Red Cloak: True Evil?

[Impikmin]

I've been thinking about alignments for a while, and then it came to me. True Neutral is just neutral. So could there be True Chaotic, or True Lawful, or True Good? Red Cloak is a mysterious character to me, I know he's evil, but I'm not sure about his lawfulness/chaoticness. Could there be a True Evil? Whether you think RC is True Evil or not, could there be such a thing? If so, I've never heard of it.

My definition of True anything is that it = either or. True Neutral seems to have the word true in it (I mean, wouldn't they just call it Neutral if it didn't mean something?) because it is a substitute for lawful/chaotic. Neutral replaces good/evil. So the word True replaces that alignment slot with "both".

Also, could there be a Chaotic Neutral etc.? Again, I've never head of these combinations, and maybe I'm just messing with the whole system. Sorry system!

Just a reminder: if you don't think RC is True Evil, then tell me what you think he is and your evidence why so I might be able to decide on a straight-forward alignment. Please don't flame me with a bunch of "wow you moron he's so lawful/chaotic!". I just haven't seen him doing enough lawfulness/chaoticness to make a guess, I suppose.

Anyway, for those of you who just got their "minds broken", sorry bout that. Just trying to start an interesting discussion.:smallredface:

[Angel in Black]

There is neutral on both the Good/Evil axis and the Lawful/Chaotic axis. What you're thinking of is Neutral Evil.

Edit: To answer your question, yes, there can be Chaotic Neutral- it's one of the two alignments most feared by DMs, as it often leads to thinly-veiled Chaotic Evil behavior, or Chaotic Stupid. Chaotic Stupid operates under the premise that the character is just as likely to leap off a bridge as walk across it.

[jamroar]

I've been thinking about alignments for a while, and then it came to me. True Neutral is just neutral. So could there be True Chaotic, or True Lawful, or True Good? Red Cloak is a mysterious character to me, I know he's evil, but I'm not sure about his lawfulness/chaoticness. Could there be a True Evil? Whether you think RC is True Evil or not, could there be such a thing? If so, I've never heard of it.

My definition of True anything is that it = either or. True Neutral seems to have the word true in it (I mean, wouldn't they just call it Neutral if it didn't mean something?) because it is a substitute for lawful/chaotic. Neutral replaces good/evil. So the word True replaces that alignment slot with "both".

Also, could there be a Chaotic Neutral etc.? Again, I've never head of these combinations, and maybe I'm just messing with the whole system. Sorry system!

Just a reminder: if you don't think RC is True Evil, then tell me what you think he is and your evidence why so I might be able to decide on a straight-forward alignment. Please don't flame me with a bunch of "wow you moron he's so lawful/chaotic!". I just haven't seen him doing enough lawfulness/chaoticness to make a guess, I suppose.

Anyway, for those of you who just got their "minds broken", sorry bout that. Just trying to start an interesting discussion.:smallredface:

True Good=Neutral Good
True Evil=Neutral Evil
Pure Chaos=Chaotic Neutral
Pure Law=Lawful Neutral

[Bunny]

Interesting question.

I think Redcloak could be neutral evil. He's a good follower and leader, and is responsible, so he is not what I typically think of as chaotic; but he does not strike me as lawful either, because following rules does not strike me as his priority, nor is he dedicated the the person he follows. His decision to charge into Azure City to make the deaths of all those Hobgoblin "mean something" strikes me as trying to maintain some balance, even if the balance is personal.

That's my take on it.

Bunny

[Pyrian]

"True Neutral" is only called that because "Neutral Neutral" doesn't have much of a ring to it.

[Angel in Black]

Interesting question.

I think Redcloak could be neutral evil. He's a good follower and leader, and is responsible, so he is not what I typically think of as chaotic; but he does not strike me as lawful either, because following rules does not strike me as his priority, nor is he dedicated the the person he follows. His decision to charge into Azure City to make the deaths of all those Hobgoblin "mean something" strikes me as trying to maintain some balance, even if the balance is personal.

That's my take on it.

Bunny

He strikes me as Neutral Evil as well, though I don't have much evidence.

Article 1: His blind acceptance of the hobgoblin's trials somewhat mimics the sort of behavior that would draw Haley's "it's frustrating how Lawful you people are" ire. However, he quickly loses patience with it and blasts a hobbo- Chaotic. Thus, Neutral in this situation.

Article 2: His genuine desire to plan for the battle of the Sapphire Gate shows not only intelligence, but a Lawful nature. Then again, the nature of his plan, driving away from the classical elements (Ti elementals) shows a Chaotic nature- balance. Ditto with the shell game.

