good afterlife. The only black marks on Eugene's record (other than not fulfilling his Blood Oath of Vengeance against Xykon) was foul language and editing his own Wikipedia article. All of this is found on the last page of Start of Darkness, one of the two prequel books. If you feel that Eugene wasn't Lawful Good, then maybe you misunderstand how the D&D Alignment system works. Eugene was a distant father to Roy, and he spoiled Julia rotten, but he was a Lawful Good person.

Spoilers for SoD:
Go read the advice Eugene Greenhilt gave to Right-Eye in the tavern scene; please tell me that Eugene wasn't genuinely trying to give Right-Eye, a Goblin working for Eugene's hated enemy, good advice? Advice, I might add, that led to the best years of Right-Eye's life, before Xykon came calling. While True Neutral characters can definitely give good advice, I got the impression Eugene was acting more like a mentor or father figure to Right-Eye. While he was a bit oblivious and rude at first, Eugene did not cast a single spell until Right-Eye threatened him with his ax. And even so Eugene felt bad enough for Right-Eye to try and convince him to break away from Xykon and start a family.

I don't know about that. All of that seems good to me. Not necessarily lawful.

O.K., this is WAY too inside baseball for me. Have fun, guys.

[Trixie]

One post which asserts both that Eugene Greenhilt is good and that Haley is not. Poor Haley.

Yeah, someone who has 'thief', 'murderer' and 'no scruples whatsoever, includes stealing from children and own party members' is very paragon of goodness, am I right? :smallsigh:

All Eugene did was rude to his son, but he still did more in cause of good than all non-Roy OotS members combined.


collaborated with Shojo in interfering with the trial to a far greater extent than Roy. And his abandonment of the Blood Oath was problematic enough for the Lawful Good afterlife not to let him in, even though they were fine with allowing Roy

A) Shojo was explicitly named as good. B) He "abandoned" his oath to focus on his family. Both strongly point at him as good.

You know, it's funny how forums always deny character they don't like being good (even ones like Girard or Eugene, who were said so multiple times) while claiming characters no one would associate with in RL, characters whose whole life is one big string of crimes are somehow "good" because they like them.

[hamishspence]

All Eugene did was rude to his son, but he still did more in cause of good than all non-Roy OotS members combined.

Examples? We see very little of Eugene's activities- and also very little of the members of the Order, outside of the main strip.

Durkon, in particular, I could see as having done a great deal of good in his career. Encouraging the Wooden Forest bandits to give up banditry, was an in-strip example of the kind of thing I'd expect him to have made a career out of- acts of kindness.

[137beth]

We have not received confirmation on whether or not black dragons are born evil in the OOTS universe (as they are in Core-D&D), and we don't have absolute confirmation on whether killing black dragons en masse is an evil act.

Now RAW D&D is something else. Chromatic dragons have the same evil alignment tendency as devils and undead. If we take position that morality in D&D is absolute and follows a litany of rules as to what are "good" and "evil" acts as Sir_Lorik implies, killing "always" evil creatures en masse is not among the listed acts.

No, by RAW D&D, Chromatic Dragons are not inherently evil. And then we have worlds like Eberron (which are RAW D&D) where they are not even usually evil.

[Kish]

...Not that it actually matters, since the morality of judging entire races rather than individuals is unambiguous in D&D...

(And yes, I've seen the "Oh, but the race isn't a race" argument. It's elegant in its simplicity; no refutation other than the one it gives itself is necessary or appropriate.)

[Gift Jeraff]

Now let's discuss what alignment Blackwing might be.

[Kish]

Let's see, a member of a by-default True Neutral species, fulfilling a role that would generally cause him to match the alignment of a True Neutral character, who seems to have no real interests except the welfare of that character.

...I'm thinking Lawful Evil. Or possibly Chaotic Good.

[Deepbluediver]

One post which asserts both that Eugene Greenhilt is good and that Haley is not. Poor Haley.

To that end, Haley did spend a lot of time as a thief before signing up to joining up with the OotS. Plus, even that was for a goal that was at least partially selfish. She might have a lot of bad karma to work off.

Eugene, by comparison, might well have a dickish-personality, but if he used his arcane powers to battle the forces of evil could still rate a "better than average" on the alignment-meter. Sort of like Miko.


Good is not necessarily friendly, and by the same token evil is not necessarily Belkar or Xykon (see how many people refused to believe Malek was evil under the "but he's so suave and charming" argument, and defended him with "maybe he only wants to genocide the evil people").

Its not how everyone would attribute alignment, and it relies on some speculation of various character's motives and their actions before we saw them in the story, but its plausible to me.

Eugene's alignment might be locked in place now that he's dead, but I would say that Haley is trying (and probably succeeding at least to a small degree) at pulling herself up from nuetral to "good".

That's my take on it anyhow.

[Bogardan_Mage]

But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)
Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox!

[Tragak]

Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox! Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved :smalltongue: You, sir, have been Doctored.

[LadyEowyn]

Haley was "Chaotic Good-ish" for the first 2-3 books (she did good things, like helping the dirt farmers without expecting anything in return, not to mention being on a quest to save the world, but was willing to consider selling Samantha into slavery). She's been pretty firmly in Chaotic Good territory over books 4 and 5, ever since she started leading the Azure City resistance at no benefit and much cost to herself, and then devoting herself to getting Roy resurrected when she could have just ditched the party and gone adventuring on her own instead of having to deal with Celia and Belkar and get drawn into a fight with the Thieves' Guild that she'd been running away from.

