Eugene's final destination?

[NRSASD]

So I'm a little confused. I know that since Eugene is an oath spirit, he can't go on to the afterlife. However, since he has been dead, his actions certainly don't seem in line with being Lawful Good.

Is his oath preventing him from going to any afterlife?
Is he still going to get in to Mount Celestia once the oath is lifted?
Has the Giant said anything about this?

As always, thanks for any and all help!

[RatElemental]

To answer the questions as well as I know how:

Probably
Probably?
I don't believe so other than the initial explanations

[Kish]

I would say: Yes, probably not, and no.

As you observe, he hasn't been acting Lawful Good, and it appears to me that Rich has taken pains to never show him in a positive light. Some people regularly argue that we should fill in the details of a Lawful Good adventurer's career offpanel, because he's outside Celestia, but...it would have cost Rich nothing to show Eugene actually doing something to help someone else somewhere, maybe in place of one of the panels where he argues that it would benefit him personally if Roy let the world end. If "grouchy but Lawful Good" was truly the impression Rich was trying to create.

[Jasdoif]

Has the Giant said anything about this?I'm only aware of one vague comment that likely doesn't qualify:


And as far as talking to people with a different point of view, doesn't Eugene offer counter proof that statement? Supposing that there was a Eugne-clone identical in all respects to Roy's father, except that there wasn't the unfulfilled Blood Oath barring him from heaven. Would not Eugene-clone and Roy have plenty to disagree about, despite the identical entry in the alignment section of their character sheet?Is Eugene in Celestia yet?

Also, what Kish said. None of Eugene's actions that we've seen before he was dead seem especially LG, either. To the point that I suspect we're going to have a dramatic reveal at some point on what Eugene did to be considered for the LG afterlife in the first place.

[Roland Itiative]

I believe Eugene hasn't even had that talk with an angel, like Roy did, where he got his life evaluated and then it was decided that he was trying to be LG, and that was enough to let him enter.

I'm imagining Eugene won't do so well in the same evaluation, and will be either thrown down to the Lawful Neutral or even True Neutral afterlife. He thinks he will enter Celestia, and that's why he's in the clouds outside of the plane (are those clouds even specifically outside of Celestia? Or just outside of the afterlife planes in general?).

[hroþila]

I believe Eugene hasn't even had that talk with an angel, like Roy did, where he got his life evaluated and then it was decided that he was trying to be LG, and that was enough to let him enter.

I'm imagining Eugene won't do so well in the same evaluation, and will be either thrown down to the Lawful Neutral or even True Neutral afterlife. He thinks he will enter Celestia, and that's why he's in the clouds outside of the plane (are those clouds even specifically outside of Celestia? Or just outside of the afterlife planes in general?).
He did, and the worst thing the deva could mention was editing his own Wikipedia article. However, the question would be: did the deva look at the whole file, or was that simply as far as he got before he noticed the blood oath? The scene strongly suggests the lattest, I'd say.

I see several possibilities here:
–That Eugene died LG but is acting LN or rather True Neutral post-mortem, and that will keep him out of Celestia when Xykon is defeated.
–As above, but any post-mortem alignment shifts won't be considered, so he'll enter Celestia.
-That he wasn't LG when he died, but ended up at the front door of Celestia simply because that's how he perceived himself (perhaps Nale seeing himself as LE but not acting very LE-like could be mentioned here). In this case, once his whole file is reviewed, he'll be tossed to a different afterlife.

[Peelee]

He did, and the worst thing the deva could mention was editing his own Wikipedia article. However, the question would be: did the deva look at the whole file, or was that simply as far as he got before he noticed the blood oath? The scene strongly suggests the latter, I'd say.

Meanwhile, I'd wager they do things by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), which says devas need to evaluate Eugene regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may or may not be in effect.

Presuming they didn't withhold the final judgement from Eugene, I'd say he knows the deal and expects go get in Celestia. I also privately theorize that its akin to a pre-approval and can be rescinded for acting like a complete asshat while dead (this, of course supposed that acts committed between death and afterlife acceptance can alter said acceptance).

[Keltest]

Meanwhile, I'd wager they do things by the book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), which says devas need to evaluate Eugene regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may or may not be in effect.

Presuming they didn't withhold the final judgement from Eugene, I'd say he knows the deal and expects go get in Celestia. I also privately theorize that its akin to a pre-approval and can be rescinded for acting like a complete asshat while dead (this, of course supposed that acts committed between death and afterlife acceptance can alter said acceptance).

Given that dead souls are supposed to be incapable of meaningful change or growth, im going to hazard a guess that no, what Eugene does on the cloud will not affect his afterlife status.

[Peelee]

Given that dead souls are supposed to be incapable of meaningful change or growth, im going to hazard a guess that no, what Eugene does on the cloud will not affect his afterlife status.

I'm aware if what the Giant said, I just choose to interpret it a little differently than you. I also wont be terribly surprised if I'm wrong.

[factotum]

I believe Roy's Archon said something like "I believe we're past the point where that's a realistic possibility" when Roy said "Damn you!" to his father, so at the very least whatever Eugene does isn't going to consign him to Hell. Beyond that, not enough information to judge.

[Kish]

Roy's Archon could easily be wrong.

That said, I don't think Rich is writing Eugene the way he'd write a character the audience would want to see go to the Nine Hells, either.

[woweedd]

Depends on if the afterlife does re-evaluations. If not, then he's till Celesia-bound. If they do re-evaluate him...I'm pretty sure the best he can hope for is a nice place in Excelsior.

[zimmerwald1915]

Roy's Archon could easily be wrong.

That said, I don't think Rich is writing Eugene the way he'd write a character the audience would want to see go to the Nine Hells, either.
He had Eugene suggest mass dwarf suicide as a solution to the current plotline. Sounds right up Baator's alley.

[woweedd]

He had Eugene suggest mass dwarf suicide as a solution to the current plotline. Sounds right up Baator's alley.
OK, I know you're the last person this logic would convince, but Eugene seems a lot less bad then V, and, last I checked, V's still counted as True Neutral. Plus, an Evil person wouldn't care about the Dwarves one way or the other. He at least suggested a possible solution to get them not to go to Hel, albeit still willing to let the world get destroyed for a purely selfish reason. Seems solidly TN to me.

[Fyraltari]

I haven't read the prequels but is it possible that Eugene was a better person before Eric's death?

[Kish]

I haven't read the prequels but is it possible that Eugene was a better person before Eric's death?
Logic tells us no one can prove a negative, so of course, it's possible.

But, as I said above, Rich has carefully never shown a single panel of Eugene actually going out of his way to help anyone else, at any point (unless bringing Master Fyron takeout counts, which I don't think it does). That includes the prequels.

[Keltest]

Logic tells us no one can prove a negative, so of course, it's possible.

But, as I said above, Rich has carefully never shown a single panel of Eugene actually going out of his way to help anyone else, at any point (unless bringing Master Fyron takeout counts, which I don't think it does). That includes the prequels.

Given that this is not Eugene's story, im rather hesitant to call it done "carefully". We only ever see him in the context of Roy's interactions, and Roy doesn't like him.

[Goblin_Priest]

Given that dead souls are supposed to be incapable of meaningful change or growth, im going to hazard a guess that no, what Eugene does on the cloud will not affect his afterlife status.

I tend to be of the same opinion.

With the added precision that I think that not only is he not capable of growth anymore, but that even if he was, I don't think it'd be part of his final judgement, which, imo, probably only applies to "his life on the material plane", i.e. while he while alive.

[Ruck]

I've made the case before, but I do not believe Eugene will end up in Celestia. (Frankly, given what we've seen of him, I'm not sure how he got so far along in the process in the first place.) Everything we've seen from him has been entirely self-serving; he doesn't even seem to have much consideration for his own family, let alone other people; he's willing to commit acts that are gross violations of Lawfulness and Goodness (kidnapping a celestial to hijack a summoning), and holding an attitude that genocide and mass murder are acceptable as long as they somehow result in his getting into Celestia.

What I don't know is how it will happen. Maybe the Deva tells him "Ordinarily, we don't consider actions after death, but then again, incorporeal spirits don't usually act to affect the Material Plane the way you have." Maybe he gets in and tries to see his family, only for some power that be to remind him of his promise to Roy and kick him back out.

I do think it's telling that the child Eugene is closest to is confirmed True Neutral.

[Rrmcklin]

To be perfectly honest, I've never thought much about it, because it ultimately isn't particularly important.

If I were to wager a guess I'd say, "probably".

[Peelee]

To be perfectly honest, I've never thought much about it, because it ultimately isn't particularly important.

I, too, only ever think of things that are important.

[Keltest]

I do think it's telling that the child Eugene is closest to is confirmed True Neutral.

On the other hand, the Child that Eugene has had the most impact on is confirmed Lawful Good.

[Rrmcklin]

I, too, only ever think of things that are important.

Okay then, how about "interesting". I don't care about the character enough to want him to suffer or anything, and whether he does or doesn't he'll never be interacting with anyone in his family (per his agreement with Roy) making it even less meaningful.

I guess it's a question of whether he'll be "slipping through the cracks" or whether he did things in life that would warrant him going there, but I'm not super invested in that either. I feel like the simplest answer is "he did" because it raises fewer questions, whatever his behavior is now.

[Goblin_Priest]

I've made the case before, but I do not believe Eugene will end up in Celestia. (Frankly, given what we've seen of him, I'm not sure how he got so far along in the process in the first place.) Everything we've seen from him has been entirely self-serving; he doesn't even seem to have much consideration for his own family, let alone other people; he's willing to commit acts that are gross violations of Lawfulness and Goodness (kidnapping a celestial to hijack a summoning), and holding an attitude that genocide and mass murder are acceptable as long as they somehow result in his getting into Celestia.

What I don't know is how it will happen. Maybe the Deva tells him "Ordinarily, we don't consider actions after death, but then again, incorporeal spirits don't usually act to affect the Material Plane the way you have." Maybe he gets in and tries to see his family, only for some power that be to remind him of his promise to Roy and kick him back out.

I do think it's telling that the child Eugene is closest to is confirmed True Neutral.

Honestly, what puzzles me the most is how he got there to begin with. Do all humans go to Celestia before getting booted out to their proper plane? Even in life, all we know of him makes him look pretty self-serving, unprincipled, with a tendency to abandon everything he commits to, including people, including his family.

[Keltest]

Honestly, what puzzles me the most is how he got there to begin with. Do all humans go to Celestia before getting booted out to their proper plane? Even in life, all we know of him makes him look pretty self-serving, unprincipled, with a tendency to abandon everything he commits to, including people, including his family.

He proclaimed himself to be Lawful Good, so they got first judgment on him.

[Rrmcklin]

Honestly, what puzzles me the most is how he got there to begin with. Do all humans go to Celestia before getting booted out to their proper plane? Even in life, all we know of him makes him look pretty self-serving, unprincipled, with a tendency to abandon everything he commits to, including people, including his family.

We see that Lee was getting a ton of soldiers from Tarquin's army that the Order was killing, so, no.

As others have made, we've only seen a very narrow, very specific range of Eugene's life.

[Ruck]

On the other hand, the Child that Eugene has had the most impact on is confirmed Lawful Good.

I don't think "the child Eugene disdained and was constantly at odds with turned out Lawful Good" is evidence Eugene is Lawful Good.

[Keltest]

I don't think "the child Eugene disdained and was constantly at odds with turned out Lawful Good" is evidence Eugene is Lawful Good.

And I don't think "the child with the same class as Eugene and who isn't an adult yet isn't Lawful Good" is evidence against him being Lawful Good either. But youre the one who brought up the alignment of his children.

[woweedd]

At this point in time, I feel it best to remind all present that just because Eugene was, by all indications, a terrible father, doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a good person. As anyone who has parented, or who has worked in social service, can tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then being not-a-jerk, and even "Good" people can screw it up for a thousand different reasons. I mean, i'll note, I highly suspect Horace wasn't the best parent to Eugene either, and, indeed, in-comic evidence seems to suggest their bad parenting has created a vicious cycle (ie Horace spurned Eugene's desire to be a Wizard, Eugene hated Roy's wish to become a Fighter, and, as the Girard illusion indicates, Roy seems to, at least in part, project his feelings for Eugene upon the entire Wizard class), to the point where Roy himself noted that part of Eugene's bad feelings towards the path he [Roy] took in life was probably BECAUSE Eugene was reminded of his bad relationship with his own father. Point here being, as Horace shows, being a good person and being a good parent are different skill sets.

[zimmerwald1915]

At this point in time, I feel it best to remind all present that just because Eugene was, by all indications, a terrible father, doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a good person. As anyone who has parented, or who has worked in social service, can tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then being not-an-*******, and even "Good" people can screw it up for a thousand different reasons. I mean, i'll note, I highly suspect Horace wasn't the best parent to Eugene either, and, indeed, in-comic evidence seems to suggest their bad parenting has created a vicious cycle (ie Horace spurned Eugene's desire to be a Wizard, Eugene hated Roy's wish to become a Fighter, and, as the Grand illusion indicates, Roy seems to, at least in part, project his feelings for Eugene upon the entire Wizard class),to the point where Roy himsel notest that part of Eugene's bad feelings towards the path he [Roy] took in life was probably BECAUSE Eugene was reminded of his bad relationship with his own father. Point here being, as Horace shows, being a good person and being a good parent are different skill sets.
Horace was right, though. Wizards are uniformly awful people.

[woweedd]

Horace was right, though. Wizards are uniformly awful people.
...Speaking of people projecting their issues with one member of a class upon the entirety of it...
EDIT: Quoting myself so as not to get ignored due to being on the tail-end of the last page:

At this point in time, I feel it best to remind all present that just because Eugene was, by all indications, a terrible father, doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a good person. As anyone who has parented, or who has worked in social service, can tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then being not-a-jerk, and even "Good" people can screw it up for a thousand different reasons. I mean, i'll note, I highly suspect Horace wasn't the best parent to Eugene either, and, indeed, in-comic evidence seems to suggest their bad parenting has created a vicious cycle (ie Horace spurned Eugene's desire to be a Wizard, Eugene hated Roy's wish to become a Fighter, and, as the Girard illusion indicates, Roy seems to, at least in part, project his feelings for Eugene upon the entire Wizard class), to the point where Roy himself noted that part of Eugene's bad feelings towards the path he [Roy] took in life was probably BECAUSE Eugene was reminded of his bad relationship with his own father. Point here being, as Horace shows, being a good person and being a good parent are different skill sets.

[Keltest]

Horace was right, though. Wizards are uniformly awful people.

<citation needed>

Seriously dude, this is a completely insupportable claim.

[woweedd]

<citation needed>

Seriously dude, this is a completely insupportable claim.
Zimmer hates V (understandable) and, so, has decided that all Wizards are uniformly Evil and must be eradicated for the good of man. (Not understandable.) And, no, i'm not sure Zimmer gets the obvious irony there...

[Keltest]

Zimmer hates V (Understandable) and, so, has decided that all Wizards are uniformly Evil and must be eradicated for the good of man.

Yes, im perfectly aware. That's not a particularly good reason to be saying stupid things though.

[woweedd]

Yes, im perfectly aware. That's not a particularly good reason to be saying stupid things though.
Veering a little into Personal Attacks there...

[Keltest]

Veering a little into Personal Attacks there...

Sorry, but my patience for Zimmer's threadcrapping runs thin at the moment.

[Rrmcklin]

Though I know not to engage with Zimmer, I'll point out that Horace never said anything about Wizards being terrible people. He just wasn't one for intellectual pursuits, apparently, so he and Eugene couldn't bond.

[zimmerwald1915]

Though I know not to engage with Zimmer, I'll point out that Horace never said anything about Wizard's being terrible people. He just wasn't one for intellectual pursuits, apparently, so he and Eugene couldn't bond.
And he is indisputably Lawful Good. Whereas threads wondering about what Eugene's alignment could be crop up every month.

[woweedd]

Though I know not to engage with Zimmer, I'll point out that Horace never said anything about Wizard's being terrible people. He just wasn't one for intellectual pursuits, apparently, so he and Eugene couldn't bond.
Fair, but, judging by Eugen's reaction to encountering him, I got the sense he was...Maybe not AS bad a parent, but still pretty distant.


And he is indisputably Lawful Good. Whereas threads wondering about what Eugene's alignment could be crop up every month.
You have successfully proved TWO Wizards are bad people, in your estimation. Congratulations.

[Rrmcklin]

zfair, but, judging by Eugen's reaction to encounter him, I got the sense he was...Maybe not as bad a parent, but still pretty distant.


You have successfully proved TWO Wizards are bad people, in your estimation. Congratulations.

Definitely. Remember, he could his master that Xykon killed (the entire reason for the blood oath) "more of a father to me than my old man ever was" or something like that.

[Kish]

Though I know not to engage with Zimmer, I'll point out that Horace never said anything about Wizard's being terrible people. He just wasn't one for intellectual pursuits, apparently, so he and Eugene couldn't bond.
Yes, this.

Horace on his problems with Eugene: "Always telling me how stupid I was."
Eugene on his problems with Roy: *constant jabs about Roy being a mere fighter*

Both of these look like cases of Eugene acting abusive toward somebody else.

