OOTS #1136 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[Malfarian]

Wonderful Comic Giant, thank you!


I'm curious what Thor wants, it would be too simple to say "Stop the Godsmoot" I suspect it will be to "let it play out until X happens". I don't know, we'll see. I suspect we'll be surprised as (almost) always.

I also feel like the last panel should be a "Solstice Decoration" or at least a T-shirt.

[Forikroder]

even the afterlife is not safe from there machinations

[Quirk]

*edit* Scrub my tree commentary.

The punchline might be read as a real-world commentary. And a good one. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

It's not the Dwarven afterlife alone - it's one of the Chaotic Good afterlives. It just so happens that a great many dwarves worship Thor, and Thor lives there.

[GM_3826]

Who would have guessed there are TREES in the dwarven afterlife? ;)

This is a good point, actually.

You think it would be a bit more comfortable...

[titi_2001]

Thor is the best :smallbiggrin:

[RyanW1019]

A drink upgrade is no small thing in a dwarven paradise.

[Simonlindkaer]

Well, I was expecting Valhalla to be a splash panel, but the tree joke totally makes up for it :-D

[Itrogash]

Thor continues to be the coolest guy ever, thinking about his followers and letting them decide for themselves.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well I guess there goes my Minrah, amatuer botanist headcanon.

Okay, maybe the trees are there because they died an honourable death in battle against dwarves, and are thus being rewarded by Thor.

Loving Thor as much as before (ina strictly heterosexual buddies kind of way, not that there's anything wrong with tha alternative), but I do have to wonder exactly what his request for Durkon will be, is this just going to be more Snarl related stuff?

[Unoriginal]

Best tree joke of the whole comic.

[super dark33]

There are trees so the dwarves can fight! Best afterlife.

[luna the cat]

Classically, Valhalla has endless battle for sport along with endless feasts. Dwarves don't seem to be the type to get a thrill out of fighting each other, so it seems appropriate that they have pine trees to battle against for all eternity if they like :)

[Doug Lampert]

There are trees so the dwarves can fight! Best afterlife.

Well, it is Valhalla, fight all day, drink all night.

[Auguries]

Dang trees are everywhere. We need to get some gnomes to invent chainsaws. They'll make a fortune outfitting the dwarven armies.

[HandofShadows]

Thor is coming off as being a "down to Earth" god here. A person who happens to be a god, not a god that kinda pretends to be a person. :smallcool:

[Gruffe]

I love how casual Thor is. Makes him fun to read. You can tell he's heard the dwarves' fear of Trees many times before.

Also this probably does help to answer some people's thoughts about whether there was a Story reason to bring Durkon back. Not only is he willing to return and continue to aid the Order, but Thor has a task for him once he does. The story is set up for him to return, not for him to be replaced by Hilyga or someone else. But I think it'd be wrong for him not to return, from a story point of view. This is the story about Roy, Elan, Haley, Belkar, V and of course Durkon. The world and other characters are the setting for these Six characters to evolve and change. Cutting Durkon out at this point would feel wrong.

Also liked the five years joke. I actually started reading a few dozen chapters before Durkon died, about when Tarquin disguised as Thog attacked them at the temple. So, Durkon's been dead longer than he hasn't for me! Thus, I;m kinda eager to see him return.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

Also I really like Thor.

[Resileaf]

Always love a little "take that, me" jab to make fun of the difference between in-universe time and out-universe time.

Interesting tidbit about deaths against clerics of Loki giving bonuses in Valhalla.

[FlawedParadigm]

Should be interesting. Thor wants Durkon to do something, and he's making a point to request it, so it's got to be something Durkon wasn't already planning to do. So nothing like "stop Xykon" or "seal the rifts" (unless Thor's about to tell Durkon how to seal/reseal/repair them, maybe.)

Interesting how this sort of mirror Jirix's resurrection and bringing a message back from The Dark One. Think Thor will be as "refreshingly direct?"

[Dungeon-noob]

Well, guess i'll have to somewhat reevaluate my perceptions of some of the OotS gods, what with the way Thor is behaving here. Makes me wonder if the other sightings and stories about him showed a skewed perspective somehow. The whole goblin situation still makes this feel weird for me, how can the guy be this chill and still comit such a horrible atrocity? I guess we'll find out before comics end, i guess.

[nolongeralurker]

Thor is coming off as being a "down to Earth" god here. A person who happens to be a god, not a god that kinda pretends to be a person. :smallcool:

But isn't Valhalla above Earth? :smalltongue: (Or this world's equivalent) Actually, Thor is even above Valhalla in this strip.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

THA TREES!!

More importantly, Thor’s really dragging out the whole reveal about the task that he wants Durkon to perform. However, it is nice to get some insight into his character, especially not wanting to take Valhalla away from Durkon.

[Chris Wiz]

Does this imply that if a dwarf dies ONCE honorably, their ticket to Valhalla remains valid regardless if they are resurrected and die dishonorably the next time?

[JumboWheat01]

Ooh, a drink upgrade. Nice prize.

[Morquard]

Well I guess the "She secretly loves trees" theory just got debunked.

[nolongeralurker]

THA TREES!!

More importantly, Thor’s really dragging out the whole reveal about the task that he wants Durkon to perform. However, it is nice to get some insight into his character, especially not wanting to take Valhalla away from Durkon.

Maybe he wanted Minrah to leave before he told Durkon because he didn't want to worry her since it doesn't concern her anymore (or some other reason) or wasn't allowed to let her know for some Snarl-related reason?

[137beth]

They have trees in Valhalla?!?

[Flame of Anor]

Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

Who knows where the time goes?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xODjbfYw8

I was pretty surprised that it had been that long.

Also, the "hostile tree" callback is funny, but I'm glad to see that Thor isn't so into it. Feels like if he were, it would be a bit too fanservicey.

[Sylian]

I looked up bariaur, and turns out they are Chaotic Good outsiders. It seems likely that Valhalla is a Chaotic Good plane and that Thor is also Chaotic Good.


Does this imply that if a dwarf dies ONCE honorably, their ticket to Valhalla remains valid regardless if they are resurrected and die dishonorably the next time?They'd go to Hel then.

[Ivrytwr]

"Mazel Tov" - Thor
Thanks Giant! Loved everything about this update, really nice.

[jwhouk]

Does this imply that if a dwarf dies ONCE honorably, their ticket to Valhalla remains valid regardless if they are resurrected and die dishonorably the next time?

I don't think that's what's being suggested, at least not in Durkon's case.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well I guess the "She secretly loves trees" theory just got debunked.
Perhaps she’s still used to blending in, despite Thor’s reassurances. :smalltongue:


Maybe he wanted Minrah to leave before he told Durkon because he didn't want to worry her since it doesn't concern her anymore (or some other reason) or wasn't allowed to let her know for some Snarl-related reason?
Ooh, yeah, that’s an interesting theory! Perhaps he doesn’t want her to be spending her time in the afterlife worrying about it?


Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

Also I really like Thor.
Oh, and here I thought it was just a throwaway date. A lot sure has changed since Durkon passed away.

[kiapet]

You know, Thor always came across as something of a man-child before, but in person he's actually a pretty cool and chill guy. I mean god.

Also, the coupon for being killed by a cleric of Loki busted me up.

[Astral Avenger]

Thor's last line cracked me up. I think I ended up laughing for about 5 minutes straight before I got my breath back enough to type this out.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

OK, so Thor is assisted by devas, but Valhalla is run by the CG equivalent. That does put a bit of a burr on my "Thor is CG" headcanon, unless he uses devas for the Lawful bits because he just can't figure it out himself.

Grey Wolf

[DeliaP]

Waaah!! Infodump!! I want my infodump!!

I've been waiting two whole strips while Thor witters on about how cool he is and secret gardens and drinks upgrades and now we're probably going to get an entire strip about trees next... I want to know about the Snarl!!!!

(Oh, and great strip btw, thanks Giant! :smallsmile: )

Seriously though, Thor is really starting to feel like he's easily distracted and has a tendency to waffle to me.... and his voice is now less sufer-dude and more absent-minded-shopkeeper!

[ruy343]

Thor: "Return to the Prime"... Referring to world number two? That's typically how scientists and mathematicians refer to a second instance of something... We know that their first world-prison didn't work out (from Shojo's story), but we also know from what Blackwing saw in the rift (a second world) that we don't have the whole story...

Also, I was left a little confused by the way Durkon said "You have to NOT order me to go back"... I don't understand why he would specifically say that... I read and re-read the comic a few times to try to grasp what he's saying here, but I'm still confused.

Is he saying that he needs Thor to not order him back because his son needs him to stay in Valhalla? That's kind of what it sounds like, and it fits Durkon's experience with his mother (after his father's death). However, that doesn't fit the rest of the discussion...

Regardless, I will continue checking every two hours as I always do for new comics. They're getting better and better with each page. I can't imagine how much time the Giant puts into getting everything just perfect each time. Thanks for your hard work, Giant!

[hamishspence]

OK, so Thor is assisted by devas, but Valhalla is run by the CG equivalent. That does put a bit of a burr on my "Thor is CG" headcanon, unless he uses devas for the Lawful bits because he just can't figure it out himself.

Devas can be of any good alignment:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm

Angel
Angels are a race of celestials, beings who live on the good-aligned Outer Planes.

Angels can be of any good alignment. Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials.

(astral deva is in MM under Angel, the other two types of deva are in Fiend Folio).

I would guess that it is because they:

"never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials"

that they tend to be used as godly agents.

[DaOldeWolf]

Nice, we finally have some answers about it. :smallsmile:

Well, I wonder what is Thor´s request exactly?

[DeliaP]

Thor: "Return to the Prime"... Referring to world number two? That's typically how scientists and mathematicians refer to a second instance of something... We know that their first world-prison didn't work out (from Shojo's story), but we also know from what Blackwing saw in the rift (a second world) that we don't have the whole story...

Traditionally in the D&D cosmology, mortals live in the Prime Material Plane. I'd guess that's what Thor is referring to.

[xroads]

Lol! I love that last panel. I wonder if Durkon is going to come back with an additional message for the head priest of Thor. A new amendment to the commandments of Thor.

:durkon: "Trees are not the root of evil. But they are still fun to use as target practice."

[rtrnofdmax]

Can someone link me to the strips about the trees so I can be in on the joke?

[hamishspence]

Traditionally in the D&D cosmology, mortals live in the Prime Material Plane. I'd guess that's what Thor is referring to.

Yup. Some editions just use "Material Plane" but "Prime Material Plane" is more traditional.


Can someone link me to the strips about the trees so I can be in on the joke?
This is the first:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0150.html

[Crœsos]

The dwarven anti-tree theology was explained by Durkon back in strip #150 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0150.html).



And why else would me patron, Thor, strike down so many [trees] each year with his mighty lightnin' if they weren't Evil?

You can see why Thor is annoyed about a whole dogma being built around this.

[SkinTaker]

Also, I was left a little confused by the way Durkon said "You have to NOT order me to go back"... I don't understand why he would specifically say that... I read and re-read the comic a few times to try to grasp what he's saying here, but I'm still confused.

Is he saying that he needs Thor to not order him back because his son needs him to stay in Valhalla? That's kind of what it sounds like, and it fits Durkon's experience with his mother (after his father's death). However, that doesn't fit the rest of the discussion...


Actually, he says, "[Y]e'd haf to order me na ta go back," meaning he'd definitely go back unless ordered not to.

Great strip, Giant. Really enjoying this arc and reveal.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, guess i'll have to somewhat reevaluate my perceptions of some of the OotS gods, what with the way Thor is behaving here. Makes me wonder if the other sightings and stories about him showed a skewed perspective somehow. The whole goblin situation still makes this feel weird for me, how can the guy be this chill and still comit such a horrible atrocity? I guess we'll find out before comics end, i guess.

The goblins?

A) The information we have is almost entirely from the Dark One, why are you trusting the evil lying blackmailer whose plan considers the destruction of the very soul of every living goblinoid to be a perfectly acceptable outcome about anything. Especially about something he wasn't there for, having not yet been created and all at the time.
The worst potential atrocity goblins face is coming from the Dark One.

B) We've seen multiple goblinoid settlements living peacefully and prosperously with non-goblinoid races facing such dire threats as visits by the circus. It works fine until Red Cloak shows up and "saves" them.
The worst actual atrocities that have happened to goblins in comic are all on Red Cloak.
Why are you trusting him about anything?

C) Thor and the good gods are outnumbered by the gods who are not good. The good gods didn't get to dictate how the world was made or what races did what. Why do you assume that Thor is to blame for the parts you don't like, rather than blaming the evil stuff on the Evil gods?

D) It's entirely possible that Thor is a horrible person and in fact cackled gleefully as he personally created goblins to be XP fodder for his clerics. Nothing about being friendly to his clerics shows anything about what he thinks about goblins. So if you have some decent reason to think Thor is guilty of creating intelligent races to be XP fodder for his clerics, then I'm really unclear on how him liking his clerics and being friendly with them changes your opinion in any way.

[The MunchKING]

That's the problem with being a God I guess, mortals take everything you do as some kind of Divine Lesson. :smallbiggrin:

[Shining Wrath]

Nice punch line. Thor is not anti-tree, but his worshipers think he is, because lightning hits trees.
Minrah getting a drink upgrade coupon is adorable, and let the shipping end.
A bariur is a centaur, but goat instead of horse.
Mazel Tov indicates that Thor is a Jewish Viking god.

Next strip: the big reveal. What is the task Thor has for Durkon?

[DeliaP]

Ahhh.... just got the significance of the last panel.

So, the reason why dwarves hate trees is because they see lightning strikes trees, so they think Thor must have some reason for hating trees.... and the resulting frenzy of wild mass guessing of Thor worshippers as to why Thor hates trees leads to the tree paranoia?

(Presumably they believe Thor couldn't be just hitting trees with lighting for no reason is because they think Thor is just too a good a writer God to do that)

[Angband]

Five and a half years... took me a minute to figure it out, but I'm still chuckling about it.

[2D8HP]

"Mazel Tov" - Thor
Thanks Giant! Loved everything about this update, really nice.


That Thor used a Yiddish term warms my heart

[Lordchoculla]

New comic is up.

