Nale what flavor of evil. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Grammaticus

2018-12-16, 09:40 PM

Nale enjoys so much breaking the rules (any kind of "rules", including friendship or family) that he's very probably lying when he claims he's lawful.
Personally I think that personality is more important than alignment (and I believe most people who play D&D are also careful about the alignment system), so I would first defined him as an ambitious character who doesn't hesitate to do evil things (and even enjoy that). He's also the evil twin trope. So he's definitly evil, just like Elan is good. And since Elan isn't really lawful, Nale tries to not be really chaotic. Hence why they both look neutral, with a dash of lawful for Nale, and a dash of chaotic for Elan.

In any case, they are similar to what characters played as non-chaotic and non-lawful by their players tend to look like. That is, when chaotic/lawful isn't the defining feature of a character, then the good/evil axis tend to be more exacerbated. Since it's mandatory to mention an alignment in most rulesets, then he would probably be lawful evil because he enjoys being the leader, making plans and seems to have a very structured vision of the world. He also enjoys complexity (as a fighter/rogue/sorcerer focusing on enchantments).
But honestly it's less character defining than his backstory as an evil twin who makes evil plans. Alignment is primarly used to quickly and easily describe character motivations (if you don't have a great idea for a character, it's part of the things that may give some hints about how to play - it's also great to rapidly making up NPCs). When it's used on characters with a developed and evolving personality, it's usually lacking subtlety. In the end it's up to the DM to decide whether your alignment should change depending on your actions, accordingly with the plot. Usually you still have an important room of maneuveur, and it's totally possible even for a lawful character to do some chaotic actions sometimes, or for a chaotic good character to not always be the militan chaotic character and look neutral most of the time. Otherwise it probably means your DM is being annoying and don't want you to enjoy your roleplay. It's also totally fine to play as charicatural characters, but they are just one of the many possibilities. And it's not just "fanatic lawful" vs. "moderate lawful" either.
My rule is: As long as you can justify it and it makes sense, you're good. If a player told me he's lawful evil because he wants to be the opposite of a chaotic good character, because he has a goal and a plan etc, I wouldn't question it.

rbetieh

2018-12-17, 12:08 AM

hmmm... i'm going to say his flavor of evil is "Evil Rocky Road"

Goaty14

2018-12-17, 12:43 AM

Alignment is such a messy system most of the time it's best not to question it for the same reason we don't question whether Vanilla or Chocolate ice cream is better*: Everybody has an opinion, and each is different.

Personally, I like to think of Nale as Chaotic Good, because he's seeking what's best for the world, and him in a position of power is what's best for the world.**

*Except that's a trick question! Objectively speaking, Strawberry is the best ice cream. Now I'm craving some...
**Don't take this seriously.

hamishspence

2018-12-17, 03:01 AM

I would first defined him as an ambitious character who doesn't hesitate to do evil things (and even enjoy that). He's also the evil twin trope. So he's definitly evil, just like Elan is good. And since Elan isn't really lawful, Nale tries to not be really chaotic. Hence why they both look neutral, with a dash of lawful for Nale, and a dash of chaotic for Elan.

I'd say a bit more than a dash, in Elan's case.

He's just like his brother, who acts like Neutral Good most of time.

Elan acts Chaotic plenty of times - he just doesn't break rules for the sake of breaking rules. There are many ways to be Chaotic.

This. Elan's willingness to accept surrenders before is a result of his alignment, but it is not the only possible interpretation of his alignment. This time, he chose a second, equally Good option. Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness. You're either Good, or you're not.

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

Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be. Heck, if Bozzok died, Crystal would probably drift to full-bore Chaotic Evil in about a week, tops.

Elan took orders from Sir Francois and Roy, Haley took orders from her father, Right-Eye took orders from Xykon, but that doesn't make any of them blindly obedient or Lawful.

Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?

Dion

2018-12-17, 09:09 AM

Nale is pistachio. All evil is pistachio flavored.

Morty

2018-12-17, 09:14 AM

Neutral Evil and Neutral Good are so vague and poorly-defined that they usually end up as "Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil, but low-key about it".

Jaxzan Proditor

2018-12-17, 10:50 AM

Neutral Evil and Neutral Good are so vague and poorly-defined that they usually end up as "Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil, but low-key about it".

Whereas Chaotic Evil usually ends up as “Neutral Evil, but Loki about it”. :smallbiggrin:

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-17, 11:16 AM

I'd say a bit more than a dash, in Elan's case...

Shifting from one valid interpretation of Chaotic Good to another is not grounds for an alignment change, because there's no such thing as "degrees" of Goodness...
...Being able to delay gratification slightly does not make you Lawful; it may make you not-as-Chaotic-as-you-could-be.
Wait. Are there 'degrees' of alignment, or aren't there?

I've personally never seen any terribly compelling evidence that Nale is especially Lawful. He likes plans, sure, some of the time, and maybe has a taste for 'tradition' in the dramatic-archetype sense. He also likes to lie and break laws, has no discernible 'personal code', and is quite possibly a net force for chaos in the world.

Fyraltari

2018-12-17, 11:19 AM

Wait. Are there 'degrees' of alignment, or aren't there?
I think The Giant is saying there are no degrees in the sense you can point to two chaotic people and call one more chaotic than the other, but one does not have to behave chotically all the time (ans thus be "less chaotic than they could be") to qualify for the alignment.

Morty

2018-12-17, 11:34 AM

Whereas Chaotic Evil usually ends up as “Neutral Evil, but Loki about it”. :smallbiggrin:

Neutral Evil is "Chaotic Evil sounds nasty, I'll just take the watered-down version".

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-17, 01:59 PM

I think The Giant is saying there are no degrees in the sense you can point to two chaotic people and call one more chaotic than the other, but one does not have to behave chotically all the time (ans thus be "less chaotic than they could be") to qualify for the alignment.
Insert obligatory reference (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?6495-Order-of-the-Stick-November-II/page22&p=292847#post292847) to 'borderline good', along with description in Paladin Blues of Pa as 'neutral with evil tendencies'. (I don't actually agree with those assessments, but they do seem to imply shades of grey when it comes to alignment.)

Aquillion

2018-12-17, 02:28 PM

There's room for degrees, but I agree that it's very hard to squint at Nale and see anything lawful about him. He likes elaborate plans, but that's it. From the 3.5 SRD description:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Nale seems aggressively, completely opposed to authority. His opposition to his father's authority in particular defines huge parts of his character, but also he shows no respect for tradition and takes gleeful delight in betrayals and backstabbing. He's dishonest (without even a hint of the "technically true" exact-words stuff that defines Lawful Evil villains like his father or Doctor Doom.) He doesn't care about duty or truth at all.

Honestly if I had to guess I'd probably call him chaotic rather than merely neutral. His aggressive rebellion against his father's authority in particular seems like a deciding factor here - his discussion with his father after murdering Malack seems like a law-vs-chaos argument. Yes, you can disagree with your parents without being Chaotic (like Roy does), but Nale's problem seems to be that he wants freedom and independence and generally hates the idea of being manipulated or controlled - a Chaotic motivation - whereas Roy is driven by his family's traditions.

Also, his open relationship with Sabine, his duplicity when murdering Nale and impersonating his brother, his deception when he first meets the Order... honestly he's been behaving like a Chaotic villain the entire time.

He's not "classic" Chaotic Evil in the sense of cackling mad and murdering indiscriminately, but he behaves like you'd expect, say, an evil Haley to behave, perhaps.

EDIT: Also, since we now know Sabine is a Succubus (and therefore intrinsically Chaotic Evil), it's possible that Nale was once lawful and got shifted to chaotic by her influence. She'd have an incentive to do so so they can be together in the afterlife. This would explain why he thinks he's lawful even though his actions and outlook haven't really jived with that - her influence has caused things like his resistance to his father, his duplicitous nature, and his rejection of authority to come to the forefront, when at one point his outlook and behavior was probably closer to his father's.

martianmister

2018-12-17, 07:52 PM

Elan acts Chaotic plenty of times - he just doesn't break rules for the sake of breaking rules

Of course, that would be a silly thing to do.

MReav

2018-12-17, 08:28 PM

I would say Nale thinks he's Lawful because he was raised by his Lawful Evil father, but something, possibly hanging out with Sabine, caused him to drift towards Neutral. Being firmly in the Evil Vs Good camp, though, he's never run into any circumstances that would cause him to reevaluate his position on the Lawful/Chaos spectrum (in other words, he's run into plenty of Holy Smites, but not many Order's Wrath).

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-18, 06:31 AM

EDIT: Also, since we now know Sabine is a Succubus (and therefore intrinsically Chaotic Evil), it's possible that Nale was once lawful and got shifted to chaotic by her influence. She'd have an incentive to do so so they can be together in the afterlife. This would explain why he thinks he's lawful even though his actions and outlook haven't really jived with that - her influence has caused things like his resistance to his father, his duplicitous nature, and his rejection of authority to come to the forefront, when at one point his outlook and behavior was probably closer to his father's.
That might be the most psychologically interesting interpretation of Nale I've yet heard.

Khay

2018-12-18, 07:13 AM

I don't want your hand-outs! Malack was my problem, not yours! And I solved it my way, without your help! I want NOTHING from you! I am my own man, not some cog in your latest oh-so-clever scheme! I don't want your nepotism or your charity or your pity! I want NOTHING! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html)

My two cents: By the time he died, Nale was Neutral Evil leaning Chaotic.

Mordaedil

2018-12-18, 07:58 AM

With that kind of logic, Roy must be chaotic neutral because he doesn't do what his father tells him to.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 09:15 AM

With that kind of logic, Roy must be chaotic neutral because he doesn't do what his father tells him to.

His father told him to kill Xykon... which is precisely what Roy is doing?

Yes, Roy eventually upgraded from "because I have an obligation to my family" to "because I have an obligation to the entire world", but he still started as a disgruntled son still doing what is expected of him.

Grey Wolf

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 09:24 AM

His father told him to kill Xykon... which is precisely what Roy is doing?

Actually his father said - "Repeat my story to your little sister so she can kill Xykon."

That said, by the time they were in the Dungeon of Dorukan, it appears he'd given up trying to convince Roy.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 10:08 AM

Actually his father said - "Repeat my story to your little sister so she can kill Xykon."

Fair.

Grey Wolf

Fyraltari

2018-12-18, 10:10 AM

With that kind of logic, Roy must be chaotic neutral because he doesn't do what his father tells him to.

But he defied Eugene by going to Fighter College. That makes him True Neutral. Huh, the deva was right after all!

martianmister

2018-12-18, 10:52 AM

Roy is LG because he wants to be LG, apparently.

Synesthesy

2018-12-18, 11:06 AM

I still think that lawfull doesn't only mean "obey orders". I'm unsure about d&d manuals correct interpretation, but I think that the word 'lawfull' can have more then one flat meaning.

For example, take Roy (LG) and Durkon (LG). They have very different views about what 'lawfull' means.

Then again, take Nale (?E), Xykon (CE), Tarquin (LE). I'm not sure about what the ? in Nale's aligment is, but I'm sure that if he is chaotic, he is not in the same way Xykon is, and if he's lawfull, he isn't lawfull in the same way as Tarquin is.

I personally see Nale as lawfull as Roy: they both don't like all the rules, and they are ready to bend them if they feel that they can do it (Nale do it more often then Roy because being good usually means follow good laws), but they do value some internal code, and they are both clever strathegist (Roy more, but again, whatever) instead of some sort of rush warrior (like Belkar or Xykon). Nale values love, and he is loyal to the linear guild in is evil way, just like Roy values friendship and he's loyal to the Order (even if he though about letting Elan be captured by the bandits).

Roy is more Good then lawfull, but he tries to be lawfull too. Nale is (very) more evil then lawfull, but still he's not chaotic enough to be similar to Xykon or Belkar, IMHO.

However, I think we should discuss less about being part of a nine grid, and more about how much the characters are complex. In giant's writing, there is almost no character that can be described only by a race/class/aligment, and that is really good.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 11:12 AM

Roy is LG because he wants to be LG, apparently.

Trying is important, even if it's not the sole factor.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 11:17 AM

Trying is important, even if it's not the sole factor.

He's always trying to be good, that's right. Has he tried to be lawful? I don't think so.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 11:19 AM

The Deva seems to think that Roy's focus on responsibility, and his attempts to fulfil the Blood Oath, qualify him for "trying to be Lawful":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

martianmister

2018-12-18, 11:25 AM

The Deva seems to think that Roy's focus on responsibility, and his attempts to fulfil the Blood Oath, qualify him for "trying to be Lawful":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

She's wrong.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 11:29 AM

She's wrong.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html

Which she also brought up, and said that him coming back to his senses and saving his group and acknowledging that he did wrong was enough to, if not erase it, at least make that mark less problematic, especially considering that it's the one truly non-lawful, non-good act he's done.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 11:29 AM

I still think that lawfull doesn't only mean "obey orders". I'm unsure about d&d manuals correct interpretation, but I think that the word 'lawfull' can have more then one flat meaning.

All of the alignments have to have more than one meaning. You can't reduce the broad spectrum of human responses to a mere 9 boxes, after all, no matter what Meyers and Brigg and the like say.

Still, let me try: I consider Lawful and Chaotic an indication of the reaction of the character to structure. Do they chafe or thrive in a structured environment? Do they feel best when they know how things work, or do they feel limited by it and crave to break free? On the flipside, are they disturbed when the rules break down and they don't have a clear map of how to proceed? At the extremes (and I do mean extremes), Lawful is OCD and Chaotic is ADD.

And really, the fact that those are in a way the extremes tells you that most people aren't 100% Lawful or Chaotic. Everyone can improvise on occasion, and follow the rules on occasion. That's not the point - the point is how they feel about those situations, and how much energy they are willing to spend to be in them or leave them.

And of course, this doesn't even begin to cover every other way in which Lawful and Chaotic can be applied.

Grey Wolf

martianmister

2018-12-18, 11:46 AM

Which she also brought up, and said that him coming back to his senses and saving his group and acknowledging that he did wrong was enough to, if not erase it, at least make that mark less problematic, especially considering that it's the one truly non-lawful, non-good act he's done.

He helped Belkar to cheat justice system.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 11:48 AM

Hinjo made Belkar an offer of leniency, and Roy talked him into accepting it. Not quite "cheating the system".

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 11:50 AM

He helped Belkar to cheat justice system.

Which she also brought up, and accepted his explanation that it was preferable for Belkar to be used by him to be directed to doing things for the side of good rather than leave him imprisonned for however long a cell would hold him. She had some reservations, but she put it on his file as an attempt to redeem an evildoer thanks to having done some research on how Belkar would have turned out without Roy to keep his evil tendencies in check.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 12:36 PM

Hinjo made Belkar an offer of leniency, and Roy talked him into accepting it. Not quite "cheating the system".

Hinjo doesn't think so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)

Which she also brought up, and accepted his explanation that it was preferable for Belkar to be used by him to be directed to doing things for the side of good rather than leave him imprisonned for however long a cell would hold him. She had some reservations, but she put it on his file as an attempt to redeem an evildoer thanks to having done some research on how Belkar would have turned out without Roy to keep his evil tendencies in check.

So, what exactly is your point? She said so, so that proves she's right?

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 12:39 PM

So, what exactly is your point? She said so, so that proves she's right?

Considering she's a being of pure Law and Good, yes, I would say so.

Peelee

2018-12-18, 12:40 PM

Hinjo doesn't think so. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html)

He clearly does? Beating the system and cheating the system, despite rhyming, are two different things. Roy's plan was perfectly legit, they just failed to negotiate sentencing as part of the plea.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 12:45 PM

He clearly does? Beating the system and cheating the system, despite rhyming, are two different things. Roy's plan was perfectly legit, they just failed to negotiate sentencing as part of the plea.

Especially since the alternative was "20 years in prison because Belkar is too stupid to realize he ain't getting scot-free despite him willing to 'take his chances'"

Grey Wolf

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 12:49 PM

Technically the charge had already been reduced from 2nd degree murder to voluntary manslaughter before Belkar had been offered the chance to plead guilty:

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

but it's possible that, had the battle been won, Hinjo would have upgraded the charges back to murder.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 12:50 PM

He clearly does? Beating the system and cheating the system, despite rhyming, are two different things.

[citation needed]

Considering she's a being of pure Law and Good, yes, I would say so.

This is the same Deva that bought Roy's manipulation ("you want me to cut his throat in his sleep?").

Peelee

2018-12-18, 12:53 PM

[citation needed]
Oh look a citation. Imagine that!

cheat
/CHēt/
verb

to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.
"she always cheats at cards"

Morty

2018-12-18, 12:53 PM

Nale described himself as Lawful Evil in strip #57. That's in the period before the plot was crystallized. It's entirely possible that when that strip was made, the Giant thought of him as LE. This may have changed since, but he probably still isn't Chaotic Evil and the difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil is pretty academic.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 12:55 PM

Oh look a citation. Imagine that!

And this is different from beating the system by...?

