Miko, Redeemed.

[TimeWizard]

That was possibly the most satisfying thing I've seen in a long time. That makes up for a lot of things. "friendly contact", oh man, thats priceless...
/tired

[Kal]

Break, Break, Break the skanky evil outsider's neck.

Go Miko!!!

[Skyserpent]

I DO like Miko more than Sabine at least... I don't think I recall a Sabine Fan Club... ((Prepares to be proven wrong...))

[MrBean13]

At least she's not letting herself down to those LG-guys. After all she hasn't lost her self-respect, although she's still a fallen paladin.
Despite this I'd really like to know what Miko looks like in black leather. :smallbiggrin:

[EdgarVerona]

ROFL, I was about to come over to the forums to post the *exact* same thread topic. Indeed, this comic was awesome, and Miko won some cool points with me. =)

EDIT: I do want to note, however, that someone in another thread correctly pointed out that it's disturbing that she snaps someone's neck and we think of it as an improvement... me included, because I did (and still do) think of it as such. =) I think it says something that she didn't proceed to rake out Sabine's eyes afterword. It's like she's on a sedative in comparison to how she was before. =)

[Renegade Paladin]

She didn't just snap anyone's neck; she snapped a demon's. That should be a matter of course for pretty much any adventurer; your average paladin would be tripping over himself trying to slide his blade between her ribs as quickly as possible. She didn't just off some random guy on the street, y'know.

[Talyn]

Right you are, RP. Remember, killing evil outsiders is ALWAYS a Good act! Especially when they are blatantly trying to steal your soul.

Yay, Miko! *dons the platemail and pompoms of the Paladin Cheerleader*

[N0-1_H3r3]

She didn't just snap anyone's neck; she snapped a demon's. That should be a matter of course for pretty much any adventurer; your average paladin would be tripping over himself trying to slide his blade between her ribs as quickly as possible. She didn't just off some random guy on the street, y'know.
Indeed. Sabine is an Outsider with the Evil subtype... and is thus intrinsically evil in a way far more deep-seated than any mortal could be. Even Demons who've somehow changed their alignment to something other than Chaotic Evil are still 'Chaotic Evil' creatures for the purpose of, well, almost everything.

Killing Evil creatures isn't an evil act. It might not always be a good act (killing a random tribe of Orcs just because they're there, for example, instead of when they're a threat), but it's not evil.

This is Belkar's biggest redeeming feature - He's an indiscriminate killer, and doesn't really care what he's killing, so long as he gets to kill something. He's like Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer in that regard; he doesn't care what ends up on the ends of his knives, just that it stops breathing as a result.

[Sage in the Playground]

Indeed. Sabine is an Outsider with the Evil subtype... and is thus intrinsically evil in a way far more deep-seated than any mortal could be. Even Demons who've somehow changed their alignment to something other than Chaotic Evil are still 'Chaotic Evil' creatures for the purpose of, well, almost everything.

Killing Evil creatures isn't an evil act. It might not always be a good act (killing a random tribe of Orcs just because they're there, for example, instead of when they're a threat), but it's not evil.

This is Belkar's biggest redeeming feature - He's an indiscriminate killer, and doesn't really care what he's killing, so long as he gets to kill something. He's like Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer in that regard; he doesn't care what ends up on the ends of his knives, just that it stops breathing as a result.

Redeeming feature?! Don't you mean comedic feature? Or something? Thats not redeeming?

[Dectilon]

A slight redeeming, not a complete one : ) It is what makes him likable as an anti-hero. He might be a something of an evil sadist, but he is (at least that's how it seems) a loyal friend and cynic : P

I don't feel Miko is particualrily redeemed. She violently snapped an evil person's neck (even if it didn't do much), which is something I would totally expect of her. There are really very few ways she can be redeemed, and killing evil is not one of them I think.

[Baalzebub]

Indeed, if Miko wants to become a Paladin again she must attone for the gruesome evil act she commited (killing an innocent, good old man), and for that she first need to accept she was wrong, and looking how arrogant and proud is Miko, that'll be a difficult decision for her. So, she needs to make a huge good act to make the gods change their decision and give her a second chance. Snapping the neck of an evil outsider gives you points, yes, but is not good enough. :amused:

Besides, Sabine survived anyway. :smallyuk:

[daggaz]

snapped sabine's neck??! Looked to me like she just B---- slapped her.

[Demented]

Ah, but her humor potential is redeemed, even if she has committed an evil act for letting Sabine live.

(Did anyone get nostalgic after reading that latter clause? Oh, the good old days...)

[agentx42]

In no way is she redeemed, but C'MON! That was just satisfying as all get out! All throughout the run of this story, I never once hated her until she killed Shojo, and even then at the same time I pitied her and felt for the sad course she'd taken. I disliked her brittle personality, but that's not the same. I'm still not back in her corner yet, but that act made me step a few feet closer.

[BardicLasher]

I DO like Miko more than Sabine at least... I don't think I recall a Sabine Fan Club... ((Prepares to be proven wrong...))

Hi!



I am sad. I was entirely in favor of friendly contact all over an evil outsider.

[Mr Teufel]

snapped sabine's neck??! Looked to me like she just B---- slapped her.

Nope. Definitely turned her head right around with a big SNAP noise. She falls down, gets up again with her head still around the wrong way.

A slap would have been a SLAP noise.

[Talya]

Despite this I'd really like to know what Miko looks like in black leather. :smallbiggrin:

She'd look like a stick figure.

[Baalzebub]

She'd look like a stick figure.

Yes, but don't forget about the black leather... and the "sexy" factor of Miko.

[AK-00]

See? See?
Surround her with obnoxious "good" characters, and of course she's going to wind up doing something technically "evil". Surround her with scum, and she'll set to tidying the place up in no time.

[elliott20]

Seeing as Sabine shares an uncanny resemblance to my cheating ex, I find it hard to find myself in any fanclub of hers.

Watching her get her neck snapped was kind of unhealthily satisfying for me.

I still think that if Miko wants to redeem herself she needs to focus more on her personal flaws then just trying to over-compensate by killing evil creatures. We all know she can destroy evil better than any buddy. But the reason she fell has nothing to do with her capacity to destroy evil, it's her hubris. Until she can deal with that part of her personality flaw, she's got not a chance in hell to be redeemed not just as a paladin, but even as a decent person.

Still, at least she's getting her comedic value back. This is honestly the first time in a long time that I have found Miko not being the butt end of a joke.

[Effovex]

Indeed. Sabine is an Outsider with the Evil subtype... and is thus intrinsically evil in a way far more deep-seated than any mortal could be. Even Demons who've somehow changed their alignment to something other than Chaotic Evil are still 'Chaotic Evil' creatures for the purpose of, well, almost everything.

Killing Evil creatures isn't an evil act. It might not always be a good act (killing a random tribe of Orcs just because they're there, for example, instead of when they're a threat), but it's not evil.

I know D&D's morality system is retarded, but that's like an additional creamy layer of retarded on the cake of retardness.



This is Belkar's biggest redeeming feature - He's an indiscriminate killer, and doesn't really care what he's killing, so long as he gets to kill something. He's like Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer in that regard; he doesn't care what ends up on the ends of his knives, just that it stops breathing as a result.

Indiscriminate killing is a redeeming feature? You're easy distracted by the shiny lights of protagonism, aren't you?

[Dectilon]

Now that you mention it, he is kinda like Spike : P Evil, but in a good way : )

[Tokiko Mima]

I know D&D's morality system is retarded, but that's like an additional creamy layer of retarded on the cake of retardness.

But it's true. Demons and Devils are so twisted to the cause of Evil that their very existance supports Evil itself. Ending that existance therefore is a Good act regardless of what Sabrine is saying or doing at the time. If Sabrine became a nun, devoted her life to charity and ran an orphanage for a century or three it would still not be an Evil act to slay her. Demons/Devils can't be redeemed, period. They simple ARE a living manifestation of Evil.

[Silverlocke980]

Miko's an intriguing character. Burlew's refusal to go the simple route of making her a Blackguard- at least right off the bat- makes me go "Yes!" Burlew's got something planned, and the giant rocks.

And so we follow!

[Dectilon]

But it's true. Demons and Devils are so twisted to the cause of Evil that their very existance supports Evil itself. Ending that existance therefore is a Good act regardless of what Sabrine is saying or doing at the time. If Sabrine became a nun, devoted her life to charity and ran an orphanage for a century or three it would still not be an Evil act to slay her. Demons/Devils can't be redeemed, period. They simple ARE a living manifestation of Evil.

I'd like to think upbringing is much more important : )

[Effovex]

Inflicting pain and/or death cannot be justified as non-evil because the victim is evil, no matter what George W. Bush would have you believe. There is a D&D precedent for this: the Cataclysm of Krynn, which was caused by the Kingpriest of Ishtar's blind pursuit of "good" and the destruction of "evil".

The road to hell is paved with good intention.

"Good" has to believe in the redemption of "evil", not in stamping it out. Otherwise it's just evil in candy wrappings.

[Sethis]

This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds has a Mature label on it, it gives the D&D definition of good, which does not agree with the morality of some people.

Thats the thing about the D&D world, there IS an overarching moral code. People can't argue about their own codes as much without having some basics in common because the gods have structured reality that way.

Besides, people seem to be missing the point. Killing a bunch if orcs for example is a lot different from killing fiends.

Ok, first of all, orcs. Orcs are not intristically evil, they are brought up that way. According to D&D, then, killing a full band of orcs for no other reason than they exist is not an evil act. However, that's only if they fight back. An Exalted character, ie. one who is truely good in the way the cosmos' moral code expects, would offer mercy and the possibility of surrender to them first, second, and last. Killing things too young to defend themselves would always be an evil act. Orcs can be redeemed, there are good orcs who have no spec of evil in them.

Now, fiends. Fiends sping full grown and fully sentient from places. Depending on game world there are different interpretations. In Faerun, fiends are actually the departed souls of mortals who lived long ago, died without worshipping a good god, and sold thier souls to devils or demons. They were made into dretches/lemures (the lowest form of fiend) by infusing thier very souls into evil. They can then get "promoted" up the ranks, upgrading thier forms to higher demons or devils over centuries of evil. A fiends body is literally MADE of it's eternally damned soul, and if it is anything other than a lemure/dretch, it cas committed MILLENNEA of the most vile evil acts to get that far. That's not something you can redeem. Even celestials, who are the pure embodiment of good, destroy fiends without remorse, pity, or mercy. And they instill this fervor onto their mortal followers. Fiends cannot be redeemed. A Lawful Good Succubus Paladin would still register as Chaotic Evil to detect alignment spells because she has those subtypes. She is MADE of chaos and evil. Just like an efreet is made of fire. Take it away, and it isn't an efreet anymore. Some fiends can become celestials, but they have to exceed thier evil works with good ones, and that is a job that will last eons.

[aberratio ictus]

Well, if you ask me, I don't think it is such a big surprise that she refused to become a blackguard and work with the linear guild.

Mostly because of what she did was no evil, but a chaotic act.

She'd rather be attracted by a bunch of chaotic good characters who want to fight evil their way.

[Sethis]

Murdering a defenseless humanoid of Chaotic Good alignment in cold blood without any proof of allegations, or trial, is both a Chaotic, and very Evil act.

[Effovex]

Thats the thing about the D&D world, there IS an overarching moral code. People can't argue about their own codes as much without having some basics in common because the gods have structured reality that way.

Now, fiends. Fiends sping full grown and fully sentient from places. Depending on game world there are different interpretations. In Faerun, fiends are actually the departed souls of mortals who lived long ago, died without worshipping a good god, and sold thier souls to devils or demons.

You're taking Faerûn morality as the basis of all D&D morality. However, Dragonlance demonstrates that not all D&D settings agree with this logic, and what's more, OOTS is not set in Faerûn. Considering this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) - and everything that's happened with Miko so far - I would say Rich Burlew's perception of good and evil is more nuanced than the one you're advancing.

[aberratio ictus]

I think it is only very chaotic. Killing a person that betrayed you and your fellow paladins and worked together with an evil lich isn't evil.

It's a thing many chaotic good characters would do without hesitation.

[Sethis]

That's the point. Overarching moral code remember? The GODS decide what is right and wrong and they know that that whole evil lich betrayal thing is bullcrap. In Miko's point of view, it is just chaotic. In the outside point of view shared by the gods and everyone else, it is obviously Evil.

Ignorance, and Arrogance are not excuses for evil.

[aberratio ictus]

Gods, per definition, should know the inside point of view too, right? The question is whether they grant this view any importance or not...

Well, I just don't know.

I only know that in our campaign the paladin who initiated the destruction of quite a couple of villages on his way by giving some money to the poor inhabitants (the lawful-evil sovereign of the country the campaign was set killed the villagers and set their houses on fire for not paying enough taxes) did not fall because of committing an evil act. He didn't fall at all.