"Mazel tov on the dad thing, by the way..." ... I like this Thor dude :smallsmile:

[drazen]

Five and a half years... took me a minute to figure it out, but I'm still chuckling about it.

Myself as well. Even with some long breaks, I hadn't realized Durkon croaked over 5 years ago in RL time. If you'd asked me off-hand, I'd have said two or three.

But I really would like to know exactly what Thor has to say to Durkon about the Snarl and his special task. Guy's rambled on so much, seems like Durkon is almost certain to get Resurrected in mid-explanation. :P

[Lheticus]

Well that's one worry abated. Not only does Minrah get in Valhalla, he gets to quaff the GOOD stuff. :D

[Lexible]

Nah, it's cool. Sorry right back for not being able to help you out inside your head.

:smallbiggrin:

Priceless for reasons other than in-comic.


Mazel tov!

Also, I love Yiddish Thor!

[Reboot]

Uh... Giant, Durkon's shield suddenly appears for one panel (panel #4) and then goes away again!

[hamishspence]

That Thor used a Yiddish term warms my heart



I think I've seen at least one "Oy vey" somewhere in OOTS before this strip.

And the commentary has used the occasional Yiddish term.

"Schtup" crops up occasionally. There was even a big chart of relationships between OOTS characters:

"Animal sidekick" (Mr Scruffy is Animal sidekick of Shojo)
"Hates" (Belkar Hates Miko)
"Has Killed" (Miko has killed Shojo)
"Wants to control" (Redcloak wants to control Xykon)
"Wants to schtup" (Tsukiko wants to schtup Xykon)

And so forth.

[Lexible]

Thor: "Return to the Prime"... Referring to world number two? That's typically how scientists and mathematicians refer to a second instance of something...

That's how D&D players typically refer to the indigenous world of the adventuring party: as in the prime material plane.

[Grey Watcher]

Me, upon reading the second panel:

"It hasn't been THAT long, has it? Gotta be closer to three years and change."

:looks up 877 copyright date:

"Dang." :smalleek:

[RMS Oceanic]

I am super intrigued by what the task might be. I'm assuming it's connected to the snarl, but a little more than "hey go stop them abusing it."

I wonder if he's about to receive some intel on the Crimson Mantle? Or maybe the motive behind its construction?

[SilverCacaobean]

This strip is making be wonder how Valhalla's economy works, since the concept of a "free drink upgrade" suggests not everything is magically free (which is what I would have thought) and currency is (probably) in use. Do you earn money in Valhalla? How? Also, Loki seems to really be disliked. (Although giving coupons as rewards for dying fighting Loki clerics isn't an incentive for more people to fight them if they don't know about the coupon til they're dead. I guess it's just a reward, out of respect.)

Maybe the drinks are indeed free but the quality of the drinks each person has available to them in the dwarven afterlife is equivalent to climbing mount Celestia in Roy's. The fighting earns them drink upgrades until they reach enlightenment in the form of the perfect alcoholic beverage. :smalltongue: If so, she just got a head start.


Also, Thor actually apologized for something that's not even his fault! I didn't see that one coming.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

To quote the Steve Miller Band: "Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping...into the future".

[White Blade]

Well, I guess I was right that Minrah won't be raised



This strip is making be wonder how Valhalla's economy works, since the concept of a "free drink upgrade" suggests not everything is magically free (which is what I would have thought) and currency is (probably) in use. Do you earn money in Valhalla? How? Also, Loki seems to really be disliked. (Although giving coupons as rewards for dying fighting Loki clerics isn't an incentive for more people to fight them if they don't know about the coupon til they're dead. I guess it's just a reward, out of respect.)

Edit: Yay first page!!! :D (for the first time ever!!)

I would guess that in Valhalla you get prizes based on how well you preform in the daily battle or hunt or similar.

[GrayDeath]

Well, not quite as pure genis as the last few but easily excellent strip once again!

Also yay, Page 3! ^^

[Dungeon-noob]

The goblins?

A) The information we have is almost entirely from the Dark One, why are you trusting the evil lying blackmailer whose plan considers the destruction of the very soul of every living goblinoid to be a perfectly acceptable outcome about anything. Especially about something he wasn't there for, having not yet been created and all at the time.
The worst potential atrocity goblins face is coming from the Dark One.

B) We've seen multiple goblinoid settlements living peacefully and prosperously with non-goblinoid races facing such dire threats as visits by the circus. It works fine until Red Cloak shows up and "saves" them.
The worst actual atrocities that have happened to goblins in comic are all on Red Cloak.
Why are you trusting him about anything?

C) Thor and the good gods are outnumbered by the gods who are not good. The good gods didn't get to dictate how the world was made or what races did what. Why do you assume that Thor is to blame for the parts you don't like, rather than blaming the evil stuff on the Evil gods?

D) It's entirely possible that Thor is a horrible person and in fact cackled gleefully as he personally created goblins to be XP fodder for his clerics. Nothing about being friendly to his clerics shows anything about what he thinks about goblins. So if you have some decent reason to think Thor is guilty of creating intelligent races to be XP fodder for his clerics, then I'm really unclear on how him liking his clerics and being friendly with them changes your opinion in any way.

Before i reply to this, i'm going to check something: have you read Start of Darkness? Because a bunch of what i'm basing my attitude on comes from that book, so it'd be pointless to argue if we aren't on the same page.

As for the actual reply:
A. I'm aware that Redcloaks information may be inaccurate, but a lot of other parts of it have turned out to be correct, and he's not entirely without selfawareness, so i doubt he's that far off. Also, when the writer presents information, i tend to treat it as valid until disproven. The godsmoot certainly reinforces the intel on the gods outlook on mortals.

B. I can think of only two settlements that would match your description, being the hobgoblin army camps (heavily defended) and Right-Eye's little villiage in the mountains, which i think was explicitly out of the way and off the maps. Compare to the usual attitude towards goblins, and what happend to Redcloaks home (also in regards to atrocities much?), and you are at best inaccurate and at worst flat out wrong. Not saying Redcloak is going about things in the best way, but let's not entirely disregard a major character as a source of information and exposition, shall we?

C. I assume he had a part in it, since he is a god who was presen then, and his clerics also seem to follow the general attitude of xp fodder goblins. Therefore, he's at least following the trend and not doing anything about the centuries of specieswide mass-murder. He might not be solely responsible as you like to strawman me into saying, be he is a friggin god who does nothing to stop this.

D. It is certainly possible, but not the picture i had so far, nor one i consider to be likely given the way people work and my understanding of the Giants writing. The option that my judgement so far is inaccurate is much more likely, which was all i was saying.

[Kish]

The whole goblin situation still makes this feel weird for me, how can the guy be this chill and still comit such a horrible atrocity?
Something like 99% of all atrocities are committed by people who are very chill much of the time.

Well that's one worry abated. Not only does Minrah get in Valhalla, he gets to quaff the GOOD stuff. :D
She.

[Chei]

I don't know about anyone else, but Thor is rapidly becoming my god, too.

[AutomatedTeller]

It's funny, how Thor reduced himself to something smaller, but appropriately awe inspiring... Roy's size.

another fine comic. Jokes and advancing the story.

[Fitzclowningham]

"Mazel tov" - Thor's a mensch!

[Toper]

Wow. Like everybody else, I didn't think it had been that long - offhand I would have guessed, like, two years.

I think this is the first confirmation that Kudzu actually is Durkon's son, right? Since Hilgya has weirdly avoided discussing it. But I would imagine that Thor always prepares Know Paternity, so I'd tend to trust his take on the issue.

[godsflunky]

Death By Loki-Cleric may be good for a drink upgrade, but the Valhalla panel does strongly suggest something:

It could indeed have an "cool lounge upstairs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1113.html)." Possibly several.

[Anarion]

I'm glad that Thor feels kinda guilty about the whole Snarl thing, it's been so awkward from the gods the whole time and hopefully Durkon can sort it out. Also, I'm quite impressed with Valhalla, nice place, even with the tree invasion.

[Shining Wrath]

A couple of things not heretofore noted so far as I've seen.

It took Durkon a while to figure out how to defeat DurkonT. It wasn't just a matter of waiting until there was someone there to kill the vampire - in fact, if Durkon had managed to gain control during the journey, he could have dropped the Protection from Sunlight during the day and been dead within a couple of rounds.

Thor is sorry he couldn't help Durkon inside his head - fair enough, but that suggests that Thor can see inside Durkon's mind, but can't enter.

"Felt weird about it" is a chaotic or neutral attitude. A LG deity would have cited a rule or regulation.

[Particle_Man]

Uh... Giant, Durkon's shield suddenly appears for one panel (panel #4) and then goes away again!

I imagine it might be because Durkon is thinking of Battle. This is Durkon's spirit, not his body, so we are in "there is no spoon" land and his thoughts might control how he looks.

Minrah's drink upgrade - I wonder if that is for one drink or for all the drinks forever?

I guess Thor doesn't get around to telling his followers things like about the drink upgrade or about trees. Or his followers just willfully misinterpret it "Thor *really* means X when Thor says Y". Which would fit lawful worshippers of a chaotic god (kind of a parallel of the the lawful bard whose master is the not-lawful Squeaky, come to think of it).

So this fits the theory that Thor is CG but, being Good, wants to save the dwarves as much as possible and knows that the only way to do that is to make *them* lawful and honourable as much as possible. So I assume this is a special loophole where lawful good clerics can follow a chaotic good god, at least if they are dwarves. And the dwarves, being Lawful, are convinced that their way to worship Thor is the one true way to do it, even in the face of Thor himself saying: "dude, that isn't what I meant!" If my theory is correct, then likely either dwarves did not worship Thor so much in world 1.0, or else did worship Thor but were not so predominantly lawful in world 1.0.

[vegetalss4]

Thor: "Return to the Prime"... Referring to world number two? That's typically how scientists and mathematicians refer to a second instance of something... We know that their first world-prison didn't work out (from Shojo's story), but we also know from what Blackwing saw in the rift (a second world) that we don't have the whole story...

Also, I was left a little confused by the way Durkon said "You have to NOT order me to go back"... I don't understand why he would specifically say that... I read and re-read the comic a few times to try to grasp what he's saying here, but I'm still confused.

Is he saying that he needs Thor to not order him back because his son needs him to stay in Valhalla? That's kind of what it sounds like, and it fits Durkon's experience with his mother (after his father's death). However, that doesn't fit the rest of the discussion...

Regardless, I will continue checking every two hours as I always do for new comics. They're getting better and better with each page. I can't imagine how much time the Giant puts into getting everything just perfect each time. Thanks for your hard work, Giant!

Personally I always assumed it was one of those turn taking things. One of the gods said "OK, my turn? Goblins are generally evil sentient mortals for low-level adventurers to fight, also they come in several varieties but all are medium sized." and then all the other gods went along with it under the "no new Snarls" rule, like with ninja's, just more thematically fitting.
But that's part of the details of the secret history of the world that 1) the Dark One might be fuzzy on, even as he is into it and 2) that is kept secret even from most goblins, so Redcloak might just go with his pre-Crimson Mantle days.

[Crisis21]

Tha return af tha tree jokes!

[EluNailo]

I'm honestly hoping Durkon comes back as a risen martyr; He did die a very noble death, and by the sounds of it Thor's gonna be willing to send him back with or without a resurrection.

[BigLord]

Hah, I loved the little tidbits in this strip (specially the dogma joke, lololol)... but we still don't know what Thor's mission for Durkon is. Like the proverbial carrot on a stick, it's been dangled in front of our faces for 3 strips now and we can't catch it yet. Heh.

I wonder if it's just "The Snarl is absurdly dangerous for us Gods. Please go take care of it" or if it's just something more than that. I'm betting that it is. And it's gonna be a big strip of plot exposition.

Also... I guess Minrah is really on her way to Valhalla and we're not going to see her again anytime soon, right? Aw :frown:

[hamishspence]

Personally I always assumed it was one of those turn taking things. One of the gods said "OK, my turn? Goblins are generally evil sentient mortals for low-level adventurers to fight, also they come in several varieties but all are medium sized." and then all the other gods went along with it under the "no new Snarls" rule, like with ninja's, just more thematically fitting.
But that's part of the details of the secret history of the world that 1) the Dark One might be fuzzy on, even as he is into it and 2) that is kept secret even from most goblins, so Redcloak might just go with his pre-Crimson Mantle days.

In Start of Darkness, at least according to Redcloak's "lore of the Crimson Mantle" goblins and other "monster humanoids" are a "second wave" creation, created when they discovered that low level clerics were having trouble levelling up, some time after everything else was made.

Apparently, The Dark One found this out, during the process of his ascension to deity.



We don't know how distorted this narrative has become, though.

[ken]

But... there needs to be steps up to the door of Valhalla!

The Saga of Bjorn (https://youtu.be/MV5w262XvCU)

Ken D.

[Windscion]

Regarding "Prime"
Cagers (residents of Sigil, the city of doors) refer to people fresh from any prime material plane as "clueless primes." So it's not like prime implies the existence of a secundus.

Also, I'm trying to figure out how Thor goes from Durkon's son to drinks. Two paths. One, suggested previously, is that Thor's thoughts went:

Durkon will return for son => Durkon will return to prime => let me get Minrah out of here so we can talk in private.

The other explanation is "Mazel Tov" is a used as a toast -- i.e., an excuse to drink some more => oh yeah drinks coupon for Minrah.

[schmunzel]

Well, I guess I was right that Minrah won't be raised



This strip is making be wonder how Valhalla's economy works, since the concept of a "free drink upgrade" suggests not everything is magically free (which is what I would have thought) and currency is (probably) in use. Do you earn money in Valhalla? How? Also, Loki seems to really be disliked. (Although giving coupons as rewards for dying fighting Loki clerics isn't an incentive for more people to fight them if they don't know about the coupon til they're dead. I guess it's just a reward, out of respect.)

Edit: Yay first page!!! :D (for the first time ever!!)

One smashed head equals 1 bear
torn out limbs a shot each

[BLAHMASTER]

"took your sweet time"??
OK, Thor.....
This reminds me of something that happens in video games: You do everything you need to as fast as you can, but the game is scripted to tell you how slow or lazy you are as part of the story.
I know there's a joke baked in there, but I guess I'm in the minority for not liking Thor very much.
In any case... great strip! Thanks Giant!