Well, that's all I can think of at the moment, if I can come up with more, I'll edit this.

[Dentarg]

I find him more Lawful Evil myself. Sure he gets his hands dirty, and sure he had Neutral/Chaotic Evil intentions for a while, but there's something that we all seem to be overlooking.

Redcloak is utilizing his resources to his advantage.

- As current Supreme Leader of the Hobgoblins, he used them as a means to get to the gate. Sure at first he didn't show much care for them, but now he's treating them like brothers, and even keeping them alive as best he can so he can continue to utilize them later. He is using his power to fulfill a dark purpose.

- Working with Xykon, Redcloak seems to be utilizing Xykon's power as a tool of his own as well. Sure Redcloak tends to have to work under Xykon's thumb most of the time, but even so, Xykon is doing things as Redcloak intends. Redcloak keeps him sustained to make sure he can continue to utilize him.

I would speak further about the Crimson Mantle, but I do not know enough about it to make a legitimate point, so I will leave that open for discussion.

- Dentarg

[David Argall]

Red is a goblin, and apparently a fairly typical one, which makes Neutral Evil the default assumption.

[RocketBard]

I've been thinking about alignments for a while, and then it came to me. True Neutral is just neutral. So could there be True Chaotic, or True Lawful, or True Good? Red Cloak is a mysterious character to me, I know he's evil, but I'm not sure about his lawfulness/chaoticness. Could there be a True Evil? Whether you think RC is True Evil or not, could there be such a thing? If so, I've never heard of it.

My definition of True anything is that it = either or. True Neutral seems to have the word true in it (I mean, wouldn't they just call it Neutral if it didn't mean something?) because it is a substitute for lawful/chaotic. Neutral replaces good/evil. So the word True replaces that alignment slot with "both".

Also, could there be a Chaotic Neutral etc.? Again, I've never head of these combinations, and maybe I'm just messing with the whole system. Sorry system!

Just a reminder: if you don't think RC is True Evil, then tell me what you think he is and your evidence why so I might be able to decide on a straight-forward alignment. Please don't flame me with a bunch of "wow you moron he's so lawful/chaotic!". I just haven't seen him doing enough lawfulness/chaoticness to make a guess, I suppose.

Anyway, for those of you who just got their "minds broken", sorry bout that. Just trying to start an interesting discussion.:smallredface:

Do you even own the PHB?

[Lizard Lord]

Interesting question.

I think Redcloak could be neutral evil. He's a good follower and leader, and is responsible, so he is not what I typically think of as chaotic; but he does not strike me as lawful either, because following rules does not strike me as his priority, nor is he dedicated the the person he follows. His decision to charge into Azure City to make the deaths of all those Hobgoblin "mean something" strikes me as trying to maintain some balance, even if the balance is personal.

That's my take on it.

Bunny
Ah but following the rules is Redcloak’s priority. He must follow the laws and dogma of his god (granted he was on the verge of falling from being lawful, but I believe he had a change of heart before his alignment change happened). That is why he feels the need to protect all goblin-kind. Granted he won't follow just any law, but that is the case with most lawful people. After all Nale is lawful evil (they say so in the comic) but he felt no qualms about breaking the laws of a society that he felt was beneath him. He takes his word seriously, and I do believe he follows the laws of his home nation (though that has yet to be proven of course).

[Angel in Black]

Do you even own the PHB?

It doesn't seem like he does- but playing D&D is not a prerequisite to reading Order of the Stick. I hadn't, when I started, but I still found it funny. I just get more of the jokes now.

[RocketBard]

It doesn't seem like he does- but playing D&D is not a prerequisite to reading Order of the Stick. I hadn't, when I started, but I still found it funny. I just get more of the jokes now.

From the way he's breaking the alignments down into Lawful, Nuetral, Good, etc., it would look as though he has played D&D before.

[Angel in Black]

From the way he's breaking the alignments down into Lawful, Nuetral, Good, etc., it would look as though he has played D&D before.

Granted. But we're getting off topic, this is highly irrelevant.

[Impikmin]

Lol, I've never played it before, you're right. The topic just interests me. I'm glad there weren't as many lawful evil responses as I thought their might be. Thanks for answering my questions:smallbiggrin: He does strike me as a really lawful evil guy at times, but no matter how many lawful things he does he just has that chaotic edge to him:smallconfused: He must be spending too much time with the MitD!:mitd:

[Angel in Black]

Lol, I've never played it before, you're right. The topic just interests me. I'm glad there weren't as many lawful evil responses as I thought their might be. Thanks for answering my questions:smallbiggrin: He does strike me as a really lawful evil guy at times, but no matter how many lawful things he does he just has that chaotic edge to him:smallconfused: He must be spending too much time with the MitD!:mitd:

Agreed- he seems to do a lot of both, but he IS leaning toward Lawful Evil moreso than Chaotic Evil, IMHO.