[ColourDeaf]

I've always thought the phrase "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" more apt than with most fallen paladins, particularly Miko

[Donovan]

Of course Miko wasn't tempted by Sabine; Miko is much closer to LE not CE. Sabine was basically trying to encourage her to have fun and cut loose, something Miko REALLY doesn't do. I'm betting Miko is still going to fall all the way, she just isn't the repentant type. However, she is going to fall into the role of a self-righteous tyrant (classic LE) not a amoral, sadistic troublemaker like Nale and company. I figure she is going to escape at some point and probably make peaceful contact with a Devil, since there is more of an alignment overlap there.

[Effovex]

I think it is only very chaotic. Killing a person that betrayed you and your fellow paladins and worked together with an evil lich isn't evil.

It's a thing many chaotic good characters would do without hesitation.

I fail to see how killing a defenseless old man, for whatever reason, can be construed as a good act, ever.

[Ave]

But it's true. Demons and Devils are so twisted to the cause of Evil that their very existance supports Evil itself. Ending that existance therefore is a Good act regardless of what Sabrine is saying or doing at the time. If Sabrine became a nun, devoted her life to charity and ran an orphanage for a century or three it would still not be an Evil act to slay her. Demons/Devils can't be redeemed, period. They simple ARE a living manifestation of Evil.

Untrue. They are just natives of an evil aligned plane. Even demons could be redeemed. Just like angels could fall. By your logic, killing a fallen angel is always an evil act.

[Effovex]

I'm betting Miko is still going to fall all the way, she just isn't the repentant type.

You're entirely right. Miko's sin is pride, the sin of Lucifer (and by association, the sin of the fallen)

Vanity, definitely my favorite sin - John Milton, last line (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118971/).

[aberratio ictus]

I fail to see how killing a defenseless old man, for whatever reason, can be construed as a good act, ever.


If the old man is an evil, manipulative leader of an evil, destructive army and you're chaotic, well... actually it is a good act.

Although in my personal opinion, I agree with you. I'm more the lawful good type, too. ;)

[cucchulainnn]

Miko is in denial about being a fallen paladin, Sabine “ooo! You’re a fallen paladin?” Miko “no”. She can not become redeemed until she comes to terms with falling. I believe the giant will have her never come to terms with it which in my opinion makes her much a more interesting charter. Going black guard or having a Vader type of redemption would be very boring and clichéd.

[kialos]

Consider what Miko said when she killed the King. "Only Honor and the Will of the Gods matter now" That would be her change to Chaotic... However... She did not kill him with Malice... She was completely convinced that he was evil... So it was not a Willful Evil Act... So her alignment would not change to Evil because she was not TRYING to be evil... but she still has made a terrible mistake... so until she either admits her mistake or Revels in it... She's Neutral...

Id say she's Chaotic Neutral until she comes to another crossroads.

[aberratio ictus]

Miko is in denial about being a fallen paladin, Sabine “ooo! You’re a fallen paladin?” Miko “no”. She can not become redeemed until she comes to terms with falling. I believe the giant will have her never come to terms with it which in my opinion makes her much a more interesting charter. Going black guard or having a Vader type of redemption would be very boring and clichéd.

I think you're right. And I like it, too. :smallbiggrin:

[Druid]

Indeed. Sabine is an Outsider with the Evil subtype... and is thus intrinsically evil in a way far more deep-seated than any mortal could be. Even Demons who've somehow changed their alignment to something other than Chaotic Evil are still 'Chaotic Evil' creatures for the purpose of, well, almost everything.

Killing Evil creatures isn't an evil act. It might not always be a good act (killing a random tribe of Orcs just because they're there, for example, instead of when they're a threat), but it's not evil.

This is Belkar's biggest redeeming feature - He's an indiscriminate killer, and doesn't really care what he's killing, so long as he gets to kill something. He's like Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer in that regard; he doesn't care what ends up on the ends of his knives, just that it stops breathing as a result.

Please tell me you’re joking. Read the Book of Exalted Deeds, the source on good in Dnd, sometime. It clearly states that killing something for no reason other than it's evil is itself an evil act. Your example of killing a random tribe of orcs just because they're there? That's the example given for killing innocent evil creatures being an evil act.


That's the point. Overarching moral code remember? The GODS decide what is right and wrong and they know that that whole evil lich betrayal thing is bullcrap.

No actually, they don't. Different gods have different ideas of what's proper conduct and if they were the ultimate mediators of what's good and evil then DnD would have the same subjective reality as real life. Instead, actions in DnD are good or evil (or none of the above) simply because they register as such with the universe. Killing an innocent in cold blood isn't evil because Pelor, St Cuthbert, Nerul, or any one else says so but because in the world of DnD it is evil by merit of itself.

[fangthane]

I fail to see how killing a defenseless old man, for whatever reason, can be construed as a good act, ever.
David Lo Pan.

Nuff said :)

[Krellen]

I'd like someone to quote me - or at least reference me to - a passage from a D&D source book (any source book would do, really) where it says "killing evil is good". Please. Just one.

If you can't, try to find a different arguement.

[sun_tzu]

But it's true. Demons and Devils are so twisted to the cause of Evil that their very existance supports Evil itself. Ending that existance therefore is a Good act regardless of what Sabrine is saying or doing at the time. If Sabrine became a nun, devoted her life to charity and ran an orphanage for a century or three it would still not be an Evil act to slay her. Demons/Devils can't be redeemed, period. They simple ARE a living manifestation of Evil.
Not sure what the actual rules say, but...Logically, it makes no sense. Anything sentient - anything with free will - can choose to become good.


I think it is only very chaotic. Killing a person that betrayed you and your fellow paladins and worked together with an evil lich isn't evil.
Right. But Shojo hadn't worked together with an evil lich, nor was it a logical conclusion to reach. Miko only believed it because she was deluding herself due to her own grudges and hubris - so, definitely evil.
A lot of villains convince themselves they're doing the right thing - but since they're using intellectual dishonesty to hustify their actions, it's still evil. Members of the Inquisition could have given you long, complex, and utterly nonsensical explanations on how it was their moral duty to burn lots of people at the stake. The Nazis (at the risk of going Godwin) had this complicated, unproven belief about how Jews were plotting to take over the world. Doctor Doom is convinced that the world needs him to lead it. And so on.

[Lizard Lord]

Right. But Shojo hadn't worked together with an evil lich, nor was it a logical conclusion to reach. Miko only believed it because she was deluding herself due to her own grudges and hubris - so, definitely evil.
A lot of villains convince themselves they're doing the right thing - but since they're using intellectual dishonesty to hustify their actions, it's still evil. Members of the Inquisition could have given you long, complex, and utterly nonsensical explanations on how it was their moral duty to burn lots of people at the stake. The Nazis (at the risk of going Godwin) had this complicated, unproven belief about how Jews were plotting to take over the world. Doctor Doom is convinced that the world needs him to lead it. And so on.

Don't forget about Magnito.:smallbiggrin:

[Aliquid]

I'd like someone to quote me - or at least reference me to - a passage from a D&D source book (any source book would do, really) where it says "killing evil is good". Please. Just one.

If you can't, try to find a different arguement.Completely agree with this.

If there was a war between a Lawful Evil group and a Chaotic Evil group... anyone fighting in that war would turn "good" by that logic.

[malakim2099]

It's a thing many chaotic good characters would do without hesitation.

As someone who plays Chaotic Good characters more often than not, and has been accused many times of being one IRL, I simply have this to say:

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!??!?!!?!? :smallmad:

Chaotic Good characters DO NOT kill defenseless old men. Ever. A CG character might smack Shojo upside the head and shout "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!?" if it turned out that he was part of some grand evil conspiracy (which he wasn't), but they wouldn't want to adventure within 1000 yards of Miko, nor would she want to adventure with them. Besides, Chaotic Good characters wouldn't get all wrapped up in OMG he fooled the paladins with their oaths nonsense, they'd go "Oh, he broke an oath in order to save the world, good for him."

Miko committed a very evil AND chaotic act, but she's so locked into damage control/denial that she can't see herself as anything but a paladin of the Twelve Gods, and her snapping Sabine's neck doesn't change her delusion one iota. She might eventually redeem herself, but first she has to admit she was wrong.

Not saying she can't do that, but it's pretty darn unlikely from what we've seen so far. :smallamused:

[aberratio ictus]

Right. But Shojo hadn't worked together with an evil lich, nor was it a logical conclusion to reach. Miko only believed it because she was deluding herself due to her own grudges and hubris - so, definitely evil.
A lot of villains convince themselves they're doing the right thing - but since they're using intellectual dishonesty to hustify their actions, it's still evil. Members of the Inquisition could have given you long, complex, and utterly nonsensical explanations on how it was their moral duty to burn lots of people at the stake. The Nazis (at the risk of going Godwin) had this complicated, unproven belief about how Jews were plotting to take over the world. Doctor Doom is convinced that the world needs him to lead it. And so on.

I absolutely agree with you on this point, except for the Miko part in it.
I don't think she deluded herself. I think she honestly believed what she was doing was right.

Well, we don't know. Only the giant knows. And to be honest, I fear he's rather on your side than on mine :smallwink:


edit: @ malakim2099

I'm not kidding you, I can assure you. There is more than one type of chaotic good characters, that's why I used "many" instead of "most" or "all".

In fact, most of the chaotic good characters I've met so far would have killed him immediately, "if it turned out that he was part of some grand evil conspiracy", of course.

You're right that chaotic good would'nt care that much about the "fooled some paladins"-part, but more about the "worked together with an evil lich"-part.

On the other hand... I can absolutely figure Miko adventureing with a bunch of chaotic good charakters, as she is likely to have lost her faith in laws and lawfulness as a whole.
There's not so much of the "stick-up-the-ass"-Miko left.

[Aliquid]

Not sure what the actual rules say, but...Logically, it makes no sense. Anything sentient - anything with free will - can choose to become good.I completely disagree with that logic. It really depends on how you define free will.

It is perfectly logical for a sentient creature to act evil without being able to be redeemed. Either that creature doesn't have "free will" by your definition, or "free will" has nothing to do with being evil or not.

To make a specific example. The "prefrontal cortex" is a part of the human brain. It is in part responsible for the control of pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic and aggression. People who have experienced brain damage to the prefrontal cortex act quite differently than a "normal" person.

A possible example of the impact of brain damage of this type would be a person who is still intelligent and aware enough to be "sentient", but if something happens to annoy them, their brain won't suppress the "rage" section, and the logic part of the brain would tell him to do what provides "immediate gratification", rather than looking at the long term consequences.

Does this person still have "free will"? They are intelligent, and logically understand the difference between "right and wrong", they just lack the ability to suppress their rage when annoyed. They act on impulse, are full of aggression, and don't have the ability to behave otherwise

Now imagine a non-human creature that has a brain which is built like this from birth...

[Effovex]

I'm pretty sure Nathuram Godse, who shot Ghandi, was honestly convinced what he was doing was right. And Annas and Caiaphas honestly believed crucifying Jesus was the right thing to do.

They aren't "evil", either. The only people who you could actively make a case are "evil" are actually insane - narcissistic egomaniacal psychopaths. But these are certainly selfish, "the end justifies the mean" acts.

"Good" characters should believe that a good mean is more important than a good end. "Evil" characters will believe that the end justifies the mean. Most people are going to fall far from either of these extremes, and touch them from time to time, depending on circumstances. That's why an alignment system as in D&D makes no sense whatsoever. Even Ghandi and Himmler's alignments are hard to define perfectly, and they're pretty extreme characters.

[Aliquid]

"Good" characters should believe that a good mean is more important than a good end. "Evil" characters will believe that the end justifies the mean.I have always considered the "means justifying the ends", being a chaotic thing rather than a evil thing.

i.e. a "Chaotic Good" character would say that the means justify the ends, but a "Lawful Good" character would not.

[Effovex]

The distinction between Chaotic and Lawful means nothing to me in D&D. What if your character has no respect for the laws of men, but only lives by his own law. Is he lawful or chaotic? He may be very constant and moral, but still be constantly fighting the law. Isn't that what Ghandi was doing?

"A good mean is better than a good end" is one of the defining points of morality. It means you are willing to sacrifice yourself to get to the end, because the end might be detrimental to you. And "the end justifies the mean" is definitely the polar opposite - selfish acts where you are ready to sacrifice others to your cause. "Your own good" may not be entirely selfish - you may be trying to help those you love, for instance, but you're doing it at the detriment of someone else. Us vs them.

[aberratio ictus]

I have always considered the "means justifying the ends", being a chaotic thing rather than a evil thing.

i.e. a "Chaotic Good" character would say that the means justify the ends, but a "Lawful Good" character would not.

Seconded.

It's definitely a chaotic thing.