[Chei]

Minrah was killed by a cleric of Loki who herself was dominated by a cleric of Hel. I hope she gets a room upgrade too.

[happycrow]

That was adorable. And I have no idea how you're keeping up this pace of updates all of a sudden, Giant, but thanks.

[Kish]

One smashed head equals 1 bear
Ah, but is that an alcoholic bear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9539233&postcount=56)?

[Doug Lampert]

Before i reply to this, i'm going to check something: have you read Start of Darkness? Because a bunch of what i'm basing my attitude on comes from that book, so it'd be pointless to argue if we aren't on the same page.

As for the actual reply:
A. I'm aware that Redcloaks information may be inaccurate, but a lot of other parts of it have turned out to be correct, and he's not entirely without selfawareness, so i doubt he's that far off. Also, when the writer presents information, i tend to treat it as valid until disproven. The godsmoot certainly reinforces the intel on the gods outlook on mortals.

Red Cloak is almost entirely devoid of self-awareness. He thinks Xykon is just a tool and he's completely lost in the sunk cost fallacy. He's totally off about almost everything we can check him on.


B. I can think of only two settlements that would match your description, being the hobgoblin army camps (heavily defended) and Right-Eye's little villiage in the mountains, which i think was explicitly out of the way and off the maps. Compare to the usual attitude towards goblins, and what happend to Redcloaks home (also in regards to atrocities much?), and you are at best inaccurate and at worst flat out wrong. Not saying Redcloak is going about things in the best way, but let's not entirely disregard a major character as a source of information and exposition, shall we?

This hidden village? It's the one so well hidden that the circus comes to visit and that the goblins attend alongside the humans from a nearby village.

Yep, totally off the map.


C. I assume he had a part in it, since he is a god who was presen then, and his clerics also seem to follow the general attitude of xp fodder goblins. Therefore, he's at least following the trend and not doing anything about the centuries of specieswide mass-murder. He might not be solely responsible as you like to strawman me into saying, be he is a friggin god who does nothing to stop this.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please point to a cleric of Thor engaging in species-wide mass-murder. For that matter, the only species wide mass-murders that we know about was the millions of goblins killed when THEY attacked following the Dark-One's self admitted failed blackmail attempt and the species-wide mass murder of Familicide encouraged and abetted by the Evil fiends..


D. It is certainly possible, but not the picture i had so far, nor one i consider to be likely given the way people work and my understanding of the Giants writing. The option that my judgement so far is inaccurate is much more likely, which was all i was saying.

And again, if Thor were the type to create a sentient race to act as XP fodder for his clerics, what about the current scene would be in any way out of place? Liking your clerics is sort of implied by making an entire race to benefit them.

Or you could just assume that the Evil races were largely created by the Evil gods, who didn't give them much in the way of good lands because of the entire Evil thing.

You could NOTICE that the supposedly oppressed and murderously attacked goblins had an army of MILLIONS to cause the Dark-One's ascent, and wonder just how that's POSSIBLE if their only reason for existence was to provide easy foes for low level clerics. I'm sure level 1 clerics do real well against massive armies (not). You could notice that when the Azure city fleet found an island of orcs, they didn't attack or use them as XP fodder, despite being desperate for a place to live and able to win a fight they had a pie eating contest. You could read How The Paladin got His Scar, and realize that the only reason the hobgoblin city was ever STRONG ENOUGH to plausibly claim it was surviving by military might, is that O'Chul had saved them when they were weak enough to be destroyed.

[Peelee]

Glad I didn't make that bet with Jasdoif.

The other explanation is "Mazel Tov" is a used as a toast -- i.e., an excuse to drink soem more => oh yeah drinks coupon for Minrah.
L'chaim!:smallwink:

[schmunzel]

Thor: "Return to the Prime"... Referring to world number two? That's typically how scientists and mathematicians refer to a second instance of something... We know that their first world-prison didn't work out (from Shojo's story), but we also know from what Blackwing saw in the rift (a second world) that we don't have the whole story...

Also, I was left a little confused by the way Durkon said "You have to NOT order me to go back"... I don't understand why he would specifically say that... I read and re-read the comic a few times to try to grasp what he's saying here, but I'm still confused.

Is he saying that he needs Thor to not order him back because his son needs him to stay in Valhalla? That's kind of what it sounds like, and it fits Durkon's experience with his mother (after his father's death). However, that doesn't fit the rest of the discussion...

Regardless, I will continue checking every two hours as I always do for new comics. They're getting better and better with each page. I can't imagine how much time the Giant puts into getting everything just perfect each time. Thanks for your hard work, Giant!

You'd have to order me NOT to come back

this way

sch

[Ruck]

It's funny, how Thor reduced himself to something smaller, but appropriately awe inspiring... Roy's size.

another fine comic. Jokes and advancing the story.

He's bigger than Roy, by my estimation:


Well, he did more or less explicitly say he was doing that ("Let's try something relatable but still awe-inspiring"), but I also think he's still bigger than that. Roy is on the large side for a human, and the top of Durkon's head still reaches above his shoulders. (I used this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0987.html) to compare.) I'd guess offhand that Thor's size at the end is roughly 8-10 feet tall but still proportionately normal for a human.

[gamingfreak10]

That was adorable. And I have no idea how you're keeping up this pace of updates all of a sudden, Giant, but thanks.

The book was probably taking up a lot of his time

[Psyren]

Devas can be of any good alignment:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm


Indeed, angels != archons. That seems to trip up a lot of people.


"took your sweet time"??
OK, Thor.....
This reminds me of something that happens in video games: You do everything you need to as fast as you can, but the game is scripted to tell you how slow or lazy you are as part of the story.
I know there's a joke baked in there, but I guess I'm in the minority for not liking Thor very much.
In any case... great strip! Thanks Giant!

I'm not in his fan club either (and not just because those were banned years ago) but I acknowledge that the same rules that are tying his hands are at least keeping the evil gods in check too.

(Having said that, it's pretty clear Thor was ribbing the Giant himself rather than Durkon in that panel.)

[Rrmcklin]

Well, guess i'll have to somewhat reevaluate my perceptions of some of the OotS gods, what with the way Thor is behaving here. Makes me wonder if the other sightings and stories about him showed a skewed perspective somehow. The whole goblin situation still makes this feel weird for me, how can the guy be this chill and still comit such a horrible atrocity? I guess we'll find out before comics end, i guess.

Didn't we already go through this with Tarquin? Being personable and likeable, are not the same things as being good. Not to say that Thor isn't (supposed to be) good, but even good people can make terrible decisions that adversely affect many.

Who knows, maybe Thor regrets the things with the Goblinoids, maybe he doesn't; maybe he was even against it when it happened, but there was a vote and the against lost. But either way, it really has nothing to do with Thor's personality now. There's no contradiction there.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Devas can be of any good alignment:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm

The devas of OotS do thing by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Chaotic they ain't.

Grey Wolf

[KorvinStarmast]

Drink coupon: nice touch.
Tree dogma: I am pretty sure that dogmas like treemas for the usual reasons.
Sending him back: shorter than Gandalf, not a heaven sent agent but a simple and decent dwarf; but yay.

Thor: enjoying the understated deity thing.

Valhalla: nice crib. (Gratiutous MPatHG line -> ) It's only a model!

Another joyful strip. Very much like the tone.

[zinycor]

The devas of OotS do thing by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Chaotic they ain't.

Grey Wolf

not really, she says "we do things by the book around here!". Around here may refer to mount celestia's afterlife.

[hamishspence]

The devas of OotS do thing by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Chaotic they ain't.


That particular Deva works for Celestia. But others may work for other divine realms, and a little Chaoticness may help them there.

However, regardless of particular Good alignment, a deva

"never lies, cheats, or steals"
"is impeccably honourable in all their dealings"
"often proves (to be among) the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials."


So, it would be a bit hard to tell a Lawful deva from a Neutral or Chaotic one.

[Peelee]

That particular Deva works for Celestia. But others may work for other divine realms, and a little Chaoticness may help them there.

However, regardless of particular Good alignment, a deva

"never lies, cheats, or steals"
"is impeccably honourable in all their dealings"
"often proves (to be among) the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials."


So, it would be a bit hard to tell a Lawful deva from a Neutral or Chaotic one.

Imean, you could always ask them.

[Takver]

So that rainbow is probably a path that you walk down to get to Valhalla, but wouldn't it be great if it were a slide instead?

[Crusher]

Thor's putting the band back together!

[Peelee]

Thor's putting the band back together!

They're on a mission from a god.

[ReturnOfTheKing]

Thor is the chillest god ever, and I love him :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

However, regardless of particular Good alignment, a deva

"never lies, cheats, or steals"
"is impeccably honourable in all their dealings"
"often proves (to be among) the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials."


So, it would be a bit hard to tell a Lawful deva from a Neutral or Chaotic one.

So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

Lawful and Trustworthy are not synonymous. Likewise Chaotic and Dishonorable.

[Bisqwit]

“Which reminds me…” Is Minrah, coincidentally, Durkon’s half-sister?

I mean, it’s been a long time. And she did not want something to be mentioned for some reason.

Her family name was mentioned earlier, but maybe Sigdi re-married? Would maybe get a different name then.

[WickerNipple]

More and more I'm convinced Thor is just Elan w/ a beard.

[Ironsmith]

So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

They all have a pattern of behavior, yes, one which prevents, specifically, deceit. (No lying for obvious reasons, or going back on a deal that's been made; ergo, trustworthy.) This doesn't necessarily say much, or for that matter, anything about their positions on personal freedom vs adherence to authority; if not lying is ingrained into their being, then not lying may be the result of a series of conscious decisions, made independently of any authority figure, ergo potentially chaotic.

[gerryq]

Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

Also I really like Thor.

I never realised that either. I thought maybe Thor was somehow scrying the subjective time Durkon spent locked in his own head.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Lawful and Trustworthy are not synonymous. Likewise Chaotic and Dishonorable.

Maybe, but they are extremely correlated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm). "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

So if a deva "never lies, cheats, or steals" (and are of course in charge of the judgment system), I stand by my assertion that having a third of them be chaotic seems to rather miss the point of them being embodiments of the alignment (as per book commentary).

Grey Wolf

[Shining Wrath]

The devas of OotS do thing by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). Chaotic they ain't.

Grey Wolf


So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

A deva does have to abide by certain rules, regardless of alignment.
Perhaps, e.g., the LG devas have a list of 10 billion rules they have to abide by, the NG ones have 1 million rules they must abide by, and the CG ones have ... 3.

And of course L<->C is a continuum, not 3 discrete points. But you get my drift.

In 5e, they say that all angels are LG, as even the chaotic gods like having predictable servants. I'm not at all sure I like that, but it is 5e canon. Let us then hypothesize that a CG deity could find the services of a LG minion useful; someone who remembers to send all the clerics their spells in the morning, send in the membership checks for the CG divinity club, and do the celestial laundry.

[Cinnibar]

Huh...

I note now that Minrah is there, and Durkon is there...but none of the other perished dwarven vampires.

Hel wins?

[Rrmcklin]

Huh...

I note now that Minrah is there, and Durkon is there...but none of the other perished dwarven vampires.

Hel wins?

How would that mean Hel wins? They probably just got there sooner and weren't detained by Thor, because he didn't have a reason to do so.

[The MunchKING]

One smashed head equals 1 bear

Druids aren't going to like THAT. They're used to being the only ones with Animal Companions. :smalltongue:

[Ironsmith]

Druids aren't going to like THAT. They're used to being the only ones with Animal Companions. :smalltongue:

:belkar: O rly?

[Rogar Demonblud]

So that rainbow is probably a path that you walk down to get to Valhalla, but wouldn't it be great if it were a slide instead?
That's Gjallerbru. Heimdall should be standing next to it.

“Which reminds me…” Is Minrah, coincidentally, Durkon’s half-sister?

I mean, it’s been a long time. And she did not want something to be mentioned for some reason.

Her family name was mentioned earlier, but maybe Sigdi re-married? Would maybe get a different name then.

Durkon didn't leave home that long ago.

[Resileaf]

How would that mean Hel wins? They probably just got there sooner and weren't detained by Thor, because he didn't have a reason to do so.

I wouldn't say no to a scene of Minrah entering Valhalla and finding her seat next to Brother Sandstone.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's Gjallerbru.

I think it is the Bifröst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifröst). The Gjallarbrú (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjallarbrú) is supposed to be more like thatched gold (and connect to Hel, rather than Heaven) than rainbow-like.

Grey Wolf

[godsflunky]

A deva does have to abide by certain rules, regardless of alignment.
Perhaps, e.g., the LG devas have a list of 10 billion rules they have to abide by, the NG ones have 1 million rules they must abide by, and the CG ones have ... 3.


I like this idea.

"'Rule #1: Don't be an ***hole.' There, that covers most everything."

[zinycor]

Maybe, but they are extremely correlated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm). "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

So if a deva "never lies, cheats, or steals" (and are of course in charge of the judgment system), I stand by my assertion that having a third of them be chaotic seems to rather miss the point of them being embodiments of the alignment (as per book commentary).

Grey Wolf

Well the way that a lawful deva does the judgement may vary immensely, We saw a lawful deva go throgh it like you would go throgh an office. A chaotic good deva may do it like on a casual talk or go throgh the judgment based on a hunch (a divine spired hunch).

[Rogar Demonblud]

Several commentaries think that the gjallerbru and asbru are actually the same thing, as they are cognates of the Winding Way.

More properly, the Giant draws more from Marvel than Eddas, and they are all part of the same construct there.

[Psyren]

So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

I think it's your definition of "act lawful" that needs calibrating here. Elan for instance is open and honest (almost to a fault), but that alone doesn't make him Lawful.

As for "by the book" - what zynicor said.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think it's your definition of "act lawful" that needs calibrating here. Elan for instance is open and honest (almost to a fault), but that alone doesn't make him Lawful.

As for "by the book" - what zynicor said.

My definition of "act lawful" is copied from the SRD, thus why it is in quotes and linked to it.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Elan for instance is open and honest (almost to a fault)

I think Sir Francois would debate that "almost" bit.