[Bunny]

Ah but following the rules is Redcloak’s priority. He must follow the laws and dogma of his god.

Is it ever stated which god Redcloak worships? I've often wondered.


That is why he feels the need to protect all goblin-kind.

Okay, I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, so please be patient. I think you're saying Redcloak would feel the need to protect other goblins because his alignment is (presumably) Lawful.

I don't think helping others is necessarily a lawful act ... or even a good one. Chaotic characters often help others. A chaotic good character might help someone because doing so is a personal value for that individual; a chaotic evil character might feel protecting others furthers a selfish plan (like Belkar saving Hinjo's life).



He takes his word seriously, and I do believe he follows the laws of his home nation (though that has yet to be proven of course).

He does indeed take his word seriously. That is one of the likeable things about Reddie: he does what needs to be done because he said he'd do it and no one else will take the responsibility. He's a smart guy with a lousy job.


Bunny

[JaxGaret]

He strikes me as Neutral Evil as well, though I don't have much evidence.

Article 1: His blind acceptance of the hobgoblin's trials somewhat mimics the sort of behavior that would draw Haley's "it's frustrating how Lawful you people are" ire. However, he quickly loses patience with it and blasts a hobbo- Chaotic. Thus, Neutral in this situation.


Agreed- he seems to do a lot of both, but he IS leaning toward Lawful Evil moreso than Chaotic Evil, IMHO.

I'm going to agree with your latter post, Angel in Black. He seems pretty Lawful to me; off the top of my head, I can't think of any actions of his that were truly Chaotic.

The instance in which he slayed who he thought was the supreme goblin leader was not a Chaotic act. That particular path to Supreme Leadership was suggested to him as just another method of doing so, and so was not Chaotic in the slightest.

[Angel in Black]

I'm going to agree with your latter post, Angel in Black. He seems pretty Lawful to me; off the top of my head, I can't think of any actions of his that were truly Chaotic.

The instance in which he slayed who he thought was the supreme goblin leader was not a Chaotic act. That particular path to Supreme Leadership was suggested to him as just another method of doing so, and so was not Chaotic in the slightest.

Ah, right, I had forgotten about that. That's the problem with being awake in excess of 48 hours, you start to get a little loopy. However, there is still the issue of the elementals he summoned- clearly a break of tradition. However, I can see how that could be lawful, but I'm not lucid enough to come up with a coherent argument at the moment.

[Yenkaz]

The Dark One(goblin homemade god, it seems)

[Green Bean]

Ah, right, I had forgotten about that. That's the problem with being awake in excess of 48 hours, you start to get a little loopy. However, there is still the issue of the elementals he summoned- clearly a break of tradition. However, I can see how that could be lawful, but I'm not lucid enough to come up with a coherent argument at the moment.

I'm not sure if summoning new elementals is breaking any traditions. There's no Inevitable who comes after you for summoning a Potassium elemental. It's really just creative, which is a trait that can pop up in any alignment.

[Angel in Black]

I'm not sure if summoning new elementals is breaking any traditions. There's no Inevitable who comes after you for summoning a Potassium elemental. It's really just creative, which is a trait that can pop up in any alignment.

Yup, that's part of the argument I was trying to formulate, well, kind of. I don't know. Very good point, though.

[Rad]

being lawful has very little to do with following the law; it is just about having an organized mind, prefer ordered and tidy things and believing that the world needs order rather than go along the whim of all the single individuals (which can include going along the whim of ONE single individual). This usually means that traditions and laws are appreciated as tools to this end.
Redcloak is organized to the point of being nerdy (color-coded reports on the gates?) planning and has some difficulty in thinking out of the box at times. With a couple of minor exceptions (alignments are not absolute) he is totally Lawful in my book.

As for the elementals... he is just applying his chem classes and have them appear with a nice label with atomic number and weight.Being Lawful does not mean you do not get to invent anything.

[RocketBard]

Since Redcloak was able to put his hate for hobgoblins aside in order to win a battle, I would say he's Lawful Evil.

[Iranon]

I would tend towards Neutral Evil. He works within an established framework of rules unless pushed too far (Honorary Hobgoblin ceremony) and has a sense of loyalty... but he shows little concern for authority, his or otherwise. For a supreme leader of a considerable hobgoblin army and a religious bigwig, he certainly doesn't do much lording over others.