[woweedd]

Definitely. Remember, he could his master that Xykon killed (the entire reason for the blood oath) "more of a father to me than my old man ever was" or something like that.
Indeed. It's pretty much classic...Well, "Cycle Of Abuse" may be a bit too strong, but you get the idea. Hopefully, Roy won't end up the same if one of his possible kids decides to become a Wizard, although the illusion does indicate some hang-ups about it.

Yes, this.

Horace on his problems with Eugene: "Always telling me how stupid I was."
Eugene on his problems with Roy: *constant jabs about Roy being a mere fighter*

Both of these look like cases of Eugene acting abusive toward somebody else.
There's also a few brief jabs about Eugene "always having his nose in a book", never taking to "the way men are supposed to bond with their offspring", and Panels 2 and 3 here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0601.html), which explicitly parallels Roy's relationship with Eugene to Eugene's relationship to Horace. "I have nothing to say to my father." "Neither do I, yet you keep showing up." Their relationship seems, if anything, mutually unhealthy. Eugene didn't respect his father, and his father doesn't seem to have done anything waranting of respect, as a parent, at least.

[factotum]

Even in life, all we know of him makes him look pretty self-serving, unprincipled, with a tendency to abandon everything he commits to, including people, including his family.

"a tendency to abandon everything he commits to"--but he commits to those things for *years*. He spent years hunting down Xykon. He spent years making his wife happy. If your definition of LG requires someone to give up their entire lives for one commitment regardless of any other consideration then your definition of LG is far too strict.

[Goblin_Priest]

At this point in time, I feel it best to remind all present that just because Eugene was, by all indications, a terrible father, doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a good person. As anyone who has parented, or who has worked in social service, can tell you, there's a lot more to being a good parent then being not-a-jerk, and even "Good" people can screw it up for a thousand different reasons. I mean, i'll note, I highly suspect Horace wasn't the best parent to Eugene either, and, indeed, in-comic evidence seems to suggest their bad parenting has created a vicious cycle (ie Horace spurned Eugene's desire to be a Wizard, Eugene hated Roy's wish to become a Fighter, and, as the Girard illusion indicates, Roy seems to, at least in part, project his feelings for Eugene upon the entire Wizard class), to the point where Roy himself noted that part of Eugene's bad feelings towards the path he [Roy] took in life was probably BECAUSE Eugene was reminded of his bad relationship with his own father. Point here being, as Horace shows, being a good person and being a good parent are different skill sets.

Eh...

There's "good parent", and "Good parent". The latter being a reference to the alignment system we are discussing. The former relating how how competent the person is at the task of parenting.

Nuance aside, we haven't seen Eugene be either.

And when it comes to "Good", sure, some "Good" people try hard, and fail. But that's strictly at the competence level. Once you go closer to judgement, and moral decisions... Well, Eugene damned his offspring with a blood oath that he didn't bother telling them about, and after a while didn't bother trying to finish up. That's arguable Evil, but can we at least agree that "damning another person's soul without their consent" isn't really in the "Good" domain?

It also doesn't scream "Law". Nor was capturing the angel to usurp a legitimate court and fake his way to rig a judgement. That screams chaos all over. Abandoning your family doesn't scream "Lawful" either. Nor is abandoning your blood oath, and all the other things he gave up on.

Honestly, Eugene always looked more like CN to me. "Good" is about altruism, and we've not seen any from him. Law is about adhering to codes of behavior that are above simple self-interest, we haven't seen any of that either.

[Rrmcklin]

"a tendency to abandon everything he commits to"--but he commits to those things for *years*. He spent years hunting down Xykon. He spent years making his wife happy. If your definition of LG requires someone to give up their entire lives for one commitment regardless of any other consideration then your definition of LG is far too strict.

His reasoning for abandoning the oath after years was certainly understandable. If he actually had a better understanding of it, he probably would have kept at it.

As far as his marriage goes, marriages go south. While that certainly does seem to be on him, failing at marriage hardly highlights someone as "not good".

[woweedd]

His reasoning for abandoning the oath after years was certainly understandable. If he actually had a better understanding of it, he probably would have kept at it.

As far as his marriage goes, marriages go south. While that certainly does seem to be on him, failing at marriage hardly highlights someone as "not good".
As stated: Good person. so-so husband, and a downright bad parent.

[ti'esar]

While ultimately I don't think this is answerable yet, I do have to say that I've always agreed with Kish: Eugene has been so consistently portrayed as unpleasant, seeming to grow worse every time, that it really feels like from a pure narrative perspective a setup for him not getting into Celestia.

(Also, while this is a pure guess, the fact that we saw him do so in the happy ending illusion makes me think it won't actually happen).

[The Pilgrim]

My thoughts on the issue:

1) The Giant has wrote a lot of LG characters as awful people with awful thoughts. And they do not stop being LG unless they murder they liege in cold blood (and even then, the alignmet shift was never fully confirmed). I even remember a Paladin openly resenting having to keep a LG alignment in order to keep his paladin powers.

2) Eugene was cleared for Celestia by the Deva. Meaning his behaviour while alive was kosher with going to Celestia.

3) For those arging that we have never been shown Eugene in a good light or helping anyone, as far as I remember we saw him rushing to his master's defense when Xykon attacked, trying to get him resurrected by all means, then swearing a revenge oath agains Xykon because of murdering Fyrion. This is also the sole instance we have seen him in a meaningful scene not related to his family life.

4) I'm pretty sure Eugene is convinced that, being dead and already judged, his actions no longer affect his final destination at the afterlife. Remember a certain fiend who said that the fastest way to make someone decent do awful things was by making him believe he is not responsible for his actions, like giving him a non-alcoholic beer?

5) Eugene's spirit is stuck in a place were everything is ultimately shaped by thought, alone in a cloud, with no other idea to focus on than getting the blood oath fulfilled. Yes, he has gone cuckoo, like he himself admitted.

This said, I do not know were will Eugene end up as final destination. His spirit was bound for Celestia, and now seems to be sinking to Pandemonium. He can play the victim and say it was the fault of the Celestial Powers for ditching him, yet the Celestials can reply that he shouldn't take oaths if he can't take the heat of fulfilling them without going mad.

[Psyren]

I don't think Eugene is heading for Celestia either. For one thing, going somewhere else will make his secondary oath (to Roy) very easy to keep, and he made it far too readily in my eyes to be overly broken up if that comes to pass. And for two, his actions on the cloud to me have been moderate to major - lying to a deva, impersonating a deva(?), whatever he did to be able to subdue and tie one up etc.

Having said that however, "Not Celestia" doesn't mean he's bound for any planes in the ventral position either, especially when Roy's Archon already ruled those out. He/It could certainly be wrong, but I'd have to assume that most celestials are authorities on the subject until and unless proven otherwise.

[Mordokai]

My thoughts on the issue:

1) The Giant has wrote a lot of LG characters as awful people with awful thoughts. And they do not stop being LG unless they murder they liege in cold blood (and even then, the alignmet shift was never fully confirmed). I even remember a Paladin openly resenting having to keep a LG alignment in order to keep his paladin powers.

I'm... pretty sure that was just a jab at your regular murder hobo paladin that most DnD players end up playing/portraying, with an added bonus of lack of self reflection the guy in question is displaying by saying that line. In fact, it reminds me of my younger self that chose LG alignment in Baldur's Gate: Shadows of Amn "because you get the highest starting Reputation"(I'm not not proud of thinking like that, but in my defense, I was very young and very stupid). In fact, all evidence point to the fact that character in question is LG in name only.


3) For those arging that we have never been shown Eugene in a good light or helping anyone, as far as I remember we saw him rushing to his master's defense when Xykon attacked, trying to get him resurrected by all means, then swearing a revenge oath agains Xykon because of murdering Fyrion. This is also the sole instance we have seen him in a meaningful scene not related to his family life.

There's an entire trope based around that. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes)


4) I'm pretty sure Eugene is convinced that, being dead and already judged, his actions no longer affect his final destination at the afterlife. Remember a certain fiend who said that the fastest way to make someone decent do awful things was by making him believe he is not responsible for his actions, like giving him a non-alcoholic beer?

Surprisingly enough... there's a trope for that as well. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark) There may be a better one, but I think this one fits the bill well enough.

For my own two cents... I haven't a clue. The guy is displayed as very unlawful and very ungood, everytime we see him. Yes, it's cherry picked way of showing him(and mostly from a guy who doesn't like him), so there's obviously some bias there. And yet, the actions we do see(impersonationg a deva that whole dwarven massacre for a personal gain thingie)... yeah, would I be the celestial authorithy in question, I would take his file under scrutiny again.

In conclusion, I know there's a precedent set(if in words only) that a soul's destination can't be changed once it's been judged already. To that I say... are we sure Eugene has been judged yet? And second, it's such a juicy aversion of a trope that I would be honestly surprised if Rich didn't take it.

[The Pilgrim]

In fact, all evidence point to the fact that character in question is LG in name only.

And, still, he kepts his LG alignment and thus goes to the LG afterlife.


There's an entire trope based around that. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes)

I recall that TVtrope being invoked a lot during the Blood Runs in the Family arc. It fell to pieces after we saw Tarquin's true face regarding his sons. Redcloak in SoD gives us another example adverting it. The Giant doesn't seems a fan of that Trope regarding his villiains. He seems more on the stance of "caring for anyone else other than yourself drives you away from the Evil path".

In any case, I was just replying to an opinion shared in this thread that Eugene has never been shown in good light in the Comic.


Surprisingly enough... there's a trope for that as well. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark) There may be a better one, but I think this one fits the bill well enough.

It's interesting that you invoke that Trope just when The Giant has debunked it as resolution of a Major Plot Point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1130.html)("You are what you are on your worst day... and yoy also are who you are the next day, and the day after that...").

If you are going to argue with me regarding things in the comic, then you should point at things shown in the comic, not to the TVTropes. Quoting the TVTropes doesn't gives you any particular authority or insight into things.

[Mordokai]

And, still, he kepts his LG alignment and thus goes to the LG afterlife.

Conjecture at best.


I recall that TVtrope being invoked a lot during the Blood Runs in the Family arc. It fell to pieces after we saw Tarquin's true face regarding his sons. Redcloak in SoD gives us another example adverting it. The Giant doesn't seems a fan of that Trope regarding his villiains. He seems more on the stance of "caring for anyone else other than yourself drives you away from the Evil path".

Funnily enough, your argument is under the OotS entry almost ad verbum. Or maybe not that, but it does point Tarquin out as a zizagged trope. But there are other examples, ones that prove the trope is still in effect in this very webcomic.


It's interesting that you invoke that Trope just when The Giant has debunked it ("You are what you are on your worst day... and yoy also are who you are the next day, and the day after that...").

I honestly don't see how this applies to the case of Eugene. Though that may be the case of me not being a native speaker. I could also make an argument that one case does not mean that everybody else can be treated equally, but I somehow get the feeling I'd be shooting my own foot with that.


In any case, if you are going to argue with me regarding things in the comic, then you should point at things shown in the comic, not to the TVTropes.

I have no interest in arguing with you. I pointed out what I considered flaws in your argument, simply because I considered it interesting. And I used tvtropes because it's a good base to put your arguments on and because I find it easier to remember sources from it, rather than from 1000+ comics from here. And because I thought it was pertaining to topic.

[The Pilgrim]

Conjecture at best.

While a character can think himself as of any particular alignment without being really part of it, what makes Paladins interesting for alginment debates is that they fall and lose their paladin powers the very moment they stop being LG. Tough they can fall and still be LG, being a Paladin is proof that they are LG, otherwise they wouldn't be Paladins.


I honestly don't see how this applies to the case of Eugene.

Me neither. But I was not the one who invoked that Trope. What I said was that I think Eugene is probably acting the way he is acting because he believes his actions no longer have consequences on his record. Which may turn up to end rather bad for him. Also, being forced on a single thought is driving him insane. Specially as he is in a place when everything is defined by thoughts.


But there are other examples, ones that prove the trope is still in effect in this very webcomic.

I'm sure that Mr Rich Burlew, as any self-respecting author, laughts at the notion that he must subdue his story to the demands of the TVTropes.

[Kish]

4) I'm pretty sure Eugene is convinced that, being dead and already judged, his actions no longer affect his final destination at the afterlife. Remember a certain fiend who said that the fastest way to make someone decent do awful things was by making him believe he is not responsible for his actions, like giving him a non-alcoholic beer?
This is supposed to be some kind of defense of Eugene or argument that Eugene is bound for Celestia, right? It's in a list of such arguments, but it looks like anything but.

Also, Pilgrim, you made a claim that the cartoonishly evil paladin in On the Origins of PCs is bound for Celestia. You need to support it, not just insist that it's somehow part of the definition of paladins and if TVTropes says otherwise that proves it.

[Peelee]

I don't think Eugene is heading for Celestia either. For one thing, going somewhere else will make his secondary oath (to Roy) very easy to keep, and he made it far too readily in my eyes to be overly broken up if that comes to pass. And for two, his actions on the cloud to me have been moderate to major - lying to a deva, impersonating a deva(?), whatever he did to be able to subdue and tie one up etc.

Having said that however, "Not Celestia" doesn't mean he's bound for any planes in the ventral position either, especially when Roy's Archon already ruled those out. He/It could certainly be wrong, but I'd have to assume that most celestials are authorities on the subject until and unless proven otherwise.
I agree with everything Psyren said here.

And, still, he kepts his LG alignment and thus goes to the LG afterlife.
Says who? Roy was far better than that and still almost got kicked over to the True Nuetral afterlife. What alignment you technically keep in life demonstrably does not necessarily dictate on what afterlife you get admitted to.


I recall that TVtrope being invoked a lot during the Blood Runs in the Family arc. It fell to pieces after we saw Tarquin's true face regarding his sons. Redcloak in SoD gives us another example adverting it. The Giant doesn't seems a fan of that Trope regarding his villiains. He seems more on the stance of "caring for anyone else other than yourself drives you away from the Evil path".


Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly*despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through.*

[Mordokai]

While a character can think himself as of any particular alignment without being really part of it, what makes Paladins interesting for alginment debates is that they fall and lose their paladin powers the very moment they stop being LG. Tough they can fall and still be LG, being a Paladin is proof that they are LG, otherwise they wouldn't be Paladins.

There is such thing as fallen paladin.


Me neither. But I was not the one who invoked that Trope. What I said was that I think Eugene is probably acting the way he is acting because he believes his actions no longer have consequences on his record. Which may turn up to end rather bad for him. Also, being forced on a single thought is driving him insane. Specially as he is in a place when everything is defined by thoughts.

At this point, I honestly have no more of an idea what is that you're trying to prove, neither what I was trying to prove. Must be the stress of exams getting to me.


I'm sure that Mr Rich Burlew, as any self-respecting author, laughts at the notion that he must subdue his story to the demands of the TVTropes.

That's... not even remotly close to what I was trying to say. And since I have neither the time, not patience to go on any longer, lets just agree to disagree.

And with that, I'm out.

[Keltest]

This is supposed to be some kind of defense of Eugene or argument that Eugene is bound for Celestia, right? It's in a list of such arguments, but it looks like anything but.

Also, Pilgrim, you made a claim that the cartoonishly evil paladin in On the Origins of PCs is bound for Celestia. You need to support it, not just insist that it's somehow part of the definition of paladins and if TVTropes says otherwise that proves it.

It IS part of the definition of paladins. Its literally a class requirement. A paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good falls. Ergo, empowered paladin = Lawful Good.

[Peelee]

It IS part of the definition of paladins. Its literally a class requirement. A paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good falls. Ergo, empowered paladin = Lawful Good.

The devas seem to be more discerning, though.

[Keltest]

The devas seem to be more discerning, though.

So what? He's an empowered paladin, ergo he is at least technically Lawful Good. You can grouse about how its only technical all you want, but at the end of the day, he's LG enough for paladin powers and therefore LG enough for an afterlife. At worst he might get chewed out for only obeying the letter of his alignment, not the spirit, but you aren't really providing anything that actually says he isn't LG.

[The Pilgrim]

This is supposed to be some kind of defense of Eugene or argument that Eugene is bound for Celestia, right? It's in a list of such arguments, but it looks like anything but.

It is part of my thoughts on the issue, and my views on some of the things that have been debated in this thread.

My conclusion, derived from that flow of thoughts, is that Eugene was a decent LG person when alive, but now, deprived from the notion that he must answer for his actions, and isolated and focused on a single idea, is losing his mind. As shown in his last apparition to Roy. Unless that last scene was just meant as a jab from The Giant to all the insane theories on the Forums, and Eugene and his final resting place aren't really important for Mr Burlew's story.

[Peelee]

So what? He's an empowered paladin, ergo he is at least technically Lawful Good. You can grouse about how its only technical all you want, but at the end of the day, he's LG enough for paladin powers and therefore LG enough for an afterlife. At worst he might get chewed out for only obeying the letter of his alignment, not the spirit, but you aren't really providing anything that actually says he isn't LG.

I dont remember anyone saying he wasn't still Lawful Good, only that this alone doesn't get one into Celestia.

