Roy's not even trying anymore

[Reddish Mage]

When the Deva allowed Roy into LG heaven, the deciding factor was, for all the times Roy's fallen short, Roy was trying to be LAWFUL Good. Lately, this seems to not be the case.


When Belkar went missing, Roy's response wasn't some lawyerly wiggle room, it was "to hell with the rules! Belkar's dangerous..." Roy then continued to argue this path for many more strips, essentially in ways that he considers the rules beneath him and his mission, such as when he spoke out of turn to the Deities. Now he broke the High Priest's staff, which is totally in line, and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol, throwing it in the High Priestesses face is kind of...what's the term, rubbing her something in it?

Basically, I'm saying I think Roy is headed squarely into more neutral good territory in this point...which would be totally sad since the two heavens don't meet.

[MaverickMopete]

In Roy's defense, all these shenanigans at this Godsmoot are a result of a massive tangle of laws that seem to make doing any "good" next-to-impossible. He's probably had more than his fill of "Laws" at this point, especially since trying to follow them all has resulted in the world coming to the brink of being unmade.

Edit: And yes, while he tries to be Lawful Good, his Deva has pointed out that, quite often, Roy uses Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends.

[Roland Itiative]

The whole point of Roy being allowed into the Lawful Good heaven was that, despite him acting Chaotic really often (and some times non-Good as well), he's still Lawful Good at heart. That's what the "at least you try" speech was about. Nothing really changed since then, he still bends and breaks the rules some times, while pursuing Lawful Good goals.

[Cizak]

Does LG necessarily equal nice? The deva commented on Roy's snark and noted that he could stand to cut it down a bit, but it wasn't a major factor in keeping him away from the LG afterlife. Lightly throwing the staff in the vampire's face seems to be on this level.

[Kantaki]

I don't know, this is still the same Roy that was willing to break out of Azure City’s prison. Roy was always more good than lawful. Rules, structure, hierarchy - all nice things, as long as they don't prevent him from doing good or support something like the EoB. Then he is willing to throw them out of the window. Or at least to get around them.
Durkon is the one who puts the greater emphasis on lawful behaviour.

[Ruck]

When Belkar went missing, Roy's response wasn't some lawyerly wiggle room, it was "to hell with the rules! Belkar's dangerous..."
I'm not sure what this means.

Roy then continued to argue this path for many more strips, essentially in ways that he considers the rules beneath him and his mission, such as when he spoke out of turn to the Deities.
I hardly think "making an impromptu speech out of turn" is the kind of act that would cause one's alignment to change.

Now he broke the High Priest's staff, which is totally in line, and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol, throwing it in the High Priestesses face is kind of...what's the term, rubbing her something in it?
Good is not always nice.

[Rogar Demonblud]

The rules say you have to stay in the meeting. Roy pretty much said that following that rule was less important than keeping Belkar from initiating a murder spree out of boredom. Ergo, Good was more important than Law.

As for Durkon, I think we can all agree that the dwarves may not have cornered the market in Lawful Stupid, but they are the majority stockholder.

[Sunken Valley]

I'm not sure what this means.

I hardly think "making an impromptu speech out of turn" is the kind of act that would cause one's alignment to change.

Good is not always nice.

I believe the OPs comment is in reference to both Roy's attempt to kill Belkar when he was believed to be lying about Durkon or his attempt to leave the Godsmoot when Belkar was unaccounted for.

Maybe speaking out of turn isnt a problem alone. But combined with attacking a priest for submitting a legitimate vote and disrupting a legitimate referendum to obtain a favoured result isnt very lawful.

Nobody denies that Roy is good. It is the lawful that is in question.

[Reddish Mage]

I don't know, this is still the same Roy that was willing to break out of Azure City’s prison. Roy was always more good than lawful. Rules, structure, hierarchy - all nice things, as long as they don't prevent him from doing good or support something like the EoB. Then he is willing to throw them out of the window.

You know that neatly seems to describe what Neutral Good is. Lawful Good is about favoring law as well as good and using lawful means to good goals.

A Lawful person isn't law incarnate and may break them laws and rules from time to time but to utterly disregard them, hold them in contempt, and hold yourself and your goals above them, that's Neutral at best.

[hroþila]

The rules say you have to stay in the meeting. Roy pretty much said that following that rule was less important than keeping Belkar from initiating a murder spree out of boredom. Ergo, Good was more important than Law.
Roy wasn't worried at all about Belkar killing anyone at the Godsmoot.

[Cizak]

You know that neatly seems to describe what Neutral Good is. Lawful Good is about favoring law as well as good and using lawful means to good goals.

A Lawful person isn't law incarnate and may break them laws and rules from time to time but to utterly disregard them, hold them in contempt, and hold yourself and your goals above them, that's Neutral at best.

Well, the deva has already adressed exactly this. No one would question her if she sent Roy to the NG afterlife, but she didn't because he keeps trying to be LG. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) I don't see what has changed.

[Ruck]

I believe the OPs comment is in reference to both Roy's attempt to kill Belkar when he was believed to be lying about Durkon or his attempt to leave the Godsmoot when Belkar was unaccounted for.
Without knowing which incident OP is talking about and what exactly OP means, it's hard to answer.


Maybe speaking out of turn isnt a problem alone. But combined with attacking a priest for submitting a legitimate vote and disrupting a legitimate referendum to obtain a favoured result isnt very lawful.

He's trying to achieve good while remaining within the bounds of the law. (He can't go outside the law here, or he'll be killed, so by definition his actions at the Godsmoot are lawful.) Bending the law, exploiting loopholes in the law, etc., are very lawful behaviors. Chaotic characters would just ignore the law entirely. (Maybe not under these circumstances, but in general.)


Nobody denies that Roy is good. It is the lawful that is in question.

Well, he's not perfect, but I don't think he's done anything that severely pushes the bounds of his alignment, either.


The rules say you have to stay in the meeting. Roy pretty much said that following that rule was less important than keeping Belkar from initiating a murder spree out of boredom. Ergo, Good was more important than Law.
Wait, what?

When did he say that? Who thought Belkar would "initiate a murder spree"? He was there to spy on not-Durkon.

I think you are grossly misremembering #997.

[Peelee]

You know that neatly seems to describe what Neutral Good is. Lawful Good is about favoring law as well as good and using lawful means to good goals.

Suppose you have a Lawful Good character in a situation where they must make a choice. One choice is Lawful, but not necessarily Good, while the other is Good, but not necessarily Lawful. Would you ding somebody for choosing one over the other, regardless which choice was made? Assume the choice is purely binary, and no alternatives exist.

Now suppose such a situation happened to a Lawful Good character a frighteningly large number of times. Would you argue for an alignment shift of any degree if said character was consistent in their choice?

I'm not saying this is the case for Roy, I'm trying to guage your views and opinions on this. Laying the foundation, as it were.

[Keltest]

being of lawful alignment doesn't actually have much to do with following the literal laws. Roy believes in the ultimate necessity of control and order. When he gets stressed out about Durkon's death, he tightens his control over the remaining people. When Belkar goes out of line, he wants to reel him back in. He doesn't care about the laws of the godsmoot because they don't actually promote order.

[Kantaki]

You know that neatly seems to describe what Neutral Good is. Lawful Good is about favoring law as well as good and using lawful means to good goals.

A Lawful person isn't law incarnate and may break them laws and rules from time to time but to utterly disregard them, hold them in contempt, and hold yourself and your goals above them, that's Neutral at best.

The point is that Roy already acted this way before his holiday in the clouds. If the bird-lady let him in then because he kept trying to act lawful then he should still qualify for the great Spa on top of the mountain, because neither the way he acts, nor that he tries to act lawful more often than not have changed

[Metahuman1]

In Roy's defense, all these shenanigans at this Godsmoot are a result of a massive tangle of laws that seem to make doing any "good" next-to-impossible. He's probably had more than his fill of "Laws" at this point, especially since trying to follow them all has resulted in the world coming to the brink of being unmade.

This is basically my experience with Trying to Mix Lawful and Good in D&D. Honestly, I'm impressed it took him this long to just go "Screw it.".



Particularly since as of the most recent Strip, the world is STILL in imminent danger of not only being Unmade, but being put lock stock and barrel under Hel and her Allies Control when it's remade, thus meaning that the new world will basically be hell with no hope of EVER having anything good happening again that means squat. And the Laws are STILL Hel's best shield and weapon, making it borderline impossible for the people who should be stopping it to do Jack-all about it. Law has actively become a tool for Evil, and there's really no way to fix or reverse that before way after it's too late.


And everyone's had that rubbed in there faces so hard it's ripped there noses off.

[Ruck]

being of lawful alignment doesn't actually have much to do with following the literal laws. Roy believes in the ultimate necessity of control and order. When he gets stressed out about Durkon's death, he tightens his control over the remaining people. When Belkar goes out of line, he wants to reel him back in. He doesn't care about the laws of the godsmoot because they don't actually promote order.

Well said.

[AndyLeighton]

I think OP is right about the fact that Roy has stopped trying. Like he says in #1011,

Normally, this would be the point where I would offer you one more chance to surrender and retract your vote peaceably.

But as a certain half-orc once said, "Talky man talk too much."

It definitely seems like he's prioritizing "Good" over "Lawful," but at the same time, he's doing so in the face of the world ending. I feel like ultimately, it wouldn't be a mark against him, because he still stuck within the rules, technically.

[malloyd]

being of lawful alignment doesn't actually have much to do with following the literal laws. Roy believes in the ultimate necessity of control and order. When he gets stressed out about Durkon's death, he tightens his control over the remaining people. When Belkar goes out of line, he wants to reel him back in. He doesn't care about the laws of the godsmoot because they don't actually promote order.

I've got to find a situation I can have an NPC appropriately utter the line "Not all laws are Lawful".

[Jasdoif]

I've got to find a situation I can have an NPC appropriately utter the line "Not all laws are Lawful"."It's the law, of course it's lawful."
"Not all laws are Lawful."
"What did you just say?"
"Not all laws are Lawful."
"Oh, lawful, I thought you said awful....If that's true, name a law that isn't lawful."
"Well...this one right here! It says distribution of reimbursement must be resolved according to dice roll."
"...you realize that's the section for craps table operation in the casino's charter?"
"CHAOTIC LAW! Which means NONLAWFUL LAW!"
"Fevered ramblings would be the opposite of realization...."

[veti]

I've got to find a situation I can have an NPC appropriately utter the line "Not all laws are Lawful".

If the NPC is something like a supreme court judge, that's pretty much their job description right there.

I think Roy is still being... as lawful as anyone could reasonably ask. He checked, before he did it, that he was allowed to attack Lurky. He gave the staff to the new high priest of Hel, as demanded. What's less than 100% lawful?

As to Roy's alleged concern about what Belkar might be up to - that's very much his responsibility. Heck, th Deva actually said as much. In so many words. He'd be acting chaotically if he didn't show at least that much interest.

[Deliverance]

Particularly since as of the most recent Strip, the world is STILL in imminent danger of not only being Unmade, but being put lock stock and barrel under Hel and her Allies Control when it's remade, thus meaning that the new world will basically be hell with no hope of EVER having anything good happening again that means squat. And the Laws are STILL Hel's best shield and weapon, making it borderline impossible for the people who should be stopping it to do Jack-all about it. Law has actively become a tool for Evil, and there's really no way to fix or reverse that before way after it's too late.
Where on earth do you get these ideas?

That the new world being basically hell with no hope of EVER having anything good happening again is certainly not something we've been told in the comic, nor is it something that can be logically derived from what we have been told.

What we've been told is that in the new world that Hel envisions, due to her getting the dwarf souls, Hel will be top dog in the Northern pantheon rather than Odin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html) That's it. Hel, queen of the northern pantheon, with the powers, rights, and perquisites thereunto.

That'll probably give her more power/standing during the creation process where the gods of the three pantheons collaborate to create the new world, with the north remade mainly in her image, and it'll certainly give her and her allies more influence in the northern realms of the new world, with her temples and worship spreading or enforced rather than, as now, being few and far between because people don't worship her much, but this is a far cry from your idea of a world sunk in evil where good has no hope.

The good and neutral gods of the north will still be there to influence the new world, and the two other pantheons as well.

(See also today's comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1022.html), where the representative of Sif, goddess of the earth, agrees with Roy that some of those deities that voted to stay their hands might agree to support destruction and a new world if things got worse, despite it making Hel the chief of the northern pantheon.)

[jidasfire]

I sometimes wonder if people around here get paid for telling the author he's wrong about his own creation.

Roy has been in a situation for hours where he's seen the rules flouted and manipulated to create an unfair situation that will result in the deaths of everyone he cares about and the ascendancy of yet another evil power (using his best friends corpse as its vessel), and because of the rules, no one can actually stop it from happening. Despite this, he finds ways to work within that messed up system to save everyone. And then, when he doesn't succeed, he gives a final flipoff to his enemies, who are still using the rules against him, and he still does it within the rules. How, by any reasonable metric, is that not lawful? I tend to roll my eyes at the "good is not nice" argument, but how about "good is not a pushover"?

[Sir_Leorik]

Roy is definitely still trying to be Lawful Good. The difference is that he's not going to futilely throw his life away on a gamble that he can save the day, knowing that Xykon's still out there. Right now attacking the new HPoH may or may not give the world breathing room, but it would be a death sentence. There's nothing smart about taking out the HPoH and letting Xykon rule the world; instead Roy's going to need a new strategy to beat Hel's plan for world destruction and domination.

By the way, Roy acted 100% Lawfully when he returned the broken halves of the staff to the new HPoH; she demanded the staff's return, she never demanded it be in working order. :smalltongue:

[Metahuman1]

Where on earth do you get these ideas?

That the new world being basically hell with no hope of EVER having anything good happening again is certainly not something we've been told in the comic, nor is it something that can be logically derived from what we have been told.

What we've been told is that in the new world that Hel envisions, due to her getting the dwarf souls, Hel will be top dog in the Northern pantheon rather than Odin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html) That's it. Hel, queen of the northern pantheon, with the powers, rights, and perquisites thereunto.

That'll probably give her more power/standing during the creation process where the gods of the three pantheons collaborate to create the new world, with the north remade mainly in her image, and it'll certainly give her and her allies more influence in the northern realms of the new world, with her temples and worship spreading or enforced rather than, as now, being few and far between because people don't worship her much, but this is a far cry from your idea of a world sunk in evil where good has no hope.

The good and neutral gods of the north will still be there to influence the new world, and the two other pantheons as well.

(See also today's comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1022.html), where the representative of Sif, goddess of the earth, agrees with Roy that some of those deities that voted to stay their hands might agree to support destruction and a new world if things got worse, despite it making Hel the chief of the northern pantheon.)

Yes, cause the first thing she's gonna do is totally NOT marginalize the other Deity's in her pantheon as much as she's been Marginalized up to this point.

And that's 2 Pantheons run by evil and one run by good. I somehow doubt that's a situation evil beings will long tolerate when they have the upper hand. Not at all in there nature. If they don't marginalize them by out voting them on everything willfully at the get go, they'll just keep encroaching on there turf via the prime material plane until they take the whole thing over. It would be inevitable.


Ergo, world sunk in evil were good has no hope.


And she was rather brazen about that first step to Loki earlier in comic being very high on her to do list once that happens.


Unless you mean to tell me that She's gonna be content at that point to just twiddle her thumbs after she get's Odin's chair and not ever even consider expanding further now that she, after eon's waiting, can do so.


And I fail to see how Sif's priestesses comments don't fit in with what I laid out flawlessly. Others will vote to do this blindly, because of the timing Hel's using, and the fact that the rules don't really give them any other viable options except take a chance on what there seeing as the complete *#!( up mortals who let it get to this point to start with. Even knowing what's gonna come of it.



Edit: Also, just realized, you had nothing to say to the rest of the post. That rules and laws are presently Hel's absolute best tool of evil, her flawless sword and shield against which good is proving rather powerless.

Or the fact that if the Gods were smart enough to think on this matter (there clearly not or NONE of them would be willing to vote Hel's way again after this. Heck, they'd make a new rule that from now on, Hel vote's first so the others can screw her over or something.) They'd just formally declare "War" on the dwarfs, and have them all grab a weapon and try to attack the other gods, just so the other gods can kill them all post haste so they died in battle, thus they go anywhere except Hel's domain, on the grounds that they can make more Dwarfs later, but this way, Hel get's the shaft since even if they unmake the world now, she doesn't get anymore say in it then she already has at best.

[Dunsparce]

And that's 2 Pantheons run by evil and one run by good.

I don't remember any indication that Marduk was Evil.

In fact, Comic #739 shows that Marduk has Paladins, which are always Lawful Good, not to mention the pattern of Wrecan's shield implies that he worships Marduk as well(the pattern looks like Marduk's four eyes), and he doesn't seem evil at all.

[Rinazina]

Now he broke the High Priest's staff, which is totally in line, and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol, throwing it in the High Priestesses face is kind of...what's the term, rubbing her something in it?


Deva: "Mr Greenhilt, we have do judge you!"
:roy:: "Which are the accusation?"
Deva: "In a complex legal framework that you respected, you broke an unholy relict and you throw some harmless fragment in face a Vampire. Vampire that without the rules you would have annihilated with your greenblaze"
:roy:: "... and the accusations are ... ?"
Deva: "Nothing sir, just, well done"

[Metahuman1]

I don't remember any indication that Marduk was Evil.

In fact, Comic #739 shows that Marduk has Paladins, which are always Lawful Good, not to mention the pattern of Wrecan's shield implies that he worships Marduk as well(the pattern looks like Marduk's four eyes), and he doesn't seem evil at all.

Um, didn't we have a whole arc were we established that a Chaotic Evil Deity runs the western pantheon?

[Morty]

There's this persistent idea that every Lawful Good character needs to be held to standards as high as that of a paladin.

[Killer Angel]

It definitely seems like he's prioritizing "Good" over "Lawful," but at the same time, he's doing so in the face of the world ending. I feel like ultimately, it wouldn't be a mark against him, because he still stuck within the rules, technically.

Plus, the strict rules of the godsmoot, were exploited by Durkula, at Evil 'advantage.
No wonder a Lawful Good being, sees these rules as an obstacle to the cause of Good.

Laws must be at the service of Good, not vice versa.

[Vargtass]

I don't remember any indication that Marduk was Evil.

In fact, Comic #739 shows that Marduk has Paladins, which are always Lawful Good, not to mention the pattern of Wrecan's shield implies that he worships Marduk as well(the pattern looks like Marduk's four eyes), and he doesn't seem evil at all.

And regardless of the current situation, we have no way of knowing who will become top god in the Southern or the Western Pantheon upon World renewal. The only thing we know is that Hel counts on becoming top of the Northen Pantheon, and the other Northern gods seem to agree for now.

[Dunsparce]

Um, didn't we have a whole arc were we established that a Chaotic Evil Deity runs the western pantheon?

What are you talking about, neither Tiamat(Who is Chaotic evil in the game) nor Nergal(Whose exact alignment is unknown) are the leaders of the western pantheon, the crayons of time established Marduk as the Western equivalent of Odin and Dragon.

If it's about the pantheon voting yes destroying the world, remember that there were non-evil deities that voted for the destruction in the northern pantheon.

[Deliverance]

Yes, cause the first thing she's gonna do is totally NOT marginalize the other Deity's in her pantheon as much as she's been Marginalized up to this point.

Given that she's not solely supported by evil deities and demigods in destroying the world and having her replace Odin as ruler of the northern pantheon, and given that all the deities, regardless of whether good, neutral, or evil will put their own interests first rather than Hel's, what has given you the idea that Hel will have the ability to marginalize the other deities in the pantheon to the same degree that she's been marginalized up to this point?

Do you believe that being the strongest member of the northern pantheon means she can impose her will on the other members of the pantheon as she desires without risking opposition? To me, attempting that would seem a good way to foment rebellion; Moreover, look at Hel's own statements about the power she's going to get in in #1000 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html): She anticipates the influx of souls making her more powerful than Grandfather Odin himself. That's not the same as Odin &Co. becoming weak, or her having more power than anybody in the pantheon that bands together in common interest.


Look, we've apparently got very idea of the pantheons of this world.

I view each of the three main pantheons as a band of gods, some evil, some good, some neutral, each responsible for certain domains, each in competition with others for power and position within the pantheon, but all with a vested interest in keeping the current order running smoothly and the domains serviced, such that the gods can continue playing games of power with each other rather than risking strife between the gods that could unleash the Snarl again.

(See e.g. the world creation strips, the comparative mythology discussion between Durkon and Malack, and the general behaviour of the gods we've seen in action.)

This means that Hel as the most powerful of the Northern gods will certainly act to advance her own agenda and strengthen her domain(s) and will do much better than under the current leadership where she ended up making some bad deals (such as the one with Thor, that will be dissolved with the new world), but that the rest of the pantheon don't lose their power in the process (they get to share the power of all the non-dwarves on top of what they have already, but she'll end up mightier than any of them individually), continue servicing their domains, and can oppose her where their interests differ or support her where interests align;

Undoubtedly some of the other gods will end up making deals that are better than they have now (rewarding her supporters would be a good place to start), some with deals that are worse than those they have now, and perhaps some will end up with as bad deals as she had, if they don't have the support of the other gods or enough power to negotiate something better.




And that's 2 Pantheons run by evil and one run by good.

How do you figure that?

[Deliverance]

Um, didn't we have a whole arc were we established that a Chaotic Evil Deity runs the western pantheon?
No, we didn't.

[Devonix]

I think OP is right about the fact that Roy has stopped trying. Like he says in #1011,


It definitely seems like he's prioritizing "Good" over "Lawful," but at the same time, he's doing so in the face of the world ending. I feel like ultimately, it wouldn't be a mark against him, because he still stuck within the rules, technically.

This is the major thing I don't understand. Not being lawful isn't a mark against him. Even though I'd argue he still is being lawful.

Chaotic, neutral, and lawful are just ways to describe someone's ideological compass while Good and Evil are their Moral Compass.

There's nothing wrong with being chaotic or neutral or lawful. One isn't better than the other, and going to a neutral good afterlife is supposed to be a reward not a punishiment. It's them trying to put you in the best afterlife to suit you.

Its them saying, This is who you are based on how you lived your life, so this is where you're afterlife would be more comfortable.

[littlebum2002]

I'm sorry, are you honestly trying to argue that Roy will not be allowed into the Lawful Good afterlife because he destroyed an Evil relic?

I mean, seriously?



I mean, saying that a Lawful Good character has to follow the Law so to the letter that they would not be allowed to destroy an Evil item should they come into possession of it if doing so would technically break the law is almost as bad as saying that a Lawful Good character would have to punish someone who violated an extremely minor rule, like tearing the tag off a mattress or something.

We already had one character who doesn't understand what Lawful is supposed to mean, we REALLY don't need another.

[Valynie]

I do aggree that Roy is trying to be more good than lawful
however he is also trying to be more lawful than chaotic .
When the rules are good rules, he follows them


Now in the godsmoot situation where the spirit of the rules are being perverted , I can quite understand he wants to ignore them but even so , it frustates him to do so
Haley would not even blink about it

[Peelee]

Yes, cause the first thing she's gonna do is totally NOT marginalize the other Deity's in her pantheon as much as she's been Marginalized up to this point.

And that's 2 Pantheons run by evil and one run by good. I somehow doubt that's a situation evil beings will long tolerate when they have the upper hand. Not at all in there nature. If they don't marginalize them by out voting them on everything willfully at the get go, they'll just keep encroaching on there turf via the prime material plane until they take the whole thing over. It would be inevitable.


Ergo, world sunk in evil were good has no hope.

Wait, two pantheons are run by evil? When did this happen?

Also, you're claiming that she can marginalize all gods she disagreed with, despite knowing that she is the only god that appears to have been marginalized in the current pantheon. So either you believe that there is a massive conspiracy where Odin is buddy-buddy with literally every god other than her, or you are wrong on how much power the strongest deity wields. five bucks on the latter.

[Oxenstierna]

I think this is one of those lawful good versus lawful stupid things, and the comic has established Roy isn't stupid. Why is the staff suddenly official 'Church of Hel' property and regalia of the high priest? Just because the 'prove otherwise' evil lawful vampire says it is? Roy knows the staff was created by Malack - not exactly an unholy gift from Hel. By following the rules of the Godsmoot and not attacking the new High Priest Roy is acting lawfully. To return the staff as requested but with his own 'contents may be damaged during transit' disclaimer Roy is being lawful and good - it's not only evil people who can take advantage of a loophole.

[theNater]

When Belkar went missing, Roy's response wasn't some lawyerly wiggle room, it was "to hell with the rules! Belkar's dangerous..."
At no point did Roy say that.


Roy then continued to argue this path for many more strips, essentially in ways that he considers the rules beneath him and his mission, such as when he spoke out of turn to the Deities.
Roy asked permission to speak and was not denied it.


Now he broke the High Priest's staff, which is totally in line, and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol, throwing it in the High Priestesses face is kind of...what's the term, rubbing her something in it?
The term is rubbing her face in it, and doing that is entirely consistent with Lawfulness.


Basically, I'm saying I think Roy is headed squarely into more neutral good territory in this point...
That's a heck of a stretch.

[Porthos]

All I have to say is that the creators of D&D could have saved themselves a heck of a lot of trouble by calling this Order instead of Law. :smallsmile:

(Yes, yes, I know. Back then they WERE being heavily influenced by Michael Moorcock during the early stages of the game. Thank whatever deity/deities/philosophical construct one seeks for enlightenment/whatever of ones choice that they wisely moved away from that very very soon afterwards.)

====

Actually, the resist to snark is too much. Sorry, not sorry. :smallwink:


I'm sorry, are you honestly trying to argue that Roy will not be allowed into the Lawful Good afterlife because he destroyed an Evil relic?

I mean, seriously?



I mean, saying that a Lawful Good character has to follow the Law so to the letter that they would not be allowed to destroy an Evil item should they come into possession of it if doing so would technically break the law is almost as bad as saying that a Lawful Good character would have to punish someone who violated an extremely minor rule, like tearing the tag off a mattress or something.

We already had one character who doesn't understand what Lawful is supposed to mean, we REALLY don't need another.

In other words, "If you're so lawful prove it by sacrificing this person to our unholy gods (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten), as is the law of the land for visitors to our kingdom."

What's that? No lawful good person should even entertain that idea?

Why, I never.

Doesn't seem too far away from, "Hand back that unholy relic of power that I can use to terrorize the world because I said it's my property".

[FrankNorman]

Doesn't seem too far away from, "Hand back that unholy relic of power that I can use to terrorize the world because I said it's my property".

Paradigm example: Sauron's Ring of Power.
Actually was his property.
But while Gandalf was unwilling to confiscate it from Bilbo, no one on the good side saw anything morally wrong with destroying it. or otherwise ensuring that Sauron never got it back.

[Silverionmox]

Given that even Eugene "Never mind guys, it was a stupid oath anyway" Greenhilt gets to stay in Lawful Good afterlife eventually, we can assume that Roy will qualify easily, stern lecture from a deva or two notwithstanding. But that's what their patrons expect, right?

[SaintRidley]

Um, didn't we have a whole arc were we established that a Chaotic Evil Deity runs the western pantheon?

No, we didn't.

[goodpeople25]

I assume the thinking is that no good god would make the western continent, or vote yes at the godsmoot.

[hroþila]

I think that ship sailed when Heimdall voted yes.

[Porthos]

Deva: "Mr Greenhilt, we have do judge you!"
:roy:: "Which are the accusation?"
Deva: "In a complex legal framework that you respected, you broke an unholy relict and you throw some harmless fragment in face a Vampire. Vampire that without the rules you would have annihilated with your greenblaze"
:roy:: "... and the accusations are ... ?"
Deva: "Nothing sir, just, well done"

*insert Colbert/Stewart WOW!/BRAVO! gif HERE* :smallsmile:

(we don't have like buttons, so this will have to do :smallwink:)

[Qwertystop]

Given that even Eugene "Never mind guys, it was a stupid oath anyway" Greenhilt gets to stay in Lawful Good afterlife eventually, we can assume that Roy will qualify easily, stern lecture from a deva or two notwithstanding. But that's what their patrons expect, right?

Eugene might not - he's still stuck on the clouds, his case isn't done yet. For that matter, some of what he did since then (impersonating an unspecified angelic figure) might count against him.

[Porthos]

Eugene might not - he's still stuck on the clouds, his case isn't done yet. For that matter, some of what he did since then (impersonating an unspecified angelic figure) might count against him.

Start of Darkness spoilers:
Eugene was set to waltz into Celestia when the reviewer noted the outstanding Blood Oath of Vengance.
Now, I'm certainly not arguing the rest of the point. I have a sneaking suspicion that Eugene might be in for a bit of a shock when all is said and done. But I did want to mention the bit in the spoiler bar.

[Deliverance]

I assume the thinking is that no good god would make the western continent, or vote yes at the godsmoot.
That seems strange thinking.

1) The OOTS pantheons consist of good, neutral, and evil gods, so presumably the western continent was - like the rest of the world - created as some sort of compromise between different interests.

2) Why would being good or evil dictate the tactical choice at the Godsmoot of whether a) avoiding risk, fixing what was broken, accepting the cost, or b) taking a risk, not fixing it, hoping it got better on its own, ready to jump in and try a last-minute emergency fix it if it didn't? (which were the predicted consequences until the consequences for Hel were revealed?)

3) As we see from the votes of the Northern pantheon, they do not vote based on alignment but personality and interest.

[goodpeople25]

That seems strange thinking.

1) The OOTS pantheons consist of good, neutral, and evil gods, so presumably the western continent was - like the rest of the world - created as some sort of compromise between different interests.

2) Why would being good or evil dictate the tactical choice at the Godsmoot of whether a) avoiding risk, fixing what was broken, accepting the cost, or b) taking a risk, not fixing it, hoping it got better on its own, ready to jump in and try a last-minute emergency fix it if it didn't? (which were the predicted consequences until the consequences for Hel were revealed?)

3) As we see from the votes of the Northern pantheon, they do not vote based on alignment but personality and interest.
Well i meant to say and/or. But i have seen both view points expressed. But i don't claim to understand it.

[dancrilis]

I think a lot of people are being overly negative to the idea that Roy might become Neutral Good. There is nothing bad about being Neutral Good (in fact it might be regarded as the most good as neutral in the setting is not an active force like law and chaos).

Also it opens up an interesting discussion on the nature of alignment and the requirements of the planes on it - for example Roy seems to care more about Good then Law, and much more at that he always has really, and that is a fairly Neutral Good stance.

Even in the current comic he is on the side of risky freedom over oppressive safety (though he can see both sides).

Anyway I suspect that Roy is still LG but if the Giant wants to revisit it and he finds out he is NG that is fine from the text.



...which would be totally sad since the two heavens don't meet.
We don't know that, for example Miko's horse can visit her - we do not know if she made it to the mountain and that the horse can leave the stables to visit or if she in in the equivalent of Arcadia and the horse travels down from the equivalent of Mount Celestia to visit, Elan had a comment but he may not be the planer scholar his bard training would allow him to be.

[littlebum2002]

I think a lot of people are being overly negative to the idea that Roy might become Neutral Good. There is nothing bad about being Neutral Good (in fact it might be regarded as the most good as neutral in the setting is not an active force like law and chaos).

No, we're negative to the idea that the Lawful Good afterlife would be so petty in its adherence to the rules that it would expect someone to turn over an Evfil artifact to an Evil creature rather than destroy it.

(Or, as in the example that I gave, that it would expect someone to punish a person who violated the "do not remove this mattress tag under penalty of law" rule)

Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Lawful Good people are not expected to follow every single rule every single time. However, I do not fault the OP for saying that, as it is a very common misunderstanding of the alignment, kinda how people assume Chaotic Evil means just wantonly slaughtering anyone who walks in your path.

[Ruck]

No, we're negative to the idea that the Lawful Good afterlife would be so petty in its adherence to the rules that it would expect someone to turn over an Evfil artifact to an Evil creature rather than destroy it.
Well put, and I'd add that it would be a negative for Roy, since we know A)He strives to be Lawful Good and B)His family is in the LG afterlife.

[dancrilis]

No, we're negative to the idea that the Lawful Good afterlife would be so petty in its adherence to the rules that it would expect someone to turn over an Evfil artifact to an Evil creature rather than destroy it.

The opening post specifically called out that the breaking of the staff was arguably done lawfully.


... and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol ...

But largely beside the point anyway the title of the topic is 'Roy's not even trying anymore' and the opening line clarified this:

When the Deva allowed Roy into LG heaven, the deciding factor was, for all the times Roy's fallen short, Roy was trying to be LAWFUL Good. Lately, this seems to not be the case.

And there is a point there - Roy places his quest above the laws, whether secular law (wanting Durkon to break them out of prison to save time - not because it was an evil empire), religious law (speaking out of turn - Wrecan thought they would get kicked out, Roy said that if they died it didn't matter - Lawful beings think it mattered).
These are only two examples but even how Roy talks is someone who follows the law but does not respect it 'frustrating way to rules-lawyer it' (and would still have broken it except for pragmatism), and now he is probably going to go after the Durkon i.e abandon the Blood-oath for a separate quest (as Xykon suggested he do - 'it'll keep').

Possibly the question(s) before us might be does Roy follow the law because the law should be followed - or does he follow the law because it is often handier (there are secondary questions relating to why he breaks the law, and his mindset about the entire thing), neutral(and even chaotic) people might follow it for the latter.


Well put, and I'd add that it would be a negative for Roy, since we know A)He strives to be Lawful Good and B)His family is in the LG afterlife.
Even allowing for the upper planes disallowing travel and no celestial being willing to help people visit family members, if Roy dies before the end of the comic and gets placed in the NG afterlife only to get raised again he might redouble his efforts to be Lawful and thereby earn his way back to the LG afterlife - could be interesting.
For example he could see how the NG afterlife lacks some of the structure of the LG afterlife (set personalized guides, a defined goal to achieve as part of the afterlife etc) and that ultimately he is happier with such structure which could lead him to realise that he has been missing it from his life since getting resurrected - leading to introspection and re-commitment to his goal.

[Jasdoif]

and now he is probably going to go after the Durkon i.e abandon the Blood-oath for a separate quest (as Xykon suggested he do - 'it'll keep').Hm. Now I'm wondering...what exactly is the scope of "destroy the world"? It apparently doesn't include the outer planes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), but what about the inner planes? Or transitive planes?

If Xykon's phylactery (rather than the fauxlactery) was in his fortress on the astral plane, and the world was destroyed...would Xykon reform to threaten the next world? And if so, would Eugene and Julia be permanently barred from the afterlife, since there would be no descendants to fulfill the Blood Oath? (Roy got an exception for dying in the attempt to fulfill the oath, which wouldn't apply to Eugene or Julia)


Possibly the question(s) before us might be does Roy follow the law because the law should be followed - or does he follow the law because it is often handier (there are secondary questions relating to why he breaks the law, and his mindset about the entire thing), neutral(and even chaotic) people might follow it for the latter.I think Roy respects order in general, but believes he's the only sane one who can rightfully decide whether a particular order is worth respecting. And he doesn't have any qualms about acting against order if he deems it actively opposing his interests.

In short, there is only one "law": his "law". Gandhi II!

[Ruck]

And there is a point there - Roy places his quest above the laws, whether secular law (wanting Durkon to break them out of prison to save time - not because it was an evil empire), religious law (speaking out of turn - Wrecan thought they would get kicked out, Roy said that if they died it didn't matter - Lawful beings think it mattered).
"Lawful Good" does not mean "Putting law before good." Roy is on a quest to stop an Evil epic-level lich sorcerer from trying to control (or even unmake) the world.

Saying "Well, Xykon will be at the gate in a day, but the law says I have to stay in this corrupt empire's prison for three days, so, I'm stuck" would be a textbook example of Lawful Stupid.

[littlebum2002]

And there is a point there - Roy places his quest above the laws, whether secular law (wanting Durkon to break them out of prison so he could fulfill his father's blood oath to destroy Xykon and save the world - not because it was an evil empire)

Fixed it for you. You would be hard pressed to find even one seasoned DM who would even blink at a Lawful Good character breaking out of prison so he could save the world.



religious law (speaking out of turn - Wrecan thought they would get kicked out, Roy said that if they died it didn't matter - Lawful beings think it mattered).

Again, Lawful creatures are not required to follow every law every time. And that's to BE Lawful, not to "try and be" Lawful. There's absolutely no rule that says a Lawful creature would have to be silent at that time. Lawful characters do not have to follow every law, they just have to follow the set of laws that they feel are just. Roy never agreed to this rule, therefore absolutely nothing would require him to follow it.

Just because you don't understand the alignment system doesn't mean Rich doesn't either.




These are only two examples but even how Roy talks is someone who follows the law but does not respect it 'frustrating way to rules-lawyer it' (and would still have broken it except for pragmatism)

Yes, he would have broken a stupid law to kill an Evil creature. Again, not against the rules for a Lawful Good character.


and now he is probably going to go after the Durkon i.e abandon the Blood-oath for a separate quest (as Xykon suggested he do - 'it'll keep').

Trying to save the world. Again, not even SLIGHTLY out-of-character for someone Lawful Good. In fact, it's so much IN character that one could argue that NOT attempting to save the world would make Roy potentially lose his alignment in this case.




As I've stated before, all you guys are saying is "we don't understand the alignment system". Thankfully, Rich does, so Roy is free to be Lawful Good, not Stupid Good.

[dancrilis]

Hm. Now I'm wondering...what exactly is the scope of "destroy the world"? It apparently doesn't include the outer planes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0274.html), but what about the inner planes? Or transitive planes?
Well as the gods were going to whisk the souls away to their respective realms (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html)- so presumably those have been built sufficiently far away.


If Xykon's phylactery (rather than the fauxlactery) was in his fortress on the astral plane, and the world was destroyed...would Xykon reform to threaten the next world? And if so, would Eugene and Julia be permanently barred from the afterlife, since there would be no descendants to fulfill the Blood Oath? (Roy got an exception for dying in the attempt to fulfill the oath, which wouldn't apply to Eugene or Julia)
I suspect so - but a lawful and good society might allow Eugene in should someone else fulfill the Oath (he may have thought so when Vaarsuvius went up against Xykon and he wasn't annoyed by it, or maybe he just cares about defeating Xykon more than getting in).



I think Roy respects order in general, but believes he's the only sane one who can rightfully decide whether a particular order is worth respecting. And he doesn't have any qualms about acting against order if he deems it actively opposing his interests.

In short, there is only one "law": his "law". Gandhi II!
Which is equally chaotic as lawful (everyone can follow their own rules - is a law that may result in chaos).


"Lawful Good" does not mean "Putting law before good."
Nor does it mean "putting good before law".



Saying "Well, Xykon will be at the gate in a day, but the law says I have to stay in this corrupt empire's prison for three days, so, I'm stuck" would be a textbook example of Lawful Stupid.
Durkon left him there - and I would not consider Durkon 'Lawful Stupid', also Roy had no real idea that the empire was corrupt - unless you think travel papers are a form of government corruption, everyone else had there papers and was allowed away without issue (except the instigators).




As I've stated before, all you guys are saying is "we don't understand the alignment system".

Or you may not understand our points (which could be due to poor writing or poor reading).

As I stated:

Anyway I suspect that Roy is still LG but if the Giant wants to revisit it and he finds out he is NG that is fine from the text.
Should Rich move Roy into NG there is nothing wrong with that - should he keep him in LG there is nothing wrong with that either, the text allows for both without need for the reader to cry foul.

[littlebum2002]

Should Rich move Roy into NG there is nothing wrong with that - should he keep him in LG there is nothing wrong with that either, the text allows for both without need for the reader to cry foul.

While that may in fact be true, none of the arguments either of you have supplied so far make Roy anything other than Lawful Good according to the rules.

He might not be Lawful Good according to your own personal definition of that term, but he is according to the definition WotC and Rich use.





Durkon left him there - and I would not consider Durkon 'Lawful Stupid', also Roy had no real idea that the empire was corrupt - unless you think travel papers are a form of government corruption, everyone else had there papers and was allowed away without issue (except the instigators).

I mean, if you really don't think that leaving someone in jail instead of breaking them out so they can save the world is the TEXTBOOK definition of "Lawful Stupid" then I don't know what to tell you. Do you also think Miko had a healthy relationship with rules? Just curious.