[Aliquid]

The distinction between Chaotic and Lawful means nothing to me in D&D. What if your character has no respect for the laws of men, but only lives by his own law. Is he lawful or chaotic? He may be very constant and moral, but still be constantly fighting the law. Isn't that what Ghandi was doing?The problem is, "Lawful" does not mean that you follow the laws of the land. It is not directly related to the "Law" (it is a bit misleading because the word is similar).

Being "Lawful" means you follow a set code of ethics. You have a well defined concept of "right vs wrong", you keep your word, you tell the truth, you are structured in how you live. Morals have nothing to do with it, they are associated with "Good"

[Effovex]

Seconded.

It's definitely a chaotic thing.



Well, if that's chaotic, what's evil then? Taking glee in inflicting hurt on others? That's also a selfish act where your lack of empathy causes you to put your personal pleasure over the pain of others. Anything "evil" can be explained by this selfishness, this belief born of vanity that you are more important than others, that you are entitled to something more than others.

[N0-1_H3r3]

Please tell me you’re joking. Read the Book of Exalted Deeds, the source on good in Dnd, sometime. It clearly states that killing something for no reason other than it's evil is itself an evil act. Your example of killing a random tribe of orcs just because they're there? That's the example given for killing innocent evil creatures being an evil act.
Ok, so I may have put my example in the wrong part of the sentence, but that was actually my point. I know what I mean, even if my hands and mouth don't always agree.


Redeeming feature?! Don't you mean comedic feature? Or something? Thats not redeeming?

Indiscriminate killing is a redeeming feature? You're easy distracted by the shiny lights of protagonism, aren't you?
By Belkar's standards, it's a redeeming feature - he's entirely willing to slay evil creatures. That he's also willing to butcher innocent good creatures is the reason he's Evil.


You're taking Faerûn morality as the basis of all D&D morality. However, Dragonlance demonstrates that not all D&D settings agree with this logic, and what's more, OOTS is not set in Faerûn. Considering this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) - and everything that's happened with Miko so far - I would say Rich Burlew's perception of good and evil is more nuanced than the one you're advancing.
That kind of morality is the kind that comes in the SRD and 'generic D&D' supplements - nothing to do with Faerûn.

As for Miko's redemption... well, nothing she does alone can bring back her class abilities. She needs to admit her mistake and then gain the assistance of a 9th level cleric with 500xp to spare - Atonement spells don't come cheaply for murderers, even ones who're in self-inflicted delusional states (she wasn't tricked... she came to that conclusion all by herself, even if it's the wrong one).

[Effovex]

The problem is, "Lawful" does not mean that you follow the laws of the land. It is not directly related to the "Law" (it is a bit misleading because the word is similar).

Being "Lawful" means you follow a set code of ethics. You have a well defined concept of "right vs wrong", you keep your word, you tell the truth, you are structured in how you live. Morals have nothing to do with it, they are associated with "Good"

I think Lawful characters will follow a code - of law or ethics - on the basis that it is the code, without questioning the value of it. Chaotic characters will follow the code of their choosing. That's the difference between the two. Otherwise, the description of the Lawful Neutral alignment makes no sense.

Lawful Characters respect Authority, Chaotic characters are their own Authority. The value of their ethics is determined by their "good" or "evil" bit.

[Green Bean]

*sigh* It looks like there isn't going to be friendly contact with an evil outsider. Now what am I going to do with this?


http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/evilmiko2.png

[Geoff]

There is still the distinction between "allways chaotic evil," like a demon, and "usually chaotic evil" like an orc, right?

And, isn't Sabine a templated half-fiend, not a full-on, 'always evil' demon?

So, no, prison violence against her isn't a good act by any stretch - but it is a way of declining the 'friendly contact' provision of the blackgaurd class. I suppose Miko could've just snubbed her, instead. But, this was funnier (and, yes, it's OK to find stick figures breaking eachothers knecks funny - it's not like Sabine died, anyway), and it established the Miko isn't going straight to Blackgaurd. I guess it also established that the Giant isn't going to stoop to a certain kind of fan service, either.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Not sure what the actual rules say, but...Logically, it makes no sense. Anything sentient - anything with free will - can choose to become good.

Agreed, but remeber the conflict between lucifer and god in Paradise lost- Humans can decide what they are, Angels couldn't.

In the same way, Devils, Demons, and Celestials are kind of the same. Thier existance is extrinsically tied to an alignment. They do not have Free will in that sense.

That being said, randomly killing evil outsiders is pretty dubious as a good act.

[Tokiko Mima]

Not sure what the actual rules say, but...Logically, it makes no sense. Anything sentient - anything with free will - can choose to become good.

But they don't have an honest shot at "free will" (and there's debate as to whether anyone truly does in a world where magic can be used to see the future.) They're Always Chaotic Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#succubus) and possessed of a subtype that makes them Evil even if they change their alignment for some temporary (and usually self-serving) reasons. Though Demons sprout fully formed (I assume?) but I know Devils have a heirarchy that advances them individually from hellbound souls to Pit Fiends. They've already made their choices in the life they led while alive and their time for redemption is long past.

[vbushido]

If the old man is an evil, manipulative leader of an evil, destructive army and you're chaotic, well... actually it is a good act.

Although in my personal opinion, I agree with you. I'm more the lawful good type, too. ;)

By that reasoning, Ed Gein was innocent, since he saw all women as evil.

-----
"Oh, bother," said the Borg. "We've assimilated Pooh."

[The Familiar]

This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds has a Mature label on it, it gives the D&D definition of good, which does not agree with the morality of some people.

And here, I thought it got a Mature label for things like the picture of the half-orc Paladin surprising a couple of succubae making "friendly contact" with each other.

Silly me...

I do wonder if anyone else but me has read a few of the Giant's words regarding running characters (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), especially in alignments and Paladins:


The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

That said, Miko is the classic example of the Paladin who does just that: through the arrogance of Pride, assumes she is the Prime Material Plane's authority (gift?) on morality and the will of the gods, and got put in Time Out for getting way out of line (remember: she believed she was totally in the right to execute Shojo).

I never figured her for Blackguard material; #419 showed she still holds herself to the standards of a Paladin (either that, or Sabine's comments landed a little to close to Roy's Type-O treasure jabs, and she didn't have the opportunity to break his neck :smallwink: ). At the same time, unless she wises up quick, she's not going to be Redeemed either: before she can Attone for her actions, she first needs to accept that she was wrong in the first place and got her License to Smite suspended for good reason.

Here's hoping she has more Wisdom than Belkar does...

[Renegade Paladin]

Seeing as Sabine shares an uncanny resemblance to my cheating ex, I find it hard to find myself in any fanclub of hers.
Your ex is a stick figure? :smalltongue:

I'd like to think upbringing is much more important : )
For a mortal? Sure. But we're talking about (in the case of demons, anyway) creatures spontaneously forged out of raw evil and chaos in the depths of the Abyss itself. There's not much upbringing to be had, there; there's no childhood stage in a demon.

Inflicting pain and/or death cannot be justified as non-evil because the victim is evil, no matter what George W. Bush would have you believe. There is a D&D precedent for this: the Cataclysm of Krynn, which was caused by the Kingpriest of Ishtar's blind pursuit of "good" and the destruction of "evil".
The Kingpriest had long before turned to evil. Holding him up as an example of a beacon of good is flawed at the very least.

The road to hell is paved with good intention.

"Good" has to believe in the redemption of "evil", not in stamping it out. Otherwise it's just evil in candy wrappings.
We're not discussing some random mortal. We are talking about the manifestation of Evil itself in physical form. You can't redeem that; there's nothing to redeem.

[Effovex]

I could turn Miko into a Blackguard with the flick of a wrist. It's just a question of twisting her delusions. Just make her believe that the Paladins have all lost touch with the gods and that she has to bring them to the light by whatever means necessary. Just a little push in the right direction and she'll run down the hill by herself, her pride forcing her to find excuses for her every behaviour because she's unable to admit she's wrong.

Of course you don't turn a paladin into a blackguard by asking her "hey wanna be a blackguard lady? I gotz good dealz". I think Burlew was actually mocking some D&D players for whom going to blackguard seems like a natural step, after all, it's a pretty good prestige class.

[Aliquid]

I think Lawful characters will follow a code - of law or ethics - on the basis that it is the code, without questioning the value of it. Chaotic characters will follow the code of their choosing. That's the difference between the two. Otherwise, the description of the Lawful Neutral alignment makes no sense.

Lawful Characters respect Authority, Chaotic characters are their own Authority. The value of their ethics is determined by their "good" or "evil" bit.And I agree.... so where did we disagree?

Oh yeah, ends justifying the means.

Ok, so a Chaotic Good character would be willing to lie, cheat, steal and be deceptive if it helped the greater good. This was my concept of the "ends justifying the means", i.e. they are willing to do unethical things for the greater good.

Now if someone did something "evil" for what they saw as "the greater good"... then I can see where you are coming from when you say that the ends don't justify the means.

[malakim2099]

Chaotic Good isn't about the "ends justifying the means"... that, in a way, is a more good v. evil than law v. chaos argument, but I digress.

Miko could still become a Blackguard, easily. As the previous poster mentioned, all you need is to twist her delusions around a little bit (and have a fiend that actually could tempt their way out of a paper bag, instead of Sabine). Sure, you're still a paladin, this is just a test of the Gods, soon you can see things clearly... guide her through a few evil acts (not too hard, considering her KILL DIE KILL temperment), and then... hey, she's detecting Roy, Durkon, and the rest as "evil"! She was right all along! :smallamused:

[Silver_Derstin]

Ok, so a Chaotic Good character would be willing to lie, cheat, steal and be deceptive if it helped the greater good.

But what do you mean by "greater good" anyways? Slaughtering and neutering large amounts of humans constitutes the "greater good" for the Tau Empire in War40k. So does that make the Tau a "Chaotic Good" race to you?

You cannot split morals in 9 nice little boxes that people can fill on a survey. The best way to describe Miko would be "Retarded Fanatic" rather then "Lawful Good/Chaotic Evil/Chaotic Good/Whatever".

[Oxymoron]

Mikolovers: Miko is just misunderstood. Killing an old man is just a chaotic act. She`ll be a paladin again in no time. WHEEEEEEEE!
Mikohaters: Miko is EVIL! Snapping poor defenseless Sabines neck just because she wanted to take Mikos soul was bad! Bad Miko baaaad!

Does anyone see a pattern here? I also thought Miko would end up a blackguard, but alas there is still hope for Miko. I don`t think she will be reedemed though, she is still in denial about falling because she killed Shojo. And killing Shojo was evil. I dosen`t mean that Miko is evil, but she will be if she continues down this path. We`ll just have to see were her actions take her.

[Aliquid]

But what do you mean by "greater good" anyways? Slaughtering and neutering large amounts of humans constitutes the "greater good" for the Tau Empire in War40k. So does that make the Tau a "Chaotic Good" race to you?If you read my whole post, you would have seen that I agreed that doing something evil for the "greater good" would be an issue where the "ends don't justify the means".

I was talking about chaotic acts. Lying, stealing, cheating, deception etc. That's quite different from slaughter.

And, the "greater good", needs to imply "good" in the D&D sense, not the "greater benefit"

[ElfLad]

Indeed, if Miko wants to become a Paladin again she must attone for the gruesome evil act she commited (killing an innocent, good old man)

Shojo was good, yes, but I'd be reluctant to call him "innocent." But, hey, Miko was technically LG pre-Fall, and even at that point, I wouldn't have called her strctly innocent, either.

[elliott20]

Your ex is a stick figure? :smalltongue:

Brown skin, her real name is Sabeen as opposed to Sabine, and chronically has a problem with sexual fidelity? Sounds kind of similar if you ask me. :smalltongue:

I'm totally waiting for somebody with enough free time and photoshop skills on their hand to do some disturbing fan art showing the "friendly contact with an outsider".

[Silver_Derstin]

I was talking about chaotic acts. Lying, stealing, cheating, deception etc. That's quite different from slaughter.

And, the "greater good", needs to imply "good" in the D&D sense, not the "greater benefit"


If slaughter is good for your people, just like lying/stealing/cheating, wouldn't that make it an act "for the greater good" too?

And if you read on the Tau Empire, you will understand that "greater good" does mean "good" in a DnD-type sense FOR THEM. Even in DnD, there is much ambiguity on what good and evil is anyways, so there is no "true" definition of what GOOD is (unless you count things like "Book of Exalted Deeds", which pretty much is a Roleplaying PREVENTER more then an AID, if followed.)

[SmartAlec]

Untrue. They are just natives of an evil aligned plane. Even demons could be redeemed. Just like angels could fall. By your logic, killing a fallen angel is always an evil act.