[Peelee]

So what? He's an empowered paladin, ergo he is at least technically Lawful Good. You can grouse about how its only technical all you want, but at the end of the day, he's LG enough for paladin powers and therefore LG enough for an afterlife. At worst he might get chewed out for only obeying the letter of his alignment, not the spirit, but you aren't really providing anything that actually says he isn't LG.

I dont remember anyone saying he wasn't still Lawful Good, only that this alone doesn't get one into Celestia. And since far less than what he did nearly got Roy booted, I'd take your bet that its technically enough for the LG afterlife.

[Keltest]

I dont remember anyone saying he wasn't still Lawful Good, only that this alone doesn't get one into Celestia. And since far less than what he did nearly got Roy booted, I'd take your bet that its technically enough for the LG afterlife.

Ok, granted he could technically go to one of the other flavors of Lawful Good afterlife, but that's mostly splitting hairs in the context of the greater argument on Eugene's alignment.

[Peelee]

Ok, granted he could technically go to one of the other flavors of Lawful Good afterlife, but that's mostly splitting hairs in the context of the greater argument on Eugene's alignment.

Again, Roy leaving Elan almost got him booted to TN. Actively trying to kill an ally because he annoyed you? I'd be amazed if he got into any Good afterlife.

ETA: If alignment was all that was required, why have devas at all? Why not just zap all applicants with Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, confirm results, and issue a ticket for the appropriate gate?

[Keltest]

Again, Roy leaving Elan almost got him booted to TN. Actively trying to kill an ally because he annoyed you? I'd be amazed if he got into any Good afterlife.

You go to the (or at least an) afterlife that matches your alignment. Youre basically saying you don't believe he was actually lawful good. Which would be a perfectly fair criticism if you were the DM at his table, but whichever celestial forces hand out paladin powers in the North have decided that he qualifies in their book.

Edit for your edit: Those spells don't actually detect alignment in the way youre thinking. A CN cleric of Loki for example would show up on Detect Evil.

[hamishspence]

You go to the (or at least an) afterlife that matches your alignment. Youre basically saying you don't believe he was actually lawful good. Which would be a perfectly fair criticism if you were the DM at his table, but whichever celestial forces hand out paladin powers in the North have decided that he qualifies in their book.

I could see there being a "lag" between a behaviour pattern, and power loss.

The guy has "stopped behaving LG" - but the gods haven't yet noticed and taken away his powers.

[Peelee]

You go to the (or at least an) afterlife that matches your alignment. Youre basically saying you don't believe he was actually lawful good.

Not at all. I believe he was LG. I also believe the entire purpose of a judicial system instead of an automated process is to judge whether or not such person qualifies for their afterlife. Their alignment just gets them to try for that afterlife first, it's not a guarantee to get in.

[The Pilgrim]

Says who? Roy was far better than that and still almost got kicked over to the True Nuetral afterlife. What alignment you technically keep in life demonstrably does not necessarily dictate on what afterlife you get admitted to.

And Roy would probably have shifted to TN had he not returned to help his friends. Had Roy been a Paladin, he would have lost his Paladin powers the very moment he turned on his friends, and would have got them back only after rescuing them and getting an attonement spell. But, Roy is no paladin, and loses no class features due to his ethical or moral decisions.

An idea that The Giant seems to be entertaining (particulary, regarding Nale), is that people in the OOTS world can believe to be from one alignment, but be of another. The Devas at Celestia make the judgement about if someone pretending to be LG is really LG and can be allowed to Celestia. But for Paladins, the LG powers are performing that judgement every day. So if a Paladin has died keeping his Paladin Powers, it means he has done nothing to be considered not LG.

But, well, given that The Giant has now shown that the OOTSverse adheres to the standard 16+1 outer planes cosmology, I can concede that a paladin on good standing might go to Arcadia or even Bytopia instead of Celestia, as Keltest stated.

[Peelee]

And Roy would probably have shifted to TN had he not returned to help his friends. Had Roy been a Paladin, he would have lost his Paladin powers the very moment he turned on his friends

Miko and Gin-Jun, at the very least, would disagree with you. Well, maybe not directly, but their characterizations.

[Keltest]

Miko and Gin-Jun, at the very least, would disagree with you. Well, maybe not directly, but their characterizations.

I haven't read HTPGHS so I cant comment on Gin-Jun, but Miko did in fact fall as soon as she acted against a person she theoretically cared about.

Also, im fairly certain there is a quote from the Giant to the effect of "celestia got first dibs on Roy's review because he declared himself to be LG", though its taking me some time to find it. I'll get back to you on it.

[Peelee]

Also, im fairly certain there is a quote from the Giant to the effect of "celestia got first dibs on Roy's review because he declared himself to be LG", though its taking me some time to find it. I'll get back to you on it.

Yeah, that follows exactly what I'm saying. That doesnt mean that it automatically accepts him, as we saw.

[Keltest]

Yeah, that follows exactly what I'm saying. That doesnt mean that it automatically accepts him, as we saw.

No, but we have other indicators besides the words of a Deva to judge the paladin with. Even if its just because the Cosmic Forces hadn't bothered to slap him down yet, the paladin was Lawful Good. Not just claiming to be Lawful Good, but actually LG enough for the Cosmic Forces of the Universe.

Edit: Found it!


There are only 17 Outer Planes; Roy's alignment would have to match one of them, because you can't not have an alignment. The deva only got "first look" because Lawful Good was the alignment Roy declared himself to be. It was his goal, and the review was to see if he had really met that goal. If he didn't, that would mean he actually had some other alignment, in which case the powers-that-be on that plane would have been happy to have him. Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example).

[The Pilgrim]

Miko and Gin-Jun, at the very least, would disagree with you. Well, maybe not directly, but their characterizations.


But the Gods granting them their Paladin Powers would have not. (I don't recall if we were shown Gin-Jun losing his paladin powers, but his death scene was powerful enough).

Interesting enough, for those gods, "you are Evil so I can just eviscerate you" was kosher enough to be LG. But not for Roy. Which is why Roy was a better example of LG than Miko. And O-Chul was a better paragon of LG than Gin-Jun. No wonder that the two paladin failures hated them so much, as for Miko and Gin-Jun, being a Paladin automatically gave them the moral high ground above anyone not a paladin.

[hroþila]

Could we not discuss any aspects of HtPGhS here, except within spoiler tags? Some of us are still waiting for our books to leave the shipping, processing and delivery hell in which they've been stuck for almost a month now.

[Kish]

But the Gods granting them their Paladin Powers would have not. (I don't recall if we were shown Gin-Jun losing his paladin powers, but his death scene was powerful enough).

Interesting enough, for those gods, "you are Evil so I can just eviscerate you" was kosher enough to be LG. But not for Roy. Which is why Roy was a better example of LG than Miko. And O-Chul was a better paragon of LG than Gin-Jun. No wonder that the two paladin failures hated them so much, as for Miko and Gin-Jun, being a Paladin automatically gave them the moral high ground above anyone not a paladin.
How do you get from there to the implication that if Gin-Jun had died the day before he did, he would have been waved into Celestia?

[The Pilgrim]

How do you get from there to the implication that if Gin-Jun had died the day before he did, he would have been waved into Celestia?

From the fact that had he done anything regarded by the Celestials as incompatible with a LG alignment, he would have lost his Paladin Powers on the spot.

And, yes, we can agree that those LG gods let their Paladins get away with too much. But that doesn't changes the fact that such awful characters are allowed to be LG by the OOTSverse. We are discussing D&D Alignment, not real morality.

And The Giant does critiquize the flaws on the Alignment System, but, on my opinion, his critique would lose weight if such flaws were not mechanically exploitable on his D&D-based world. Miko as a character would have been pointless if she had been a TN fighter without the bonus feats from scratch.

[Kish]

From where I'm standing, you just posted a non-sequitur one step above "because his eyes were blue." Roy presumably would have glowed green to Detect Good if someone had cast it just after he abandoned Elan; that mysteriously did not translate to "it says Lawful Good on your character sheet, go right in" when he died.

So we can agree on nothing.

Edited in response to your edit: Miko's purpose, as stated by Rich, was to demonstrate that someone can be both good and an antagonist. Whether she succeeded at that or failed, making the distinction you're arguing for between alignment and morality would turn that aspect of her narrative purpose to mush right out of the gate; if being "Good" and being good have nothing to do with each other, proving that one of the former can be a villain has all the weight of, again, proving that someone with blue eyes can be.

[The Pilgrim]

As someone already pointed out, Detect Evil/Good doesn't works that way. And Roy did indeed registered as Evil just because he was carrying Xykon's crown. But he was still LG.

What I am saying regarding the Paladins is very different because it is impossible to be a Paladin without being LG. And if you are LG you get into the LG afterlife.

[Keltest]

From where I'm standing, you just posted a non-sequitur one step above "because his eyes were blue." Roy presumably would have glowed green to Detect Good if someone had cast it just after he abandoned Elan; that mysteriously did not translate to "it says Lawful Good on your character sheet, go right in" when he died.

So we can agree on nothing.

Edited in response to your edit: Miko's purpose, as stated by Rich, was to demonstrate that someone can be both good and an antagonist. Whether she succeeded at that or failed, making the distinction you're arguing for between alignment and morality would turn that aspect of her narrative purpose to mush right out of the gate; if being "Good" and being good have nothing to do with each other, proving that one of the former can be a villain has all the weight of, again, proving that someone with blue eyes can be.

Antagonist is not synonymous with villain. Belkar is a villain. He is also a protagonist.

[Goblin_Priest]

"Good" does not necessarily mean "Nice", and I think we've had ample demonstrations to this effect.

Miko was not nice, at all. I wouldn't go so far as to argue that she was overly "good", but, at the very least, she wasn't overly "non-good". She dedicated her life to a good cause, even if she did so... inadequately.

Eugene is not "nice". This fact alone doesn't mean he's not "Good", but... there's also very little to suggest that he did anything truly "Good".

Avenging the death of his mentor? Anyone of any alignment could do that, doesn't make you "Good".

We've only ever seen Eugene as a self-serving narcissist that cares nothing for the well-being of others, such as by giving up on his blood oath and thus cursing his offsprings' souls. A truly good character would not damn any innocent's soul over petty revenge.

[Emanick]

"Good" does not necessarily mean "Nice", and I think we've had ample demonstrations to this effect.

Miko was not nice, at all. I wouldn't go so far as to argue that she was overly "good", but, at the very least, she wasn't overly "non-good". She dedicated her life to a good cause, even if she did so... inadequately.

Eugene is not "nice". This fact alone doesn't mean he's not "Good", but... there's also very little to suggest that he did anything truly "Good".

Avenging the death of his mentor? Anyone of any alignment could do that, doesn't make you "Good".

We've only ever seen Eugene as a self-serving narcissist that cares nothing for the well-being of others, such as by giving up on his blood oath and thus cursing his offsprings' souls. A truly good character would not damn any innocent's soul over petty revenge.

I certainly don't dispute Eugene's status as a self-serving narcissist, but he didn't know until it was too late that giving up on the Blood Oath would keep him out of Celestia, let alone that it could do the same to his offspring.

[Kish]

He might not have known exactly what the results would be, but as of On the Origins of PCs, he knew before he died that the Blood Oath of Vengeance would bind Roy and Julia until it was fulfilled and would follow him into the afterlife.


What I am saying regarding the Paladins is very different because it is impossible to be a Paladin without being LG. And if you are LG you get into the LG afterlife.
So, in your view, a declared Lawful Good character who isn't a paladin goes through the review process Roy did, and may be sent off to the True Neutral afterlife. A paladin just gets automatically waved in to the afterlife. Or alternatively, they get a "review" which consists of "you're a paladin, go on in." No matter what they acted like as long as they didn't actually fall. Am I getting it right?

[The Pilgrim]

So, in your view, a declared Lawful Good character who isn't a paladin goes through the review process Roy did, and may be sent off to the True Neutral afterlife. A paladin just gets automatically waved in to the afterlife. Or alternatively, they get a "review" which consists of "you're a paladin, go on in." No matter what they acted like as long as they didn't actually fall. Am I getting it right?

According to my view, a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions. Because he is granted powers for being a living embodyment of LG ideals.

Therefore, if he has not fallen, when he gets to the doors of Celestia, the most that can happen to him or her is to be sent to Arcadia or Bytopia instead. Because had he done amything on his or her life to be denied passage to a LG afterlife, he or she would have lost his or her Paladin Powers. Only exception would be if the Paladin actually died performing a henious act and thus never technically "fell" due to lack of time.

[Peelee]

And if you are LG you get into the LG afterlife.

This is the premise I take issue with. Just being an alignment does not by fiat guarantee you to get into that afterlife. Unless you firmly believe that Roy was, before he went back for Elan, not LG, then the deva herself confirms this.

If you do believe that, of course, then you should have pretty major issues with Gin-Jun and Durkon's first paladin.

Ones alignment is based on how well one follows the letter of the law. I believe that the afterlife judgement system is based on how well one follows the spirit of the law.

[Keltest]

He might not have known exactly what the results would be, but as of On the Origins of PCs, he knew before he died that the Blood Oath of Vengeance would bind Roy and Julia until it was fulfilled and would follow him into the afterlife.

So, in your view, a declared Lawful Good character who isn't a paladin goes through the review process Roy did, and may be sent off to the True Neutral afterlife. A paladin just gets automatically waved in to the afterlife. Or alternatively, they get a "review" which consists of "you're a paladin, go on in." No matter what they acted like as long as they didn't actually fall. Am I getting it right?

It would likely consist of "youre a paladin in good standing, go right ahead", but yes, that seems entirely plausible. Heck, we actually see somebody get pre-cleared to enter their afterlife like three strips ago!

[The Pilgrim]

This is the premise I take issue with. Just being an alignment does not by fiat guarantee you to get into that afterlife. Unless you firmly believe that Roy was, before he went back for Elan, not LG, then the deva herself confirms this.

According to The Giant:



There are only 17 Outer Planes; Roy's alignment would have to match one of them, because you can't not have an alignment. The deva only got "first look" because Lawful Good was the alignment Roy declared himself to be. It was his goal, and the review was to see if he had really met that goal. If he didn't, that would mean he actually had some other alignment, in which case the powers-that-be on that plane would have been happy to have him. Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example).

So, yes, if you are an alignment, you get into that afterlife.

Roy did not automatically swing to TN when he left Elan. He was, according to my view, on the verge of falling into it, and would have done so if at the end he had not come to his sense and rushed back to the rescue. Had he been a Paladin, in my oppinion he would have fallen just at the moment he left Elan, because Paladins are watched more closely and you can fall and still be LG (but as a Paladin you can't NOT fall and no longer be LG).

[Kish]

According to my view, a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions. Because he is granted powers for being a living embodyment of LG ideals.
So, in your view, what Gin-Jun and the paladin in Roy's first adventuring group did on-panel was less bad than any one of: 1) Roy's abandonment of Elan, 2) his association with Belkar, or 3) his general trend of chaotic behavior, since each of those placed his alignment in question at his review. That does specifically include that actively trying to get a loyal, self-sacrificing, and Lawful Good party member killed, repeatedly, because you can't understand his accent, and complaining that you'd lose your magic powers if you just stabbed him instead in place of expressing remorse, is less bad than leaving Elan with the bandits was. Correct?

[Peelee]

According to The Giant:



So, yes, if you are an alignment, you get into that afterlife.

Gee, "see if you really are that alignment" sounds like it totally reconciles with my "letter vs spirit" theory. Funny, that.

[Keltest]

Gee, "see if you really are that alignment" sounds like it totally reconciles with my "letter vs spirit" theory. Funny, that.

Let me put it this way. Roy gets one review when he dies, and possibly another if he dies again after making major life choices. Paladins are constantly being observed and reviewed. Ditto with clerics, to an extent. Theyre being actively observed to watch for if they go over the line, because it has consequences for them in life, not just in death. They simply don't have the same judgment process.

[hamishspence]

Paladins are constantly being observed and reviewed. Ditto with clerics, to an extent. Theyre being actively observed to watch for if they go over the line, because it has consequences for them in life, not just in death.
In the DMG, it suggests that it is possible for a DM to have made a mistake when assigning an alignment in the first place - example given was a "good" character who never helps anybody (and steals from people).

Maybe the same is applicable in-universe - the "forces of the cosmos" can be mistaken about an alignment - and take a long time to fix that mistake. Even with paladins.

If so - I could see "The Universe" assessing Origin of PCs paladin and saying "You were never LG - you getting assigned the LG alignment and being able to take paladin levels was a cosmic mistake".

[Keltest]

In the DMG, it suggests that it is possible for a DM to have made a mistake when assigning an alignment in the first place - example given was a "good" character who never helps anybody (and steals from people).

Maybe the same is applicable in-universe - the "forces of the cosmos" can be mistaken about an alignment - and take a long time to fix that mistake. Even with paladins.

If so - I could see "The Universe" assessing Origin of PCs paladin and saying "You were never LG - you getting assigned the LG alignment and being able to take paladin levels was a cosmic mistake".

Im not in love with that explanation because its akin to suggesting that sometimes the laws of physics just stop working for no reason sometimes, but I cant specifically say that isn't the case.

It does seem likely to me that Murderhobo Paladin will fall well before he dies, if only because his "I technically need to be LG" attitude is a very good indicator that he doesn't actually understand what that means and will openly cross a line at some point.

