Eugene is definitely evil at this point.

[Alias]

I know Rich is trying for the funny here, but any character who endorses omnicide just so he can get his way has jumped well past the chaotic evil event horizon in my book and has no business anywhere near the pearly gates of any world. Hopefully that will be underscored that, once Xykon is destroyed, the angels review his case and his behavior while waiting to get in and pitch him into an appropriate lower plane.

[denthor]

From watching all of the ghost shows it seems that the longer someone remains a ghost the more upset and vengeful they get. So Eugene Maybe lawful good and has gone nuts.

[dancrilis]

Not buying it, his plan benefited him sure - but with the exception of the Dwarves is also benefited every Good creature on the planet (and potentially a lot of Neutral and maybe even some evil ones).

Right now for all Roy knows Xykon has just gained control of a gate two rounds ago and the gods are all dead now with Xykon setting able to do whatever he wants - game over Team Evil wins (we know this is unlikely to be the case, but Roy has less information than we do).

And as soon as the dwarves were mentioned he backed away from 'doing nothing' and instead focused on what could 'be done', effectively admitting that 'doing nothing' would be evil given the outcome.

Also...

... jumped well past the chaotic evil event horizon ...
... the chaotic evil event horizon is no worse than the lawful evil event horizon or neutral evil event horizon (it might actually be better than the neutral evil event horizon). Your statement seems to imply that you are not overly familiar with the nine point alignment system.

[NerdyKris]

I would say neutral at this point. He's desperate and just talking a big game in a personal conversation with his son. He hasn't actually done anything evil yet. Not even refusing to tell Roy about Vaarsuvius, since there was absolutely no way he could have known (And we don't even know yet) what the consequences of that deal would be. And Roy now knows about it.

Granted, his statements are horrifying and monstrous, but they're just statements. Terrible, awful statements that should be looked at very closely when he gets his entrance interview, but not evil actions.

[Murk]

Meh.
I'm rather underwhelmed by the evilness of killing in this world (and pretty much every standard D&D world). It's not like the afterlives are worse than actual life (in many ways they are better). It's not like there's a big difference between killing someone and shifting them to another plane. Heck, it's not even like killing someone is a permanent thing. I'm pretty sure the Gods (being ultrapotent creatures) could store the dead away somewhere and just mass resurrect them when the new world is ready.

However, someone who is bound to roam the outskirts of heaven, in sight of the golden gate but not being allowed in, driven to boredom and eventually insanity - now that is horrible. Poor Eugene's fate is far far worse than the fate of the civil war/dragon suicide dwarves.

You go Eugene!!!

[littlebum2002]

I know Rich is trying for the funny here, but any character who endorses omnicide just so he can get his way has jumped well past the chaotic evil event horizon in my book and has no business anywhere near the pearly gates of any world. Hopefully that will be underscored that, once Xykon is destroyed, the angels review his case and his behavior while waiting to get in and pitch him into an appropriate lower plane.

So I'm guessing youu also believe all the Lawful Good deities that also voted for omicide are also Chaotic Evil at this point as well?

[Valynie]

If you believe that the world is about to be destroyed by the snarl (as clearly some LG gods believe) , you believe that ALL the souls in it will be destroyed too.
It then follows that the only choice is a pre-emptive strike to AT LEAST rescue the souls from oblivion and allow them to go to their rewards :
This is a LG action . this is not ideal but the better choice given your belief

Now , due to the special nature of the dwarves , if you do so without warning the dwarves beforehand , their souls are goinog to HEL . The better choice would be indeed to warn them so they might be allowed to die in combat and so go to Valhalla.
Still a LG action

So Eugene is indeed advocating a LG action. He might be doing it for selfish purpose . the problem is more with the premises : the world is about to be destroyed by the Snarl and nothing can be done about it.
Roy believe it can be done so of course for him it is the better choice , Eugene does not

[Psyren]

I wouldn't peg him at full-blown Evil as he does seem legitimately concerned for the dwarves' predicament, something that has no effect on him personally. But some flavor of Neutral, most likely TN? I could easily buy that.

Besides, if he doesn't go Neutral, Julia will have no family around her as the entire rest of the family is LG. Granted, she may be totally okay with that, but I'd say a good chunk of that is due to her rebellious teen phase.

[JennTora]

Meh.
I'm rather underwhelmed by the evilness of killing in this world (and pretty much every standard D&D world). It's not like the afterlives are worse than actual life (in many ways they are better). It's not like there's a big difference between killing someone and shifting them to another plane. Heck, it's not even like killing someone is a permanent thing. I'm pretty sure the Gods (being ultrapotent creatures) could store the dead away somewhere and just mass resurrect them when the new world is ready.

However, someone who is bound to roam the outskirts of heaven, in sight of the golden gate but not being allowed in, driven to boredom and eventually insanity - now that is horrible. Poor Eugene's fate is far far worse than the fate of the civil war/dragon suicide dwarves.

You go Eugene!!!

Actually, even if you're good, you wind up slowly turning into a planar battery. And you can't learn or develop any more. I suppose if you're an old man who feels he's "learned enough" whatever that means, moving on to slowly being absorbed after a few centuries of endless one night stands would be fantastic, but for us young men that want to become completely awesome individuals it's a terrible fate.

And that's probably why Eugene wants to go ahead and end the world and Roy wants to save it.

[Ruck]

I don't think he's Evil, but I definitely don't think he's Lawful Good, either. I have him pegged as True Neutral: The sum of his words and actions indicate to me someone whose self-interest is his first, second, and third concern. (He does eventually say it would be bad if the Dwarves were all consigned to an eternity of slavery so he could get into the Afterlife, so it's not like he'd be willing to do anything to get his way.)

[Liquor Box]

I don't think Eugene is evil at all.

First, he does not advocate that him and Roy actually cause the snarl's destruction of the world - he is only suggesting they do nothing to stop it. Roy is right that he is making a decision - but his decision is as to his own involvement, and his lack of involvement does not mean he caused the end of the world.

Second, he is clearly having regard the utility to sapient beings in the world, but he appears to be persuaded that their deaths wont be such a bad thing because of the existence of the afterlife. He demonstrates this by initially conceding that the dwarfs being relegated to eternal slavery was a good point against his plan, until he thinks of a solution that would allow the dwarfs their proper afterlife.

Speaking more generally, I don't see much that he has done throughout the comic that would suggest that he is not a good person - maybe not likeable to some people, but certainly in no way evil.

[Rift_Wolf]

I don't think Eugenes Evil; at worst, he's bumping around somewhere north of True Neutral. He might not make it to Celestia on the basis of whether he's actively trying to be LG, or if this particular comic is showing him in an unfavourable light (although I'm struggling to recall a redeeming moment for Eugene at this point). However the comic made the point with Miko and the other paladins; there's more than one interpretation of Lawful Good.

Evil event horizon would be if Eugene did something irredeemably evil that he couldn't come back from (by the TV tropes definition). So advocating omnicide then reconsidering when the dwarves deal is mentioned doesn't count. Actively trying to force through the end of the world by hindering Roy ("sorry son, but I can solve my blood oath without you") or helping the vampires (...somehow?) would be Evil Event Horizons.

[Haluesen]

...people are still defending Eugene? The heck? :smallannoyed: He's not just stating some barely-rational idea to save the souls of the people of the world. He is advocating OMNICIDE so he can get to an afterlife he thinks is owed him. He is suggesting that everyone in the world dies so that he himself can benefit. Now, we don't have the benefit of being able to hear tone of voice or know his inner thoughts or tell if he is being sarcastic, that much is true. But with the evidence we have right in front of us, in comic, he seems to want millions to die so he can go to Celestia. How is that at all right? At best it is unbelievably callous and selfish. This isn't a case of "Good is not nice", this is a selfish man who lived a selfish life suggesting the death of everyone in the world, including children, all so he can have paradise. No amount of desperation makes that okay. Him trying to protect the souls of the dwarves while talking of them dying does not make that okay. Why do people continue to talk as if he is at all defendable??? :smallfurious:

As far as the OP is saying, the course of action that Eugene is talking about may not be specifically CE. But it is definitely not good and probably not neutral.

[Rift_Wolf]

...people are still defending Eugene? The heck? :smallannoyed: He's not just stating some barely-rational idea to save the souls of the people of the world. He is advocating OMNICIDE so he can get to an afterlife he thinks is owed him. He is suggesting that everyone in the world dies so that he himself can benefit. Now, we don't have the benefit of being able to hear tone of voice or know his inner thoughts or tell if he is being sarcastic, that much is true. But with the evidence we have right in front of us, in comic, he seems to want millions to die so he can go to Celestia. How is that at all right? At best it is unbelievably callous and selfish. This isn't a case of "Good is not nice", this is a selfish man who lived a selfish life suggesting the death of everyone in the world, including children, all so he can have paradise. No amount of desperation makes that okay. Him trying to protect the souls of the dwarves while talking of them dying does not make that okay. Why do people continue to talk as if he is at all defendable??? :smallfurious:

As far as the OP is saying, the course of action that Eugene is talking about may not be specifically CE. But it is definitely not good and probably not neutral.

It's possible his perception of life and death is a bit skewed due to his extended cloud-time. From his point of view, living is pretty much the same as being dead, and the heavenly paradise he's outside is much better than both. It's a slippery slope, I'll grant you, but irredeemably evil? Eugene is selfish and despicable, but he's yet to have a truly evil moment.
Also let's remember a lot of forumites were posting the exact same arguments. Some of them might've been playing devils advocate. Some might've been serious. Like with Eugene, it's hard to tell purely from the text.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that if Vaarsuvius can still be True Neutral after what they've done, we can extend the same courtesy to Eugene and peg that as about the lowest he can go. After all, Vaarsuvius actually commited mass-murder, Eugene at worst is advocating we let the gods do what they want, for some admittedly selfish reasons.

[Querzis]

Hes literally been outside of the afterlife for years now. I hardly see why he should consider death to be even remotely a problem (thats the biggest problem with D&D in general really, death is not and has never been a big deal). Good people will get to good afterlives, evil people will be punished, most people will meet their dead loved ones, who cares? The only real problem is, like Roy said and Eugene perfectly acknowledged, the dwarves. But when you get down to it, having even just one soul destroyed in D&D is arguably worse then having a million people killed which is why lots of good gods or good guys can most definitly advocate for the destruction of the world over even the risk of the Snarl getting free. Roy is taking a pretty big risk here.

And mind you, I do think Eugene shifted to Lawful Neutral due to his bitterness on his cloud but I really don't see why you'd think what he did there was bad. Its D&D. Death means litterally nothing.

[hroþila]

Hes litterally been outside of the afterlife for years now. I hardly see why he should consider death to be even remotely a problem (thats the biggest problem with D&D in general really, death is not and has never been a big deal). Good people will get to good afterlives, evil people will be punished, who cares?
Death is still a big deal. Being rezzed is a luxury most people won't be able to afford, and there's things in life that make it preferable to the afterlife, at least enough to not be in any hurry to die.

Roy has been to the afterlife and he still prefers to live.

[Kish]

Because if death means nothing, it creates a major problem for much of the comic.

Which Rich has addressed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34) before.

[Querzis]

Death is still a big deal. Being rezzed is a luxury most people won't be able to afford, and there's things in life that make it preferable to the afterlife, at least enough to not be in any hurry to die.

Roy has been to the afterlife and he still prefers to live.

Roy prefers to live cause he has a duty to fulfill and he is lawful. He was quite obviously enjoying himself a lot more in the afterlife with his family then he ever did back on the mortal world. And no, in the good afterlives, there is nothing about mortal life that is preferable in any way. The evil ones sure but thats kind of the point.


Because if death means nothing, it creates a major problem for much of the comic.

Which Rich has addressed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34) before.

I know that causes problem for the story but thats still not only how the afterlife works in D&D but also not how the afterlife was shown to work in the comic. You can't show Celestia and then act like death matters. It quite clearly doesn't. Except, once again, for the dwarves which even Eugene recognized. And yeah, its definitly worth it for Roy to try and save the world if only for them. But it doesn't change the fact that good gods or good guys could most definitly advocate for the destruction of the world in the current situation and still be good simply because a soul is so much more precious.

[Psyren]

I think that if Vaarsuvius can still be True Neutral after what they've done, we can extend the same courtesy to Eugene and peg that as about the lowest he can go. After all, Vaarsuvius actually commited mass-murder, Eugene at worst is advocating we let the gods do what they want, for some admittedly selfish reasons.

Indeed.



I know that causes problem for the story but thats still not only how the afterlife works in D&D but also not how the afterlife was shown to work in the comic. You can't show Celestia and then act like death matters. It quite clearly doesn't. Except, once again, for the dwarves which even Eugene recognized. And yeah, its definitly worth it for Roy to try and save the world if only for them. But it doesn't change the fact that good gods or good guys could most definitly advocate for the destruction of the world in the current situation and still be good simply because a soul is so much more precious.

Can you clarify what you mean by death not mattering?

I think it's more accurate to say that in many D&D settings (OotS included) that it's the gods that matter, and the welfare of the mortals is dependent on the good ones maintaining at least a form of equilibrium with the bad. Which is why votes like those of Heimdall and Skadi can make sense while still being non-evil, at least before Hel Empowerment in the next world is taken into account.

[Alias]

... the chaotic evil event horizon is no worse than the lawful evil event horizon or neutral evil event horizon (it might actually be better than the neutral evil event horizon). Your statement seems to imply that you are not overly familiar with the nine point alignment system.

I assure you I do...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?50907-Alignment

...so cut the passive aggressive baiting.

[dancrilis]

I assure you I do, so cut the passive aggressive baiting.
I am not sure what you mean by 'you do'?

Regardless I don't see how it is passive aggressive - people from 4e who have not looked at other editions would have no reason to be familiar with the nine point system and would also regard CE as worse than E, and someone who has ingrained that mentality might very much maintain it after they learn of other alignments.

Even ignoring 4e many people actually do seem to think that LG is the 'most good' and CE is the 'most evil'.

You directly indicated that you thought it was over the CE event horizon the implication being that you were not familiar with the nine point alignment system and how the evils are effectively equally evil (possible with NE being the most evil as it is untainted).

[Alias]

It is an insult to presume what someone else knows. Your snipe, and your continuing line of inquiry, is predicated on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're trying to imply I'm ignorant without actually saying it which would get you censured or banned. That's what it means to be passive aggressive.

If you're under 20 then I've been writing essays on alignment since before you where born:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?50907-Alignment

That was originally published on a website I maintained back in 1996.

[Snails]

I am even more annoyed at Eugene and think less of him alignment-wise, but that is part of the point here. Roy is the real hero who has grown to take his commitments more and more seriously. Eugene has always wavered a bit too much to really admire him.

Thinking things that are not nice does not make someone evil, however. I would argue that Eugene has been stuck sitting on his doofus in the waiting room for years, and so I can cut him some slack for seeing the bright side of the very gods resolving everything at once.

Furthermore, when Roy points out he personally can save many thousands of souls from unfair eternal suffering by taking action, Eugene does back off and makes an attempt to help, even if it is a lame one.

IMO the real "problem" in terms of judging Eugene is whether he actually had any reason to visit Roy except to be a nag. Obviously, storywise, this is a great little scene that lets us breathe and get more information about Roy's state of mind. But Eugene himself seems to indicate that he just showed up to get a few digs in against Roy. Incidental cruelty, because you are a flawed person, but you have an important big reason for the conversation, is one thing. Purposeful cruelty because you are bored is quite another.

[dancrilis]

It is an insult to presume what someone else knows. Your snipe, and your continuing line of inquiry, is predicated on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're trying to imply I'm ignorant without actually saying it which would get you censured or banned. That's what it means to be passive aggressive.

If you're under 20 then I've been writing essays on alignment since before you where born:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?50907-Alignment

That was originally published on a website I maintained back in 1996.

I don't see my statement as passive aggressive at all - I can do passive aggression (it was in a previous job almost my entire role), this was more me without any knowledge of you allowing you an 'out' as you mentioned CE, an 'out' you apparently do not need, apologies if offence was caused by this.

However can you explain why than you think Eugene would be well past CE particularly?

Seperately it is a nice article - can't find the 1995/6 references online but much of what was around in those days seems to unfortunately not be available anymore (or difficult to get at) - for example your comment on:

can be witnessed by googling for 'Telsindria', the proper name of a character mentioned in the article that is unique enough to not occur on it's own
Directs to magic the gathering characters without seeming an alignment focus in the articles - but not really the point I suppose (and I may not be looking hard enough at the results).

So let us discuss Eugene in relation to your article and Lawful Good behaviour (rather than the SRD which has been the focus of some other discussion).


Lawful Good

Often disdained as the paladin's goody-two-shoe alignment, Lawful Good is a far more subtle alignment than that, for very few characters who happen to be Lawful Good actually stick to anything approaching the Paladin Code in stringency.

A character who is lawful good holds strongly to the principle that the good of the society can only be maintained via order. The exact specifications of what is "good" may vary wildly for this purpose, but on the whole "good" implies concern for the safety and comforts of others, and that all persons have a right to safety and comfort. The character may build up other definitions in his own moral code, but this is essentially the heart of the matter. Lawful Good, unlike the other Good alignments, also holds that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice what is "good" for a few persons in order to preserve order, which is "good" for society in general.

On a personal level Lawful Good characters have a tendency to at least strive for an ordered lifestyle. Many, if not most of them, have an "everything has a time and place" attitude. Most tend to organize their behaviors to suit the group, although they are reluctant to do so at a personal loss unless something worthwhile can be obtained with the sacrifice.

A Lawful Good alignment does not rule out chaotic behaviors, particularly impulsiveness. Impatience is another fault that some Lawful Good characters are guilty of. On the other side of the coin, hedonistic behavior is not often observed in Lawful Good characters, unless in one or two activities.

Lawful Good characters believe that order is the best way, they don't necessarily maintain it. A character with a particularly poor willpower may allow his life to get quite out of shape. And also remember that the character will maintain order from his point of view. A Lawful Good merchant's shop may look like an explosion in a mattress factory, with nobody other than the character able to find anything. But the apparent chaos is deceiving most of the time, ask him where something is and he'll usually be able to find it much faster than appearances would seem to dictate.

Lawful Good societies tend to avoid overdoing laws. The laws of the society are usually well coded, but one individual, or sometimes a council, has the right to overrule the law to achieve something "good" (or at least perceived as such). Lawful Good justices are more concerned with the spirit of the law and the intent of its author in achieving a worthy purpose. If the law does not achieve this most Lawful Good characters will dispose of it, although some more reluctantly than others.

As a DM running a Lawful Good PC, be careful not to be paladin strict on them. While it is true that paladins must be Lawful Good, the reverse is not true. Some Lawful Good character may take active disagreement with the Paladin's Code, let alone try to live with it. Most Lawful Good characters respect the Paladin's Code, and respect members of the class for trying to live up to it, but they hardly make such an attempt themselves in their day-to-day lives. For the vast majority of Lawful Good characters the occasional charitable act is enough, unlike paladins they usually won't go out of their way to help someone. But they will never go out of their way to harm someone either - indeed most Lawful Good characters that do this accidentally will try to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

Effectively Eugene seems to fit a lot of that fairly well.

The omnicide of the planet could be viewed in the lense of the greater good, and once the plight of the Dwarves was highlighted (i.e an accidentally oversight on Eugene's part) he did try to rectify the issue with some mental gymnastics, he has shown concern about the safety of his children (Roy in particular) and the dwarves. He doesn't seem to really go out of his way to help people but when such an opportunity occurs he seems to without issue.

I don't mean any insult by the following assumption - but I am getting the impression that you believe that omnicide is evil regardless of circumstance - and thereby for endorsing it Eugene is evil regardless of mitigating factors (I may of course have you wrong there).



IMO the real "problem" in terms of judging Eugene is whether he actually had any reason to visit Roy except to be a nag. Obviously, storywise, this is a great little scene that lets us breathe and get more information about Roy's state of mind. But Eugene himself seems to indicate that he just showed up to get a few digs in against Roy. Incidental cruelty, because you are a flawed person, but you have an important big reason for the conversation, is one thing. Purposeful cruelty because you are bored is quite another.
I am getting the impression that he is there for a specific unmentioned as of yet reason - but even if he was just there to tell Eugene how manifesting works that is very useful information if Roy is expecting a heads up about things, now Roy knows to have some alone time periodically in case Eugene has something actually important to tell him.

[Snails]

I am getting the impression that he is there for a specific unmentioned as of yet reason - but even if he was just there to tell Eugene how manifesting works that is very useful information if Roy is expecting a heads up about things, now Roy knows to have some alone time periodically in case Eugene has something actually important to tell him.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on your number. I do think it is fair to tentatively "score" what Eugene's apparent behavior is, even if the scene is not over.

It is unlikely that the Giant would write a scene where one of the main character's does not have a change of perspective. There are exceptions. It does happen that the Giant writes scenes where main characters do nothing more than clarify their own thoughts, but that is usually reserved for situations where those thoughts are either unclear, or funny/interesting when different main characters elucidate their wildly different thoughts on the same topic.

So, yes, I agree it seems unlikely we will end this scene knowing no more than what we already knew about Roy.

[Haluesen]

It's possible his perception of life and death is a bit skewed due to his extended cloud-time. From his point of view, living is pretty much the same as being dead, and the heavenly paradise he's outside is much better than both. It's a slippery slope, I'll grant you, but irredeemably evil? Eugene is selfish and despicable, but he's yet to have a truly evil moment.
Also let's remember a lot of forumites were posting the exact same arguments. Some of them might've been playing devils advocate. Some might've been serious. Like with Eugene, it's hard to tell purely from the text.

I honestly find the idea of his idea of life and death being skewed hard to swallow. He's not up in the heavens, being turned into an alignment battery for the gods. He's in what amounts to limbo (not the D&D plane, the in-between planes thing in other theology), able to constantly see what is happening in the mortal world and sometimes even interacting with it, even if just through Roy and hijacked summoning spells. If there were any disparity in how he sees life and death compared to how modern day people see them, it would be from the differences in our world and the OOTS world. And in OOTS world death does still have meaning, even with the existence of resurrection magic. So yeah, I think Eugene should be able to clearly know that way too many people dying just so he can go to Celestia, when his own son is working on a way to get him there that doesn't rely on so many innocents dying. Eugene is just selfish and awful.

Now I don't think he's irredeemable, not many people in media are. But I highly doubt he wants to be "redeemed", or whatever word applies here. He acts like his way of thinking, the worst ways of being pragmatic, is the right way to think and actively scorns those who aren't as supposedly logical as him. Even Vaarsuvius and Redcloak have some form of regret tied to past decisions and actions. But Eugene is pretty unapologetic. Now that might change in the next few comics, I dunno, but from what we can see of his character so far I do very much doubt it. He acts like the best choice is millions of people dying with some even intentionally going to their deaths so that he gets something good, and that if you don't feel that way then you aren't as smart as him. Not exactly a person worthy of trying to rationalize for.

As far as other people and their posting, well the devil's advocate thing I can get behind, sorta. Some people just gotta take the controversial opinion. It's the ones that really feel that Eugene is either right or at least that he's not bad that have me so ticked off that I decided to write here. Eugene is, to me personally, one of the worst characters in this comic. Not badly written at all, but even the out-and-out evil characters are complex, or tragic, or at least entertaining. Eugene Greenhilt is annoying, rude, and callous in awful ways all in the name of "logic" and getting what he wants. As far as writing in a comic that's fine, the Giant made him this way for a reason. But real life people want to stand up for him? Want to rationalize him? That's angering. :smallfurious: To say the least.


I think that if Vaarsuvius can still be True Neutral after what they've done, we can extend the same courtesy to Eugene and peg that as about the lowest he can go. After all, Vaarsuvius actually commited mass-murder, Eugene at worst is advocating we let the gods do what they want, for some admittedly selfish reasons.

Actually at worst he's advocating that an entire race of people, children included, get themselves killed so he doesn't have to feel bad about millions dying so he can get to Celestia. And that's pretty terrible really. Him honestly supporting and desiring the deaths of millions of people is just as bad as intentionally killing them, if you mean it. Giant made a comment once concerning a similar idea with a murderer whether they succeed at killing or not, but I won't say any more on it since I don't want to be morally questionable in here. I want to stick to just talking about the comic (though considering what else I have written in this post I might be failing). Anyway though, I do feel like Vaarsuvius is Evil still and not Neutral. Sure V wants to make up for hir actions, and that's wonderful, but it hasn't happened yet. Intention matters, but it isn't enough on its own without legitimate action. So I'd say for what they've done that both Eugene and Vaarsuvius should be considered Evil by D&D alignment, but that both can make up for it. Only V seems to want to though.

[Mightymosy]

Indeed.



Can you clarify what you mean by death not mattering?

[...].

I don't think that death does not matter. But I do think its impact is just severly different than in our world, to a point where it twists the moral implications of the proposed plan so much that we can't just use our own.

Basically, when the gods destroyed the OotS world, they simply speed up the process for everyone to get to the afterlife they deserve.

And frankly, the way heaven is depicted in OotS, it is just awesome, so why would you not want to go there immediately?
Or why would you not at least accept and be happy about being put there as a consequence of something that needs to be done to save all of existence?

Sure, it might suck for the evil people, but they were willing to harm innocent people, so why should we care? You might say that this is too harsh to some people, but then that questions the concept of the D&D hell exsisting in the first place. Either it is just to send people there or it is not.

[mouser9169]

Eugene is a selfish jackass, but that does not make him Evil.

Consider that Good gods voted for destroying the world, and the idea that 'omnicide=evil' falls flat very quickly.

Everybody dies. Unless the Snarl gets free, in which case souls get unmade. That is far worse than dying, which is why both Evil and Good oppose it. Only true nihilists would be on board with letting the Snarl run free - and that's pretty squarely Chaotic Neutral territory - not Evil.

[Porthos]

And frankly, the way heaven is depicted in OotS, it is just awesome, so why would you not want to go there immediately?

Being able to see my mom again would be awesome. I am also not in any particular hurry to do it.

I suspect the same attitude would apply to the vast majority of folks in OotSWorld.

That this is a difficult point for some to grasp.... Well, just can't help folks there.

[The Artisan]

Effectively Eugene seems to fit a lot of that fairly well.

The omnicide of the planet could be viewed in the lense of the greater good, and once the plight of the Dwarves was highlighted (i.e an accidentally oversight on Eugene's part) he did try to rectify the issue with some mental gymnastics, he has shown concern about the safety of his children (Roy in particular) and the dwarves. He doesn't seem to really go out of his way to help people but when such an opportunity occurs he seems to without issue.