Not 'just' the natives of an evil-aligned plane. As I understand it, Demons are formed from Abyssal Petitioners, who are the souls of chaotic evil mortals that have drifted to the Abyss. After a while, a Petitioner ceases to become an entity in its' own right and becomes part of the Plane.

So, Demons. Being Planars (Outsiders), and formed of the raw stuff of Chaos and Evil itself plus some petitioner's soul, it's not really possible to 'redeem' one. A key part of redemption is forgiveness from sin, and... there's nothing to forgive, because a demon isn't just a sinner, it IS sin, at least in part. The petitioner no longer has an identity or an existence of his or her own, so you can't forgive the soul that is part of the Demon. It's no longer seperate. Whoever he or she was, he/she had his chance to find redemption when he/she was alive. It's too late now.

As far as the Demon is concerned, no matter how good it tries to be, holy water'll burn it, good clerics'll turn it, because it's partly formed of the raw stuff of evil direct from the Abyss. There's no getting away from that. And, of course, being an Outsider, a Demon will always be tied to its' plane of origin, in this case the Abyss. An eternity of good works won't allow a Demon to set foot upon Mount Celestia.

Because of all this, even if it was theoretically possible to redeem a Demon, I think most of them would agree it's not worth the effort. Mortals have free will; a Demon would be fighting its' own innate nature to try to become Good, and that's quite impossible.

As far as fallen Celestials go - they might seem to disprove the rule, but it helps if you think of the Upper Planes as literally being Upper, and the Lower Planes being Lower. It's easy to 'fall' from the Upper Planes, because all you have to do is step off the edge, but climbing 'out' of the Lower Planes is much, much more difficult.

Of course, in DnD, fallen Celestials don't automatically become fiends.

[SmartAlec]

But what do you mean by "greater good" anyways? Slaughtering and neutering large amounts of humans constitutes the "greater good" for the Tau Empire in War40k. So does that make the Tau a "Chaotic Good" race to you?"

That's a bit of a strawman argument, since it's fairly obvious that the Tau's vision of 'The Greater Good' is propaganda. When they say 'The Greater Good', they mean 'The Agenda of the Tau Race'.

Very different from an adventurer deciding that laws/traditions/whatever get in the way of doing good every bit as much as they get in the way of evil.

[Malachite]

I think it's amazing how noones commented on how cool that pic of Blackguard Miko looks :D

[wowy319]

Mostly because of what she did was no evil, but a chaotic act.


see, that's where I disagree with you. She butchered a defenseless old man who was of good alignment. that's evil. If you read the book of vile darkness, you would see that it lists murder as an evil act. And I'm sorry, but there's no justifying that. Someone who kills another intelligent creature based off of a proofless accusation is no better off than someone who kills for the hell of it. It was a chaotic evil act, plain and simple. you can't say that murdering someone is merely unlawful, because SHE HAD NO PROOF. she completely violated almost every aspect of the paladin code in one fell swoop by taking the life of a good person who was actively trying to prevent the destruction of the world.

[Aliquid]

If slaughter is good for your people, just like lying/stealing/cheating, wouldn't that make it an act "for the greater good" too?lying/stealing/cheating isn't good, and it isn't evil. It is chaotic.

Slaughter isn't ever good, the rules pretty much specifically say it is "evil". To quote: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others"


And if you read on the Tau Empire, you will understand that "greater good" does mean "good" in a DnD-type sense FOR THEM. Even in DnD, there is much ambiguity on what good and evil is anyways, so there is no "true" definition of what GOOD is (unless you count things like "Book of Exalted Deeds", which pretty much is a Roleplaying PREVENTER more then an AID, if followed.)Again, to quote the rules, "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." I fail to see how slaughter can possibly relate to altruism, respect for life or a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

[aberratio ictus]

I think it's amazing how noones commented on how cool that pic of Blackguard Miko looks :D

I tried to resist... until now...

It looks darn cool :P

@ wowy319

Well, yes. I think the point is, that I'm convinced that intentions and the individual's point of view matter, whereas you obviously think they don't matter.

Of course it is an evil act to kill a defenseless old man who was of good alignment, but Miko thought he was a evil manipulator who worked together with Xycon.
So she has made a mistake, that's for sure. But doesn't that change the situation a little bit? She didn't intend to do evil, after all.


As far as the missing proof is concerned... characters who react chaotic don't need any proof, if they are really convinced of something. The need for certain proof is something for lawful charakters.


Almost forgot something... I want to announce that I second everything Aliquid says. He's just right^^


edit: Oh, and wowy... your webcomic sucks. -.-

[Demented]

If intent mattered, the delusional could do anything they like, because of what they believe. Anything, justified, could be done without consequence. Evil would become subjective, because Good would become little more than an absurd distinction between those who justify their actions and those who don't.



Also, the difference between Lawful and Chaotic is not lawful and chaotic, it's organized versus impulsive. A Chaotic character will do what she feels... for a Chaotic Good character, that means that what she feels like doing will be Good. A Lawful character will follow law and tradition in her actions... for a Lawful Good character, that means that she will follow Good law and Good tradition.

A Chaotic character is still sane enough to realize that doing anything without proof will be a waste of her time, at best, and will be riddled with consequences at worst. It is hardly different from the actions of a Lawful character. The difference is that a Chaotic character will do it spontaneously out of emotion, while a Lawful character will do it with justification and reason.


And yes, his webcomic sucks. But I'm already a zombie. We stare blankly at one another for a few moments, then lurch off in seperate directions.

[Druid]

We're not discussing some random mortal. We are talking about the manifestation of Evil itself in physical form. You can't redeem that; there's nothing to redeem.

If evil can't be redeamed than it stands to reason that good cannot fall. We now that the scond is false in both the bible and DnD (Bealzebul and Marakel come to mind as examples of manifestations of Good tiself in physical form that turned to evil) so why is it impossible for for evil to be redeamed?

[Tokiko Mima]

If evil can't be redeamed than it stands to reason that good cannot fall. We now that the scond is false in both the bible and DnD (Bealzebul and Marakel come to mind as examples of manifestations of Good tiself in physical form that turned to evil) so why is it impossible for for evil to be redeamed?

Umm.. both those guys you mentioned literally became devils. There is downward progression for demigod angels that results in demigod devils/demons. There is no upward progression for the reverse of that to happen. So no, this doesn't work from reverse; just like you don't have "fallen" Blackguards that become Paladins.

[Druid]

I'm not talking about fiends turning into celestials, I'm talking about fiends being able to leave behind their evil origins and change alignment. If a celestial who is just as much a manifestation of good as a fiend is of evil can turn to evil than what's stopping a fiend from changing its alignment?

Furthermore I'd like to see you cite some rules that allow for celestials to fall from good. To my knowledge none exist, only a few vague stories confirming the possibility.

[Demented]

Beelzebul and marakel.... are there DnD examples for those?

[Druid]

In DnD Bealzebul was a celestial who now rules the, iirc, 7th layer of hell. Marakel was a solar who was a champion of Hieronious before he fell from good.

[Renegade Paladin]

Malkizid was a solar in the service of Corellon Larethian who fell with the drow after he started working for Lolth. (This one might be Forgotten Realms exclusive; I'm not sure, given that the fallen drow seem to span almost every campaign setting.) Asmodeus, Dispater, and Mephistopholes themselves were once angels, but that was back in the primordial days of the creation of Oerth/Toril/wherever when the primary concern was holding back primal chaos rather than good vs. evil, so whether they were ever actually good is uncertain. But a certain succubus paladin aside, there don't seem to be a whole lot of fiends ascending... and besides, both events happen so rarely that it would simply be a waste of a mortal's time to try to bring them about.

[Tokiko Mima]

What RP said.. the event of a creature from the Upper Planes falling to the Lower Planes is incredibly rare and usually involves the will of greater gods and Powers-so-great-they-remain-Unnamed. The reverse happening is practically unheard of. The examples you quoted were RL angels and I try to avoid quoting stuff from RL religon on this board, lest we invoke the Wrath of Mod.

I didn't mean to imply that fiends cant change alignment. They can, and often do. But they remain Evil and can't shake their subtype. Rules here:


Evil Subtype (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype)
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

So no matter how many good deeds a Succubus does, no matter how nice it is, it's still an Evil creature at it's core and can never escape that (without involving broken polymorph subtype rules.) To be fair, Celestial creatures are just as locked in to their "Goodness" but fall much more often and usually for narrative reasons.

[BardicLasher]

That Succubus Paladin's a pretty strong example, though. She's a pretty blatant confirmation that evil CAN turn good. It's still rare, but I think that whether or not killing Sabine would be evil or not, Miko doesn't want to get in WORSE trouble by killing another prisoner.

[Druid]

What RP said.. the event of a creature from the Upper Planes falling to the Lower Planes is incredibly rare and usually involves the will of greater gods and Powers-so-great-they-remain-Unnamed. The reverse happening is practically unheard of. The examples you quoted were RL angels and I try to avoid quoting stuff from RL religon on this board, lest we invoke the Wrath of Mod.

While I see how my post could have been more clear, I was refering to the DnD versions of both Bealzebul and Marakel.

[Effovex]

The Kingpriest had long before turned to evil. Holding him up as an example of a beacon of good is flawed at the very least.

The Kingpriest was the ultimate authority on "good", and believed himself to be acting for the greater good. He was actually "evil", blinded by intolerance and hatred, but I don't see how that clashes with what I was saying. He tried eradicating all the troublesome races so that the "good" races could live "in harmony". You're confusing me now. When the Kingpriest tries to eradicate all evil for the greater good, he's evil, but when a "good" character tries to do the same, he's good? Do you need the author to remind you of the characters alignment to understand an act's moral vacuity?


lying/stealing/cheating isn't good, and it isn't evil. It is chaotic.


Funny...



Again, to quote the rules, "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." I fail to see how slaughter can possibly relate to altruism, respect for life or a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

So how respectful of someone's dignity are you when you lie to, steal from or cheat him or her? If you don't think being stolen from is an attack on your dignity, then you've never had anything important stolen from you.

There are times when "respect for life" and "concern for dignity" will clash - lying to save someone else's skin is a good act, because telling the truth would mean sacrifice that person to your beliefs, which is evil. Self-sacrifice is the only "good" sacrifice. So there are occasions where a "good" character will have to lie. A chaotic character will be more likely to do it, because since his code is his own, he can understand when they need to be bent. A lawful character will only lie in the parameters his code allows him to: if the code says, you may only lie to save someone else from greater harm, then he'll lie in those circumstances. If the code says "you must not lie, ever" then a lawful character cannot in good faith lie - again, sometimes your duties will clash, and you are forced to pick the lesser of two evil. That's what Durkon does when Miko interrogates him after the OOTS attempts to escape from prison - he presents the truth in a way that is deceitful but not an outright lie.

Yeah, ethics are complex.


That's a bit of a strawman argument, since it's fairly obvious that the Tau's vision of 'The Greater Good' is propaganda. When they say 'The Greater Good', they mean 'The Agenda of the Tau Race'.

How I understand the Tau argument (I don't play warhammer): if humans killing demons is justifiable because "they're beings of pure evil", why is Tau killing humans not justifiable, if according to them humans are beings of pure evil? I do not believe the Tau are justified, but I do not believe that killing demons for no reason other than their status as "evil" beings is justifiable either. Accepting one but not the other seems hypocritical.


And I agree.... so where did we disagree?


Actually, we don't agree. You say that a chaotic character cannot have ethics. I'm saying a chaotic character can have ethics, but they're his own, while a lawful character trusts someone else's. While this is not ever clearly said in D&D, that's actually the most consistent way to explain the various alignment pairs as they are described, I think.

[Darilian]

...And THIS is why I generally play DnD WITHOUT the alignment system. It just gets to silly when you try and actually figure it all out.

The closest that I ever saw the alignment system came to working was the old Planescape model- where they took each of the different 'alignments' and linked them up to more modern philosophical positions. Thus, the Chaotic Neutrals were libertarian thinkers, the LE were more 'Fascist' in their thinking, the LG more 'Nanny State'. I NEVER liked the idea that evil was 'concrete'- by the very definition of ethics, evil is a state of being- others perceive evil by the actions undertaken by that person.

Anyhoo, back to OOTS- I always feel that the comic's point is to put a finger in the eyes of all the people out there who take DnD a little TOOOO seriously, and actually try and make the weaker part of the game 'work'- alignments, races, classes (to take three of my favorite whipping boys). Its a method of telling stories, boys and girls, and nothing more. If it gets in the way of telling a good story, and having a good time, then ignore it. And I feel that Rich follows that line of thinking quite often in his comic- which is why I like it so much.

My $.02. Your mileage may vary.