[Peelee]

Let me put it this way. Roy gets one review when he dies, and possibly another if he dies again after making major life choices. Paladins are constantly being observed and reviewed. Ditto with clerics, to an extent. Theyre being actively observed to watch for if they go over the line, because it has consequences for them in life, not just in death. They simply don't have the same judgment process.

Or, Roy has Lawful Good on his stat sheet, the universe sees no reason to change this unless a major event occurs (for example, a deity takes personal note of a massive breach of alignment and personally intervenes) and the devas sort it out at the end.

Otherwise, not to beat a dead horse here, but what is the point of having devas judge you? As you are very fond of pointing out, the existence of Paladins means that the universe can absolutely state an alignment at any given time, yet people are still judged.

[Keltest]

Or, Roy has Lawful Good on his stat sheet, the universe sees no reason to change this unless a major event occurs (for example, a deity takes personal note of a massive breach of alignment and personally intervenes) and the devas sort it out at the end.

Otherwise, not to beat a dead horse here, but what is the point of having devas judge you? As you are very fond of pointing out, the existence of Paladins means that the universe can absolutely state an alignment at any given time, yet people are still judged.

Well, there are what, three potential afterlives for a legitimate lawful good character to go to, right? Lawful and good in equal measure, and one favoring one of the two sides of the alignment.

[hamishspence]

Well, there are what, three potential afterlives for a legitimate lawful good character to go to, right? Lawful and good in equal measure, and one favoring one of the two sides of the alignment.

If deities are accounted for - a paladin can go to any afterlife that has a deity capable of "sponsoring paladins".

And deities can be one step away. Possibly a little more in rare cases.

LN deities can reside as "far down" as Acheron "I was just following orders".

[Keltest]

If deities are accounted for - a paladin can go to any afterlife that has a deity capable of "sponsoring paladins".

And deities can be one step away. Possibly a little more in rare cases.

LN deities can reside as "far down" as Acheron "I was just following orders".

I thought the one step rule was only for clerics?

[hamishspence]

Strictly, the paladin's "source of power" is the cosmic forces of law and good - but the afterlife of any divine caster is determined by what deity they take as a patron, going by Complete Divine.

[Peelee]

Well, there are what, three potential afterlives for a legitimate lawful good character to go to, right? Lawful and good in equal measure, and one favoring one of the two sides of the alignment.


That does specifically include that actively trying to get a loyal, self-sacrificing, and Lawful Good party member killed, repeatedly, because you can't understand his accent, and complaining that you'd lose your magic powers if you just stabbed him instead in place of expressing remorse, is less bad than leaving Elan with the bandits was.
So you believe the deva merely needs to determine what paradise awaits that person, yes?

[Keltest]

So you believe the deva merely needs to determine what paradise awaits that person, yes?

Assuming there wasn't some other determining factor that would make that decision for them, yes. We know for a fact that the interview process isn't strictly necessary, as Minrah got pre-approved to go into Valhalla, so there are clearly circumstances where the devas don't need to sit down with the soul and go over their life.

As far as Murderhobo Paladin goes, I don't really know what you expect me to say. He's objectively LG enough for paladin powers, regardless of whether he is actually morally good in any way that matters. Its pretty definitely a symptom of Rich trying to fit several group dynamics under the same universal ruleset, and I doubt it would fly with any actual group that was trying to play as anything other than a hack and slash game, but it is what it is.

[The Pilgrim]

So, in your view, what Gin-Jun and the paladin in Roy's first adventuring group did on-panel was less bad than any one of: 1) Roy's abandonment of Elan, 2) his association with Belkar, or 3) his general trend of chaotic behavior, since each of those placed his alignment in question at his review. That does specifically include that actively trying to get a loyal, self-sacrificing, and Lawful Good party member killed, repeatedly, because you can't understand his accent, and complaining that you'd lose your magic powers if you just stabbed him instead in place of expressing remorse, is less bad than leaving Elan with the bandits was. Correct?

In my view? No, it is not less bad. It is a lot more awful.

In the view of the Celestials? Roy behaviour was acceptable enough for a LG, because they left him in. And the behaviour of those Paladins was too, because they kept granting them powers as paragons of LG.

And it is the Celestials, not me, who grant access to the LG afterlife.

[Peelee]

Assuming there wasn't some other determining factor that would make that decision for them, yes.

Eh, suffice it to say I disagree.

[Kish]

In your view of the view of the Celestials, then. Do remember that you yourself said earlier, "According to my view, a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions," so at least then you were aware that you weren't speaking in terms of either established facts or agreed-upon premises.

How that makes sense to you, I never expect to know, but as least I'm clear on what your perspective is, now.

[Keltest]

Eh, suffice it to say I disagree.

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Im not really sure why you think its plausible that a deva would go "im sorry, but in spite of the Cosmic Forces of Law and Good giving you implicit approval and explicit confirmation that you count as Lawful Good, you aren't actually Lawful Good and cant get into Celestia. Sorry, have fun in Acheron!"

[The Pilgrim]

In your view of the view of the Celestials, then. Do remember that you yourself said earlier, "According to my view, a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions," so at least then you were aware that you weren't speaking in terms of either established facts or agreed-upon premises.

How that makes sense to you, I never expect to know, but as least I'm clear on what your perspective is, now.

That's a non sequitur, Kish. "My moral interpretation of something" is not the same as "my interpretation of the morals of a fantasy creature featured on a Comic".

It is a stablished fact in the Comic that the Paladin in Origins was not doing anything the Celestials considered grave enough to lose his Powers. Because he had not lost them. And it takes far less to lose Paladinhood than to change Alignment.

[hamishspence]

In the view of the Celestials? Roy behaviour was acceptable enough for a LG, because they left him in.

Only because he went back for Elan, and later demonstrated that he'd "learned his lesson" by making personal sacrifices for Elan.


The impression I get is that, at least regarding Roy "the alignment that he wrote on his character sheet" is less important than his behaviour.

Similar principles should apply to any other character - including paladins.


Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Im not really sure why you think its plausible that a deva would go "im sorry, but in spite of the Cosmic Forces of Law and Good giving you implicit approval and explicit confirmation that you count as Lawful Good, you aren't actually Lawful Good and cant get into Celestia. Sorry, have fun in Acheron!"

"Your file is going in the TN bin" or "Your file is going in the LN bin" - just like with Roy, had Roy not learned his lesson.

[Keltest]

"Your file is going in the TN bin" or "Your file is going in the LN bin" - just like with Roy, had Roy not learned his lesson.

Its the "you've been lied to for as long as you were a paladin" bit that seems implausible to me, not the "I wont let someone into celestia who isn't LG" bit. It would require the Forces of Law and Good to be completely separate from the Beings of Law and Good, and on a wildly different page to boot.

[Kish]

That's a non sequitur, Kish. "My moral interpretation of something" is not the same as "my interpretation of the morals of a fantasy creature featured on a Comic".

It is a stablished fact in the Comic that the Paladin in Origins was not doing anything the Celestials considered grave enough to lose his Powers. Because he had not lost them. And it takes far less to lose Paladinhood than to change Alignment.
It is an established fact that the paladin in question hadn't fallen. That is true.

However, what are you claiming is a non sequitur, now? You stated that it was your view that "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions"; are you now attempting to pass that off as an established fact as well?

"Eugene will get into Celestia and discover that it's full of awful people, because Lawful Good has nothing to do with actual morality" is a possible outcome but one that would greatly surprise me.

[The Pilgrim]

Only because he went back for Elan, and later demonstrated that he'd "learned his lesson" by making personal sacrifices for Elan.


The impression I get is that, at least regarding Roy "the alignment that he wrote on his character sheet" is less important than his behaviour.

Similar principles should apply to any other character - including paladins.

Yep. Agreed.

But, similar principles than those used to determine if a character is LG enough to get into a LG afterlife, should be being applied to determine if a character is LG enough to be granted divine powers as paragon of LG ideals. Shouldn't it?

[hamishspence]

It may be a case of "Once you've gotten the power, they don't pay much attention to your attitude or your deeds, until the attitude becomes blatantly nongood or the deeds become blatantly evil".

In other words - rather than receiving close oversight, they get less oversight.

[Kish]

Yep. Agreed.

But, similar principles than those used to determine if a character is LG enough to get into a LG afterlife, should be being applied to determine if a character is LG enough to be granted divine powers as paragon of LG ideals. Shouldn't it?
My answer is: Manifestly they are not. So "should" doesn't matter. The gods only check on their paladins when the paladins do something as big as "kill the ruler of your city and head of your order." It's irresponsible of those gods compared to the constant monitoring by unspecified forces that paladins have in most D&D settings, but better irresponsible than the sheer horror of "they review them constantly, and they nodded in approval at [OtOoPCs spoilers elided]."

[woweedd]

Yep. Agreed.

But, similar principles than those used to determine if a character is LG enough to get into a LG afterlife, should be being applied to determine if a character is LG enough to be granted divine powers as paragon of LG ideals. Shouldn't it?
I think Rich has stated it's entirely possible for a Paladin to do something Evil and not realize they've fallen. The Gods aren't actually monitoring their behavior constantly, as you seem to think, and Miko was a very special case. Given the gravity of what she did, and, i'd guess, the fact that she thought the Gods told her to, they felt the need to make it as clear as possible that she screwed up. Rich compared it to screwing up so bad that the CEO of your multinational company comes to your cubical to fire you personally.

[Peelee]

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Im not really sure why you think its plausible that a deva would go "im sorry, but in spite of the Cosmic Forces of Law and Good giving you implicit approval and explicit confirmation that you count as Lawful Good, you aren't actually Lawful Good and cant get into Celestia. Sorry, have fun in Acheron!"

Conversely, I can't see why you think its plausible that "Paladin who is actively trying to kill his ally be abuse he has trouble understanding the accent" gets an auto-pass into Celestia.

[hamishspence]

I think Rich has stated it's entirely possible for a Paladin to do something Evil and not realize they've fallen.




Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story.

So, a paladin can find out that they have fallen some time after they've done so - when they try to use magical power and can't.

And they may still not realise why.

In the 3.5 splatbook Tome of Magic

page 69

Michael Ambrose, a former paladin who is now garrison commander at the Seropaenean Tower of Woe (see page 100) once served on the council of a witch slayer coterie known as the White Swords. During his tenure with the coterie, Ambrose and his allies single-handedly captured or killed nearly fifty binders. The White Swords served the Church of St. Cuthbert and became famous throughout the civilized world for their effectiveness and righteous zeal.

However, the glory of this near-legendary group did not last. Perhaps because of his overly zealous efforts at exterminating binders, Michael eventually lost his paladin abilities. Still he pressed on, believing that his god was merely testing his faith. Slowly, Michael became less and less able to distinguish between the heretic and the innocent, and the atrocities he committed in the name of righteousness became infamous. At last, the White Swords cast him out of their coterie lest he tarnish their name further.

Appalled, Michael joined the Order of Seropaenes so that he could continue his mission for his god directly instead of through intermediaries who had obviously been blinded by evil. On occasion, the fact that he cannot communicate with his god disturbs him. He remains convinced, however, that this difficulty is merely a test, and that one day St. Cuthbert will shower him with blessings.
(Binders wield a form of magic considered heretical and dangerous by all the priesthoods of the Greyhawk setting- the Order of Seropaenes was formed to hunt them down and was founded by clerics of Evil, Neutral and Good deities. Michael Ambrose has gone all the way to Blackguard - having levels in that prestige class.)

[Goblin_Priest]

According to The Giant:



So, yes, if you are an alignment, you get into that afterlife.

Roy did not automatically swing to TN when he left Elan. He was, according to my view, on the verge of falling into it, and would have done so if at the end he had not come to his sense and rushed back to the rescue. Had he been a Paladin, in my oppinion he would have fallen just at the moment he left Elan, because Paladins are watched more closely and you can fall and still be LG (but as a Paladin you can't NOT fall and no longer be LG).

" Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
There are only 17 Outer Planes; Roy's alignment would have to match one of them, because you can't not have an alignment. The deva only got "first look" because Lawful Good was the alignment Roy declared himself to be. It was his goal, and the review was to see if he had really met that goal. If he didn't, that would mean he actually had some other alignment, in which case the powers-that-be on that plane would have been happy to have him. Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example)."

Oh, well I guess Eugene declaring himself to be LG, despite not matching it at all, would send him to Celestia for initial evaluation, after which he'd be sent off to Limbo or wherever.

[zimmerwald1915]

"Eugene will get into Celestia and discover that it's full of awful people, because Lawful Good has nothing to do with actual morality" is a possible outcome but one that would greatly surprise me.
Why? You've remarked several times that Mr. Burlew's bars for Neutrality and Goodness are significantly lower than yours. This would just be another instance of that.

[factotum]

Oh, well I guess Eugene declaring himself to be LG, despite not matching it at all, would send him to Celestia for initial evaluation, after which he'd be sent off to Limbo or wherever.

But why would Eugene have a reason to declare himself LG if he were an entirely different alignment? I could accept he might be a step away from his own self-image and be NG or LN, but to think himself LG when he's actually CN--almost the polar opposite alignment--is a bit far, IMHO.

[zimmerwald1915]

But why would Eugene have a reason to declare himself LG if he were an entirely different alignment? I could accept he might be a step away from his own self-image and be NG or LN, but to think himself LG when he's actually CN--almost the polar opposite alignment--is a bit far, IMHO.
Because LG is the single correct way to be - both Chaos and Evil are to be abhorred.

[The Pilgrim]

My answer is: Manifestly they are not. So "should" doesn't matter. The gods only check on their paladins when the paladins do something as big as "kill the ruler of your city and head of your order." It's irresponsible of those gods compared to the constant monitoring by unspecified forces that paladins have in most D&D settings, but better irresponsible than the sheer horror of "they review them constantly, and they nodded in approval at [OtOoPCs spoilers elided]."

Manifestly they are not? Why? Because they don't adhere to *your* morality? or *mine*? or *Rich Burlew's*?

In my oppinion, there is a vast gulf between what Rich Burlew believes is Good behaviour, and what the Mechanics under which the OOTSverse operate accepts as "Good-Aligned behaviour". And that is were a lot of the flavor of this Comic lies. The Deva judging Roy is giving us the author's perspective on how the Alignment System should work. The Paladin in Origins is a critique on how players try to power-play the alignment system. Miko and Gin-Jun are (among many other things) critiques to the notion that being a Good-aligned character is solely about killing Evil creatures. Yet they all are still, mechanically speaking, Lawful Good according to the D&D Rules, under which the OOTSverse works. Rich Burlew's critique wouldn't be so meaningful if they weren't. (And I know that at this point of the Comic, Rich Burlew's critiques goes beyond role-playing games and into real world morality and hipocrisy. But that would be grounds for a whole other debate).

According to the Rules, A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities. Meaning that, yes, Paladins are under constant review. And a Paladin who doesn't loses his powers, can't be anything but Lawful Good. Because a Paladin ceases to be one the very moment he ceases to be LG.

And I'm sure that there is a good chance that the Paladin in Origin's will end up Falling. Miko Fell. And I don't remember exactly what happens to Gin-Jun, but I remember that it wasn't funny Yet, still, they were allowed to be both awful people and LG.

And that is the relevant point to the topic of this thread. Eugene Greenhilt can be an as***le and awful person, but that doen't means he can't be LG. I used those paladins as an example of my point only because they are the ones I can objectively say are portayed as awful people with an LG alignment.

[Kish]

Manifestly they are not? Why?

Look at what the deva said to Roy again. Then look at what the paladin in On the Origins of PCs did.

Again: Are you claiming that "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions" is an established fact rather than your personal view, now? Yes or no.

If alignment has nothing to do with morality as you seem to be claiming, then there is no relevant message to be taken from anything about it. By the metric you're insisting on, of course Miko could be a Lawful Good antagonist, because being Lawful Good has nothing to do with being a good person, but why would any author think it was worth demonstrating that there could be a good-aligned antagonist? At which point you've made the comic much poorer in the name of not letting go of "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions."

[The Pilgrim]

Again: Are you claiming that "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions" is an established fact rather than your personal view, now? Yes or no.

Of course they are. Otherwise, they wouldn't fall the very moment they commit an evil act, or fail their LG alignment.


If alignment has nothing to do with morality as you seem to be claiming, then there is no relevant message to be taken from anything about it. By the metric you're insisting on, of course Miko could be a Lawful Good antagonist, because being Lawful Good has nothing to do with being a good person, but why would any author think it was worth demonstrating that there could be a good-aligned antagonist? At which point you've made the comic much poorer in the name of not letting go of "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions."

If, according to you, Miko's acting was good according to morality, then I'm definitely right when I argue that she was LG and, thus, Eugene can be both an awful person like Miko and still LG.

[Kish]

Oh, by all means. Point out where I said Miko's actions were good. Without going through an assumption of yours which I explicitly rejected...despite your repeated efforts to shove it into my mouth.

Of course they are.
Yeah, we're done. Have fun with that.

[woweedd]

Of course they are. Otherwise, they wouldn't fall the very moment they commit an evil act, or fail their LG alignment.



If, according to you, Miko's acting was good according to morality, then I'm definitely right when I argue that she was LG and, thus, Eugene can be both an awful person like Miko and still LG.
Again, the Gods don't monitor constantly. They'll take your powers if you do something REALLY bad, like, say, murdering your sworn master. But otherwise? They aren't constantly watching. The OOTS Gods are a lot more hands-off then Gods in other universes. They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. They check in often, but not at all times. Heck, Rich has stated it's possible for a Paladin to fall without noticing they have.

[zimmerwald1915]

They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.
Thor seemed to know Minrah's innermost, secret thoughts.

[woweedd]

Thor seemed to know Minrah's innermost, secret thoughts.
No, THOR knows, because she's prayed to him about them. Hearing prayers is literally the most basic Godly ability.

[hamishspence]

They Aren't constantly watching. The OOTS Gods are a lot more hands-off then Gods in other universes.n They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. They check in often, but not at all times. Heck, Rich has stated it's possible for a Paladin to not fall without noticing they have.
Indeed.



From the 3.5 book Heroes of Horror- as part of the guide to handling various PC classes as horror villains (page 31):


"A paladin has grown vicious and draconic in his interpretation of the law and is oppressing his people; he either does not realise or does not care that he is mere steps away from falling from his god's favor. (Perhaps an evil god or a demon lord is maintaining his powers without his awareness.)"


So, while "failure to fall" might be evidence of "never committing an Evil act" - this can be fudged.

[zimmerwald1915]

NO,m THOR knows, because she's prayed to him abut them. Hearing prayers is literally the most basic Godly ability.
Thor knew her name because she prayed to him for spells. Her secret innermost thoughts? That's in the moment clairvoyance.

[woweedd]

Thor knew her name because she prayed to him for spells. Her secret innermost thoughts? That's in the moment clairvoyance.
Given that she "worried about it for a while", I imagine she prayed to him for guidance at least once.

[Fyraltari]

Roy was judged by a Deva who does things according to "THE BOOK". Judging by Miko's fall, wether or not a paladin falls is decided by their patron deity. Different standards may be at play here.

Thor knew her name because she prayed to him for spells. Her secret innermost thoughts? That's in the moment clairvoyance.
A good part of being religious is praying to your god(s) of choice for guidance. He probably knew about that because she prayed for a sign or an illumination.

Then again, he apparently knew what Durkon had done to Durkon* (though he may have made an educated guess from Durkon#2's suicide by Belkar).

In any case to be omniscient you need not only to be able to know anything but to know everything. There are things Thor ignores ergo he is not omniscient.

[The Pilgrim]

Again, the Gods don't monitor constantly. They'll take your powers if you do something REALLY bad, like, say, murdering your sworn master. But otherwise? They Aren't constantly watching. The OOTS Gods are a lot more hands-off then Gods in other universes.n They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. They check in often, but not at all times. Heck, Rich has stated it's possible for a Paladin to not fall without noticing they have.

Yes, they are. After all, Belkar planned to make Miko fall by taunting her into murdering him. And nobody told him he was wrong in the assumption. If Gods aren't constantly monitoring and only retrieve your powers if you do something REALLY bad, then the Paladin from Origins could have just straight killed Durkon. But he was well aware that he could not get away with it.

There is no sign on the Comic that the normal rules about Paladins (you fall if you commit an Evil act, you fall if you stop being LG) isn't being enforced.

And Rich stated that a Paladin can fall without noticing he has. Yes. But he stated in the same paragraph that the Paladin would soon notice his paladin powers no longer working. "Paladin not noticing he has fallen" doesn't means he hasn't fallen.

[hamishspence]

In any case to be omniscient you need not only to be able to know anything but to know everything. There are things Thor ignores ergo he is not omniscient.

In Deities & Demigods, at least, Thor is a rank 18 deity (Greater). This means that, with Remote Sensing, he can do a lot.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#remoteSensing.

He can perceive up to 20 separate locations, and perceive everything within 18 miles of them.

These locations can be:

A worshiper, holy site, or other object or locale sacred to him.
Any place where someone speaks his name or title, for up to 1 hour after the name is spoken,
Any location when an event related to his portfolio occurs.

Regarding portfolio events - senses extend 18 weeks into the past and future.

[Fyraltari]

That's still not enough to qualify. That's, I dunno, polyscient? Multiscient? Hyperscient? But not omniscient.
Especially if other gods can hide stuff from him.

[Rrmcklin]

Since I haven't seen it mentioned, I'm just going to point out in that quote from The Giant about how getting into the afterlife works, he specifically mentions Eugene as an example of a special exception of a person whose view of themself truly matching their alignment not being admitted to the correct afterlife.

So on that front, it seems he's already answered that, yes, if not for the Blood Oath, Eugene would have been admitted to Celestia. If the bigger question is whether his actions as a spirit have sufficiently changed his alignment, I feel like that's probably worth discussion more.

Really, though I get finding it a bit unsatisfying, I don't really understand the skepticism when, again, this story isn't focused on Eugene's life, and we've only seen very brief snippets of him alive. We have no idea how he was when he was actually adventuring.

[woweedd]

Yes, they are. After all, Belkar planned to make Miko fall by taunting her into murdering him. And nobody told him he was wrong in the assumption. If Gods aren't constantly monitoring and only retrieve your powers if you do something REALLY bad, then the Paladin from Origins could have just straight killed Durkon. But he was well aware that he could not get away with it.

There is no sign on the Comic that the normal rules about Paladins (you fall if you commit an Evil act, you fall if you stop being LG) isn't being enforced.

And Rich stated that a Paladin can fall without noticing he has. Yes. But he stated in the same paragraph that the Paladin would soon notice his paladin powers no longer working. "Paladin not noticing he has fallen" doesn't means he hasn't fallen.
First of all, Belkar only mentioned this plan to one person, who seized on the more salient point of "what would you have done afterwards?" and, in any event, i'm pretty sure none of the party have enough Knowledge: Religion to know whether or not his plan would work. Personally, I doubt it, mostly because, in D&D, killing an unrepentant serial killer is not an Evil act. Also, i'm pretty sure killing a good person would count as an Evil act. And we do have some indication: Namely, Paladins have been shown doing things that, according to Rich, are Capital-E Evil and not, visibly, falling.

[Kish]

Since I haven't seen it mentioned, I'm just going to point out in that quote from The Giant about how getting into the afterlife works, he specifically mentions Eugene as an example of a special exception of a person whose view of themself truly matching their alignment not being admitted to the correct afterlife.

So on that front, it seems he's already answered that, yes, if not for the Blood Oath, Eugene would have been admitted to Celestia.

Can you rephrase your first paragraph?

The only quote I remember from him about Eugene and the afterlife is "Is Eugene in Celestia yet?" which pretty clearly implied that there is a reason related to Eugene's morality for him not to be in Celestia. But I gather you're referring to some quote that says the opposite?

[The Pilgrim]

Personally, I doubt it, mostly because, in D&D, killing an unrepentant serial killer is not an Evil act.

Killing an unarmed, submitted foe is enough for a Falling.


Namely, Paladins have been shown doing things that, according to Rich, are Capital-E Evil and not, visibly, falling.

Examples? Because as far as I remember, Rich stated that paladins fell out of screen due to some of those Capital Evil acts.

[Fyraltari]

Can you rephrase your first paragraph?

The only quote I remember from him about Eugene and the afterlife is "Is Eugene in Celestia yet?" which pretty clearly implied that there is a reason related to Eugene's morality for him not to be in Celestia. But I gather you're referring to some quote that says the opposite?

I read that as him not being he Celestia means he hasn't even begun the process that turns every soul there into copies of one another.

Also regarding Eugene and the End of the world: first it seems that people are judged on their acts, not on what they say, alignment wise and he has not done anything to bring doomsday about.
Second, he only wishes for everyone what he wants for himself, so while it's very self-centered (since it doesn't acknowledge that different people have different priorities) I wouldn't call it evil, especially since he doesn't want the Dwarves to go to Hel.

Finally somebody upthread brought up the "to convince good people to do evil you only have to make them believe they are not responsible for their actions" fiendish arguments. While there is truth to this. It doesn't apply to Eugene because, while he may (wrongly?) believe he is not accountable for what he does after death, he is still responsible for it (like hijacking Shojo's summoning). Then again the arguments he makes for Roy letting the world end : "the Gods would be doing the killing" is an exemple of how he wouldn't be feeling responsible while being so, if he was in Roy's shoes.

[woweedd]

Killing an unarmed, submitted foe is enough for a Falling.



Examples? Because as far as I remember, Rich stated that paladins fell out of screen due to some of those Capital Evil acts.
1. Belkar is neither of those things.
2. That guy from GDGU? Who does pretty much the same stuff the SOD people did?

[TriciaOso]

Roy was *not* "almost kicked over to True Neutral. He was almost sent to Neutral Good. His goodness was not in question, only his Lawfulness. See 490.

[Fyraltari]

He was for abandonning Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html).

By the way that whole "Chaotic methods for Lawful ends but try to be Lawful", wouldn't that qualify him for that "Let's all do our part" Plane? Is that what the Deva is referring as NG in 490?

[hamishspence]

He was for abandonning Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html).

By the way that whole "Chaotic methods for Lawful ends but try to be Lawful", wouldn't that qualify him for that "Let's all do our part" Plane? Is that what the Deva is referring as NG in 490?

"Everyone should care (Elysium)" is the "purely NG" afterlife. "Let's all do our part (Bytopia)" is intermediate between NG and LG.

It is possible that (had he been rejected) his file would go to Elysium to be reviewed there, and only if they think Bytopia is a better fit than them (given that Celestia'd already rejected him) - would they then pass it to Bytopia.

[Rrmcklin]

Can you rephrase your first paragraph?

The only quote I remember from him about Eugene and the afterlife is "Is Eugene in Celestia yet?" which pretty clearly implied that there is a reason related to Eugene's morality for him not to be in Celestia. But I gather you're referring to some quote that says the opposite?

I'm referring to this:


….Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example).

Using Eugene as an example of an exception is being pretty upfront about saying he would have gotten in with no problems otherwise.

[Fyraltari]

Oh that makes sense, thank you.

[hamishspence]

Using Eugene as an example of an exception is being pretty upfront about saying he would have gotten in with no problems otherwise.

The point is, because of the Blood Oath, Eugene can't get into any afterlife, until the oath is fulfilled.

[Rrmcklin]

The point is, because of the Blood Oath, Eugene can't get into any afterlife, until the oath is fulfilled.

That frankly strikes me as a much stretchy-er interpretation of that line. He says people truly of X alignment usually have no issue getting into the planes that fit that alignment, except under special circumstances, and uses Eugene as an example. The context and intent seems pretty clear.

[Kish]

Thanks.
Edited to add: Found what you were citing. The full text of that paragraph is:

There are only 17 Outer Planes; Roy's alignment would have to match one of them, because you can't not have an alignment. The deva only got "first look" because Lawful Good was the alignment Roy declared himself to be. It was his goal, and the review was to see if he had really met that goal. If he didn't, that would mean he actually had some other alignment, in which case the powers-that-be on that plane would have been happy to have him. Generally speaking, a character who really is alignment X on the inside will be admitted to plane X with no problems, except in certain special circumstances (Eugene, for example).
I agree with hamishspence. That says that Eugene has an alignment and would be in that afterlife, except the Blood Oath is keeping him out. It doesn't say that alignment is Lawful Good; it doesn't contradict and override the implications of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34) line.

[The Pilgrim]

1. Belkar is neither of those things.

I'm pretty sure he was (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html)


2. That guy from GDGU? Who does pretty much the same stuff the SOD people did?

You mean the guy that got the flip from a LG Planetar when he asked her to perform an Evil act, was expelled from the Shappire Guard for breaking the Paladin Code the very moment he assaulted and injured an unarmed man, and finally got executed by a member of the Shappire Guard after assaulting the man again and trying to kill the helpless woman who interposed herself in between? Looks like once he began performing Evil acts, it didn't work very well for him or his paladinhood.

[Rrmcklin]

Thanks.
Edited to add: Found what you were citing. The full text of that paragraph is:

I agree with hamishspence. That says that Eugene has an alignment and would be in that afterlife, except the Blood Oath is keeping him out. It doesn't say that alignment is Lawful Good; it doesn't contradict and override the implications of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19683417&postcount=34) line.

I see your point. However, from looking further down that thread I think it could be argued he was talking more about the general "being of the same alignment doesn't mean people will see eye to eye" and the fact that the process of being in the afterlife strips people of individuality so that they're all basically alignment clones.

As an example, Roy and his mother both made it to Celestia but they clearly had different views on Eugene himself.

But, I concede that things might not be as clear as I thought they were.

[TriciaOso]

He was for abandonning Elan.

"
I think you need to reread those two strips. "If you hadn't gone back for him, I would've ruled you as True Neutral" is not "you're close to being True Neutral now." There was absolutely zero risk that Roy's assessment would end up with him in a non-Good afterlife, as the deva says explicitly in 490. Not even a blip on the old malevometer.

[Ruck]

And I don't think "the child with the same class as Eugene and who isn't an adult yet isn't Lawful Good" is evidence against him being Lawful Good either. But youre the one who brought up the alignment of his children.

I think it's better evidence than what you said, because their closeness could be in part indicative of a shared value system, especially when contrasted with Eugene and Roy's relationship.


Really, though I get finding it a bit unsatisfying, I don't really understand the skepticism when, again, this story isn't focused on Eugene's life, and we've only seen very brief snippets of him alive. We have no idea how he was when he was actually adventuring.

Because everything we've seen of him in-strip-- including when he was alive, but extremely so after he died-- shows someone primarily motivated by self-interest and self-regard, and to some of us it would be a major flaw of characterization to write a character that way consistently and then declare "his alignment is like jazz: the Lawful Good music is in the notes you aren't hearing."


At this point in time, I feel it best to remind all present that just because Eugene was, by all indications, a terrible father, doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a good person.

Sure, but frankly, I don't think the text has any strong indicators Eugene is a good (or Good) person. Certainly not anything on the level of the evidence we have that he's motivated by self-interest and self-regard more than anything else.


We've only ever seen Eugene as a self-serving narcissist that cares nothing for the well-being of others

Bingo!

EDIT:


"
I think you need to reread those two strips. "If you hadn't gone back for him, I would've ruled you as True Neutral" is not "you're close to being True Neutral now." There was absolutely zero risk that Roy's assessment would end up with him in a non-Good afterlife, as the deva says explicitly in 490. Not even a blip on the old malevometer.

The former, however, is what's relevant to the context of the conversation that is being had now. "If abandoning Elan would have been bad enough to get Roy kicked to True Neutral, how is it that you are sure these Paladins who have done worse things will be judged Lawful Good?" is not a question that is answered with "Roy didn't abandon Elan, so he wasn't in danger of getting kicked to True Neutral."

[Goblin_Priest]

But why would Eugene have a reason to declare himself LG if he were an entirely different alignment? I could accept he might be a step away from his own self-image and be NG or LN, but to think himself LG when he's actually CN--almost the polar opposite alignment--is a bit far, IMHO.

Because it's a pretty sweet afterlife?

Limbo doesn't sound anywhere near as nice as Celestia.

[Sir_Norbert]

Examples? Because as far as I remember, Rich stated that paladins fell out of screen due to some of those Capital Evil acts.

What Rich actually said was: The scene in SOD is from Redcloak's point of view, so we don't get to see whether any of those paladins Fell or not. This is my paraphrase, but if you want the exact quote, it was linked in the last couple of pages of this topic.

Ever since, everyone and his dog has quoted Rich saying "some of those paladins definitely did Fall" when the actual quote does not say this.

[zimmerwald1915]

If abandoning Elan would have been bad enough to get Roy kicked to True Neutral, how is it that you are sure these Paladins who have done worse things will be judged Lawful Good?" is not a question that is answered with "Roy didn't abandon Elan, so he wasn't in danger of getting kicked to True Neutral."
Also not an answer, more a series of unrelated musings:

How sure are we that the True Neutral bureaucracy would have been willing to take Roy? What happens if, upon review, they decide that no, he's actually more well-suited to Lawful Good? Does he get kicked between planes (and intermediate planes) until one of them is willing to take him? Or does the True Neutral bureaucracy have to accept anyone rejected from anywhere without further review? If the former, what happens if no afterlife thinks Roy matches them better than some other? He has to end up somewhere, right? Does the last plane in line have to take him? Or does he float around on a cloud for all eternity despite not being an Oathspirit?

[Mike Havran]

"
I think you need to reread those two strips. "If you hadn't gone back for him, I would've ruled you as True Neutral" is not "you're close to being True Neutral now." There was absolutely zero risk that Roy's assessment would end up with him in a non-Good afterlife, as the deva says explicitly in 490. Not even a blip on the old malevometer.

Funny, that thought. Nothing guarantees that Roy's abandonment of Elan would have sent him into the TN afterlife; merely, that a LG Deva would have kicked his file from Celestia out for an evaluation for a TN afterlife. That TN guy/gal could as well said something like "you're too uptight and mushy to fit in here with our Outlands' Guys and Gals, so upwards with you!" and so on; why should a LG Deva have a larger say on where the soul should go than her LN/NG/TN/inbetween analogies? And he needs to go somewhere; heck, the last strip implied the souls are drawn towards the outer plane that fits their thought-predisposition and Outsiders are merely a filter for the non-allignment-compatible souls.