I don't mean any insult by the following assumption - but I am getting the impression that you believe that omnicide is evil regardless of circumstance - and thereby for endorsing it Eugene is evil regardless of mitigating factors (I may of course have you wrong there).

I agree with Dancrilis on this. You wrote a great article Alias and it has been helpful to my DM exploits in the past on several occasions, but you seem to be ignoring large chunks of it is that evaluation. Eugene does not fit into your definition of CE, stated in the essay, at all.

[Ruck]

I don't think that death does not matter. But I do think its impact is just severly different than in our world, to a point where it twists the moral implications of the proposed plan so much that we can't just use our own.

Basically, when the gods destroyed the OotS world, they simply speed up the process for everyone to get to the afterlife they deserve.

And frankly, the way heaven is depicted in OotS, it is just awesome, so why would you not want to go there immediately?
Or why would you not at least accept and be happy about being put there as a consequence of something that needs to be done to save all of existence?

Sure, it might suck for the evil people, but they were willing to harm innocent people, so why should we care? You might say that this is too harsh to some people, but then that questions the concept of the D&D hell exsisting in the first place. Either it is just to send people there or it is not.

Giant has covered this before (see the thread with his posts indexed). However you think people "should" feel about dying and the afterlife, the fact is, they don't.

[nleseul]

However you think people "should" feel about dying and the afterlife, the fact is, they don't.

People in general may find living preferable to the afterlife. It's perfectly plausible that Eugene is an exception.

[Ruck]

People in general may find living preferable to the afterlife. It's perfectly plausible that Eugene is an exception.
That's not relevant to my point or to the post I was responding to.

[Kish]

Yeah, that's supposed to be a defense of him? "Everyone should think exactly like me, and if they don't I'll happily force what I know is best on them!" is the second time since the last strip went up that someone's "defended" Eugene by painting him as similar to Tarquin.

Edited: Eugene clearly hates being stuck on the cloud. He may well think that his expectation of what it would be like if he got into Celestia would be better. That sounds very much like Eugene, actually--someone who is always miserable wherever he is, always convinced that as soon as this boring and annoying and unimportant part of his existence is over everything will be good. If that's him, though, he's a fool to think being inside Celestia would actually be any better.

[Xihirli]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/4AOuszNEl0cX2QRuJ0K.gif

[Ruck]

Yeah, that's supposed to be a defense of him? "Everyone should think exactly like me, and if they don't I'll happily force what I know is best on them!" is the second time since the last strip went up that someone's "defended" Eugene by painting him as similar to Tarquin.

Edited: Eugene clearly hates being stuck on the cloud. He may well think that his expectation of what it would be like if he got into Celestia would be better. That sounds very much like Eugene, actually--someone who is always miserable wherever he is, always convinced that as soon as this boring and annoying and unimportant part of his existence is over everything will be good. If that's him, though, he's a fool to think being inside Celestia would actually be any better.

I'm not even clear of the relevance. The conversation went:

mightymosy: People at large should be okay with going to the afterlife!
me: You may think they should be, but the fact is, they're not.
nleseul: But Eugene might be!

...Okay?

[Princess Tracy]

The funny thing is what Eugune's saying about the dwarves has pretty much all been said by people on these very forums repeatedly no matter how much Rich tried to explain it was a callous and wrong idea. Maybe by having the callous ******* wizard ghost echo those ideas people will drop the "what if we set the dwarves up to die" plans.

[Ruck]

The funny thing is what Eugune's saying about the dwarves has pretty much all been said by people on these very forums repeatedly no matter how much Rich tried to explain it was a callous and wrong idea. Maybe by having the callous ******* wizard ghost echo those ideas people will drop the "what if we set the dwarves up to die" plans.

On the contrary, it apparently proves to some people that such an idea is within the bounds of Lawful Good thinking.

[nleseul]

I'm not even clear of the relevance. The conversation went:

mightymosy: People at large should be okay with going to the afterlife!
me: You may think they should be, but the fact is, they're not.
nleseul: But Eugene might be!

...Okay?

You left out the 20 or so posts before that where various people said that Eugene is Evil because he doesn't object to everyone ending up in the afterlife. Which is also literally the topic of the thread.

[Mightymosy]

Giant has covered this before (see the thread with his posts indexed). However you think people "should" feel about dying and the afterlife, the fact is, they don't.

Counterpoint: If people want me to feel bad for characters dying, they can easily do so. Painting their afterlife in a way I feel jealous as a living person won't do that.


That said, I don't know what Rich Burlew wants me to think or feel.

But painting Celestia in the way he did just doesn't ring "sucks to be them" with me.

[hamishspence]

It's more the "omnicide in order to get his Blood Oath fulfilled" that people are objecting to.

Combine with his suggestion of starting a civil war among the dwarves.

[Mightymosy]

Yeah, that's supposed to be a defense of him? "Everyone should think exactly like me, and if they don't I'll happily force what I know is best on them!" is the second time since the last strip went up that someone's "defended" Eugene by painting him as similar to Tarquin.

Edited: Eugene clearly hates being stuck on the cloud. He may well think that his expectation of what it would be like if he got into Celestia would be better. That sounds very much like Eugene, actually--someone who is always miserable wherever he is, always convinced that as soon as this boring and annoying and unimportant part of his existence is over everything will be good. If that's him, though, he's a fool to think being inside Celestia would actually be any better.

This similar to what Sara said, in the sense that Eugene not getting the joy of Celestia results more from Eugene's self than from outside restrictions (the non-fullfillment of the blood oath). Eugene doesn't get in, because he himself ist not ready, he doesn't allow himself to be happy.

I'm not 100% sure it is like that, but some dialogues and posts by Rich Burlew allow for this interpretation I think. Maybe we will find out at some time.

[Mightymosy]

The funny thing is what Eugune's saying about the dwarves has pretty much all been said by people on these very forums repeatedly no matter how much Rich tried to explain it was a callous and wrong idea. Maybe by having the callous ******* wizard ghost echo those ideas people will drop the "what if we set the dwarves up to die" plans.

A couple problems:
1. This doesn't help convincing people who don't find Eugene callous.

2. The problem with the "set the dwarves up to die" plan is twofold:
a) It is a logical conclusion given the outside confinements of the setting imposed onto them by the gods, appearantly.
b) The dwarves themselves appearantly don't find it callous, or how do we interprete that "picking up a fight once you know death is near" scene?

3. Saying something is callous doesn't make it so. If you want to convince, show us. Make us feel bad. There are numerous examples in the OotS comic where we cry for characters that become victims of evil, and in one + quarter of a species cases the victims of neutral.
We feel bad for those victims because bad things happen to them.
Putting people into Celestia just isn't so bad, because what we have been shown of Celestia is awesome.

Remember also that neither Roy nor Eugene are even forcing people into Celestia. The only have the option of either doing nothing which causes the gods to do this, or try to fight Durkula and Xykon, which as far as we know may result in everyone losing their immortal souls - for whatever that means in OotS.

[The Artisan]

I'm not even clear of the relevance. The conversation went:

mightymosy: People at large should be okay with going to the afterlife!
me: You may think they should be, but the fact is, they're not.
nleseul: But Eugene might be!

...Okay?

It isn't about people being okay with it, or the fact that they aren't. LG
(And I don't think Eugene is, but Devil's Advocate for why you could argue he is) is defined by a concern for order and the greater good (not by successfully achieving those things, but by wanting them). His wanting to preserve the dwarves from Hel is Good (saving others from suffering), and his willingness to answer to the Gods is Lawful because in OoTS-verse, they are the highest law. It is not about an absolute morality, but about one's perceptions of their reasons.

[BaronOfHell]

I was ready for Eugene nonchalantly saying "so what" to the Dwarf problem.. but he didn't, and while his solution isn't feasible, he at least acknowledged the problem.

I can't really tell the difference on Eugene's idea here, and someone getting some crazy real world idea with good intentions behind as long as those ideas aren't carried out. So from my point of view, unless Eugene actively pursuits this idea, I don't think this conversation says much about his current alignment, similar to that I don't think a person who e.g. comes with racist slur (from my point of view) on the internet, but isn't actively attacking people, is necessarily evil.

[Braininthejar2]

Well, he obviously feels different about death - he has died himself, and it wasn't that bad.

[Haluesen]

Eugene is a selfish jackass, but that does not make him Evil.

Consider that Good gods voted for destroying the world, and the idea that 'omnicide=evil' falls flat very quickly.

Everybody dies. Unless the Snarl gets free, in which case souls get unmade. That is far worse than dying, which is why both Evil and Good oppose it. Only true nihilists would be on board with letting the Snarl run free - and that's pretty squarely Chaotic Neutral territory - not Evil.

Except that intention matters. The Good gods want to destroy the world and kill everyone to spare their souls being unmade as well as be able to get their power back from said souls...which is admittedly somewhat selfish, though I do believe the Giant said something about how Good gods use that power against Evil in the world, so that might be a wash. But Eugene wants the same thing but only so that Xykon dies, and even then only because it will get him into Celestia not to save others from what Xykon wants to do to the world. That's why I feel like he is Evil.


The funny thing is what Eugune's saying about the dwarves has pretty much all been said by people on these very forums repeatedly no matter how much Rich tried to explain it was a callous and wrong idea. Maybe by having the callous ******* wizard ghost echo those ideas people will drop the "what if we set the dwarves up to die" plans.

I find I agree that it is a wrong idea. But again, intention. People on the forums usually suggest it because of wild thoughtless speculation or because they are looking for another way to spare the souls as well that is more guaranteed. So like the Good gods, not like Eugene.


It's more the "omnicide in order to get his Blood Oath fulfilled" that people are objecting to.

Combine with his suggestion of starting a civil war among the dwarves.

Exactly what I've been thinking! This is why it has me so worked up when people defend Eugene as "not Evil". He wants millions to die to specifically get rid of one so that he can have his Blood Oath thing dealt with. Why do people think he is a good person for that???

[Jormengand]

Given that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him to finish what he started back then, one way or the other" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html) I think that pretty much absolves him of any responsibility for anything he says or does towards that goal.

[Ruck]

You left out the 20 or so posts before that where various people said that Eugene is Evil because he doesn't object to everyone ending up in the afterlife. Which is also literally the topic of the thread.


It's more the "omnicide in order to get his Blood Oath fulfilled" that people are objecting to.

Combine with his suggestion of starting a civil war among the dwarves.

Yeah, seriously. Talk about leaving out information.

And my post was a specific response to mightymosy's contention that people should be fine with going to the Afterlife. I've already repeated myself many, many times on why I don't think Eugene is LG.


Given that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him to finish what he started back then, one way or the other" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html) I think that pretty much absolves him of any responsibility for anything he says or does towards that goal.

LOL. I don't.

EDIT: To be clear, just because Eugene is compelled to finish a commitment doesn't absolve him from how he goes about doing so.

[Jormengand]

LOL. I don't.

Care to elaborate why no longer being in control of one's actions isn't grounds for being stripped of responsibility for them?

EDIT: Okay, but the compulsion presumably makes him try to do it at any opportunity, and that's the only way he can at the moment.

[Jasdoif]

Given that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him to finish what he started back then, one way or the other" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html) I think that pretty much absolves him of any responsibility for anything he says or does towards that goal.Nah...pretty sure he's fully responsible when he chooses one way over the other.

[Jormengand]

Nah...pretty sure he's fully responsible when he chooses one way over the other.

At the moment, he's still presumably being compelled and doesn't really have any other way of doing it right now.

[Keltest]

I think youre taking the compulsion thing too literally. He is compelled in the sense that its what he has to do to get what he wants, not that he is magically forced to see it done or be stuck in a room with Barney for an hour or something.

Having said that, it is rather difficult to feel particularly bad for the residents of this world if they were all die, given that the paradise at the end of the journey actually is a paradise and we objectively know its a thing. Sure, they may not be done living yet, but that seems like a serious case of first world problems to me. "I wasn't done with my soup yet, what do you mean I have to start on this delicious cake now!?"

[dancrilis]

Care to elaborate why no longer being in control of one's actions isn't grounds for being stripped of responsibility for them?

Sometimes Lawful Good people set very high bars of behaviour for illogical reasons to test people (such as expecting people to take part in a battle against living foes in a city without the ability to harm living foes in a city).
It is possible that while Eugene is complelled to complete his Oath in a physical sense (rather than Sara waxing poetic) that the celestials still think he should do so in a LG manner (or to put it another way the celestials might be crazy).

[Haluesen]

Given that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him to finish what he started back then, one way or the other" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html) I think that pretty much absolves him of any responsibility for anything he says or does towards that goal.

I think the problem is that you seem to be treating compelled as though it was a magical control that is making that his only driving focus, like a charm spell or something. That's not what I think is going on. The gods aren't magically forcing him to get Xykon killed, he's trapped himself in an obligation he made while alive and Da Rules of Celestia are holding him to his promise. This does not at all absolve him of anything. They are his thoughts, his choices, his decisions. Not some mysterious other that is making him callous or cruel.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Keltest, but yes that is just what I mean.

[Ruck]

Care to elaborate why no longer being in control of one's actions isn't grounds for being stripped of responsibility for them?

EDIT: Okay, but the compulsion presumably makes him try to do it at any opportunity, and that's the only way he can at the moment.


I think youre taking the compulsion thing too literally. He is compelled in the sense that its what he has to do to get what he wants, not that he is magically forced to see it done or be stuck in a room with Barney for an hour or something.

Yup, this.

[georgie_leech]

Given that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him to finish what he started back then, one way or the other" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html) I think that pretty much absolves him of any responsibility for anything he says or does towards that goal.

Maybe not absolves, but at least helps explain.

Personally, I think he's wrong but not Evil. His motivations seem to be stemming from a couple of points: that he wants Xykon dead (Good-ish but complicated by the Blood Oath), and, given that it leads to a real afterlife, death is preferable to being completely unmade, soul and all, by the destruction of the world by the Snarl. I have a hard time viewing either motivation as Evil, otherwise every fearful person that would accept a negative outcome to avoid a worse fate is Evil too.

[Jormengand]

I think that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him" makes it pretty clear that this isn't some kind of metaphor, he's being physically made to do it.

[Keltest]

I think that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him" makes it pretty clear that this isn't some kind of metaphor, he's being physically made to do it.

I don't see a celestial with a spear jabbing Eugene whenever he doesn't take advantage of an opportunity to push for the Blood Oath to be completed. He's being punished by not getting into the afterlife. That's probably what she meant.

[georgie_leech]

I think that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him" makes it pretty clear that this isn't some kind of metaphor, he's being physically made to do it.

It could also be that rather than magical compulsion like a charm or Dominate, it's like a magical prodding, making him feel physically uncomfortable until he accomplishes his goal. Like if he got an extra outsider to go with the devil and angel on his shoulders whose only input is to poke him with a stick as long as he's not trying to bring Xykon down.

After all, nagging people until they fulfill their obligations is one of LG's specialties. :smallbiggrin:

[Haluesen]

I think that "The cosmic powers of the multiverse are physically compelling him" makes it pretty clear that this isn't some kind of metaphor, he's being physically made to do it.

And to me that seems more like stretching what a character trying to be wise in the comic said. But I at least get that it is possible that it is the case. If we get some real confirmation from the Giant that it is literally that sort of power, making him do whatever to complete this Oath, then I'll back of Eugene. But right now, I don't see it. Those still seem like his choices, his thoughts.

[Jasdoif]

At the moment, he's still presumably being compelled and doesn't really have any other way of doing it right now.His original plan of "use Roy to get information to defeat Xykon via Julia" that's been his plan for the majority of the comic, which incidentally doesn't require the obliteration of the world and most/all of its population, is still on the table. And if it fails here, events fall back on path of "let the gods destroy the world" that Eugene is promoting anyway; so why even the change now?

Not to mention this all assumes Sara Greenhilt meant Eugene is "physically compelled" in a literal sense, rather than a figurative sense...which I see Keltest has already gone into.

[Porthos]

Eugene is being 'compelled' in much the same way a child is 'compelled' to clean their room by their parents before they can go out to the movies.

[dancrilis]

Eugene is being 'compelled' in much the same way a child is 'compelled' to clean their room by their parents before they can go out to the movies.

... you mean with lots of yelling and maybe a firm clip across the ear if the kid is being particularly mouthy?

[Kish]

If it matters, consider this my vote for "Jormengand's reading it wrong, everything Eugene does remains a choice, he's compelled only in that he can't move on to what he wants to do next until he does."

[georgie_leech]

If it matters, consider this my vote for "Jormengand's reading it wrong, everything Eugene does remains a choice, he's compelled only in that he can't move on to what he wants to do next until he does."

There is a middle ground, where 'compulsion' is a strong urge rather than a magical command. Which helps explain but doesn't absolve Eugene from his choices.

[Kish]

There is, but I'm not standing there either. You can stand where you like; I'm standing at "Eugene is free to try to help Roy, wait for Julia to come up, hook up with other oathspirits if they want to, or sit down on the cloud and declare that this is unfair and as a protest he's going to do nothing for the next thousand years. At most, he can't go into any actual afterlife; at least, he's barred from Celestia; nowhere outside those borders is a serious possibility."

[Dr.Zero]

Lol (toward myself)!

After discussing for days in that other topic, I noticed this one.
And I did read the link to Rich's post.

I have to say that I'm more than a bit confused now.

First, after reading that, I have become an even stronger advocate of the death of the author (and I was a strong advocate enough on that idea already).
Not meaning that someone must kill Rich, but that I shouldn't read his commentaries (or is "annotations" the right word... anyway, that) to understand what happens in the story.

But moving on to the subject, now I feel like my mind itself has been sent to Limbo...

Do people in the comic know how the afterlife really works? That the "big plan" is of making of people batteries, like in Matrix, to sustain the plane of their own alignment (if I understood at all what was the matter)?
Do Roy and Eugene, particularly, know this?
And how does this transition work? Forced steps? You must be willing to move on?
For the evil planes it really seems there are forced steps (torture and whatever...) but for the good planes, from what Rich described, it seems more something the soul must wish to do, something that the soul must do out of "boredom".

And more questions arises: if I cannot learn anything, not even physics (the Einstein example in the post), because with time my memories fades, how is a soul supposed to get "bored" and wishing to move on at all?

It's a bit like "50 first dates", only that the soul memory's fades after some days (or years) and not after a single day, but the concept is the same.

Let's say that the memories start to fade after 10 years, the only chance for the soul to wish to move on, is if it gets bored with those activities before the 10 years pass.

But me, for example, I am sure I'd like to spend more than 10 years in the tavern of the infinite one night stands... and of course with the people I beloved during my life, but at the 11th years, I would remember to have spent only 10 years in that way (the 1st year did fade away), and at the 12th year I would remember to have spent still only 10 years in that way (the first 2 years did fade away) and so on. So I would never get bored and I would never decide to move on.

But even worse: dear Gods of this comic, if you make the mistake to tell around that your final plan for me is to transform me in a battery, be assured that I won't move a step toward the peak of that mountain anyway.

And if even the "good" afterlife has to be considered a bad experience, something to avoid and be scared of, I wonder: the Good Gods, who built that, are really Good?

I have the feeling that from D&D we have silently moved to something more Lovercraftian.

[Jasdoif]

After discussing for days in that other topic, I noticed this one.
And I did read the link to Rich's post.

I have to say that I'm more than a bit confused now.

First, after reading that, I have become an even stronger advocate of the death of the author (and I was a strong advocate enough on that idea already).
Not meaning that someone must kill Rich, but that I shouldn't read his commentaries (or is "annotations" the right word... anyway, that) to understand what happens in the story.That's possibly because the truly important parts haven't come up here:


Folks, this is exactly how the afterlife has always worked in D&D; I've maybe tweaked some specifics, but the gist is the same. Souls go to the afterlife and eventually dissolve into the substance of the Outer Plane to which they are remanded, end of story. You don't have to like it or think it's fair, but it's how it works—because like my story, D&D needs the afterlife to not be Awesome Happy Fun Times Forever or else there's no logical underpinning for why the heroes should want to save the world from destruction.

Again: The D&D metaphysical structure (and by extension, the OOTS version thereof) is not a coherent philosophical system. It's a setting for an adventure game. Trying to extrapolate it to its logical conclusion is a waste of time, because it will never resolve to anything satisfying.
Here's what I really want to impress on all of you: I do not care how the afterlife works in my story. The cosmology, the details, the moral implications. It doesn't matter. It's all made up, and I am more than happy to handwave it because there is no story benefit to wasting time being more detailed. Vanilla D&D, as filtered through my memory? Sure, good enough. Next! The only reason there even is an afterlife in this world is because the planes and resurrection and the gods are all such a strong part of the D&D experience. I am not telling a story about the implications of the world's cosmology; I am telling a story about Roy Greenhilt, and his motivations and heroism. The afterlife was useful in that regard by allowing me to show some of his journey instead of telling it, and by allowing me to kill off my main character while still having him be part of the comic for the very long period that Don't Split the Party was running. Those are the absolute limits of my interest in exploring the concept of an afterlife, because it has no other real relevance. If I wasn't using the D&D afterlife (or a shade thereof)—and I hadn't accidentally introduced Eugene as a ghost so early in the comic's run, before the plot was nailed down—I wouldn't be using any afterlife. People would die, and that would be the end, forever. Because yes, as fictional concepts go, the afterlife is one that reduces dramatic tension in exactly the manner that spawned this thread.

[Dr.Zero]

Ok, thanks Jasdoif.

Aside Rich getting mad, I understand the point that, if he could, he had removed the afterlife completely.

That anyway people are generally scared to die (even the good ones).

It is not completely clear if their fear is motivated and becoming a battery (or worse, a midnight snack for a God) is something effectively bad or if dissolving is a bit like "Childhood's end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End)" (which is how I envisioned it previously).

It is not clear why Eugene wants to move on at all (lured by the tavern of the infinite one night stands? :smallbiggrin: hoping to become part of something bigger and smarter?)

And that Roy didn't know his ultimate fate as a battery (or midnight snack) or at least didn't consider it so bad, when he talked about the afterlife to Celia: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html
(Look forward? Dude, look forward to what? Ask to Xykon how to become a lich, really :smallbiggrin:)

[Keltest]

Ok, thanks Jasdoif.

Aside Rich getting mad, I understand the point that, if he could, he had removed the afterlife completely.

That anyway people are generally scared to die (even the good ones).

It is not completely clear if their fear is motivated and becoming a battery (or worse, a midnight snack for a God) is something effectively bad or if dissolving is a bit like "Childhood's end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End)" (which is how I envisioned it previously).

It is not clear why Eugene wants to move on at all (lured by the tavern of the infinite one night stands? :smallbiggrin: hoping to become part of something bigger and smarter?)

And that Roy didn't know his ultimate fate as a battery (or midnight snack) or at least didn't consider it so bad, when he talked about the afterlife to Celia: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html
(Look forward? Dude, look forward to what? Ask to Xykon how to become a lich, really :smallbiggrin:)

Eugene is probably bored out of his mind. He's an intellectual who can only watch people do stuff.

[Dr.Zero]

Eugene is probably bored out of his mind. He's an intellectual who can only watch people do stuff.

Probably.
Even if spending time watching por... Haley's knockers and dating other oath spirits doesn't sound so bad. Becoming a battery can wait, I'd say.

Anyway since this discover about the cosmology, I'm rooting in order
*For the Snarl (kill these man-eating Godlike abominations, and let's see if they like it!)
*For Xykon (hey, basically becoming an evil lich is self preservation, here!)

So bad that they won't win. :smallannoyed:

[Jasdoif]

Probably.
Even if spending time watching por... Haley's knockers and dating other oath spirits doesn't sound so bad. Becoming a battery can wait, I'd say.

Anyway since this discover about the cosmology, I'm rooting in order
*For the Snarl (kill these man-eating Godlike abominations, and let's see if they like it!)
*For Xykon (hey, basically becoming an evil lich is self preservation, here!)

So bad that they won't win. :smallannoyed:So....You'll be disappointed if the Snarl doesn't kill off another planet's entire population, and if Xykon's apparent goal of turning the entire world into an amusement mechanism for himself?

[Jormengand]

To be honest, I don't see how one can read physical compulsion as anything other than actual, very real compulsion, but whatever, that's just how I read it.

Oh, and I don't see much wrong with omnicide in a setting where death doesn't actually mean death, but transferral to your eternal reward (which Eugene has clearly taken note of, hence the dragon comment). I mean, if you're gonna refer to making everyone live happily in the afterlife as omnicide, then obviously you're going to have people opposed to the idea, but really now.

[nleseul]

To be honest, I don't see how one can read physical compulsion as anything other than actual, very real compulsion, but whatever, that's just how I read it.

It's certainly a different thing from mental compulsion, at least.

[dancrilis]

Probably.
*For Xykon (hey, basically becoming an evil lich is self preservation, here!)


Nice to see someone else come around to this viewpoint.

The amount of lack of understanding the Xykon receives makes me sad.

Here is a man that has been put down by people all his life, but who consistently rose above their petty insults to make something of himself.

Than he is nearing the end of his life and he finds out that the gods have been playing everyone as chumps since before the beginning of the world and he is offered a chance to even the playing field.

Here is one man who is reviled for daring to have the audacity to indicate that regular people can have control over their own lives - that ultra-powerful outsiders can be stood up to.
He should be a beacon of hope in the darkness - a shining light for the mortal races to look to and admire. But instead for his idiosyncrasies he is hated and feared.

Truly he is the tragic hero of the Order of the Stick.


Xykon for the win.

[Haluesen]

Nice to see someone else come around to this viewpoint.



Xykon for the win.

Okay I've seen your Xykon talk a few times on the board before, so now I am curious enough to ask: do you mean it all, or are you being a jokester? I do kinda like Xykon because he is amusing (honestly I like him a lot more than Eugene by now) but...well he did make a bunch of people kill each other and themselves completely casually so...I can't really jump on that bandwagon. :smalltongue:

[mouser9169]

Some random thoughts:

- The "battery" idea isn't meant to be a Bad Thing(tm). MANY philosophies and religions in our world have a similar concept (see: Collective Unconscious). It seems like a negative because our individuality appears very important to us while we are alive. Once we reach that point, it may become much less so over time.

- Eugene will of course have a very different view of dying and the afterlife than living people will. Eugene _knows_ that the afterlife is real. It's something he can reach out and hold in his hand. From his side, dying isn't a big deal, so pushing people through it sooner rather than later doesn't have the same weight that it would for someone among the living.