I've always regarded alignments as concerned with ideals over personality quirks though, Redcloak shows quite a few tell-tale signs of Lawfulness.

[hanzo66]

Is it ever stated which god Redcloak worships? I've often wondered.


One's first guess would most likely be Magubiyet, the Neutral Evil God of Goblins.

However somehow I doubt it might be that obvious. It might be a fictional God made up for the series (if they can make a fictional Prestige Class, why not a God) or it might actually be perhaps a non-evil god (The Dark One could just mean that the god doesn't take baths) of Goblins (the only plausible alignments would either be Lawful Neutral or True Neutral) though this is a theory that is fairly questionable...

[Yenkaz]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html

"Some even raised up their own gods, like the elves and the goblins".

The Dark One might be a title, but I don't think he's an official dnd god from any of the handbooks..

[mockingbyrd7]

Wait a minute...
I just realized something...

The DARK one.

The >>DARK<< one.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

:mitd:?

What if he worships the Monster in the Darkness? Or if the MITD is, like, The Dark One's son? (Maybe a little like Jesus - no offense to those who aren't Christian - except this guy's a bumbling fool who is "as scary as musty styrofoam".)

[Basha]

[/QUOTE] I've always regarded alignments as concerned with ideals over personality quirks though, Redcloak shows quite a few tell-tale signs of Lawfulness.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is the approach of the Handbooks, especially of the second edition. I have always taken that approach when playing and I still think it allows for bringing more depth into charakters. However, that is only one way to look at it, and OOTS is not taking place in an environment set by a specific rulebook. It just blends into one set of rules very smoothly.

So, even our assumption of RedCloak being evil is not that easy to prove.
Remember what he says about humans and being a racist?

[fred321]

Most DnD gods have a title, like Moradin, the soul forger; Corellon Larethian, the protector. The dark one could be only a title to the god he worships, but even so, we still don´t know to wich pantheon he belongs.

[Woof]

Wait a minute...
I just realized something...

The DARK one.

The >>DARK<< one.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

:mitd:?

What if he worships the Monster in the Darkness? Or if the MITD is, like, The Dark One's son? (Maybe a little like Jesus - no offense to those who aren't Christian - except this guy's a bumbling fool who is "as scary as musty styrofoam".)

Right. After all, we've seen on numerous occasions how devoted and submissive Redcloak's been to the almighty MitD. / sarcasm off

[Senex]

Note that, according to 'Saved Game' strip, Redcloak doesn't know what spells belong to the Law domain. Another little bit of circumstantial evidence against him being Lawful.

[Lamech]

I'm guessing he's lawful evil because if one reads lawful evil in the players handbook one part says "He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their race..." Which Redcloak does; he hates all humans for being humans and he at first hated all the hobos, so I think that puts him firmly in the lawful evil camp.

[squidthingy]

He followed the laws of the hobbo's but he doesn't follow the laws of the humans

[SITB]

He followed the laws of the hobbo's but he doesn't follow the laws of the humans

See Rad's argument:



being lawful has very little to do with following the law; it is just about having an organized mind, prefer ordered and tidy things and believing that the world needs order rather than go along the whim of all the single individuals (which can include going along the whim of ONE single individual). This usually means that traditions and laws are appreciated as tools to this end.
Redcloak is organized to the point of being nerdy (color-coded reports on the gates?) planning and has some difficulty in thinking out of the box at times. With a couple of minor exceptions (alignments are not absolute) he is totally Lawful in my book.


I'd toss my vote with Redcloack being a Lawful Evil.

[Thanatos 51-50]

"Lawful" rings better than "Orderly" in the alignment system, just like "Neutral Neutral" is oft called "True Neutral". I try to think of "Lawful" charecers as "Ordered" ones. Redcloak shows some awfully blatant signs of Order, so I'm calling a "Lawful Evil"

[Lizard Lord]

Okay, I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, so please be patient. I think you're saying Redcloak would feel the need to protect other goblins because his alignment is (presumably) Lawful.

Yes, but he feels no need to protect non-goblins. In fact he feels the need to destroy humans.

It is possible for non-lawful or non-good people to feel the need to protect others, but in this case it comes from his lawfulness. The lawful part of his alignment requires that he follows his god's will (which is only refered to as the "Dark One").
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

:redcloak: "I'm the High Priest of the Dark One, it's my job to shephard the goblin people-ALL of the goblin people!"

[Lizard Lord]

Note that, according to 'Saved Game' strip, Redcloak doesn't know what spells belong to the Law domain. Another little bit of circumstantial evidence against him being Lawful.

That doesn't mean anything. His God could be neutral evil and Redcloak would still be lawful evil. Plus not all lawful clerics have to have the law domain.