And, again, what you consider to be "lawful stupid" and what actually is "Lawful Stupid" aren't very much in agreement. Possibly letting an evil dictator take over the world because you don't want to break the law when your friend got arrested for not having a visa is pretty much as Lawful Stupid as one can get, regardless of whether you consider it to be or not.

[Keltest]

Durkon left him there - and I would not consider Durkon 'Lawful Stupid', also Roy had no real idea that the empire was corrupt - unless you think travel papers are a form of government corruption, everyone else had there papers and was allowed away without issue (except the instigators).

You may not consider him to be that, but he gets pretty darn close at times.

[dancrilis]

While that may in fact be true, none of the arguments either of you have supplied so far make Roy anything other than Lawful Good according to the rules.

He might not be Lawful Good according to your own personal definition of that term, but he is according to the definition WotC and Rich use.

What rules are you looking at?
For DnD 3.5 there really are no hard and fast rules of what Lawful good is (from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)).


Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.


Either of those could apply to Roy - I would say that Roy fits slightly better with LG but that is merely personal opinion as it is open to interpretation, he doesn't for example seem to hate Belkar going unpunished, and he has told lies, however for NG he does not really seem devoted to helping others (as much as that he helps those in need).




I mean, if you really don't think that leaving someone in jail instead of breaking them out so they can save the world is the TEXTBOOK definition of "Lawful Stupid" then I don't know what to tell you. Do you also think Miko had a healthy relationship with rules? Just curious.
Look at it from Durkon's possible perspective - breaking them out will likely result in a man-hunt by the authorities, the possible deaths of innocent guards, a potential requirement to leave the city without any useful information if the locals were dangerous enough (or taking over if the locals were not), no real clue as to where Elan, Haley and Vaarsuvius ended up after they were captured (assuming they were still alive) leading to wasting time looking for them in a now hostile city etc.

Faced with some version of that Durkon might have been 'Lawful Smart' to not make waves and let things play out - Roy while not happy effectively conceded the point that using physical force against the legal authorities was not the best idea - and instead following the law got them everything they wanted from the town.

[littlebum2002]

What rules are you looking at?
For DnD 3.5 there really are no hard and fast rules of what Lawful good is (from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)).


Either of those could apply to Roy - I would say that Roy fits slightly better with LG but that is merely personal opinion as it is open to interpretation, he doesn't for example seem to hate Belkar going unpunished, and he has told lies, however for NG he does not really seem devoted to helping others (as much as that he helps those in need).

Of course.

Also, not one of the arguments you or the OP has given has any effect on changing Roy's alignment in either direction. Yes, there are arguments as to Roy being Neutral Good, you just haven't given any.




Look at it from Durkon's possible perspective - breaking them out will likely result in a man-hunt by the authorities, the possible deaths of innocent guards, a potential requirement to leave the city without any useful information if the locals were dangerous enough (or taking over if the locals were not), no real clue as to where Elan, Haley and Vaarsuvius ended up after they were captured (assuming they were still alive) leading to wasting time looking for them in a now hostile city etc.

Faced with some version of that Durkon might have been 'Lawful Smart' to not make waves and let things play out - Roy while not happy effectively conceded the point that using physical force against the legal authorities was not the best idea - and instead following the law got them everything they wanted from the town.

LOL. OK, so Durkon kept them in jail because it was the strategically sound thing to do. Please, oh please tell me what that has anything to do with his alignment. :smallconfused:


(in case you don't understand what I'm trying to say, if you claim that Durkon kept them in jail because he felt it was the smart thing to do, then that has absolutely nothing to do with his alignment. If he kept them in jail because it was the Lawful thing to do, it makes him Lawful Stupid because Saving the World > serving jail time. You can't say that "staying in jail is the Lawful thing to do", then turn around and give Durkon motives for keeping them in jail which have nothing to do with being lawful.)

[supergoji18]

As i'm sure someone has said, what distinguishes a lawful act from a neutral or chaotic act is much less clear than what distinguishes a good act from an neutral/evil act.

Also, he's not a paladin. He doesn't have to abide by a strict set of lawful codes that he must follow or be considered some other alignment.

Plus, with the amount of **** that has happened recently due to all the rules lawyering on the part of the High Priests, I don't blame Roy for not giving a damn about the rules as much. The entire reason the world is possibly about to end is because of the fHPoH exploiting the restrictions for all they were worth while everyone was "forced" to sit back and twiddle their thumbs not doing anything about this.

Now if you REALLY want to get into an alignment debate about characters, someone explain to me why all the priests of Chaotic Evil deities were following the rules so strictly? Or for that matter, any of the Chaotic deities clerics?

[Jasdoif]

Now if you REALLY want to get into an alignment debate about characters, someone explain to me why all the priests of Chaotic Evil deities were following the rules so strictly? Or for that matter, any of the Chaotic deities clerics?To avoid retribution, on themselves or the deity they represent, for deviating from them. The same reason Roy doesn't attack the current High Priest of Hel.

[theNater]

What rules are you looking at?
For DnD 3.5 there really are no hard and fast rules of what Lawful good is (from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)).
Please notice that "follows and approves of every law" is not included in the definition of Lawful Good. So Roy ignoring and being frustrated with obstructive and unfair laws does nothing to pull him away from being Lawful Good.

[Pyrous]

Please notice that "follows and approves of every law" is not included in the definition of Lawful Good. So Roy ignoring and being frustrated with obstructive and unfair laws does nothing to pull him away from being Lawful Good.

It's not included in the Lawful Neutral, nor Lawful Evil definitions, by the way.

[Ruck]

Nor does it mean "putting good before law".
Glib, but it inadvertently supports my point. It means neither of those things, nor does it mean "must consider them in exact and equal measure." You can put one in front of the other and still remain Lawful Good. And sometimes they conflict, so you HAVE to do that. Roy puts Good before Law.


As i'm sure someone has said, what distinguishes a lawful act from a neutral or chaotic act is much less clear than what distinguishes a good act from an neutral/evil act.

One thing in terms of this that I think is clear but others may disagree: Someone who exploits loopholes in the rules is Lawful, because someone Chaotic would simply outright ignore the rules.

[dps]

Also, he's not a paladin. He doesn't have to abide by a strict set of lawful codes that he must follow or be considered some other alignment.


Generally speaking, Paladins don't change alignment as a result of not following their code. They may fall and lose their Paladin powers, but doesn't necessarily mean that their alignment also changes. In fact, in most cases, it wouldn't change.

[Pyrous]

Generally speaking, Paladins don't change alignment as a result of not following their code. They may fall and lose their Paladin powers, but doesn't necessarily mean that their alignment also changes. In fact, in most cases, it wouldn't change.

In fact, in most cases, they wouldn't fall.

[veti]

Either of those could apply to Roy - I would say that Roy fits slightly better with LG but that is merely personal opinion as it is open to interpretation, he doesn't for example seem to hate Belkar going unpunished, and he has told lies, however for NG he does not really seem devoted to helping others (as much as that he helps those in need).

What, specifically, should Roy be wanting to see Belkar punished for? Apart from a few snide comments - since Roy came back from the dead, what has Belkar actually done? And besides, he discussed this point specifically with the Deva, and she couldn't suggest anything better than his current approach.


LOL. OK, so Durkon kept them in jail because it was the strategically sound thing to do. Please, oh please tell me what that has anything to do with his alignment. :smallconfused:


(in case you don't understand what I'm trying to say, if you claim that Durkon kept them in jail because he felt it was the smart thing to do, then that has absolutely nothing to do with his alignment. If he kept them in jail because it was the Lawful thing to do, it makes him Lawful Stupid because Saving the World > serving jail time. You can't say that "staying in jail is the Lawful thing to do", then turn around and give Durkon motives for keeping them in jail which have nothing to do with being lawful.)

In the first place, Durkon didn't "keep them in jail". He remonstrated with Haley, but there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gone along with her if she'd pressed the point. But she didn't, because Roy himself talked her out of it.

In the second place, I can totally say that Durkon's behaviour was both lawful and smart. "Lawful" is a state of mind, a way of looking at rules as normative rather than merely instrumental (neutral) or restrictive (chaotic). For Durkon, following rules is the instinctive thing to do. He knows that it makes for an easier life, and he has faith that he can work within that framework to achieve his desired goal. He's right, too.

[Jay R]

Roy just risked his life in a solo attack on a high-level vampire cleric, in order to save literally every person on earth, using a precise technicality in the law of the godsmoot. What, in your view, would constitute trying to be Lawful Good?

[ace rooster]

When the Deva allowed Roy into LG heaven, the deciding factor was, for all the times Roy's fallen short, Roy was trying to be LAWFUL Good. Lately, this seems to not be the case.


When Belkar went missing, Roy's response wasn't some lawyerly wiggle room, it was "to hell with the rules! Belkar's dangerous..." Roy then continued to argue this path for many more strips, essentially in ways that he considers the rules beneath him and his mission, such as when he spoke out of turn to the Deities. Now he broke the High Priest's staff, which is totally in line, and while his explanation absolving himself of liability is arguably the lawful way to destroy the staff while fulfilling protocol, throwing it in the High Priestesses face is kind of...what's the term, rubbing her something in it?

Basically, I'm saying I think Roy is headed squarely into more neutral good territory in this point...which would be totally sad since the two heavens don't meet.

Roy is effectively Belkar's jailer, and he takes this responsibility seriously. Belkar is on a looser leash than he has been for a while, but when he fails to reappear Roy decides to take action. This is lawful. Doing something illegal to achieve something lawful is unlikely to be a serious blemish to his record IMHO.

Half of the fight has been manipulation of the rules of the godsmoot to gain tactical advantages, which is a very lawful way to fight. A neutral character would have considered violating the laws of the godsmoot to achieve their objective, even if they came to the conclusion that it was not viable. It never crossed Roy's mind that breaking the laws of the godsmoot might be optimal, putting him strongly in the lawful bracket still.

[Roland Itiative]

Roy just risked his life in a solo attack on a high-level vampire cleric, in order to save literally every person on earth, using a precise technicality in the law of the godsmoot. What, in your view, would constitute trying to be Lawful Good?
There's a problem with judging alignment with specific situations like that. Alignment only really works when you have equally viable choices. Sure, Roy could break the rules there, but it wouldn't be a smart choice and would probably get him killed for nothing. Not a viable choice at all. A smart, weak Chaotic Evil character would do the same thing, because saving the world and following the rules are two things that would benefit them (by keeping them alive).

Just like some times acting Chaotic is the best way to achieve a Good (or even Lawful) goal.

[mouser9169]

It never crossed Roy's mind that breaking the laws of the godsmoot might be optimal, putting him strongly in the lawful bracket still.

Are we sure of that? I think the simple fact that a room full of high level clerics would be obligated to destroy you would prevent pretty much anyone from considering breaking the rules of the moot, which is pretty much the point of the rules and the penalty.

Lawful != following every law or rule. It means putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Galad in the Wheel of Time is a prime example.

The leader of the 'resistance' in Azure City was a paladin, but he had no problem breaking all of the laws enacted by Redcloak and Jirix, the legal rulers. Roy is doing his best while faced with a threat that he believes has the ability to unmake souls. The fact that he isn't throwing in the towel at all and still thinking about his responsibility to kill Xykon speaks strongly to his Lawful nature.

[Ruck]

Lawful != following every law or rule. It means putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few.

No, I don't think it means that. That sounds more like Good than Law. (Is the Empire of Blood "putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few"?)

[Keltest]

No, I don't think it means that. That sounds more like Good than Law. (Is the Empire of Blood "putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few"?)

Arguably.

Lawful means a belief in the necessity for order and structure, and frustration in situations that lack those.

[mouser9169]

No, I don't think it means that. That sounds more like Good than Law. (Is the Empire of Blood "putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few"?)

Yes, actually, it is. That's the point of all the 'bread and circuses' - keeping the masses happy and well fed.

Imposed order is still order. Most of the citizens live stable, safe lives. So long as they don't go outside of the box or try to challenge the status quo, all goes well for them. Lawful
Evil is doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not: or dragging them to 'progress', kicking and screaming all the way.

Edit: Tarquin is in a bit of a weird place. He uses his methods not because of a philosophical belief, but because he is genre-savvy enough to know that that is what works in his world. The Collective Empires of Blood, Sweat, and Tears - as built and maintained by the Vector Legion, are decidedly Lawful (as much or more from the other members influence as from Tarquin's).

[Emanick]

Lawful != following every law or rule. It means putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few.

Not in the least. That might be your personal definition of Lawful, but it bears no resemblance to any definitions I've read in sourcebooks. And I've read a lot of sourcebooks.

What you're describing is more akin to utilitarianism, which doesn't line up neatly with any alignment in D&D. For example, sacrificing an innocent child to save a whole civilization is not inherently Lawful, nor is Sam Gamgee's decision at the end of The Two Towers to protect Frodo and risk the Ring's discovery and the end of the free world, rather than abandon Frodo to the orcs and attempt to destroy the Ring alone, inherently Chaotic. Not all philosophies line up neatly along the Law-Chaos or Good-Evil axis, especially because human beings don't always agree on morals or ethics and the game designers had to take that into account when designing an alignment system that would be acceptable to a broad audience.

[Ruck]

Arguably.

Lawful means a belief in the necessity for order and structure, and frustration in situations that lack those.
I agree with that. I do not see what it has to do with "the needs of the many."

Lawful Evil is doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not: or dragging them to 'progress', kicking and screaming all the way.
Look, I'm no D&D expert, but I think if your definition of an Evil alignment includes "Doing things for the greater good," it's probably wrong.

[Peelee]

I agree with that. I do not see what it has to do with "the needs of the many."

Look, I'm no D&D expert, but I think if your definition of an Evil alignment includes "Doing things for the greater good," it's probably wrong.

Oh? Redcloak is on a crusade for the greater good of the goblinoid races, yet his Evil alignment is undeniable.

If your perform Evil actions in order to necessitate a Good goal, that's great and all, you're still Evil. part of what makes Good good is holding itself to a higher standard.

[georgie_leech]

Oh? Redcloak is on a crusade for the greater good of the goblinoid races, yet his Evil alignment is undeniable.

If your perform Evil actions in order to necessitate a Good goal, that's great and all, you're still Evil. part of what makes Good good is holding itself to a higher standard.

The error is in holding 'the greater good' as a necessary component. Kubota was Lawful Evil, and last I checked he was just a power hungry git out to profit over the fall of Azure City.

[Ruck]

The error is in holding 'the greater good' as a necessary component. Kubota was Lawful Evil, and last I checked he was just a power hungry git out to profit over the fall of Azure City.

This. (And, for the record, the Empire of Blood isn't actually doing the things they do for the benefit of the people; it's for the benefit of the six adventurers in the Vector Legion.)

Redcloak is Evil because he uses Evil methods. Those methods being used toward what he considers a greater good are not what make him Lawful. (I think the best sign of his lawfulness is the time he took and trouble he went to to set up Gobbotopia. Creating an ordered society out of a marching army and conquered nation? Highly Lawful.)

[ace rooster]

Are we sure of that? I think the simple fact that a room full of high level clerics would be obligated to destroy you would prevent pretty much anyone from considering breaking the rules of the moot, which is pretty much the point of the rules and the penalty.


Nobody with any brain would actually do it, but that doesn't stop them considering it. There has only been one decent path open to Roy, so in a sense his actions this scene cannot really affect his alignment too much. In my mind lawful is more of a mindset anyway. Roy is entirely at home fighting in a legal framework, which suggests a lawful mindset.

[ORione]

Um, didn't we have a whole arc were we established that a Chaotic Evil Deity runs the western pantheon?

Could you please explain this? I have no idea what you are talking about.


In the first place, Durkon didn't "keep them in jail". He remonstrated with Haley, but there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gone along with her if she'd pressed the point. But she didn't, because Roy himself talked her out of it.

They're talking about this argument (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html).

[EyethatBinds]

Here I thought the thread was about Roy not trying to be funny anymore. But please carry on with pointless speculation on what the afterlife events of the protagonists might be based on the last 5 or so comics.

[Darth Paul]

What, specifically, should Roy be wanting to see Belkar punished for?

Technically, Belkar is still on reprieve from Azure City prison for the murder of a city guard the night of his escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0261.html). He still has a year of jail time to serve, under the terms of his plea-bargain with Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html), assuming there's ever a prison run by the Azurites again.

Then again, according to the Oracle, Belkar will eventually be excused serving his sentence, due to being dead. :smallamused:

[Reddish Mage]

Not all philosophies line up neatly along the Law-Chaos or Good-Evil axis, especially because human beings don't always agree on morals or ethics and the game designers had to take that into account when designing an alignment system that would be acceptable to a broad audience.

From what I gather from the forums and some blogs, Gygax would have said something different. Then again, few have ever argued that Gary Gygax belongs in the hall of ethical giants like Mill and Kant (that latter explicitly equates the Lawful with the Good by the way, using that exact language, at least in German, but probably in an English letter somewhere too).

D&D (in most editions at least...) takes the tack of treating Law and Chaos an axis running perpendicular to Good and Evil, the two different sets of opposites bear no correlation to each other.

So saying Roy is acting in a way that's more neutral good lately and less lawful good, is in no way and no how a suggestion that Roy is any less good.

Law and Chaos are defined differently every edition and in supplements. It has been pointed out that the definitions are contradictory at times (just one instance from 3E: Mialee the wizard is not lawful because her dedication is to her art, while Ember is lawful because of her dedication to her discipline. Look it up, art and discipline are synonyms!). Passionate arguments have been had in the past year in the playground regarding whether the most popular fictional characters are lawful or chaotic with both sides seriously disagreeing about Batman, Superman, James Bond, Captain America, Iron man...etc.

More detail on actual ethics, except to contrast ethics in the broadest terms to D&D ethics, is not necessary to the discussion.

[Keltest]

(just one instance from 3E: Mialee the wizard is not lawful because her dedication is to her art, while Ember is lawful because of her dedication to her discipline. Look it up, art and discipline are synonyms!).

While there are definitions that are synonymous, in this case they are not using those definitions. Monks are all about control and self-discipline, ie having absolute mastery of themselves. They aren't using discipline in the sense of her occupation.

[Reddish Mage]

While there are definitions that are synonymous, in this case they are not using those definitions. Monks are all about control and self-discipline, ie having absolute mastery of themselves. They aren't using discipline in the sense of her occupation.

Art or Discipline can each be used to refer to a branch of knowledge ("The English professor, a master of his art, can speak of even the most obscure areas of his discipline) or can refer to a skill at doing a specific set of tasks "art of medicine" or most tellingly the discipline Ember is dedicated is also a form of what is commonly called "the martial arts."

Anyway, that is but one example. There are plenty of other ways that the definitions of chaos and law are contradictory, and there are other problems that official characters defined as "Lawful" or "Chaotic" often are described with traits or with language that are explicitly associated with the opposed alignment.

I've seen the vagueness of the alignment expounded by bloggers who have noted that the positive traits that are said to be the province of Lawful or Chaotic people, are often just plain desirable traits for anyone to have overall, take liberty and freedom, does Roy, Hinjo, or O'Chul hate these things?

I've done this exercise before, but I have to get out the SRD or pull an old edition book and go through the examples to find the specifics. There's others who can give these examples off the top of their head.

[littlebum2002]

What, specifically, should Roy be wanting to see Belkar punished for? Apart from a few snide comments - since Roy came back from the dead, what has Belkar actually done? And besides, he discussed this point specifically with the Deva, and she couldn't suggest anything better than his current approach.



In the first place, Durkon didn't "keep them in jail". He remonstrated with Haley, but there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gone along with her if she'd pressed the point. But she didn't, because Roy himself talked her out of it.

In the second place, I can totally say that Durkon's behaviour was both lawful and smart. "Lawful" is a state of mind, a way of looking at rules as normative rather than merely instrumental (neutral) or restrictive (chaotic). For Durkon, following rules is the instinctive thing to do. He knows that it makes for an easier life, and he has faith that he can work within that framework to achieve his desired goal. He's right, too.

this:


They're talking about this argument (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html).

Durkon chose keeping Roy in a prison without knowing for sure he could break him out. He chose following the law over saving the world.

Question: If the phrase "choosing to follow the law over saving the world" does NOT describe someone who is Lawful Stupid...what does?





[Lawful] means putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few.

Care to cite whatever sourcebook you got this from? I mean, you pretty accurately described the Good alignment, maybe you're just confusing Lawful and Good?

[theNater]

...take liberty and freedom, does Roy, Hinjo, or O'Chul hate these things?
No, they don't value them particularly highly, either. Roy has spent most of his adult life fulfilling a promise someone else made, because he believes keeping promises is more important than his own freedom. Hinjo and O'Chul have each voluntarily significantly curtailed their own freedoms by swearing adherence to the paladin's code of conduct.

And don't fall into the trap of thinking alignment is built on antagonism. Characters are defined by what they are, not what they oppose. Lawful characters don't have to hate freedom any more than Chaotic ones have to hate rules, Evil ones have to hate kindness, or Good ones have to hate violence.

[Pyrous]

No, they don't value them particularly highly, either. Roy has spent most of his adult life fulfilling a promise someone else made, because he believes keeping promises is more important than his own freedom. Hinjo and O'Chul have each voluntarily significantly curtailed their own freedoms by swearing adherence to the paladin's code of conduct.


Just expanding the thought.

They don't value their own freedom very much. Nor their own safety, FWIW. They do this so nobody else, or at least not everyone else, has to do it.

The urge to oppose an oppressive government was what made Roy disbelieve Girard's illusion. The only reason that he didn't oppose Tarquin from the start was because of his mission. Therefore: LAWFUL, all capitals.

[dps]

The urge to oppose an oppressive government was what made Roy disbelieve Girard's illusion.

What are you talking about? Elan was the one who figured out that they were stuck in an illusion and jarred Roy out of it.

[JBiddles]

A Lawful alignment does not necessarily mean that a character will follow literal laws. A paladin will definitely not follow the laws of the Kingdom of the Moustache-Twirling Kitten-Torturers, for instance.

The rules of the Godsmoot are a hopeless mess of bureaucracy and near-evil.

Roy is Lawful Good so long as he follows his own code.

Alignment-wise, Roy is under no obligation to follow the bizarre, twisted rules of an organisation he isn't part of that is putting the world at risk.

Reductio ad absurdum: Roy's alignment wouldn't come into it if Xykon had posted "NO ADVENTURERS ALLOWED" in Dorukan's dungeon.

[Pyrous]

What are you talking about? Elan was the one who figured out that they were stuck in an illusion and jarred Roy out of it.

Elan figured it out and Roy didn't find anything strange, until Elan mentioned that they stopped worrying about his dad evil empire. That's when Roy started thinking about it.

[keybounce]

The use of evil methods to obtain a good result would count as neutral. We were told that the use of lawful methods to obtain a chaotic result is neutral.

We were also told that Roy was trying.

The discussion as to whether or not Redclock is evil? Using evil methods for the goal of the greater good of goblins and hobgoblins? He recognized that he was a specist, and turned that around, to support both kinds.

Lawful Good? Sure. Our good? No. His good? Yes.

Does he manipulate Xykon? Yep. Lies to him for the greater goblin good. Heck, he's made it clear that all the undead are just tools -- a perfectly good view of a cleric.

[RighteousWarior]

I feel like Roy hasn't changed at all since No Cure for the Paladin Blues. He's learned from his mistakes and altered the way he handles some things, but he himself as a person has not changed since #250.

I don't see his actions as unlawful. If you obey a law in America odds are that you would be violating a law if you did the same thing in, say, India. That's what I see happening here. Roy is still going by a set of moral and ethical standards that haven't changed since he became an adventurer.

Just because he's not following or even remotely agreeing with the crazy laws that exist wherever he happens to be at the time, doesn't make him any less lawful.

[Keltest]

The use of evil methods to obtain a good result would count as neutral. We were told that the use of lawful methods to obtain a chaotic result is neutral.

We were also told that Roy was trying.

The discussion as to whether or not Redclock is evil? Using evil methods for the goal of the greater good of goblins and hobgoblins? He recognized that he was a specist, and turned that around, to support both kinds.

Lawful Good? Sure. Our good? No. His good? Yes.

Does he manipulate Xykon? Yep. Lies to him for the greater goblin good. Heck, he's made it clear that all the undead are just tools -- a perfectly good view of a cleric.

Except Redcloak is explicitly and unapologetically evil. The Good-evil axis doesn't work on the same rules as the law-chaos axis. Doing things you know to be evil makes you even, regardless of the intended outcome.