- Finally, again, "selfish" does not equal "evil". Eugene is a selfish jerk. That doesn't make him evil. He isn't forcing others to do his bidding by virtue of his strength or power. He's saying: "Here's a solution to the problem at hand, and it benefits me, so let's do that one."

[Peelee]

[Xykon] is nearing the end of his life and he finds out that the gods have been playing everyone as chumps since before the beginning of the world and he is offered a chance to even the playing field.

I don't recall anything even remotely like that happening in SoD.

Some random thoughts:

- Eugene will of course have a very different view of dying and the afterlife than living people will. Eugene _knows_ that the afterlife is real. It's something he can reach out and hold in his hand. From his side, dying isn't a big deal, so pushing people through it sooner rather than later doesn't have the same weight that it would for someone among the living.

....everyone in Stickworld knows that the afterlife is real. Gods are explicitly real. Afterlives are explicitly real. Also, we are more or less told that it is all common knowledge. Roy knows the afterlife is real, and has been there, and still prefers life over afterlife.

[Conradine]

Good and neutral deities endorsed the "erase the world" plan.
Given that , if Eugene is evil then all deities that voted "yes" are too.



...everyone in Stickworld knows that the afterlife is real. Gods are explicitly real. Afterlives are explicitly real. Also, we are more or less told that it is all common knowledge. Roy knows the afterlife is real, and has been there, and still prefers life over afterlife.

Only because he must finish his quest. Beside that, when he was in afterlife, he was so happy he lost count of the flow of time.

[Ruck]

Good and neutral deities endorsed the "erase the world" plan.
Given that , if Eugene is evil then all deities that voted "yes" are too.
For like the hundredth time, motivations matter.

[georgie_leech]

Good and neutral deities endorsed the "erase the world" plan.
Given that , if Eugene is evil then all deities that voted "yes" are too.

Mind you, there is the counter argument that mortals are just so far below them in terms of scale. After all, no one suggests that vegetarians are evil for eating living beings that have ability to perceive the world around them and communicate knowledge to certain individuals. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithPlants.htm)

Again, I believe that Eugene is in fact not Evil, but let's acknowledge when an argument has been countered, at least.

[Peelee]

Good and neutral deities endorsed the "erase the world" plan.
Given that , if Eugene is evil then all deities that voted "yes" are too.




Only because he must finish his quest. Beside that, when he was in afterlife, he was so happy he lost count of the flow of time.

Do you wish to contend, then, that at the completion of his quest, he will commit suicide or court death in order to go back there as efficiently as possible?

Also, on the "good deities also voted to destroy the world" argument, you (and everyone else I have seen make it) are ignoring any context for the vote and only looking at the end result. If two women claim to have a baby, and Bob orders the baby to be cut in half in order to see which woman will refuse her claim - and thus prove to be the true mother - while Steve orders the baby to be cut in half because he likes seeing babies bisected, then there is quite a large difference between the two, despite both ordering the same action. Unless you address the reasoning and incorporate it into your argument, it is spurious.

[Haluesen]

For like the hundredth time, motivations matter.

THIS. Very much this. Thank you.

All people who are comparing the gods suggesting ending the world with Eugene suggesting ending the world, listen up. IT. IS. NOT. THE. SAME. Good Gods wants to save innocent souls. Sure their idea to do it is drastic but it is well-intentioned. Eugene wants Xykon dead so he can go to Celestia, no matter how many people have to die for that to happen (or at least that is how he is acting). He doesn't even care about avenging Fyron, it's all about him going to the afterlife. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! :smallfurious:

[Cazero]

To be honest, I don't see how one can read physical compulsion as anything other than actual, very real compulsion, but whatever, that's just how I read it.
... Physical compulsion is the bouncer telling you can't get in because X and shoving you away if you insist too much. You don't get more physical than that.

[dancrilis]

Okay I've seen your Xykon talk a few times on the board before, so now I am curious enough to ask: do you mean it all, or are you being a jokester? I do kinda like Xykon because he is amusing (honestly I like him a lot more than Eugene by now) but...well he did make a bunch of people kill each other and themselves completely casually so...I can't really jump on that bandwagon. :smalltongue:

It was originally posted in the the topic where it sits above as an indirect reference to this (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/03/17/episode-1106-from-a-certain-point-of-view/) with Xykon in the used in the role of Lex Luthor and the Gods in the Role of superman.
Because it amused me, this was before the afterlife and how it worked were clearly defined on the forum - I just found it more amusing after that (I may not be a bottomless pit of self reference but I I am happy to refer to others jokes when they seem apt).


I don't recall anything even remotely like that happening in SoD.

Been a while since I read the book, so the crayon pieces from it are not in my head properly - I imagine that my line is accurate from at least a certain point of view.

On the seperate discussion relating to life and death and why avoid death and continue living from Roy's prespective: Xykon

Roy is living in a world where he knows that Durkon might fail and the world will continue on with a whole load of dusted vampires when the Dwarves deal with them - and what happens next? Xykon access a Gate and from Roy's prespective maybe does something like wipe out the gods (the only beings capable of both opposing Xykon, and also fixing the world) than sets himself up as God-Lich of the universe ... Celestia looks a lot worse after that.

Would this happen - unlikely based on what we know, but Roy knows next to nothing about the ritual other than that Xykon likely has one that does something involving a god-killing abomination.

For that matter we also don't know what Celestia would like like with Hel as the ruler of reality - with these matters considered Eugene may be logically wrong and Roy may be logically right (despite Roy seeming to be approaching this less logically than Eugene).

[Conradine]

In a world where death is the road to awe, dying would not be so tragic.

[Haluesen]

It was originally posted in the the topic where it sits above as an indirect reference to this (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/03/17/episode-1106-from-a-certain-point-of-view/) with Xykon in the used in the role of Lex Luthor and the Gods in the Role of superman.
Because it amused me, this was before the afterlife and how it worked were clearly defined on the forum - I just found it more amusing after that (I may not be a bottomless pit of self reference but I I am happy to refer to others jokes when they seem apt).

I'm glad you linked that, was a good read. :smallsmile: Been too long since I reread 8-Bit, I completely forgot about that. But yeah kinda fitting, a little bit. It is certainly amusing. Okay I was curious, needed to ask. :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Zero]

So....You'll be disappointed if the Snarl doesn't kill off another planet's entire population, and if Xykon's apparent goal of turning the entire world into an amusement mechanism for himself?


But at this point, being nullified by the Snarl or by the Gods does really any difference?
If the process is supposed to be unpleasant and undesirable so much that, for example, a poor and starving guy prefers anyway to struggle with life than become a battery, then why they should care?

Eh, oh damn, for evil people it is a pain, being tortured so long that you forget everything you were: it sound like how it works in the Hellraiser franchise. But ok, they were evil.

But even for Chaotic Neutral... being confused by the limbo till to the point where you are driving mad and forget what you were? And the same (with different means) in Mechanus for the LN?
This is sadism plain and simple.

For what I know, the Snarl could work like a big H bomb: vaporizes everything, without a moment of sufferance. And anyway it took what (now I don't remember the page) 15 minutes to undo the whole creation? It seems that for most of the people of the world the sufferance, if there was any at all, was much briefer than what was expecting them in the afterlife.

The point is: if the afterlife is supposed to be unpleasant, how heavily hinted by the author, the Snarl might be way preferable.

And last, but not least, these Gods who created these complicate and over the top torture levels to process their food (this is, at the end of the day, what everything is reduced to) have surely their needs, but me, as a mortal have all the reason to hope something sabotages them and give them a payback.

Yes, I've read the Vegan argument: we have our reasons like the Gods have their own, but I don't ask to a rabbit to help me to keep working the system (and I don't expect him to do), why the mortals should help them and not sabotage them, if possible?

(And honestly, from yesterday when I think about the Gods here, I imagine them like some verison of Cthulhu, it's kinda hard to root for them).

About Xykon, he is "rebelling" against Cthulhu (at least regarding the fact he doesn't want to go in the afterlife), this is enough to give him a boost in sympathy from me.
(Sure, if he has note been a sadist himself, it would have been better, but he is an amateur on sadism, at this point).

[dancrilis]

<cut for lenght>


I think one of the questions you might want to ask yourself is 'does life matter'.

If yes than you providing your soul power to the gods allows them to create new life - and create more and better* life from you having lived your life.

Life is not natural to the world it is something that requires deities to manage (seemingly), they expend soul power to create souls which they hope will live well** and thereby return that power later.

I think there is an arguement that allowing the Snarl to destroy the gods and the world in order to exterminate life would be neutral - but than the question becomes if this is the case what does that say about the real world (and The Giant seems to like saying something about the real world).

If for example you don't believe in the concept of an afterlife and do believe in the heat death of the universe why not cut to the chase would be the arguement that would be being made - yet many people who meet that criteria and can do the logic on it are going to see tomorrow anyway, in the same way that many people in the world of OOTS will likely meet there final faith without complaint (and have much longer to get used to the idea).
Also in the world of the OOTS even that final death and dissolution can be avoided (should you become a god which people have done before, and there seems no onus on gods to buy into the soul system if you don't want to eat people).

*better in this case meaning more like you.
**by the deities estimation

[Dr.Zero]

I think one of the questions you might want to ask yourself is 'does life matter'.

If yes than you providing your soul power to the gods allows them to create new life - and create more and better* life from you having lived your life.

Life is not natural to the world it is something that requires deities to manage (seemingly), they expend soul power to create souls which they hope will live well** and thereby return that power later.


I dunno. I mean, if becoming a God's snack was a painless process, I could say: "Duh, whatever!"
But if it is the process as hinted, well, where should I sign for the apprentice liches club?



I think there is an arguement that allowing the Snarl to destroy the gods and the world in order to exterminate life would be neutral - but than the question becomes if this is the case what does that say about the real world (and The Giant seems to like saying something about the real world).


I suppose that, if the Gods decide what is Good and what is Evil, trying to starve them, would be classified Evil with capital E.

Everything could assume a different light in hindsight:


Life is sacred and so killing is Evil? Only because killing people prematurely you deny them the opportunity to gain more XP and become more nutritious (practically is Evil because you're harvesting them before the right time, when they are still unripe)
Thor was going to fight Surtur who was eating Thor's followers because he is Good? Not really, he was just pissed off that Surtur was stealing his (future) snacks.


This could become really a Lovercraftian setting with people going mad from the revelation.



If for example you don't believe in the concept of an afterlife and do believe in the heat death of the universe why not cut to the chase would be the arguement that would be being made - yet many people who meet that criteria and can do the logic on it are going to see tomorrow anyway, in the same way that many people in the world of OOTS will likely meet there final faith without complaint (and have much longer to get used to the idea).


Regarding the relation between atheism and death, being mostly an atheist myself I can reply (at least for me): the main factors are the fear of the pain involved, the fear of the sufferances of the survivors, and the atavistic fear to be wrong.
About the last point: I think it will never be possible to prove that an afterlife doesn't exit, (btw, this is different from proving that a specific religion contradicts itself: this could be possible, but, aside the intellectual satisfaction, is pretty useless).
So think about the scene:
Me: "... I thought there was no afterlife..."
Cthulhu-like God: "Really? Well, sucks to be you, I guess."

Anyway, returning to OOTS:



Also in the world of the OOTS even that final death and dissolution can be avoided (should you become a god which people have done before, and there seems no onus on gods to buy into the soul system if you don't want to eat people).

*better in this case meaning more like you.
**by the deities estimation

Yes, that or become a lich, or an outsider. All highly unlikely for most of the people. But I guess that habit, resignation and the hope to become immortal somewhere (like here IRL the hope to win the lottery) could be enough.

[dancrilis]

I dunno. I mean, if becoming a God's snack was a painless process, I could say: "Duh, whatever!"
But if it is the process as hinted, well, where should I sign for the apprentice liches club?

I think it depends on how you intrepret it - sure evil afterlives are likely bad (because seemingly a lot of people including writters have a bias unconcious or not against evil - it would actually make more sense for the lower planes offer a good time so as to attract repeat business).

But let us take CN as an example, you gradually become one with the plane (and the plane is designed that way) and from a mortal prespective this means going completely insane.
But the initial stages of this might be awesome - games were you can make up your own rules or follow them on a whim, where nobody really cares about them providing they are enjoying themselves and nobody actually really is caught up on doing harm to others. Nights of drinking and argueing and forgetting about it etc.
It might very well be a paradise for some - after a while this guides you further down the path of CN until your life is some drug fueled party and you love it while not remembering who you are - maybe you are seeing things, maybe you were never alive, sure bouncing off the walls seems awesome - he now you can fly, fly like a toad - wait what ... nothing toad power.

The mortal you were centuries ago might look at the being you have become and go - 'don't want that', but many young people would look at themselves even a decade older and say 'don't want that'.

LN might be the perfect bureaucracy might where doing a good job gets you praise and more work until your life is your work etc.


Regarding the relation between atheism and death, being mostly an atheist myself I can reply (at least for me): the main factors are the fear of the pain involved, the fear of the sufferances of the survivors, and the atavistic fear to be wrong.
About the last point: I think it will never be possible to prove that an afterlife doesn't exit, (btw, this is different from proving that a specific religion contradicts itself: this could be possible, but, aside the intellectual satisfaction, is pretty useless).
So think about the scene:
Me: "... I thought there was no afterlife..."
Cthulhu-like God: "Really? Well, sucks to be you, I guess."
You might want to try an agnostic life - less a belief in no afterlife and more a belief that it doesn't matter if there is or isn't until you have some actual evidence (and time to analysis that evidence), or not.



Yes, that or become a lich, or an outsider. All highly unlikely for most of the people. But I guess that habit, resignation and the hope to become immortal somewhere (like here IRL the hope to win the lottery) could be enough.
Actually ... no, the Giant I believe mentioned that the only two ways to escape are 'become a god' or get eaten by the Snarl (or other soul destruction mechanics).

[mouser9169]

I think it depends on how you intrepret it - sure evil afterlives are likely bad (because seemingly a lot of people including writters have a bias unconcious or not against evil - it would actually make more sense for the lower planes offer a good time so as to attract repeat business).

But let us take CN as an example, you gradually become one with the plane (and the plane is designed that way) and from a mortal prespective this means going completely insane.
But the initial stages of this might be awesome - games were you can make up your own rules or follow them on a whim, where nobody really cares about them providing they are enjoying themselves and nobody actually really is caught up on doing harm to others. Nights of drinking and argueing and forgetting about it etc.
It might very well be a paradise for some - after a while this guides you further down the path of CN until your life is some drug fueled party and you love it while not remembering who you are - maybe you are seeing things, maybe you were never alive, sure bouncing off the walls seems awesome - he now you can fly, fly like a toad - wait what ... nothing toad power.

The mortal you were centuries ago might look at the being you have become and go - 'don't want that', but many young people would look at themselves even a decade older and say 'don't want that'.

LN might be the perfect bureaucracy might where doing a good job gets you praise and more work until your life is your work etc.


^This.

Don't focus on the 'battery', but the process. The alignment system is supposed to represent who you always were, at the core. Your beliefs defined not by your words, but by how you actually chose to live your life.

The idea of 'individuality melting away' or however you want to think about it isn't something that Rich came up with, or that Gygax and Arneson came up with, or any other modern author. These are ideas that have existed in humanity for a LONG, LONG time. Many do believe this is a worthy goal.

[hroþila]

It's worth pointing out that, in Celestia, you only progress up the mountain and towards batterydom if you want to. It's voluntary, although you could say it's akin to brainwashing, I guess.

[Dr.Zero]

But let us take CN as an example, you gradually become one with the plane (and the plane is designed that way) and from a mortal prespective this means going completely insane.
But the initial stages of this might be awesome - games were you can make up your own rules or follow them on a whim, where nobody really cares about them providing they are enjoying themselves and nobody actually really is caught up on doing harm to others. Nights of drinking and argueing and forgetting about it etc.
It might very well be a paradise for some - after a while this guides you further down the path of CN until your life is some drug fueled party and you love it while not remembering who you are - maybe you are seeing things, maybe you were never alive, sure bouncing off the walls seems awesome - he now you can fly, fly like a toad - wait what ... nothing toad power.


Ok, it makes sense.




You might want to try an agnostic life - less a belief in no afterlife and more a belief that it doesn't matter if there is or isn't until you have some actual evidence (and time to analysis that evidence), or not.


I'm on the verge already, I define myself "mostly atheist" out of habit.



Actually ... no, the Giant I believe mentioned that the only two ways to escape are 'become a god' or get eaten by the Snarl (or other soul destruction mechanics).

Damn it! Not even those strange prestige classes that transform the characters in outsiders are enough to avoid to became an inter-dimensional snack! :smallbiggrin:



^This.

Don't focus on the 'battery', but the process. The alignment system is supposed to represent who you always were, at the core. Your beliefs defined not by your words, but by how you actually chose to live your life.

The idea of 'individuality melting away' or however you want to think about it isn't something that Rich came up with, or that Gygax and Arneson came up with, or any other modern author. These are ideas that have existed in humanity for a LONG, LONG time. Many do believe this is a worthy goal.


Yes, but usually that is the ascension (like in "Childhood's End" I linked, with its Overmind), the enlightenment: you join something bigger and become part of it. But it is far from being an unpleasant and undesired process and result. If anything, it works usually the other way around (people would like to ascend, but they are not ready/not worthy).

Here people are supposed to be scared of it, and trying to avoid it. I think this is why the whole "battery/eating" stuff came up in Rich's post.


It's worth pointing out that, in Celestia, you only progress up the mountain and towards batterydom if you want to. It's voluntary, although you could say it's akin to brainwashing, I guess.

Yes, it seems there you have not forced steps. A reason good enough to try to enter there, instead of somewhere else. :smallredface:

[dancrilis]

Yes, it seems there you have not forced steps. A reason good enough to try to enter there, instead of somewhere else. :smallredface:

I suspect you are not 'forced' anywhere - all you have to do in Celestia to avoid moving up the mountain is not act Lawful and Good while in a plane of Law and Good while having a Lawful Good alignment.

In the abyss if you are a kind and decent person who follows the rules the plane also will likely never consume you - of course than you probably would not have ended up in the abyss (and the demons might very well torture you until your pesky morals and ethics are dealt with).

[wumpus]

Some random thoughts:

- The "battery" idea isn't meant to be a Bad Thing(tm). MANY philosophies and religions in our world have a similar concept (see: Collective Unconscious). It seems like a negative because our individuality appears very important to us while we are alive. Once we reach that point, it may become much less so over time.

- Eugene will of course have a very different view of dying and the afterlife than living people will. Eugene _knows_ that the afterlife is real. It's something he can reach out and hold in his hand. From his side, dying isn't a big deal, so pushing people through it sooner rather than later doesn't have the same weight that it would for someone among the living.

- Finally, again, "selfish" does not equal "evil". Eugene is a selfish jerk. That doesn't make him evil. He isn't forcing others to do his bidding by virtue of his strength or power. He's saying: "Here's a solution to the problem at hand, and it benefits me, so let's do that one."

While we've gone over "motivations matter", Eugene should know better than anyone that blood oaths are still possible (unless they *all* were mysteriously shut down in an edition change). He's unhappy with standing outside the gates for presumably a decade or less, but willing to bind any oathspirit (presumably sworn for something other than vengeance, say a grail knight).

While his character sheet may say "lawful good", I wouldn't trust a word out of his mouth. I doubt that he can scry on things hidden by a goddess, but in general Eugene will say only what is good for Eugene. Don't carefully parse the text assuming everything he says is the absolute truth.

[hroþila]

I suspect you are not 'forced' anywhere - all you have to do in Celestia to avoid moving up the mountain is not act Lawful and Good while in a plane of Law and Good while having a Lawful Good alignment.
Not even that. All you have to do not to move up is... not to seek out a higher form of enlightenment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html).

[multilis]

In my opinion, blame not Eugene but the GODS who made fighting=good and non violence=bad/hell for dwarves... if anyone is "evil" would be them. (End result=civil war of dwarves=Good, peace among dwarves risks eternity in Hel)

Perhaps it is time to look in mirror and ask yourself why YOU are advocating the genocide of all living life forms from any sort of afterlife, and no chance for a second world to be created after Snarl destroys everything. Or (if gods stop Snarl in time) YOU are condemning the dwarves to unhappy existence with Hel forever rather than a happy ever after just because YOU didn't give them a chance to kill each other.

How evil are YOU? ;P

But "Roy has invincible plot armor to win". Eugene doesn't know that. He sees a fighter who is vastly outclassed by X both by levels and by only being a fighter in a world where epic level magic users slaughter epic level fighters in their sleep. (At least Eugene's daughter was smart enough to understand that mage beats a swordsman)

[Jasdoif]

But at this point, being nullified by the Snarl or by the Gods does really any difference?
If the process is supposed to be unpleasant and undesirable so much that, for example, a poor and starving guy prefers anyway to struggle with life than become a battery, then why they should care?

Eh, oh damn, for evil people it is a pain, being tortured so long that you forget everything you were: it sound like how it works in the Hellraiser franchise. But ok, they were evil.

But even for Chaotic Neutral... being confused by the limbo till to the point where you are driving mad and forget what you were? And the same (with different means) in Mechanus for the LN?
This is sadism plain and simple.

For what I know, the Snarl could work like a big H bomb: vaporizes everything, without a moment of sufferance. And anyway it took what (now I don't remember the page) 15 minutes to undo the whole creation? It seems that for most of the people of the world the sufferance, if there was any at all, was much briefer than what was expecting them in the afterlife.

The point is: if the afterlife is supposed to be unpleasant, how heavily hinted by the author, the Snarl might be way preferable.Ah, so you do feel that it's entirely OK for everyone on the world to be wiped out as long as the gods go too.

So apparently you only care about dealing with the one injustice that makes you uncomfortable, without regard to how many other injustices are inflicted on others in dealing with it. Well, I can see why you identify with Eugene.

[The MunchKING]

Not even that. All you have to do not to move up is... not to seek out a higher form of enlightenment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0493.html).

Well, I think dancrilis was implying that seeking enlightenment IS what a Lawful Good person on a Lawful Good plane would do. At least eventually.

[nleseul]

Yes, but usually that is the ascension (like in "Childhood's End" I linked, with its Overmind), the enlightenment: you join something bigger and become part of it. But it is far from being an unpleasant and undesired process and result. If anything, it works usually the other way around (people would like to ascend, but they are not ready/not worthy).

Here people are supposed to be scared of it, and trying to avoid it. I think this is why the whole "battery/eating" stuff came up in Rich's post.

Let's put it this way. Living individual consciousness is desirable and enjoyable—to an extent. It is, however, specifically the limitations of individual existence that make it enjoyable and interesting. Extend such consciousness out to an infinity of time—give each individual the ability to experience everything that it's possible to experience—and those differences between individuals disappear, and individuality loses its meaning anyway. Thus, individuality, while positive, is by its nature temporary and unsustainable, and must eventually transcend into something else. In D&D cosmology, that "something else" is, basically, pure alignment-energy.

People in a D&D world with an afterlife, presumably, understand this intellectually. They know that they'll have to transcend individuality at some point, and know that it's not a bad thing—but on the other hand, they're in no hurry to do it right now, specifically because the idea of letting go of individuality is an unknown and incomprehensible experience for someone currently existing as an individual.

It's basically the equivalent of school kids thinking about going out and getting a job one day. They know it's going to happen, and they know it's going to be basically a good thing—but it's so different from anything they've experienced so far that it's kind of scary too.

[Kish]

Some random thoughts:

- The "battery" idea isn't meant to be a Bad Thing(tm).
Well, this is an oversimplification. It's supposed to be enough of a bad thing to get the audience on board with "staying out of the afterlife as long as possible is a goal it makes sense for a sympathetic character to have" without going all the way to "staying out of the afterlife as long as possible is a goal it makes sense to turn yourself into a lich to achieve" like Xykon or "burn the whole system no matter who suffers," like Dr. Zero.

[nleseul]

Well, this is an oversimplification. It's supposed to be enough of a bad thing to get the audience on board with "staying out of the afterlife as long as possible is a goal it makes sense for a sympathetic character to have" without going all the way to "staying out of the afterlife as long as possible is a goal it makes sense to turn yourself into a lich to achieve"

And given that real-world religions have been trying to resolve that particular problem since literally the dawn of human consciousness, I think we can forgive a webcomic author for handwaving it a little bit.

[Dr.Zero]

Ah, so you do feel that it's entirely OK for everyone on the world to be wiped out as long as the gods go too.

So apparently you only care about dealing with the one injustice that makes you uncomfortable, without regard to how many other injustices are inflicted on others in dealing with it. Well, I can see why you identify with Eugene.

Hmm... My initial assumption -mostly because Rich's post, honestly- was that the battery thing is really a bad, unpleasant thing.

Now, your question is: "So, you puny lobster, are fine with you and every other lobster dissolving without too much pain (or anyway a brief pain), taking with you the guys who are planning to cook you alive, instead of just being cooked alive?"

Erm... Yes? :)

Of course, the assumption about the pain and the unpleasantness could be wrong, a misunderstanding from my side of what Rich was saying, and dancrills (and others people) following explanations set the thing differently.

But if the question was just that, "YES" is the obvious reply, and not only for the lobster version of me, but for the sake of all the lobsters waiting to be cooked alive.


And given that real-world religions have been trying to resolve that particular problem since literally the dawn of human consciousness, I think we can forgive a webcomic author for handwaving it a little bit.

Indeed he specified that, if he could, he would have removed the afterlife completely, so no big deal.
And maybe it would have been the best choice, if not, for the reason he explained, Roy would have been cut out from the story for a very long time.

But the lovercraftian setting could be of some use, really. (Not in comic, I mean in general: you think you are playing the usual D&D campaign, and instead BANG the revelation!)

[TheLastBaron]

So many posters stating that "Eugene is suggesting Omnicide," as if the votes of gods are somehow at his whim.

Eugene is not suggesting Omnicide, merely acknowledging that it's already likely to occur, and compared to the alternative, not the worst thing that could happen. He is stating that it is a viable Lawful (they put it to a vote) Good (compared to allowing the Snarl to be released) choice.

...did all the LG gods who voted for destruction suddenly turn Evil?

Eugene is a selfish, impatient, disembodied spirit who is watching the equivalent of the last play of an important game (only like a billion times more important) and is arguing that the gods' "Hail Mary" (no pun intended) play is actually a smart choice compared to the huge loss they'll face if the Snarl is released.

It would suck for the whole world and its inhabitants to die. It would suck WAY MORE for them and their gods to be undone wholesale by an embodiment of hateful dischord.