[Thanatos 51-50]

That doesn't mean anything. His God could be neutral evil and Redcloak would still be lawful evil. Plus not all lawful clerics have to have the law domain.

I never use Alignement domains on my Clerics, personally.

[Bunny]

Wow! What a variety of interpretations!

Thanks for that link, Lizard! You're right: Reddie states that it's his job - his sacred duty - to defend all goblins. Seems pretty lawful to me.

Rad's point about an orderly mind being part of the "lawful" characteristic also makes sense to me. (I'd forgotten about those color-coded files! :smallbiggrin: )

Most important, in my mind at least, is Reddie's strong sense of honor. Reddie keeps his promises and protects all his people (even the ones he doesn't much like). A neutral evil person seems to be far more selfish, and has no honor. That really does not describe Reddie at all.

So you have officially swayed my opinion. I figure he's lawful evil.

Bunny

[Arnen]

To everyone saying that he can't be lawful because he hates and wishes to destroy humans: Don't most humans hate and wish to destroy goblins? Think of how many goblins have been killed by adventurers - to him, that's no doubt a terrible injustice. By his beliefs, it's perfectly reasonable to hate humans, just as it's perfectly reasonable for most humans to hate goblins.

[Oxymoron]

I think you guys take alignment a bit to seriously. Redcloak does this, he must be lawful, Redcloak does that, he must be chaotic and so on.

Sure, he has an alignment, but it shouldn`t limit his life and decisions in any way. He just acts appropiatly to his beliefs and upbringing, nothing more, nothing less. I`ve DMed a couple of people in my day, and a few treated their alignment as a straihtjacket (I wrote that right, right? Norwegian you now......). "I know I`m neutral evil, so since I`m basicly greedy and selfish I don`t give him my healing potion even though we need him later". I actually had to take them aside and tell them to losen up.

[Impikmin]

Ok guys, thanks for compiling all this info for me. I think Reddie is technically speaking "Lawful Evil" but he will always have that chaotic lining to me:smallwink: There aren't a lot of examples, but he undoubtibly is different from someone like Nale. Like I said, way too much time spent doing henchmen work for Xykon and babysitting MitD makes one a little on edge. Maybe "Chawful Evil"? Yah... I like that:smallcool:

[mikeejimbo]

There is neutral on both the Good/Evil axis and the Lawful/Chaotic axis. What you're thinking of is Neutral Evil.

Edit: To answer your question, yes, there can be Chaotic Neutral- it's one of the two alignments most feared by DMs, as it often leads to thinly-veiled Chaotic Evil behavior, or Chaotic Stupid. Chaotic Stupid operates under the premise that the character is just as likely to leap off a bridge as walk across it.

I thought Chaotic Stupid was a name for poorly played Chaotic Evil. Though I could see it fitting with Chaotic Neutral too. That said, Chaotic Neutral is one of my favorite alignments.

[EvilElitest]

Lol, I've never played it before, you're right. The topic just interests me. I'm glad there weren't as many lawful evil responses as I thought their might be. Thanks for answering my questions:smallbiggrin: He does strike me as a really lawful evil guy at times, but no matter how many lawful things he does he just has that chaotic edge to him:smallconfused: He must be spending too much time with the MitD!:mitd:

He strikes me as LE because of his general manner

Even when commanding hte Hobs, he did so in a very orginized fashion. When he had them all killed he always did it for a purpose. When he commanded the goblins he tried to solve his problem legally. He has stayed loaly to Xykon dispite many humilations and insults.
His miltary battle plan was extremly orginized and well, lawful. And he honestly belives in what he is fighting for, not working towards self gain so that gives him points towards law.



I think you guys take alignment a bit to seriously. Redcloak does this, he must be lawful, Redcloak does that, he must be chaotic and so on.

Sure, he has an alignment, but it shouldn`t limit his life and decisions in any way. He just acts appropiatly to his beliefs and upbringing, nothing more, nothing less. I`ve DMed a couple of people in my day, and a few treated their alignment as a straihtjacket (I wrote that right, right? Norwegian you now......). "I know I`m neutral evil, so since I`m basicly greedy and selfish I don`t give him my healing potion even though we need him later". I actually had to take them aside and tell them to losen up
If Red starts randomlly killing his own guys for not reason on a regualar than he would be chaotic. That is how it workes. However his being LE does not mean he can't do chaotic acts, just his lawful ones out numbered his chaotic ones.


from,
EE

[Jefepato]

Note that, according to 'Saved Game' strip, Redcloak doesn't know what spells belong to the Law domain. Another little bit of circumstantial evidence against him being Lawful.