Edit: I took my sweet time writing my post so I just leave it here to add to Zimmer's.

[Keltest]

Conversely, I can't see why you think its plausible that "Paladin who is actively trying to kill his ally be abuse he has trouble understanding the accent" gets an auto-pass into Celestia.

Because regardless of anything else, the fact that he hasn't fallen explicitly says he is Lawful Good in the eyes of the cosmos. The only way to reconcile that with him not getting into celestia is to suggest that its easier to be a paladin than it is to be Lawful Good enough to get into the afterlife, which I would hope sounds as nonsensical to you as it does to me.

[Jasdoif]

Because regardless of anything else, the fact that he hasn't fallen explicitly says he is Lawful Good in the eyes of the cosmos. The only way to reconcile that with him not getting into celestia is to suggest that its easier to be a paladin than it is to be Lawful Good enough to get into the afterlife, which I would hope sounds as nonsensical to you as it does to me.Or, that the living and the dead aren't held to the same standards to the same degree. Or with seventeen afterlives, the afterlives need their own standards since a one-to-one mapping from nine alignments would leave eight empty spots.

[hamishspence]

True Neutral Outlands has 16 "gate towns" for people who are close to appropriate for one of the 16 other planes, without quite getting in.

So, Roy would probably have ended up gravitating to Celestia's gate town.

[hamishspence]

Ever since, everyone and his dog has quoted Rich saying "some of those paladins definitely did Fall" when the actual quote does not say this.


It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not.

...

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)
Regarding Redcloak's little sister:


She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the killer of Redcloak's little sister Fell, offscreen.

[Mightymosy]

Can someone remind me why Eugene is considered such a terrible parent?

I know I have been on that train as well, but now that I think about it I find it tough finding actual good reasons (because its been a while??)

He surely is not "father of the year" material, but is he really that bad?


As for Celestia: I think Rich may have slightly different (in my eyes: weird) considerations of what character is good, neutral or evil. It is possible that Eugene is, in his eyes, good ENOUGH to qualify for heaven.
I am talking specifically about the two headhunters here. I do not think they fit in the same afterlife as Eugene at all. And they are True Neutral. So in comparison, Eugene must belong to better place on the good-evil-axis.

[hamishspence]

Can someone remind me why Eugene is considered such a terrible parent?


From No Cure For The Paladin Blues commentary:


Eugene is essentially a harsh, mean-spirited man who is willing to put the lives of strangers in danger to satisfy his selfish need for vengeance. He belittles his son at every opportunity, insulting his intelligence and his chosen profession. He reacts to every situation with sarcasm and disdain.

As a result, this is how Roy was raised and is perhaps his biggest obstacle. Roy is ultimately a good person who was raised by an utterly pompous jerk. Much of Roy's growth comes when he looks past his instinct to respond with a witty quip that puts one of his friends down to doing the right thing by them.


Think about what it would be like to grow up with Eugene Greenhilt as your actual father. You would learn pretty quickly that any display of genuine emotion or caring was apt to be stepped on with a sarcastic insult. You might also learn that the only way to get someone to pay attention to you is with harsh language.

[Fyraltari]

Also not an answer, more a series of unrelated musings:

How sure are we that the True Neutral bureaucracy would have been willing to take Roy? What happens if, upon review, they decide that no, he's actually more well-suited to Lawful Good? Does he get kicked between planes (and intermediate planes) until one of them is willing to take him?
That would be it, I guess. The Giant has said (quoted upthread) that you cannot not have an alignment, which means that there is one plane that would take him in. If we assume the various bureaucracies make no mistakes in assessing where someone stands with regards to their plane's alignment, the bouncing is bound to be somewhat short since there is only 17 planes.

One consequence of that is that each of the intermediary planes' residents must have first landed on one of the bigger and be rejected.

Can someone remind me why Eugene is considered such a terrible parent?

I know I have been on that train as well, but now that I think about it I find it tough finding actual good reasons (because its been a while??)

He surely is not "father of the year" material, but is he really that bad?

Eugene accidentally killed his second child through neglect (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html), generally acts abusive and controlling of his children, and considers his family to be a waste of time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html).

The only reason he is not the worst father of this comic is because Tarquin is there too.

[factotum]

Because LG is the single correct way to be - both Chaos and Evil are to be abhorred.

That means that more than half the typical population of any D&D town are to be abhorred, considering the alignments are supposed to be roughly evenly distributed.


What Rich actually said was: The scene in SOD is from Redcloak's point of view, so we don't get to see whether any of those paladins Fell or not. This is my paraphrase, but if you want the exact quote, it was linked in the last couple of pages of this topic.

Ever since, everyone and his dog has quoted Rich saying "some of those paladins definitely did Fall" when the actual quote does not say this.

You need to look at what he was replying to with the quote, though--namely, lots and lots of people asking why the paladins in SoD didn't Fall for the attack on the goblin village. Now, why would he have responded in such a way to such a question, if the implication wasn't that some of those paladins *did* Fall for their actions there?

[Worldsong]

On the subject of Eugene all I can really think of to say (without ending up writing a bunch of paragraphs) is that every time we've seen Eugene in present time he was already dead, and it's been made pretty clear that his current situation has made him very desperate, angry and isolated. In that vein I'd argue that believing that someone at their worst shows their entire true personality is what resulted in something like Vampire Durkon.

Granted Eugene was already an ******* before he died, but I don't remember us being shown him doing something blatantly not-Good (at least something major, since with Roy minor mistakes were also only counted as a reoccuring habit). Good is not Nice is in full effect with Eugene I feel.

As for the paladin thing, what I imagine happened with Roy is that in the end he could have gone to a variety of afterlives (primarily LG and NG), and the reason he specifically went to LG is because that's where he wanted to go and in the end the deva decided he met the requirements well enough. So your behaviour matters because they need to check whether you can be considered that alignment, but your choice also matters since people can fit the criteria for multiple alignments so they first get to try getting into their desired afterlife.

Pretty much every paladin would want to go to the LG afterlife, so they first get checked in there. Depending on your faith in the gods (as readers) them not having fallen either is enough to get them automatically approved or maybe it just serves as a recommendation ("Hey, the god this paladin serves thinks he/she is good and lawful, so unless we can find something incredibly incriminating we might as well send him/her in").

[woweedd]

That would be it, I guess. The Giant has said (quoted upthread) that you cannot not have an alignment, which means that there is one plane that would take him in. If we assume the various bureaucracies make no mistakes in assessing where someone stands with regards to their plane's alignment, the bouncing is bound to be somewhat short since there is only 17 planes.

One consequence of that is that each of the intermediary planes' residents must have first landed on one of the bigger and be rejected.


Eugene accidentally killed his second child through neglect (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html), generally acts abusive and controlling of his children, and considers his family to be a waste of time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1046.html).

The only reason he is not the worst father of this comic is because Tarquin is there too.
Eh, I owuldn't that far. Ian was no great shakes as a father, either. Quite frankly, all three of our human party members have had fairly terrible fathers.

[hroþila]

Eh, I owuldn't that far. Ian was no great shakes as a father, either. Quite frankly, all three of our human party members have had fairly terrible fathers.
At least Ian always did what he sincerely thought was best for Haley. Eugene? Not so much.

[woweedd]

At least Ian always did what he sincerely thought was best for Haley. Eugene? Not so much.
Eh. Eugene was a bit like that, at first. However, nowadays, he's operating on pure spite.

[hroþila]

Eh. Eugene was a bit like that, at first. However, nowadays, he's operating on pure spite.
I disagree. I don't see any scenario in which Living Eugene utterly disdaining his child son's interests and skipping his football games could be considered "what's best for Roy", for example. Eugene himself never put it in those terms, he never said he didn't support Roy because he wanted to discourage things that were bad for him. We're not talking only about his chosen career as a fighter as opposed to a wizard, but about completely harmless fun and physical exercise, which is good for every child. Eugene simply didn't care, and he couldn't even be bothered to hide that from Roy.

[woweedd]

I disagree. I don't see any scenario in which Living Eugene utterly disdaining his child son's interests and skipping his football games could be considered "what's best for Roy", for example. Eugene himself never put it in those terms, he never said he didn't support Roy because he wanted to discourage things that were bad for him. We're not talking only about his chosen career as a fighter as opposed to a wizard, but about completely harmless fun and physical exercise, which is good for every child. Eugene simply didn't care, and he couldn't even be bothered to hide that from Roy.
Fair poitn. Eugene seems to veyr much be of the view that physical labor is beneath an intelligent man. Kinda reminds of the old assertion that "a true gentlemen has no practical skills."

[hamishspence]

I am talking specifically about the two headhunters here. I do not think they fit in the same afterlife as Eugene at all.

Julia is also TN (or at least, self-identifies as such).


Julia is not necessarily promiscuous, merely shallow and vain. She wants attention, and she uses her looks to get it. This is intended to contrast with Roy, and shadow Eugene's egotism.

Eugene and Julia are both egotistical and somewhat selfish. Makes sense that they would go to the same afterlife.

[factotum]

Eugene simply didn't care, and he couldn't even be bothered to hide that from Roy.

He cared at least enough to ignore the best lead he'd had on Xykon in years to try and get to Roy's football match. Yes, he turned up late, but he at least tried.

[Kish]

I am talking specifically about the two headhunters here. I do not think they fit in the same afterlife as Eugene at all.
Whatever you can say about Gannji and Enor, they never tried to persuade anyone to let the world be destroyed for their convenience.

[Mightymosy]

From No Cure For The Paladin Blues commentary:


Eugene is essentially a harsh, mean-spirited man who is willing to put the lives of strangers in danger to satisfy his selfish need for vengeance. He belittles his son at every opportunity, insulting his intelligence and his chosen profession. He reacts to every situation with sarcasm and disdain.

As a result, this is how Roy was raised and is perhaps his biggest obstacle. Roy is ultimately a good person who was raised by an utterly pompous jerk. Much of Roy's growth comes when he looks past his instinct to respond with a witty quip that puts one of his friends down to doing the right thing by them.

Interesting stuff. I dont have the book so I didnt know that commentary. It is interesting how the Giant views it.

I can agree with most of it, except for the harsh language thing.
One task of a father is also to prepare ("harden") their children for the harsh reality of life.
My father had lines for me at times which were very much like Eugene's kind, and I don't think he is a bad father at all. As a result of his education, I am now very confident and don't easily get upset by mere words. I am thankful for my father for this kind of intellectual training.

Of course, that must be balanced out by him also giving me the feeling of being liked and worthy, which one might argue Eugene really didn't, at least on screen.

It's just that from my point of view, Eugene's sarcastic quips never were much of a negative - rather the opposite.

After all, they DID forge Roy into the strong (intellectually) hero that he is!


At least Ian always did what he sincerely thought was best for Haley. Eugene? Not so much.
I'd disagree. What can a man wish better for his children than to become wizards?
Haley's father may be more cordial, but given the choice I'd rather be raised by Eugene than Ian - by a LONG shot, actually. But that may be personal bias.
This irrational falsery that the Starshines delve in really puts me off. With Eugene, things are straightforward, and he looks that his kids become successfull wizards like himself.


He cared at least enough to ignore the best lead he'd had on Xykon in years to try and get to Roy's football match. Yes, he turned up late, but he at least tried.
Good point.

In the deva's words: trying is important.
And Eugen tried for his kids to get the perfect life: the life he himself lives. Shortsighted? You betcha! Malevolent? Hmm, don't really see that.
He reminds me how someone here described themselves: "I'm good (or try to be), but I never said I am nice."
Something like that.


Whatever you can say about Gannji and Enor, they never tried to persuade anyone to let the world be destroyed for their convenience.

Exhibits En&Ga actually deliver living beings to a place where they are tortured.

Exhibit Eu *talks* about possible solutions to a worldwide dilemma imposed upon all of them by vastly superior magical entities (gods and world eating abomination). A dilemma where no good choices really exist.
This whole point is REALLY undermined by the current comic, where we SEE how awesome it really is for a dwarf to die honorably, as Eugene suggested: they get to fly with their favourite Thundergod and then party on in Valhalla.
Compare that to the victims of Tarquin's empire!

Hardly the same.

Here's a question: Who would you personally rather live next door to: Eugene or Enor & Ganji?

[Linneris]

He cared at least enough to ignore the best lead he'd had on Xykon in years to try and get to Roy's football match. Yes, he turned up late, but he at least tried.
My interpretation is that the point of that scene was to show that Eugene's justification for ignoring Right-Eye's lead was practically self-serving. He claimed that he cared about his family and that was why he couldn't pursue his Blood Oath anymore, but the immediately next scene showed that he was estranged enough from Roy to have no clue about his interests. The real reason was that he got so tired of trying and failing to pursue Xykon that he didn't even try when the lead was presented to him on a silver platter.

[hroþila]

I would also add that I think "Eugene tried" is a strange interpretation of a scene where Sara points out that Eugene could have learned everything about his son's interest if he had bothered.

[Kish]

Yeah...that he used the game as an excuse instead of admitting it was more like, "Xykon? That's so sixteen-years-ago! Bother someone else!" is not a point in favor of him caring about his family.

[Peelee]

Because regardless of anything else, the fact that he hasn't fallen explicitly says he is Lawful Good in the eyes of the cosmos. The only way to reconcile that with him not getting into celestia is to suggest that its easier to be a paladin than it is to be Lawful Good enough to get into the afterlife, which I would hope sounds as nonsensical to you as it does to me.

Ok, great! I can work with this. Let's review the facts we agree on:

1.) Everyone has an actual, factual, definite alignment. Paladins are an example of this, they must be Lawful Good and will lose their powers if they are not. You yourself agree state that being a Paladin means the cosmos recognizes him as Lawful Good.

This is clearly objective.

2.) As seen directly in the strip, devas judge petitioners. Roy's deva even said they must consider whether he is Lawful, and whether he is Good. However, here is where a few other things happen; they can absolutely determine whether he is Lawful or Good. Hell, they have gods, the gods could easily create a Detect Alignment spell, it's not like spell creation isn't a thing in D&D. Note that they dont do that. They see the persons actions in life. Roy's deva openly and explicitly admits that trying counts.

This is clearly subjective.

So, again, we have a "letter vs spirit," where the alignment is the letter, but the context of actions that you are judged on is the spirit. And, as we see in comic, the devas care about the spirit. They aren't looking at whether or not you had class powers dependent on your alignment, they're looking at what you did in life and the context surrounding it. Unless you are willing to state that Roy's walking away when Elan was abandoned was worse than the actions committed by Paladins who keep their powers, then Paladins would be getting into a place they should clearly be excluded from solely because they have picked a "get into heaven free" class.

Are you willing to make such a statement?

[Goblin_Priest]

My interpretation is that the point of that scene was to show that Eugene's justification for ignoring Right-Eye's lead was practically self-serving. He claimed that he cared about his family and that was why he couldn't pursue his Blood Oath anymore, but the immediately next scene showed that he was estranged enough from Roy to have no clue about his interests. The real reason was that he got so tired of trying and failing to pursue Xykon that he didn't even try when the lead was presented to him on a silver platter.

Also, "You stopped looking for Xykon more than 20 years ago, and even when your final death was approaching, you sought out your son at the college and burdened him with the Blood Oath rather than take even one last chance at fulfilling it." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html)

Eugene has never been portrayed as anything else than a self-serving narcissist.

[Gift Jeraff]

No Magic Items, Eugene Only, Final Destination

[Goblin_Priest]

The only reason he is not the worst father of this comic is because Tarquin is there too.

I'm not so sure. We don't have all the details about Nale's upbringing, and what it could be like to grow up in such a evil environment... but we've only seen Tarquin to be a caring father. Until he killed Nale, at least. And tried to motivate Elan with great emotional duress in order to...

Okay, yea, I get it.

[Keltest]

Ok, great! I can work with this. Let's review the facts we agree on:

1.) Everyone has an actual, factual, definite alignment. Paladins are an example of this, they must be Lawful Good and will lose their powers if they are not. You yourself agree state that being a Paladin means the cosmos recognizes him as Lawful Good.

This is clearly objective.

2.) As seen directly in the strip, devas judge petitioners. Roy's deva even said they must consider whether he is Lawful, and whether he is Good. However, here is where a few other things happen; they can absolutely determine whether he is Lawful or Good. Hell, they have gods, the gods could easily create a Detect Alignment spell, it's not like spell creation isn't a thing in D&D. Note that they dont do that. They see the persons actions in life. Roy's deva openly and explicitly admits that trying counts.

This is clearly subjective.

So, again, we have a "letter vs spirit," where the alignment is the letter, but the context of actions that you are judged on is the spirit. And, as we see in comic, the devas care about the spirit. They aren't looking at whether or not you had class powers dependent on your alignment, they're looking at what you did in life and the context surrounding it. Unless you are willing to state that Roy's walking away when Elan was abandoned was worse than the actions committed by Paladins who keep their powers, then Paladins would be getting into a place they should clearly be excluded from solely because they have picked a "get into heaven free" class.

Are you willing to make such a statement?