Darilian

[Aliquid]

lying to save someone else's skin is a good act, because telling the truth would mean sacrifice that person to your beliefs, which is evil.Right there you provide an example where lying can be good. The point is, lying in and of itself isn't good or evil, it completely depends on the situation, it depends on why you are lying.


again, sometimes your duties will clash, and you are forced to pick the lesser of two evil.If a Lawful Good character runs into this situation it isn't the lesser of two evils, it is the lesser of evil vs chaos. They have to pick which is more important to them, being lawful, or being good, or find a loophole. A lawful neutral or lawful evil person wouldn't hesitate to tell the truth when that truth could cause harm.

Yeah, ethics are complex. In real life, sure. But this is a simulation of real life and things are a bit different. They don't have to be so complex in D&D, because in D&D they are absolutes.


How I understand the Tau argument (I don't play warhammer): if humans killing demons is justifiable because "they're beings of pure evil", why is Tau killing humans not justifiable, if according to them humans are beings of pure evil? I do not believe the Tau are justified, but I do not believe that killing demons for no reason other than their status as "evil" beings is justifiable either. Accepting one but not the other seems hypocritical.This has no relevance to the issue. We are talking about alignments in D&D, not warhammer, and not in real life.


Actually, we don't agree.Actually I did agree with everything you said in that specific post, you just seem to apply that information differently.

You say that a chaotic character cannot have ethics.I didn't say can not, they just don't care about ethics as much as a lawful character would. They are willing to bend their ethics when they think it would be benificial to do so.

While this is not ever clearly said in D&D, that's actually the most consistent way to explain the various alignment pairs as they are described, I think.There is no consistent way to explain the alignment pairs in D&D.... The biggest problem is that we all superimpose our own ethic and moral values into the system before we interpret them.

[Yogi]

Weather or not it is ethical to kill Evil-subtype creatures that get a good alignment, or even if they CAN get a good alignment, isn't really relevant. Sabine was trying to turn someone into a Blackguard, clearly an evil act. Ergo, she is an evil being committing an evil act. Weather or not what Miko did was lawful depends on knowledge we don't.

If intent was all that mattered in determining evil acts, then someone could be absolutely crazy and be committing atrocities, but still have a good alignment. Miko might have had a leg to stand on if a reasonable person of average Int and Wis would be fooled into thinking that Shojo was in league with evil, and that killing him was the only way to go. That doesn't really apply here, and the gods are usually quite objective. Even so, the Gods wouldn't give power to someone who is so easily fooled.

[Kreistor]

Weather or not what Miko did was lawful depends on knowledge we don't.

Miko says in #203, "Your guilt or innocence, in the absence of an Evil alignment, is not for me to determine." Miko, at least, is of the opinion that she can judge people guilty based solely on their alignment. Since, at the time of the quote Miko was LG, that would presume that doing this would at least be Lawful to her (ie. part of her Code of operation).

However, Shojo stops her from killing Belkar in #285, pointing out that it is the courts that are responsible for determining whether Belkar was guilty or innocent of the crime of murder. If Miko were permitted to judge based on alignment inside the borders of AC, she could have simply said, "He Detects as Evil, my lord. I have the legal right to kill him." She didn't press the case.

That would suggest that Miko's extraordinary legal powers in #203 do not extend to AC, due to #285.

Since the paladins of the SG were part of the system whereby Sabine was imprisoned, and they did not kill Sabine on sight, then we must presume that the protections of AC law towards suspects extends to all intelligent creatures, regardless of Type. Sabine should have been slaughtered long ago, if the paladins were permitted to legally do so. So, we can draw the conclusion that all prisoners are protected from summary execution based on Type and Alignment.

Thus, Miko did not have the legal right to judge Sabine based on alignment inside the borders of AC even when she was a Paladin of the SG, and even if she personally still felt she was still empowered as such, she still did not have the legal right to attempt to execute Sabine.

[Renegade Paladin]

What RP said.. the event of a creature from the Upper Planes falling to the Lower Planes is incredibly rare and usually involves the will of greater gods and Powers-so-great-they-remain-Unnamed. The reverse happening is practically unheard of. The examples you quoted were RL angels and I try to avoid quoting stuff from RL religon on this board, lest we invoke the Wrath of Mod.
Given that they're also Lords of the Nine in default and Forgotten Realms D&D, using them as examples on a D&D board is rather unavoidable.

How I understand the Tau argument (I don't play warhammer): if humans killing demons is justifiable because "they're beings of pure evil", why is Tau killing humans not justifiable, if according to them humans are beings of pure evil? I do not believe the Tau are justified, but I do not believe that killing demons for no reason other than their status as "evil" beings is justifiable either. Accepting one but not the other seems hypocritical.
And here we run into this stumbling block again: Daemons in Warhammer are pure evil. Literally. They are the Warp manifestation of negative emotions, and have literally no interest in anything else. They work only toward the domination and destruction of every sapient race in the galaxy. It's impossible to encounter a daemon in WH40K that isn't doing something that would justify you killing it.

[N0-1_H3r3]

That Succubus Paladin's a pretty strong example, though. She's a pretty blatant confirmation that evil CAN turn good.
Yeah, but being a Succubus Paladin really screws up your Detect Evil ability... given that she shows up as at least a moderate evil aura (Outsider of Evil subtype)... it'd be like trying to use heat vision from inside an oven...


And here we run into this stumbling block again: Daemons in Warhammer are pure evil. Literally. They are the Warp manifestation of negative emotions, and have literally no interest in anything else. They work only toward the domination and destruction of every sapient race in the galaxy. It's impossible to encounter a daemon in WH40K that isn't doing something that would justify you killing it.
You'd be surprised. There is no 'good' or 'evil' in the Warhammer World or the 40k Universe. Such concepts, as in real life, are entirely subjective, and the Warhammer settings are ones filled with shades of grey. Daemons in the Warhammer World and 40k Universe are amoral, but that's because they're manifest personifications of single extreme emotions (not necessarily negative emotions - Slaanesh, afterall, is self-indulgence; enjoying yourself isn't bad... but enjoying yourself to the exclusion of all else is), rather than sentient beings in their own right. A Khornate Daemon personifies rage, and by extension, warfare - they are formed of nothing but anger and hatred and unrestrained fury... it doesn't make them evil. It just makes them dangerous.

In regards to the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness... I want more books like that, if only to laugh at their overly-constrained morality. I want a Book of Vague Indifference for Neutral characters, a Book of Random Decisions for Chaotic characters (filled with random tables to determine any decision or action you might ever want!), and a Book of Inflexible Traditions for Lawful characters...:smallbiggrin:

[Tilian]

But it's true. Demons and Devils are so twisted to the cause of Evil that their very existance supports Evil itself. Ending that existance therefore is a Good act regardless of what Sabrine is saying or doing at the time. If Sabrine became a nun, devoted her life to charity and ran an orphanage for a century or three it would still not be an Evil act to slay her. Demons/Devils can't be redeemed, period. They simple ARE a living manifestation of Evil.


I really have issues with this line of thinking. Besides the fact that fiends can be redeemed(or at least move away from evil, a la the LN succubus Fall-From-Grace in Planescape:Torment), they can also lose the [evil] subtype in a number of ways, including the Ritual of Alignment in Savage Species.

Killing a being that is truly penitent solely because of its ingrained nature(be it a mark on the spirit or just a part of its physical make-up) that it is actively rebelling against cannot and should not be blindly accepted as a good act. Remember, redeeming the wicked is better than simply eradicating them. It's just harder to do.

I'm not saying redeemed fiends are common or anything, it's just that it is possible. And being among the rarest of the rare of occurrences in the D&D multiverse(Planescape reality structure for life!), it would be in Good's best interests to aid those creatures in their journey towards redemption rather than stamping them out.

What does more for Good? A dead fiend that was trying to change its ways or one that actually makes it and serves as a shining example of the...er...goodness....of Good?

[AK-00]

I fail to see how killing a defenseless old man, for whatever reason, can be construed as a good act, ever.

Because he was a lying, double-dealing son of a bitch who'd been playing an entire city state for a bunch of saps for decades, and therefore deserved it?

And I'm sorry, but Shojo was in a castle full of paladins sworn to defend him to the death, one of whom was in the room with him, along with a pair of mercenaries in Shojos employ. This is clearly some strange new definition of the term "defenceless" that I've not previously encountered.

Man, D&Ds idea of "good" and "evil" is irredeemably screwed up. This is why I always play chaotic neutral, and make my own damn rules.

[SmartAlec]

I really have issues with this line of thinking. Besides the fact that fiends can be redeemed(or at least move away from evil, a la the LN succubus Fall-From-Grace in Planescape:Torment)

From what I remember of Grace, her existence is a continual struggle against her own nature. She learned focus and patience while in captivity, but if she lasped and let herself go, she'd find herself resorting back to type. That is the nature of her 'Torment' (all the NPCs in PS:T have one).


What does more for Good? A dead fiend that was trying to change its ways or one that actually makes it and serves as a shining example of the...er...goodness....of Good?

Actually, from a Planar point of view? Good/Evil segregation for the win. If transcending from evil to good and back again could be achieved readily, then the forces that hold Celestia and the Abyss apart could very well weaken - resulting in both planes losing their 'opposition' status and them collapsing together, resulting in the squashing of everything in between and the entire reshaping of the cosmos, which would be disastrous.

Thought about in that light, I think the various Powers of Good know what they're doing.

[SmartAlec]

Because he was a lying, double-dealing son of a bitch who'd been playing an entire city state for a bunch of saps for decades, and therefore deserved it?

Bit harsh, considering it was clear he didn't have a choice -there were people in his city prepared to send trained assassins after him for MEAT LOAF DAY, give the guy a break.

[Alfryd]

*sigh* It looks like there isn't going to be friendly contact with an evil outsider.

She'd look like a stick figure.
That can be rectified.
http://home.graffiti.net/alfryd:graffiti.net/MikoDark.png

I'm totally waiting for somebody with enough free time and photoshop skills on their hand to do some disturbing fan art showing the "friendly contact with an outsider".
I'm not sure I could even spoiler that.

She did not kill him with Malice... She was completely convinced that he was evil...
Yeah, but a more balanced assessment of the available evidence should and would have led her to take a more lenient stance. As Roy pointed out, her conclusion was preconceived, after which she ignored any contrary interpretations.
Besides, her first priority should have been the defence of the city. Secondly, killing Shojo could well plunge the city into chaos, between the power struggles and attendant morale problems, a fact made all the worse given the imminent invasion. Last, but not least, how the hell did she expect to get away with it? Even if she'd had complete justification, she's still going to be arrested, depriving the city of it's most powerful defender, or have to fight her way out, which also inflcts a lot of damage on the home team. Subdual damage would have kept him out of mischief for long enough to orchestrate a defence.
There was no way that a rational, moral assessment of the situation would have allowed for her course of action. Though apparently, Shojo seems to prefer being dead.

She can not become redeemed until she comes to terms with falling.
Besides a good deal else.
Miko's prospects for redemption are not especially good at present. Though I'm curious as to why more people aren't grilling Roy on how, exactly, Xykon *did* survive and how the OOTS managed to meet up with him in the first place. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.


The road to hell is paved with good intention.
Oh, but the road to elysium is paved with lemon gumdrops.

Now if someone did something "evil" for what they saw as "the greater good"...
Theft is always, in theory, an act of evil, insofar as you're diminishing resources available to someone. To rob from the rich and give to the poor is to commit an evil act in the name of a rather greater good. Cheating and Lying are also, in their way, evils to varying degrees, as someone usually ends up shafted as a result. Most decisions have consequences which will either adversely affect or benefit some other sentient creature, however slightly. You can't escape it. We all make Chaotic choices.

But what do you mean by "greater good" anyways? Slaughtering and neutering large amounts of humans constitutes the "greater good" for the Tau Empire in War40k.
Okay, I'm gonna rant now, so I'll just conserve space.
I was under the impression the Tau were among the few galactic species willing to incorporate various Xeno into their culture without overt coercion and try to live in general peace and harmony whenever practical. Several human worlds voluntarily seceeded to their empire, and they've fought to keep them. They've fought pre-emptive wars, but under the circumstances, who hasn't? Neutering beats conventional genocide. So ...the Tau are, what, TN, at worst?
Imperium? LE.
Chaos Hordes? CE.
Eldar? TN, but utterly impotent.
Dark Eldar? CE.
Orks? CE.
Tyranids? CN, but in such a way that they still long only to devour all known life.
Necrons? NE and how.
So, given your options, who would you rather see dominate the galaxy?
Despite their flaws, the Tau are progressive, cultured, tolerant, egalitarian and altruist, qualities which they have sincerely and repeatedly demonstrated. And let's bear in mind the Human Imperium would sterilise every last ball of rock they inhabited from orbit and re-seed later without a second thought, as they have done with scores of inoffensive primitive species during their time. The Tau really ARE fighting for their very right to exist. The Imperium is a fundamentalist autocracy where all original thought, moral, scientific, political, cultural or social progress is brutally repressed at the whim of a ruling elite, and routinely sacrifices it's own citizenry on the altar of theocratic hubris. And it's not gonna get any better. Ever. It's only bid for survival is to lock itself into perpetual stagnation my any means neccesary, or it would collapse under internal stresses, but now that enemies have shown up who are better organised, more numerous, and more technologically advanced than they are, the Imperium is essentially doomed. The Tau are the ONLY race with any hope, however vanishingly slim, of securing a future where sentient beings, with free will, can live in peace while savouring the mental and physical pleasures of life. They're willing to take anyone amiable- even humans- who tried their damndest to annihalate their entire race- along for the ride.
LONG LIVE HUMANITY! DEATH TO THE EMPEROR! DEATH TO THE IMPERIUM OF MAN! FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

[SmartAlec]

The Tau are the ONLY race with any hope, however vanishingly slim, of securing a future where sentient beings, with free will, can live in peace while savouring the mental and physical pleasures of life.