[Bedinsis]

All people who are comparing the gods suggesting ending the world with Eugene suggesting ending the world, listen up. IT. IS. NOT. THE. SAME. Good Gods wants to save innocent souls. Sure their idea to do it is drastic but it is well-intentioned. Eugene wants Xykon dead so he can go to Celestia, no matter how many people have to die for that to happen (or at least that is how he is acting). He doesn't even care about avenging Fyron, it's all about him going to the afterlife. TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! :smallfurious:

We don't know whatever qualms he might have had in coming to the conclusion that that was the most reasonable course of action. It is possible from where I sit that he considered the possible points of views, and reached the conclusion that destroying the world was the best course of action. For pretty much the same reasons the good gods thought so.

Sure, that he would get to enter the afterlife if the gods destroy the world definitely coloured his perception, but coming to a conclusion that happen to benefit yourself doesn't necessarily mean that your reasoning was unsound, ungood or unlawful.

[Ruck]

So many posters stating that "Eugene is suggesting Omnicide," as if the votes of gods are somehow at his whim.

Eugene is not suggesting Omnicide, merely acknowledging that it's already likely to occur, and compared to the alternative, not the worst thing that could happen. He is stating that it is a viable Lawful (they put it to a vote) Good (compared to allowing the Snarl to be released) choice.
He doesn't state any of those things you say about it being lawful or good. At best he says "Just don't do anything and let the gods decide to wipe everyone out so I can get into Heaven."

Why do people keep ignoring motivations? Or writing motivations in that aren't shown?

[Jasdoif]

Hmm... My initial assumption -mostly because Rich's post, honestly- was that the battery thing is really a bad, unpleasant thing.

Now, your question is: "So, you puny lobster, are fine with you and every other lobster dissolving without too much pain (or anyway a brief pain), taking with you the guys who are planning to cook you alive, instead of just being cooked alive?"

Erm... Yes? :)

Of course, the assumption about the pain and the unpleasantness could be wrong, a misunderstanding from my side of what Rich was saying, and dancrills (and others people) following explanations set the thing differently.

But if the question was just that, "YES" is the obvious reply, and not only for the lobster version of me, but for the sake of all the lobsters waiting to be cooked alive.Here's the problems.
Your assumption about the pain and unpleasantness already led you to support the Snarl killing everyone. Apparently, the lives and afterlives of everyone on the world aren't important enough for you to consider beforehand the possibility that you could have been wrong.
Your secondary rooting for Xykon. That comes out to support of Xykon being able to inflict suffering on anyone in life as he sees fit, and then they go to the afterlife that you already believed was a painful and unpleasant thing.
So, no, I don't believe you're actually concerned for the well-being of the people on the world.

[Haluesen]

We don't know whatever qualms he might have had in coming to the conclusion that that was the most reasonable course of action. It is possible from where I sit that he considered the possible points of views, and reached the conclusion that destroying the world was the best course of action. For pretty much the same reasons the good gods thought so.

Sure, that he would get to enter the afterlife if the gods destroy the world definitely coloured his perception, but coming to a conclusion that happen to benefit yourself doesn't necessarily mean that your reasoning was unsound, ungood or unlawful.

Except that here it is. From what we have seen "on-screen" as it were, Eugene doesn't care about what other people in the world want, or why the gods plan to destroy the world. He just wants Xykon gone in the most simple or convenient way possible, regardless of what it costs others. Maybe it is Lawful, I'm not sure. But it certainly is not Good.

"We don't know whatever qualms he might have had..." You're trying to rely on made-up, unseen supposed doubts he had, when from everything we are shown he doesn't doubt at all. He is not at all shown feeling bad for his ideas or the suffering of others. The closest to any of that we see is acknowledging that the dwarf souls going to Hel is a bad thing. And he had to be reminded of that, and then STILL tried to come up with a way that they could die so that the world could get destroyed by the Gods. Simply put any imagining that he had to struggle to come to this conclusion or that he wants what the Good gods want is JUST NOT THERE. Future comics MAY prove otherwise, but right now there is absolutely no proof at all that he wants to gods to destroy the world to protect it or that he at all cares about all the people who will suffer just so that HE HIMSELF can get to Celestia.

It's basically like saying "Well Tarquin did reduce the overall deaths and suffering out there, so all his evil is for a Good reason!" Because even if what he did actually helped, it's still Evil and not what he intended.

[Lizard Lord]

While I am not sure about "evil" I have to agree that his behavior is likely to get him disbarred from entering the Lawful Good afterlife at this point. The celestials already hate him for kidnapping one of them AND he is refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions. What are the chances that won't effect where he winds up once Xykon is gone?

[Bedinsis]

"We don't know whatever qualms he might have had..." You're trying to rely on made-up, unseen supposed doubts he had, when from everything we are shown he doesn't doubt at all.

Yes, I am giving him the benefit of a doubt. Given that he actually reconsidered when given the additional input of the dwarf situation I'd say he's able to doubt.

I cannot blame you for not doing the same, given his history.

[TheLastBaron]

He doesn't state any of those things you say about it being lawful or good. At best he says "Just don't do anything and let the gods decide to wipe everyone out so I can get into Heaven."

Why do people keep ignoring motivations? Or writing motivations in that aren't shown?

You're right. He doesn't outright state that, I suppose I'm doing some reading between the lines and making some assumptions based on his past bx. He agrees with their decision, and yeah, it benefits him personally, but that's the perk of obeying your LG gods...from time to time, they make a decision that benefits you personally.

His motives have also been analyzed, and the whole "all this guy cares about is the Blood Oath." Well...no sh*t, right? That's the only thing keeping him from entering into Celestia (assuming he's already been judged, but let's not get into that argument just yet). He's no longer mortal, and yet he's stuck hanging out "on a cloud." I'd start looking for any possible out so long as it was still technically "Good."

If he were to make a deal with a devil to have Xykon eliminated (or at least wrangle some help from the Lower Planes for Roy), then yeah, I'd say "cavorting with Devils?? EVIL!" But he's basically suggesting throwing in the towel on this particular world. The odds are really stacked against the heroes (as fits the epic OOTS narrative), but the characters, bound by ontological intertia, still have to act and interact as if it were "real." Just because you can sneak a look at the manual or break the fourth wall from time to time doesn't mean the rules don't apply.

Eugene wants done with waiting, and so far, he's suggested things that suck, but aren't necessarily evil.

Two cents

[Kish]

but the characters, bound by ontological intertia, still have to act and interact as if it were "real."
...come again? Because if I didn't know better, I could swear you just said that the OotS world isn't the real world for all the characters in it, the only reason Roy is acting like a proposal to DESTROY THE WORLD is actually a proposal to DESTROY THE WORLD is "ontological inertia," and that Eugene is justified in being horrifyingly selfish because acting like other people matter wouldn't serve his selfish interests.

[hroþila]

You're right. He doesn't outright state that, I suppose I'm doing some reading between the lines and making some assumptions based on his past bx. He agrees with their decision, and yeah, it benefits him personally, but that's the perk of obeying your LG gods...
The gods didn't vote along alignment lines. Heimdall, traditionally LG, voted the same as Hel, traditionally NE. Thor, traditionally CG, voted the same as Loki, traditionally CE.

Which goes to show that Eugene being for destroying the world now is not necessarily Evil by itself; it's his motives that make it an Evil thing to say.

[TheLastBaron]

...come again? Because if I didn't know better, I could swear you just said that the OotS world isn't the real world for all the characters in it, the only reason Roy is acting like a proposal to DESTROY THE WORLD is actually a proposal to DESTROY THE WORLD is "ontological inertia," and that Eugene is justified in being horrifyingly selfish because acting like other people matter wouldn't serve his selfish interests.

In short, yeah. Eugene wants the story to be over. Roy feels compelled to keep fighting.

Eugene's sole responsibility is the Blood Oath, literally NOTHING else matters to him, and he's been waiting for satisfaction for decades. But....

Remember how long Roy was in Celestia? He forgot about his mortal concerns and everything that was happening in the world for months. Roy stopped caring about the mortal world too, albeit temporarily. He was even told he could stay if he wanted to do so. He chose to go back; we see that as the brave, heroic, "right" thing to do, but he had also been judged LG and had no responsibility to be rezzed. Roy CHOSE to go back to the mortal world, Eugene CAN'T CHOOSE NOT be bound to it, and so he's looking for any opportunity to get that ball and chain off.

IF Eugene has already been judged worthy of LG Celestia, anything he does post-mortem and post-judgment probably won't affect his alignment and this judgment. Eugene is advocating "kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out." Not a great plan, but not a "capital E" Evil plan.

[Ruck]

Eugene's sole responsibility is the Blood Oath, literally NOTHING else matters to him, and he's been waiting for satisfaction for decades.
Eugene has been dead less than five years. Why do people keep saying it's been "decades"?

[TheLastBaron]

Eugene has been dead less than five years. Why do people keep saying it's been "decades"?

The Blood Oath is decades old. Sorry.

[DataNinja]

While I am not sure about "evil" I have to agree that his behavior is likely to get him disbarred from entering the Lawful Good afterlife at this point. The celestials already hate him for kidnapping one of them AND he is refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions. What are the chances that won't effect where he winds up once Xykon is gone?

On the one hand, Roy's Archon thinks, in panel 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html), that it's 'technically past the point where it would be a realistic possibility' for Eugene to go to, at the very least, the Lower Planes. There are a few ways that could be interpreted, though, including "Roy's Archon doesn't actually know."

[Kish]

In short, yeah. Eugene wants the story to be over. Roy feels compelled to keep fighting.

Eugene's sole responsibility is the Blood Oath, literally NOTHING else matters to him, and he's been waiting for satisfaction for decades. But....

Remember how long Roy was in Celestia? He forgot about his mortal concerns and everything that was happening in the world for months. Roy stopped caring about the mortal world too, albeit temporarily. He was even told he could stay if he wanted to do so. He chose to go back; we see that as the brave, heroic, "right" thing to do, but he had also been judged LG and had no responsibility to be rezzed. Roy CHOSE to go back to the mortal world, Eugene CAN'T CHOOSE NOT be bound to it, and so he's looking for any opportunity to get that ball and chain off.

IF Eugene has already been judged worthy of LG Celestia, anything he does post-mortem and post-judgment probably won't affect his alignment and this judgment. Eugene is advocating "kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out." Not a great plan, but not a "capital E" Evil plan.
You make an argument for Eugene being Chaotic Evil which is more extreme than any other I've seen here, though your liberal use of scare quotes tries to mask it (and apparently succeeds in masking it from yourself). You also claim a remarkable and thoroughly unjustified level of knowledge of what 1) Rich Burlew, and 2) everyone on this board, should expect from Roy and Eugene.

[TheLastBaron]

You make an argument for Eugene being Chaotic Evil which is more extreme than any other I've seen here, though your liberal use of scare quotes tries to mask it (and apparently succeeds in masking it from yourself). You also claim a remarkable and thoroughly unjustified level of knowledge of what 1) Rich Burlew, and 2) everyone on this board, should expect from Roy and Eugene.

Hoo boy. I've obviously touched a nerve. Sorry that you're taking this so personally. I think I'm going to go back to lurking and let my interpretations stay my interpretations. It's not fun to see someone so upset by an alternative view. Sorry again, guy.

[Dr.Zero]

Here's the problems.
Your assumption about the pain and unpleasantness already led you to support the Snarl killing everyone. Apparently, the lives and afterlives of everyone on the world aren't important enough for you to consider beforehand the possibility that you could have been wrong.


Oooook. This is why I hate to mess with author's explanations out of the universe.

I called them assumptions because I tried to be accomodating.
But here we go.

Quoting from The Giant:


Because I am saying that is specifically what the afterlife does. It makes you into a cookie-cutter clone of everyone of the same alignment. It may take centuries to do so, but all the people at the top of the mountain? Completely indistinguishable from one another. Arguably, that is the purpose of the D&D afterlife—to turn flawed mortal souls into perfect alignment-batteries, through various methodologies. In the Nine Hells, they torture you until you forget everything else. In Celestia, you meditate until you renounce all worldly concerns. In Valhalla, you party until you can't remember your own name. In Limbo, the chaos drives you mad. In Mechanus, you sit in grey cubicle stamping paperwork until you are bored into oblivion. And so on and so forth.


Bold mine.



I'm saying that I require Roy to be not OK with everyone dying in order to continue the story, and therefore the afterlife must have flaws (and here they are). Since the goal here is for me to continue to tell the story I have imagined, my position wins.


I've accepted dancrills explanation for limbo.
Let's say that I can accept a similar explanation for Mechanus (they make you live in a perfectly ordered town, then they invite you to become an officer of some sort, and slowly you became a perfect mechanism).

First point: I'd love to see a similar explanation for the nine hells and the explicit "torture".
Second point, this is some sort of brainwashing, if made following the "nice" explanations is totally willing, if made with forced steps, is (by definition) forced, and so torture as well (yes, a soul kicking, trying to escape and refusing to do a thing, but forced to do/endure it anyway, is tortured).

Now the "nice" explanation are based on the fact that the process is completely willing, probably even pleasurable to the person of the proper alignment: but if it is willing, maybe pleasurable, we return back to the original question: why people should fear to die?

Maybe, you could argue, people don't want to be brainwashed anyway, even if it is pleasurable. But they could refuse!

So, exactly, what is the flaw that makes to... let's say... the typical dirt farmer the death so flawed?

If the nice explanations are true, aside the evil people, who -if the Nine Hells is an indicator, are going to be tortured anyway and got the short stick- what everyone else has to lose?

Why risking the annihilation? Why risking to live under Xykon's heel? Why living under any tyrant, really, when you have this place where everyone is like you, and you can stay there as long as you wish, refusing to move on? (Or moving on, but only if you like it!)


Instead, if the place is SO flawed (like the Nine Hell, but even like Mechanus, if you are FORCED to become a mechanism, or LIMBO if you're driven mad because the place changes continually, and you only wish to escape... or whatever other plane, if the nice explanation is wrong) that living under Xykon (or under Tarquin, for what that matters) is better than going there, and it is worth to risk annihilation to live and avoid to go there... well, ok, you avoid that people goes in this horribly flawed place for now, but eventually they will die and end there anyway.

So, the whole point is: assumptions? Let's call it logic and tertium non datur: either the nice explanations are true, and Eugene plan is wonderful, or the nice explanations are false and living under tyrants, as dirt farmers, as a brain in a jar in a pinch, whatever is preferable to the afterlife. And in this last case the big flash and then the painless oblivion is not a bad idea.

I hope now this sounds better.


Here's the problems.
Your secondary rooting for Xykon. That comes out to support of Xykon being able to inflict suffering on anyone in life as he sees fit, and then they go to the afterlife that you already believed was a painful and unpleasant thing.
So, no, I don't believe you're actually concerned for the well-being of the people on the world.

Here I could reply: you think you can detect wrong assumptions and then you cannot detect sarcasm? It was the classic "rooting for the empire" (as from tvtropes) where, the "good side" sucks so badly, that eventually the evil side gains char,

This, other quote from me, stands true:


About Xykon, he is "rebelling" against Cthulhu (at least regarding the fact he doesn't want to go in the afterlife), this is enough to give him a boost in sympathy from me.
(Sure, if he has note been a sadist himself, it would have been better, but he is an amateur on sadism, at this point).


If the "nice explanations" are untrue (and they must be untrue, to blame Eugene for his plan), then rebelling against the Gods gave him a boost in sympathy from me, boost which would have been greater if he has not been a sadist himself.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hoo boy. I've obviously touched a nerve. Sorry that you're taking this so personally. I think I'm going to go back to lurking and let my interpretations stay my interpretations. It's not fun to see someone so upset by an alternative view. Sorry again, guy.I thought that your post made far more sense than most of what has been posted in this thread.

[TheLastBaron]

I thought that your post made far more sense than most of what has been posted in this thread.

Yeah, but I'm not gonna go up against a dude with almost 25,000 posts on this forum over the motivations of a fictional character on a webcomic. I love discussing fictional characters and their motivation, but not with people who won't stick to the story. Personal attacks, even subtle stuff like "you're ignorant, you don't know me, you don't know Rich Burlew" are just unnecessary. If you can't debate content, don't attack my character.

I get my view is a little controversial, but I like to assume the best of each character (including alignment) unless told otherwise. Belkar's evil. Tarquin's evil. Thog's evil. We've seen lots of evidence of that. Eugene's a dead douchebag with a ****ty responsibility to the mortal plane that he's compelled to manage, but he's not evil (just yet, in my opinion).

[Haluesen]

Yes, I am giving him the benefit of a doubt. Given that he actually reconsidered when given the additional input of the dwarf situation I'd say he's able to doubt.

I cannot blame you for not doing the same, given his history.

I suppose I don't understand why you give him that benefit, but fair enough. People have their own views. And in the end it is still a stick figure comic. Discussing such things is interesting, but I don't want to be worked up over it as I have been. :smallfrown: It's all supposed to be fun. So, agreeing to disagree most amiably. :smallsmile:

[Ruck]

The Blood Oath is decades old. Sorry.

In that case, I don't think "waiting decades for satisfaction" is a point in his favor, since he explicitly gave up on trying.

[Jasdoif]

I've accepted dancrills explanation for limbo.
Let's say that I can accept a similar explanation for Mechanus (they make you live in a perfectly ordered town, then they invite you to become an officer of some sort, and slowly you became a perfect mechanism).

First point: I'd love to see a similar explanation for the nine hells and the explicit "torture".
Second point, this is some sort of brainwashing, if made following the "nice" explanations is totally willing, if made with forced steps, is (by definition) forced, and so torture as well (yes, a soul kicking, trying to escape and refusing to do a thing, but forced to do/endure it anyway, is tortured).Suppose I were to suggest an alternative: That the slow decay of souls' individuality is an aspect of a soul being loose from a body rather than of the afterlives; and the afterlives are intended to focus that inevitable decay in a productive and timely fashion in accordance with the soul's alignment-based inclinations, rather than the spiritual equivalent of their mind rotting from the inside out over the course of centuries. (I suddenly have an idea what the purpose of a soul being made into an outsider, whose body and soul are one, is)


I hope now this sounds better.Still reads like trying to justify mass murder, on the apparent basis that you have a greater right to judge the value of their lives and afterlives than they do.

Well, I applaud you on bringing up something Eugene and Redcloak have in common, that's quite topical for this thread!


It was the classic "rooting for the empire" (as from tvtropes) where, the "good side" sucks so badly, that eventually the evil side gains char,A great deal of "rooting for the empire" activity does involve ignoring what happens to innocent parties if the evil side prevails, I agree.

[georgie_leech]

Suppose I were to suggest an alternative: That the slow decay of souls' individuality is an aspect of a soul being loose from a body rather than of the afterlives; and the afterlives are intended to focus that inevitable decay in a productive and timely fashion in accordance with the soul's alignment-based inclinations, rather than the spiritual equivalent of their mind rotting from the inside out over the course of centuries. (I suddenly have an idea what the purpose of a soul being made into an outsider, whose body and soul are one, is)

That's actually a really interesting angle. What if we further suppose that outside of one of the afterlives that channel your soul to a given alignment, you just lose everything you are as you break down? It could explain the sudden petty motivations for the visit revealed in the latest comic. And when was the last time Eugene ever happily agreed with anyone? :smalleek:

[Kish]

That calls into question whether keeping a soul outside of an afterlife for any reason could be compatible with Good, though.

[nleseul]

It could explain the sudden petty motivations for the visit revealed in the latest comic.

Leaving aside the good conversation on metaphysics... just wanting to spend time with your son is a petty motivation?

[Dr.Zero]

Suppose I were to suggest an alternative: That the slow decay of souls' individuality is an aspect of a soul being loose from a body rather than of the afterlives; and the afterlives are intended to focus that inevitable decay in a productive and timely fashion in accordance with the soul's alignment-based inclinations, rather than the spiritual equivalent of their mind rotting from the inside out over the course of centuries. (I suddenly have an idea what the purpose of a soul being made into an outsider, whose body and soul are one, is)


And I guess that "Torture" in Nine Hells, as from the author's words, is a rejuvenating procedure, in this explanation.
And what does mean "productive and timely fashion"? Productive for who? The tortured souls? Or the souls who are sitting in a "grey cubicle stamping paperwork until you are bored into oblivion"?

And what kind of "inevitable decay", if in Celestia you can move at your own pace to climb the Mountain? If it was an inevitable decay, they wouldn't say to Roy that he can "climb the mountain until you reach the level of enlightenment that you're happy with" (pg 493), right? They would give him a timetable, else he could go to slowly and never become a "battery" as for the purpose of the place.

The point is simple:


So, the whole point is: assumptions? Let's call it logic and tertium non datur: either the nice explanations are true, and Eugene plan is wonderful, or the nice explanations are false and living under tyrants, as dirt farmers, as a brain in a jar in a pinch, whatever is preferable to the afterlife. And in this last case the big flash and then the painless oblivion is not a bad idea.


Btw, fun fact: whatever is the reply, Roy, the hero, is wrong.

[Jasdoif]

The point is simple:

So, the whole point is: assumptions? Let's call it logic and tertium non datur: either the nice explanations are true, and Eugene plan is wonderful, or the nice explanations are false and living under tyrants, as dirt farmers, as a brain in a jar in a pinch, whatever is preferable to the afterlife. And in this last case the big flash and then the painless oblivion is not a bad idea.
Btw, fun fact: whatever is the reply, Roy, the hero, is wrong.The two sets of explanations you've chosen don't make it a binary scenario, so tertium non datur doesn't apply.


But I do agree, the point is quite simple: You're in favor of denying the people on the planet the right to decide for themselves whether they want to go to an afterlife or not, solely because you don't approve of your understanding of the limited presentation of those afterlives.

Where, exactly, do you get the idea that no one on the planet is capable of determining any more details than the handful of remarks you've read on the forum? Or that they're incapable of determining for themselves whether their lives are worth living, or whether their afterlives are worth avoiding at all costs?

Or that you not knowing why they want an afterlife means they should be deprived of one?

[georgie_leech]

Leaving aside the good conversation on metaphysics... just wanting to spend time with your son is a petty motivation?

In general no, but distracting his son with discussions on justified omnicide while said son trying to figure out how to save the world, all because he's bored, is another thing entirely. Up until this point, Eugene has at least generally had a good reason for his visits, even if came with a side order of snark.

[dancrilis]

First point: I'd love to see a similar explanation for the nine hells and the explicit "torture".
Second point, this is some sort of brainwashing, if made following the "nice" explanations is totally willing, if made with forced steps, is (by definition) forced, and so torture as well (yes, a soul kicking, trying to escape and refusing to do a thing, but forced to do/endure it anyway, is tortured).


I will try this - dubious on them but will make an attempt.

1. I'd love to see a similar explanation for the nine hells and the explicit "torture".
This could be traditional torture - hot pokers, branding irons etc, but there is another way to look at time. The torture here might be more a torturous experience - a la military training, so when one first shows up they are put through hell (if you will pardon the expression) where they are the whipping boy for those more senior to themselves. However eventually you move up - greater responsibility, greater punishment for getting things wrong, but ultimately a chance to exercise more power over others also (use of slaves, having lower ranked servents to clean your quarters etc), over decades of strict military discipline where your enemies are made your slaves etc.
The onlt LE(maybe) plane that we have seen has taken this approach(maybe): here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html).
Taking that way LE might be considered torturous in the early stages but without the actual more traditional torture.

2. This is some sort of brainwashing, if made following the "nice" explanations is totally willing, if made with forced steps, is (by definition) forced, and so torture as well (yes, a soul kicking, trying to escape and refusing to do a thing, but forced to do/endure it anyway, is tortured).
Well I think this might come from an understanding of the Deities - Good deities might be largely beyond individual souls but they want all life to be pleasant and joyous where people seek to be better to eachother and for all to live in realitive harmony, the upper planes teach this view - to people that largely already agree with it - and over decades those people move closer and closer to being happy to sacrifice for the greater good. Conversly evil deities might be largely beyond individual souls but they want all life to be suffering and horrible where people seek to be worse to eachother and for all to live in misery, the lower planes teach this view - to people that largely already agree with it - and over decades those people move closer and closer to being happy to sacrifice for the greater evil (there suffering is nothing compared to the suffering they can bring about through it).

So less torture and more teaching you how to achieve goals you on some level already have.

As a third point - split into two points and a sub-point.
3.1. Roy doesn't know what Xykon's end game is.
3.1.1 Neither do we.
3.2. Roy doesn't know what Hel's end game is.

If Xykon or Hel get control of the multiverse you have no reason to believe that Celestia will remain as it is - and yes maybe the Soul Power trade will be abolished and that rather than a system guiding you down it we will have a system where everyone will know what is going on and so can volunteer to sacrifice themselves to create many new souls, or they could choose to reincarnate creating one powerful soul with no memory of who they were before - or whatever you prefer.
But there is a chance that having Evil beings singularly in charge of reality might be less pleasant that the above.

If that is the case than life needs to continue on the world to ensure that no powerful evil force using the resources of the world for powerful evil.

[Keltest]

3.2. Roy doesn't know what Hel's end game is.

I would suggest that he does, given that Hel was polite enough to tell everybody who would listen about it.

Loki was right, he is a failure of a parent.

[nleseul]

Let's call it logic and tertium non datur: either the nice explanations are true, and Eugene plan is wonderful, or the nice explanations are false and living under tyrants, as dirt farmers, as a brain in a jar in a pinch, whatever is preferable to the afterlife. And in this last case the big flash and then the painless oblivion is not a bad idea.

Following from my previous analogy about the afterlife being like kids leaving school and entering the workplace: scary, but desirable and necessary. You're basically arguing in response that the wage labor economy is so morally heinous that it's not a bad idea to go burn down all the schools, kids included, so that no child ever has to suffer the indignity of wage labor.

[dancrilis]

I would suggest that he does, given that Hel was polite enough to tell everybody who would listen about it.
There is a difference between 'I want lots of power so I can rule the multiverse' and a fine plan of 'and here is how I would rule it'.

Roy knows Xykon wants the Gate, and he knows that Hel wants the power from 10,000,000 dwarven souls - he can likely guess that neither of them are ultimately after these for altruistic reasons but the fine details of the impact of them getting what they want on Eric (if any) he has no clue about.

[Lizard Lord]

IF Eugene has already been judged worthy of LG Celestia, anything he does post-mortem and post-judgment probably won't affect his alignment and this judgment. Eugene is advocating "kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out." Not a great plan, but not a "capital E" Evil plan.