Untrue. He just didn't know that the high priest of the Twelve Gods had selected that particular domain.

[donkyhotay]

I personally think he's borderline LE/NE

[Impikmin]

Yup, that sounds good. Maybe a little more NE then LE:smallwink: But just a smidgen:smallbiggrin: A craket:smallbiggrin: A bitta:smalltongue:

[RyQ_TMC]

I might be a little controversial here, but...

Lawful Good?

Just think about it. It's easy to imply that his order being deadly enemies of Sapphire Guard makes him Chaotic Evil, or something on these lines. But hey - in my book he's as close to a Lawful Good paladin as a goblin can be. He is orderly. He doesn't mind killing enemies of his people. At the same time, he shows a high degree of responsibility about his kinsmen (hobbos included). Unfortunately, this quality is frequently overshadowed by him doing what Xykon tells him to (an oath?), which is frequently against his honour.

Now c'mon, having fangs and green skin does not imply that you HAVE to be evil.

[Porthos]

I might be a little controversial here, but...

Lawful Good?

Just think about it. It's easy to imply that his order being deadly enemies of Sapphire Guard makes him Chaotic Evil, or something on these lines. But hey - in my book he's as close to a Lawful Good paladin as a goblin can be. He is orderly. He doesn't mind killing enemies of his people. At the same time, he shows a high degree of responsibility about his kinsmen (hobbos included). Unfortunately, this quality is frequently overshadowed by him doing what Xykon tells him to (an oath?), which is frequently against his honour.

Now c'mon, having fangs and green skin does not imply that you HAVE to be evil.

I would like to see if you still hold that position after reading Start of Darkness. :smalltongue:

Redcloak may be many things, but Good is definitely not one of them. Oh he may talk a good game (no pun intended), but when it comes time to act, Redcloak has committed numerous evil acts to further his "good" cause. And before you say that he loves his people and won't harm them, I'll point out that Loving Your Own People and Being Evil are in no way shape or form incompatible. Evil doesn't have to mean "I treat everyone like dirt" or "I will trample anyone to get what I want, even my countrymen." History is rife with examples of very evil people who were very kind and loving toward "their own".

After all, just because you're evil, it doesn't necessarily follow that you don't have scruples. And, likewise, just because you have scruples, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are good.

(SoD spoilers ahoy):
Now could Redcloak have been Good if things had turned out differently in his life? Quite possibly. As SoD hints. But just because life handed you a raw deal, it doesn't mean you get to turn around and Be Evil. I think the tale of Right-Eye shows us how Redcloak should have acted, if only he had more moral fiber.

Sooner or later you have to choose which side you're on. Are you going to commit Evil to further your cause, or are you going to travel the more difficult path and try to get what you want done via Good Means.

Redcloak has chosen time and time again to take the Evil Path. Will this change in the future? Perhaps. But he has to get over his hatred of humans first (and SoD really drives this point home about how this is his Fatal Flaw), and it doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. :smallsmile:

[RyQ_TMC]

And before you say that he loves his people and won't harm them, I'll point out that Loving Your Own People and Being Evil are in no way shape or form incompatible. Evil doesn't have to mean "I treat everyone like dirt" or "I will trample anyone to get what I want, even my countrymen." History is rife with examples of very evil people who were very kind and loving toward "their own".


Well, I guess that was enough of an incentive to read SoD :smallsmile:

But then, you are speaking about "evil people in history". Well, even maniacal psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Vlad Drakula couldn't be spoken of as "evil". Hell, no-one in the real world is truly evil or truly good, I daresay.

I am speaking of Evil as a D&D alignment and the rules state quite openly that "evil" basically mean "egoist" in that respect. And yes, I know that alignments aren't absolute. But neither are they immaterial. Picture Redcloak vs. Xykon. Now, for me, Xykon is as Evil as one can get, because he's egoist, caring more about his own entertainment than someone's life, and totally self-concerned. Redcloak's nowhere like that.

And I repeat once again - let us not compare them with historical characters, cause you won't get anywhere that way.

[Porthos]

I am speaking of Evil as a D&D alignment and the rules state quite openly that "evil" basically mean "egoist" in that respect. And yes, I know that alignments aren't absolute. But neither are they immaterial. Picture Redcloak vs. Xykon. Now, for me, Xykon is as Evil as one can get, because he's egoist, caring more about his own entertainment than someone's life, and totally self-concerned. Redcloak's nowhere like that.