Remember: in 40K, there are no Good Guys. Not even the Tau.

The trouble with the Tau is, they don't believe in a 'divine right' to rule the Galaxy, like the Imperium of Mankind do. They believe, instead, that they are simply morally and ethically superior to everyone. It might well be true, but it's a poor reason to believe they should be in charge. That's the 'darker side' of the Tau, if you will. The Imperium destroy what they don't understand, the Tau conquer what they can't bring into their Empire by diplomacy because it's for that race's 'own good'.

Worse, they combine their assumed ethical superiority with an idealistic, Tau-supremacist attitude. They think there's no race, however unreasonable, they can't deal with. They think there's no challenge, no matter how difficult, they can't use their technology to overcome. In the galaxy of the 41st Millenium, that's just not the case. The Imperium, for all its' dark-age barbarity, has it right; when it comes to survival of your species in a bleak, hostile Galaxy, shoot first, don't bother to ask questions.

As an example, Hive Fleet Kraken is starting to encroach on Tau space. The Tau are exactly the kind of suckers who would split up to search a Space Hulk more quickly, or who would try to make peaceful contact with a Tyranid hiveship. I think they're about to get their first taste of how really nasty the Galaxy can get. They don't have any real notion of Chaos, either - the few recorded contacts the Tau Empire have had with Daemons, they've written off Daemons as being some kind of new genetic strain or alien race. They think the idea of Daemons in the Warp is Imperial propaganda or superstition. Hoo boy, are they in for a wake-up call.

So when you say they're the only hope - I don't think so. Either they'll stay small and eventually they'll be crushed, or they'll become large and they'll collapse because their approach to ruling the Galaxy is too naive and reasonable. I simply can't imagine the Tau managing to succeed if their Empire became as large as the Imperium - not unless they do a LOT of re-evaluation in their approach to galactic conquest.

[chibibar]

remember, Miko still believes that she is doing good. She is Lawful in her own mind (at least at this point) and she won't do evil intentionally. Miko still know what is good and evil in terms of black and white.

[FujinAkari]

I fail to see how killing a defenseless old man, for whatever reason, can be construed as a good act, ever.I don't think that anyone honestly thinks it was a -good- act, but many (myself included) believe it wasn't evil, but Chaotic, chaotic neutral if you will.

Here's why: Miko's desire to disregard the orders of her superior and put an end to his actions was justifiable. Hinjo wanted to do the same thing. Her failing was that the way she wanted to stop him was not to arrest him (the lawful course of action) but to murder him (chaotic.)

Regardless of circumstances, Shojo DID rig a trial, DID falsely arrest the OOTS, and WAS holding men for an indeterminate amount of time without granting them a trial. He wasn't exactly a good man, and acting against him wasn't an evil act.

Now, later, she tried to kill Hinjo, and THAT was evil.

[Lizard Lord]

The distinction between Chaotic and Lawful means nothing to me in D&D. What if your character has no respect for the laws of men, but only lives by his own law. Is he lawful or chaotic? He may be very constant and moral, but still be constantly fighting the law. Isn't that what Ghandi was doing?

"A good mean is better than a good end" is one of the defining points of morality. It means you are willing to sacrifice yourself to get to the end, because the end might be detrimental to you. And "the end justifies the mean" is definitely the polar opposite - selfish acts where you are ready to sacrifice others to your cause. "Your own good" may not be entirely selfish - you may be trying to help those you love, for instance, but you're doing it at the detriment of someone else. Us vs them.
And that is why they have neutral

[Tilian]

From what I remember of Grace, her existence is a continual struggle against her own nature. She learned focus and patience while in captivity, but if she lasped and let herself go, she'd find herself resorting back to type. That is the nature of her 'Torment' (all the NPCs in PS:T have one).

And the fact that she can even struggle against her nature speaks volumes. Fiends that find the capacity to do so shouldn't be struck down, but instead given guidance and aid. Just because it isn't an easy journey doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.


Actually, from a Planar point of view? Good/Evil segregation for the win. Easier said than done on the Great Wheel, as interconnected as it is.


If transcending from evil to good and back again could be achieved readily, then the forces that hold Celestia and the Abyss apart could very well weaken - resulting in both planes losing their 'opposition' status and them collapsing together, resulting in the squashing of everything in between and the entire reshaping of the cosmos, which would be disastrous.What evidence is given to support this though? If anything, evil beings being redeemed would only help to balance the scales, because every time I've seen an example of piece of outer planar property shifting in alignment, it's been downwards, from that one level of Arcadia to that chunk of Mount Celestia featured in a recent campaign compendium put out by WotC themselvesChained City. And then there's all the fallen angels...

If anything, Good needs to work towards redeeming those seeking it, not just because that act is in itself good, but because evil isn't going to stop doing the reverse any time soon.


Thought about in that light, I think the various Powers of Good know what they're doing.
But where have any Powers of Good worthy of being call such specifically stated "slay good and neutral fiends, no excuses"? Any power that would have such a being cut down rather than guiding it towards good really isn't worthy of the alignment.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across a bit strong, it's just that the notion of absolutism being carried to the extreme of slaughtering those with the potential to change for the better(and are actively seeking to do so) somewhat disturbs me when it's held high as a virtue of goodness.

[Tilian]

I don't think that anyone honestly thinks it was a -good- act, but many (myself included) believe it wasn't evil, but Chaotic, chaotic neutral if you will.

Here's why: Miko's desire to disregard the orders of her superior and put an end to his actions was justifiable. Hinjo wanted to do the same thing. Her failing was that the way she wanted to stop him was not to arrest him (the lawful course of action) but to murder him (chaotic.)

Regardless of circumstances, Shojo DID rig a trial, DID falsely arrest the OOTS, and WAS holding men for an indeterminate amount of time without granting them a trial. He wasn't exactly a good man, and acting against him wasn't an evil act.


Except Shojo was a good man. He had to work with what he was given, protecting something of vast importance to existence and keeping his city out of the hands of squabbling nobles. He made difficult choices, but necessary ones. He was chaotic(possibly neutral) good, not something neutral.

And striking down a defenseless old man is pretty much always an evil act. Maybe if Miko had actually struck at someone who could have actually posed an immediate threat to anyone, she might not have fallen(immediately at least). If she truly believed that Roy and the OotS were colluding with Shojo and Xykon, it would have been more reasonable(as far as her delusions go) to go after the two Order members present.

[Alfryd]

Either they'll stay small and eventually they'll be crushed, or they'll become large and they'll collapse because their approach to ruling the Galaxy is too naive and reasonable.
Like I said, it's a vanishingly slim hope. But the Imperium ain't doin' no better, and rather worse.

Hoo boy, are they in for a wake-up call...
...unless they do a LOT of re-evaluation in their approach to galactic conquest.
I disagree. You may recall that the Tau have had plenty of dealings with the Orks, and indeed made several attempts at peaceful parlay with the race initially, but wised up pretty fast, and now take a definite 'shoot first and shoot again later' approach to the bastards.
(Commander Farsight's ethnic-cleansing escapades also signal that they're willing to do the dirty work if push comes to shove, but his actions have been roundly condemned by the ethereals. It's possible this will turn out to be the Tau's own miniature Horus Heresy.)
I also disagree that unconditional genocide is the best way to go about securing the survival of your own species. The Tau, purely, it seems, out of the goodness of their hearts, resuced the Kroot from Orkish assaults, and as a result have picked up mercenary allies who plug a nice gap in their melee capacities. Then there are the Vespids, and I'm hopeful human cadres of some shape or form will make a belated appearance. The Tau have shown tolerance and compassion toward races which the Imperium would have absent-mindedly nuked, and are all the stronger for it. To the Imperium, change, growth and diversity are at least as fatal as any external foe. The Tau make them into virtues.
And because of this, the Tau don't neccesarily even need to stay united in order to provide some glimmer of salvation for sentient life. Like the Tyranids, in the long run it doesn't matter if they squabble internally, because the victor would emerge the stronger for the contest- unlike the Imperium, they have the cultural and intellectual flexibility to adapt rapidly and learn from mistakes. Even before the Ethereals turned up, their pace of technological advance was scary. If they keep this up, they'll match the Eldar or Necrons within a few millennia, neither of which had particular trouble administering a galactic empire.
(Okay, so the prior examples had that little problem of unleashing world-consuming deities at the height of their power. But those are details.)

They believe, instead, that they are simply morally and ethically superior to everyone. It might well be true, but it's a poor reason to believe they should be in charge.
Y'know, I can't really think of a better one. Given that they put up with the Kroot's unpleasant habit of cannibalism and renting themselves to foreign powers, hoping they'll eventually learn from the Tau's shining example- If the Tau can stomach that, I don't really see the massive downside to Tau oppression.
"Thanks for the Boom-Boom Stick mister Tau! I'm gonna go play with the Eldar now! Yay!"

The Imperium destroy what they don't understand, the Tau conquer what they can't bring into their Empire by diplomacy because it's for that race's 'own good'.
When has this actually been the case? The human worlds of the 3rd sphere seceeded voluntarily, the Vespids came along voluntarily (as far as we can tell,) and the Kroot come along of their own accord. The one case where they've launched pre-emptive wars of assimilation were against the Imperium, busily engaged in trying to wipe them out whenever they have a breathing space between the Tyranids, Orks, and whatever heretic outburst is in vogue ATM. It's seems to me establishing some kind of buffer zone against that enemy would be essential.
It's not even like the Aliance in Firefly, where the Confederates posed no significant threat to the Core. There's no evidence the Tau wouldn't have respected official overtures of truce and alliance from the Imperium had they been forthcoming straight-off, trusting instead to cultural influence to gradually subvert human worlds from within. Not that that was going to happen. Let's bear in mind the Imperium ostensibly wants to eradicate the Tau because they don't affix the proper prayer-seals to their plasma rifles.

[The Familiar]

Since the paladins of the SG were part of the system whereby Sabine was imprisoned, and they did not kill Sabine on sight, then we must presume that the protections of AC law towards suspects extends to all intelligent creatures, regardless of Type. Sabine should have been slaughtered long ago, if the paladins were permitted to legally do so. So, we can draw the conclusion that all prisoners are protected from summary execution based on Type and Alignment.

Most of the SG probably aren't even aware there's a fiend in their prison, since she and the rest of the Linear Guild aren't on any prison records. O-chul--and the prison guards--are aware, but also know Lord Shojo gave specific orders for those three: essentially lock them up and throw away the key. Why his lord made their existences a "state secret" was confusing and uncomfortable for O-chul (it's what got the discussion Hinjo and Miko overheard rolling in the first place)--then again, he also knows the Sapphire Guard itself and its reason for existence are also state secrets.

But yes: it has more to do with accused, but innocent until proven guilty than guilt by racial profiling (Type and Alignment).


Thus, Miko did not have the legal right to judge Sabine based on alignment inside the borders of AC even when she was a Paladin of the SG, and even if she personally still felt she was still empowered as such, she still did not have the legal right to attempt to execute Sabine.

Not that I check the stats of monsters much (I like surprises, even unpleasant ones when I game), but I'm going out on a limb and assume that a an evil Outsider like Sabine is tough to kill with weapons, let alone a fighter's own bare hands. I propose that Miko was fully aware that she couldn't kill Sabine outright, but still used a Monk chiropractic technique to make her answer to the fiend's...propositions...crystal clear. :smallwink:

[SmartAlec]

Getting way off topic here - might end up moved to the Other Games threads at this rate.


Like I said, it's a vanishingly slim hope. But the Imperium ain't doin' no better, and rather worse.

That's an interesting point of view, considering that the Tau might be thought of as an example of what Humanity was like during the beginning of the the mythical Dark Age of Technology, and that the Imperium was formed out of the chaos that occurred when that Age came to an end. Bearing in mind that the Imperium has weathered the Age of Strife, the Horus Heresy, and everything that comes after and still controls a sizeable portion of the galaxy, they're not doing that badly.

For a slightly better glimpse into Imperial society and how it does have its' redeeming features, a culture, and a civilisation that actually seems worthy of preservation, I recommend the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies, both by Dan Abnett.


Y'know, I can't really think of a better one.

I don't meant to imply that the Tau are morally or ethically superior. I am saying that they believe themselves to be, and that is their motivation for imperialist expansion. That reason isn't any better than the Imperium's motivation to conquer the Galaxy in the name of the Emperor.


When has this actually been the case?

This is an example of how an army-book often gives the 'sunny side' of an army only. I know my reply's already turning into a Black Library advertisement, but I recommend the Last Chancers novel Kill Team, by Gav Thorpe, and the Ciaphas Cain novel For the Emperor, by Sandy Mitchell, for an outside look at the Tau and a few examples of races that were brought into their Empire by 'armed diplomacy'.

Also, both books give a good example of the insufferable holier-than-thou smugness of the Tau. Through one of its' main characters, Kill Team also makes the interesting point that the Tau actually seem less adaptable in some ways than the Imperium - whereas Humanity have adapted to survive on desert worlds, ice worlds, hive worlds, jungle worlds etc etc, the Tau continue to colonise and terraform planets, trying to make planets that suit their natural habitats. The character then goes on to speculate what insight this gives him into the Tau psyche.

To paraphrase, "The Tau don't really adapt themselves - all they do is try to copy themselves from world to world to world. They're not prepared to change their way of life to suit the Galaxy. And that's why we'll beat them in the end."


The Tau have shown tolerance and compassion toward races which the Imperium would have absent-mindedly nuked, and are all the stronger for it.

That may be the case at the moment, but once you scale up and try to imagine the myriad races in the Galaxy that would become part of the Tau Empire, you have to wonder if it's really going to hold together. Either they'll eventually be forced to devote a lot of time and politics to inter-empire diplomacy between their various allies, or they'll have to continue treating non-Tau as an underclass. Both avenues offer potential problems.

After all, it's not out of the goodness of their hearts that the Tau are bringing in different alien races. The Tau want to 're-educate', and if they expand, that's going to become harder and harder as their Empire gets more and more diverse.

The Tau-Kroot alliance is probably the most solid one they have, and a good example, as even that one isn't 100% solid - the Tau attitude towards Kroot culture is somewhat condescending, viewing the Kroot as a people 'who really don't know any better' and should be taught the error of their ways, whereas the Kroot are quietly but stubbornly resisting the Tau attempts to rid them of cannibalism, fearing the stagnation of their race.


There's no evidence the Tau wouldn't have respected official overtures of truce and alliance from the Imperium had they been forthcoming straight-off, trusting instead to cultural influence to gradually subvert human worlds from within. Not that that was going to happen. Let's bear in mind the Imperium ostensibly wants to eradicate the Tau because they don't affix the proper prayer-seals to their plasma rifles.

A little harsh on the Imperium - the Imperium want to eradicate the Tau because they represent a long-term threat to the Imperium. That cultural seepage is already occurring. The illegal Tau technology available on Necromunda is a good example.

[Kreistor]

A little harsh on the Imperium - the Imperium want to eradicate the Tau because they represent a long-term threat to the Imperium. That cultural seepage is already occurring. The illegal Tau technology available on Necromunda is a good example.

The Imperium has learned their lesson -- the Tau have not.

Everything is sunshine and lollipops for the Tau because they are young. Compare Tau now to Imperium in its heyday -- there's not much difference, from what little we know. Humanity exploded into the galaxy, conquering everywhere it went, but there is no evidence that they did this in their current "exterminate" method.

Humanity fell because of the mutations that introduced psykers into the gene pool. The Tau have not had such a devastating problem occur, and it looks like it would be thousands of years before it does happen. The Tau, then, can afford idealism.

Humanity cannot. They have been burned by too many races to think that any long term (thousands of years) alliance is possible. Their experience is that eventually they'll come for us anyway, so take them all out now. It's a pragmatists approach. It's the approach of an Empire facing too many enemies.

The Tau have a lot of lessons to be learned. They can afford idealism now, but what will they be like once they drive humanity away from their defences around the Eye of Terror? Or when they learn the true size of the Tyranid Hive Fleets and the scale of the destruction the real invasion will bring? The Tau don't know how long the wars in this galaxy have gone on -- will their lofty idealism survive the grit of endless annihilation and the death of worlds?

That's all beyond the scope of WH40K. The Tau will always be like they are now because that's what the designers need them to be.

[SmartAlec]

What evidence is given to support this though? If anything, evil beings being redeemed would only help to balance the scales, because every time I've seen an example of piece of outer planar property shifting in alignment, it's been downwards

There is a Planar 'creaton myth' from 2nd Ed. that runs something along these lines: That Asmodeus fell from some lofty height, and his descent created the Nine Hells. The resultant and sudden Oppostion between Good and Evil created the forces that brought the Planes into existence. Ergo, if those forces were weakened and Good and Evil became too interchangeable, you could theorise that the Planes would collapse in on themselves. A worrying thought.

As far as the former Third layer of Arcadia goes, that was a result of the Plane becoming more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good thanks to an invasion of Formians. If the Layer had instead suffered from a colossal mass invasion of Archons (not that Archons do that kind of thing), it stands to reason that perhaps the layer would have moved upwards to Celestia.


If anything, Good needs to work towards redeeming those seeking it, not just because that act is in itself good, but because evil isn't going to stop doing the reverse any time soon.

That's the way things are. The forces of Good don't really *need* to do that at all - they're interested in Good Mortals, because Good Mortals become Petitioners, and Petitioners become part of their Planes, thus keeping the Great Wheel turning, so to speak. It's a long view, one that sees the supply of souls and petitioners from the Prime as inexhaustible, and one that believes in allowing Evil to continue existing because that allows Good to exist in opposition, and vice versa.

This is exactly the reason why Gods in Planescape are referred to as 'Powers', not 'Gods', and why a group like the Athar exist. When you look at deities from a Planar perspective, they don't measure up.


I'm sorry if I'm coming across a bit strong, it's just that the notion of absolutism being carried to the extreme of slaughtering those with the potential to change for the better(and are actively seeking to do so) somewhat disturbs me when it's held high as a virtue of goodness.

There's lots of hints in Planescape that the notion of 'Good' in the Planes isn't above pragmatism or sacrifices to err on the side of caution. A good example might be the case of Celestial agencies selling weapons to both the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri, in an effort to keep the Blood War continual and prevent either the Abyss or Baator having enough free time to launch a major assault against Celestia.

Which is all well and good, but you have to bear in mind that a lot of innocent people get caught in the Blood War.

[Alfryd]

Getting way off topic here - might end up moved to the Other Games threads at this rate.
It's okay. There's a little bait'n'switch technique-

Which is all well and good, but you have to bear in mind that a lot of innocent people get caught in the Blood War.
Going by your description, it sounds more as if these powers of 'Good' would be more accurately described as 'exclusively self-interested manipulators of the fate of millions.' Which makes them, uh... Evil.

Warhammer 40K discussion:

Bearing in mind that the Imperium has weathered the Age of Strife, the Horus Heresy, and everything that comes after and still controls a sizeable portion of the galaxy, they're not doing that badly.
Yes, because their only enemies were themselves, the Orks, who never got organised, or the Eldar, who never had the numbers or inclination for a serious show of force. It's the Tyranids and Necrons that really present a serious threat to the Imperium as a whole, as both are better organised, more numerous and effectively more technologically advanced than humanity (if the Tyranids ain't, they will be soon.)

I don't meant to imply that the Tau are morally or ethically superior.

They believe, instead, that they are simply morally and ethically superior to everyone. It might well be true...

That reason isn't any better than the Imperium's motivation to conquer the Galaxy in the name of the Emperor.
Yeah, except that the Tau's motivation neccesitates that they actually, on occasion, adhere to their moral and ethical standards, such, as 'don't commit mass murder simply because you find it convenient in the short term.' I'd have to say it is a better reason.

This is an example of how an army-book often gives the 'sunny side' of an army only.
I seem to recall that the assorted Space Marine Chapter handbooks made full mention of torture of heretics and the absolute imperative that anything non-human be scrubbed from the galaxy. If that's their *sunny* side up...

...the Tau continue to colonise and terraform planets, trying to make planets that suit their natural habitats.
I would tend to view this more as taking a long-run approach to the issue of colonisation. A properly terraformed world can support larger populations, with more production capacity and research output. Plus, in many cases the Tau happen upon alien species that are already better adapted to the world in question than themselves- and let them keep the place.

After all, it's not out of the goodness of their hearts that the Tau are bringing in different alien races. The Tau want to 're-educate'...
Theoretically, they might consider re-education itself to be something done out of the goodness of their hearts. Given that they themselves had severe cultural difficulties before the ethereals evolved.
The Tau are entirely and completely entitled to keep other races out of politics or other privileged positions if they so desire, on the basis that only the Tau themselves can be trusted to run the empire for the common good- after all, just conceivably, they're right. I can't speak for the cases you mention where alien species are brought into the fold by armed diplomacy, but unless you can present evidence that said races have actually suffered significantly as a result it's hard to make an argument that this was evil behaviour. Given that the next race to snap those worlds up would probably sterilise the place.

...whereas the Kroot are quietly but stubbornly resisting the Tau attempts to rid them of cannibalism, fearing the stagnation of their race.
Exactly. At least they have the luxury of displaying quiet and stubborn resistance. As opposed to being sent to the salt mines en masse for failing to instantly comply with cultural norms. Who knows. Maybe Imperium worlds would be afforded the luxury of their cultural identity too.
Oh, but the Tau are condescending. That's diabolical.

... and if they expand, that's going to become harder and harder as their Empire gets more and more diverse.
Provided they maintain non-Tau as an underclass, it's unlikely that interracial poltiics will become much of a problem, simply because their relative numbers won't be large enough that contact and thence conflict of interest will become common.
Now sure, it would be better if the Tau could find some way to treat every member of their empire with equanimity and full legal representation and have a democratic parliament, and embrace multiculturalism etc. etc. They're not perfect by any stretch.
But you can't simultaneously accuse them of being unrealistic for idealism in accepting other races and hoping to find methods of truce and parlay, then berate them for injustice in failing to integrate said races to the point where they would actually threaten the integrity of said empire. There are tradeoffs here, and they're not Lawful Stupid.
So what, exactly, is the argument for non-Good Tau? Their 'insufferable holier-than-thou smugness'? Gosh, Confidence! Optimism! Hope. How atrocious to possess such qualities in abundance.

...the Imperium want to eradicate the Tau because they represent a long-term threat to the Imperium.
Notice when I said 'ostensible.' But the reason given is indicative of the Imperium's general problem- it can't afford to even learn from their opponent without risking destruction from within. So they destroy every copy of Tau technology they happen upon and punish the owners with penile servitude. Why? Because it works perfectly well without having to mutter benedictions to the Omnissiah. The horror.
A threat to the Imperium? Certainly. To Humanity? No. The Imperium claims to exist for the purpose of safeguarding humanity's future. The Imperium exists to serve itself.

The Imperium has learned their lesson -- the Tau have not.
...will their lofty idealism survive the grit of endless annihilation and the death of worlds?
Maybe, maybe not. But they are the only race with some slim hope of long-term survival against the big guns moving against galactic civilisation- the Tyranids and Necrons. Because they are the only race still capable of fundamental growth. The Imperium's strategy is based on keeping what they've got, and it will not help them over the coming centuries.

[SmartAlec]

Going by your description, it sounds more as if these powers of 'Good' would be more accurately described as 'exclusively self-interested manipulators of the fate of millions.' Which makes them, uh... Evil.

A little more altruistic than that - not by much, but a little. Think of it as not bringing goodness themselves, but working to create atmospheres where goodness can flourish. Rather than fight Evil directly, they maintain their existence so as to be able to continually oppose Evil metaphysically. The good guys recognise that Evil has to have its' place on the Great Ring, or the cosmos will collapse, etc etc. Some of them may not like it, but it's the way things have been since the beginning of time and changing the status quo wouldn't win the game but would, instead, smash the gameboard.

It has to be said, there's a lot of de-emphasis on the Good/Evil axis in Planescape, and a lot more emphasis on Law/Chaos.

[Corian]

Re Miko being in denial:
I read her "No" as "No, I do not want to speak to you" rather than "No, I am not a fallen paladin."
I think she's fully aware of having fallen, though she does not yet understand why (and hence has not yet learned to view her deductive processes with proper humility.)

[Mr Wizard]

Re Miko being in denial:
I read her "No" as "No, I do not want to speak to you" rather than "No, I am not a fallen paladin."
I think she's fully aware of having fallen, though she does not yet understand why (and hence has not yet learned to view her deductive processes with proper humility.)


:smallconfused: Are you serious? Sabine asked a question and she gave an answer, it can't be more clear than that. Even if you rearrange the order of the speech bubbles from :sabine: :miko: :belkar: to :sabine: :belkar: :miko: , the meaning doesn't change. Miko is in denial.

[Grasilich]

It's silly to think that, just because Miko didn't start making out with Sabine right then and there, that she's on her way to being good and holy again. I'm thinking the same people that thought Miko would never fall after her altercation with Belkar are the same ones that think this is her starting on her way back up. Miko doesn't fall because of what other say or do. She falls because of her pride and because of what goes on in her head. Just watch.

Re: 40k

The Imperium is a barbaric institution. There is absolutely no disputing that. The Tau do some shady things, sure. But no one can accuse the Tau of burning a planet down to the last man, woman and child because a rebellious teenager graffitied the Eight Pointed Star on the side of a convenience store.

Nothing the Tau have ever done compares to an Exterminatus. Even the most dirty tricks they've used to bring a race into the Empire (The Vespids are a prime example, with that 'communication' helmet the Ethereals gave them... although I'm a bit sceptical of that story, since the new Tau Codex is written with a rather pro-Imperium manner) do not compare to being completely annihilated.

What makes the Tau morally superior to the Imperium is that they acknowledge that other races have a right to... you know... exist.


Humanity exploded into the galaxy, conquering everywhere it went, but there is no evidence that they did this in their current "exterminate" method.

Sure there is. The Great Crusade was waged with the aim of liberating humanity from the oppression of the Xenos. Random example: You never hear any further mention of the race that controlled the planet that the future Primarch of the Death Guards, Mortarion, grew up on. Want to know why? Because they're all dead. And their being dead has absolutely nothing to do with Mortarion turning to Chaos. The Emperor was completely intolerant of aliens.

[Crispy SpThief]

Badass? yes.

Redeemed? No way. Miko has a LONG way to go before she redeems herself.

Though, snapping an Evil Outsider's neck is pretty darn cool.

[Corian]

:smallconfused: Are you serious? Sabine asked a question and she gave an answer, it can't be more clear than that.

That's based on the hypothesis that she's trying to answer in a way that makes sense :smallamused:
This is what I'm doubting: I interpret the monosyllabic "no" as a refusal to conduct small talk with an evil outsider. She is denying the meta-message (the context of conversation), not the message. Of course, that's not a literal reading. IF she were interested in answering the question, the answer would be clear. But I doubt precisely that.
But hey, what do i know? It's true Miko is usually quite literal... But in her current mindset of denial (in my analysis she is still denying it's her fault at all that she fell), denying the context of reality (conversation) feels much more likely than small talk with an outsider. Also note the fact that she answered Sabine's offer pretty much without language, again refusing the context of conversation.
Anyway, there are as many readings as readers but yes, I am serious.
Cheers,

[Yogi]

If you look at Miko's expression when she strikes down Shojo, you can see that she's acting out of a lot more than just what she believes is right.

[SmartAlec]

Re: 40k

Sure there is.

He's talking about the Dark Age of Technology, before the Emperor, before the Great Crusade. There's really no evidence about what Humanity was like before then because there are no details. All we really know is that it was brought to an end with the coming of Chaos. But given the rapid expansion, technological sophistication and tolerance of mutants that are hinted at concerning this period, it's possible Humanity was a little like the Tau back then.

[Tokiko Mima]

I really have issues with this line of thinking. Besides the fact that fiends can be redeemed(or at least move away from evil, a la the LN succubus Fall-From-Grace in Planescape:Torment), they can also lose the [evil] subtype in a number of ways, including the Ritual of Alignment in Savage Species.

Killing a being that is truly penitent solely because of its ingrained nature(be it a mark on the spirit or just a part of its physical make-up) that it is actively rebelling against cannot and should not be blindly accepted as a good act. Remember, redeeming the wicked is better than simply eradicating them. It's just harder to do.

I'm not saying redeemed fiends are common or anything, it's just that it is possible. And being among the rarest of the rare of occurrences in the D&D multiverse(Planescape reality structure for life!), it would be in Good's best interests to aid those creatures in their journey towards redemption rather than stamping them out.

What does more for Good? A dead fiend that was trying to change its ways or one that actually makes it and serves as a shining example of the...er...goodness....of Good?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that almost any mortal can be redeemed, if they desired it. But devils (and demons, I'm assuming) are constructed out of only the vilest of souls, who have lived an evil life and died without a hint of repentance with the weight of sin on them. In the Lower Planes they are reconstructed, built into creatures that are born with a sadism that demands pain, suffering and death to all. They are given a nearly limitless lifespan, and an intelligence borne of malice appropriate to their role (enforcer, seducer, planner, warrior, overlord, etc.)

How could you ever trust such a thing to reform itself? How could you ever know that any 'repentance' you see isn't just a ruse (perhaps even a subconscious one!) to slide in and poison the innocent and trusting? People work on a limited scale of days: we all know one day we'll have to pay for our rights and wrongs, but there's no final judgement for a fiend. If slain, they go back to the Lower Planes to plot anew their threat to humanity and demihumanity.

If a fiend truly ceases to be evil (not just a temporary alignment shift; an actual shifting of the entire essense of it's being) it should also cease to be a fiend, just as a celestial who ceases to be good ceases to be a true celestial. I would consider redemption only then, otherwise, a fiend is a fiend and should be slain instantly and without regret. It is Evil.

[TinSoldier]

Miko's "no" may be denial, but it's more of a short-term denial than a long-term one. She's just waking up. I think at the point she said it she wasn't remembering clearly.

[Dectilon]

So... if they cease to be a fiend, what are they then? : P

What was Fall-From-Grace?

[Tilian]

There is a Planar 'creaton myth' from 2nd Ed. that runs something along these lines: That Asmodeus fell from some lofty height, and his descent created the Nine Hells. The resultant and sudden Oppostion between Good and Evil created the forces that brought the Planes into existence. Ergo, if those forces were weakened and Good and Evil became too interchangeable, you could theorise that the Planes would collapse in on themselves. A worrying thought.

Keep in mind that, if that particular 'creation myth' is true(as there have been different tales told, like the new one put forth in Fiendish Codex II), it was at a time with the planes were much more malleable than they are now. That, and there's the fact that celestials are still falling, to the point that some celestials are pointed out as being more likely to fall than others in their entries(Warden Archons) and at least one species of fiend originating entirely from fallen angels or their descendants(erinyes as of FC2). That, in addition to this:


As far as the former Third layer of Arcadia goes, that was a result of the Plane becoming more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good thanks to an invasion of Formians. If the Layer had instead suffered from a colossal mass invasion of Archons (not that Archons do that kind of thing), it stands to reason that perhaps the layer would have moved upwards to Celestia.It's still a "downwards" fall, which compounds the problem that most planar property shifts have been away from Good. This in combination with the continuing fall of celestials lends credence to the notion that it would not be harmful to the stability of the planes for fiends to be redeemed. And it's perfectly understandable why you would hear about it less; climbing up towards good from evil is much more difficult than falling the other way, both literally and figuratively. Besides, has it ever been stated anywhere that that is a reason that the powers of good would slay repentant fiends, if it has indeed been stated anywhere that they approve of such actions to begin with?


That's the way things are. The forces of Good don't really *need* to do that at all - they're interested in Good Mortals, because Good Mortals become Petitioners, and Petitioners become part of their Planes, thus keeping the Great Wheel turning, so to speak. It's a long view, one that sees the supply of souls and petitioners from the Prime as inexhaustible, and one that believes in allowing Evil to continue existing because that allows Good to exist in opposition, and vice versa.I think you're seriously selling Good short here. When has Good ever been stated as being exclusively interested in the welfare of mortals(and only to keep the Plane juice flowing)? Why then have we had examples of Good seeking to redeem falling celestials, gods, and even unintelligent weapons? Why have we had examples of actual redeemed fiends in actual official material?(from the Succubus Paladin to the Risen Osyluth living in Celestia from Faces of Evil)


There's lots of hints in Planescape that the notion of 'Good' in the Planes isn't above pragmatism or sacrifices to err on the side of caution. A good example might be the case of Celestial agencies selling weapons to both the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri, in an effort to keep the Blood War continual and prevent either the Abyss or Baator having enough free time to launch a major assault against Celestia.

Which is all well and good, but you have to bear in mind that a lot of innocent people get caught in the Blood War.There's a difference between the weapons-for-stalemate plan(which, IIRC not all celestials agreed with) and refusing to give forgiveness to those truly seeking it, in that it's a dead certainty that if the Blood War were to end, war between the Upper and Lower planes would escalate horrifically. The notion that redeeming fiends would somehow weaken the fabric of the Outer Planes when the reverse is still going on is hypothetical at best.

[Tilian]

Don't get me wrong. I believe that almost any mortal can be redeemed, if they desired it. But devils (and demons, I'm assuming) are constructed out of only the vilest of souls, who have lived an evil life and died without a hint of repentance with the weight of sin on them. In the Lower Planes they are reconstructed, built into creatures that are born with a sadism that demands pain, suffering and death to all. They are given a nearly limitless lifespan, and an intelligence borne of malice appropriate to their role (enforcer, seducer, planner, warrior, overlord, etc.)

Keep in mind that not only are fiends formed from the souls of evil mortals, but also from innocents and non-evil beings that get caught in the Lower Plane's cruel machinations. There's an unfortunate number of ways to wind up as fodder for the great fiend machine other than dying after a life of evil.

Also, some fiends have(some might say are cursed with) passions disturbingly close the those of mortals. A truly rare fiend might find temptation away from evil due to philosophical curiosity or a feeling of emptiness that their current existence does not fill. Even rarer would be those among them that are exposed to other options and in turn open up to them.


How could you ever trust such a thing to reform itself? How could you ever know that any 'repentance' you see isn't just a ruse (perhaps even a subconscious one!) to slide in and poison the innocent and trusting? People work on a limited scale of days: we all know one day we'll have to pay for our rights and wrongs, but there's no final judgement for a fiend. If slain, they go back to the Lower Planes to plot anew their threat to humanity and demihumanity.

If extending trust to a mortal seeking redemption was based primarily on the knowledge that he or she might see death and a following punishment coming rather than based on a true change of heart, it wouldn't be very sincere for the side of Good. Also, just because fiends are immortal doesn't mean that bad things won't happen to them, or that they don't fear what awaits them on the Lower Planes(especially with a Blood War on). While immortality and a natural urge towards treachery makes potential repentant fiends a riskier proposition than mortals, it doesn't negate the potential and possibility.


If a fiend truly ceases to be evil (not just a temporary alignment shift; an actual shifting of the entire essense of it's being) it should also cease to be a fiend, just as a celestial who ceases to be good ceases to be a true celestial. I would consider redemption only then, otherwise, a fiend is a fiend and should be slain instantly and without regret. It is Evil.

Including that succubus paladin and that risen bone devil that has been accepted in Mount Celestia? Remember that not all fallen celestials automatically become evil demons or devils. While a risen fiend might one day become a true celestial(which in all likelihood is they would desire in the end) there's still that alignment limbo that must be crossed from evil, to neutrality, to good, not to mention that for a repentant fiend a great deal of penance is likely to be involved before a final acceptance in the Upper Planes. What we wind up with is a cruel catch-22 where fiends seeking to be better beings would be prevented from making it that far because they're not already better beings. I would like to think that Good would not be so short-sighted. Especially when there are rules in place to facilitate such changes(and still no mention of a zero-tolerance policy across the board in the Upper Planes).

Remember, Asmodeus and numerous other archdevils and demon lords were once beings with the [Good] subtype, born from goodness. We know how they turned out.

If Good were to refuse to allow it to be proven that it could redeem those born of evil, they're pretty much shooting themselves in the foot.

Good doesn't get to say "kill 'em all" with a clear conscience. Good has to uphold itself in the face of difficult questions. To just execute beings trying to move towards good on the basis of their subtype alone is at best neutral.

[Alfryd]

Re: 40k

I couldn't resist.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070305.jpg

The Tau are the logical solution here.
Just occasionally, Holkins and Krahulik redeem themselves.


I'm glad that we were able to discuss the news of a Warhammer 40k MMO without resorting to apocalyptic threats. I was able to present the idea to him by saying that they were making a Starcraft MMO, but they weren't going to call it Starcraft, and it wasn't being made by Blizzard. He was intrigued, but wary.
Grilled and well-done.

Miko's "no" may be denial, but it's more of a short-term denial than a long-term one. She's just waking up. I think at the point she said it she wasn't remembering clearly.
I dunno. I'm finding her prospects for redemption are slimmening with every passing moment. Is that a word?