This makes no sense to me in a mythology, story, or even logical standpoint. Every afterlife story I have ever heard has had judgement end only once the soul has stepped through the gates (or at least the ones where this would even be a question). If a being has done something that would determine how their soul would wind up in accordance to the mythology' rules, then I cannot think of a single time where it mattered that the soul was alive or technically dead but not in the after life yet.

Whether or not his whole "let the world get destroyed" speech is one of them or not Eugene has done some pretty drastic things that fly in the face of being Lawful and Good. Let us not forget that Eugene kidnapped a being of pure LAW and GOOD in order to rig a trial so that he could manipulate his son into finishing his own unfinished business. Those are not the actions of a lawful good being.


Now, sure, Roy has also done things that go against being Lawful and/or Good, but the celestial that interviewed him let him through anyways on the merit that he was trying. Here we see Eugne try, to the best of his capability at least, avoid the consequences of his actions. He even claims that him being dead means he shouldn't have to face those consequences. Like you Eugene thinks he is already accepted into the Lawful Good afterlife and a technicallity is the only thing delaying him. However he stopped trying to represent the ideals of Law and Good as a result. He STOPPED TRYING. If the Celestials don't at least look at what Eugene has done and his attitude towards both his actions and the consequences of them and then they don't at least reevaluate whether or not he would belong to the Lawful Good afterlife would just seem rather absurd to me.

And, yea, the Stickverse has plenty of absurdities but those usually get pointed out through a joke (or are absurd in a way that it is the joke.) I see no joke here.

[Dr.Zero]

TL;DR of this post (and the other N, really): Eugene's solution is evil or so terrible? Only if the quotes from Rich must be read in the stricter way, where the afterlife is a place to avoid because of real and very bad flaws (and even in that case is hard to understand the real problem, since even in that case, people will end there anyway). But if the flaws are SO horrible, that the Snarl or Xykon's rule are a worthy risk compared to this awful place, then the Snarl IS a totally cool option, with a inch of revenge against who created such a terrible afterlife. And since we are talking about Good and Evil and not democracy, the polls are unrelated.


Now, that I've summarized the content, let's move to the details.



But I do agree, the point is quite simple: You're in favor of denying the people on the planet the right to decide for themselves whether they want to go to an afterlife or not, solely because you don't approve of your understanding of the limited presentation of those afterlives.


Fun fact: technically Eugene's plan regarding the dwarves is exactly that. Telling them and letting them do what they usually do (die with honor).
Isn't that the starting point of all this?



Where, exactly, do you get the idea that no one on the planet is capable of determining any more details than the handful of remarks you've read on the forum? Or that they're incapable of determining for themselves whether their lives are worth living, or whether their afterlives are worth avoiding at all costs?


Where, exactly, has this become a poll among imaginary persons?
I don't see as subject of the topic: "Eugene is definitely not democratic".
We were talking about Good and Evil, not about the polls.
The details are both the author's word and the comic's pages.

But let's for a moment move to the poll among imaginary persons: if then this poll gives a strange result like: "Oh, yes, afterlife is awesome, but we would prefer anyway Xykon's heel crushing us all over", since this appears like a quite flawed reasoning, if compared to how normal persons think, an explanation is needed anyway.

"My imaginary poll among imaginary persons, said that they prefer struggling and suffering instead of eternal bliss", is probably not good enough.

And I have the suspect (sarcasm) that this is why the afterlife had to be terribly flawed.

Returning to us: if one random Eugene says: "Hey, you know, maybe we should do X" and forumites say "No, no, X is soooo evil", and the explanation is: "Because, even if completely without apparent reasons, my poll among imaginary people says they consider it bad", without a factual explanation, then we move on the territory of "Ok, Eugene is not evil, he is, in fact, the only sane man."



Or that you not knowing why they want an afterlife means they should be deprived of one?

Really my starting idea was that Eugene was right...
Then the topic had the quotes from the author to explain that Eugene cannot be right, because the afterlife is so scary and flawed that no one wants to go there.
Which is the only and whole point that should make Eugene plan evil and selfish and unfeasible (as addressed by the same author).
(Even if Roy, in a strip, said people is looking forward for the afterlife, but let's not fix ourselves on details).
And only then we arrived at the Snarl option, as consequence of the terrible (supposed) flaws of the afterlife.
So, very well, I don't know. Call one of the persons of the story, and let him explain his own point of view, but in a coherent manner.

But here comes another fun fact: Roy could have explained to Eugene why omnicide was a crazy idea. Did he?

No: his two arguments are "I don't want to take this responsibility", and: "We cannot do it anyway."
He did find the time to point out the dwarf issue to explain why omnicide wasn't feasible, but he didn't find the time to explain why letting omnicide happen was Evil in the first place, and not worth to be considered at all.

Anyway this whole topic should stop to swing between: "Afterlife is so flawed that people wouldn't want to go there for any reason, even if this means the possibility to see Xykon win, and to see him ruling, so Eugene plan is Evil and selfish" and "No, afterlife is kinda cool and nice, so really no reason to think that people would be better without."



1. I'd love to see a similar explanation for the nine hells and the explicit "torture".
This could be traditional torture - hot pokers, branding irons etc, but there is another way to look at time. The torture here might be more a torturous experience - a la military training, so when one first shows up they are put through hell (if you will pardon the expression) where they are the whipping boy for those more senior to themselves. However eventually you move up - greater responsibility, greater punishment for getting things wrong, but ultimately a chance to exercise more power over others also (use of slaves, having lower ranked servents to clean your quarters etc), over decades of strict military discipline where your enemies are made your slaves etc.
The onlt LE(maybe) plane that we have seen has taken this approach(maybe): here.
Taking that way LE might be considered torturous in the early stages but without the actual more traditional torture.


This sounds a bit as a big sadomasochistic stage. I'd use Belkar's words: "Kinky!" :smallbiggrin:

Jokes aside, it could even work like that, but the point is that you're trying to make it "not a big deal" again. To a niche, maybe (and very nice to an even smaller niche :smallbiggrin: ). (BTW if you know Hellraiser franchise, things work in a similar way: you open the cube, you are enslaved and tortured, then you yourself becomes a cenobite who does this to the next one).

So, let's say that LE are fine with this enough to prefer this instead of being vaporized by the Snarl, don't we return to the starting point? "Eugene plan is not evil, even LE, who will be "tortured", are fine with that (because it is in their nature) and find it better than to be annihilated. And, since eventually they will end there anyway, let's move on."

The only big difference here, is that option 2) (They block the apocalypse, but they lose against Xykon) would be not so bad for evil people (but would be very bad for good people, so this compensates).

Anyway, nice explanation. :)




2. This is some sort of brainwashing, if made following the "nice" explanations is totally willing, if made with forced steps, is (by definition) forced, and so torture as well (yes, a soul kicking, trying to escape and refusing to do a thing, but forced to do/endure it anyway, is tortured).
Well I think this might come from an understanding of the Deities - Good deities might be largely beyond individual souls but they want all life to be pleasant and joyous where people seek to be better to eachother and for all to live in realitive harmony, the upper planes teach this view - to people that largely already agree with it - and over decades those people move closer and closer to being happy to sacrifice for the greater good. Conversly evil deities might be largely beyond individual souls but they want all life to be suffering and horrible where people seek to be worse to eachother and for all to live in misery, the lower planes teach this view - to people that largely already agree with it - and over decades those people move closer and closer to being happy to sacrifice for the greater evil (there suffering is nothing compared to the suffering they can bring about through it).


Uhmm, ok.
I didn't understand very well, so I try to summarize this theory to see if I understood correctly.
In the planes (let's take the upper plane example) they don't give you a timetable, or force you to lose your individuality (so no proper forcing) anyway they "teach you" in someway to look over the individuals and eventually you, by yourself, will like to move on. But (some) persons are anyway scared to go there, because they fear the individuality loss, and the sweet brainwashing. (I say some, because Roy and Eugene don't seem scared at all).
Ok, but we return to the kid who doesn't want to grow, even if this must happen eventually.
If the sweet brainwashing is not something horrible, what makes Eugene plan bad and evil?
It sounds a bit like: "Daddy, I don't want to go to school." "Well, if you don't go, you may end up starving to death as an adult (extended metaphor for the risk to be vaporized or to become Xykon's minion), so stop making a fuss, and let's go!"
Depending on how the dad replies he can be more or less callous, but far from evil.

Edit: silly me, I did lose a piece!

Following from my previous analogy about the afterlife being like kids leaving school and entering the workplace: scary, but desirable and necessary. You're basically arguing in response that the wage labor economy is so morally heinous that it's not a bad idea to go burn down all the schools, kids included, so that no child ever has to suffer the indignity of wage labor.

If they are scared without reason (and I'd like to know why at all they are scared, anyway, at least the LG people), we are at the same point.

There is no reason to risk to mess things (read: save the gate and give it ot Xykon, because AFA the order knows, that is what happens if team evil wins), just because they are scared without reason.

To continue with your example, about the kids scared to become adults and working: people cares, explaining it, but at the end of the day, that's it.
They are scared? Oh, well, on point of fact, that is better than starving to death. Let's move on.

Returning from the metaphor: people are scared by the afterlife, oh, well, that is better than the risk of ending as Xykon's minions, isn't it? So let's move on.
(And if the reply is that no, it is not better than the risk of becoming Xykon's minions, then we must talk again of how BAD is really that afterlife).

[Jasdoif]

Fun fact: technically Eugene's plan regarding the dwarves is exactly that. Telling them and letting them do what they usually do (die with honor).
Isn't that the starting point of all this?I think it was the "everyone should die" part that came earlier that started this, honestly.


Where, exactly, has this become a poll among imaginary persons?
I don't see as subject of the topic: "Eugene is definitely not democratic".
We were talking about Good and Evil, not about the polls.
The details are both the author's word and the comic's pages.

But let's for a moment move to the poll among imaginary persons: if then this poll gives a strange result like: "Oh, yes, afterlife is awesome, but we would prefer anyway Xykon's heel crushing us all over", since this appears like a quite flawed reasoning, if compared to how normal persons think, an explanation is needed anyway.

"My imaginary poll among imaginary persons, said that they prefer struggling and suffering instead of eternal bliss", is probably not good enough.

And I have the suspect (sarcasm) that this is why the afterlife had to be terribly flawed.

Returning to us: if one random Eugene says: "Hey, you know, maybe we should do X" and forumites say "No, no, X is soooo evil", and the explanation is: "Because, even if completely without apparent reasons, my poll among imaginary people says they consider it bad", without a factual explanation, then we move on the territory of "Ok, Eugene is not evil, he is, in fact, the only sane man."In (the all too likely) case I haven't been clear: Your rooting for the Snarl to undo the gods goes to the point of you insisting it's OK for everyone to be wiped out of the existence. That'd you've now arrived at a point where you feel you require an explanation for why they should be allowed to live seems to me like a sign that you've gone overboard in pursuit of the goal. You want souls to receive better treatment in the afterlife, so you want the gods to be destroyed, so you're willing to deny souls any afterlife? :smallconfused: Not even a chance of improving the situation, just wiping everything out?

In terms of Good and Evil, knowingly accepting widespread death in unrelated parties while pursuing your goals is an Evil view, and general omnicide counts whether we're talking soul-extinguishing or not. Eugene accepts it if he can get into Celestia, and "why should I care about the world?" is the justification he's given. Redcloak accepts it if he can avoid admitting to himself that he murdered Right-Eye for no real reason, and "but it's for the Goblin people!" is the justification he's given. Many of the Northern Pantheon accept it if they can avoid being victims of the Snarl themselves, and "but it's so they get into their afterlives!" is the justification they've given. And you're willing to accept it if it means the gods go too, and "they're better off like this anyway" is the justification you've given. I find none of those justifications compelling, regardless of whether or not they'd end up true after the fact.


Really my starting idea was that Eugene was right...
Then the topic had the quotes from the author to explain that Eugene cannot be right, because the afterlife is so scary and flawed that no one wants to go there.
Which is the only and whole point that should make Eugene plan evil and selfish and unfeasible (as addressed by the same author).
(Even if Roy, in a strip, said people is looking forward for the afterlife, but let's not fix ourselves on details).
And only then we arrived at the Snarl option, as consequence of the terrible (supposed) flaws of the afterlife.
So, very well, I don't know. Call one of the persons of the story, and let him explain his own point of view, but in a coherent manner.OK, that's fair. On the basis of you accepting the possibility of an alternative you don't know about; I hereby declare you more level-headed (and less myopic) than Eugene, Redcloak, and several gods.

[Kish]

I think it was the "everyone should die" part that came earlier that started this, honestly.
Yeah, Eugene has an obvious preference for one "choice." And when I say "preference," I mean "if the dwarves chose to try to preserve the world instead we'd get a reprise of the outrage face from the penultimate panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)." (Not that Eugene even suggested that the dwarves having a choice would be a factor, so yeah. This is, appropriately for Eugene, pure excuse.)

[Keltest]

Yeah, Eugene has an obvious preference for one "choice." And when I say "preference," I mean "if the dwarves chose to try to preserve the world instead we'd get a reprise of the outrage face from the penultimate panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)." (Not that Eugene even suggested that the dwarves having a choice would be a factor, so yeah. This is, appropriately for Eugene, pure excuse.)

Let me get this straight. You think that Eugene's reaction, upon hearing that the dwarves chose not to condemn their souls to pseudo-eternal torment, would be shock and outrage?

I am now convinced that you have not been looking at the same Eugene that I have been.

[Jasdoif]

Let me get this straight. You think that Eugene's reaction, upon hearing that the dwarves chose not to condemn their souls to pseudo-eternal torment, would be shock and outrage?The dwarves choosing not to condemn their souls to eternal torment by preserving the world would, if successful, keep Eugene out of the afterlife that much longer. Eugene's assumption being shown false would hit his ego directly, especially since it would mean the dwarves were now actively working against his goal as a result of his idea.

[wumpus]

In short, yeah. Eugene wants the story to be over. Roy feels compelled to keep fighting.

Eugene's sole responsibility is the Blood Oath, literally NOTHING else matters to him, and he's been waiting for satisfaction for decades. But....


Eugene willingly ignored the blood oath for at least a decade while alive. He only cared about it after dying and discovering it kept him out of Celestia. His only desire to complete the oath is not so much because it is an oath but to get out of "Limbo", and he says as much.

A willingness to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of others (dwarves, those alive that may have non-vengeance blood oaths) to advance the cause of number one is the definition of evil. He likely gets a pass here (as he can make no action that makes omnicide more likely), but will get plenty of grief for his actions with the Deva and burning the message about V. His best 'bet' is that D&D planes don't have "amount of alignment" in the planes (just how long it takes to get to "battery stage") so if his overall LGness is still high enough to keep him out of Concordia, he might still manage to wind up in Celestia (his slacking on the oath could disqualify him for Arcadia).

Rich just uses the system for the story. He isn't about to fix it for the sake of fixing it.

[woweedd]

Let me get this straight. You think that Eugene's reaction, upon hearing that the dwarves chose not to condemn their souls to pseudo-eternal torment, would be shock and outrage?

I am now convinced that you have not been looking at the same Eugene that I have been.
Not shock maybe but definitely thinking it would have been better to just destroy it all and let him move on, especially if it hadn't been a tie vote and no one but Hel would have realized what would have been the result had it gone the other way.

[Mightymosy]

Eugene willingly ignored the blood oath for at least a decade while alive. He only cared about it after dying and discovering it kept him out of Celestia. His only desire to complete the oath is not so much because it is an oath but to get out of "Limbo", and he says as much.

A willingness to sacrifice arbitrary numbers of others (dwarves, those alive that may have non-vengeance blood oaths) to advance the cause of number one is the definition of evil. He likely gets a pass here (as he can make no action that makes omnicide more likely), but will get plenty of grief for his actions with the Deva and burning the message about V. His best 'bet' is that D&D planes don't have "amount of alignment" in the planes (just how long it takes to get to "battery stage") so if his overall LGness is still high enough to keep him out of Concordia, he might still manage to wind up in Celestia (his slacking on the oath could disqualify him for Arcadia).

Rich just uses the system for the story. He isn't about to fix it for the sake of fixing it.

1) Blood oath:
Eugene also did follow the oath for quite some time. Plus he followed the spirit of the blood oath before even making the oath.
Why do people always omit that?

2) Eugene is not sacrificing anyone. He advocates doing nothing and let the gods sort it out, because he doesn't think Roy can make any difference anyway.


And as for the dwarves? They are to be informed so they can decide for themselves what's best.
And the suggestion Eugene made is what has been suggested before as typical dwarven way to get into dwarf heaven.
Sure it is evil in our eyes, but in this strange fictional setting it is a logical consequence to the restrictions imposed upon the dwarves by the gods.

[Kish]

2) Eugene is not sacrificing anyone. He advocates doing nothing and let the gods sort it out, because he doesn't think Roy can make any difference anyway.
...This is goofy. You're claiming what Eugene says is radically different from what he actually says, even though what he says is right there for anyone to read as many times as they want. I don't know why you're so invested in Eugene, but it should be obvious why the people you're trying to convince aren't joining you.

[georgie_leech]

...This is goofy. You're claiming what Eugene says is radically different from what he actually says, even though what he says is right there for anyone to read as many times as they want. I don't know why you're so invested in Eugene, but it should be obvious why the people you're trying to convince aren't joining you.

I think it's more that Eugene isn't running after people with a funky looking knife and a table going 'stand still!' What he's advocating in 'let the gods unmade the world' is cowardly and shortsighted, because it's about not being able to change things despite having the power to try. Neutral at best, unaligned at worst. It's something that points away from him being LG, as he barely meets the criteria 500 strip ago and there's a lot more context now, but I don't think 'I can't fix this, and the gods want to do something that solves my problems, and I can't stop them, so just let them do it' qualifies as Evil.

[Jasdoif]

I think it's more that Eugene isn't running after people with a funky looking knife and a table going 'stand still!' What he's advocating in 'let the gods unmade the world' is cowardly and shortsighted, because it's about not being able to change things despite having the power to try. Neutral at best, unaligned at worst. It's something that points away from him being LG, as he barely meets the criteria 500 strip ago and there's a lot more context now, but I don't think 'I can't fix this, and the gods want to do something that solves my problems, and I can't stop them, so just let them do it' qualifies as Evil.Look at what he says again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html). He says he doesn't know why letting them die "even matters".

That isn't "I can't fix this, and the gods want to do something that solves my problems, and I can't stop them, so just let them do it" like you said. That's "The gods want to do something that solves my problems, and fixing this wouldn't solve my problems, so just let them do it."

It's hardly a stretch for "I prefer for everyone to die rather than be personally inconvenienced" to qualify as Evil.

[georgie_leech]

Look at what he says again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html). He says he doesn't know why letting them die "even matters".

That isn't "I can't fix this, and the gods want to do something that solves my problems, and I can't stop them, so just let them do it" like you said. That's "The gods want to do something that solves my problems, and fixing this wouldn't solve my problems, so just let them do it."

It's hardly a stretch for "I prefer for everyone to die rather than be personally inconvenienced" to qualify as Evil.

True enough on the last part, but yeah, to Eugene death doesn't matter. He's been sitting outside the literal pearly gates for years and death wasn't a big deal to him. Remember that he has a rather myopic view of people. If it's important to him, it should be important to other people. If it's not important to him, it's not important to other people. Though there's a decent amount of correlation, being LG doesn't make someone a good person. People don't generally want to die; to an extent, he thinks that's dumb, since there's apparently plenty of life in the afterlife.

This is not to say I agree with him. Just that I have a hard time viewing him as Evil. Evil in D&D isn't 'a [man standing by] doing nothing,' while terrible things happen.

[Ruck]

1) Blood oath:
Eugene also did follow the oath for quite some time. Plus he followed the spirit of the blood oath before even making the oath.
Why do people always omit that?


Because he gave up before he finished! If you promise "I will not rest until X is complete," then give up on completing X, you don't get partial credit for keeping your promises.

[woweedd]

True enough on the last part, but yeah, to Eugene death doesn't matter. He's been sitting outside the literal pearly gates for years and death wasn't a big deal to him. Remember that he has a rather myopic view of people. If it's important to him, it should be important to other people. If it's not important to him, it's not important to other people. Though there's a decent amount of correlation, being LG doesn't make someone a good person. People don't generally want to die; to an extent, he thinks that's dumb, since there's apparently plenty of life in the afterlife.

This is not to say I agree with him. Just that I have a hard time viewing him as Evil. Evil in D&D isn't 'a [man standing by] doing nothing,' while terrible things happen.
(Emphasis mine.)
I think you may be missing a fundamental component of Goodness here. A LG person is, by definition,a good person. Not necessarily a particularly nice person, granted, but good, most definitely.

[georgie_leech]

(Emphasis mine.)
I think you may be missing a fundamental component of Goodness here. A LG person is, by definition,a good person. Not necessarily a particularly nice person, granted, but good, most definitely.

Maybe we're talking past each other. Do you view Miko pre Octogenarian Bisecting as a good person? Because I'd argue that even though she fit the definition of LG literally, she was a jerk and generally made life for other people around her less pleasant. I'd also view her as likely supporting the 'let the gods sort it out' solution, and unlike killing Shojo, actually being right about what many of the gods want.

Eugene to me seems similar (especially the part where they both think they know what's best for everyone). He's rapidly shifting into Neutral after kind of fitting the LG definition, but he's not going Evil.

[Jasdoif]

Just that I have a hard time viewing him as Evil. Evil in D&D isn't 'a [man standing by] doing nothing,' while terrible things happen.Eugene tried to convince Roy why it wasn't worthwhile to save everyone. That isn't "doing nothing", that's "tripping the first responder on their way to the fire". Eugene doesn't get a pass because he didn't pull it off, just like how Roy didn't get a fail because he didn't pull Xykon off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html).

Eugene's ability to influence current events is extremely limited. His interaction with Roy, who's in the thick of things, is most influence he has over them...and he just used that influence, the upper limit of his abilities, in an attempt to halt Roy from trying to save everyone on the planet.

[Ruck]

Maybe we're talking past each other. Do you view Miko pre Octogenarian Bisecting as a good person? Because I'd argue that even though she fit the definition of LG literally, she was a jerk and generally made life for other people around her less pleasant. I'd also view her as likely supporting the 'let the gods sort it out' solution, and unlike killing Shojo, actually being right about what many of the gods want.

Eugene to me seems similar (especially the part where they both think they know what's best for everyone). He's rapidly shifting into Neutral after kind of fitting the LG definition, but he's not going Evil.

For all her terrible personal characteristics, Miko spent her adult life as a crusader against Evil, and we even see her do multiple things to either fight evil or aid the cause of Good for its own sake.

Eugene, as far as we know, has undertaken exactly one crusade against Evil, and it was for personal reasons and he gave up before he finished.

[Jasdoif]

For all her terrible personal characteristics, Miko spent her adult life as a crusader against Evil, and we even see her do multiple things to either fight evil or aid the cause of Good for its own sake.

Eugene, as far as we know, has undertaken exactly one crusade against Evil, and it was for personal reasons and he gave up before he finished.Eh...I wouldn't view "one crusade against a person who happened to be Evil" as "one crusade against Evil", personally.

[nleseul]

Eugene tried to convince Roy why it wasn't worthwhile to save everyone. That isn't "doing nothing", that's "tripping the first responder on their way to the fire". Eugene doesn't get a pass because he didn't pull it off, just like how Roy didn't get a fail because he didn't pull Xykon off (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html).

He actually didn't try to convince Roy of anything. He mentioned in passing that he thought it would be the simplest solution. This is what passes as small talk for him.

[Kish]

Evil in D&D isn't 'a [man standing by] doing nothing,' while terrible things happen.
Aside from (and not, at all, to distract from) what Jasdoif said to that, that's...highly debatable in D&D, though it seems more likely to be true in OotS.

[Jasdoif]

He actually didn't try to convince Roy of anything. He mentioned in passing that he thought it would be the simplest solution. This is what passes as small talk for him.You may have missed the part where Eugene tried to counter Roy's sense of responsibility by claiming Roy wouldn't actually be responsible. Or the part where Eugene says he won't "waste his ectoplasmic breath" commenting on Roy's plan immediately before wasting his ectoplasmic breath commenting on Roy's plan, by calling it rooted in a concern he doesn't find worth being concerned about.

It's kind of a theme with Eugene, really: He tries to frame himself as the reasonable party before he starts with his selfish views, so he feels/looks justified in taking objections as irrational behavior against him. If Eugene was better at feigning civility, he might've been as good as this as Malack was.

Trying to assert his own superiority does pass as small talk for Eugene though, I agree.

[Ruck]

Eh...I wouldn't view "one crusade against a person who happened to be Evil" as "one crusade against Evil", personally.
It is the generous interpretation of his actions, to be sure.

[Liquor Box]

You may have missed the part where Eugene tried to counter Roy's sense of responsibility by claiming Roy wouldn't actually be responsible. Or the part where Eugene says he won't "waste his ectoplasmic breath" commenting on Roy's plan immediately before wasting his ectoplasmic breath commenting on Roy's plan, by calling it rooted in a concern he doesn't find worth being concerned about.

It's kind of a theme with Eugene, really: He tries to frame himself as the reasonable party before he starts with his selfish views, so he feels/looks justified in taking objections as irrational behavior against him. If Eugene was better at feigning civility, he might've been as good as this as Malack was.

Trying to assert his own superiority does pass as small talk for Eugene though, I agree.

Those might be charactoristics of Eugene that you find annoying, but they do not make it evil.

Nothing Eugene did in this visit to Roy is Evil for several reasons.

First I am not convinced he was trying to persuade Roy of anything - he was simply proposing one solution.

Second, the thing being discussed was for Roy to do nothing and let events proceed as they would, so even if he was trying to persuade, that was directed at Roy doing nothing and doing nothing is not evil. Third, as others have pointed out

Third, he is clearly having regard the utility to sapient beings in the world, but he appears to be persuaded that their deaths wont be such a bad thing because of the existence of the afterlife. He demonstrates this by initially conceding that the dwarfs being relegated to eternal slavery was a good point against his plan, until he thinks of a solution that would allow the dwarfs their proper afterlife.

[Jasdoif]

First I am not convinced he was trying to persuade Roy of anything - he was simply proposing one solution.And arguing in favor of it against Roy's objections to it.


Second, the thing being discussed was for Roy to do nothing and let events proceed as they would, so even if he was trying to persuade, that was directed at Roy doing nothing and doing nothing is not evil.Doing nothing is not Evil. Actively attempting to negate Roy's Good, which is what Eugene was doing, is Evil.


Third, he is clearly having regard the utility to sapient beings in the world, but he appears to be persuaded that their deaths wont be such a bad thing because of the existence of the afterlife. He demonstrates this by initially conceding that the dwarfs being relegated to eternal slavery was a good point against his plan, until he thinks of a solution that would allow the dwarfs their proper afterlife.That Eugene is concerned about their afterlives which have no effect on him is the only unambiguously Good view I've recognized from him in the comic, yes. But his solution is still wanting them to die, just in a more specific way. It's the same plan, with an alteration that doesn't cost him anything; there's nothing less Evil about it.

[georgie_leech]

Doing nothing is not Evil. Actively attempting to negate Roy's Good, which is what Eugene was doing, is Evil.

Quibble, by that logic that townsfolk shouting after some nameless hero off to slay the Dragon oppressing their town 'stop, you'll be killed!' are doing Evil. Which seems... extreme.

[Jasdoif]

Quibble, by that logic that townsfolk shouting after some nameless hero off to slay the Dragon oppressing their town 'stop, you'll be killed!' are doing Evil.If you assume nameless heroes' lives are worth nothing, and that slaying the dragon is really the only possible way to stop them from oppressing the town, sure.

[Aquillion]

Look at what he says again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1047.html). He says he doesn't know why letting them die "even matters".The point of that panel is that he doesn't see death as a big deal, since he's dead and has been for a while and it's not really a problem for him. As far as he's concerned, dying makes things better for people (as long as they're not burdened by a Blood Oath.)

Further down, he does take the suffering of the dwarves seriously. I mean, it's played as a joke, but he's still clearly taking it seriously. The implication is that his view on death is that it hurts for a little bit and then you're immortal and free of pain forever (and if everyone died at once, you'd be with all your loved ones.)

[Jasdoif]

The point of that panel is that he doesn't see death as a big deal, since he's dead and has been for a while and it's not really a problem for him. As far as he's concerned, dying makes things better for people (as long as they're not burdened by a Blood Oath.)Right, the point that he doesn't see death as a big deal, except where death benefits him personally. I don't think mind-weaseling one's way out of Evil's "destroy innocent life" and "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) is a valid approach. Unless the subject is how screwed up the alignment system gets, which would be a drastic shift for this particular topic.

[Haluesen]

Quibble, by that logic that townsfolk shouting after some nameless hero off to slay the Dragon oppressing their town 'stop, you'll be killed!' are doing Evil. Which seems... extreme.

There are degrees to things like this, it's not a binary "Evil-Good" switch. Kinda more like a dial pointing between one or the other, sometimes.

Also doing nothing to save lives when you actively have the ability to is Evil (by D&D rules, as far as I know). Roy has the training and knowledge to try to stop the world being destroyed. To refuse to do so because letting them die sounds better is an Evil act, though it may not necessarily make him an Evil person. Eugene trying to convince him otherwise is just debate. One of the most Neutral actions that exists usually.

Of course I still find his intentions, desires, and motivations to be Evil and certainly do not see him as Good at all, but I've already made my points there days ago.

[Liquor Box]

And arguing in favor of it against Roy's objections to it.

Again, not convinced he was doing that. An equally available interpretation was that he raised it as a point but was prepared to let it drop because he knew Roy wouldn't like it. Instead of letting it drop, Roy made an objection (the dwarfs), so Eugene answered that objection.

I know your interpretation is different, but I don't think it is conclusive from the strip that Eugene was trying to persuade or manipulate Roy.


Doing nothing is not Evil. Actively attempting to negate Roy's Good, which is what Eugene was doing, is Evil.

Eugene wasn't trying to negate Roy's good (if we accept your premise that he was trying to persuade him at all). Negating a good would be to counter-act it with an evil. At worst Eugene was trying to persuade Roy to do nothing - and as you accept, doing nothing is not evil.

Even if it was blatant "I know that what you are proposing would do good, but I am asking you to put me, your father, first and do nothing at all", I don't think it would be evil.


That Eugene is concerned about their afterlives which have no effect on him is the only unambiguously Good view I've recognized from him in the comic, yes. But his solution is still wanting them to die, just in a more specific way. It's the same plan, with an alteration that doesn't cost him anything; there's nothing less Evil about it.

His concern with their afterlives demonstrates that Eugene (rightly or wrongly) sees not getting a good afterlife as being far more important than dying or not dying. In that context, him not getting his afterlife is a terrible thing to befall him, but people dying (in the context of the Snarl coming) is not not a terrible thing to befall them so long as they go to the proper afterlife. If that is his outlook, it would arguably not be evil even if he were to actively take steps to stop Roy.

[Kish]

Quibble, by that logic that townsfolk shouting after some nameless hero off to slay the Dragon oppressing their town 'stop, you'll be killed!' are doing Evil. Which seems... extreme.
You know, if you want that example to fit the situation at all, you should really replace that with, "Stop, it will provide me with a selfish personal benefit for those townspeople to be eaten!*"

Having done that, you might find that your "it's ridiculous to say this makes the speaker not-good" example has become an "it's ridiculous to say this doesn't make the speaker non-good" example. Or you might not, I don't know.

*You can add, "But I understand not wanting them to suffer; why don't you give them an anesthetic so they'll sleep through being eaten?" if you think it'll really change anything.

[Jasdoif]

An equally available interpretation was that he raised it as a point but was prepared to let it drop because he knew Roy wouldn't like it.Eugene said he wasn't going to waste time offering input on Roy's plan, right before offering input on Roy's plan. That he brought it up after saying he wasn't going to bring it up does not incline me to believe he brought up a point of it with the intention of dropping it.


Negating a good would be to counter-act it with an evil. At worst Eugene was trying to persuade Roy to do nothing - and as you accept, doing nothing is not evil.A strict elimination of Good is Evil. Now if Eugene was trying to persuade Roy to take alternative action, I'd find this a much more convincing argument.


His concern with their afterlives demonstrates that Eugene (rightly or wrongly) sees not getting a good afterlife as being far more important than dying or not dying. In that context, him not getting his afterlife is a terrible thing to befall him, but people dying (in the context of the Snarl coming) is not not a terrible thing to befall them so long as they go to the proper afterlife. If that is his outlook, it would arguably not be evil even if he were to actively take steps to stop Roy.My view on the invalidity of mind-weaseling out of Evil's "destroy innocent life" and "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) hasn't changed since I said it in response to Aquillion a few posts ago.

[Liquor Box]

Eugene said he wasn't going to waste time offering input on Roy's plan, right before offering input on Roy's plan. That he brought it up after saying he wasn't going to bring it up does not incline me to believe he brought up a point of it with the intention of dropping it.

I don't know that we can take this much further. It goes to the nebulous concept of Eugene's intent, and interpreting that from his words. I think it can be read either way, you don't. Not much more can be said.


A strict elimination of Good is Evil. Now if Eugene was trying to persuade Roy to take alternative action, I'd find this a much more convincing argument.

It wasn't an elimination of good. An elimination of good would be to eliminate Roy, or prevent him from action.

Even allowing for your view about Eugene attempting persuasion, he was only offering a view point - he could not (and did not) force Roy to take the course he suggested. I don't accept that offering an argument to do nothing (even from a self interested perspective) is evil.


My view on the invalidity of mind-weaseling out of Evil's "destroy innocent life" and "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) hasn't changed since I said it in response to Aquillion a few posts ago.

Was Eugene "Destroying innocent life"? No.
Was Eugene "Killing without qualms because it was convenient to do so"? No

I'm afraid the rules don't help you here. You cannot equate "suggest that Roy do nothing meaning it is likely that many will die" with "killing many".

I agree that if Eugene actually killed the world's population to satisfy his oath, then that would be an evil act (on a par with Varsuvious's evil act perhaps). But allowing events to take their course, which might mean the early death of the population, while still having regard for their eternal souls, is not evil at all. Not good either mind you, but not evil.

[Jasdoif]

It wasn't an elimination of good. An elimination of good would be to eliminate Roy, or prevent him from action.

Even allowing for your view about Eugene attempting persuasion, he was only offering a view point - he could not (and did not) force Roy to take the course he suggested.Right, Eugene can't influence events directly. Attempting to influence Roy is the upper limit of how much Eugene can change the course of events.

Eugene did everything in his power to prevent Roy from acting. Apparently you're willing to give him a pass because he lacked the means to pull it off. I'm not.

[georgie_leech]

Right, Eugene can't influence events directly. Attempting to influence Roy is the upper limit of how much Eugene can change the course of events.

Eugene did everything in his power to prevent Roy from acting. Apparently you're willing to give him a pass because he lacked the means to pull it off. I'm not.

Considering how stubborn Eugene usually is, I'm not sure 30 seconds of conversation could really be considered 'everything in his power.'

[Liquor Box]

Right, Eugene can't influence events directly. Attempting to influence Roy is the upper limit of how much Eugene can change the course of events.

Eugene did everything in his power to prevent Roy from acting. Apparently you're willing to give him a pass because he lacked the means to pull it off. I'm not.

Well no. We don't know if he would have done more if he had had the power to do so. I;m giving a pass on the basis that nothing he did amounted to evil - and nor would it if Roy had accepted his suggestion.

You make a point about him doing everything in his power. That may be, but there is no reason to believe that he would intervene directly even if he were able - no reason to believe he would actually commit an evil act. (Or it may not, he was able to communicate directly with Lord Shojo, he could perhaps influence events by finding a way to give information to Durkon).

[Mightymosy]

Because he gave up before he finished! If you promise "I will not rest until X is complete," then give up on completing X, you don't get partial credit for keeping your promises.

He quested to find Xykon and with Xykon, Fyron, in order to resurrect Fyron, without any blood oath or compensation on the line, for quite some time (or not??) -> LG behavior in my eyes.

He then took a blood oath of vengeance -> not LG, but not not-LG either.

He abandoned the oath of vengeance, maybe even after a time that resurrection for Fyron would be possible -> not necessarily very lawful, but not non-good in my eyes.

Later, getting the chance to continue the blood oath and go after Xykon after Right-Eye told him where to find him, Eugene declines because he doesn't Roy to become an orphan.
Here is where at least Kish and I differ: Kish implies Eugene lies -> not LG
I think Eugene didn't lie in this case: good behavior, lawfulness open for discussion (what's more lawful? sticking to your family or sticking to an oath of vengeance?)


Why am I so invested in Eugene?
Why are people invested at all in this comic???

[Mightymosy]

...This is goofy. You're claiming what Eugene says is radically different from what he actually says, even though what he says is right there for anyone to read as many times as they want. I don't know why you're so invested in Eugene, but it should be obvious why the people you're trying to convince aren't joining you.

Maybe I did misunderstand, but didn't Eugene suggest in 1047 to Roy to not bother doing anything?
Did he not, several times, last seen in 1048, tell Roy that he has no belief whatsoever in Roy achieving anything by hitting things with his sword?

And the thing with the dwarves running into suicide battles is evil by our RL standards, but it is just such a stupid fictional universe thing. It's shown in panel that dwarves do this all the time when death is near. Or drink themselves to death. Where does Eugene say he or Roy would sacrifice anyone?

I do think that Eugene could at some time go down that path, but I don't think he is evil yet - not by the OotS standards, not by the morals implied by the setting with proven, yet somewhat strange for dwarves, afterlife rules.

[Jasdoif]

Considering how stubborn Eugene usually is, I'm not sure 30 seconds of conversation could really be considered 'everything in his power.'I don't think it's a coincidence that Eugene left after Roy's certain (in Eugene's mind) failure would be just as effective at letting the world be destroyed as Roy giving up would.


You make a point about him doing everything in his power. That may be, but there is no reason to believe that he would intervene directly even if he were able....OK, so you're giving him a pass because he can't intervene directly. I guess if you wanted to turn a blind eye towards motivation, that sort of carte blanche makes sense; but that'd undercut the entire point of Good and Evil alignments (and character-driven storytelling) in the first place.

[georgie_leech]

I don't think it's a coincidence that Eugene left after Roy's certain (in Eugene's mind) failure would be just as effective at letting the world be destroyed as Roy giving up would.

And? He could have given misleading information, making Roy's failure more likely. He could have continuously badgered Roy for hours, preventing him from learning about his sword and disrupting his sleep, weakening him. He could have consistently interposed himself between Roy and where he was trying to go, keeping him from seeing where he was going or what his opponents in a fight were doing. There's lots more he could have done, if he was truly doing everything in his power to ensure the gods destroyed the word.

[Ruck]

He quested to find Xykon and with Xykon, Fyron, in order to resurrect Fyron, without any blood oath or compensation on the line, for quite some time (or not??) -> LG behavior in my eyes.
"In order to resurrect Fyron" is pretty strong given that he doesn't have the body and doesn't know if he can find a cleric who can do so (hence his "possibly"; SoD p.22).

Also, given that the Blood Oath makes him "[realize] I had no choice now but to get serious about it (SoD p.25)," I think there's a strong case to be made that he wasn't even trying that hard to find Xykon in the period of time you're describing.

That said, caring for people in your family/team/tribe is a Neutral act, as I see it. Even Evil people have families and allies. (If Elan had killed Tarquin in the desert, would his allies raising him have been a Good act?) I do think it's arguably Lawful, but weakly so if it is (saving someone because they're your allies or you have a contract with them would be Lawful; doing so because you have a personal or familial relationship with them is Neutral, in my view).


But more to the point is that it's not Good in and of itself; it's arguably Lawful, but weakly so if it is.

He then took a blood oath of vengeance -> not LG, but not not-LG either.

He abandoned the oath of vengeance, maybe even after a time that resurrection for Fyron would be possible -> not necessarily very lawful, but not non-good in my eyes.
Oaths are Lawful; abandoning them is Chaotic. Vengeance is Neutral.


Later, getting the chance to continue the blood oath and go after Xykon after Right-Eye told him where to find him, Eugene declines because he doesn't Roy to become an orphan.
I do not agree with the bolded. Eugene declines because he gets tired of trying. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) That he tells Right-Eye and Roy differently doesn't change what we see when the Deva, a being of pure Law and Good, shows us his actions.

Relatedly: Why do you believe Eugene when he says his family is so important to him, when his actions show how little regard he has for them? Put another way: I believe actions speak louder than words; do you agree?


Here is where at least Kish and I differ: Kish implies Eugene lies -> not LG
I think Eugene didn't lie in this case: good behavior, lawfulness open for discussion (what's more lawful? sticking to your family or sticking to an oath of vengeance?)
See my above paragraph. I think he does lie there, and the fact that he skipped Roy's soccer game to meet with Right-Eye shows that his family really isn't the high priority he claims it is.


Why am I so invested in Eugene?
Why are people invested at all in this comic???
Great comic, great characters. It's hard to find compelling stories!

Anyway, from reading your post, it seems our differences are based in part on whether we think certain motivations are Good or Neutral, and in part on our interpretations for why Eugene does certain things.

I don't think he's actually Evil-- he strikes me as True Neutral, putting himself first before anything else, but not willing to commit great or consistent acts of Evil to that end.

EDIT: Adding this in so as not to double post.


And? He could have given misleading information, making Roy's failure more likely. He could have continuously badgered Roy for hours, preventing him from learning about his sword and disrupting his sleep, weakening him. He could have consistently interposed himself between Roy and where he was trying to go, keeping him from seeing where he was going or what his opponents in a fight were doing. There's lots more he could have done, if he was truly doing everything in his power to ensure the gods destroyed the word.


I don't think it's a coincidence that Eugene left after Roy's certain (in Eugene's mind) failure would be just as effective at letting the world be destroyed as Roy giving up would.

What's more likely than "certain"?

[Jasdoif]

He could have consistently interposed himself between Roy and where he was trying to go, keeping him from seeing where he was going or what his opponents in a fight were doing.Actually, he's transparent and also can't show up if someone else conscious is around (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html).


There's lots more he could have done, if he was truly doing everything in his power to ensure the gods destroyed the word.While it would be rather comedic for this to be another case of Eugene giving up on a goal after he lost interest, just like the Blood Oath and his family....Eugene wanted Roy not to interfere so the world would be destroyed that much quicker, then realized Roy failing to stop HPoH would get the world destroyed anyway, and with his certainty of Roy's failure (Eugene's had a rather low opinion of Roy's effectiveness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html)) he left. Do you really think he's required to try improving his odds past "certain"?

[nleseul]

See my above paragraph. I think he does lie there, and the fact that he skipped Roy's soccer game to meet with Right-Eye shows that his family really isn't the high priority he claims it is.

Not caring about your son's weird sports phase doesn't necessarily translate into not caring about your family in general.

[hroþila]

Yeah, being into sports and physical games as a kid is so weird.

[Mightymosy]

"In order to resurrect Fyron" is pretty strong given that he doesn't have the body and doesn't know if he can find a cleric who can do so (hence his "possibly"; SoD p.22).

Also, given that the Blood Oath makes him "[realize] I had no choice now but to get serious about it (SoD p.25)," I think there's a strong case to be made that he wasn't even trying that hard to find Xykon in the period of time you're describing.

That said, caring for people in your family/team/tribe is a Neutral act, as I see it. Even Evil people have families and allies. (If Elan had killed Tarquin in the desert, would his allies raising him have been a Good act?) I do think it's arguably Lawful, but weakly so if it is (saving someone because they're your allies or you have a contract with them would be Lawful; doing so because you have a personal or familial relationship with them is Neutral, in my view).


Oaths are Lawful; abandoning them is Chaotic. Vengeance is Neutral.


I do not agree with the bolded. Eugene declines because he gets tired of trying. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html) That he tells Right-Eye and Roy differently doesn't change what we see when the Deva, a being of pure Law and Good, shows us his actions.

Relatedly: Why do you believe Eugene when he says his family is so important to him, when his actions show how little regard he has for them? Put another way: I believe actions speak louder than words; do you agree?


See my above paragraph. I think he does lie there, and the fact that he skipped Roy's soccer game to meet with Right-Eye shows that his family really isn't the high priority he claims it is.


Great comic, great characters. It's hard to find compelling stories!

Anyway, from reading your post, it seems our differences are based in part on whether we think certain motivations are Good or Neutral, and in part on our interpretations for why Eugene does certain things.

I don't think he's actually Evil-- he strikes me as True Neutral, putting himself first before anything else, but not willing to commit great or consistent acts of Evil to that end.

EDIT: Adding this in so as not to double post.





What's more likely than "certain"?

Man, quoting paper only is so much harder :-(

Start of darkness, p. 22, Eugene narrating:
"..If I could find that villain, I could destroy the Zombie he had made of Fyron - and possibly get a cleric to resurrect my beloved master."

Now we can discuss whether Eugene was lying. We could also discuss whether he was lying in the scene later in the book, when he explains to Right-Eye that he won't go after Xykon because he doesn't want Roy to become an orphan.
But that's hardly going to give us any end for this debate. Because I could argue that in all cases where you think he is callous/evil/whatever, he was actually being overly sarcastic...

In the scene from 76 to 80 (again Start of Darkness), Eugene could lie to Right-Eye. But why would he? Right-Eye is a total stranger. He could just say "not interested" and be done with it. You know how sometimes people tend to tell truths they wouldn't admit to relatives and friends (because of pride) to complete strangers? This moment could just have been that.

Also, skipping the soccer game doesn't contradict any care or sense of responsibility he feels for Roy.
It does show that Eugene is so egocentric that he doesn't care to ask Roy what Roy wants. Eugene is so arrogant that he doesn't stop to consider other options, or other people's feelings, because Eugene himself knows what's best anyway. It's a classical parental failure, really.

Note also Eugene wearing a white cloak during his time questing to find Fyron's corpse. The Giant has a tendency to color-code characters for our convenience.
It could be incidental.
It could also be a subtle hint that Rich Burlew considered Eugene to be LG at the time wearing that cloak.
Again, could be coincidence, could be not. Maybe we get the author's stance on it someday.

So, I'll say Eugene was and is probably TN by definitions shared by some of us, but I don't know if it was the author's view of the character, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say everyone who thinks otherwise is clearly wrong, because we only have so much evidence of Eugene in his younger years. And the context of OotS is slightly different than D&D (as Kish pointed out: OotS justice doesn't seem to judge "allowing evil to happen" as bad as you might think), and certainly different to RL considerations.

[Liquor Box]

OK, so you're giving him a pass because he can't intervene directly. I guess if you wanted to turn a blind eye towards motivation, that sort of carte blanche makes sense; but that'd undercut the entire point of Good and Evil alignments (and character-driven storytelling) in the first place.

No, I'm giving him a pass because he didn't intervene directly. I'm not leaving motivation out the equation (and I point out again that you are only drawing an inference as to his intention), I'm just saying its not the whole equation - an act is required as well. Character driven story lines are driven primarily by the character's actions, not just the impression the audience takes as to their thoughts.

As for good/evil alignments from a game perspective, there was a reason why you were not able to point to anything int he rules that supported Eugene's comments and presumed thoughts as being evil - because the rules themselves are also focused on action.

[Ruck]

Not caring about your son's weird sports phase doesn't necessarily translate into not caring about your family in general.

Deliberately skipping your son's game to drink at a bar is bad parenting.

And it's right in line with the disdain Eugene shows Roy every single time they interact.

Also, "weird" is a deliberate pejorative and judgmental choice by you that's, well, weird. There's nothing "weird" about an eight-year-old playing soccer.

[georgie_leech]

Deliberately skipping your son's game to drink at a bar is bad parenting.

And it's right in line with the disdain Eugene shows Roy every single time they interact.

Also, "weird" is a deliberate pejorative and judgmental choice by you that's, well, weird. There's nothing "weird" about an eight-year-old playing soccer.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg

[Ruck]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg
What joke? Where's the joke in this post?

Not caring about your son's weird sports phase doesn't necessarily translate into not caring about your family in general.
For that matter, I'd like to ask: Who cares about "in general"? We're talking about Eugene Greenhilt, a specific character in a specific story.


[second post]


In the scene from 76 to 80 (again Start of Darkness), Eugene could lie to Right-Eye. But why would he? Right-Eye is a total stranger. He could just say "not interested" and be done with it. You know how sometimes people tend to tell truths they wouldn't admit to relatives and friends (because of pride) to complete strangers? This moment could just have been that.
People lie to themselves as well. Eugene has probably been telling himself for some time that he quit looking for Xykon because he had a family. But the scene we see of him giving up in #491 contradicts that. And the fact that he gives other excuses ("I wouldn't even know where to find adventurers...") before settling on his family suggests they are just that, excuses.

And the disinterest he shows in his family through his actions suggests they aren't actually so important to him.

Or put it this way: If you think he's telling the truth, then he's telling the truth when he calls Roy's soccer game an "equally pointless appointment," right? If he cares about his family, why is spending time with them "pointless"?



Also, skipping the soccer game doesn't contradict any care or sense of responsibility he feels for Roy.
Are we ignoring the complete disdain he shows Roy when he arrives? How in all evidence, he treats everything that isn't wizardry as beneath him, including his own wife and children?

We talk about how important Sara's opinion of Eugene is, right? Well, how about this on p.80? "I just wish that once-- one time-- you would put your children ahead of your work." Doesn't sound like a guy who cares much about his family.


It does show that Eugene is so egocentric that he doesn't care to ask Roy what Roy wants. Eugene is so arrogant that he doesn't stop to consider other options, or other people's feelings, because Eugene himself knows what's best anyway. It's a classical parental failure, really.
Eugene treats everybody like this, not just Eugene. It's a general character flaw of his. At least we can agree he does this.


Note also Eugene wearing a white cloak during his time questing to find Fyron's corpse. The Giant has a tendency to color-code characters for our convenience.
[citation needed]


So, I'll say Eugene was and is probably TN by definitions shared by some of us, but I don't know if it was the author's view of the character, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say everyone who thinks otherwise is clearly wrong, because we only have so much evidence of Eugene in his younger years. And the context of OotS is slightly different than D&D (as Kish pointed out: OotS justice doesn't seem to judge "allowing evil to happen" as bad as you might think), and certainly different to RL considerations.
My point is that the on-panel evidence adds up to TN in my view. You're welcome to imagine he was a different person at other points in his life but it's just that, your imagination. It's not supported by the text.

[Jasdoif]

No, I'm giving him a pass because he didn't intervene directly.You're giving him a pass for not doing something he can't do. You are giving him a pass for not being able to do it.


I'm not leaving motivation out the equation (and I point out again that you are only drawing an inference as to his intention), I'm just saying its not the whole equation - an act is required as well.Trying to convince Roy is the action he undertook.

[Mightymosy]

[...]


[citation needed]
[...]


These are the most prominent examples I can think of:

635 I See a Red Robe and I Want to Paint it Black:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

58 First Aid:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html

[Mightymosy]

[...]

People lie to themselves as well. Eugene has probably been telling himself for some time that he quit looking for Xykon because he had a family. But the scene we see of him giving up in #491 contradicts that. And the fact that he gives other excuses ("I wouldn't even know where to find adventurers...") before settling on his family suggests they are just that, excuses.

The question is which is the excuse and which is the truth? The sigh Eugene makes in the first panel of #79 indicates to me that now he is getting to the real reason, because his first excuse (lack of adventurers) didn't work.



And the disinterest he shows in his family through his actions suggests they aren't actually so important to him.

Or put it this way: If you think he's telling the truth, then he's telling the truth when he calls Roy's soccer game an "equally pointless appointment," right? If he cares about his family, why is spending time with them "pointless"?

Are we ignoring the complete disdain he shows Roy when he arrives? How in all evidence, he treats everything that isn't wizardry as beneath him, including his own wife and children?

We talk about how important Sara's opinion of Eugene is, right? Well, how about this on p.80? "I just wish that once-- one time-- you would put your children ahead of your work." Doesn't sound like a guy who cares much about his family.

Here's a question where I think the misunderstanding roots in:

Do you believe in the concept that you can actually really like people and care for their well-being despite having little to no interest in the things these people themselves care for?



My point is that the on-panel evidence adds up to TN in my view. You're welcome to imagine he was a different person at other points in his life but it's just that, your imagination. It's not supported by the text.

Yeah, sure, I don't have a problem with that other than that I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it seem to be - not in the context the comic is presented it, at least.

[hamishspence]

"Having a family" isn't the reason he gave up hunting - it's the reason he's not prepared to go back to hunting - once Right Eye offers Xykon's location. Or at least thats what he tells himself and Right Eye.

[Keltest]

There are conflicting premises going on here. Either Eugene doesn't care about his family, which means that things like paying for Roy's college were acts of altruism for somebody he has no close connection to, or he does care about his family, which makes it a neutral act for a person he has a close connection to.

[hamishspence]

Alternatively

"Eugene thinks that "caring for his family" means expensive gifts - so he does that - while not comprehending that real caring means spending time with them, and treating them with respect"

[Mightymosy]

Alternatively

"Eugene thinks that "caring for his family" means expensive gifts - so he does that - while not comprehending that real caring means spending time with them, and treating them with respect"

Not only that, Eugene probably thinks that "caring for his family" means deciding for them what they are supposed to do (at least for Roy), because obviously he is so much smarter than they all are, being a wizard and all.

[Liquor Box]

You're giving him a pass for not doing something he can't do. You are giving him a pass for not being able to do it.

Again, this statement rests on the speculative assumption that if Eugene had been able to do something more (intervene directly) he would have.

I am not giving him a pass based on whether he is able to do something, because if he had been able to do something I have no reason to believe that he would have (and I believe he probably would not - because that would be evil).

I giving him a pass on whether he DID anything evil based on the fact that he DID NOT do anything evil.


Trying to convince Roy is the action he undertook.

I feel we are going in circles here. Even assuming you are right that he tried to convince Roy, what he tried to convince Roy to do was nothing. Doing nothing is not evil, and neither is trying to convince someone to do nothing. Not even a little bit.

[Ruck]

The question is which is the excuse and which is the truth? The sigh Eugene makes in the first panel of #79 indicates to me that now he is getting to the real reason, because his first excuse (lack of adventurers) didn't work.
OK, that makes sense. But at best I'd say it's now the reason he doesn't want to go back, not the reason he stopped. (I just posted a timeline in the #1048 discussion: It's likely Eugene stopped looking for Xykon at least a decade before he had a family.)


Here's a question where I think the misunderstanding roots in:

Do you believe in the concept that you can actually really like people and care for their well-being despite having little to no interest in the things these people themselves care for?
Yes, but, I also believe that if you care for these people, you don't openly disdain them. Even if you don't share their interests, you still treat those people with respect. If I liked someone and cared for their well-being, I would not tell them their hobbies are stupid and a waste of time compared to the things I like to do.

And I definitely believe that if one of those people is your eight-year-old child, you do have an obligation to show an interest even if you don't have one. That's part of the responsibility of parenting.


Yeah, sure, I don't have a problem with that other than that I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it seem to be - not in the context the comic is presented it, at least.
I just see a guy whose primary interest is himself-- his ego, his needs, his desires. I see that as Neutral. YMMV.

[Jasdoif]

I am not giving him a pass based on whether he is able to do something, because if he had been able to do something I have no reason to believe that he would have (and I believe he probably would not - because that would be evil).But see, that's it right there: He couldn't directly intervene. You're saying you won't believe he wanted to do it because he didn't do it.

So if he did want to do it, you wouldn't believe that he wanted to do it because he didn't do it. You're giving him a pass because he couldn't do it. (If he didn't want to do it, he simply doesn't need the pass you're giving him)


Even assuming you are right that he tried to convince Roy, what he tried to convince Roy to do was nothing. Doing nothing is not evil, and neither is trying to convince someone to do nothing. Not even a little bit.He tried to convince Roy to do nothing instead of something that was Good. Changing the course of events away from Good with no other Good to replace it is Evil, and an attempt to cause such a change is also Evil.

[Liquor Box]

But see, that's it right there: He couldn't directly intervene. You're saying you won't believe he wanted to do it because he didn't do it.

So if he did want to do it, you wouldn't believe that he wanted to do it because he didn't do it. You're giving him a pass because he couldn't do it. (If he didn't want to do it, he simply doesn't need the pass you're giving him)

I'm saying I don't care if he wanted to because he didn't. Even if we knew he did want to intervene directly (I doubt it) there s still no evil act there. You can't call him evil based on a speculative presumption that he might have done something evil had he the power to do so.


He tried to convince Roy to do nothing instead of something that was Good. Changing the course of events away from Good with no other Good to replace it is Evil, and an attempt to cause such a change is also Evil.

Again, you are convicting him based on something he didn't do. He didn't change the course of events. He didn't prevent Roy from doing anything.

Even if we accept your assertion that he was trying to persuade Roy not to intervene, and even if Roy decides not intervene following his conversation with Eugene, Eugene didn';t do anything. It's still Roy's decision whether to intervene. Eugene's persuasion doesn't control Roy's decision, he just gives Roy another perspective to consider. There is nothing evil in that.

To use an example outside the context of the comic - David and Mary know Jack is going to cheat on his test tomorrow. David says "cheating is (moderately) evil, I will go and talk Jack out of it." Mary says "no, you probably wont be able to talk him out of it anyway, and I really want to hang out, stay home". Has Mary really done something evil? I think it is a hell of a stretch of the term "evil" to say so.

[Ruck]

Even if we accept your assertion that he was trying to persuade Roy not to intervene, and even if Roy decides not intervene following his conversation with Eugene, Eugene didn';t do anything. It's still Roy's decision whether to intervene. Eugene's persuasion doesn't control Roy's decision, he just gives Roy another perspective to consider. There is nothing evil in that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're arguing there's no Evil in persuading others to do Evil, or in attempting to do Evil and failing in your plans?

[nleseul]

Deliberately skipping your son's game to drink at a bar is bad parenting.

How about being delayed on the way to your son's game by a mysterious but seemingly important anonymous message insisting on a meeting at a bar? (And he takes exactly one sip from a fairly small mug during four pages. I don't think drinking at a bar was really his priority.)


Also, "weird" is a deliberate pejorative and judgmental choice by you that's, well, weird. There's nothing "weird" about an eight-year-old playing soccer.

To a guy who thinks it's "normal" to manipulate thermodynamic differentials with your fingers, there is. (And, as an astute observer mentioned above, "that's the joke.")


Are we ignoring the complete disdain he shows Roy when he arrives? How in all evidence, he treats everything that isn't wizardry as beneath him, including his own wife and children?

1) Eugene's first comments upon arriving: "I'm here! What did I miss?" "So, Roy... did you score any home runs?" That sure doesn't sound like complete disdain; that sounds like someone who's trying to act like he cares even though he doesn't (exactly as you suggest that a decent parent should do below, I believe). He only gets mad after Roy snarkily explains the difference between "home runs" and "goals."

2) We don't know much of anything about how he treats "his own wife and children." We know a great deal about how he treats Roy, and that's about it. About all we know is that Julia got spoiled rotten and he seems to like her, that Sara has complicated feelings about him, and that he made some kind of distracted mistake that killed Eric. There's a lot of context missing from those bits of information.

[Liquor Box]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're arguing there's no Evil in persuading others to do Evil, or in attempting to do Evil and failing in your plans?

Not quite, I think there is no evil in persuading others to take no action, when an alternative for them is to something good.

Well, that's one of the points.

Edit: Sorry missed the second part of your post. No, I do think there is (or at least can be) evil in failing at an attempt at evil or failing in an attempt to prevent a good. In that case you have taken action, it is just that the action failed.

[Jasdoif]

You can't call him evil based on a speculative presumption that he might have done something evil had he the power to do so.Correct, which is why that's not what I'm doing. I'm not even calling Eugene Evil. I'm calling his attempt to convince Roy not to save the world an Evil act, based on what he actually did and the extent of what he was actually capable of doing.


Again, you are convicting him based on something he didn't do. He didn't change the course of events. He didn't prevent Roy from doing anything.He did do something: He made the effort to convince Roy to give up. This is you giving Eugene a pass on his action because he couldn't pull it off.


Even if we accept your assertion that he was trying to persuade Roy not to intervene, and even if Roy decides not intervene following his conversation with Eugene, Eugene didn';t do anything. It's still Roy's decision whether to intervene. Eugene's persuasion doesn't control Roy's decision, he just gives Roy another perspective to consider. There is nothing evil in that.Roy wouldn't get a pass for his role in that chain of events, no. Eugene doesn't get one either.


To use an example outside the context of the comic - David and Mary know Jack is going to cheat on his test tomorrow. David says "cheating is (moderately) evil, I will go and talk Jack out of it." Mary says "no, you probably wont be able to talk him out of it anyway, and I really want to hang out, stay home". Has Mary really done something evil? I think it is a hell of a stretch of the term "evil" to say so.If Mary agrees that the cheating in question is in fact Evil (I'll assume the involved parties are aware of factors that make it so...some esoteric plan to rig financial aid distribution or something, maybe), then yes, it's an Evil act. It'd be nowhere near strong enough an indicator of Mary's character to suggest she's Evil over it though, on account of it not involving things like Mary promoting the death of every person on the planet or Mary being unable to do more than just talk to David.


Scope matters, both of the act and of the actor. Trying to procure an undeserved score on a test is somewhat easier to isolate and counteract than trying to procure an undeserved billion deaths; and restraint is "not using an ability you have", it isn't "not having an ability". Everyone, from the low-level commoners to the epic-level adventurers, has the same right and responsibility to be judged by their choices, including how they act within the limit of their ability to act and within the limit of their ability to pursue their goals.

You might argue that one Evil act wouldn't automatically make Eugene Evil, or that Roy would be responsible for his own actions as well. Both of which are true. But your view appears to be a highly selective "it only matters if there's an act that succeeds", which isn't compelling. Are the gods supposed to be excused for their willingness to destroy the world because they haven't done it yet? Are they to be exempt from (our) judgement for destroying the world if the Snarl kills them before they can finish?

[Mightymosy]

[...]

Scope matters, both of the act and of the actor.
[...]

Just to clarify: That sentence you wrote here is basically the reason why I kept on arguing: I just can't stand putting someone who missed his son's soccer games, edited his own wikipedia article, and is arrogant and snarky, into the same ballpark as for example someone who killed a teeny dragon without further thought, a tied up prisoner for convenience, and a quarter of a sentient race for revenge.

Or, for that matter, a duo who delivers victims - guilty or innocent, doesn't matter - to the waiting hands blades of an evil empire.

Relativity matters, to me. I was arguing in the light of what else has been established in OotS.

[Kish]

While you and I might agree that Vaarsuvius, Enor, and Gannji (maybe also Girard and Shojo?) are all officially classified north of where they should be, it compounds the problem rather than fixing it if one then says, "Okay, if really awful people can be Neutral, then if you're only sort of awful that means you're Good!"

[Ruck]

How about being delayed on the way to your son's game by a mysterious but seemingly important anonymous message insisting on a meeting at a bar? (And he takes exactly one sip from a fairly small mug during four pages. I don't think drinking at a bar was really his priority.)
Since he considered his son's game "pointless," and since Roy's comment when he shows up indicates Eugene often misses his games, I don't see why we should give Eugene the benefit of the doubt here.


To a guy who thinks it's "normal" to manipulate thermodynamic differentials with your fingers, there is. (And, as an astute observer mentioned above, "that's the joke.")
Right, so, this supports my position that Eugene's perspective is all about Eugene. Sara even chides him because it would be easy for Eugene to learn the rules well enough to support Roy, but he doesn't.

Because it's important to Eugene that seven-year-old Roy knows how much disdain Eugene has for his hobby.


1) Eugene's first comments upon arriving: "I'm here! What did I miss?" "So, Roy... did you score any home runs?" That sure doesn't sound like complete disdain; that sounds like someone who's trying to act like he cares even though he doesn't (exactly as you suggest that a decent parent should do below, I believe). He only gets mad after Roy snarkily explains the difference between "home runs" and "goals."
I think you ought to re-read the whole conversation on page 80 of Start of Darkness. You talk about context, but here you take one line out of context, give it the most positive spin possible, and ignore the rest.


2) We don't know much of anything about how he treats "his own wife and children." We know a great deal about how he treats Roy, and that's about it. About all we know is that Julia got spoiled rotten and he seems to like her, that Sara has complicated feelings about him, and that he made some kind of distracted mistake that killed Eric. There's a lot of context missing from those bits of information.
We know that "after a few years, he drifted away from [Sara] and back to his career." We know how inattentive he is to Roy, and it's likely his inattention killed Eric. We know he spoiled Julia probably as an overreaction to what happened to Eric. But the overarching theme here is still inattention, because he doesn't care about them as much as he cares about being a wizard.

[mouser9169]

He tried to convince Roy to do nothing instead of something that was Good. Changing the course of events away from Good with no other Good to replace it is Evil, and an attempt to cause such a change is also Evil.

Well, here you're flat out wrong.

Neutral can also mean striving to maintain a BALANCE (the old druids). That means sometimes supporting Evil if Good becomes too powerful, and sometimes supporting Good if Evil becomes too powerful. AD&D rules (and I think D&D, but I'm not going to go back and check that now) have always maintained that stance as Neutral.

You seem to be under the impression that if something isn't Good, or is hindering Good, it's Evil. Neutral exists for a reason. Tripping up Good people because it's fun would be something a Chaotic Neutral person might do. Stopping Good people because they're trying to force their morality on others is something a Lawful Neutral person might do, as another example.

[Kish]

"I'm Neutral because I make sure to punch a grandmother after I help one across the street" blessedly went the way of the dodo when 3ed came out, along with similar ludicrous crap like only humans having unlimited level advancement.

[Jasdoif]

Neutral can also mean striving to maintain a BALANCE (the old druids). That means sometimes supporting Evil if Good becomes too powerful, and sometimes supporting Good if Evil becomes too powerful. AD&D rules (and I think D&D, but I'm not going to go back and check that now) have always maintained that stance as Neutral.I'm quite certain that acting in support of Evil is an Evil act.


You seem to be under the impression that if something isn't Good, or is hindering Good, it's Evil.If an act is removing Good, then the act is Evil. How else do you think the net result ends up Neutral?

[wumpus]

This is not to say I agree with him. Just that I have a hard time viewing him as Evil. Evil in D&D isn't 'a [man standing by] doing nothing,' while terrible things happen.

Except that may as well be used at the definition of neutrality in D&D. There are more than two alignments available here, and 16 (plus Concordant Opposition) available planes for Eugene to land on. Celestia is looking less and less likely.

PS. Why bring up all the examples of Eugene "not caring for Roy" when there is the case of "not caring for Eric". Eugene was *there*, deliberately ignoring both of his sons (specifically while Roy was trying to warn him) while Eric died. While children *can* die in the care of attentive parents, in the face of all other evidence I would claim this is particularly damning* (and probably will quite literally become so assuming Xykon dies soon).

* maybe not all the way to the "deeper end of the alignment pool" but *way* out of Celestia.

[georgie_leech]

Except that may as well be used at the definition of neutrality in D&D. There are more than two alignments available here, and 16 (plus Concordant Opposition) available planes for Eugene to land on. Celestia is looking less and less likely.

PS. Why bring up all the examples of Eugene "not caring for Roy" when there is the case of "not caring for Eric". Eugene was *there*, deliberately ignoring both of his sons (specifically while Roy was trying to warn him) while Eric died. While children *can* die in the care of attentive parents, in the face of all other evidence I would claim this is particularly damning* (and probably will quite literally become so assuming Xykon dies soon).

* maybe not all the way to the "deeper end of the alignment pool" but *way* out of Celestia.

Perhaps I've been unclear. At this point, especially given the most recent strip, I don't think he's really LG. He barely met the LG criteria before, so I suspect he's probably slid out of LG and into NG, LN, or TN depending on where you thought he was to start with. What I don't think is that he's Evil.

[wumpus]

Perhaps I've been unclear. At this point, especially given the most recent strip, I don't think he's really LG. He barely met the LG criteria before, so I suspect he's probably slid out of LG and into NG, LN, or TN depending on where you thought he was to start with. What I don't think is that he's Evil.

I'm really wondering how he ever hit LG in the first place. I'd chalk it up to a D&D joke if it was earlier in the strip, as "your alignment" is typically interpreted as either "an otherwise meaningless indicator of which side you are on as indicated by the alignment: line on your character sheet" or one of the "nine personality types you encounter in D&D" (I dislike both and can't stand the alignment system).

I understand that the Giant isn't remotely concerned with the structure of the afterlife, but ignoring Eugene's status would be a huge unforced error (i.e. just letting him into Celestia without comment) and the Giant has gone to great lengths to signal that this is an issue (such as the Deva comment). You can't claim one thing about a character "Eugene is LG" and then repeatedly show him to be anything but. Miko was slightly different as showing her in blue paladin livery fixed her as "barely holding on to LG and never committing an evil act" thanks to the existing world, but the Giant has so far declined to show us her ultimate fate (other than "not being a wight"). I'm reasonably sure that Eugene's fate will need to be part of the strip after Xykon buys it.

At this point I'd expect him to qualify for pure neutrality. He is neither more than "half lawful" nor "half good".

[Kish]

There is no actual indication that anyone but Eugene* was ever convinced Eugene is Lawful Good. Rich spelled out that being reviewed at Celestia first meant only having written "Lawful Good" on one's character sheet, not that any other power thought it was most likely of the nine alignments.

*In the comic world. Lots of people in this world are convinced Eugene was and is Lawful Good.

[nleseul]

There is no actual indication that anyone but Eugene* was ever convinced Eugene is Lawful Good.

Roy, who dislikes Eugene more than pretty much anyone, still saw it as likely enough that Eugene would eventually end up in Celestia to extract a promise from him to stay away from the family's house. There would have been no point to that promise if Roy assumed that Eugene would end up in Limbo or somewhere anyway.

It's not very strong evidence, but it is some kind of indication of how someone other than Eugene perceived Eugene's alignment.

[littlebum2002]

There is no actual indication that anyone but Eugene* was ever convinced Eugene is Lawful Good. Rich spelled out that being reviewed at Celestia first meant only having written "Lawful Good" on one's character sheet, not that any other power thought it was most likely of the nine alignments.

*In the comic world. Lots of people in this world are convinced Eugene was and is Lawful Good.

Actually, this isn't true. Look at the timeline of Roy's judgement.

1) He is judged whether or not he is Lawful Good
2) He is told the results of his judgement
3) he is told that the blood oath will not restrict him from entering Celestia

Eugene, who is being held by the blood oath, would have still gone through these first 2 steps. He was already judged and already told the results of his judgement. So if he would have been judged as being not Lawful Good, he would be hanging outside Arcadia or something right now.

[hamishspence]

Roy's deva knew about the Blood Oath though - whereas Eugene's deva got surprised by its reveal, part-way through evaluating Eugene.

Thus, Eugene may never have been fully evaluated.

[DaggerPen]

Roy's deva knew about the Blood Oath though - whereas Eugene's deva got surprised by its reveal, part-way through evaluating Eugene.

Thus, Eugene may never have been fully evaluated.

I find the idea that the 100 foot tall book that's alight with holy fire prescribes that all souls with potentially mitigating circumstances that are known about in advance must be evaluated regardless but that if it comes up and surprises you partway through an interview, you stop there, to be... weirdly specific.

[Kish]

You keep almost quoting something the deva who evaluated Roy said, except you switch out the word "you" for "all souls." It's not a meaningless substitution.

[Liquor Box]

Correct, which is why that's not what I'm doing. I'm not even calling Eugene Evil. I'm calling his attempt to convince Roy not to save the world an Evil act, based on what he actually did and the extent of what he was actually capable of doing.

So if you are basing your opinion only on the act Roy actually did, what is the relevance of whether he had the power to do anything more. I think the only thing which could add is an implication that he may have done more had he been able to, which as I think you've just agreed, is irrelevant.


He did do something: He made the effort to convince Roy to give up. This is you giving Eugene a pass on his action because he couldn't pull it off.

That's wrong - the bit about pulling it off. I have already said on several occasions that what Eugene did* would not have been evil even if Roy taken his suggestion and stopped being involved.

*I use the word "did", even though I still think you are exercising some straw psychology to classify the conversation as an attempt at persuasion.


Roy wouldn't get a pass for his role in that chain of events, no. Eugene doesn't get one either.

Neither needs a pass. Neither did anything evil. Roy did nothing. Eugene talked to Roy about doing nothing. No pass needed.


If Mary agrees that the cheating in question is in fact Evil (I'll assume the involved parties are aware of factors that make it so...some esoteric plan to rig financial aid distribution or something, maybe), then yes, it's an Evil act. It'd be nowhere near strong enough an indicator of Mary's character to suggest she's Evil over it though, on account of it not involving things like Mary promoting the death of every person on the planet or Mary being unable to do more than just talk to David.

So Mary needs to agree that the cheating is evil - in the same vein do you suggest that Eugene has to agree that the end of the world is evil? - As pointed out by others, it appears that several of the good gods do not. That's a bit beside the point of our conversation, but I am a little surprised that you consider that the actor needs to agree that her act is evil.

Again you use the "unable to do anything more" point. Are you basing your accusation solely on what you think Eugene did do, or not?


Scope matters, both of the act and of the actor. Trying to procure an undeserved score on a test is somewhat easier to isolate and counteract than trying to procure an undeserved billion deaths; and restraint is "not using an ability you have", it isn't "not having an ability". Everyone, from the low-level commoners to the epic-level adventurers, has the same right and responsibility to be judged by their choices, including how they act within the limit of their ability to act and within the limit of their ability to pursue their goals.
Sure, the two events are different in scope, obviously. If the acts were evil (which they are not) they would be evil at a much different scale to one another)


You might argue that one Evil act wouldn't automatically make Eugene Evil, or that Roy would be responsible for his own actions as well. Both of which are true. But your view appears to be a highly selective "it only matters if there's an act that succeeds", which isn't compelling. Are the gods supposed to be excused for their willingness to destroy the world because they haven't done it yet? Are they to be exempt from (our) judgement for destroying the world if the Snarl kills them before they can finish?
No, as I have already clarified, there is no need that any evil act succeeds. A failed attempt to kill someone is still probably evil.

What is required for a person to shift toward evil, in my opinion, is that he does a thing, that thing is evil, and that he intended* to do that evil thing.

Eugene did not shift toward evil because the thing that he did (talk to Roy about not intervening) was not evil. It would not have been evil even if Roy had subsequently done nothing.

* the intention part is not so simple, because it involves elements of what the actor knew etc. But that it is not part of our discussion.

[Liquor Box]

Since he considered his son's game "pointless," and since Roy's comment when he shows up indicates Eugene often misses his games, I don't see why we should give Eugene the benefit of the doubt here.


Right, so, this supports my position that Eugene's perspective is all about Eugene. Sara even chides him because it would be easy for Eugene to learn the rules well enough to support Roy, but he doesn't.

Because it's important to Eugene that seven-year-old Roy knows how much disdain Eugene has for his hobby.


I think you ought to re-read the whole conversation on page 80 of Start of Darkness. You talk about context, but here you take one line out of context, give it the most positive spin possible, and ignore the rest.


We know that "after a few years, he drifted away from [Sara] and back to his career." We know how inattentive he is to Roy, and it's likely his inattention killed Eric. We know he spoiled Julia probably as an overreaction to what happened to Eric. But the overarching theme here is still inattention, because he doesn't care about them as much as he cares about being a wizard.

being somewhat neglectful toward his family was not a good thing, and I suppose could be classified as somewhat evil in DnD terms. but in the overall scheme of the OotS universe it is a pretty minor evil

[Keltest]

You keep almost quoting something the deva who evaluated Roy said, except you switch out the word "you" for "all souls." It's not a meaningless substitution.

Are you suggesting that Roy was special in a way beyond the mitigating circumstances that the deva flat out says doesn't affect the actual interview? Because unless Roy is a unique case, it stands to reason that their standard procedure is in fact the standard.

[Jasdoif]

To use an example outside the context of the comic - David and Mary know Jack is going to cheat on his test tomorrow. David says "cheating is (moderately) evil, I will go and talk Jack out of it." Mary says "no, you probably wont be able to talk him out of it anyway, and I really want to hang out, stay home". Has Mary really done something evil? I think it is a hell of a stretch of the term "evil" to say so.If Mary agrees that the cheating in question is in fact Evil (I'll assume the involved parties are aware of factors that make it so...some esoteric plan to rig financial aid distribution or something, maybe), then yes, it's an Evil act. It'd be nowhere near strong enough an indicator of Mary's character to suggest she's Evil over it though, on account of it not involving things like Mary promoting the death of every person on the planet or Mary being unable to do more than just talk to David.

So Mary needs to agree that the cheating is evil - in the same vein do you suggest that Eugene has to agree that the end of the world is evil? - As pointed out by others, it appears that several of the good gods do not. That's a bit beside the point of our conversation, but I am a little surprised that you consider that the actor needs to agree that her act is evil.Cheating isn't inherently evil (unlike killing without qualms out of convenience). So if Mary has no reason to believe David is correct when he says Jack's cheating is "(moderately) evil", then how could she know that David stopping Jack would be Good (for its reduction of Evil), and from there that stopping David would be Evil (for its elimination of the reduction of Evil)? That's why I added the bit about assuming Mary knows in the situation, since it's not as clearcut as the world scenario and it's too easy to get distracted on the details without it.

The "within limit of their abilities" thing goes both ways; Mary shouldn't get a black mark for a conclusion she was incapable of reaching, just as Eugene shouldn't get a pass for act he performed that he couldn't pull off.


Again you use the "unable to do anything more" point. Are you basing your accusation solely on what you think Eugene did do, or not?I'm calling the act of trying to convince Roy Evil, because it's Evil. If Eugene had the ability to intervene more directly, but didn't do it, I'd be far more likely to accept the claim that Eugene didn't actually intend to promote the annihilation of everyone on the planet (because of the clear choice he made not to follow through with the statement despite the ability to do so); and then we might argue or agree on whether or not declarations made as outbursts in anger or frustration, with no action or intent to follow up on them, are factors worth consideration in alignment (generally they're not).


Eugene did not shift toward evil because the thing that he did (talk to Roy about not intervening) was not evil. It would not have been evil even if Roy had subsequently done nothing.If Roy had decided (and acted upon the decision, just to be clear) to do nothing after talking to Eugene, that'd be a shift from a Good plan to a Neutral plan. For that to have occurred, the shift itself would have to be Evil. Roy would be responsible for that decision.

If Roy did so directly due to Eugene's conversational efforts, then Eugene is responsible for his part in convincing Roy. It's less responsibility than Roy would bear, to be sure; just like Haley is less responsible for Roy deciding not to kill Belkar over saying something Roy didn't want to believe than Roy himself is. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) But the world's a big convoluted social morass, and credit should be given for how one attempts to convince others to act, for good or for ill. Otherwise, we end up with weird situations like gods and leaders being absolved of responsibility for actions they ask their followers and subordinates to carry out in their names.

And as you've mentioned, a failure to accomplish doesn't negate the weight of the act.