[umrguy42]

Also, Loki seems to really be disliked. (Although giving coupons as rewards for dying fighting Loki clerics isn't an incentive for more people to fight them if they don't know about the coupon til they're dead. I guess it's just a reward, out of respect.)

I had a thought, maybe it's not a reward, maybe it's an apology coupon? In a "whoops, that wasn't supposed to happen" deal. Thor just says "...on account of you being killed by a cleric of Loki" (emphasis added).

[Nazzo, the 102nd]

There actually is a pink haired being in front of the door if you zoom in enough.

Also, judging by that panel, I wonder if the bariaurs were seeing a giant Thor just standing atop a cloud and then started shrinking. Maybe it's a common sight in Valhalla skies.

[Ubab]

Great comic, Giant!

The best part was to finally know the "true reason" to fight trees! Nothing about roots and tunnels, if Thor zap treees, we fight tress as well!

[Keltest]

My definition of "act lawful" is copied from the SRD, thus why it is in quotes and linked to it.

Grey Wolf

There is more to lawful behavior than being honorable or honest. Again, case in point: Elan.

[Resileaf]

Alignement can mean different things to different people.
Lawful can mean truthful, stringent on the rules or honorable.
Chaotic can mean free-spirited or against all rules whatsoever.

[Vessyra]

Wow. That hilarity of this strip... thank you, Giant. Thank you.

[b_jonas]

This strip is making be wonder how Valhalla's economy works, since the concept of a "free drink upgrade" suggests not everything is magically free (which is what I would have thought) and currency is (probably) in use. Haley: “Actually, gold is accepted currency on most other planes of existence.” (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1028.html)


However, it is nice to get some insight into his character, especially not wanting to take Valhalla away from Durkon. I don't think we learn that from his character. It's basic diplomacy. Thor wants to use Durkon. Thor wants to hand an unpleasant task to Durkon, so he says that he is sorry and isn't doing it to deprive Durkon of Valhalla, no matter how he actually feels about Durkon. Thor is a greater god, per the divine rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm) he is not likely to fail skill checks that easy unless he has a large negative modifier to the check for some reason.

[Resileaf]

I don't think we learn that from his character. It's basic diplomacy. Thor wants to use Durkon. Thor wants to hand an unpleasant task to Durkon, so he says that he is sorry and isn't doing it to deprive Durkon of Valhalla, no matter how he actually feels about Durkon. Thor is a greater god, per the divine rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm) he is not likely to fail skill checks that easy unless he has a large negative modifier to the check for some reason.

He's not making a check, he's requesting something from someone he knows he's putting in huge danger.

[zimmerwald1915]

Mazel tov!

Also, I love Yiddish Thor!
Given the sort of people that have appropriated the Norse pantheon today, and how they feel about Yiddish and the people (mine) who [used to] speak it [before a certain world-historical catastrophe], I feel somewhere between mildly and substantially offended by Yiddish Thor.

[deworde]

Apparently I have missed that running joke more than I thought I did.

[FlawedParadigm]

More and more I'm convinced Thor is just Elan w/ a beard.

I thought that was Nale.

[zinycor]

My definition of "act lawful" is copied from the SRD, thus why it is in quotes and linked to it.

Grey Wolf

As someone who has played dnd for years with many different groups I can safely say...

Nobody cares about what the book says about alignment, it's absolutely inconsistent and every table and piece of media interprets it differently.

So, when one says that come Devas are LG and others are CG, it means that LG Devas are big stick in the mud comparatively to the CG.

Other way to see it is: some lawful tendencies don't make a creature or character lawful, just like some evil tendencies don't make a character evil.

You can have a lawful cop who enjoys talking loudly in social situations where is frowned upon, a chaotic criminal who doesn't cheat on his wife, a psicopath who donates money to orphans, and a paladin who is racist.

This also applies to angels and demons who are supposed to be the very personification of their alignment. In the case of Devas, CG Devas might be very relaxed, like a hippie judge.

[Jasdoif]

Elan for instance is open and honest (almost to a fault), but that alone doesn't make him Lawful.Since we're here....


Finally, do chaotics have to buck societal trends. I'm sure a lot of Chaotic people are happy with how the government runs things.I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?


No. Nor would it have negatively impacted Elan's alignment had he grabbed Roy's greatsword and lopped his father's head off--though it would have indicated a difference in how Elan viewed what it means to be good.This. Elan's willingness to accept surrenders before is a result of his alignment, but it is not the only possible interpretation of his alignment. This time, he chose a second, equally Good option. Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

For example, Elan doesn't steal from people because he feels bad about it. If he suddenly decides to start stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he doesn't change alignment at all because he's changed from one way of looking at CG (the Elan way) to another way (the Robin Hood way). It may seem like a huge shift from a character development angle, but alignment-wise, it's all the same.

[Skull the Troll]

My definition of "act lawful" is copied from the SRD, thus why it is in quotes and linked to it.

Grey Wolf

I notice you don't include the part of the definition that includes under lawful, "On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability." You seem to be trying to convince us that Chaotic Good characters and NPC's don't exist, or that there is only one location that the good aligned go to. Why is it so hard to imagine a chaotic good deva? The D20srd entry even specifically states that Angels are "any good alignment"

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Sir Francois would debate that "almost" bit.Chaotic stupid isn't a pretty alignment. Stupid Good isn't a pretty alignment. As much as I didn't care for Elan initially, I eventually began to appreciate the character. And then, OotPC's arrived. OotPC's was enough to make me revert to my original distaste for that character. It took "Roy, I'll save you! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1070.html)" to remedy that. The only reason Sir Francois didn't kill him is because he is/was lawful good.
Take that, paladin haters. :smallyuk:

[Peelee]

The only reason Sir Francois didn't kill him is because he is/was lawful good.

Even then, I think if Elan had managed to stick with him that protection may not have lasted long.

[Emperor Time]

It's not the Dwarven afterlife alone - it's one of the Chaotic Good afterlives. It just so happens that a great many dwarves worship Thor, and Thor lives there.

Interesting and I wonder what are the odds of Elan and Haley going to that afterlife in the far future?

[Rrmcklin]

Haley: “Actually, gold is accepted currency on most other planes of existence.” (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1028.html)

I don't think we learn that from his character. It's basic diplomacy. Thor wants to use Durkon. Thor wants to hand an unpleasant task to Durkon, so he says that he is sorry and isn't doing it to deprive Durkon of Valhalla, no matter how he actually feels about Durkon. Thor is a greater god, per the divine rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm) he is not likely to fail skill checks that easy unless he has a large negative modifier to the check for some reason.

There is absolutely no need for Thor to be diplomatic. He could very easily just order Durkon to do whatever it is he wants, and Durkon would unflinchingly follow and he knows this. The point being made is that Thor doesn't like doing things like that.

I feel like a lot of people have a hard time understanding that this relationship isn't comparable to a manager and employee; Durkon literally worships Thor and his spent most of his life trying to act in his name.

[hamishspence]

Even then, I think if Elan had managed to stick with him that protection may not have lasted long.

I'd say at least part of the protection is that Sir Francois is a better person than the other paladin we see in Origin of PCs.

[Angelalex242]

Alright, who do you think would win? This Thor or Chris Hemsworth? ;)

[KorvinStarmast]

Interesting and I wonder what are the odds of Elan and Haley going to that afterlife in the far future?


Alright, who do you think would win? This Thor or Chris Hemsworth? ;)Batman, of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I notice you don't include the part of the definition that includes under lawful, "On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability." You seem to be trying to convince us that Chaotic Good characters and NPC's don't exist, or that there is only one location that the good aligned go to. Why is it so hard to imagine a chaotic good deva? The D20srd entry even specifically states that Angels are "any good alignment"

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals. Elan, as per the Giant, could steal if he felt the need to help the poor and had no better way of helping. Devas can't. So a deva, including these hypothetical chaotic ones that don't seem to exist in the comic would behave like they were Lawful regardless of alignment, because even the supposedly chaotic ones must act in strict lawful means as per the definition in the SRD.

I also note that no-one has anything to offer against this argument than "well, I say they are chaotic because the SRD says so". But you can't have it both ways: either what we see in the comic is the primary source, in which case they are lawful good creatures that follow the book, or we follow the SRD and then they must act as per the SRD's definition of lawful, regardless of their actual alignment, and thus we are back to my original point.

EDIT: or, put another way:

Nobody cares about what the book says about alignment, it's absolutely inconsistent and every table and piece of media interprets it differently.
Then this whole argument is over, since it is predicated on what the SRD says about deva's alignment, which it seems we don't care about.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals. Elan, as per the Giant, could steal if he felt the need to help the poor and had no better way of helping. Devas can't. So a deva, including these hypothetical chaotic ones that don't seem to exist in the comic would behave like they were Lawful regardless of alignment, because even the supposedly chaotic ones must act in strict lawful means as per the definition in the SRD.

I also note that no-one has anything to offer against this argument than "well, I say they are chaotic because the SRD says so". But you can't have it both ways: either what we see in the comic is the primary source, in which case they are lawful good creatures that follow the book, or we follow the SRD and then they must act as per the SRD's definition of lawful, regardless of their actual alignment, and thus we are back to my original point.

EDIT: or, put another way:

Then this whole argument is over, since it is predicated on what the SRD says about deva's alignment, which it seems we don't care about.

Grey Wolf

Given that youre trying to use the SRD to disprove the SRD, youre the one trying to have it both ways. Youre making a whole lot of assumptions that don't actually have any supporting evidence. That chaotics must all feel that stealing is acceptable, or that there is no issue with falsehood. That the Deva we see conducting Roy's interview is speaking for all Deva's and not for all Lawful Good residents of Celestia.

And if you want to go by in-comic evidence, we have direct word that Valhalla has Deva's working on it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Given that youre trying to use the SRD to disprove the SRD, youre the one trying to have it both ways. Youre making a whole lot of assumptions that don't actually have any supporting evidence. That chaotics must all feel that stealing is acceptable, or that there is no issue with falsehood. That the Deva we see conducting Roy's interview is speaking for all Deva's and not for all Lawful Good residents of Celestia.

I'm not the one that brought up the SRD, thus if anyone is trying to have it both ways, that'd be you and yours.


And if you want to go by in-comic evidence, we have direct word that Valhalla has Deva's working on it.
No, it doesn't. Thor has deva assistants. Valhalla has bariaurs at the gates.

Grey Wolf

[dtilque]

They have trees in Valhalla?!?

The denizens of Valhalla spend half their time drinking and feasting and half fighting. So they need something to fight, after all. I'm sure the trees magically regrow during the feasting time.


So that rainbow is probably a path that you walk down to get to Valhalla, but wouldn't it be great if it were a slide instead?

If Elan had had a hand in its design, it'd definitely be a slide.


“Which reminds me…” Is Minrah, coincidentally, Durkon’s half-sister?

I mean, it’s been a long time. And she did not want something to be mentioned for some reason.

Her family name was mentioned earlier, but maybe Sigdi re-married? Would maybe get a different name then.

Squeaky tells young Durkon that his mother never remarried (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0991.html), even though being asked by Hoskin several times. Now I suppose that she may have remarried after Durkon was thrown out of Dwarfville, but it seems unlikely. At any rate, the way she refered to Sigdi here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1096.html) ("Sergeant Sigdi") is not the way most people would refer to their mother.

[crayzz]

"When did you croak, like five and a half years ago?"

Took me a second, but I laughed.

[Keltest]

I'm not the one that brought up the SRD, thus if anyone is trying to have it both ways, that'd be you and yours.


No, it doesn't. Thor has deva assistants. Valhalla has bariaurs at the gates.

Grey Wolf

Its rather telling that you only respond to one of my arguments.

Also, Thor operates out of Valhalla, so Valhalla therefore has devas operating in it.

[Psyren]

What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals.

You're still conflating "doesn't lie" with "Lawful." Elan doesn't lie (certainly no more than Roy does) and yet is not Lawful.

[hamishspence]

You're still conflating "doesn't lie" with "Lawful." Elan doesn't lie (certainly no more than Roy does) and yet is not Lawful.


It is probably not coincidence that lying, cheating, and stealing are all called out as normally Evil in BOVD (though it does say that lying, while extremely morally dangerous, isn't always evil).

Some acts, while not always evil, are close enough, that strongly Good beings, like Celestials, or Exalted characters, will seek to avoid them, regardless of where they fall on the Law-Chaos spectrum.

[skim172]

So I guess the rainbow is the Stick-verse equivalent of Bifrost, the rainbow bridge that connected Midgard and Asgard in Norse mythology.

However, I am surely not the only one to immediately think of Rainbow Road from Mario Kart, and immediately broke my controller in a blind rage.

I wasn't even holding a controller when I started.

[Rrmcklin]

So it doesn't look like Thor has any special need of Minrah. I'm not surprised by that, but I am moderately curious about whether she'll immediately go to Valhalla, or if she'll pass some information on to Durkon before she goes.

[Lethologica]

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals. Elan, as per the Giant, could steal if he felt the need to help the poor and had no better way of helping. Devas can't. So a deva, including these hypothetical chaotic ones that don't seem to exist in the comic would behave like they were Lawful regardless of alignment, because even the supposedly chaotic ones must act in strict lawful means as per the definition in the SRD.
If anything, the fact that these restrictions are not chosen makes me less impressed with them as an argument for devas' Lawfulness. If someone spelled Haley or Elan so they couldn't lie, cheat, or steal, I think they would find other ways to express their Chaotic natures, even if they never found a way to bend those rules. It makes the devas necessarily less Chaotic than slaadi, I suppose, but outright Lawful is another matter.

[Rockphed]

I had a thought, maybe it's not a reward, maybe it's an apology coupon? In a "whoops, that wasn't supposed to happen" deal. Thor just says "...on account of you being killed by a cleric of Loki" (emphasis added).

This was my thought as well.

[Rogar Demonblud]

What is there that is more chaotic than a slaadi?

[Jasdoif]

What is there that is more chaotic than a slaadi?A different slaadi, but only sometimes.

[Peelee]

A slaadi bar?

[Kish]

Depending on how you mean the question, potentially "a whole bunch of things."