Im perfectly willing to state that Rich's portrayal of alignment is at times self contradictory, likely because D&D's portrayal of alignment is itself often self-contradictory. Im fairly certain he is aware of this as well. Worldbuilding has never been one of his goals (indeed, he actively shuns it, at least for OOTS), so this shouldn't be too terribly surprising.

Having said that, I still think your confusion is a result of treating paladins like other classes. They aren't. Definitionally, to qualify as a paladin you need to qualify to get into celestia (or, presumably, one of the other afterlives that accept Lawful Good people). Yes, they are absolutely part of the super special exclusive club that gets privileges like that. Why is this a problem for you? It is so impossible that one's job choice affects more than just how much money they take home at the end of every pay cycle?

[hamishspence]

Based on FC2, the LE afterlife at least, accepts people with "unatoned-for sins" on their record, regardless of their actual alignment.

Similar principles may apply to the other Evil afterlives - they are hungry for Good souls.

[Dion]

Belkar planned to make Miko fall by taunting her into murdering him. And nobody told him he was wrong in the assumption.

I don’t think “nobody bothered to sit Belkar down and reason him out of his plan” means that therefore “Belkar’s plan was reasonable”.

Nobody can stop Belkar from acting by forcing him to make continued wisdom checks until he realizes the futility of his actions. That doesn’t mean his actions aren’t futile.

[Emanick]

Ok, great! I can work with this. Let's review the facts we agree on:

1.) Everyone has an actual, factual, definite alignment. Paladins are an example of this, they must be Lawful Good and will lose their powers if they are not. You yourself agree state that being a Paladin means the cosmos recognizes him as Lawful Good.

This is clearly objective.

2.) As seen directly in the strip, devas judge petitioners. Roy's deva even said they must consider whether he is Lawful, and whether he is Good. However, here is where a few other things happen; they can absolutely determine whether he is Lawful or Good. Hell, they have gods, the gods could easily create a Detect Alignment spell, it's not like spell creation isn't a thing in D&D. Note that they dont do that. They see the persons actions in life. Roy's deva openly and explicitly admits that trying counts.

This is clearly subjective.

So, again, we have a "letter vs spirit," where the alignment is the letter, but the context of actions that you are judged on is the spirit. And, as we see in comic, the devas care about the spirit. They aren't looking at whether or not you had class powers dependent on your alignment, they're looking at what you did in life and the context surrounding it. Unless you are willing to state that Roy's walking away when Elan was abandoned was worse than the actions committed by Paladins who keep their powers, then Paladins would be getting into a place they should clearly be excluded from solely because they have picked a "get into heaven free" class.

Are you willing to make such a statement?

One possibility that occurs to me as a potential resolution is that the afterlife judges you not on your alignment at the moment (if that was their goal, a simple spell might suffice) but on your alignment over the course of your entire life - with more recent events weighted more heavily, perhaps, but not as heavily as your alignment itself weights them. Someone who registered as Lawful Good during the last five minutes of their life, but who was Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil during most of it, for instance, might not qualify for the Lawful Good afterlife, even though a Detect Good spell would read him or her as objectively Good.

I can't prove that this explanation is accurate, but it does have the virtue of not requiring any authorities to differ on what constitutes Good and Evil. The devas, the gods who are in charge of overseeing paladins, and the cosmic forces of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil may be in perfect agreement on who meets the requirements for what alignment at any given time, but if the afterlife takes a "holistic" view of alignment rather than a "snapshot" view, that still might not be good enough to get a recently-"converted" LG character into Celestia.

[Linneris]

Im perfectly willing to state that Rich's portrayal of alignment is at times self contradictory, likely because D&D's portrayal of alignment is itself often self-contradictory. Im fairly certain he is aware of this as well. Worldbuilding has never been one of his goals (indeed, he actively shuns it, at least for OOTS), so this shouldn't be too terribly surprising.
Rich doesn't shun worldbuilding. Heck, there's a whole nine-part series on worldbuilding in the gaming section on this site's very sidebar.

Nor does he shun worldbuilding in OOTS, he just doesn't spend mental effort on fleshing out facts that are irrelevant to the story. The world is intentionally pretty generic (Rich used the worlds "Everysetting" and "default D&D with no wild deviations") so that OOTS's commentary on D&D can be applied to a wide variety of D&D games. And the locations that appear in the story are only as fleshed out as they need to be for the story to work.

As for alignment, I see nothing contradictory about it. The way I see it, everyone in the OOTS world has an objective alignment, but it is, to use Erfworld terminology, a "hidden stat" derived from their behavior, motivations, and self-image. Yes, there are spells that react to specific alignments, like Detect Evil, but they're not bulletproof; indeed, the first thing the comic does when the spell appears in it is portray it as unreliable (Xykon's crown made Roy register as evil) and its user, Miko, as morally dubious.

[Peelee]

Im perfectly willing to state that Rich's portrayal of alignment is at times self contradictory, likely because D&D's portrayal of alignment is itself often self-contradictory. Im fairly certain he is aware of this as well. Worldbuilding has never been one of his goals (indeed, he actively shuns it, at least for OOTS), so this shouldn't be too terribly surprising.

Having said that, I still think your confusion is a result of treating paladins like other classes. They aren't. Definitionally, to qualify as a paladin you need to qualify to get into celestia (or, presumably, one of the other afterlives that accept Lawful Good people). Yes, they are absolutely part of the super special exclusive club that gets privileges like that. Why is this a problem for you? It is so impossible that one's job choice affects more than just how much money they take home at the end of every pay cycle?

I don't reject the idea of a job having perks aside from money. I do reject the idea of a job grabting a free pass to rewards when the job holder actively flouts the specific stipulations to said rewards while others are held to those stipulations. Because I like the idea of personal accountability. I know I disagree with the Giant on some things hes written in OOTS, but I would be surprised if this was one of them.

[Keltest]

I dont reject the idea of a job having perks aside from money. I do reject the idea of a job grabting a free pass to rewards when the job holder actively flouts the specific stipulations to said rewards while others are held to those stipulations. Because I like the idea of personal accountability. I know I disagree with the Giant on some things hes written in OOTS, but I would be surprised if this was one of them.

If youre saying "he should have fallen" then we agree. If you are saying "he is not lawful good" then you are, objectively, incorrect.

I mean, really the most likely explanation is that a rule is being broken here by somebody in order for Rich to make some commentary or poke at somebody, but given the facts available to us, he gets into Celestia.

[hamishspence]

given the facts available to us, he gets into Celestia.



I find it very hard to believe that, had Origin of PCs Paladin died in an orc attack a day or two after Roy left that party, that he would not receive an extremely harsh review of his actions.

And that they would not assess him as "belonging somewhere else".

It seemed pretty clear that he was not a subscriber to "Truth, Justice, and the Celestial Way" regardless of his powers.

[Keltest]

I find it very hard to believe that, had Origin of PCs Paladin died in an orc attack a day or two after Roy left that party, that he would not receive an extremely harsh review of his actions.

And that they would not assess him as "belonging somewhere else".

It seemed pretty clear that he was not a subscriber to "Truth, Justice, and the Celestial Way" regardless of his powers.

I mean, obviously not, and im almost certain his interview would involve him getting in the Deva's face about how many orphans he rescued, so clearly he HAS to be allowed inside, because its in The Book, even though he's only getting in on a technicality. But that's the point right? He's only technically LG, coasting by on following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit.

(and really, Rich probably went a bit overboard, to the point where he shouldn't even be technically LG, but the premise of the character is that he is.)

[hamishspence]

that's the point right? He's only technically LG, coasting by on following the letter of the rules while violating the spirit.

The way I see it, devas care about the spirit, not the letter.

[Keltest]

The way I see it, devas care about the spirit, not the letter.

Im sure they absolutely do care about the spirit, but theyre lawful. The letter matters to them as well, more so than the spirit. Normally a Lawful person who sees the letter and spirit conflict will attempt to change the letter to better reflect the spirit, but we don't know how much ability to control those things the Devas have.

[Peelee]

Im sure they absolutely do care about the spirit, but theyre lawful. The letter matters to them as well, more so than the spirit.

That is certainly not the impression I got from Roy's experience

[Keltest]

That is certainly not the impression I got from Roy's experience

Really? Having a giant book of rules enshrined in holy fire didn't give the impression they care about the rules as written?

[Resileaf]

Really? Having a giant book of rules enshrined in holy fire didn't give the impression they care about the rules as written?

Well the deva stated that Celestia cared much more about the fact that Roy was trying to be lawful good and that slipping up sometimes didn't make him any less a lawful good person, insofar as the spirit is concerned.

[Worldsong]

Honestly I wouldn't be that opposed to the idea that even in the Lawful Good divine judgement system technicalities can result in awkward situations like people getting in because technically they're Lawful Good even if they're actually a nasty piece of work.

When the deva judged Roy she wrote down his association with Belkar as "attempting to redeem an evil-doer" and I never felt like Roy was actually making any determined attempt at making Belkar a better person or forcing him to do enough good to counterbalance the evil. That felt like the deva using a technicality (Roy's presence at least limiting Belkar's evilness) to avoid Roy being kicked into the Neutral zone because of the little murderhouse.

It's like how Lawful Evil uses technicalities to get what they want, but instead of using the technicalities for your own benefit you use them for everyone's benefit (or at least, whoever you believe needs the help). The downside being that if you're using technicalities to help people you have a hard time refusing technicalities used selfishly unless it's blatantly obvious that the end purpose is evil.

[Keltest]

Well she stated that Celestia cared much more about the fact that Roy was trying to be lawful good and that slipping up sometimes didn't make him any less a lawful good person, insofar as the spirit is concerned.

Im not sure what that has to do with the letter versus the spirit of the law. They said they don't punish people for incompetence so long as the attempt is honest. Presumably, had Murderhobo Paladin's apathy towards the spirit of LG resulted in a lot of harm being done, he would have Fallen, since it was not the result of an honest attempt to be good.

[Peelee]

Really? Having a giant book of rules enshrined in holy fire didn't give the impression they care about the rules as written?

Never said they don't care about the letter. I disagreed that they care about that more than the spirit.
ETA:
Im not sure what that has to do with the letter versus the spirit of the law. They said they don't punish people for incompetence so long as the attempt is honest. Presumably, had Murderhobo Paladin's apathy towards the spirit of LG resulted in a lot of harm being done, he would have Fallen, since it was not the result of an honest attempt to be good.

You should really read How the Paladin Got His Scar.

[Mightymosy]

I would also add that I think "Eugene tried" is a strange interpretation of a scene where Sara points out that Eugene could have learned everything about his son's interest if he had bothered.

Here's a life lesson for parents, children and other people in relationships with dependencies (private or professional):

Caring about people is NOT THE SAME as caring about the same stuff these people care about.

Compare to Haley: She correctly recognised that her teenage angst was just not as important in a world where real demons exist and eat the real souls of real people.

Eugene had a demanding job, a job which he thought was absolutely best and which he wished his children would do later as well. He is too narrow minded to recognize that other options may better befit Roy, but in his narrow minded world he wants for Roy what is best: becoming a wizard, and this silly soccer game is silly stuff which one shouldn't bother to be serious about.

[Keltest]

You should really read How the Paladin Got His Scar
Its on my to-do list, but life is busy ATM. I live in a college football town, which means all the local businesses, including the one I work at, are getting overrun by students this month while they figure out when is a good time to go out and about without all cramming into the same place at the same time.


Here's a life lesson for parents, children and other people in relationships with dependencies (private or professional):

Caring about people is NOT THE SAME as caring about the same stuff these people care about.

Compare to Haley: She correctly recognised that her teenage angst was just not as important in a world where real demons exist and eat the real souls of real people.

Eugene had a demanding job, a job which he thought was absolutely best and which he wished his children would do later as well. He is too narrow minded to recognize that other options may better befit Roy, but in his narrow minded world he wants for Roy what is best: becoming a wizard, and this silly soccer game is silly stuff which one shouldn't bother to be serious about.

My take on Eugene is that he perceives himself to be a self made man, who rose above unfortunate circumstances and heritage, became successful and happy in life, and had an intelligent and skilled son well suited to follow his legacy and take over the family business... who then dropped out of college in his junior year to go learn how to be a plumber. And he cant bring himself to even pretend to respect this choice, or be interested in it, but he does still care about his son, and it wont be said of Eugene Greenhilt that he left his son with nothing, so he at least makes a token effort to enable Roy to do what he wants.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, in your view, what Gin-Jun and the paladin in Roy's first adventuring group did on-panel was less bad than any one of: 1) Roy's abandonment of Elan, 2) his association with Belkar, or 3) his general trend of chaotic behavior, since each of those placed his alignment in question at his review. Neither of them fell on screen.
Gin Jun was
kicked out of the sapphire guard, not deprived of being a paladin
The other person, from OtOotPCs, last we saw, was still a Paladin. An on screen revocation a la Miko was not in evidence for either of them.

I do appreciate the summoned celestial's interactions with Gin Jun; I found them droll.

[Peelee]

You hit quote tags instead of spoiler tags, but you may wanna spoiler it all.

Its on my to-do list, but life is busy ATM. I live in a college football town, which means all the local businesses, including the one I work at, are getting overrun by students this month while they figure out when is a good time to go out and about without all cramming into the same place at the same time.
Oof. You have my sympathies.

[KorvinStarmast]

You hit quote tags instead of spoiler tags, but you may wanna spoiler it all.
fixed .......

[Peelee]

fixed .......

First sentence still basically says what the spoiler does though.

[Kish]

dont [...] hes


dont
Jeez. Keltest's whats-an-apostrophe thing is catching, it appears.

[Keltest]

Jeez. Keltest's whats-an-apostrophe thing is catching, it appears.

Bad habits formed by inconsistent autocorrect, unfortunately. I usually pay attention with I'll versus ill and other similar things, but most typing programs I've used catch don't, won't etc... automatically, so I mostly ignore them.

[hamishspence]

Well the deva stated that Celestia cared much more about the fact that Roy was trying to be lawful good and that slipping up sometimes didn't make him any less a lawful good person, insofar as the spirit is concerned.

I imagine her comments for Origin Paladin being an inverse of the ones for Roy:


"I don't think my superiors would blink if I let you in - but there's one thing that prevents me - the fact that you are not even trying to do the right thing by others"

[The Pilgrim]

I don’t think “nobody bothered to sit Belkar down and reason him out of his plan” means that therefore “Belkar’s plan was reasonable”.

Nobody can stop Belkar from acting by forcing him to make continued wisdom checks until he realizes the futility of his actions. That doesn’t mean his actions aren’t futile.

Note that on all the instances we have been shown in OOTS of a Paladin hitting rock bottom, all have involved the Paladin assaulting an unarmed helpless humanoid.

[Keltest]

I imagine her comments for Origin Paladin being an inverse of the ones for Roy:


"I don't think my superiors would blink if I let you in - but there's one thing that prevents me - the fact that you are not even trying to do the right thing by others"

To which he would respond with something like "not trying?! Do you realize how much damage I took hauling those orphans out of that burning building? Or fighting those orcs? Or those ogres? or..." at which point he pulls out a laundry list of nominally good deeds that took legitimate effort on his part, motivated entirely because he knew they counted as good, and not out of legitimate altruistic intent.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, what are you claiming is a non sequitur, now? You stated that it was your view that "a Paladin gets the review process each day and for each of his actions"; are you now attempting to pass that off as an established fact as well? It's a valid conclusion based on the game mechanics in question.
Condition 1: you are a paladin. To be one you have to be LG or we never even get further.
Condition 2: you didn't fall. Falling is a mechanical consequence of no longer being LG. If you remain LG, you don't fall, and if you don't fall you must still be LG since you started LG in the first place to become a paladin. (Another reason I like 5e's paladin better, but let's not go off topic).

I think that the point Pilgrim made was that since the conditions for fall are not in evidence, mechanically the LG remains since it was the already existent condition. Call it inertia, call it momentum, but since there is a mechanical impact for that particular class (unlike Roy's class), then by remaining in the class the initial condition must still be true (by game mechanics).

[drazen]

So I'm a little confused. I know that since Eugene is an oath spirit, he can't go on to the afterlife. However, since he has been dead, his actions certainly don't seem in line with being Lawful Good.

Is his oath preventing him from going to any afterlife?
Is he still going to get in to Mount Celestia once the oath is lifted?
Has the Giant said anything about this?

As always, thanks for any and all help!

Yes, Unknown, Not really.

My pet theory/prediction is that, with Xykon's phylactery in Redcloak's Bag of Holding, he will, technically, not be destroyed, but he'll regenerate in the bag and be trapped somewhere (maybe World 1.0 or something) and unable to get out. Xykon has Teleport, but he doesn't seem to have Plane Shift or Gate (he relied on Redcloak to get to the Astral Plane, though I'm unclear how he got there the first time).

This could leave Eugene alone in the clouds for all eternity, because Xykon has not been destroyed "once and for all."

Then everyone can argue about this forever with the author remaining blissfully silent on the topic. :)

[Resileaf]

Note that on all the instances we have been shown in OOTS of a Paladin hitting rock bottom, all have involved the Paladin assaulting an unarmed helpless humanoid.