[littlebum2002]

I'm calling the act of trying to convince Roy Evil, because it's Evil.

Even thought plenty of Good deities supported the same plan?

[Kish]

I would guess that Jasdoif would also call a mortal doing what a Good god does here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0040.html) evil, somehow. (I certainly would.)

[Jasdoif]

Even thought plenty of Good deities supported the same plan?Which Good deities specifically supported Roy turning around, and letting HPoH rig the final vote in their tiebreaker?

If you're talking about destroying the world in general....Good entities are entirely capable of Evil decisions and Evil acts. If Loki's argument has any merit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html), the gods are capable of destroying the world when the world's destruction is a foregone conclusion, giving everyone on the planet every chance to save the world. Evil-ness could still be argued at that point, I suppose; but destroying the world in advance to reduce the risk to themselves is killing the world's population for their own convenience. That's certainly Evil.

[mouser9169]

If an act is removing Good, then the act is Evil. How else do you think the net result ends up Neutral?

Neutral is as much a tangible force in the D&D verse as Good and Evil are.

You can be a holy warrior and be a champion of Neutrality.

Neutral isn't simply the sum of Good and Evil. All three are forces in their own right, as are Law, Chaos, and Neutral (same name, different force) on the other axis.

Again, a Chaotic Neutral person could well decide to trip up the plans of Good simply for fun, and a Lawful Neutral person could stand in the way of Good because someone is 'forcing their morality' on others. Neither would be an Evil act.

[littlebum2002]

Which Good deities specifically supported Roy turning around, and letting HPoH rig the final vote in their tiebreaker?

If you're talking about destroying the world in general....Good entities are entirely capable of Evil decisions and Evil acts. If Loki's argument has any merit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0998.html), the gods are capable of destroying the world when the world's destruction is a foregone conclusion, giving everyone on the planet every chance to save the world. Evil-ness could still be argued at that point, I suppose; but destroying the world in advance to reduce the risk to themselves is killing the world's population for their own convenience. That's certainly Evil.

I'm talking about destroying the world in general.

And I honestly don't accept Loki's argument, because if it were true that they clearly have enough time to end the world if the last gate fails, I think more deities would have voted No. The fact that so many voted Yes, in my mind, is a good indication that they doubt they will have enough time to end everything without the snarl starting to undo creation.

And I'm not only having trouble understanding how "let people go have eternal happiness instead of being wiped from existence forever" is an Evil act, I'm actually kinda having trouble understanding how it isn't a Good act. At the absolute worst it's Neutral.

[Jasdoif]

Neutral is as much a tangible force in the D&D verse as Good and Evil are.Perhaps you could provide some citations to undercut every statement I've seen that defines morally Neutral as between Good and Evil, ethically Neutral as between Law and Chaos; and how the objective forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos never seem to have any Neutral counterparts.


Again, a Chaotic Neutral person could well decide to trip up the plans of Good simply for fun, and a Lawful Neutral person could stand in the way of Good because someone is 'forcing their morality' on others. Neither would be an Evil act.The plans of Good people are not automatically composed entirely of Good acts, so I don't see what you're getting at.


And I honestly don't accept Loki's argument, because if it were true that they clearly have enough time to end the world if the last gate fails, I think more deities would have voted No. The fact that so many voted Yes, in my mind, is a good indication that they doubt they will have enough time to end everything without the snarl starting to undo creation.I'm very, curious here: Out of the eighteen deities that voted in 999 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) and 1000 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html), how many had we seen before? Seven (Odin, Thor, possibly Sif (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html), probably Freya (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html), Hel, Heimdall, Loki)? Even of the ones we've seen, how much do we actually know about each of them to make any sort of guess on how much risk they're willing to take for themselves and how much faith will to put in Loki, outside of the votes themselves? How could we tell who didn't believe Loki's argument, who didn't care, who doesn't trust Loki, who was swayed by Loki's argument, and who wasn't going to be swayed regardless?


And I'm not only having trouble understanding how "let people go have eternal happiness instead of being wiped from existence forever" is an Evil act, I'm actually kinda having trouble understanding how it isn't a Good act.See, that would be where "destroy the world if something happens to the last Gate" could apply.

Destroying the world in advance of that is closer to "kill everyone because we're afraid we could be wiped from existence later, possibly". And even overlooking how destroying innocent life is in the definition of Evil, there's still the matter that people could get some more living in before starting on that eternal happiness (or whatever equivalent their afterlife has)...you know, if they're not killed beforehand.

[Ruck]

being somewhat neglectful toward his family was not a good thing, and I suppose could be classified as somewhat evil in DnD terms. but in the overall scheme of the OotS universe it is a pretty minor evil

I don't think he's "somewhat" neglectful, and I think neglecting your responsibilities to your own children is more than minor.


Even thought plenty of Good deities supported the same plan?

I wonder how many times I'll end up posting "Motivations matter" in this discussion. It's remarkable how many times this has come up.

Wiping out the world to preserve the souls of the people in it is very different than wiping out the world because it's the surest way to get you, yourself, into the Afterlife.

[nleseul]

I don't think he's "somewhat" neglectful, and I think neglecting your responsibilities to your own children is more than minor.

Do you see Roy starving, or being deprived of basic necessities, or kept out of school, or routinely left alone unsupervised at home? Given the magnitude of parental neglect that is actually possible, I think "somewhat" is pretty fair. I'd even dispute whether "neglectful" is even a reasonable term, versus something like "emotionally distant."

I mean, I guess you could argue that Eric's death was on a level of neglect on the same level as real-world parents leaving kids in hot cars, or something like that. That event is so fuzzy on details, though, that I'm personally unwilling to assume that level of criminal neglect from Eugene without a lot more information—and, ideally, information that doesn't come from Roy.

[Kish]

You can be a holy warrior and be a champion of Neutrality.
Really? What class would that be? Paladin: no. Blackguard: no. Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter: no. Crusader (who can literally be any alignment but True Neutral, and can't be True Neutral because "she must stand for some ideal"): no. Why are you insisting inaccurately on the current validity of one of previous editions' stupidest rules?

[Keltest]

Really? What class would that be? Paladin: no. Blackguard: no. Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter: no. Crusader (who can literally be any alignment but True Neutral, and can't be True Neutral because "she must stand for some ideal"): no. Why are you insisting inaccurately on the current validity of one of previous editions' stupidest rules?

How about "cleric"?

Being a primary spellcaster does not mean they are not warriors.

[skim172]

Do you see Roy starving, or being deprived of basic necessities, or kept out of school, or routinely left alone unsupervised at home? Given the magnitude of parental neglect that is actually possible, I think "somewhat" is pretty fair. I'd even dispute whether "neglectful" is even a reasonable term, versus something like "emotionally distant."

I mean, I guess you could argue that Eric's death was on a level of neglect on the same level as real-world parents leaving kids in hot cars, or something like that. That event is so fuzzy on details, though, that I'm personally unwilling to assume that level of criminal neglect from Eugene without a lot more information—and, ideally, information that doesn't come from Roy.

I would agree that just solely based on the background presented, Eugene doesn't seem like an abusive or neglectful father so much as an emotionally distant one. And he seems to get along with Julia okay - it's Roy and Sara that he has the problem with. Which makes their family certainly dysfunctional, but no, I wouldn't say based solely on that, Eugene is an abusive or neglectful father.

However, I think, for purposes of the story, we have to presume that Roy's opinion of Eugene is accurate as stated. Because we're not going to get any more background than that. Eugene is a minor character in this story, and it seems unlikely we're going to delve deep into the life and times of the Greenhilt family and childhood. The role Eugene plays is to develop the character of Roy and his role is quite clearly that of an antagonist - an emotional foe, if not an actual enemy. Roy's challenge was to overcome and grow past the obstacle that Eugene presented to his development. I don't think his character development is about learning to understand and repair his relationship with Eugene - rather, it's to triumph over the negative effects of Eugene's existence in his life.

I just don't see this leading to a point where Eugene and Roy try to better understand each other. That seems so ancillary to any of the primary plotlines at this stage.

So while I don't think the evidence in the strips themselves necessarily validate Eugene as the fiend that Roy envisions him as, I think the story functions better if you accept that characterization as read. I don't think we, as the readers, are supposed to sympathize with Eugene or try to understand his point of view, anymore than we're meant to sympathize with, say, Lord Kubota, or Tarquin. NOT that I'm saying Eugene is an evil villain like those two, but that he's also an antagonist in a side-plot involving a specific character's personal development. While such character can be given a backstory that allows you to sympathize with them, it's not really necessary to understand the plot.

[Kish]

"If he wasn't as bad as he could have been, you shouldn't say he's bad!" is a horrific argument.

[nleseul]

And he seems to get along with Julia okay - it's Roy and Sara that he has the problem with.

I'd even dispute that he has any particular problem with Sara. She may have a problem with him—she does criticize him a couple of times, but she also defends him to Roy. And Eugene has certainly never said anything particularly negative about Sara as a person—the opposite, if anything. He has said he wished he hadn't invested emotional energy in family life, I suppose, which could be argued as critical of his relationship with her.


The role Eugene plays is to develop the character of Roy and his role is quite clearly that of an antagonist - an emotional foe, if not an actual enemy. Roy's challenge was to overcome and grow past the obstacle that Eugene presented to his development. I don't think his character development is about learning to understand and repair his relationship with Eugene - rather, it's to triumph over the negative effects of Eugene's existence in his life.

I just don't see this leading to a point where Eugene and Roy try to better understand each other. That seems so ancillary to any of the primary plotlines at this stage.

Yes, all of this—although I do suspect that there will be some reason why it's important for Roy to understand and forgive Eugene at some point.


I don't think we, as the readers, are supposed to sympathize with Eugene or try to understand his point of view, anymore than we're meant to sympathize with, say, Lord Kubota, or Tarquin. NOT that I'm saying Eugene is an evil villain like those two, but that he's also an antagonist in a side-plot involving a specific character's personal development. While such character can be given a backstory that allows you to sympathize with them, it's not really necessary to understand the plot.

I'll suggest Ian Starshine as a better analogy—a similar character who isn't Evil, isn't all that fully developed as a sympathetic character, and doesn't really matter except as an obstacle for one of the protagonists to overcome.

[Jasdoif]

How about "cleric"?

Being a primary spellcaster does not mean they are not warriors.You bring up an interesting point: We've got domains to reflect the influence of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos in the world; where's the Neutral domain?

[DaggerPen]

You keep almost quoting something the deva who evaluated Roy said, except you switch out the word "you" for "all souls." It's not a meaningless substitution.


Are you suggesting that Roy was special in a way beyond the mitigating circumstances that the deva flat out says doesn't affect the actual interview? Because unless Roy is a unique case, it stands to reason that their standard procedure is in fact the standard.

This, more or less. I freely grant that Eugene's on-panel behavior is Neutral at best - I just can't see any way to reconcile with the comic that he wouldn't already have been pre-evaluated for Celestia when he died. The comment about "Let's get this taken care of now so that when the Blood Oath is resolved, you'll be on your way to eternity that much faster" (exact quotes on mobile are hard but that was the gist) still applies, and I can't see any reason for the rules to say that Roy should be evaluated fully first but not Eugene. I think it's a better reconciliation of what we've seen on panel - as well as better "put a bow on it" petard hoisting - to say that Eugene barely squeaked in and has now fallen put of Celestia eligibility due to the very actions he took trying to get in posthumously when he thought his actions no longer mattered for alignment. I accept that he seems to have behaved in life much as in death, but I don't accept that that means that if he's not LG now he wasn't LG upon death, just that following the course he set himself on to its logical end instead of working to address his flaws brought him here from an LG starting point.

[Kish]

This, more or less. I freely grant that Eugene's on-panel behavior is Neutral at best - I just can't see any way to reconcile with the comic that he wouldn't already have been pre-evaluated for Celestia when he died. The comment about "Let's get this taken care of now so that when the Blood Oath is resolved, you'll be on your way to eternity that much faster" (exact quotes on mobile are hard but that was the gist)
Actually, the words were:

"If we examine your life and find you worthy of entering the Celestial Realms, when you are raised and subsequently killed--and clear up this Blood Oath nonsense--you'll be ready to ascend."

In other words, she led Roy to believe that he was, indeed, stuck outside the afterlife until the Blood Oath was fulfilled. And unless someone who gets in once has their afterlife destination set in stone--such that Roy could now spend the rest of his life trying to outdo Xykon's evil, and he'd still get into Celestia when he died again, as long as the Blood Oath didn't get in the way--what she said there was not merely a misleading statement but a transparent lie. Just something to think about when deciding how much weight to put on her having said it. But I accept that we disagree on whether she implied something about Eugene there, and possibly whether it would point to that thing being true (rather than "what she had some reason to want Eugene to believe") if she did; I just hope you'll stop saying she actually said something she didn't say.

[DaggerPen]

Actually, the words were:

"If we examine your life and find you worthy of entering the Celestial Realms, when you are raised and subsequently killed--and clear up this Blood Oath nonsense--you'll be ready to ascend."

In other words, she led Roy to believe that he was, indeed, stuck outside the afterlife until the Blood Oath was fulfilled. And unless someone who gets in once has their afterlife destination set in stone--such that Roy could now spend the rest of his life trying to outdo Xykon's evil, and he'd still get into Celestia when he died again, as long as the Blood Oath didn't get in the way--what she said there was not merely a misleading statement but a transparent lie. Just something to think about when deciding how much weight to put on her having said it. But I accept that we disagree on whether she implied something about Eugene there, and possibly whether it would point to that thing being true (rather than "what she had some reason to want Eugene to believe") if she did; I just hope you'll stop saying she actually said something she didn't say.

... I frequently make very quick replies from mobile during work hours and may have phrased things sloppily, so to make things clear - I know she did not specifically say "we evaluate everyone regardless of circumstances." However, she said that she said that the book says she should evaluate Roy regardless of any potentially mitigating circumstances and, and that statement to me very strongly indicates that that is the standard policy. The idea that she points to what the book says and means "this is what it says in your one specific special circumstance, in a way that says nothing about our general policy even though there's no real clear distinguishing factors here that didn't arise after your evaluation was completed" seems to me to be making more assumptions of the text than "Eugene was probably just barely LG when he died."

And for the record, I'm not sure how this is either a misleading statement or a transparent lie, given that we literally see an example of that "fast-tracking" going on in the form of someone checking in through the revolving door just for the night in the background? It seems more likely that the idea is to review the bulk of your life beforehand, determine entry eligibility, and then get a quick-check for any new black marks that might arise the next time you die so that you can enjoy heaven's many splendors while waiting for a rez. A final death might involve a bit more evaluation, but the idea of fast-tracking still applies, as there's less to comb through. I suppose it's possible that the policy is different for those who died of old age and can't be resurrected, since "popping in for a quick stay" is no longer a possibility and fast-tracking is thus no longer needed, but that seems like a terrible way to set up the system, particularly given that it's usually very difficult (though likely not impossible, given Eugene) to change alignments after your death, so vetting them thoroughly at that point is the kinder option, as it removes the possibility that they might not even get into Celestia after all that waiting in the first place (to say nothing of if their actual afterlife destination might take them regardless of the Blood Oath if they aren't suitable for Celestia.)

Also, I don't know that the Deva specifically led Roy to believe that he was stuck outside the afterlife - if he'd died and met the LG criteria but hadn't died fulfilling the Blood Oath, he might not have gotten in. I will grant that it's somewhat misleading not to mention that it might not stop him from going up, but that much I could at least see from a "don't get his hopes up until you're sure" perspective.

[Kish]

It's a misleading statement because she says the evaluation is about him being ready to ascend after he's been raised and killed again. It's a lie because--well, I said it above. I gather you don't see it that way, perhaps because you're reading "you'll be ready to ascend" as a significantly weaker statement than I am.

That said, I should clarify something: I think the distinction between "procedure says we need to evaluate Roy" and "procedure says we evaluate every spirit as soon as they arrive up here" is far more likely to point to a difference between Eugene and the norm than a difference between Roy and the norm. I also think the primary purpose the deva has in saying that, is roasting Eugene for impersonating a being of pure Law and Good, not binding Rich Burlew to every implication. If Rich wants to have the ending here be, "Eugene was simply Obnoxious Good, he's going up without trouble once Xykon is destroyed," of course he can. If he wants it to be (just as an example, as I think Eugene getting downgraded from a Good afterlife he was seriously considered for is substantially more likely), instead, "Actually, before running across the Blood Oath Eugene's evaluating deva was about to tell him to pack up and move over to the Lawful Neutral afterlife, because while there was no epic villainy on his record there was no significant good either," I don't think anything that's been mentioned will impede him there either.

[DaggerPen]

It's a misleading statement because she says the evaluation is about him being ready to ascend after he's been raised and killed again. It's a lie because--well, I said it above. I gather you don't see it that way, perhaps because you're reading "you'll be ready to ascend" as a significantly weaker statement than I am.

That said, I should clarify something: I think the distinction between "procedure says we need to evaluate Roy" and "procedure says we evaluate every spirit as soon as they arrive up here" is far more likely to point to a difference between Eugene and the norm than a difference between Roy and the norm. I also think the primary purpose the deva has in saying that, is roasting Eugene for impersonating a being of pure Law and Good, not binding Rich Burlew to every implication. If Rich wants to have the ending here be, "Eugene was simply Obnoxious Good, he's going up without trouble once Xykon is destroyed," of course he can. If he wants it to be (just as an example, as I think Eugene getting downgraded from a Good afterlife he was seriously considered for is substantially more likely), instead, "Actually, before running across the Blood Oath Eugene's evaluating deva was about to tell him to pack up and move over to the Lawful Neutral afterlife, because while there was no epic villainy on his record there was no significant good either," I don't think anything that's been mentioned will impede him there either.

I suppose at this point it's a matter of interpretation, then - I don't know about you, but I'm out of talking points beyond "This just seems like it has more narrative weight to me." Agree to disagree until canon decides either way?

[Kish]

Sure. Not that we really needed to agree in order to disagree. As my spouse once said to someone on a different forum, I can't agree with you because I don't agree with you...

[DaggerPen]

In fairness, I think the colloquial intent of "agree to disagree" is "agree to stop trying to stop the other from disagreeing with you," hence, agreeing to accept disagreement as the status quo. :smalltongue:

[dancrilis]

Cheating isn't inherently evil (unlike killing without qualms out of convenience).
So ... Roy is evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1001.html)?


Neutral is as much a tangible force in the D&D verse as Good and Evil are.

Kindof* ...


Perhaps you could provide some citations to undercut every statement I've seen that defines morally Neutral as between Good and Evil, ethically Neutral as between Law and Chaos; and how the objective forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos never seem to have any Neutral counterparts.
... well the Rilmani.


How about "cleric"?
Druid might also work.


You bring up an interesting point: We've got domains to reflect the influence of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos in the world; where's the Neutral domain?
The Balance domain would seem to fit.
Spells like 'Word of Balance' which is effectively a true neutral beings 'Holy Word' or 'Blasphamy'.

*Still I am not actually sure what Rilmani are actually composed of (in the way that other beings are composed of pure <insert alignment(s) here>), and 'Word of Balance' does not for example have a 'neutral' descriptor (like Holy Word has the 'Good' descriptor).

[Liquor Box]

I'm calling the act of trying to convince Roy Evil, because it's Evil. If Eugene had the ability to intervene more directly, but didn't do it, I'd be far more likely to accept the claim that Eugene didn't actually intend to promote the annihilation of everyone on the planet (because of the clear choice he made not to follow through with the statement despite the ability to do so); and then we might argue or agree on whether or not declarations made as outbursts in anger or frustration, with no action or intent to follow up on them, are factors worth consideration in alignment (generally they're not).

So the idea that he had not been able to intervene directly is just a supporting point in your proposition that Eugene was trying to persuade Roy? I don't agree it adds much support to that proposition, but I doubt we will persuade each other of our views in this regard.

But anyway, I don't think you need to keep repeating it because my point is that there was no evil act committed even if you are right that Eugene was meaning to persuade Roy.


If Roy had decided (and acted upon the decision, just to be clear) to do nothing after talking to Eugene, that'd be a shift from a Good plan to a Neutral plan. For that to have occurred, the shift itself would have to be Evil. Roy would be responsible for that decision.

If Roy did so directly due to Eugene's conversational efforts, then Eugene is responsible for his part in convincing Roy. It's less responsibility than Roy would bear, to be sure; just like Haley is less responsible for Roy deciding not to kill Belkar over saying something Roy didn't want to believe than Roy himself is. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0880.html) But the world's a big convoluted social morass, and credit should be given for how one attempts to convince others to act, for good or for ill. Otherwise, we end up with weird situations like gods and leaders being absolved of responsibility for actions they ask their followers and subordinates to carry out in their names.

And as you've mentioned, a failure to accomplish doesn't negate the weight of the act.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand you reasoning, but I don't agree with it.

First, I understand that you are saying that even though Roy doing nothing is not evil, the change in circumstance from him intending to intervene to him not intending to intervene is evil. But I don't agree that that is right.

It may be (subject to the below) that the net outcome is more evil because Roy changed his mind and decided to do nothing, but that does not mean the change itself is evil. It is not a sound argument to go from the shift to a more evil net outcome to the change itself being more evil because the evilness of outcomes and acts do not always correlate. You have agreed with this lack of correlation yourself where a failure at an evil act is still evil (despite there being no evil outcome).

Second, I don't agree that Eugene's conversation with Roy was causative of Roy's decision. I think it merely informed that decision. That is, unless Eugene overbore Roy's will somehow or misled him. Roy was still the one who made the decision, it was just a better informed decision from having kicked some ideas around with Eugene. It is not a matter of Eugene being less responsible, it is a matter of him not being responsible at all.

Hayley likewise - Roy's decision vis a vis Belkar was better informed because of Hayley's opinion. But it was still his decision and Hayley was not responsible for his decision to believe Belkar (if Belkar had turned out to be lying) nor would she have been if he had decided to disbelieve Belkar.


I doubt we have resolved our disagreement as to whether Eugene acted in an evil manner. But at least we understand what we do not agree about now.

[Liquor Box]

I don't think he's "somewhat" neglectful, and I think neglecting your responsibilities to your own children is more than minor.

Well it depends what you mean by neglect. But neglect in the context of child care is somewhat defined by real world law, and I think that correlates with what most people mean by the word. That refers to failing to feed a child in you care, putting the child in danger, leaving it alone in a non-secure place etc. Is there any suggestion Eugene did those things?

I haven't read the books that precede the current story, but based on the things mentioned in this thread (like missing sports games etc) I think "somewhat neglectful" is probably too strong. It may be a better description to say that he was not very attentive to Roy.

If you look at a spectrum of father/son interactions I suggest horrific child abuse would be at one end, loving parent (who turn up at sports games) would be at the other, and imperfect parent who sees to the child's needs but is not as attentive as would be ideal might be somewhere in the middle. So I don't think that it is a majorly evil act.


Edit: I see that nlesuel and skim172 have beat me to the thrust of the above.

[Ruck]

Do you see Roy starving, or being deprived of basic necessities, or kept out of school, or routinely left alone unsupervised at home? Given the magnitude of parental neglect that is actually possible, I think "somewhat" is pretty fair. I'd even dispute whether "neglectful" is even a reasonable term, versus something like "emotionally distant."

I mean, I guess you could argue that Eric's death was on a level of neglect on the same level as real-world parents leaving kids in hot cars, or something like that. That event is so fuzzy on details, though, that I'm personally unwilling to assume that level of criminal neglect from Eugene without a lot more information—and, ideally, information that doesn't come from Roy.

Fine, I can deal with "somewhat" although I think Eric's death is a pretty serious mark against him (particularly since the text seems to indicate he refused to consider he could have been responsible). I also think your own children are a pretty big responsibility, so things like being petty toward them carry more weight than they would toward another person.

All in all, though, it's not slaughtering villages or anything. But I do not think Eugene was a good father or a Good father.

[Sir_Norbert]

But anyway, I don't think you need to keep repeating it because my point is that there was no evil act committed even if you are right that Eugene was meaning to persuade Roy.

This is where I think you're fundamentally wrong: doing nothing is evil if it's a choice against doing something good that you know you should do.

We have a deva's word for this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) "Abandoning a friend to an unknown fate" is not an act, it's an omission. And if Roy had continued to do nothing, it would have been such a bad omission as to get his overall evaluation bumped down to Neutral.

[dancrilis]

This is where I think you're fundamentally wrong: doing nothing is evil if it's a choice against doing something good that you know you should do.

We have a deva's word for this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) "Abandoning a friend to an unknown fate" is not an act, it's an omission. And if Roy had continued to do nothing, it would have been such a bad omission as to get his overall evaluation bumped down to Neutral.

However talking about abandoning someone to an uncertain fate in not an act or an omission - and Neutral is not Evil (Neutral is on a moral scale seems to be the absence of Evil or Good).

There is nothing inherently evil about ending the world - as such there is nothing inherently evil about talking about ending the world, and as there is nothing inherently evil about it figuring out how this neutral action can benefit you is not evil (advocating for it on the basis of people suffering might be closer to evil, and advocating for it to save people might be closer to good - Eugene advocated for his own benefit which would be neutral). Of course even good people likely spend a lot of the time acting and talking neutral.

[littlebum2002]

I'm very, curious here: Out of the eighteen deities that voted in 999 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html) and 1000 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1000.html), how many had we seen before? Seven (Odin, Thor, possibly Sif (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html), probably Freya (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html), Hel, Heimdall, Loki)? Even of the ones we've seen, how much do we actually know about each of them to make any sort of guess on how much risk they're willing to take for themselves and how much faith will to put in Loki, outside of the votes themselves? How could we tell who didn't believe Loki's argument, who didn't care, who doesn't trust Loki, who was swayed by Loki's argument, and who wasn't going to be swayed regardless?


Loki thinks there will be enough time after the last gate is destroyed to save the world. Heimdall does not.

We don't know which of these are correct, so we can't just assume one is right and the other is wrong. The only conclusion we can draw from this is "There may or may not be enough time to save the world after the last gate is destroyed"



Destroying the world in advance of that is closer to "kill everyone because we're afraid we could be wiped from existence later, possibly".

This is absolutely true. However, this is also absolutely true:




Destroying the world in advance of that is closer to "kill everyone because we're afraid they could be wiped from existence later, possibly".

I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of D&D morality (who is?) but I wouldn't think "Destroying an innocent life to save that innocent life from an even worse fate" is an Evil act. I would personally consider it the moral equivalent of "putting someone who is beyond medical care out of their misery". Again, at worst, that is Neutral.