They're color-coded thuggish humanoid toads. Among the most straightforward, comprehensible, and predictable creatures in D&D's monster books. Their status as exemplars of chaos is an informed attribute.

[Psyren]

So it doesn't look like Thor has any special need of Minrah.

She's relatively low-level. Thor needs Durkon because he stands a ghost of a chance against Redcloak, and she simply doesn't.


Depending on how you mean the question, potentially "a whole bunch of things."

They're color-coded thuggish humanoid toads. Among the most straightforward, comprehensible, and predictable creatures in D&D's monster books. Their status as exemplars of chaos is an informed attribute.

Indeed, it's one reason I prefer Pathfinder's Proteans.

[Madwaltz]

So they all act lawful, but a third of them are chaotic? Is that supposed to make sense?

Grey Wolf

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals. Elan, as per the Giant, could steal if he felt the need to help the poor and had no better way of helping. Devas can't. So a deva, including these hypothetical chaotic ones that don't seem to exist in the comic would behave like they were Lawful regardless of alignment, because even the supposedly chaotic ones must act in strict lawful means as per the definition in the SRD.
IMO, alignment is less about HOW you act and more about WHY you act. Which I think is the source of the disagreement here -- you are assuming that the reason why all devas don't lie, cheat or steal is because it's "the rules." And if I take that assumption as true, then I'd more or less agree with everything you've said -- if all devas are bound by a code to never do these things, then I'd say they're lawful, regardless of what the SRD says. But I see things a bit differently. Just because there's certain things you'd never do doesn't mean it is necessarily part of a code.

To use Elan as an example again -- if, in a hypothetical scenario, Elan had to stab an innocent baby to save the world, would he do it? I don't think he would. Not because he's thought to himself "I will never stab babies under any circumstances!" but rather because, in the moment, the idea would be so repugnant to him that he'd never be able to go through with it. He'd try to come up with some other option instead. Heck, he probably wouldn't even think of the baby-stabbing solution unless it was explicitly pointed out to him, because he's so good-hearted that he wouldn't even process it as an option. So, ultimately, I think the statement "Elan can't stab an innocent baby" is a true one, despite his chaotic alignment, and despite Elan himself having never thought about it at all.

The same principle applies here, just to much more mundane problems. Essentially, where a lawful deva perhaps doesn't lie because it's "the rules," a chaotic one doesn't because it's in its nature. It's either very uncomfortable with lying, or doesn't think to do it. Even in situations where lying might be exceptionally pragmatic, they'll find some other solution.

Now, are there chaotic devas in OOtS? I have no idea. We haven't seen any yet, but I don't see any reason to assume they don't exist.

[Rrmcklin]

She's relatively low-level. Thor needs Durkon because he stands a ghost of a chance against Redcloak, and she simply doesn't.

I'm aware that Minrah is (relatively) low-level; people were still speculating that she'd serve some greater purpose. Also, you sort of jumped to conclusions about what Thor's task for Durkon are, didn't?

I doubt Thor's task is going to be a simple as "Keep trying to fight the people you've been fighting.", he'd have no reason to show up if it was just about fighting Redcloak and Xykon.

[Peelee]

Eh, people speculate a lot of things.

[Jasdoif]

Eh, people speculate a lot of things.Like quatloos?

[Rrmcklin]

Eh, people speculate a lot of things.

They do, but a lot of people have become oddly (from my perspective) attached to Minrah, and assumed she had some greater purpose just because she has a name.

[Peelee]

Like quatloos?

ALL the quatloos!

[The MunchKING]

I had a thought, maybe it's not a reward, maybe it's an apology coupon? In a "whoops, that wasn't supposed to happen" deal. Thor just says "...on account of you being killed by a cleric of Loki" (emphasis added).

I thought it was more of a Valhalla is so into fighting that anyone who dies fighting his/her patron deity's archenemy's clerics automatically got upgraded drinks, at least for one coupon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Its rather telling that you only respond to one of my arguments.
If it's not telling you that I tire of repeating the obvious, then what it is telling you is not the actual reality of it.


Also, Thor operates out of Valhalla, so Valhalla therefore has devas operating in it.
So does Loki.


a chaotic one doesn't because it's in its nature.
These are embodiments of their respective alignments. A Chaotic deva that can't lie seems, once more, a rather contradictory embodiment of the chaotic alignment, just as much as one that can't think for itself or one that will follow every command given to it.


It's important to note that this doesn't necessarily make Celia right in her views. Heck, they're not even all that consistent, considering she has been known to fly off the handle and zap people from time to time. Because, see, Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good

Grey Wolf

[Urm le Fou]

IMO, alignment is less about HOW you act and more about WHY you act.

As I would (and do) play some of my CG PCs:
LN NPC: "You must not lie. It is against The Law to lie.".
CG PC: "I have chosen to tell the truth. Your 'Law' is irrelevant to me."

LN NPC: "You must fulfil the contract. It is The Law."
CG PC: "I freely decided to enter the contract. As a matter of my own personal honour and integrity, I shall fulfil the contract. (And your 'Law' is irrelevant to me)."

LN NPC: "You must not eat chicken. It is against The Law."
CG NPC: "I like chicken, but the consequences are probably not worth it. I probably won't eat chicken unless I can get away with it. (And your Law is stupid and annoying)."

LN NPC: "Your companion has Transgressed. She made eye contact with the Lord Mayor. This is against The Law. Ignorance of The Law is no excuse. You must assist me to carry her to the place of execution."
CG PC: "Ah, no." SMITE! (Battle ensues)

[Keltest]

If it's not telling you that I tire of repeating the obvious, then what it is telling you is not the actual reality of it.


So does Loki.


These are embodiments of their respective alignments. A Chaotic deva that can't lie seems, once more, a rather contradictory embodiment of the chaotic alignment, just as much as one that can't think for itself or one that will follow every command given to it.



Grey Wolf

If you believe that chaotics are defined by their compulsive lying and dishonesty, I don't know what to tell you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If you believe that chaotics are defined by their compulsive lying and dishonesty, I don't know what to tell you.

I believe that Chaotic alignment embodiments are partially defined by their ability and willingness to lie when it serves their purpose. "Chaotics [...] do what they promise if they feel like it".

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I believe that Chaotic alignment embodiments are partially defined by their ability and willingness to lie when it serves their purpose. Your hypocrisy is noted, though.

Grey Wolf

Ah, I see the problem. Devas are embodiments of good above law or chaos, in the same way that Slaads are not embodiments of neutrality. You can tell on account of how they range the entire spectrum of good, but don't, as a rule, go beyond that spectrum.

And somebody who attempted to refute the SRD by invoking the SRD should not be talking about hypocrisy.

[Psyren]

I'm aware that Minrah is (relatively) low-level; people were still speculating that she'd serve some greater purpose. Also, you sort of jumped to conclusions about what Thor's task for Durkon are, didn't?

I doubt Thor's task is going to be a simple as "Keep trying to fight the people you've been fighting.", he'd have no reason to show up if it was just about fighting Redcloak and Xykon.

His task is almost certainly "I need you to deal with this Snarl thing for me, as the most powerful cleric in my service that isn't currently locked up in the Godsmoot." That doing so will put him in direct conflict with the folks trying to abuse it for their own ends is not a major leap. It's definitely not just about X+R, I agree.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

"We have to defend it!" :smallbiggrin: Loving it!

[Jasdoif]

Ah, I see the problem. Devas are embodiments of good above law or chaos, in the same way that Slaads are not embodiments of neutrality. You can tell on account of how they range the entire spectrum of good, but don't, as a rule, go beyond that spectrum.For reference on this point, the embodiments of NG in particular would be the guardinals (whose name is apparently too product-identity to have their group represented in the SRD, even though the individual avoral (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/avoral.htm) and leonal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/leonal.htm) are there).

[Rrmcklin]

His task is almost certainly "I need you to deal with this Snarl thing for me, as the most powerful cleric in my service that isn't currently locked up in the Godsmoot." That doing so will put him in direct conflict with the folks trying to abuse it for their own ends is not a major leap. It's definitely not just about X+R, I agree.

It's not a leap, but it's also not new information. Fighting Xykon and Redcloak is already something Durkon knows he's going to be doing; Thor doesn't specifically have to talk to him about that, especially since Durkon already made it clear that is exactly what he intends to do should he be raised before Thor even said anything.

Thor's task has to be new information to Durkon and equally importantly, we the audience, otherwise this meeting has no point. It probably does involve the gates (and by extension Redcloak) but that can't be the lead.

[Angelalex242]

Anyways, I like how Thor's capital G Good enough to worry about things like 'yanking the prize away after he finished the race.'

He cares about Durkon and Minrah. You can actually tell he does. That's not true of every deity.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And somebody who attempted to refute the SRD by invoking the SRD should not be talking about hypocrisy.

So you are adding strawmanning to everything else. OK, can't have a conversation with someone who isn't addressing my position, so I'll stop this here.

Grey Wolf

[deuterio12]

Elan for instance is open and honest (almost to a fault), but that alone doesn't make him Lawful.

Did you miss the last battle where Eldan kept making up more and more outrageous lies to Roy?

How Eldan could deceive Throg to escape prison?

Or how Eldan keeps telling people that his hand puppet is a god and will say whatever you want to hear to join Banjo's religion? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0081.html)

That Eldan may appear open and honest just goes to show how masterful a bard he is. You would never trust the lies of somebody that looks like a liar after all.

[Kish]

Who is Eldan?

[Keltest]

So you are adding strawmanning to everything else. OK, can't have a conversation with someone who isn't addressing my position, so I'll stop this here.

Grey Wolf

As near as I can tell, your position is "we have never seen an explicitly chaotic deva, therefore they cant exist", which I find ludicrous.

[Skull the Troll]

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals. Elan, as per the Giant, could steal if he felt the need to help the poor and had no better way of helping. Devas can't. So a deva, including these hypothetical chaotic ones that don't seem to exist in the comic would behave like they were Lawful regardless of alignment, because even the supposedly chaotic ones must act in strict lawful means as per the definition in the SRD.

I also note that no-one has anything to offer against this argument than "well, I say they are chaotic because the SRD says so". But you can't have it both ways: either what we see in the comic is the primary source, in which case they are lawful good creatures that follow the book, or we follow the SRD and then they must act as per the SRD's definition of lawful, regardless of their actual alignment, and thus we are back to my original point.

EDIT: or, put another way:

Then this whole argument is over, since it is predicated on what the SRD says about deva's alignment, which it seems we don't care about.

Grey Wolf

I see the definition the SRD just fine (It says Any Good which includes chaotic good), what I dont see is where it says that someone who is Chaotic MUST lie, cheat, and steal. To Quote the definition of Chaotic - ""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

If you'd like to use the comic as your source, Roy was an Oath-Spirit, but they let him in Celestia anyway because there were mitigating factors. They broke the rule that says Oath spirits cannot go to their final destination until they or their heirs fulfill the oath.

If you'd like to use D&D and Roleplaying precedent as your source, The DM could easily have a Chaotic Good Deva who doesnt lie cheat or steal, but still values living without laws and rules. (John Travolta's Michael maybe?)

[Mandor]

Thor continues to be a pretty chill guy. Definitely getting a Chaotic Good vibe from him, with him being over concerned about taking choices away from his clerics. But hey, while the dwarves may be all about honor and rules, dim memories going back to the early 90's, I recall Asgard being in the Chaotic Good quadrant of the Outer Planes.

And of COURSE there's trees attacking Valhalla. I mean, the Dwarves need some good fights. You know, like the Asgardian version of The Dungeon of Monsters that are Just Strong Enough To Really Challenge You (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I see the definition the SRD just fine (It says Any Good which includes chaotic good), what I dont see is where it says that someone who is Chaotic MUST lie, cheat, and steal. To Quote the definition of Chaotic - "[I]"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

Thus my comment that an embodiment of those principles not being allowed to lie, cheat or go back on their word seems more than a bit strange. Sort of like an embodiment of evil who always helps old ladies to cross the road. It's not that they can't under certain situations do it, it's the weird contradiction in the description that sounds like the embodiment of lawful behaviour also somehow being allowed to be the embodiment of Chaotic behaviour while not lifting those restrictions. I can believe an embodiment of law cannot physically tell a lie. I cannot believe an embodiment of chaos with the same restriction.


If you'd like to use the comic as your source, Roy was an Oath-Spirit, but they let him in Celestia anyway because there were mitigating factors. They broke the rule that says Oath spirits cannot go to their final destination until they or their heirs fulfill the oath.
1) Roy wasn't an embodiment of any alignment
2) You do not know what rules were applicable, just what rules Roy's dad thought were applicable. He was clearly wrong - we just do not know how (beyond the obvious "must die attempting to fulfill the oath")

Grey Wolf

[Fish]

What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals.
My bolding, and [citation needed]


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. ... "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Seems like "Chaotics don't have a problem with lying, cheating and stealing" is not to be found in the d20 ruleset. It seems to be your interpretation of what Chaotic means. That may be the source of your problem.

While I agree as a general principle that "unfettered personal freedom" must include, by definition, the freedom to lie, cheat, steal, etc., the definition doesn't specifically enumerate those acts in such a way that all Chaotics must not "see [them] as big deals," or otherwise prohibit Chaotics from doing so. A Chaotic would in fact be the first person to tell you they can see something as a big deal if they want to, and you can't tell them otherwise.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

My bolding, and [citation needed]


Seems like "Chaotics don't have a problem with lying, cheating and stealing" is not to be found in the d20 ruleset. It seems to be your interpretation of what Chaotic means. That may be the source of your problem.

"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

And a Deva, being good, would feel like saving them that last cookie, because to do otherwise would be to knowingly upset somebody.

[Ruck]

Who is Eldan?

Deceiver of Throg, apparently.

[jwhouk]

As I would (and do) play some of my CG PCs:
LN NPC: "You must not lie. It is against The Law to lie.".
CG PC: "I have chosen to tell the truth. Your 'Law' is irrelevant to me."

LN NPC: "You must fulfil the contract. It is The Law."
CG PC: "I freely decided to enter the contract. As a matter of my own personal honour and integrity, I shall fulfil the contract. (And your 'Law' is irrelevant to me)."

LN NPC: "You must not eat chicken. It is against The Law."
CG NPC: "I like chicken, but the consequences are probably not worth it. I probably won't eat chicken unless I can get away with it. (And your Law is stupid and annoying)."

LN NPC: "Your companion has Transgressed. She made eye contact with the Lord Mayor. This is against The Law. Ignorance of The Law is no excuse. You must assist me to carry her to the place of execution."
CG PC: "Ah, no." SMITE! (Battle ensues)

Yeah, basically this. CG is tolerant to a point.

[Rrmcklin]

What I'm hearing is that devas are for good above all else, and so whatever their place on the Law-Chaos axis, they all have lines and conduct they won't cross. That sounds perfectly reasonable, even if I understand Grey Wolf's objection.

So... think Durkon is going to get any special upgrade from Thor out of this?

[Rockphed]

"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

I'm fairly certain that the only people who use their chaotic alignment as an excuse are being chaotic-stupid, not chaotic-good. In the case of chaotic devas, I expect them to spend their time trying to overthrow tyrannies.

What I am trying to figure out is when an angel would ever need to lie, cheat, or steal.

[Psychronia]

By Thor...I knew Vahalla was supposed to be some kind of glorious eternal battle, but I didn't think the foes would be that fierce!

Thor is looking like a stand-up dude, as expected. Especially when he's not too drunk to know what he's doing.

[Necris Omega]

A slaadi bar?

It all depends on whether you put French or Ranch on it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Good gods, has it really been five and a half IRL years since Durkon kicked the bucket?


Also...I like Thor in this comic. As anyone paying attention to my POV in recent comic discussion threads can tell, I like when gods take responsibility for their actions. No matter what some of the people I argue with insist, I'm perfectly fine with Thor not apologizing to Durkon for everything he did that affected dwarvenkind, but it's nice to see that Thor cares about his chosen clerics. If I felt like splitting hairs, I could point out how this special treatment of the gods' favorites contrasts their treatment of the other 99%, but this isn't the time for that; let's save it for if and when the gods treat normal mortals like pawns again.
(Also, the punchline was great. A good joke, which fits well with the more "cool Jesus" vibe of modern Thor while explaining why much of early-comic Thor's characterization clashes with said vibe. It's not perfect, but you're not going to be able to make the tone of a D&D gag strip mesh perfectly with the tone of an epic fantasy comic which happens to use D&D-inspired rules.)

[Fitzclowningham]

I think Durkon will want to accompany Minrah to Valhalla, for as long as he remains unraised. There is the possibility that he won't ever be in a position to see it again, and it would be a shame to pass up the opportunity to experience dwarven paradise.

[Devils_Advocate]

Thus my comment that an embodiment of those principles not being allowed to lie, cheat or go back on their word seems more than a bit strange. Sort of like an embodiment of evil who always helps old ladies to cross the road. It's not that they can't under certain situations do it, it's the weird contradiction in the description that sounds like the embodiment of lawful behaviour also somehow being allowed to be the embodiment of Chaotic behaviour while not lifting those restrictions. I can believe an embodiment of law cannot physically tell a lie. I cannot believe an embodiment of chaos with the same restriction.
As Keltest pointed out, angels (e.g. devas) aren't the embodiments of Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. Those would be archons, guardinals, and eladrin, respectively. Lawful and Chaotic angels don't have the Lawful and Chaotic subtypes like archons and eladrin do.

Chaotic Good angels aren't supposed to embody Chaotic Good. I'm not sure whether angels are even supposed to embody Good. I think I've read that their primary loyalty is to their respective deities. At which point I have to wonder why they even have the Good subtype...


"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))
So, there's no contradiction in a Chaotic character who never breaks a promise so long as that character never feels like breaking a promise. Right?

[Ironsmith]

"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

Well, there's your problem. Devas are defined as being "any Good", which implies that, if they are embodiments of any alignments, it's Good first and foremost. Thus, a Chaotic Good deva is a deva that is Good, albeit through Chaotic means. They aren't necessarily the embodiments of Chaotic Good as a concept; they are simply embodiments of Good who lean Chaotic in their dealings.

Additionally, in leaning Chaotic, they do what they want to do, and don't betray their nature... which is to not cheat, lie, or steal. Other Chaotic creatures might be okay with lying, cheating, and stealing, but it's not in a deva's nature to do these things, and therefore a Chaotic deva will not. (And a Lawful one won't because it's in "the rules", a Neutral one won't for a mix of the two reasons, etc.)

[One Step Two]

It all depends on whether you put French or Ranch on it.

Both, and whatever else you can find. Otherwise, Thousand (Crawling Eye)land

[Rogar Demonblud]

But hey, while the dwarves may be all about honor and rules, dim memories going back to the early 90's, I recall Asgard being in the Chaotic Good quadrant of the Outer Planes.

It's the half CG half CN plane, and has a small but healthy population of slaadi who moved over from Limbo. Unabashedly Good types are relatively rare.

[Knaight]

Given the sort of people that have appropriated the Norse pantheon today, and how they feel about Yiddish and the people (mine) who [used to] speak it [before a certain world-historical catastrophe], I feel somewhere between mildly and substantially offended by Yiddish Thor.

This seems like a classic case of "just because they've tried to claim it doesn't mean they get to have it".

[Alchemist_Fire]

Durkon gains and loses his shield

[Casimir-Ivanova]

That's the problem with being a God I guess, mortals take everything you do as some kind of Divine Lesson. :smallbiggrin:

Uggh, don't I know it.
In our campaign, the former drow priestess of Lolth (PC) who ended up becoming the God of Night and Deception, had been proclaiming that the elves, both drow and regular, were no longer respected as the greatest race on the Prime Material Plane, and that she wished to unify all elves under her religion. Less than a week in-game later, she had to clarify in a special assembly of her followers that no, that did not mean the other races were fit for enslavement. Being a god trying to rebuild after the world-shattering kaboom has happened is ALL pitfalls.

[factotum]

As I would (and do) play some of my CG PCs:
LN NPC: "You must not lie. It is against The Law to lie.".
CG PC: "I have chosen to tell the truth. Your 'Law' is irrelevant to me."

LN NPC: "You must fulfil the contract. It is The Law."
CG PC: "I freely decided to enter the contract. As a matter of my own personal honour and integrity, I shall fulfil the contract. (And your 'Law' is irrelevant to me)."

LN NPC: "You must not eat chicken. It is against The Law."
CG NPC: "I like chicken, but the consequences are probably not worth it. I probably won't eat chicken unless I can get away with it. (And your Law is stupid and annoying)."

LN NPC: "Your companion has Transgressed. She made eye contact with the Lord Mayor. This is against The Law. Ignorance of The Law is no excuse. You must assist me to carry her to the place of execution."
CG PC: "Ah, no." SMITE! (Battle ensues)

I disagree with your assessment of the Lawful character here. Lawful doesn't mean "obeys the law"--while a lawful character is probably more likely to do so than otherwise, they're still not going to obey a law they don't personally agree with. Otherwise a Paladin would have a real problem in the Empire of Blood, where many of the local laws would totally contradict their personal code! So, your LN NPC is not going to eat chicken, even if the law demands it, if they don't like chicken or are a vegetarian.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given the sort of people that have appropriated the Norse pantheon today, and how they feel about Yiddish and the people (mine) who [used to] speak it [before a certain world-historical catastrophe], I feel somewhere between mildly and substantially offended by Yiddish Thor. Not sure where you live. In the past century, due to TV, radio, movies, comics, books and casual conversation (not to mention how many of the above are set in and around New York (hey, Woody Allen!)) any number of originally Yiddish expressions and terms have crept into broader usage in American English. So to have terms of other origins, like karma. Its not "appropriation" for Thor (whose writer uses American English) to toss in an easily recognizable expression / slang into a conversation where it fits. (And it does fit, particularly as Thor is being presented as having a chill, casual conversational style). It's the writer using conversational prose. Thor is also OoTS based, not Norway, Sweden or Northern Europe based.

I'm off to have a taquito in a few minutes: that isn't appropriation either, it's breakfast. (yum!)

Your choice to be offended is on you: a case of over reaction.

[hroþila]

Not sure where you live. In the past century, due to TV, radio, movies, comics, books and casual conversation (not to mention how many of the above are set in and around New York (hey, Woody Allen!)) any number of originally Yiddish expressions and terms have crept into broader usage in American English. So to have terms of other origins, like karma. Its not "appropriation" for Thor (whose writer uses American English) to toss in an easily recognizable expression / slang into a conversation where it fits. (And it does fit, particularly as Thor is being presented as having a chill, casual conversational style). It's the writer using conversational prose. Thor is also OoTS based, not Norway, Sweden or Northern Europe based.

I'm off to have a taquito in a few minutes: that isn't appropriation either, it's breakfast. (yum!)

Your choice to be offended is on you: a case of over reaction.
The offense for zimmerwald is not about English speakers using words of Yiddish origin, but about the association between a Norse god and something that is part of Jewish culture, due to the Nazi attempts to coopt Norse mythology. It is understandable that zimmerwald would feel that way.

To zimmerwald, I can only say that Norse scholars and medievalists in general are fighting hard to push back those views.

[Manty5]

Does all of this matter?

Does ANYTHING matter except our favorite bit character got a free ticket to Valhalla AND a drink upgrade coupon?

I suspect such coupons are of especial importance in the afterlife of beer and battle.

[Worldsong]

I don't quote that because I fail to see how it is germane to the discussion. What is is the fact that devas can't lie, can't cheat and can't steal, and therefore any of them who are really are chaotic are literally prevented from performing acts that chaotics don't see as big deals.


These are embodiments of their respective alignments. A Chaotic deva that can't lie seems, once more, a rather contradictory embodiment of the chaotic alignment, just as much as one that can't think for itself or one that will follow every command given to it.


I believe that Chaotic alignment embodiments are partially defined by their ability and willingness to lie when it serves their purpose. "Chaotics [...] do what they promise if they feel like it".


Thus my comment that an embodiment of those principles not being allowed to lie, cheat or go back on their word seems more than a bit strange. Sort of like an embodiment of evil who always helps old ladies to cross the road. It's not that they can't under certain situations do it, it's the weird contradiction in the description that sounds like the embodiment of lawful behaviour also somehow being allowed to be the embodiment of Chaotic behaviour while not lifting those restrictions. I can believe an embodiment of law cannot physically tell a lie. I cannot believe an embodiment of chaos with the same restriction.


"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

Going through this discussion I think I'm seeing the source of the disagreement.

Grey Wolf, excuse me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe the only way for a creature to never lie, cheat or steal is if there's something enforcing it.

To support this idea, you've stated that Angels CAN'T do these things, when the SRD only says they NEVER do these things. These aren't the same things: I could spend my entire life not committing murder, but my lack of murder is definitely not caused by me feeling like it's against the rules. It's caused by me being aware that taking someone's life would almost certainly cause a lot of grief for others and would result in me stealing countless opportunities from someone by ending their life prematurely.

Murder is of course a bit more extreme than lying, cheating or stealing but the same idea can still apply. People can spend their entire life not lying, not stealing and/or not cheating and at no point feel like they're bound by something to avoid these things. They can feel extremely uncomfortable doing these things or they're keenly aware of how they could hurt others by doing these things.

"Can't", "Prevented from", "Not being allowed" all points towards enforcement rather than a Chaotic Good character doing none of these things because of their personal decision not to do these things.

The Chaotic alignment doesn't say that you have to lie, cheat or steal. It doesn't really say you have to do anything other than doing what you feel like doing. In your example of a Chaotic character eating a cookie after promising it to you there's nothing saying the Chaotic character has to want to eat the cookie, or has to eat the cookie when feeling the desire. Yes, they might feel tempted, but they can still decide to save the cookie for you not because of a promise but because they imagine that you're looking forward to having a cookie, not having a cookie after being promised one would disappoint you, and being Chaotic Good they don't want to hurt or disappoint you. In the end they might want to eat the cookie but they also want to give you the cookie because they're nice people, and their desire to be nice to you can outweigh their desire to eat the cookie without ever feeling like they're obliged or forced to do it.

Frankly, if you will allow me to be fully honest, this entire issue seems to boil down to a Lawful person having difficulty believing that Chaotic Good could avoid lying, cheating and stealing because from a Lawful perspective we have rules against lying, cheating and stealing to make sure people don't do these things. Chaotic people, Good or not, don't follow these rules so they're inevitably going to do these things that the rules exist to prevent you doing, namely lie, cheat and steal.

I mostly think this because you've turned "Will never lie, cheat or steal" into "can't lie, cheat or steal".


I also note that no-one has anything to offer against this argument than "well, I say they are chaotic because the SRD says so".

Hold my beer.

I say there are Chaotic Angels because angels are predominantly Good, and Good comes in all shapes and forms. Nothing in the Angel description says they're by default law abiding: their overall description sounds like a creature which at all times tries to be fair, which a Chaotic creature is just as capable of being. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor because he deems the imbalance of wealth unfair and tries to rectify it (or, if the original Robin Hood had different motivations, that is a motivation that could lead to Robin Hood-like behaviour, which is considered an archetype of Chaotic Good). This might be a different way of being fair, but one of the hallmarks of Chaotic is since personal freedom is the core principle there's lots of different ways to be Chaotic.

Furthermore if we assume that angels at least partially exist for the specific purpose of aiding gods in their dealings with mortals it'd make sense that there are Chaotic Angels for dealing with Chaotic Gods and Chaotic Mortals, because it's always easier to work with someone who's on the same wavelength as you.

(A problem I often come across is that Chaotic people seem to think that Lawful people are uptight killjoys who can't handle dealing with surprises when there's good reason to be Lawful, whereas Lawful people seem to think Chaotic people are selfish clowns who can't sacrifice some freedom for the sake of the greater good when there's good reason to be Chaotic. There's more to Chaotic vs Lawful than whether you follow the rules or not. Strongly Lawful people and strongly Chaotic people often think differently from the fundamentals upwards.)

And a big difference between a Lawful Angel and a Chaotic Angel is that a Lawful Angel won't lie, cheat or steal and will judge you if YOU lie, cheat or steal, whereas a Chaotic Angel won't lie, cheat or steal but won't really care if YOU do it. For the Lawful Angel these things are forbidden for everyone, whereas for the Chaotic Angel it's not so much forbidden as that they personally don't want to do them (or if they feel the desire they're strongly aware of the reasons for not doing it, such as that it would hurt others).

[Manty5]

And a big difference between a Lawful Angel and a Chaotic Angel is that a Lawful Angel won't lie, cheat or steal and will judge you if YOU lie, cheat or steal, whereas a Chaotic Angel won't lie, cheat or steal but won't really care if YOU do it. For the Lawful Angel these things are forbidden for everyone, whereas for the Chaotic Angel it's not so much forbidden as that they personally don't want to do them (or if they feel the desire they're strongly aware of the reasons for not doing it, such as that it would hurt others).

Well, I suspect methods matter to the chaos/law axis, and motivations matter to the good/evil axis. Robin Hood would be castigated by a LG Angel, but not a CG or NG one. I suspect that his methods would be irrelevant to the NG, but an actual bonus to the CG, since in most versions of the story his ultimate goal was to tear down some corrupt government officials and his method involved things like stealing from those benefiting most from the corrupted system and giving to the ones victimized by them.

[hamishspence]

Might also depend on who the angel works for. Angels probably take on many of the attitudes of their divine bosses - and there are CG deities out there who hate liars and thieves in general (the Deities & Demigods version of Apollo, for example).

[Lathund]

Allow me to throw out a theory: trees are essential in a climax somewhere down the line; probably even the climax of the whole comic. I suspect that Durkon will encounter a tree, treant or similar being. His fear of trees and upbringing will urge him to attack it. Instead, he will have to trust it and maybe even cooperate with it.

Durkon's fear of trees was introduced as a gag (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0150.html) and it's being rebuffed as a gag as well, in the current comic. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it could be an elaborate Chekov's Gag. Heck, Hel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) was introduced as a gag and she turned out to be quite relevant as well!

Side note: could the MitD be something tree-ish?

[Urm le Fou]

I disagree with your assessment of the Lawful character here. Lawful doesn't mean "obeys the law"--while a lawful character is probably more likely to do so than otherwise, they're still not going to obey a law they don't personally agree with. Otherwise a Paladin would have a real problem in the Empire of Blood, where many of the local laws would totally contradict their personal code! So, your LN NPC is not going to eat chicken, even if the law demands it, if they don't like chicken or are a vegetarian.

I'm somewhat mocking LN here, but I think that a LN will actually obey a law they disagree with, if they feel it applies to them. Depending on how lawful they are, (and the consequences for lawbreaking), they might go very far from their personal preferences if the Law demanded it. If they did break the law, they would feel uncomfortable.

However, a Paladin in the Empire of Blood might be inclined to follow the Law (because, Law), but never if it would result in an evil deed. The Law of the Empire of Blood is obviously corrupt and therefore not a True Law. [Conflict ensues].

[zimmerwald1915]

To zimmerwald, I can only say that Norse scholars and medievalists in general are fighting hard to push back those views.
Not hard enough.

[Worldsong]

Well, I suspect methods matter to the chaos/law axis, and motivations matter to the good/evil axis. Robin Hood would be castigated by a LG Angel, but not a CG or NG one. I suspect that his methods would be irrelevant to the NG, but an actual bonus to the CG, since in most versions of the story his ultimate goal was to tear down some corrupt government officials and his method involved things like stealing from those benefiting most from the corrupted system and giving to the ones victimized by them.

From what I understand from Neutral Good they have no love for the law in and of itself but they still advise people to avoid wreaking too much havoc while doing the right thing since havoc in itself can be bad.

I agree that a NG angel probably wouldn't really be bothered by Robin Hood's actions, but would still tell him that it'd be better if he could minimize trouble since trouble can hit the innocent.

A CG angel could indeed actually applaud toppling a corrupt government, I was mostly emphasizing that a CG angel could not want to lie, cheat or steal without imposing those beliefs upon others.

Actually that reminds me of something else: judgement.

A Lawful Angel would most likely try to judge whether someone can enter the CG afterlife the same way as Roy was judged, except with different requirements on the Order/Chaos axis.

I have the feeling that would actually be very awkward and uncomfortable both for the Lawful angel and the CG soul being judged.


Might also depend on who the angel works for. Angels probably take on many of the attitudes of their divine bosses - and there are CG deities out there who hate liars and thieves in general (the Deities & Demigods version of Apollo, for example).

Entirely true. As mentioned earlier, one of the hallmarks of Chaotic is that you can be Chaotic in a wide variety of ways without ever straying away from being Good, so a Chaotic Angel could either not give a damn, actively encourage such acts, or be disgusted not because of any rules but because of personal distaste (adopted from their god, but still).

[Skull the Troll]

"Chaotic characters do what they promise if they feel like it." (source, again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm))

Chaotic character says "I promise I'll save you a cookie", but then feel like eating them all, are being chaotic while having engaged in either lying, stealing or cheating depending on how you define "do what you promise".

Grey Wolf

Yes because you be chaotic good OR chaotic evil. Your assuming chaotic always goes with evil. A chaotic good person would choose to keep their promises, while a chaotic evil one wouldn't. Chaotic neutral - somewhere in between. You have a mistaken belief that a chaotic good person runs around lying cheating and stealing because its fun. Thats a chaotic evil person. By your definitions Elan must be someone who ALWAYS lies, because he MUST lie, because hes chaotic good. You can be good and be chaotic. I think a good example is Nicole from "Quantum Vibe" The comic is set in a libertarian type future, and she is a clearly good person, but believes that governments of all types are bad and that there are no rules that govern behavior - only that people govern themselves. Consequently she chooses to do good things, shes a pacifist, she works to better society, and she keeps her promises to people.

[zimmerwald1915]

Consequently she chooses to do good things, shes a pacifist, she works to better society, and she keeps her promises to people.
Such people only exist in fiction.

[Worldsong]

Such people only exist in fiction.

Considering my past experiences I think I can truthfully say that this doesn't appear to be the case.

I have met both bad people, good people, and people in between. The idea that there are no good people is as detrimental to society as the existence of bad people.

[Keltest]

Considering my past experiences I think I can truthfully say that this doesn't appear to be the case.

I have met both bad people, good people, and people in between. The idea that there are no good people is as detrimental to society as the existence of bad people.

Indeed. Im calling BS. By cynical if you like Zimmer, I cant stop you, but im not going to just watch you lie to people.

[Deathhappens]

Oh wow, it really has been five and a half years. Where did the time go?

Also I really like Thor.


Wow, yikes. It seems like yesterday that I caught up to the strip when Gladiator A was making his arena debut, one strip prior to his disembowelment via kitty.

EDIT: Strip #779, to be precise. 2010 was eight years ago...

[Peelee]

Such people only exist in fiction.

Well, Fred Roger's would likely disagree with you. In a very polite and respectful way, and maybe ask why you feel that way, and almost certainly have a friendly discussion with you about it.:smallsmile:

[Worldsong]

Well, Fred Roger's would likely disagree with you. In a very polite and respectful way, and maybe ask why you feel that way, and almost certainly have a friendly discussion with you about it.:smallsmile:

Ah yes, how could I forget Fred Rogers. (https://xkcd.com/767/)

[Fyraltari]

Seriously though, Thor is really starting to feel like he's easily distracted and has a tendency to waffle to me.
He does. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html)



The goblins?

A) The information we have is almost entirely from the Dark One, why are you trusting the evil lying blackmailer whose plan considers the destruction of the very soul of every living goblinoid to be a perfectly acceptable outcome about anything. Especially about something he wasn't there for, having not yet been created and all at the time.
The worst potential atrocity goblins face is coming from the Dark One.
We don't know that the Dark One has lied about anything to anyone. Also according to Redcloak he doesn't consider the anihilation of every living gobbo's soul acceptable. He considers the Gods unmaking the world (therefore killing every gobbo and sending them to him) acceptable. That's different. It ain't good but it's better.



B) We've seen multiple goblinoid settlements living peacefully and prosperously with non-goblinoid races facing such dire threats as visits by the circus. It works fine until Red Cloak shows up and "saves" them.
The worst actual atrocities that have happened to goblins in comic are all on Red Cloak.
Why are you trusting him about anything?

C) Thor and the good gods are outnumbered by the gods who are not good. The good gods didn't get to dictate how the world was made or what races did what. Why do you assume that Thor is to blame for the parts you don't like, rather than blaming the evil stuff on the Evil gods?

D) It's entirely possible that Thor is a horrible person and in fact cackled gleefully as he personally created goblins to be XP fodder for his clerics. Nothing about being friendly to his clerics shows anything about what he thinks about goblins. So if you have some decent reason to think Thor is guilty of creating intelligent races to be XP fodder for his clerics, then I'm really unclear on how him liking his clerics and being friendly with them changes your opinion in any way.
Seconded. Except the bit about the worst happening to goblins being Redcloak's fault. The comic is pretty clear there is a widespread tendency to attack the goblins on sight. Not everyone share it but many do.


Mazel Tov indicates that Thor is a Jewish Viking god.
Where I am from people say Mazel Tov when good things happen to people, Ciao for greetings and goodbyes, Salud and Prost before drinking and half a dozen more words from other languages without being Jewish, Italian, Spanish or German in any capacity. I, for one, is fond of being polite in foreign languages. Is that not a practice where you live?

I assume he had a part in it, since he is a god who was presen then, and his clerics also seem to follow the general attitude of xp fodder goblins. Therefore, he's at least following the trend and not doing anything about the centuries of specieswide mass-murder. He might not be solely responsible as you like to strawman me into saying, be he is a friggin god who does nothing to stop this.
As this book shows Gods are much more limited in what they are allowed by other gods to do than in what they could do. They don't want to risk another Snarl.
As the last panel of this very strip shows the behaviour of Thor's Clerics is not necessarily representative of of Thor's ideals.
It's entirely possible that if he'd Fallen each of his Clerics that treats goblins as walking target, most of them would switch over to, say, Sunna, and he'd end up like Hel but with even less souls and the goblins wouldn't be better for it while Surtur, Fenrir and Loki would. Or not. It's a risky bet either way.


Thor is sorry he couldn't help Durkon inside his head - fair enough, but that suggests that Thor can see inside Durkon's mind, but can't enter.
Or that Thor knows how vampires works. Considering he was there when they were created and his archennemy in this reality is their patron goddess (for their third of reality) the opposite would be surprising.


Given the sort of people that have appropriated the Norse pantheon today, and how they feel about Yiddish and the people (mine) who [used to] speak it [before a certain world-historical catastrophe], I feel somewhere between mildly and substantially offended by Yiddish Thor.
Thor is part of the cultural heritage of most of Northern Europe and is known worldwide in a variety of contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with the events and persons you are alluding to. That these people (and many other) have tried to claim pre-existing symbols and concepts to taint them with the filth they call an ideology is no reason to discard those symbols for what they truly stand for. That would be giving these people power they do not deserve. Should Buddhist temples scribe off the Swatiskas of their statues? Should the U.S. erase the fasces from its great seal?
You remind me of the people who thought one demonstration I was part of was far-right because some people had brought flags (it really wasn't).
You can be offended by whatever you want but don't expect anyone to heed your complaints when they are as reaching as this one.

I think Durkon will want to accompany Minrah to Valhalla, for as long as he remains unraised. There is the possibility that he won't ever be in a position to see it again, and it would be a shame to pass up the opportunity to experience dwarven paradise.
That's precisely what he was saying he would do before Thor stated talking.

Such people only exist in fiction.
Your negativity continues to astound me.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

Such people only exist in fiction.

Either I know a lot of people who escaped from fiction to the real world, or I'm living in fiction and somehow have the same internet as you.

Either way, I prefer it this way to your reality.

[Kish]

To zimmerwald, I can only say that Norse scholars and medievalists in general are fighting hard to push back those views.
Yes, this. My immediate thought is that having Thor avoid Yiddish would be an entirely inappropriate concession to Nazis, who do not own Thor however much they wish to.

However, as I am not Jewish, I will not express more thoughts on the subject.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As Keltest pointed out, angels (e.g. devas) aren't the embodiments of Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good.


Devas are defined as being "any Good", which implies that, if they are embodiments of any alignments, it's Good first and foremost.


Because, see, Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good


Yes because you be chaotic good OR chaotic evil. Your assuming chaotic always goes with evil.
No, I am not.


By your definitions Elan must be someone who ALWAYS lies, because he MUST lie, because hes chaotic good.

This directly contradicts both what I have already said and basic logic.

Clearly, you picked your username with a purpose in mind.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Devas are "embodiments of good" : just not Law as well. That would be archons.

The Giant possibly forgot this when writing that particular commentary.


Interestingly, 5e designers appears to have noticed the rather Lawful-sounding description of devas - they have stated that Devas are LG - even devas that serve Chaotic deities.

So - yes, there's an edition where Devas default to Lawful - but it's not 3e, it's 5e.

[Keltest]

@GW

If your reading of the Giant's words is seemingly contradictory with all other sources on the nature of Deva's, you should probably reconsider the accuracy your reading, not the sources. Rich is making a comment about Celia's nature, pointing out that she is capable of failing to live up to her own standards, as opposed to beings from the alignment planes, which cant (or at least, almost never do). He definitely isn't saying "Devas are only ever Lawful Good."

[Worldsong]

Devas are "embodiments of good" : just not Law as well. That would be archons.

The Giant possibly forgot this when writing that particular commentary.


Interestingly, 5e designers appears to have noticed the rather Lawful-sounding description of devas - they have stated that Devas are LG - even devas that serve Chaotic deities.

So - yes, there's an edition where Devas default to Lawful - but it's not 3e, it's 5e.

I was going to point out that if there's an edition where it's explicitly stated that they're LG that means any edition where it isn't explicitly stated it isn't the case, but then realized that sounds like the kind of argument I'd make if I was Lawful :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Such people only exist in fiction. Here's a suggestion: stop eating Cheerios. That way, nobody can pee in them each morning to put you into a sour mood. :smallwink: (the tone of voice in this post is intended to be playful)

[Kardwill]

These are embodiments of their respective alignments. A Chaotic deva that can't lie seems, once more, a rather contradictory embodiment of the chaotic alignment,

As I see it, Devas are not embodiment of "Chaotic Good" or "Lawful Good", but of "really, really Good". And in that context, an angel not lying doesn't suprise me : "Thievery, lying and deception can be used for good, sure, but they are pretty bad themselves and I'm good personified, so let's not do it, m'kay?" It doesn't really inform us wether she's a proponent of a strong protective social order, or of personal freedom.