[Porthos]

Haley was "Chaotic Good-ish" for the first 2-3 books (she did good things, like helping the dirt farmers without expecting anything in return, not to mention being on a quest to save the world, but was willing to consider selling Samantha into slavery). She's been pretty firmly in Chaotic Good territory over books 4 and 5, ever since she started leading the Azure City resistance at no benefit and much cost to herself, and then devoting herself to getting Roy resurrected when she could have just ditched the party and gone adventuring on her own instead of having to deal with Celia and Belkar and get drawn into a fight with the Thieves' Guild that she'd been running away from.

Yes, I'd say that Haley is the classic example of a character that has an alignment shift over the course of their adventures. If you compare the Haley of the early strips and the latter ones, I think there is a clear enough difference. Her swivel point might have been when she left a pair of valuable gems just lying on the ground (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0469.html) and instead grabbed Belkar when she was off to get Roy's corpse.

The Haley of the early strips would never had done that. :smallwink:

[Bogardan_Mage]

Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved :smalltongue: You, sir, have been Doctored.
That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!

[Tragak]

That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!Challenge Accepted:
Families 1-3 die.
Families 4-10 live.
Families 4-10 continue reproducing long enough to create Mind Flayers
Mind Flayers travel from the future to the past
Mind Flayers keep reproducing into the present
When Familicide hits, Families 1-3 die before they can create Mind Flayers
Since our Mind Flayers only came from Families 4-10, none of them die
Time Lord grammar sneers at your limited notions of causality! :smalltongue: (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2130.html)

OOOOH, you meant duplicating Familicide against Mind Flayers specifically instead of extrapolating the Black Dragon-cide that already happened. :smalleek:

Uh...
The Next Round: Hundreds of the Guardians of Time show up and one of them screams out, "THIS IS AN UNSANCTIONED VIOLATION OF SPACE-TIME."

[Reddish Mage]

Except that isn't true. Demons, Devils, Yugoloths, Obyriths, Demodands, and other creatures with the Evil subtype are inherently Evil, yet they are capable (under almost unique circumstances) of becoming Neutral, or even Good. Vampires have their Alignments shift to Evil, yet that didn't stop Jander Sunstar, Dante Lysin and Erasmus van Richten from fighting to not become Evil.

Chromatic Dragons are not inherently Evil the way Fiends and Vampires are. They have a strong tendency to be Evil, either as a result of Tiamat's influence, or their upbringing, but they aren't born Evil. Aboleths, Beholders, and Neogi are all born with all or some of the memories of their parent(s), hence their Evil Alignment. Illithids, via ceremorphosis become Evil. But these creatures are Abberant beings, from the Far Realms, where morality is Blue and Orange, not Black and White. They view themselves as beyond Good and Evil, in a Lovecraftian sense, which lets them commit Evil acts without a care. But even in that case, I'd argue that trying to exterminate all the Mind Flayers in existence with a single spell is at best a Neutral act. (It's also pointless in 3.X: Mind Flayers are destined to evolve from Humans and conquer the Multiverse at the end of time, then travel back in time to escape the heat death of the Multiverse. You literally can't beat them because they already won in the future and already were defeated in the past.)

Hmm I have to dispute a number of these points:

1. Dragons are born with their alignment:
Your thinking about aberrations, undead and fiends shows you have a lot of knowledge of details about D&D origins. All I have it the words of the Monster Manual which says this about "Always" alignments, which dragons are listed with.


Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The
creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or
come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals
to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique
or rare exceptions.

So, unless there is something that says otherwise about dragons, Dragons (being "always" of an alignment) are born with it, straight up. Its genetic, since Always alignment is genetic (at least in Core). I don't know where you get that it comes from upbringing or Tiamat's influence, perhaps from a supplement? Those explanations come with "usually" and "often" alignments.


Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences,
or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin.

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


2. Illithids are impossible to destroy, since they already will conquer the future and then will have returned to be defeated in the past.

I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.

[Deepbluediver]

I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.

That's why I hate time-travel, in pretty much any game or setting I've ever seen it attempted in. There's only one story I can think of where I liked the way it was used, and that's because it was pretty much entirely out of the character's control, so they couldn't create paradoxes.

[Sir_Leorik]

Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox!


Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved :smalltongue: You, sir, have been Doctored.


That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!

No, no, no! It's not a paradox at all, because we're talking about two fixed moments in time: the rise of the Mind Flayers and their establishment of a star spanning (Crystal Sphere spanning?) empire, which lasts millenia, until the Universe burns itself out. Shortly before that happens, the Illithid Elder Brains (possibly under the direction of the Illithid God-Brain that spawned the Domain of Bluetspur for some unspecified sin against creation) send a fleet of Nautiloids billions of years into the past, where they found the first Illithid Empire, enslave the ancestors of the Gith, conquer worlds, and begin to encroach on the Outer Planes, before the hero Gith rallies her people and overthrows the Mind Flayers. The Githyanki and Githzerai split apart and flee to the Astral Plane and Limbo, respectively, while the Illithids go into a decline, their Empire in ruins.

At this point the Mind Flayers are a shadow of their former self, engaged in plots to extinguish suns, slave trading with the Drow and the Neogi, piracy in various Crystal Spheres, and most importantly, researching new and improved forms of ceremorphosis. Someday humanity will evolve into Mind Flayers, and the process starts all over again.

The two fixed moments are: 1) the evolution of Mind Flayers and their rise to power; 2) the Mind Flayers send a fleet back in time, conquer worlds and then are defeated by Gith and her forces.


Challenge Accepted:
Families 1-3 die.
Families 4-10 live.
Families 4-10 continue reproducing long enough to create Mind Flayers
Mind Flayers travel from the future to the past
Mind Flayers keep reproducing into the present
When Familicide hits, Families 1-3 die before they can create Mind Flayers
Since our Mind Flayers only came from Families 4-10, none of them die
Time Lord grammar sneers at your limited notions of causality! :smalltongue: (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2130.html)

OOOOH, you meant duplicating Familicide against Mind Flayers specifically instead of extrapolating the Black Dragon-cide that already happened. :smalleek:

Uh...

Familicide may not work on Mind Flayers because of the way they reproduce. Mind Flayers give birth to larvae, which gestate in the briny pool of an Elder Brain, until a suitable host is found for Ceremorphosis. Ceremorphosis involves putting the larvae into the mouth of the host, causing the host to transform into an Adult Mind Flayer in an excruciatingly painful process. Who is the "family" of a Mind Flayer? The Illithid parent who birthed the larvae? The parents of the human host? I think the spell would just shrug it's shoulders and quit while it was ahead. :smalltongue:



Hmm I have to dispute a number of these points:

1. Dragons are born with their alignment:
Your thinking about aberrations, undead and fiends shows you have a lot of knowledge of details about D&D origins. All I have it the words of the Monster Manual which says this about "Always" alignments, which dragons are listed with.

So, unless there is something that says otherwise about dragons, Dragons (being "always" of an alignment) are born with it, straight up. Its genetic, since Always alignment is genetic (at least in Core). I don't know where you get that it comes from upbringing or Tiamat's influence, perhaps from a supplement? Those explanations come with "usually" and "often" alignments.

Dragons have souls, unlike Outsiders. They are capable of making ethical and moral decisions on their own. This is elaborated on in Draconomicon. It is stated outright in "Eberron" that the Alignment of any Dragon, Chromatic, Metallic or Gem, is not based on their type, but is an individual choice.


2. Illithids are impossible to destroy, since they already will conquer the future and then will have returned to be defeated in the past.

That's all from Lords of Madness, with supplemental info from the 2E products The Illithiad and Thoughts of Darkness. The Mind Flayers are meant to be Lovecraftian monsters, like the Great Race of Yith or the Mi-Go, who were once great conquerors but have gone into decline and hope to rise again.


I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.


That's why I hate time-travel, in pretty much any game or setting I've ever seen it attempted in. There's only one story I can think of where I liked the way it was used, and that's because it was pretty much entirely out of the character's control, so they couldn't create paradoxes.

On the plus side, when the present-day Mind Flayers tried to change history to prevent Gith's rebellion from succeeding (in one of the adventure modules tied to The Illithiad) the PCs were given an opportunity to chase the Illithids back to their base and stop them. There is a sidebar describing the changes to the Material Plane and the Great Wheel if the PCs fail. The adventure describes the present day Illithids as biting off a lot more than they can chew, unlike the future Illithids at the end of Time.

If you're interested in seeing an adventure where time travel plays a large part (including giving the PCs the chance to make minor changes and possibly rewrite history) try to track down the 2E boxed set Castles Forlorn. It is very well written, but it can be tricky to run, what with the Timey-Wimey Ball and everything. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Dragons have souls, unlike Outsiders. They are capable of making ethical and moral decisions on their own. This is elaborated on in Draconomicon. It is stated outright in "Eberron" that the Alignment of any Dragon, Chromatic, Metallic or Gem, is not based on their type, but is an individual choice.

Outsiders have souls- it's just that (except in the case of native outsiders) - the soul is much more tied to the body- which means that when the body dies, the soul rapidly diffuses.

[Sir_Leorik]

Outsiders have souls- it's just that (except in the case of native outsiders) - the soul is much more tied to the body- which means that when the body dies, the soul rapidly diffuses.

Let me rephrase that then: Dragons are mortals, with free will. They have an inherent disposition towards Good, Evil or Neutrality, but that's all it is: a disposition. I find it much more likely that a Black Dragon will be True Neutral than a Succubus becoming a Paladin, and the latter has canonically happened.

[hamishspence]

Agreed.

Outsiders without an alignment subtype (like Celia, for example) are likely to be as free-willed as any mortal- but those with one, will struggle to overcome it.

Mortal "inborn tendencies" are likely to exert less pressure.

[Math_Mage]

Creatures with the Evil subtype are suffused with Evil energy to the extent that the rules will treat them as Evil even in the all-but-impossible circumstance that they change alignment. Dragons aren't quite there, even if they're born predisposed to their listed alignment.

[Reddish Mage]

Let me rephrase that then: Dragons are mortals, with free will. They have an inherent disposition towards Good, Evil or Neutrality, but that's all it is: a disposition. I find it much more likely that a Black Dragon will be True Neutral than a Succubus becoming a Paladin, and the latter has canonically happened.

Apparently fiends and intelligent undead also have free-will and canonically have switched alignment. I'm not saying I disagree that there is reason to view dragons as more malleable, I'm just saying it isn't described in Core and I'm not sure whether Eberron meant to re-characterize the Monster Manual or apply it just for that setting (or what it may say in Draconomicon). Should it be more malleable though, it can't be by much for the "always" alignment label to hold (and if Dragons are not born with their alignment it outright contradicts the generalities of the Monster Manual).

Bringing this discussion back to OOTS. Whether or not Dragons in RAW (as opposed to at least Core) have some interesting malleability in alignment there comes to the question of what Dragon alignment tendencies might be in OOTS, and whether that matters.

In my opinion, they could remain almost "always" evil, as I interpret Core, and familicide can still have the effects they have on V's conscience.

But I would also say that, familicide on an "always" evil species could be a good, neutral, or evil act, and it wouldn't change the main purpose of that narrative, which is to get us to think more about the moral significance of actions which in regular D&D games no one actually bothers to give a second thought.

[Mightymosy]

From what I recall, the actions that are "always evil" are highly scattered. Historically they included seemingly random things like poison use in 2nd edition but in 3.5 it seems limited to a very few scattered things like certain necromantic spells.

Of course, I was thinking of core. When you throw in BOVD and BOED you get full blown Kantian ethics (ethics based on universal rules that apply in all situations to all people). Also, ability score damage-dealing poison gets thrown in as evil again.


EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

Haley couldn't be good for instance, and I would think this would make a lot of neutral characters evil, such as Hank and Jenny from Greysky (if any act of theft is an evil act). Also, the Oracle if anything he does counts as "worship" of Tiamat.

Interesting, Therkla's problem with this list is allowing Qarr to exist, as she doesn't have the necessary motivations for murder to be evil.


Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on! :smallbiggrin:

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous :smalltongue:

I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy? And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?
Allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

Why is using poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration. :smallbiggrin:

[jidasfire]

Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on! :smallbiggrin:

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous :smalltongue:

I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy? And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?
Allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

Why is using poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration. :smallbiggrin:

Once the conversation drifts to black dragons, just back away slowly and run to a safe distance.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I assume that you're referring to the guidelines in the supplements Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Those guidelines are just that: guidelines. The actual rules are in the PHB and DMG, with the supplemental stuff in the splatbooks meant to assist DMs who are having difficulty with the Alignment system.


I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on! :smallbiggrin:

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous :smalltongue:

Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.


I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?


I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy?

"Evil Energy", aka "Negative Energy", aka "Necrotic Energy" in 4E, is the energy source that exists in the void of the Negative Energy (or Material in AD&D/2E) Plane. Negative Energy surrounds all Unlife, penetrating the Undead and binding them into hideous mockeries of life. If the Dark Side of the Force were to see Negative Energy walking down the street, the Dark Side will cross to the other side of the street as soon as possible. Negative Energy is why Xykon, Malack, Durkon, Tsukiko's Wights, Zombies, Ghouls, and Death Knights exist. (But not Deathless, such as the Ghost-Martyrs of the Sapphire Guard.) It is nasty stuff, and in 3.X most spells that use Negative Energy, like enervation, have the Evil descriptor.

(In 4E Necrotic energy has no one source; it can come from Hell, the Abyss, the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, the Natural World, or even the Stars themselves. The Stars lurk in the sky, ever biding their time till the moment when they will open the floodgates for the horrors of the Far Realm. Till then the Stars provide both Radiant and Necrotic spells to Star Pact Warlocks, since any Warlock can choose any Attack Power, even if it is more thematically appropriate to another Pact.)


And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?

In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.


allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

A Fiend is a specific type of Evil Outsider: Demons, Devils, Daemons (aka Yugoloths), Demodands, Howlers, and Night Hags. Many include the Chaotic Neutral Slaadi in the list of Fiends. (In 4E Slaadi are Chaotic Evil, since the Chaotic Neutral Alignment was eliminated. I think Chaotic Evil suits them better, anyway.) The point isn't that every Good aligned adventurer needs to mount a crusade into the Abyss or the Nine Hells to slaughter Demons or Devils; the point is that when a Fiend is discovered operating in a mortal community (such as Sabine, a Succubus, manipulating a would-be warlord like Nale) Good aligned adventurers have a duty to oppose them and (if possible) kill them. Fiends are the epitome of Evil, with a few rare and notable exceptions (a Succubus who became a Paladin, A'Kin the "friendly Fiend", an Arcanodaemon who is True Neutral, and who became a scribe in Sigil, the City of Doors).


why isusing poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

Okay, that one's a good question. It's something a lot of people have raised against the BoED.


I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration. :smallbiggrin:

Go and find a DM in your area who is willing to run a "Planescape" campaign for you (using either 2E or 3.X rules). If that's not possible, track down the CRPG "Planescape: Torment" and play it. If you still think alignment is silly after playing a tabletop "Planescape" campaign or "Planescape: Torment" then nothing will convince you otherwise.

[Gift Jeraff]

...I'm thinking Lawful Evil. Or possibly Chaotic Good.

Since Rich didn't include him on the list of Neutral characters, you're probably right.

Now to discuss other potentially Neutral characters.

The Bandit King: IIRC, the commentary said he was, at best, Neutral with Evil tendencies? Neutral or Chaotic?

Kaboom Redaxe and the Shadowdancer: I guess they could be Neutral on either axis if Therkla is.

Pete and the cleric of Loki: I kinda like not knowing whether they were Neutral or Evil. I figure they were Chaotic.

[Kish]

Pete and the cleric of Loki: I kinda like not knowing whether they were Neutral or Evil. I figure they were Chaotic.
Pete had an axiomatic bow. He might have just stuck it in his collection (wincing at how it burned his hands to touch), but, if I had to pick an alignment for him it'd likely be Lawful Evil.

[Gift Jeraff]

Ah, didn't remember that detail.

[Tragak]

Since Rich didn't include him on the list of Neutral characters, you're probably right. I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/TheOrderOfTheStick). I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment :smalltongue:

[Math_Mage]

I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/TheOrderOfTheStick). I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment :smalltongue:

Now I want you to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. :smalltongue:

[ChristianSt]

What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?

I think the DSA he means is "Das Schwarze Auge" a German pen&paper-RPG (actually as far as I know the most successfully one in Germany).

In 2006 there was a English translation with the name "The Dark Eye".

Also there are other stuff that play in the universe, like pc-games or novels.

[Oko and Qailee]

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. .

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

[Math_Mage]

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

We know he's waiting to get into the LG afterlife, and he would have done if it hadn't been for his not completing his Blood Oath. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

[Gift Jeraff]

I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/TheOrderOfTheStick). I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment :smalltongue:

Are you suggesting Rich forget about including Blackwing, even after including his master and the other team pet, including a character as minor as Jenny, and even after the most recent strip (when he made that post) had Blackwing talking?

Either Blackwing is an agent of Chaos, Law, Evil, and/or Good, or Rich is really dedicated to the "everyone forgets about Blackwing" gag. There are no alternatives. None.

[SaintRidley]

We know he's waiting to get into the LG afterlife, and he would have done if it hadn't been for his not completing his Blood Oath. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

I might be misremembering, but he could still be waiting to get judged at all (unless I've forgotten a comic of Eugene getting judged). They may have just seen the big red flag of "just gave up on the oath" and kicked him into the Oathspirit waiting room until the oath is fulfilled to bother judging him.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

Everything I listed for Eugene either comes directly from his behavior towards Roy in the strips (especially in the Celestial waiting area) or from the prequel books, particularly the coda to SoD. The Deva reviewing Eugene Greenhilt's case file deems him to have led a Lawful Good life, but since he never finished his Blood Oath of Vengeance to destroy Xykon, he was barred from Mt. Celestia.

[Sir_Leorik]

Are you suggesting Rich forget about including Blackwing, even after including his master and the other team pet, including a character as minor as Jenny, and even after the most recent strip (when he made that post) had Blackwing talking?

Either Blackwing is an agent of Chaos, Law, Evil, and/or Good, or Rich is really dedicated to the "everyone forgets about Blackwing" gag. There are no alternatives. None.

Hey, Jenny is pretty important, for a minor character! She is one of a select few to get speaking parts in multiple scenes in "Greenhilt: Prince of Denmark"!

[Oko and Qailee]

Everything I listed for Eugene either comes directly from his behavior towards Roy in the strips (especially in the Celestial waiting area) or from the prequel books, particularly the coda to SoD. The Deva reviewing Eugene Greenhilt's case file deems him to have led a Lawful Good life, but since he never finished his Blood Oath of Vengeance to destroy Xykon, he was barred from Mt. Celestia.

Current Alignment doesn't necessarily mean lifetime alignment.

Eugene is behaving very not lawful good from what we have seen, that doesn't mean he should be allowed into celestia if he has been LG his entire life.

It's like, if someone spent 80 years of their life being chaotic evil and then they spend 1 year being perfectly good, odds are they will still go to a CE afterlife even if their current alignment is good.

Eugene could have been LG his entire life and deserve a LG reward, but he has not been very LG at all. Working behind the paladins backs with Shojo, intentionally burning V's letter, those are pretty chaotic if you ask me.

[Gift Jeraff]

I get the feeling Eugene will be reevaluated as True Neutral when he's finally allowed to pass, but it won't be so bad because he'll eventually get to bond with the child who followed in his footsteps and they can complain about Roy to each other for all eternity.

[Reddish Mage]

Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.

What do you mean by based on absolutes? It seems earlier you are saying that actions carry "good" or "evil" description by meeting strict rule criteria. I.e. theft is evil, which means it is always evil, even if it is a good purpose. However, you complicate this below.

I suppose you could just be saying say that in 3e morality is "absolute" in that good and evil are forces existing out in the multiverse, which I thought was true even in 2e (though perhaps the more true of the planes in 3e). We are dealing with a universe where good/evil/law/chaos are actual competing forces throwing in gods/planes/people/monsters and the like into groups.



In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.

What do you mean "which is Neutral" the act is considered neutral, or the purpose is considered neutral? What if you keep doing these sorts of acts? I also note you implied that doing a single evil act for an evil purpose can be enough to shift alignment.

Can anyone make a definitive ruling about when someone shifts alignment "in D&D"? Isn't it just the case that the DMG is so incredibly unclear that alignment can change quickly or gradually. We are talking about rules that literally recommends alignment change be made gradual for the purpose that PCs don't take alignments on and off like garments so they can use magic items.

[Bogardan_Mage]

No, no, no! It's not a paradox at all, because we're talking about two fixed moments in time: the rise of the Mind Flayers and their establishment of a star spanning (Crystal Sphere spanning?) empire, which lasts millenia, until the Universe burns itself out. Shortly before that happens, the Illithid Elder Brains (possibly under the direction of the Illithid God-Brain that spawned the Domain of Bluetspur for some unspecified sin against creation) send a fleet of Nautiloids billions of years into the past, where they found the first Illithid Empire, enslave the ancestors of the Gith, conquer worlds, and begin to encroach on the Outer Planes, before the hero Gith rallies her people and overthrows the Mind Flayers. The Githyanki and Githzerai split apart and flee to the Astral Plane and Limbo, respectively, while the Illithids go into a decline, their Empire in ruins.

At this point the Mind Flayers are a shadow of their former self, engaged in plots to extinguish suns, slave trading with the Drow and the Neogi, piracy in various Crystal Spheres, and most importantly, researching new and improved forms of ceremorphosis. Someday humanity will evolve into Mind Flayers, and the process starts all over again.

The two fixed moments are: 1) the evolution of Mind Flayers and their rise to power; 2) the Mind Flayers send a fleet back in time, conquer worlds and then are defeated by Gith and her forces.
I don't think you quite understand the nature of the Grandfather Paradox. My grandfather fathered my father and because I exist this is for the sake of argument a "fixed moment in time". I travel back in time before this point and kill my grandfather. Now he can't be present at the "fixed moment in time" when he must be. If you kill every human who shares a bloodline with the Mind Flayers, then neither they nor their descendants can be present for your first "fixed moment in time" to take place. The existence of a "fixed moment in time" does not remove the paradox it creates it.



Familicide may not work on Mind Flayers because of the way they reproduce. Mind Flayers give birth to larvae, which gestate in the briny pool of an Elder Brain, until a suitable host is found for Ceremorphosis. Ceremorphosis involves putting the larvae into the mouth of the host, causing the host to transform into an Adult Mind Flayer in an excruciatingly painful process. Who is the "family" of a Mind Flayer? The Illithid parent who birthed the larvae? The parents of the human host? I think the spell would just shrug it's shoulders and quit while it was ahead. :smalltongue:
That, on the other hand, is a potential resolution if valid.

[Porthos]

I might be misremembering, but he could still be waiting to get judged at all (unless I've forgotten a comic of Eugene getting judged). They may have just seen the big red flag of "just gave up on the oath" and kicked him into the Oathspirit waiting room until the oath is fulfilled to bother judging him.

SoD spoilers:

He was judged in the epilogue of SoD

Of course, his alignment could have shifted after he was judged in that scene. :smallwink:

[Mightymosy]

Thanks for your reply! In retrospect my post seems a bit disrespectful, and I certainly didn't mean to insult someone for liking this stuff. So I apologize for that. Your post is rather full of good information, so thanks for that!


I assume that you're referring to the guidelines in the supplements Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Those guidelines are just that: guidelines. The actual rules are in the PHB and DMG, with the supplemental stuff in the splatbooks meant to assist DMs who are having difficulty with the Alignment system.



Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.


This is something I can get behind. As far as I know D&D was or was evolved from some tabletop war game similar to Warhammer. In such a game it makes sense to have some sides to pick, based on such guidelines - because they simply not that meaningful in a strategic wargame. The problem I have is when you do some "real" roleplaying were morale and ethics can become a lot more complex and reminiscient of real world situations and not just who belongs wo which army. Especially considering the huge discussions that appear here in the forum that are based upon the alignment guidelines and how they relate to real ethical questions.
So, in short, I'm fine with the alignment rules if they determine which color your minis have in a tabletop strategic wargame, but they are in my mind not suitable for serious ethical discussions - unless they just provide a point to start these discussions from, but not as some reference to adhere to.


What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?


"Das schwarze Auge", which means "The black eye." It was I think the most popular pen & Paper RPG in Germany a while ago. I always thought it was a German invention, until I read about D&D on the GITP forums. Now I think it is basically a copy that was a bit adapted to the german market :smalltongue: And so that no one notices they made it so that in DSA you win if you roll low, instead of high, and they didn't use the alignment stuff.

"Evil Energy", aka "Negative Energy", aka "Necrotic Energy" in 4E, is the energy source that exists in the void of the Negative Energy (or Material in AD&D/2E) Plane. Negative Energy surrounds all Unlife, penetrating the Undead and binding them into hideous mockeries of life. If the Dark Side of the Force were to see Negative Energy walking down the street, the Dark Side will cross to the other side of the street as soon as possible. Negative Energy is why Xykon, Malack, Durkon, Tsukiko's Wights, Zombies, Ghouls, and Death Knights exist. (But not Deathless, such as the Ghost-Martyrs of the Sapphire Guard.) It is nasty stuff, and in 3.X most spells that use Negative Energy, like enervation, have the Evil descriptor.

(In 4E Necrotic energy has no one source; it can come from Hell, the Abyss, the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, the Natural World, or even the Stars themselves. The Stars lurk in the sky, ever biding their time till the moment when they will open the floodgates for the horrors of the Far Realm. Till then the Stars provide both Radiant and Necrotic spells to Star Pact Warlocks, since any Warlock can choose any Attack Power, even if it is more thematically appropriate to another Pact.)



In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.


Interesting. Thanks for the insight. But after knowing I still find it disturbingly wrong. Because "negative Energy" still seems to me like a physical force, more like an element than like something you base ethical judgment on. Like with the poison example, why should it matter which kind of elemental force you use to do good or bad? If I kill an enemy with ice damage I am more good than if I were to kill them with fire damage?

If all negative energy spells required reagents like virgin hearts or children's tears or something like that, I could get behind a discussion about how I commit an evi deed for a greater cause. But simply because the energy for the spell came from the stars as opposed to from fire, ice or whatever else? The concept seems silly and misleading to me, I'm sorry.




A Fiend is a specific type of Evil Outsider: Demons, Devils, Daemons (aka Yugoloths), Demodands, Howlers, and Night Hags. Many include the Chaotic Neutral Slaadi in the list of Fiends. (In 4E Slaadi are Chaotic Evil, since the Chaotic Neutral Alignment was eliminated. I think Chaotic Evil suits them better, anyway.) The point isn't that every Good aligned adventurer needs to mount a crusade into the Abyss or the Nine Hells to slaughter Demons or Devils; the point is that when a Fiend is discovered operating in a mortal community (such as Sabine, a Succubus, manipulating a would-be warlord like Nale) Good aligned adventurers have a duty to oppose them and (if possible) kill them. Fiends are the epitome of Evil, with a few rare and notable exceptions (a Succubus who became a Paladin, A'Kin the "friendly Fiend", an Arcanodaemon who is True Neutral, and who became a scribe in Sigil, the City of Doors).


I see. Still, I can't find "allowing to exist" an evil deed. It simply rubs me the very wrong way.
See, I can see that fantasy can be alot about black and white morality, and for a game I'm certainly fine with that. I think we all played games either in real or especially on the PC where "we kill them because they have green skin and fangs and we don't and take their stuff".
The point is, that's okay for a Super Mario kind level of seriousness in entertainment.
When the alignment rules suggest some kind of seriousness and are then used in all seriousness for roleplaying ethic dilemmas that could resemble real world examples, and are used as a reference, that's when I call it inappropiate.:confused:

Okay, that one's a good question. It's something a lot of people have raised against the BoED.



Go and find a DM in your area who is willing to run a "Planescape" campaign for you (using either 2E or 3.X rules). If that's not possible, track down the CRPG "Planescape: Torment" and play it. If you still think alignment is silly after playing a tabletop "Planescape" campaign or "Planescape: Torment" then nothing will convince you otherwise.


What's about these RPGs that makes them so great, may I ask?

[SaintRidley]

SoD spoilers:

He was judged in the epilogue of SoD

Of course, his alignment could have shifted after he was judged in that scene. :smallwink:

Looks like I missed it when looking through my copy to post that. Although they sure don't look like they completed judgement once they saw the outstanding Oath.

And very true.

[rs2excelsior]

Again, going back in the discussion a good ways...

Regarding the "Mercenary True Neutral" alignment. I think the title mercenary regiment of Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" series exemplifies this. For those of you who aren't familiar with the series, it is a science fiction story about a future armored regiment that fights for pay. They do their jobs, and are quite good at it... it just so happens their job is killing. They will not wantonly murder civilians in the course of a war (which would make them, in terms of the D&D alignment system as I understand it as a non-D&D-player, Evil), but neither do they limit themselves to worthy "good guy" employers, and will not restrain themselves because they risk collateral damage (which would make them Good). Those who fight do so for the money, yes, but also for their comrades, because they have no other opportunity, and for the reputation of their regiment.

One could easily imagine another regiment, which we shall call "Miller's Killers." These are recruited from released or uncaught psychopaths and serial killers. They want to murder people without having to worry about getting caught (which would put an end to their murdering), and the money is just icing on the cake. They fight the enemies they are hired to fight, but like to sack a town here and there when they get the chance. These are still "kill people for money" mercenaries, but pretty clearly Evil.

While we're at it, let's imagine a third regiment, "Pender's Defenders." These mercenaries hire themselves out to just rulers facing threat of overthrow by evil dictators or freedom-fighting rebels under the heel of an oppressive government. They ask for money to provide equipment and make a living, but still insist on only fighting for causes that are justified. They will never molest civilians, even enemy ones, and will sometimes risk themselves to avoid unnecessary casualties among non-combatants. These are Good mercenaries.

tl;dr It isn't hard to imagine mercenaries who kill for money, yet are Neutral or even Good, not the automatic "Selfish Evil" suggested earlier.

Also, as said before, I don't play D&D, and so perhaps have a less precise understanding of the alignment system. But I was under the impression that Neutral (on either scale) could mean "X on some things, Y on others." For example, someone who was fiercely loyal to one's friends and would die before breaking their word (Lawful) but was at the same time immensely distrustful of all authority figures (Chaotic) would register as Neutral the Law-Chaos axis, or someone who would never, ever create undead or murder another in cold blood (Good) but isn't above theft or actively working against someone else's interests to further their own (Evil) would register as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. Am I correct on this? If so, this could make a very interesting character. Still a well-defined code of conduct, but not on an extreme end of the chart.

[Sir_Leorik]

Thanks for your reply! In retrospect my post seems a bit disrespectful, and I certainly didn't mean to insult someone for liking this stuff. So I apologize for that. Your post is rather full of good information, so thanks for that!

It's okay, I know you didn't mean any disrespect. There are plenty of RPGs that do not use an Alignment system, including ones published by WotC, such as the various "Star Wars" RPGs. In the WotC "Star Wars" games (d20, RCR and Sage Edition) actions that involved the Dark Side of the Force (or were blatantly evil) would accrue Dark Side points, but unless a character was corrupted by the Dark Side, they wouldn't be considered inherently "evil". Even a Jedi Master as noble as Yoda would have to constantly struggle not to be lured by the Dark Side's call, and even some villains like Grand Admiral Thrawn, Moff Rulf Yage or Boba Fett can have admirable qualities and even act for the greater good.

D&D mostly came out of a house ruled version of the "Fantasy Supplement" for the "Chainmail" tabletop miniatures game. As alluded to here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0644.html) Arneson was experimenting with having his players control a single miniature through a town, castle and dungeon, which led to Arneson's "Blackmoor" Campaign and Gygax's "Castle Greyhawk" campaign.

In the early days of the OD&D, Alignment was one of several elements that helped mold the personality of a PC, including social class, and religion. The rules were pretty sparse back then. Over the years Alignment has become a way to arbitrate morality in D&D, in a world where gods, Demons, Devils, Angels, Anthropomorphic Frogs, Robots based on the geometric entities from the novel "Flatland", and the mysterious Dark Powers of the Demiplane of Dread, all take an interest in the behavior, philosophy and morality of mortals.

Alignment is meant to be a tool, not a straitjacket. Two Lawful Good Paladins can have markedly different personalities, because they are from different cultures, different religions, different social classes or one is much older than the other. Durkon and Roy disagree over whether a Lawful Good character needs to respect the laws of the Empire of Blood. Haley and Elan have different notions about respect for property rights; Elan feels bad about stealing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html), while Haley, to put it nicely, does not.

In "Planescape", the adventures take place in the Outer Planes, most commonly the impossible city of Sigil. Sigil is shaped like a torus that is suspended a few feet over an infinitely tall Spire that juts forth from the middle of an infinite plane, The Concordant Domain of the Outlands. The city can not be entered without using "portals", magical doorways that open seemingly at random throughout the city to other Planes. No god can enter Sigil, because they are kept out by the city's ruler, The Lady of Pain. The Lady isn't a ruler in the traditional sense; she is a giant woman, clothed in robes, her serene face surrounded by a mantle of blades, who floats silently through Sigil, sometimes turning her gaze to those who offend her and flaying them alive or banishing them to one of her Mazes. Needless to say the inhabitants of the "Cage" as Sigil is called, keep their distance from her.

At one point Sigil was home to fifteen "Factions", groups who debated various philosophies they believed would lead them to rule the multiverse. Between the Factions, the addition of a bit of gray to the black and white nature of the Alignment system and the awesome artwork by Tony DiTerlizzi, "Planescape" is very fondly remembered. "Planescape: Torment" is a CRPG based on the setting, published by Interplay. The game captures the detail and ambiance of the "Planescape" setting beautifully.

[Reddish Mage]

Alignment is meant to be a tool, not a straitjacket. Two Lawful Good Paladins can have markedly different personalities, because they are from different cultures, different religions, different social classes or one is much older than the other. Durkon and Roy disagree over whether a Lawful Good character needs to respect the laws of the Empire of Blood. Haley and Elan have different notions about respect for property rights; Elan feels bad about stealing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html), while Haley, to put it nicely, does not.

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.

All we need to say is that there are rules that designate a number of acts as evil (including things like theft or consorting with evil deities/fiends and the like) and simply rule that a non-evil character cannot freely commit any sort of evil actions, then we are left with real limits about the alignment of characters, in ways that are both heavy handed and at odds with OOTS.

[Sir_Leorik]

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.

All we need to say is that there are rules that designate a number of acts as evil (including things like theft or consorting with evil deities/fiends and the like) and simply rule that a non-evil character cannot freely commit any sort of evil actions, then we are left with real limits about the alignment of characters, in ways that are both heavy handed and at odds with OOTS.

Luckily, other than Paladins, Good aligned characters aren't judged that harshly in D&D 3.X. (At least not by RAW; some DMs go beyond the letter of the Alignment rules, and it can be pretty tough to be Players in their games.)

[137beth]

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.
Eye color is absolute, and also isn't a straightjacket.

[Reddish Mage]

Luckily, other than Paladins, Good aligned characters aren't judged that harshly in D&D 3.X. (At least not by RAW; some DMs go beyond the letter of the Alignment rules, and it can be pretty tough to be Players in their games.)

Agreed, I hate this sort of DMing, I want to be in a game with someone like Rich DMing, but, I can't help but wonder where the support is for a lenient treatment of Good-aligned characters. There is nothing in RAW I've seen that says explicitly that we can simply decide that certain evil behaviors are simply a compatible part of a good character's personality.

What I want to say is that the real "evil acts" are limited to serious stuff like murdering innocents, robbing from the poor, terrorizing the weak, or sacrificing allies frivolously. The stuff we've seen in OOTS by the neutral characters, and especially the good ones, just doesn't rise to that level. That's what I want to see in RAW, but I really don't think that's compatible with BOVD/BOED as described.

[hamishspence]

There is nothing in RAW I've seen that says explicitly that we can simply decide that certain evil behaviors are simply a compatible part of a good character's personality.

The PHB does say that good characters can sometimes "commit acts that aren't exactly Good" - though it's left a little unclear as to whether those acts can be Evil.

The DMG says that alignment change is normally gradual- and so- a Good character might be permitted the occasional Evil act without alignment change- if the preponderance of their behaviour is Good.

And Champions of Ruin does say that they can be "driven to Evil acts from time to time".

That said, routinely doing Evil deeds tends to be the mark of an Evil character (or Neutral at best, if those Evil deeds are for Good ends).