Peelee

2018-12-18, 12:56 PM

And this is different from beating the system by...?

Being fair and honest instead of unfair and dishonest? Staying entirely within the legal system as defined by Azure City? It's getting kind of hard to break it down more basically than this, so if you still have issues with it, I may not be able to help.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 12:57 PM

By the fact that Roy, at no point, lies to anybody when "trying to beat the system". He's trying to "beat the system" without acting dishonestly - thus "cheating the system" is not applicable.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 12:58 PM

And this is different from beating the system by...?

Acting honestly and fairly.

There is nothing illegal about pleading guilty to a charge when you expect it will knock off 5 years off the sentence. It was not cheating to suggest to do so to Belkar, nor it was cheating that Belkar took the offer. Everything was by the book, according to the rules set by Hinjo. Sure, they forgot it was a minimum and not a maximum, but that's not "cheating", that's just a mistake due to making a wrong assumption.

But this is so bleeding obvious I have to conclude you are not attempting to have an honest discussion.

Grey Wolf

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:02 PM

Really?

Beating the system.

To succeed by avoiding or breaking the rules, either those of life in general or of a specific structure or organization.

What Hinjo mean is obvious.

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 01:02 PM

This is the same Deva that bought Roy's manipulation ("you want me to cut his throat in his sleep?").

She did not buy it. She accepted it.

Peelee

2018-12-18, 01:05 PM

Really?

What Hinjo mean is obvious.
I agree.

beat the system
phrase
to achieve what you want by breaking rules or by finding clever ways of working within them.
But please, tell me what rules Roy and Belkar tried to break.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:10 PM

You don't need to break any rules to cheat the system.

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 01:14 PM

You don't need to break any rules to cheat the system.

Well cheating kind of necessitates that rules are broken.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 01:16 PM

Well cheating kind of necessitates that rules are broken.

Unless you really stretch the meaning of the term.

A guy who dies of a heart attack on death row might be said to "cheat the hangman" but that stretches the meaning of the word "cheat" rather badly.

Peelee

2018-12-18, 01:16 PM

But this is so bleeding obvious I have to conclude you are not attempting to have an honest discussion.

Grey Wolf

I normally subscribe to Hanlon's razor, but it's gone far enough that now I agree with you on this.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:26 PM

Acting honestly and fairly.

Grey Wolf
Really?

Roy: He's doing it because he thinks that you've learned your lesson, and with my guidance, you'll stop resorting to violence to solve your problems.

Belkar: Ohhhhh. I get it...So, he's doing it because he doesn't really know me at all, then.

Roy: Pretty much.

So much for being honest and fair.

I normally subscribe to Hanlon's razor, but it's gone far enough that now I agree with you on this.

So, you're still unable to show the difference between cheating the system and beating the system, and I'm the dishonest one here?

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-12-18, 01:28 PM

Really?

So much for being honest and fair.

Said in response to the removal of the mark, not the bargaining on the length of sentence.

So, you're still unable to show the difference between cheating the system and beating the system, and I'm the dishonest one here?

1) He has shown the difference. b) You haven't shown him to be wrong. iii) Yes, you are.

Grey Wolf

Peelee

2018-12-18, 01:29 PM

So, you're still unable to show the difference between cheating the system and beating the system, and I'm the dishonest one here?

When multiple people have done it and you ignore it all because it doesn't mean you're right, then yes, you're the dishonest one. Of course, you'll most likely ignore this because it doesn't mean you're right.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 01:36 PM

"I beat you" is not the same as "I cheated you."

This is kind of self-evident.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:36 PM

Said in response to the removal of the mark, not the bargaining on the length of sentence.

Why does it matter? Roy know what kind of person Belkar is, more than Hinjo know. He basically acted as his lawyer back there.

1) He has shown the difference.

Where?

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 01:39 PM

The word "Beat" does not imply dishonesty in the same fashion as the word "Cheat".

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:42 PM

"I beat you" is not the same as "I cheated you."

This is kind of self-evident.

The word "Beat" does not imply dishonesty in the same fashion as the word "Cheat".

That's like saying "arabs can't be antisemitic because they're semitic peoples." Neither the language nor idioms doesn't work that way. And I already shared the meaning of "beating the system."

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/beat-the-system
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/beat-the-system
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beat+the+system

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 01:42 PM

He's always trying to be good, that's right. Has he tried to be lawful? I don't think so.

He basically acted as his lawyer back there.

And how is that "failing to try to be Lawful"?

martianmister

2018-12-18, 01:47 PM

And how is that "failing to try to be Lawful"?

By helping someone to beat/cheat the system.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 01:49 PM

LE is all about "manipulating the rules to your own personal benefit."

Roy's actions regarding trying to help Belkar "beat the system" might be questionable on the Good/Evil axis, but there's nothing questionable about them on the Law/Chaos axis.

Peelee

2018-12-18, 01:52 PM

By helping someone to beat/cheat the system.

Making your argument more circular doesn't make it better, FYI.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 02:29 PM

LE is all about "manipulating the rules to your own personal benefit."

Which is quite contradictionary when you compare it to LG and main tenets of lawful alignments.

Roy's actions regarding trying to help Belkar "beat the system" might be questionable on the Good/Evil axis, but there's nothing questionable about them on the Law/Chaos axis.

He persuaded Hinjo to lower Belkar's crime to manslaughter, which we know bs. I fact he always protects his friends/followers from repercussions of law.

Back to the main point, I don't remember Roy ever trying to be more lawful. He has little respect for tradition and rules, and quite willing to use chaotic means for lawful results. As I said, he's still LG only because he wants to be counted as LG.

Making your argument more circular doesn't make it better, FYI.

I'm answering a question. What about you?

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 02:34 PM

He persuaded Hinjo to lower Belkar's crime to manslaughter, which we know bs.

He argues that his own attempt to resist Azure City arrest is OK because "it was an illegitimate authority"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

and he's willing to use violence (albeit not lethal violence) against his own guards (before the escape attempt is aborted):

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0263.html

so - of course he'd see Belkar's actions as partially mitigated by Shojo's actions being "imprisoning them falsely (on death-penalty charges)":

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

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-18, 03:02 PM

I'm reminded of a quote from Maester Aemon:

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

See, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of Lawful Evil being defined by 'manipulating rules to your own advantage', or that you're especially Lawful for following the Law in a social context where failure to do so will be reliably punished. Those are both just rationally self-interested behaviours. What signals a genuine commitment to a code is refusing to break it in situations where it not only won't be punished, but where the breach would actually be rewarded.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 03:06 PM

What signals a genuine commitment to a code is refusing to break it in situations where it not only won't be punished, but where the breach would actually be rewarded.

"Personal code" Lawfulness is the exception rather than the rule in OOTS:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis.

"External code" Lawfulness is more usual:

Those codes are not "personal," they are external. Thor's code is Thor's code, and if Durkon breaks it, Thor (or the church) punishes him. It's no different than following the laws of a nation, though it can get interesting when the two disagree. I was talking about truly personal, internally generated codes. Those are a different "shade" of Lawful than those who follow externally generated codes like a nation's laws or a religious order's ethics.

Again, Kubota is operating within an existing legal framework. He is warping it, because he's Lawful Evil, but he's not inventing the laws on his own. He's gaming them for his own benefit. So he does not count as someone whose claim to Lawfulness rests solely on a personal code.

With Lawful Evil, the difference between "external code" and "internal code" is even more stark. An external code LE is probably spending his time manipulating the code to his benefit, using it when it suits his purposes and relying on others to enforce it when it doesn't. An internal code LE would have a strict set of rules that he would believe set himself "above" other criminals or tyrants—stuff like, "would never kill a child." If he violates that, he might well take it upon himself to punish himself for his own transgression, flogging himself for straying from his unholy righteous path. I don't know that there are any characters in OOTS that rise to that level, though.

Aquillion

2018-12-18, 03:17 PM

With that kind of logic, Roy must be chaotic neutral because he doesn't do what his father tells him to.A lot of Roy's disagreement with his father, though, is because Roy wants to carry on the family tradition of being fighters - so Roy is loyal to his grandfather. And overall he cares about order and tradition.

Nale seems to have rejected his father because he wants freedom. That's a much more Chaotic motivation.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 03:23 PM

He argues that his own attempt to resist Azure City arrest is OK because "it was an illegitimate authority"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

But did he really believe that, or just use it as a defense?

so - of course he'd see Belkar's actions as partially mitigated by Shojo's actions being "imprisoning them falsely (on death-penalty charges)":

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

Again, he know what kind of person Belkar is, and he even admits (in your second link) that he's gonna help him because he feels indebted to him.

"Personal code" Lawfulness is the exception rather than the rule in OOTS:
"External code" Lawfulness is more usual:

I think Lacuna is referring to following a code even though you could be punished for it, similar to how O-Chul is still following paladin code, not a personal code.

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 03:28 PM

[QUOTE=hamishspence;23580096]He argues that his own attempt to resist Azure City arrest is OK because "it was an illegitimate authority"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

But did he really believe that, or just use it as a defense?

From the moment he rejected Miko, yes, he did. At every instance he could, he berated the Azurite justice system for having dragged him across the continent for a crime he knew he wasn't guilty for, and got even more irate when he realized the person who was charging him for those crimes also knew that the Order wasn't guilty of it.
He believed that playing the rules that had been played against him was fair play because he believed he had been wronged by the Azurites.

Roy's lawfulness come mainly from his powerful belief in responsibility, keeping promises, being loyal to friends and companions, and of standing up for what is right, and although he isn't able to live by those ideals all the time, he is said to be trying to do so with enough constancy that a being of pure Law and Good said that it was good enough for Celestia to accept him.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 03:28 PM

he even admits (in your second link) that he's gonna help him because he feels indebted to him.

"I owe them" isn't exactly a non-Lawful sentiment. Loyalty is important to Roy.

Not just loyalty of subordinates toward leader - but loyalty of leader toward subordinates.

Roy expresses that loyalty by trying to ensure Belkar gets the minimum sentence Roy can bargain for.

Morty

2018-12-18, 03:47 PM

Suppose one side of this argument prevails and Nale is declared Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. How does it alter our understanding of him and his arc?

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-18, 04:19 PM

"Personal code" Lawfulness is the exception rather than the rule in OOTS...
Yes, and that's what I have trouble with. Obeying the law because you'll be punished for not obeying it is simply taking the path of least resistance- it doesn't really say much about your internal motives and priorities. Which leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation of Lawful societies actually making it harder, by default, to reliably signal your Lawfulness.

Kish

2018-12-18, 04:24 PM

There's nothing paradoxical about it. It's entirely logical--indeed it strikes me as pretty obvious--that a Lawful society would want everyone to act like they're Lawful no matter what their actual alignment is.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 04:24 PM

"conformity" seems to be the watchword of this kind of Lawfulness. It may go beyond simply "path of least resistance" into "helping to punish others for not conforming".

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 04:32 PM

Yes, and that's what I have trouble with. Obeying the law because you'll be punished for not obeying it is simply taking the path of least resistance- it doesn't really say much about your internal motives and priorities. Which leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation of Lawful societies actually making it harder, by default, to reliably signal your Lawfulness.

Well I imagine it depends on what kind of laws we're talking about. Lawful good societies with lawful good laws will be followed happily by everyone because hey, this is a pretty good life they've got, and everyone else has got a pretty good life as well, so carry on. Those people would be lawful good because they enjoy the life a lawful good society has given them.
A lawful evil society would be the kind to have the rules that everyone follows out of fear of being punished over really believing in their society's rules. What alignment are the people who follow the rules?
Incidentally, "Just following orders" is the concept of the plane between Hell and Mechanus in 1138 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html).

Compare Azure City with the Empire of Blood.

Ruck

2018-12-18, 04:48 PM

Suppose one side of this argument prevails and Nale is declared Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. How does it alter our understanding of him and his arc?

Honestly, I don't think it does, any more than getting a definite answer on "Is Hilgya canon Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?" would have (or did, if you consider the events of #1149 a definite answer).

I do think he doesn't seem to be Lawful in any meaningful sense; I agree with that post I linked to asking the Giant about this. "He would break any code he had if he got his father's empire and his brother's eternal torment. He'd probably backstab Sabine if he had to." Also, I laughed at the thought of Nale backstabbing Sabine just to make Elan sad.

Resileaf

2018-12-18, 04:52 PM

Honestly, I don't think it does, any more than getting a definite answer on "Is Hilgya canon Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?" would have (or did, if you consider the events of #1149 a definite answer).

I do think he doesn't seem to be Lawful in any meaningful sense; I agree with that post I linked to asking the Giant about this. "He would break any code he had if he got his father's empire and his brother's eternal torment. He'd probably backstab Sabine if he had to." Also, I laughed at the thought of Nale backstabbing Sabine just to make Elan sad.

Ironic that the demon would be less backstabbing than him.

Ruck

2018-12-18, 04:53 PM

Ironic that the demon would be less backstabbing than him.

It would be hilarious not only because Sabine is far more loyal to Nale than he deserves, but also... what set of circumstances would even have to come about where Nale backstabbing Sabine ruins something for Elan or Tarquin?

Aquillion

2018-12-18, 05:00 PM

It would be hilarious not only because Sabine is far more loyal to Nale than he deserves, but also... what set of circumstances would even have to come about where Nale backstabbing Sabine ruins something for Elan or Tarquin?Sabine could side with both of them if the alternative was eg. the Snarl devouring absolutely everything (she does want to continue existing.) Nale might not, if Elan and Tarquin would suffer.

Morty

2018-12-18, 05:20 PM

Honestly, I don't think it does, any more than getting a definite answer on "Is Hilgya canon Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?" would have (or did, if you consider the events of #1149 a definite answer).

I do think he doesn't seem to be Lawful in any meaningful sense; I agree with that post I linked to asking the Giant about this. "He would break any code he had if he got his father's empire and his brother's eternal torment. He'd probably backstab Sabine if he had to." Also, I laughed at the thought of Nale backstabbing Sabine just to make Elan sad.

That's kind of my point. It's just a lot of quibbling that's incidental to his actual motivations and goals that we saw. Or maybe will see, since while resurrection is unlikely at best, I'm not ruling out his coming back in some other way.

Ruck

2018-12-18, 05:30 PM

That's kind of my point. It's just a lot of quibbling that's incidental to his actual motivations and goals that we saw. Or maybe will see, since while resurrection is unlikely at best, I'm not ruling out his coming back in some other way.

IMO it's interesting largely because it's disconnected from Nale's own self-identification.

martianmister

2018-12-18, 05:42 PM

I still think that Nale could be LE in the same way Roy is LG, by choosing to be lawful.

hamishspence

2018-12-18, 05:45 PM

I still think that Nale could be LE in the same way Roy is LG, by choosing to be lawful.

He'd also need to "try to act" Lawful, and lack any disqualifying situation.

Like with Shojo:

. Shojo is not Chaotic Good because he took certain actions within the narrative. He was born Chaotic Good, and as a result of that worldview, took certain actions. Not all of those actions are required to be Chaotic, not all are required to be Good, but we can assume that they more often were than not. That's why I said temperament and self-image matter: that's how he viewed himself, that's how he tried to act, so barring some drastic disqualifying situation like murdering a bunch of people, that's what he is.

Morty

2018-12-18, 07:09 PM

IMO it's interesting largely because it's disconnected from Nale's own self-identification.

Yes, I suppose that is an actually interesting aspect of it. Nale calling himself Lawful when he wasn't might have been along the same lines as considering himself a mastermind when he really wasn't. The difference, though, is that the vast gulf between Nale's self-image and the results of his actions are plain to see. The difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil is something that we can see is hard for more than two people to agree on.

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-18, 07:57 PM

Well I imagine it depends on what kind of laws we're talking about. Lawful good societies with lawful good laws will be followed happily by everyone because hey, this is a pretty good life they've got... ...A lawful evil society would be the kind to have the rules that everyone follows out of fear of being punished over really believing in their society's rules.
Yeah, but those are both motivated by a personal cost-benefit analysis- it's just the LG society prefers using the carrot and LE society prefers using the stick.

I'll admit I'm unclear on what a 'chaotic society' is supposed to look like under these conditions, really- it seems like that to the extent you have people with heterogeneous beliefs, agendas, ethics and values that don't acknowledge central authorities or institutions, you can't really speak of any cohesive society existing. You'd have a dozen tribal factions forming their own mini-societies instead. Matter of degree, I suppose?

Ruck

2018-12-18, 08:52 PM

Yes, I suppose that is an actually interesting aspect of it. Nale calling himself Lawful when he wasn't might have been along the same lines as considering himself a mastermind when he really wasn't. The difference, though, is that the vast gulf between Nale's self-image and the results of his actions are plain to see. The difference between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil is something that we can see is hard for more than two people to agree on.

Well, the way I'd put it is that that requires the starting assumption that he's Lawful Evil because he says so (which I guess is how his afterlife determination would start, but bear with me). I think if you just look at the sum totals of his actions without regard to any declared alignment, and try to come up with it independently, he looks a lot closer to Neutral or even Chaotic Evil than Lawful. (I don't think "single-minded obsession" is a specifically Lawful trait, anyway.)

In that sense, my questioning is for much the same reason I doubt Eugene is Lawful Good; he may have declared himself so, but the person we've seen depicted in the comic I would judge as True Neutral.

skaddix

2018-12-21, 05:13 AM

Well both Nale and Elan are what the parent that raised them is which suggest Nurture.

I think Nale is interesting cause he says he is Lawful Evil but he is a guy who is not running the system and wants power to run the system and doesn't want to play the game slowly.

hamishspence

2018-12-21, 05:18 AM

Well both Nale and Elan are what the parent that raised them is which suggest Nurture.

With some personality traits from the opposite parent:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

Perhaps a hint that they're not identical twins, but near-identical fraternal twins?

The Giant did say at the time that they were identical though:

If he can't Sneak Attack, it would be close. After all, he has the same Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as Elan, because they are identical twins.

Perhaps a retcon? Or simply Rule of Funny when it comes to "things that can be inherited"?

MReav

2018-12-21, 09:25 AM

hamishspence

2018-12-21, 09:31 AM

The implication is that some mental traits can be inherited (like a love of overly elaborate plans) - and that it's not upbringing (Nale has it despite not being raised by his mother, Elan does not have it despite being raised by her).

Resileaf

2018-12-21, 09:44 AM

hamishspence

2018-12-21, 09:47 AM

Fair enough. Nale might even qualify as having the same "love of the dramatic" even if he displays it in a different way from his father and Elan.

"Outlook" (alignment) being upbringing, and everything else V mentions being inherited?

Kish

2018-12-21, 11:53 AM

With some personality traits from the opposite parent:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

Perhaps a hint that they're not identical twins, but near-identical fraternal twins?

The Giant did say at the time that they were identical though:

Perhaps a retcon? Or simply Rule of Funny when it comes to "things that can be inherited"?
He specifically said that them being identical twins meant they had the same three physical ability scores and nothing about any of their mental scores. I'm not seeing how that relates at all to them being different in personality traits--beyond that it establishes that Rich is not writing the kind of genetic determinism Lacuna thinks he should be, but surely it was established a very long time ago that Rich is not writing the comic Lacuna wants.

Aquillion

2018-12-21, 01:31 PM

Emanick

2018-12-22, 07:37 AM

I still like my theory that Nale was turned Chaotic (or at least Neutral) by Sabine's CE influence and didn't realize it.

I like it too. I'm still not positive that Nale has left the LE building, but it's a convincing argument and I essentially buy it.

Lacuna Caster

2018-12-22, 07:32 PM

I still like my theory that Nale was turned Chaotic (or at least Neutral) by Sabine's CE influence and didn't realize it.
I also like this idea.

masamune1

2018-12-31, 05:29 PM

My two cents- it occurred to me a while back that Chaotic characters of any moral alignment, perhaps especially Chaotic Evil, might be disproportionately home to characters to claim to belong to a different alignment including a Lawful one, simply by virtue of them being Chaotic.

Whether this is due to Chaotic characters tending to be less-than-self-aware (since they tend to follow their feelings rather than scrutinise them), or because they take a "screw the rules- I can be whatever alignment I want!", or because they've talked themselves into it through convoluted logic...it all makes sense.

I'll also add that canonically in D & D, there are plenty of Chaotic Evil demon lords and deities who are established as having orderly realms, societies and cults- Lolth (CE) vs her cult (LE) for example- so having LE aspirations alone does not a LE make. In fact it's probably a subset of CE characters who want LE worlds to compensate for the deficiencies of their Chaotic nature- e.g. if they can't control their murderous temper-tantrums (or don't really want to), they can at least make others follow strict rules about how to tip-toe around them. Kind of like a compulsive arsonist who thinks that the REAL problem is that everything isn't fireproof.

Chaotic Evil characters feel like they should get whatever the hell they want, so if they want a Lawful Evil empire or organization then those who follow them better start acting Lawful Evil and who cares if they themselves don't?

For the other side, a common example of Lawful Evil that the guides give is a crime boss who follows a strict code about "not hurting children" or "not telling lies" etc., so if a crime boss can be Lawful Evil despite by definition breaking the law, then breaking ro not breaking the law shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Synesthesy

2019-01-15, 03:57 PM

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-15, 04:02 PM

So Nale is Lawfull Evil even if sometimes he failed to be lawful. If there is ever a cut scene with a view on Nale in the afterlife, it will be interesting to see where he is now. I get the idea that if she wants to, Sabine can travel in the infernal realms and visit him.

Right?

Ruck

2019-01-15, 04:17 PM

I still think that your aligment is more about what you are then what you do.

This is why Vaarsuvius counts as True Neutral despite genocide or Roy counts as lawfull despite breaking the laws (for example, trying to evade from LG prisons in Azure City) or thinking about letting Elan in the bandits' camp.

So Nale is Lawfull Evil even if sometimes he failed to be lawful.
I think it's a fallacy to separate what we are from what we do. That said, as I've said before, in a story like this alignment can function as both descriptive and prescriptive, and we need to be clear which one we mean. Vaarsuvius is True Neutral from a prescriptive standpoint, i.e. The Giant tries to write V as someone with that perspective, which is why V is horrified to learn the true extent of the damage caused by Familicide (a character with a more Evil perspective simply wouldn't care). But that doesn't mean when V is judged, they'll go to the TN afterlife; it may be impossible to make up for the scope of evil and destruction of Familicide in a way that balances the scales.

(And as far as Roy goes, being Lawful Good doesn't mean following all of the laws, all of the time. It means he tries to uphold both Law and Good, and he fits better into that category than any other. Elan and the bandits is a particularly odd example to cite given that it was a strongly enough Chaotic Evil action that, by word of the deva, if he hadn't rectified it, he would have gotten the boot from both Lawful and Good afterlives.)

Emanick

2019-01-15, 05:38 PM

If there is ever a cut scene with a view on Nale in the afterlife, it will be interesting to see where he is now. I get the idea that if she wants to, Sabine can travel in the infernal realms and visit him.

Right?

Maybe, maybe not. We know inter-fiend rivalry exists, so demons and devils don't exactly trust one another - one IFCC member even mentions the Blood War, so I guess they fight each other at least some of the time. As such, there may be defenses up which prevent fiends from just Plane Shifting into planes that they are opposed to. Wouldn't surprise me, anyway.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-15, 06:21 PM

Maybe, maybe not. We know inter-fiend rivalry exists, so demons and devils don't exactly trust one another - one IFCC member even mentions the Blood War, so I guess they fight each other at least some of the time. As such, there may be defenses up which prevent fiends from just Plane Shifting into planes that they are opposed to. Wouldn't surprise me, anyway. Yeah, the three: Cedric, Nero, and Lee are innovators rather than typical cases for fiends of the usual three alignment partners to Evil.

I think Sabine was originally working for Lee, which suggests to me that she would easily access the LE planes, so if Nale ended up there it would be an easy visit.

Synesthesy

2019-01-16, 06:17 AM

I think it's a fallacy to separate what we are from what we do. That said, as I've said before, in a story like this alignment can function as both descriptive and prescriptive, and we need to be clear which one we mean. Vaarsuvius is True Neutral from a prescriptive standpoint, i.e. The Giant tries to write V as someone with that perspective, which is why V is horrified to learn the true extent of the damage caused by Familicide (a character with a more Evil perspective simply wouldn't care). But that doesn't mean when V is judged, they'll go to the TN afterlife; it may be impossible to make up for the scope of evil and destruction of Familicide in a way that balances the scales.

Aligments and afterlives are different things, and they shouldn't be confused. They both are absolute things: the first can be easily discovered with the right spell, while the other must wait until you die.

V is true neutral. Period. Author said that, and the Author himself cannot be wrong. There is no needing to argue. We argue about Nale only because there is no word of Author saying his aligment nor anyone has never casted something to detect it on strips.

You can argue that V is damned, that if V dies now, she will go to Neutral Evil afterlife. The same you can argue that Nale will go to NE or CE afterlife, who knows.

However, you must explain someway why V is true neutral despite having killed more people than every other character in the story. Then the only reasonable answer is that aligment are not about what you did, but they are about what you are and what you want to do.

KorvinStarmast

2019-01-16, 06:38 AM

However, you must explain someway why V is true neutral despite having killed more people than every other character in the story. Then the only reasonable answer is that aligment are not about what you did, but they are about what you are and what you want to do. At the end of Don't Split the Party, the Deva's tell Roy about V's descent into evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) (or toward evil?) or try to, and he's not paying attention since he is so focused on getting back and has become so used to dealing with Belkar as his Evil party member.

Synesthesy

2019-01-16, 11:51 AM

At the end of Don't Split the Party, the Deva's tell Roy about V's descent into evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html) (or toward evil?) or try to, and he's not paying attention since he is so focused on getting back and has become so used to dealing with Belkar as his Evil party member.

Again, there isn't any reason to discuss about aligments. The Giant, who is some kind of God for the Ootsverse, said that V is True Neutral.

For this to not contradict what the Deva said, what V feels, and the common reason saying that genocide is always very evil, we must admit that aligment AND the place you'll deserve after your death may be different things.
This is because in dnd aligment are metaphysical concept and not just some kind of internal rule you can follow or not. You must have an aligment out of 9 possibility, and changing your aligment is hard and slow (see Belkar).

Did I show my point? I don't want to persuade anyone, even if for me it's obvious this way... And I don't want that a thread about Nale become a thread about V :P

However I say that if V can cast a familicide being true neutral (and being damned in the lower planes), Nale can act chaotic sometime and still be damned in the Lawfull Evil afterlife.

Ruck

2019-01-16, 12:11 PM

Aligments and afterlives are different things, and they shouldn't be confused. They both are absolute things: the first can be easily discovered with the right spell, while the other must wait until you die.
Afterlife is determined by alignment, though.

However, you must explain someway why V is true neutral despite having killed more people than every other character in the story. Then the only reasonable answer is that aligment are not about what you did, but they are about what you are and what you want to do.

"The only reasonable argument"? How about the one I literally said, that we can use the term "alignment" in both a descriptive and prescriptive sense? The Giant actually said that when he describes a character's alignment, he's talking about the latter:

So when I say, "This character has this alignment," just read it as, "This character was written with this point of view in mind, and if you could see their entire life rather than this small sliver, that would be more obvious."

Now, I suppose you could argue that's the only thing alignment means, but given that a character's actions in D&D can change their alignment, it seems like it can be used in both senses, as I described.

Synesthesy

2019-01-16, 12:31 PM

Afterlife is determined by alignment, though.

"The only reasonable argument"? How about the one I literally said, that we can use the term "alignment" in both a descriptive and prescriptive sense? The Giant actually said that when he describes a character's alignment, he's talking about the latter:

Now, I suppose you could argue that's the only thing alignment means, but given that a character's actions in D&D can change their alignment, it seems like it can be used in both senses, as I described.

This is something I dislike about dnd aligment system. However, I agree with you, and with the Giant of course. And I think I agree with you too.
I just say that the descriptive and prescriptive sense of aligment may or may not be the same thing. For V is not the same. Maybe for Nale is not the same. For Elan, for example, it is the same.

For Belkar is the opposite of V and/or Nale. V did not change, but she did something that is not true neutral compatible. Belkar is chaning, but still has done too much not to be considered evil (at least, for now).

Those are big point in this story, IMHO.