Well in the case of Belkar, he spent the last few minutes fighting Miko, before which he had murdered a guard, then written a taunting message with said guard's blood. He spent the entire fight taunting and riling her up, doing everything he could to make her kill him in the end. He was not helpless, he was fully aware of what he was doing, and he wanted it to happen.
There is a difference between helpless and helpless.

[Kish]

This could leave Eugene alone in the clouds for all eternity, because Xykon has not been destroyed "once and for all."
Unfortunately for that theory, while Roy, making an ordinary not-magically-binding oath, swore to destroy Xykon once and for all, Eugene's magically-binding oath is to enact horrible vengeance on him. Trapping him permanently in the Astral Plane, if he's truly unable to leave, sounds plenty horrible.

[hamishspence]

If "abandoning a comrade to an uncertain fate" is considered an fundamentally afterlife-affecting act (regardless of it not blipping the Malev-O-Meter)

then "bribing somebody into abandoning a comrade to an unknown fate" ought to be, as well.


Similar with "sending comrades on suicide missions because you find them annoying".

[Mightymosy]

Well in the case of Belkar, he spent the last few minutes fighting Miko, before which he had murdered a guard, then written a taunting message with said guard's blood. He spent the entire fight taunting and riling her up, doing everything he could to make her kill him in the end. He was not helpless, he was fully aware of what he was doing, and he wanted it to happen.
There is a difference between helpless and helpless.

Actually Belkar killing the guard was not really murder - he really had a good case for self defence. Which is ironic: He does evil and criminal stuff all the time, but then the one he is somewhat justified killing someone, he is sentenced.
I think the comic is not meant to be interpretated that way, but think of it: He was under arrest for something he didn't do, which wasn't even a proper crime, arrested by someone who probably didn't have the right to arrest him, AND he was told the trial would most certainly mean death. I think killing the guard to get out was very defensible.
What he did after that....well, that's another story :-P

[Keltest]

Actually Belkar killing the guard was not really murder - he really had a good case for self defence. Which is ironic: He does evil and criminal stuff all the time, but then the one he is somewhat justified killing someone, he is sentenced.
I think the comic is not meant to be interpretated that way, but think of it: He was under arrest for something he didn't do, which wasn't even a proper crime, arrested by someone who probably didn't have the right to arrest him, AND he was told the trial would most certainly mean death. I think killing the guard to get out was very defensible.
What he did after that....well, that's another story :-P

It doesn't count as self defense if you do it while breaking out of (semi) legitimate imprisonment.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, that the living and the dead aren't held to the same standards to the same degree. Or with seventeen afterlives, the afterlives need their own standards since a one-to-one mapping from nine alignments would leave eight empty spots. That's about as sensible as this hot mess could get.

Im perfectly willing to state that Rich's portrayal of alignment is at times self contradictory, likely because D&D's portrayal of alignment is itself often self-contradictory. Im fairly certain he is aware of this as well. That fact that it (alignment) is a mess has been part of Rich's schtick since he started writing the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)...

[zimmerwald1915]

Actually Belkar killing the guard was not really murder - he really had a good case for self defence. Which is ironic: He does evil and criminal stuff all the time, but then the one he is somewhat justified killing someone, he is sentenced.
I think the comic is not meant to be interpretated that way, but think of it: He was under arrest for something he didn't do, which wasn't even a proper crime, arrested by someone who probably didn't have the right to arrest him, AND he was told the trial would most certainly mean death. I think killing the guard to get out was very defensible.

Excusable or not, that is not self-defense. The guard was coming at Belkar with a bowl of gruel, not a drawn sword.

[hamishspence]

Thanks to the imprisonment's lack of legitimacy, Roy was able to "bargain Belkar's charges down to" Voluntary Manslaughter:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html

[zimmerwald1915]

It doesn't count as self defense if you do it while breaking out of (semi) legitimate imprisonment.
Yes it does. A guard doesn't have the right to beat or maim you for no reason. This guard wasn't doing that, however. Self-defense is not the right paradigm here. It's more like resisting false imprisonment.

[zimmerwald1915]

Thanks to the imprisonment's lack of legitimacy, Roy was able to "bargain Belkar's charges down to" Voluntary Manslaughter:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html
That is a terrible deal, by the way, and why he should leave the lawyering to Celia.

Actually never mind, she sold Haley down the river. Could it be that the most ethical lawyer in the comic, who doesn't put his own moral judgment before the interests of his client, is Rodriguez?

[Keltest]

Yes it does. A guard doesn't have the right to beat or maim you for no reason. This guard wasn't doing that, however. Self-defense is not the right paradigm here. It's more like resisting false imprisonment.

I wouldn't describe "was trying to beat his way out of prison" as "no reason", Especially in a world where Belkar can pick up a stone off the ground and theoretically be more dangerous than a man with a sword.

[Worldsong]

That is a terrible deal, by the way, and why he should leave the lawyering to Celia.

Actually never mind, she sold Haley down the river. Could it be that the most ethical lawyer in the comic, who doesn't put his own moral judgment before the interests of his client, is Rodriguez?

I think Celia considered it ethical to have Haley (indirectly) pay for the resurrections of the people she killed, even if it was in self-defense. Celia's a true pacifist, even in self-defense she hates the idea of violence.

[hamishspence]

That is a terrible deal, by the way, and why he should leave the lawyering to Celia.

The original charge was second degree murder:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html

[zimmerwald1915]

The original charge was second degree murder:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html
I'm aware.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think Celia considered it ethical to have Haley (indirectly) pay for the resurrections of the people she killed, even if it was in self-defense. Celia's a true pacifist, even in self-defense she hates the idea of violence.
Professional-ethical, where duty to the client trumps other duties most of the time. Not ethical ethical.

[hamishspence]

The point being that talking Hinjo into reducing the charges at all, is a good deal in some respects.

[Kish]

Professional-ethical, where duty to the client trumps other duties most of the time. Not ethical ethical.
Yeah, I was going to say. Rodriguez is probably indeed the most professional-ethical lawyer in the comic; Celia is likely disqualified from being professional-ethical by her Good alignment, and Roy shares her alignment and isn't even a paralegal.

[hamishspence]

Like Roy, Rodriguez sometimes talks clients into pleading guilty:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html

[zimmerwald1915]

The point being that talking Hinjo into reducing the charges at all, is a good deal in some respects.
Pure ideology.

[Fyraltari]

Actually Belkar killing the guard was not really murder - he really had a good case for self defence. Which is ironic: He does evil and criminal stuff all the time, but then the one he is somewhat justified killing someone, he is sentenced.
I think the comic is not meant to be interpretated that way, but think of it: He was under arrest for something he didn't do, which wasn't even a proper crime, arrested by someone who probably didn't have the right to arrest him, AND he was told the trial would most certainly mean death. I think killing the guard to get out was very defensible.
What he did after that....well, that's another story :-P

You don't really get to plead self defense when your next act was to use your victim's blood to write a message ordering the person doing the arrest to "come and get [me]" and a drawing of you killing said person.

[Worldsong]

You don't really get to plead self defense when your next act was to use your victim's blood to write a message ordering the person doing the arrest to "come and get [me]" and a drawing of you killing said person.

Random interruption, but this reminded me of something else I read.


"I always saw him as misguided! He ultimately wanted peace through war, but he was unable to see how that was an impossibility."
"And when he burned the starving citizens after two years of siege, tore down the buildings and salted the earth?"
"...Peer pressure?"

[Fyraltari]

What's that from?

[Worldsong]

What's that from?

Another webcomic called Housepets. Two characters are arguing about a book they read.

[Kish]

You don't really get to plead self defense when your next act was to use your victim's blood to write a message ordering the person doing the arrest to "come and get [me]" and a drawing of you killing said person.
Yeah...spin-doctoring like that, and disengaging by preference to admitting that one was wrong, is an excellent way to cut down the number of people willing to engage with one.

Alas, I will have to live without confirmation that the "lady" of Mightymosy's sig is Andi.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah...spin-doctoring like that, and disengaging by preference to admitting that one was wrong, is an excellent way to cut down the number of people willing to engage with one.

Alas, I will have to live without confirmation that the "lady" of Mightymosy's sig is Andi.
I am sorry, that sentence was too complicated for me (not my first tongue) so I don't understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase that, please?

[hamishspence]

Alas, I will have to live without confirmation that the "lady" of Mightymosy's sig is Andi.
"Fought against people who defend Bandana" is the impression I get, when I do a search.

[Kish]

I am sorry, that sentence was too complicated for me (not my first tongue) so I don't understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase that, please?
I'm saying that it's trying when--for example--"Eugene tried to persuade Roy to let the world end for Eugene's convenience" gets twisted into Eugene trying to help the dwarves somehow, and in the absence of any reason to expect that laboriously unraveling the twisted premises there would lead to Mightymosy saying "okay, I was wrong" instead of simply disappearing, and possibly putting a skewed description of the interaction in his sig later, I think I've put more than enough effort into such engagements for one lifetime.

[The Pilgrim]

Honestly I wouldn't be that opposed to the idea that even in the Lawful Good divine judgement system technicalities can result in awkward situations like people getting in because technically they're Lawful Good even if they're actually a nasty piece of work.

I can picture the Paladin from Origins just telling the Deva that he put Durkon at the most dangerous spot because someone had to do it and the dwarf was the most qualified to survive, as proven by the fact that Durkon always survived. And of course as a Paladin he couldn't take on the dangerous flanking himself because as a Paladin he is required to fight straight and square and whatever... not so far from the arguments that Haley made up at the Pyramid to justify using YukYuk as cannon fodder to trigger the traps.

Interesting enough, that Paladin at least understood that what he was doing was contrary to his Alignment, and that he needed to make up some bull**** to disguise the stench. Which is more LE than LG but hey, the Multiverse seems to judge people on acts, rather than thoughts. On the other hand Roy, when he abandoned Elan, didnt at the start feel any moral problem with it. Hadnt he come back to his senses, it would have meant that his personal morality sense was, indeed, closer to TN than LG.

[hamishspence]

Which is more LE than LG but hey, the Multiverse seems to judges acts, not thoughts.

The act of making a "His share of the treasure is yours if you manage to get him killed" offer to Roy (all the party members are making that offer, as a unit) is pretty despicable. Overtones of "tempting others to commit evil".

The fact that Roy resists temptation, doesn't make the offer any less bad.


Interesting enough, that Paladin at least understood that what he was doing was contrary to his Alignment, and that he needed to make up some bull**** to disguise the stench.

My view is that Devas are not very likely to be conned by "made up excuses".

[The Pilgrim]

The act of making a "His share of the treasure is yours if you manage to get him killed" offer to Roy (all the party members are making that offer, as a unit) is pretty despicable. Overtones of "tempting others to commit evil".

Didnt remember that. Looks like I should remove the dust from my copy of that book. :P

[hamishspence]

Didnt remember that. Looks like I should remove the dust from my copy of that book. :P

Transcript:

Paladin: You and Durkon will attack from the left, while the three of us take the right.
Ponytail Guy: Mostly 'cause we don't like the little bugger much, but we can't seem to shake him.
Roy: ... Are you sending me on a suicide mission?
Paladin: No! No, no, no. We want YOU to come back. Alone.
Ponytail Guy: If you catch our drift.
Roy: I can't believe what I'm hearing!
Paladin: Oh, don't act so high and mighty.
Ponytail Guy: He's annoying! You can't ever understand a word he says!
Robed Woman: He's grumpy all the time, and he makes a ton of noise in that clanky armour.
Paladin: I'd love to kill him myself, but I have to maintain a Lawful Good alignment to keep the Paladin class. Damn inconvenient, if you ask me.
Robed Woman: Look, we're not actually asking you to kill him, just ... don't help him if he gets in over his head.
Ponytail Guy: "Over his head." Heh.
Paladin: His share of the treasure is yours if he doesn't make it back.

[Fyraltari]

I'm saying that it's trying when--for example--"Eugene tried to persuade Roy to let the world end for Eugene's convenience" gets twisted into Eugene trying to help the dwarves somehow, and in the absence of any reason to expect that laboriously unraveling the twisted premises there would lead to Mightymosy saying "okay, I was wrong" instead of simply disappearing, and possibly putting a skewed description of the interaction in his sig later, I think I've put more than enough effort into such engagements for one lifetime.

Okay, I got it, thanks.

[The Pilgrim]

Transcript:

Paladin: You and Durkon will attack from the left, while the three of us take the right.
Ponytail Guy: Mostly 'cause we don't like the little bugger much, but we can't seem to shake him.
Roy: ... Are you sending me on a suicide mission?
Paladin: No! No, no, no. We want YOU to come back. Alone.
Ponytail Guy: If you catch our drift.
Roy: I can't believe what I'm hearing!
Paladin: Oh, don't act so high and mighty.
Ponytail Guy: He's annoying! You can't ever understand a word he says!
Robed Woman: He's grumpy all the time, and he makes a ton of noise in that clanky armour.
Paladin: I'd love to kill him myself, but I have to maintain a Lawful Good alignment to keep the Paladin class. Damn inconvenient, if you ask me.
Robed Woman: Look, we're not actually asking you to kill him, just ... don't help him if he gets in over his head.
Ponytail Guy: "Over his head." Heh.
Paladin: His share of the treasure is yours if he doesn't make it back.



Well, found my copy, but thank you for your trouble.

Sometimes I get the impression that LG Gods in the OOTSverse will let their paladins get away with anything as long as their divine champions keep working for their divine agendas. :smallconfused:

Which shoulnd't be a big revelation to me after, in "How The Paladin Got His Scar"
The Planetar refused, on moral grounds, to follow Gin-Jun's order to indiscriminately raze the Hobgoblin Village, yet Gin-Jun had been enacting that same plan over and over for years whitout his Glorified Zoo Pantheon raising an eyebrow

[Rogar Demonblud]

More like they don't smack you for your attitude, they wait until you actually do something wrong. Otherwise, Sir Francois probably would've fallen shortly after meeting Elan.

[The Pilgrim]

As much as he felt the urge, Sir Francois never actually enacted a plan to get Elan killed, neither attempted to convince anyone to kill Elan for him.

[Worldsong]

Planning to kill Elan probably counts as self defense for your sanity and brain cells.

[The Pilgrim]

Only under some jurisdictions.

[Mightymosy]

It doesn't count as self defense if you do it while breaking out of (semi) legitimate imprisonment.

Thats a valid point - but if said imprisonment means DEATH, death by an UNJUST accusation, how would you label it?


PS: I WROTE that what Belkar did AFTERWARDS undermined his position. Nevertheless the killing of the guard itself wasn't murder in my opinion.

[Fyraltari]

Only under some jurisdictions.

In Ankh-Morpork* it counts as suicide on Elan's part.


*From the Discworld serie.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes I get the impression that LG Gods in the OOTSverse will let their paladins get away with anything as long as their divine champions keep working for their divine agendas. :smallconfused: Yes, a holy warrior for a given deity has to keep working on behalf of their deity. That's as true for Roland as for Galahad as for Arjuna. (Bhagavad Gita ref there). This is where I have had some trouble, for years, assigning alignments to deities. I understand the desire to have a mechanical thing there, since alignment has a variety of mechanical influences, but I find it clunky.

Part of the problem with paladins as a class was the inability (originally) to foresee what the polytheistic environment that became D&D worlds would do to a class not built for that chassis. When we go back to the original Lawful paladin (Greyhawk) and then lawful good paladin(1e), the underlying and basically unstated assumption by the author was founded on a conventional monotheistic chassis; this quickly ran up against the ever expanding polytheistic game environment that has only gotten more cluttered with deities, demigods, and various levels of divine and infernal creatures. If I am a holy warrior for a chaotic good deity, and utterly dedicated to her (fill in the blank cause/agenda/goals), can't I be her paladin and chaotic good at the same time? While 5e's answer to that was "yes" for most editions the answer is "no" ...
OK, rant over.

We had a running joke at our D&D tables ages ago, about a cleric knocking in the door of a shrine in D&D on a stormy knight, pursued by (monsters) and seeking shelter:
"Please open up, in the name of god."
Voice from within
"Which god?"
Knocking cleric realizes this might be a problem if the gods are opposed
"The one true god!"

[Keltest]

We had a running joke at our D&D tables ages ago, about a cleric knocking in the door of a shrine in D&D on a stormy knight, pursued by (monsters) and seeking shelter:
"Please open up, in the name of god."
Voice from within
"Which god?"
Knocking cleric realizes this might be a problem if the gods are opposed
"The one true god!"

I would be stormy too if I had to carry a cleric up and down the countryside.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would be stormy too if I had to carry a cleric up and down the countryside. I wonder why I did that.

Other silly jokes from that era ... Once a king, always a king, but once a knight is enough ... :smallwink:

[martianmister]

Horace was right, though. Wizards are uniformly awful people.

Isn't the character in your avatar some kind of wizard?


How sure are we that the True Neutral bureaucracy would have been willing to take Roy? What happens if, upon review, they decide that no, he's actually more well-suited to Lawful Good? Does he get kicked between planes (and intermediate planes) until one of them is willing to take him? Or does the True Neutral bureaucracy have to accept anyone rejected from anywhere without further review?

Other planes seems more willing to accept souls compared to Celestia, especially the evil planes.