EDIT : massively ninja'ed!

On the other hand, even if all Devas were LG, the idea of a CG god with mostly Lawful dwarves worshippers having a LG assistant as administrative staff/lawyer/gatekeeper doesn't really shock me. Valhalla doesn't look like an exclusive, alignment-coded place like Celestia was.

How many Devas have we seen in the comic, already? The ones I think of (Celestia's gatekeeper and the Sapphire Guard summoned muscle) are certainly lawful, but are not really a neutral sample. There was an "angel" killed by Xykon in the "good dungeon", but I don't remember if we get to see their alignment?

[KorvinStarmast]

Clearly, you picked your username with a purpose in mind. Grey Wolf I am going to guess that it was picked with the purpose of sending a nod to Scott Kurtz's webcomic PvP -- while it would crack me up if it's Scott himself, I don't "hear" Scott's voice in those posts.

@Fryaltari: nice post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23315143&postcount=224). *tips chapeau*

[hamishspence]

How many Devas have we seen in the comic, already? The ones I think of (Celestia's gatekeeper and the Sapphire Guard summoned muscle) are certainly lawful, but are not really a neutral sample. There was an "angel" killed by Xykon in the "good dungeon", but I don't remember if we get to see their alignment?



Thor's bald green winged servitors are planetars - which, like devas, are angels - but a bit more powerful.

The being in Xykon's old tower was clarified as being a half-celestial human by The Giant:




That's not an angel. It's a half-celestial human. And she's like a 5th level fighter. True angels would have green skin, like Thor's planetar servant.

Feel better?

[factotum]

We don't know that the Dark One has lied about anything to anyone. Also according to Redcloak he doesn't consider the anihilation of every living gobbo's soul acceptable. He considers the Gods unmaking the world (therefore killing every gobbo and sending them to him) acceptable. That's different. It ain't good but it's better.


You'll have to give me a [citation needed] on that, because I don't think that's what Redcloak said at all. The conversation between him and his brother in Start of Darkness goes like this:


Right-Eye: But what if it goes wrong? What if you release the Snarl by accident?
Redcloak: Well, from what I know, there's a good chance it will destroy the world. Then the gods will restart with a new world, only this time, the Dark One will be involved from the start. He'll make sure that no humanoids get the short end of the stick. It's a win for him no matter what happens.
Right-Eye: But we'll be dead.
Redcloak: Oh, in that case? Definitely. Worse than dead, actually, since the Snarl destroys the souls of all it kills.


That conversation to me says that Redcloak knows that accidentally releasing the Snarl is a possible consequence of his actions, that this will result in the destruction of the world along with all of goblinkind (even down to their very souls), and that this would still be a win as far as the Dark One is concerned.

[Shining Wrath]

As regards devas, I think we're failing to distinguish between alignment and innate nature.

A chaotic orc may wish to fly, and believe fervently that they should be able to fly, but unless someone provides some sort of magical aid, they are not going to fly.


Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials.

A chaotic good deva can do whatever it wants, so long as it is good. However, by its innate nature, it cannot form the wish to lie, cheat, or steal, or be less than impeccably honorable. Why? It is precluded from doing so, by design of whoever decided what devas would be like (presumably, good-aligned deities). It's no more lawful than a non-flying orc. It was "born this way".

[Finagle]

A different slaadi, but only sometimes.
♪23 blue and gray slaad at the door
23 blue and gray slaad
Strike one down, they gate in two more
24 blue and gray slaad at the door ♬

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, Fred Roger's would likely disagree with you. In a very polite and respectful way, and maybe ask why you feel that way, and almost certainly have a friendly discussion with you about it.:smallsmile:
Fred Rogers famously curated his behavior consciously, and did not spontaneously act in the way described.

[Keltest]

Fred Rogers famously curated his behavior consciously, and did not spontaneously act in the way described.

Im sorry Zimmerwald, but anybody who is attacking the character of Fred Rogers is trying to be miserable or wrong on purpose.

[Worldsong]

Fred Rogers famously curated his behavior consciously, and did not spontaneously act in the way described.

Thinking about what you do before you do it so you don't do something you'd regret afterwards is a technique often used by people trying to be a positive force in the world, yes.

EDIT: on a more serious note, we can't see into the minds of others, therefore we can never be sure how exactly they think. For any action someone makes you can think of various thoughts that may have motivated them to act in such a manner, and those thoughts can range from naively benevolent to manipulatively malicious. As such, no matter how nice, positive or selfless someone acts someone else can always find an explanation for why they might not actually have had positive intentions.

The issue here is that doesn't make those explanations right. It just makes the person who makes those explanations incapable of accepting any perspective which isn't their own, because they can always find an explanation which fits their own perspective. In short, they become incapable of seeing when they're wrong.

This often combines with someone thinking that cynicism is deep wisdom, when often it's just being unnecessarily negative in an unproductive manner.

[zimmerwald1915]

Thinking about what you do before you do it so you don't do something you'd regret afterwards is a technique often used by people trying to be a positive force in the world, yes.
It is also exceptionally Lawful. The person described by Skull the Troll was described as acting that way spontaneously, as a Chaotic person. That is the sort of person that doesn't exist in reality.

[Resileaf]

Oh, man, according to Zimmerwald, I'm a fictional character!

[Finagle]

Fred Rogers famously curated his behavior consciously, and did not spontaneously act in the way described.
Wow, just wow. What's it like going through life with such a negative outlook? Go outside. Breathe. Eat, pray, love.

[Worldsong]

It is also exceptionally Lawful. The person described by Skull the Troll was described as acting that way spontaneously, as a Chaotic person. That is the sort of person that doesn't exist in reality.

The difference between Chaotic and Lawful is not "One thinks ahead before they act and the other acts impulsively."

Also, as the rest of the comments have already shown pretty much everyone disagrees with the idea that such a person doesn't exist in reality. You only addressed the one who provided an example of which you could make a claim that it wasn't spontaneous.

[zimmerwald1915]

Also, as the rest of the comments have already shown pretty much everyone disagrees with the idea that such a person doesn't exist in reality. You only addressed the one who provided an example of which you could make a claim that it wasn't spontaneous.
I'm on a phone and can't really reply to everything. Especially not repeated and conclusory expressions of incredulity.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Apparently by the time I'd posted, there was a big alignment argument in this thread, and also a kerfuffle about appropriated Jewish culture being mashed up with something the Nazis tainted. I'm so glad I decided not to read all of it!



I disagree with your assessment of the Lawful character here. Lawful doesn't mean "obeys the law"--while a lawful character is probably more likely to do so than otherwise, they're still not going to obey a law they don't personally agree with. Otherwise a Paladin would have a real problem in the Empire of Blood, where many of the local laws would totally contradict their personal code! So, your LN NPC is not going to eat chicken, even if the law demands it, if they don't like chicken or are a vegetarian.
I agree with what I'm pretty sure your intent is, but you need to phrase it better. After all, CG people are practically defined by only obeying laws they personally agree with. A better way to phrase it might be something like "LG people don't follow laws which they feel are immoral and/or given by an illegitimate authority".



Considering my past experiences I think I can truthfully say that this doesn't appear to be the case.
I have met both bad people, good people, and people in between. The idea that there are no good people is as detrimental to society as the existence of bad people.
I think zimmerwald is saying that nobody is always good, which is true. (But then, I tend to assume the best of people.)



Wow, yikes. It seems like yesterday that I caught up to the strip when Gladiator A was making his arena debut, one strip prior to his disembowelment via kitty.
EDIT: Strip #779, to be precise. 2010 was eight years ago...
Let's see...I think the most recent strip when I started reading was 584 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), and that I'd caught up two strips later?



Seconded. Except the bit about the worst happening to goblins being Redcloak's fault. The comic is pretty clear there is a widespread tendency to attack the goblins on sight. Not everyone share it but many do.
As both DM and player, I can confirm this is a common attitude. Not one I try to perpetrate, but also one I don't try to fight.
There's probably some kind of social commentary in there, but the boat's rocking hard enough without it.


As this book shows Gods are much more limited in what they are allowed by other gods to do than in what they could do. They don't want to risk another Snarl.
As the last panel of this very strip shows the behaviour of Thor's Clerics is not necessarily representative of of Thor's ideals.
It's entirely possible that if he'd Fallen each of his Clerics that treats goblins as walking target, most of them would switch over to, say, Sunna, and he'd end up like Hel but with even less souls and the goblins wouldn't be better for it while Surtur, Fenrir and Loki would. Or not. It's a risky bet either way.
If the gods limited themselves so much that they can't even go down to their followers to tell them to knock off whatever they're doing, or express their distaste with anything between "nothing" and "YOU NOW LOSE EVERYTHING!" (not even a basic "Three strikes" system), then someone needs to get new blood into the pantheon. So keep up the good work, elves and goblins. And also Elan.
Also, this whole conversation is reminding me too much of apologetics trying to weasel their way out of the Problem of Evil, so bear that in mind. I might be filling in things you don't say in ways you didn't intend.



This directly contradicts both what I have already said and basic logic.
That's kinda the point of reducto ad absurdium. It's taking the premises and logic behind someone else's argument, then constructing an argument using them and certain mutually-agreed-upon facts and logical constructs to produce an absurd conclusion (hence the name). This indicates that at least one of the premises or some of the logic must be faulty.



The being in Xykon's old tower was clarified as being a half-celestial human by The Giant:
Clarified, handwaved to justify something other people cared about much more than he did, either way.



A chaotic good deva can do whatever it wants, so long as it is good. However, by its innate nature, it cannot form the wish to lie, cheat, or steal, or be less than impeccably honorable. Why? It is precluded from doing so, by design of whoever decided what devas would be like (presumably, good-aligned deities). It's no more lawful than a non-flying orc. It was "born this way".
I'd argue that being inherently good does not prevent you from taking chaotic actions for the greater good, than being inherently lawful prevents you from taking evil actions if that is what your legal code/code of honor tells you to do. And as someone who considered himself more or less Lawful Good, I do think that dishonorable actions can be good. It's rare that they are the most good option to take, but such instances do occur.

[Shining Wrath]

Quote from me:
A chaotic good deva can do whatever it wants, so long as it is good. However, by its innate nature, it cannot form the wish to lie, cheat, or steal, or be less than impeccably honorable. Why? It is precluded from doing so, by design of whoever decided what devas would be like (presumably, good-aligned deities). It's no more lawful than a non-flying orc. It was "born this way".

Quote from GreatWyrmGold
I'd argue that being inherently good does not prevent you from taking chaotic actions for the greater good, than being inherently lawful prevents you from taking evil actions if that is what your legal code/code of honor tells you to do. And as someone who considered himself more or less Lawful Good, I do think that dishonorable actions can be good. It's rare that they are the most good option to take, but such instances do occur.

My argument is that a creature can be almost completely free-willed but still incapable of making certain decisions that go against their nature. Devas are simply constructed to not do certain things, and they can't lie, cheat, steal, or be dishonorable any more than a bog-standard orc can fly. It doesn't matter where on the Law-Chaos axis a deva finds themselves; they don't decide whether or not to lie according to their alignment, they simply cannot decide to lie, by decree of their creator(s). For a deva, it doesn't matter if you consider lying to be lawful or chaotic; it's just not an option.

This raises the interesting question of a deva forced into a situation where lying was the Good choice; see innumerable jerk DM threads about "How can I make my player's Paladin fall?" for ideas. Presumably they'd try to force a 3rd option into the situation, such as attacking the evildoer who had backed them into such a moral corner.

[Fish]

Thinking about what you do before you do it so you don't do something you'd regret afterwards is a technique often used by people trying to be a positive force in the world, yes.
I would characterize it as "a technique often used by people with a functioning frontal lobe," neither inherently good nor evil. It is the part of the brain that helps we humans learn the consequences of actions and predict (or hypothesize) certain future outcomes as a result of our behavior.

I would not, therefore, categorize the activity as one only carried out by those trying to be a positive force. Forethought can also be used as a negative force in the world, because "thinking about what you do before you do something you would regret" covers a lot of ground. It is which things you would personally regret that differ. In D&D terms, almost all characters would use their frontal lobe to refrain from sticking a leg into the campfire, or running headlong into the Tomb of Horrors without a bundle of handy ten-foot poles. A Good character might use their frontal lobe to prevent accidentally causing harm to someone. An Evil character might use their frontal lobe to realize that it wouldn't be a good idea to let that eyewitness live long enough to go running off to the night watch.

[Shining Wrath]

I would characterize it as "a technique often used by people with a functioning frontal lobe," neither inherently good nor evil. It is the part of the brain that helps we humans learn the consequences of actions and predict (or hypothesize) certain future outcomes as a result of our behavior.

I would not, therefore, categorize the activity as one only carried out by those trying to be a positive force. Forethought can also be used as a negative force in the world, because "thinking about what you do before you do something you would regret" covers a lot of ground. It is which things you would personally regret that differ. In D&D terms, almost all characters would use their frontal lobe to refrain from sticking a leg into the campfire, or running headlong into the Tomb of Horrors without a bundle of handy ten-foot poles. A Good character might use their frontal lobe to prevent accidentally causing harm to someone. An Evil character might use their frontal lobe to realize that it wouldn't be a good idea to let that eyewitness live long enough to go running off to the night watch.

Further, a chaotic good character can think very carefully about which choice maximizes personal freedom not only for themselves but for others. Chaotic is not random, nor is it carefree and thoughtless.

[Ruck]

Im sorry Zimmerwald, but anybody who is attacking the character of Fred Rogers is trying to be miserable or wrong on purpose.

Imagine believing that there are no good people because good people are thoughtful, LOL. Or even just believing that there are no people whose instinct is to do the right thing.

The miserable edgelord thing seems cool when you're like fifteen, but most people grow out of it by adulthood.