On the nature of Life and the Afterlife in the OOTSverse

[Malachias]

After reading the OOTS for quite some time, I have a bit of a question if anyone can answer for me. In a reality where they know for a fact that gods, afterlives, heavens and hells exist, why would so many be so desperate to remain on the material plane?

I posit this question on the assumption that most of the people that live on the OOTS material plane are generally Good or Neutral, and are therefore generally granted nice to awesome afterlifes at the conclusion of their short stay on the planet. Now, this of course doesn't deal with the Evil beings, but I suspect that even they are granted some form of pleasurable activity in their afterlives. I couldn't imagine someone who was truly evil, killed and subsequently raised would continue being evil unless they saw something down there that kept their interest piqued.

With that said, I have been trying to figure out Tarquin recently, and I have come to the conclusion that he hasn't actually done anything terribly monstrous. What has Tarquin done? he has killed alot of mostly Good to Neutral people, who were immediately shunted to a paradise, to spend the rest of eternity sipping from the cups of awesome. In some ways, Tarquin is doing them a favor; instead of mucking around for a couple decades in a desert, fighting for their lives against the elements and each other, he gives them a quick out. So why are characters like Haley or Roy so pissed at someone like Tarquin and Belkar for taking out good-aligned characters, who they know for a fact are just given paradise for their troubles?

What are your thoughts on the matter? And I apologize if this has been brought up in an earlier thread.

[Gift Jeraff]

No, just no.

[Ghost Nappa]

I remember a story about a Native American boy who had a lot of dream imagery related to Sparrows and Hawks (No, it was not Assassin's Creed). His tribe is attacked in the middle of the night by Europeans and he is the sole survivor. As a nine-year-old boy he goes to confront the "mayor" (or the equivalent there of) of the Europeans and tries to fight him in a brawl (and wins, almost killing the mayor). He is put to death shortly afterward.

The story makes a big deal about how his tribe's culture makes a big deal about the afterlife and it being paradise and such, but getting someone there by killing them is a crime and is considered somewhere between rude and blasphemous. Your mortal life is to be spent living to preserve your family: both their lives and their culture, and that by killing someone, you rob them of their ability to pass on their knowledge.


Also considering that most people tend to die in brutal, painful ways, most people do not actively seek death.

[SavageWombat]

Leaving aside the specific example:

The Afterlife in D&D does not (except when it does) work on the same lines as the Heaven/Hell dichotomy most of us are used to.

Earning rewards for good deeds is a hallmark of good and/or law, nothing more.

Even the D&D books that discussed the issue did so in terms of "it depends on how you want your campaign to work".

[littlebum2002]

And this thread gets locked in 3, 2, 1...

(Seriously, while you bring up a good point, I think the mod will declare this thread "WAY too likely to slip into real-world morality")

[Happy Gravity]

I posit this question on the assumption that most of the people that live on the OOTS material plane are generally Good or Neutral, and are therefore generally granted nice to awesome afterlifes at the conclusion of their short stay on the planet.
What is the basis of this assumption? Even so, why would this matter in the case of the Western continent, where that may not be the case?

I don't feel like going too in depth on the rest of your post, but I'll ask another question.
Why would killing a Good person be a Good act, just because they would be "going to a better place"? Did they ask you to do that? Intentions do matter, do they not? Do you think this is Tarquin's secret plot at actually becoming Good? That seems ridiculous.

[CRtwenty]

Tarquin's mass murdering sprees do not make him "Not-Evil" by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of where the souls of his victims wind up. Mortality in D&D is all about what you do during your life. The Afterlife is really just a slow slide into oblivion that can be either pleasant (for Good aligned people) unpleasant (for Evil people) or just plain weird (for pure Lawful and Chaotic types).

[KillianHawkeye]

You may as well ask why don't all the Good-aligned people just kill themselves so they can get to that sweet sweet afterlife sooner. :smallsigh:



Simply put, life doesn't work that way.

[littlebum2002]

Here, I found a plausible reason why this would be wrong in-universe without breaking your logic.

Gods like followers. As Banjo showed us, a god with no followers is very weak indeed. The more followers they have, the stronger they become. Therefore, killing the living followers of a god makes them weaker. Gods don't like to be weaker, so they needed to attach a punishment to killing their followers.

So while sending a Good person to paradise may not deserve punishment, taking away followers from a god does.

[theNater]

After reading the OOTS for quite some time, I have a bit of a question if anyone can answer for me. In a reality where they know for a fact that gods, afterlives, heavens and hells exist, why would so many be so desperate to remain on the material plane?
Good and Neutral people have an obligation to improve things for other living people; Good people are required to do so for everyone, while Neutral people are required to do so for friends(while not making things worse for strangers). Ditching those responsibilities in order to get something desirable for yourself is Evil behavior.

What has Tarquin done? he has killed alot of mostly Good to Neutral people, who were immediately shunted to a paradise, to spend the rest of eternity sipping from the cups of awesome.
Tarquin also keeps slaves and encourages the keeping of slaves, which makes their lives worse but doesn't directly kill them. He also tortures people, both physically and psychologically, again ruining lives without ending them. And you'll note that when he does kill people, he tends to do it in painful or humiliating ways, such as by burning them alive or making them fight their own friends to the death. Even if we accepted your erroneous premise that killing Good people is doing them a favor, Tarquin is still a horrible monster.

[Psyren]

With that said, I have been trying to figure out Tarquin recently, and I have come to the conclusion that he hasn't actually done anything terribly monstrous.

Wow. Just, wow.

Are we reading the same comic?

[Cizak]

By this logic, Xykon is one of the best persons in this comic.

Sure, Tarquin does good deeds by opressing the people and separating families by having loving parents or small kids murdered every day, but he also have slavery. That's not good and he the best solution would be to kill those unpaid workers right away, since he's keeping them from their afterlife.

But Xykon, he doesn't screw up on the slavery part like Tarquin does. He just massacres anyone he can find, making sure all of them gets to leave their loved ones behind and finally join the afterlife. Sure, Xykon did actually keep Dorukan and Lirian from the afterlife, but nobody's perfect.