For Rich's views on Character Motivation, and a side discussion about How Evil People In DnD Tick, I invite you to read a pair of articles that he wrote for the Gaming Section of the website: :smallsmile:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html

They provide a fascinating take on Evil. As for your point about Redcloak and Xykon..... Well, without getting too much into Start of Darkness, let's just say that your point is addressed in the book and leave it at that. :smallwink: On a more General Note, just as there are differences between the Good Roy and the (pre fall) Good Miko, there are differences between the Evil Xykon and the Evil Redclaok (and in fact the Evil Belkar).

Heck, per the actual strip, Eugene Greenhilt is Good (and Lawful Good, to boot). And yet he is light-years away in temperment and stlye than his son, Roy (and we won't even compare Eugene to Hinjo). That's the thing about alignments. Even if you're the Diet Coke of Evil (or Good), you're still Evil.

Now I agree that Xykon is far, far worse of a "person" than Redcloak. And certainly more Evil (what little doubt is utterly silenced in SoD). However, just because Redcloak hangs around someone who is more evil than he is, it doens't get him off the hook for his own act of villiany. :smallwink: Redcloak, by his own deeds and temperment, is evil. Just not as evil as Xykon.

But then, who really is? :smalltongue:

[Impikmin]

My take on evil and good is that they are basically just sides in a big war. Neither of them HAVE to be right or wrong morally. Now Evil just has self serving tendencies. Evil in general is, yes, bad. Good in general is, yes, good. But I would call alignments chocolate and vanilla. Hey, my friend hates all chocolate, that doesn't make him morally less of a person. And hey, I dislike most plain vanilla icecream brands, but that doesn't either. "It's the choices Harry, that make us who we are" (or something to that effect, kept seeing that quote everywhere, not a humungo HP fan since books stopped popping out). What I'm trying to say is that maybe you could have someone like Miko trying to kill the OOTS without evidence for self serving purposes, and you can have RC trying to save the lives of goblins because they are loyal to him. Similarly, you can have the snarl trying to kill everyone for no reason and the gods banding together to trap it. Evil and Good aren't always moral standpoints! They can be icecream flavors too!:smallredface:

[jeffh]

I find him more Lawful Evil myself. Sure he gets his hands dirty, and sure he had Neutral/Chaotic Evil intentions for a while, but there's something that we all seem to be overlooking.

Redcloak is utilizing his resources to his advantage.

- As current Supreme Leader of the Hobgoblins, he used them as a means to get to the gate. Sure at first he didn't show much care for them, but now he's treating them like brothers, and even keeping them alive as best he can so he can continue to utilize them later. He is using his power to fulfill a dark purpose.

- Working with Xykon, Redcloak seems to be utilizing Xykon's power as a tool of his own as well. Sure Redcloak tends to have to work under Xykon's thumb most of the time, but even so, Xykon is doing things as Redcloak intends. Redcloak keeps him sustained to make sure he can continue to utilize him.

I would speak further about the Crimson Mantle, but I do not know enough about it to make a legitimate point, so I will leave that open for discussion.

- DentargI fail to see how any of that makes him Lawful, as opposed to just smart.

[Rad]

My take on evil and good is that they are basically just sides in a big war. Neither of them HAVE to be right or wrong morally. Now Evil just has self serving tendencies. Evil in general is, yes, bad. Good in general is, yes, good. But I would call alignments chocolate and vanilla. Hey, my friend hates all chocolate, that doesn't make him morally less of a person. And hey, I dislike most plain vanilla icecream brands, but that doesn't either. "It's the choices Harry, that make us who we are" (or something to that effect, kept seeing that quote everywhere, not a humungo HP fan since books stopped popping out). What I'm trying to say is that maybe you could have someone like Miko trying to kill the OOTS without evidence for self serving purposes, and you can have RC trying to save the lives of goblins because they are loyal to him. Similarly, you can have the snarl trying to kill everyone for no reason and the gods banding together to trap it. Evil and Good aren't always moral standpoints! They can be icecream flavors too!:smallredface:
Being good or evil is, as you said, a matter of your choices, but those choices are not "of the same value". It makes a difference what you choose and there are options that are right and options that are wrong. Several people look at the slaughtery paladins with contempt and think that they should fall (see cloaked Miko Vs. Sammy) and everybody agrees that there is a line that you risk crossing there (see here (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050917.html) [note: how and IF this guy can still a paladin is a major question of the comic]). If you take any RL "simmetric" war you will find a very similar behavior in both fields. Leaving allies with chlorine elementals because you do not like their race has no equivalent on the other side.
Even in fiction, the good army is usually defending, not invading; paladins are competent protectors, not people that go around randomly killing creatures belonging to races that have the "usually evil" alignment listen in the MM. Even in a setting like Dragonlance, in which the good Vs. evil theme has prominence and that hints at the fact that the real "good" is just the balance between the two, you can tell the difference in behavior between good guys and evil guys and see that they are not the same thing with just a different name.
What the average player tends to actually do while playing is, obviously, a completely different matter.

So, sorry, no ice cream here :smallamused:

[Holammer]

Clearly Lawful Evil, with a conscience.
Like Republicans neh?

Cheap shots aside, he does show a lawful side, but his actions sway from LE to NE from strip to strip. Even good tendencies now and then I'd say.

[BelkarPwnsAll!]

There is neutral on both the Good/Evil axis and the Lawful/Chaotic axis. What you're thinking of is Neutral Evil.

Edit: To answer your question, yes, there can be Chaotic Neutral- it's one of the two alignments most feared by DMs, as it often leads to thinly-veiled Chaotic Evil behavior, or Chaotic Stupid. Chaotic Stupid operates under the premise that the character is just as likely to leap off a bridge as walk across it.
You are so right. Elan should be Chaotic Stupid, don't you think? I mean, COME ON! He can't even sing right!:smalltongue:

[jamroar]

My take on evil and good is that they are basically just sides in a big war. Neither of them HAVE to be right or wrong morally. Now Evil just has self serving tendencies. Evil in general is, yes, bad. Good in general is, yes, good. But I would call alignments chocolate and vanilla.

I must disagree here. Vanilla is neutral and unaligned by definition, while strawberry icecream, clearly, is a hateful abomination against nature. :smallwink:

[Emperor Ing]

I must disagree here. Vanilla is neutral and unaligned by definition, while strawberry icecream, clearly, is a hateful abomination against nature. :smallwink:

Vanilla is true neutral, neither lawful, chaotic, good, or evil. Just sitting on the part where the 6 fences intersect
I agree, strawberry MUST be chaotic evil. Its bad. BAD!!! Everybody who likes it is either chaotic, evil, or stupid, or all of the above.
Chocolate is a holy symbol, brought to us by the gods themselves. Everything it stands for is holy and rightheous! And by the gods, all who dislike the taste (minus the allergic of course) must repent for their sins.

Ice cream is more important than it looks, it can tell a lot about a person's alignment, except mint, it says nothing.

[Arnen]

Does that mean that neopolitan is neutral, because the chocolate cancels out the strawberry?

[jeffh]

Does that mean that neopolitan is neutral, because the chocolate cancels out the strawberry?

No, it's just confused.

[lonewolf23k]

Right. After all, we've seen on numerous occasions how devoted and submissive Redcloak's been to the almighty MitD. / sarcasm off

Actually, it might explain his attitude towards it.. "You're supposed to be an avatar of my deity? ...So disappointing..."

[Oberon]

Redcloak is an evil cleric.
Evil clerics are LE, pretty much always..

[Kish]

Redcloak is an evil cleric.
Evil clerics are LE, pretty much always..
No, they are not. Where are you getting that idea?

[Velazquez]

I would say that Redcloak is neutral Evil.He does not seem to have a real vision in order to tell that he is lawfull neutral.

[Snipers_Promise]

Yay! Alinment Thread. As I have said many times, Redcloak is Redcloak. Everything else is a lie. Its a conspiriesy. :smalleek:

[Fighteer]

Redcloak has all the classic Lawful alignment traits. He is organized, methodical, and thinks his actions through (mostly). He is devoted to a Plan that he willingly gives his life to, and organizes everything he does around the fulfillment of that plan. He obeys his sworn word wherever possible, and does not easily or casually change his mind or his attitude. He is the one keeping Xykon on task and organized, and he's in charge of all the administrative details of Team Evil. Except when his ego gets in the way, he is careful to conserve resources and maximize his forces' chances to win any given battle.

He is Evil because he seeks to elevate his people to greatness at the expense of all others. He kills without remorse, raises and controls undead, and willingly serves a deity who would rather see the world destroyed and remade than give up his vision of his race's supremacy. His overt motives (equality for his people) might be Good, but his actions in pursuit of those goals are Evil, and "ends justifies means" is a fundamentally Evil point of view. In the classic words of George Lucas, he has chosen the "quick and easy path" that leads to darkness.

Furthermore, as we see in Start of Darkness, his original motives have become corrupted by his refusal to admit that he might be wrong. In fact, his moral cowardice is perhaps his strongest (or weakest) character trait. It's that cowardice that keeps him from taking the hard actions that might lead to his redemption. Interestingly, he seems to be growing more of a spine as the main comic progresses.

[Impikmin]

Ha ha you guys are funny with the jokes off of my icecream thing:smallbiggrin: